Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
jsfisher said:
Consider any line in a plane. The line (endless, you may note) is an edge. It is the edge of the two half-planes delineated by the line.
Click to expand...

We are talking about a line w.r.t itself.

In that case an endless line is an edgeless line, it is not considered w.r.t to any other dimension, but only to itself, and you, jsfisher do not get this abstraction.

Now it becomes clearer why you do not get a point as the minimal form of Locality, and an edgeless (or endless) line as the minimal form of Non-locality.

By the way your endless line on a plane is local w.r.t the plane exactly as a point is local w.r.t a line.

So in both cases we are dealing with Non-locality\Locality Linkage.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
We are talking about a line w.r.t itself.
Click to expand...

No, we were not. Besides, your statement borders on the stupid.

You asserted that a line was not an edge. It has been shown that you were wrong. Leave the goal posts alone.
 
jsfisher said:
No, we were not. Besides, your statement borders on the stupid.

You asserted that a line was not an edge. It has been shown that you were wrong. Leave the goal posts alone.
Click to expand...

No, I am talking exactly about an edgeless line w.r.t itself.

I am definitely not a partner to your twisted maneuvers with language around youe own tail, that have nothing to do with my original argument about your inability to get the abstraction of an edgeless line (again, w.r.t itself).

jsfisher said:
Besides, your statement borders on the stupid.
Click to expand...
Your maneuver is not stupid (exactly as a line is an edge).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No, I am talking exactly about an edgeless line w.r.t itself.
Click to expand...

Let's do a little fact check, shall we? Here is your challenge post, complete with every word your wrote:

doronshadmi said:
Please demostrate how a line is an edge (please do it by using what you call an endless line).
Click to expand...

Notice anything, Doron? Your own words, just a few posts back reveal you to be a liar. Accept that fact you made a bogus statement and were called out on it.

doronshadmi said:
I am definitely not a partner to your twisted maneuvers with language around youe own tail, that have nothing to do with my original argument about your inability to get the abstraction of an edgeless line (again, w.r.t itself).
Click to expand...

And yet it is your own words that reveal you to be the one twisting to conceal your errors.
 
Jsfisher,

By your local-only reasoning an endless line is a segment that its edges are described as points at infinity notated as (-∞,∞).

The local-only reasoning of your community is clearly exposed.
 
jsfisher said:
Let's do a little fact check, shall we? Here is your challenge post, complete with every word your wrote:



Notice anything, Doron? Your own words, just a few posts back reveal you to be a liar. Accept that fact you made a bogus statement and were called out on it.



And yet it is your own words that reveal you to be the one twisting to conceal your errors.
Click to expand...

It will not help you to escape from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5257435&postcount=6442 .

Now it is clearer that you are not here to learn anything that is beyond your local-only reasoning.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In that case what is an (open) endless line w.r.t itself?
Click to expand...

First, you need to clarify exactly how an (open) endless line differs from a line. Second, you need to explain what you mean by the reflexive form of "with respect to."

As written, your question defies semantic interpretation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom