Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

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.

We are talking about the difference between an endless (open) line (such that no other dimesion is considered) and a (open) line segment.

 

[jsfisher]

We are talking about the difference between an endless (open) line and a (open) line segment, such that no other dimesion is considered.

May I assume your endless (open) line and your (open) endless line are that same thing? And, now, please, how do they differ from the plain old line the rest of us know?

There must be some sort of differences, right? Otherwise, you wouldn't throw in all those extra words. That would just be dumb.

Also, don't forget about the reflexive form of "with respect to." What, exactly do you intend that to mean? It has no meaning in English, but surely you must have meant something by it.

 

[doronshadmi]

May I assume your endless (open) line and your (open) endless line are that same thing? And, now, please, how do they differ from the plain old line the rest of us know?

There must be some sort of differences, right? Otherwise, you wouldn't throw in all those extra words. That would just be dumb.

Also, don't forget about the reflexive form of "with respect to." What, exactly do you intend that to mean? It has no meaning in English, but surely you must have meant something by it.

We are talking about the difference between an endless (open) line (such that no other dimesion is considered) and a (open) line segment.

No w.r.t is used here.

 

[jsfisher]

We are talking about the difference between an endless (open) line (such that no other dimesion is considered) and a (open) line segment.

Repeating something that didn't answer the questions the first time, doesn't answer the questions the second time, either.

No w.r.t is used here.

Oh, dear Lord! Doron, are you really so incapable of following such a simple conversation? Here is your post, word for word, that launched the current thread arc:

In that case what is an (open) endless line w.r.t itself?

Notice anything? The question you posed includes the phrase, "w.r.t. itself". Are you going to deny this, now, too?

Have you abandoned the original question and moved on to something else? Did something new and shiny come along just now?

 

[The Man]

This is an abstraction that cannot actually be found in the physical world of segments, which are not totally local (like a point) AND not totally non-local (like an edgeless line).

I never said anything about a “world of segments”, the location can be found on our physical world called Earth. Care to join us there any time soon?

And you say that you understand QM, but QM supports my argument about the physical realm, and not your naïve argument about totally accurate location like 44º35’25” North by 104º42’55” West that can be found in the physical realm.


You do not understand your own arguments, The Man.

Your augments don’t support your arguments Doron. That an accurate “location like 44º35’25” North by 104º42’55" West that can be found in the physical realm" has nothing to do with Quantum mechanics. That you think it does clearly demonstrates that you have no understanding of quantum mechanics.

 

[The Man]

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

<Subsequnte nonsense snippeed>

How is a line not it’s own edge? That it is one dimensional dictates that it is its own edge. In order to demonstrate that it is not its own edge would require showing some expanse of the line in some other direction, thus making it not a line. It is specifically the exclusion of all other dimensions and directions from the line that makes it specifically an edge.


ETA:

An edge has length but no width and that is simply a line. To try and put it in your own obscure terms a line is “non-local” in one dimension or direction and “local” in all others.

Also ETA:
Just for clarification I’m using the only consistent references to Doron’s “local” and “non-local” in this case, where “local” refers to only one location or point and “non-local” refers to more then one location or point.

 

[doronshadmi]

Also ETA:
Just for clarification I’m using the only consistent references to Doron’s “local” and “non-local” in this case, where “local” refers to only one location or point and “non-local” refers to more then one location or point.

Thank The Man for clearly demonstrating your ability to get anything only in terms of points (locals), which clearly shows your inability to get actual non-locality, which is not less than an edgeless (or endless) open line that has no even a single point along it.

You and jsfisher are in a "good" company of local-only thinkers.

 

[zooterkin]

an edgeless (or endless) open line that has no even a single point along it.

There you go again. What do you actually mean when you refer to a line with no point on it?

 

[jsfisher]

You and jsfisher are in a "good" company of local-only thinkers.

Doron, since you cannot follow your own conversations, it would be best if you were not critical of others.

 

[doronshadmi]

Repeating something that didn't answer the questions the first time, doesn't answer the questions the second time, either.

Ignoring the question for the second time does not giving to the chance to escape from a clear answer.

I am closing this question on you in such a way the will not give you any chance to escape form a clear answer.

It goes like this:

1) w.r.t is not a pert of my question anymore.

2) "Endless (open) line" or "(open) endless line" are the same 1-dim thing.

First, I give you a clue by using your own words:

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.

By using your example of an endless open line that is used as an edge of the two half-planes delineated by that line, you actually accept the notion of an endless plane, such that a single endless (open) line is found on it.

Now all we have to do is to think about an endless (open) plane, where no other dimension accept 2-dim, is considered.

The same abstraction holds also in the case of an endless (open) line, where no other dimension accept 1-dim, is considered.

By following this abstraction, please answer to my question, which is:

EDIT: What is the difference between an endless (open) line (where only a 1-dim is considered) and a (open) line segment?

 

[doronshadmi]

the location can be found on our physical world called Earth. Care to join us there any time soon?

I invite you to show to all of us here how do you reach the exact location (at the level of an actual 0-dim point) of 44º35’25” North by 104º42’55” West in the physical realm.

 

[doronshadmi]

There you go again. What do you actually mean when you refer to a line with no point on it?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5259466&postcount=6470

 

[zooterkin]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5259466&postcount=6470

That does not answer my question; the post you refer to doesn't even contain the word 'point', let alone explain what you mean.

I'll repeat; what do you mean by a line which has no point on it?

 

[doronshadmi]

That does not answer my question;

Ho yes it does, here it is:


An endless (open) line (where only a 1-dim is considered).

 

[zooterkin]

Ho yes it does, here it is:


An endless (open) line (where only a 1-dim is considered).

In what way does that answer? A line has points on it whether you are considering them or not.

 

[sympathic]

Your Logics is based only on local reasoning.

Whatever.

 

[doronshadmi]

In what way does that answer? A line has points on it whether you are considering them or not.

The existence or non-existence of points along a line has no influence on the existence of an open endless line, which is the minimal form of Non-locality, exactly as a point is the minimal form of Locality.

You are talking about some result of Non-locality\Locality linkage , where more than a one dimension is considered.

 

[zooterkin]

The existence or non-existence of points along a line has no influence on the existence of an open endless line, which is the minimal form of Non-locality, exactly as a point is the minimal form of Locality.

You are talking about some result of Non-locality\Locality linkage , where more than a one dimension is considered.

No, I'm simply asking you what you mean by, "an edgeless (or endless) open line that has no even a single point along it. ".

 

[The Man]

I invite you to show to all of us here how do you reach the exact location (at the level of an actual 0-dim point) of 44º35’25” North by 104º42’55” West in the physical realm.

Is your confusion simply that points as well as one dimensional lines are abstract concepts? Remember the requirement for a physical location was yours, that would exclude an abstract location. You bemoan the trivial once again Doron.

 

[The Man]

Thank The Man for clearly demonstrating your ability to get anything only in terms of points (locals), which clearly shows your inability to get actual non-locality, which is not less than an edgeless (or endless) open line that has no even a single point along it.

Thank you Doron for clearly demonstrating your notions are simply based on ignorance, is this case ignoring the points that define a line and the fact that a line is zero dimensional in all dimensions but 1.

You and jsfisher are in a "good" company of local-only thinkers.

Well I certainly won’t argue with the ““good” company” part the other part is simply one of your nonsense catch phrases that you enjoy labeling people with instead of actual developing your notions.