Deeper than primes

[The Man]

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.

Interesting ,since you have apparently allowed yourself to escape a clear answer for quite some time, it hardly seems likely that such an answer is what you seek from someone else.

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:



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?

Hence your problem Doron all other dimension are considered in that they are specifically excluded from the line. That is what makes it one dimensional that it has no extent in any dimension other then simply one. Along (meaning orthagonal to) that dimension a line is exactly like a point in that it has no extents. Much like a point a line is only in one location in all other dimensions orthogonal to that of its extents. A line has exactly your “local” characteristics (however you finally choose to define them) as a point does in all of those orthogonal dimension. Your ignorance of that fact will not change that fact.

 

[jsfisher]

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.

I see. So, rather than dealing with the rest of my post, you simple pretend you didn't lie about what you posted. The only person fooled by this is you.

It goes like this:

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

Great. Thanks for letting us know. So, what is the current form of your question now? (Questions are usually easy to spot. They tend to end in "?" symbols.)

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

That is what I said. If you had actually read and understood my post you would have known that. You didn't answer the question, though, of how does your endless (open) line differ from a line? All those extra words must mean something.

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

By using your example of an endless open line...

I gave no such example. You have shown an extraordinary ability to make up untrue stuff about your own posts, but please leave mine alone.

...that is used as an edge of the two half-planes delineated by that line

I said a line was an edge. I didn't say the line was used as anything.

...you actually accept the notion of an endless plane, such that a single endless (open) line is found on it.

Endless plane? How does that differ from a plane?

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

Endless (open) plane? Are you adding these extra words to give the impression of stupidity, or do you actually mean something by them?

2-dim? Is that supposed to mean something, too, in that context?

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

Which "1-dim" did you have in mind? What abstraction did you have in mind?

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?

You haven't addressed the prior questions:

What abstraction?
How does an endless (open) line differ from a line.
How does an (open) line segment differ from a line segment?
Why is "open" parenthetical in both cases?
Why did you stipulate "where only 1-dim is considered"?
...and for that matter, why did you abandon the original question?

 

[doronshadmi]

Whatever.

Please read http://www.scribd.com/doc/21954566/NXOR-XOR and http://www.scribd.com/doc/21954904/UP .

 

[doronshadmi]

How does an endless (open) line differ from a line.

A line can be also a closed curve (for example: a circle that has no single point along it).

How does an (open) line segment differ from a line segment?

A line segment can be also a closed curve (for example: a circle that has a single point along it).

Why is "open" parenthetical in both cases?

(open)=open in this case. I choosed to represent it by (open)

Why did you stipulate "where only 1-dim is considered"?

Because this is the heart of my argument, that you do not get, because by your reasoning you use at least two different dimensions in order to say something on one of them. By doing this you are missing my question time after time.

...and for that matter, why did you abandon the original question?

This is the original question, addressed in such a way that does not give you any chance to avoid a clear answer.

All you did in the last post is to continue your twisted maneuvers in order to avoid a clear answer.

I have patience, I am still waiting.

Here is the question again:

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

 

[doronshadmi]

A line has exactly your “local” characteristics (however you finally choose to define them) as a point does in all of those orthogonal dimension.

Good morning The Man, your particular example is already addrsed by:

n=1 to ∞
k= 0 to n-1

Such that k-dim is local w.r.t to n-dim, and n-dim is non-local w.r.t k-dim.

Once again it is shown that you can't get http://www.scribd.com/doc/17504323/WZATRP8 in general and not page 6 of it, in particular.

Hence your problem Doron all other dimension are considered in that they are specifically excluded from the line. That is what makes it one dimensional that it has no extent in any dimension other then simply one.

Much like a point a line is only in one location in all other dimensions orthogonal to that of its extents.

You also use more than a one dimesion, in order to conclude somthing on one of the dimesions.

By doing this, you do not answer to my question, which explicitly considers only the dimension of the current reseached dimension, in the case of an endless open line.

Here is the question again:

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

 

[doronshadmi]

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.

You are the one that claims the you can show that 44º35’25” North by 104º42’55” West is an exact 0-dim location in the physical world.

So this time please do that, I am still wating.

 

[zooterkin]

A line can be also a closed curve (for example: a circle that has no single point along it).


A line segment can be also a closed curve (for example: a circle that has a single point along it).

Leaving aside your continuing misunderstanding of what a line is, please explain what you mean by a circle which has one or no points on it.

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

Is it a joke? Ok, I'll bite:

I don't know, what is the difference between an endless open line (where only a 1-dim is considered) and an open line segment?

 

[jsfisher]

How does an endless (open) line differ from a line.

A line can be also a closed curve

That wouldn't be a line. That would be a closed curve. Were you out that day when the difference between lines and curves came up in Math class?

...(for example: a circle that has no single point along it).

Such a circle does not exist, so why did you even bring it up?

How does an (open) line segment differ from a line segment?

A line segment can be also a closed curve (for example: a circle that has a single point along it).

No, and no.

There's only one valid conclusion I see for the "endless (open) line" vs. "line" question. Doron, you don't know what a line is.

Why is "open" parenthetical in both cases?

(open)=open in this case. I choosed to represent it by (open)

You can "choosed" all you like, but the two are not equivalent.

Why did you stipulate "where only 1-dim is considered"?

Because this is the heart of my argument, that you do not get, because by your reasoning you use at least two different dimensions in order to say something on one of them. By doing this you are missing my question time after time.

Would this be the question that contained the phrase, "with respect to itself", but you denied it did, or the one that didn't contain the same phrase, but you insisted it did, or a different question?

All the evidence for who keeps missing your questions, Doron, points to you.

Be that as it may, you didn't answer my question; you danced around it instead. Why did you stipulate "where only 1-dim is considered"? Your questions didn't ask about dimensions, they asked about lines, so why the stipulation? Do you expect lines to have different properties in N-spaces with differing N's?

...and for that matter, why did you abandon the original question?

This is the original question, addressed in such a way that does not give you any chance to avoid a clear answer.

All you did in the last post is to continue your twisted maneuvers in order to avoid a clear answer.

You shouldn't expect clear answers to unclear questions. Moreover, since your inabilities to make the question clear stems for a misunderstanding of very basic concepts, you won't understand a clear answer when presented, either.

I have patience, I am still waiting.

Here is the question again:

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

Technically, that is a slightly different question, but the distinction is less important than you presenting your question without ambiguity, confusion, or contradiction. You haven't done that, yet.

 

[The Man]

You are the one that claims the you can show that 44º35’25” North by 104º42’55” West is an exact 0-dim location in the physical world.

So this time please do that, I am still wating.

Your request was for an accurate physical location, you said nothing of “0-dim” nor did I.

For example, please show me a totally accurate location in our physical realm...

If you don’t like the responses you get then ask better questions.

 

[The Man]

Good morning The Man, your particular example is already addrsed by:

n=1 to ∞
k= 0 to n-1

Such that k-dim is local w.r.t to n-dim, and n-dim is non-local w.r.t k-dim.

Once again it is shown that you can't get http://www.scribd.com/doc/17504323/WZATRP8 in general and not page 6 of it, in particular.

Once again it simply shows your notions are based on ignorance, you cliam that…

actual non-locality, which is not less than an edgeless (or endless) open line that has no even a single point along it.

Ignoring that a line is just a single point in that orthogonal dimension and that being one dimensional means that it only takes a single value to define any location (single point) on that line. Without a “single point along it” your “edgeless (or endless) open line” has no dimension as you can define no locations on something that does not have any location along it.

You also use more than a one dimesion, in order to conclude somthing on one of the dimesions.

You mean like you use more then one dimension “in order to conclude somthing on one of the dimesions” in “your local/nonlocal claims above?

n=1 to ∞
k= 0 to n-1

Such that k-dim is local w.r.t to n-dim, and n-dim is non-local w.r.t k-dim.

You’re not fooling anyone but yourself Doron.

By doing this, you do not answer to my question, which explicitly considers only the dimension of the current reseached dimension, in the case of an endless open line.

Here is the question again:

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

I wasn’t answering your question Doron, just pointing out your continuing ignorance of the location of a line segment and locations along a line that in fact make it one dimensional.

 

[jsfisher]

Is it a joke? Ok, I'll bite:

I don't know, what is the difference between an endless open line (where only a 1-dim is considered) and an open line segment?

I think it would work better as a knock-knock joke, don't you?

Knock, knock!
Who's there?
Endless open line
Endless open line who?
...​

I don't care who ya are. Now, that's funny!

 

[doronshadmi]

That wouldn't be a line. That would be a closed curve. Were you out that day when the difference between lines and curves came up in Math class?



Such a circle does not exist, so why did you even bring it up?



No, and no.

There's only one valid conclusion I see for the "endless (open) line" vs. "line" question. Doron, you don't know what a line is.



You can "choosed" all you like, but the two are not equivalent.



Would this be the question that contained the phrase, "with respect to itself", but you denied it did, or the one that didn't contain the same phrase, but you insisted it did, or a different question?

All the evidence for who keeps missing your questions, Doron, points to you.

Be that as it may, you didn't answer my question; you danced around it instead. Why did you stipulate "where only 1-dim is considered"? Your questions didn't ask about dimensions, they asked about lines, so why the stipulation? Do you expect lines to have different properties in N-spaces with differing N's?



You shouldn't expect clear answers to unclear questions. Moreover, since your inabilities to make the question clear stems for a misunderstanding of very basic concepts, you won't understand a clear answer when presented, either.



Technically, that is a slightly different question, but the distinction is less important than you presenting your question without ambiguity, confusion, or contradiction. You haven't done that, yet.

Jsfisher,

Look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_(geometry):

"In Euclidean geometry, a line is a straight curve."

Now cut the B.S. and please answer to my question.

 

[doronshadmi]

Once again it simply shows your notions are based on ignorance, you cliam that…



Ignoring that a line is just a single point in that orthogonal dimension and that being one dimensional means that it only takes a single value to define any location (single point) on that line. Without a “single point along it” your “edgeless (or endless) open line” has no dimension as you can define no locations on something that does not have any location along it.






You mean like you use more then one dimension “in order to conclude somthing on one of the dimesions” in “your local/nonlocal claims above?



You’re not fooling anyone but yourself Doron.




I wasn’t answering your question Doron, just pointing out your continuing ignorance of the location of a line segment and locations along a line that in fact make it one dimensional.

This post is a load of nonsense, try again.

 

[doronshadmi]

Your request was for an accurate physical location, you said nothing of “0-dim” nor did I.



If you don’t like the responses you get then ask better questions.

This post is a load of nonsense (as clealy show in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5256339&postcount=6431), try again.

 

[jsfisher]

Jsfisher,

Look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_(geometry):

"In Euclidean geometry, a line is a straight curve."

Yes, so why did you suggest otherwise?

Now cut the B.S. and please answer to my question.

I have been trying to cut through your B.S., but you haven't been very helpful. You still refuse to deal with the extraneous and contradictory terms you included in your questions. Either explain their presence in a way that gives them meaning, or eliminate them.

Your question won't deserve a clear answer until it is first a clear question.


ETA: And are you now further stipulating that the domain of your question is Euclidean Geometry?

 

[doronshadmi]

Yes, so why did you suggest otherwise?

1) I show that your community uses the word "curve" with relation to a line.

2) An open endeless line is also called "a straight curve" by your own community.

Now please answer to this question:

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

 

[doronshadmi]

ETA: And are you now further stipulating that the domain of your question is Euclidean Geometry?

No, I only show that your community has no problem to use the world "line" with relation to the word "curve".

 

[jsfisher]

1) I show that your community uses the word "curve" with relation to a line.

I have no problem with the notion a line is a straight curve. I do not believe anyone else active in this thread would object strenuously to the notion, either.

What point do you think you have raised by belaboring the obvious?

2) An open endeless line is also called "a straight curve" by your own community.

It isn't, and you haven't done anything to demonstrate otherwise. Instead, you made the bogus claim that a line could be a circle.

We have further evidence you don't know what a line is, and it is clear you still get confused by your own posts.

 

[doronshadmi]

I have no problem with the notion a line is a straight curve. I do not believe anyone else active in this thread would object strenuously to the notion, either.

What point do you think you have raised by belaboring the obvious?



It isn't, and you haven't done anything to demonstrate otherwise. Instead, you made the bogus claim that a line could be a circle.

We have further evidence you don't know what a line is, and it is clear you still get confused by your own posts.

What a pathetic way to avoid my question.

 

[jsfisher]

What a pathetic way to avoid my question.

That is not a substantive response to my post.

Do you still maintain that a line can be a circle, or do you wish to retract that claim, now?