Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

"What is the difference between a line and a line segment"[/B]

I alread tolds you that the word "single" is used to avoid The Man's orthogonal line gibberish.

But there is no problem:

Let "a single enless line" = "a line"

Let "a single line segement" = "a line segment"

Let "1-dim" = "1-space"

Now please answer to the question:

What is the difference between a line (where only 1-space is considered) and a line segment?

 

[doronshadmi]

You can not handle the consequences.

Your criticism does not hold water because it is based on Local-only reasoning.

And by the way, your "monkey" like behavior of taking someone's post and directing them back at them is counterproductive in presenting yourself as someone who is capable of creative thinking.

No, I simply put a mirror infront of your dogmatic academic face. What you see is your face. My face is in my articles, and your dogmatic academic eyes can't see it.

 

[jsfisher]

I alread tolds you that the word "single" is used to avoid The Man's orthogonal line gibberish.

Telling me why you uttered gibberish doesn't provide any information as to what you intended the gibberish to mean.

...
Now please answer to the question:

What is the difference between a line (where only 1-space is considered) and a line segment?

A line is the collection of all points in the domain (stipulated by Doron to be 1-space). A line segment is defined by any two distinct points in the domain as the collection of all points bounded by those two distinct points.

 

[sympathic]

Your criticism does not hold water because it is based on Local-only reasoning.


No, I simply put a mirror infront your dogmatic academic face. What you see is your face. My face is in my articles, and your dogmatic academic eyes can't see it.

Keep fooling yourself.

 

[sympathic]

Your criticism does not hold water because it is based on Local-only reasoning.


No, I simply put a mirror infront of your dogmatic academic face. What you see is your face. My face is in my articles, and your dogmatic academic eyes can't see it.

I actually kind of like my face, and thank you for considering me as academic.

 

[doronshadmi]

A line is the collection of all points in the domain (stipulated by Doron to be 1-space).

No, only 1-dim is considered in the case of a line, so your aswer is wrong, because you define a line is terms of a collection of 0-dim elements.

Please try again:

What is the difference between a line (where only 1-dimesion is considered) and a line segment?

 

[doronshadmi]

I actually kind of like my face, and thank you for considering me as academic.

Dogmatic academic, please be accurate about your face.

 

[jsfisher]

No, only 1-dim is considered in the case of a line, so your aswer is wrong, because you define a line is terms of a collection of 0-dim elements.

Are you going to lie to us again again and claim you didn't specifically say 1-space, not 1-dim?

You asked a question. I answered it. I answered it correctly. If you don't understand your own posts (and all the evidence suggests you do not understand your own posts), that is your problem, not mine.

 

[sympathic]

Are you going to lie to us again again and claim you didn't specifically say 1-space, not 1-dim?

You asked a question. I answered it. I answered it correctly. If you don't understand your own posts (and all the evidence suggests you do not understand your own posts), that is your problem, not mine.

We only get the "local" aspect of his posts.

 

[sympathic]

Dogmatic academic, please be accurate about your face.

No - I deliberately did what you do, take something you want to see in a reply and ignore what you do not want to see. How's your face now in front of the mirror?

 

[The Man]

No, only 1-dim is considered in the case of a line, so your aswer is wrong, because you define a line is terms of a collection of 0-dim elements.

Please try again:

What is the difference between a line (where only 1-dimesion is considered) and a line segment?

You still don’t get it Doron, “dimension” is defined in terms of locations or points. Specifically how many values are required to specify a unique location or point on something or in some space. If only one value is needed to specify a unique location then it is one dimensional. If you are not considering locations or points (and thus dimesions) in your so called definition of a line (whatever that might actually be) then you are not considering it as, well, dimensional or even considering a dimensional space. Thus your response is simply wrong, please try again

 

[doronshadmi]

You still don’t get it Doron, “dimension” is defined in terms of locations or points.

By your local-only reasoning, The Man.

 

[doronshadmi]

Are you going to lie to us again again and claim you didn't specifically say 1-space, not 1-dim?

You asked a question. I answered it. I answered it correctly. If you don't understand your own posts (and all the evidence suggests you do not understand your own posts), that is your problem, not mine.

I said:

Let "1-dim" = "1-space"

It means that "dimension" = "space"

Since a 1-dim element is not made of other dimestions, and if you understand this simple notion, than try again to answer to my question:


What is the difference between a line (where only 1-dimesion is considered) and a line segment?

 

[jsfisher]

I said:

Let "1-dim" = "1-space"

It means that "dimension" = "space"

No, it means you lied, and you are lying again to cover your lie.

You were asked what you meant by "a 1-dim" and a few possibilities were suggested to help you translate your gibberish into something more understandable. You were even offered "one dimension" as a translation, but you passed over that in favor of equating your gibberish to "1-space".

Let me say that again, you specifically equated your gibberish to the meaningful mathematical term, 1-space.

Stop lying, stop trying to back-fill, and leave the goal posts where they are.

 

[doronshadmi]

No, it means you lied, and you are lying again to cover your lie.

You were asked what you meant by "a 1-dim" and a few possibilities were suggested to help you translate your gibberish into something more understandable. You were even offered "one dimension" as a translation, but you passed over that in favor of equating your gibberish to "1-space".

Let me say that again, you specifically equated your gibberish to the meaningful mathematical term, 1-space.

Stop lying, stop trying to back-fill, and leave the goal posts where they are.

Let me help you jsfisher.

You belong to a community of people that simply can't get a given dimension not in terms of other dimensions.

In particular you are not able to get a line (which is a 1-dim element) not in terms of a collection of 0-dim elements (known also as points).

 

[The Man]

By your local-only reasoning, The Man.

No doron it is simply the basis of geometry, defining locations. As much as you might want it to be about entropy/complexity (what ever you think that is supposed to mean) it is still only about locations, individual locations as well as collections of locations.

It is like that old joke

Question:
"What are the three most important aspects to a business"?

The answer is the same as the three most important aspects of geometry

Answer:
"Location
Location
Location"

 

[The Man]

Let me help you jsfisher.

You belong to a community of people that simply can't get a given dimension not in terms of other dimensions.

In particular you are not able to get a line (which is a 1-dim element) not in terms of a collection of 0-dim elements (known also as points).

Let me help you Doron,

What puts one dimension specifically “in terms” of other dimensions is the term, well, dimension. If they were not in the same terms they would actually use different, well, terms. You are more than welcome to make up your own terms to distinguish your line without points or locations from actual dimensional objects and spaces. Mind you however, we will still require you to define your new terms and require those definitions to be at least self consistent if not consistent in general.

 

[doronshadmi]

No doron it is simply the basis of geometry, defining locations.

By local-only thinkers.

 

[doronshadmi]

Let me help you Doron,

What puts one dimension specifically “in terms” of other dimensions is the term, well, dimension. If they were not in the same terms they would actually use different, well, terms. You are more than welcome to make up your own terms to distinguish your line without points or locations from actual dimensional objects and spaces. Mind you however, we will still require you to define your new terms and require those definitions to be at least self consistent if not consistent in general.

No, I do not have to do that.

A line is exactly a 1-dim element and we do not nead any location along it in order to define it as a 1-dim element.

So is the case of a 0-dim element, we do not need any other dimesion in order to define it as a 0-dim element.

The same holds for any given n>1-dim element.

 

[jsfisher]

Let me help you jsfisher.

If you want to do that, stop with all the false statements and goal post movements.

You belong to a community of people that simply can't get a given dimension not in terms of other dimensions.

As with most things you utter, this is an incorrect statement. The correct statement is I belong to a community of people that reject your nonsense, contradiction, and gibberish as being meaningful.

In particular you are not able to get a line (which is a 1-dim element) not in terms of a collection of 0-dim elements (known also as points).

The correct statement is that you can't comprehend that points can completely cover a line.

But where you are intolerant of things you don't understand, we are perfectly willing to let you define you own special branch of mathematics with your own version of what is correct. In fact, we have encouraged you to do so. The unfortunate truth, though, is you can't. You are incapable of rendering any of your notions as anything less than gibberish and contradiction.

And you continue to blame everyone else for your comprehension gaps.