Both what “are considered”? Most of us already know that English is not your first language. So again for your edification “both” denotes, well, both while “or” explicitly indicates either, Hence the inconsistency.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7161892&postcount=15365
No doron a difference is called “difference” and interval is called “interval” because they are, well, different.
EDIT:
It is meaningless exactly as to say that: " difference is called “difference” and interval is called “interval” because they are, well, intervals. ", because in both cases a circular reasoning is used (the defined is a factor of the definition).
If Complexity is considered, then in both cases, there must be co-existence of more than one thing, such that the co-exiting things save their ids under the co-existence, and therefore they are considered as the building-blocks, which are used as the agents of
Unity that enable Complexity.
These agents are the irreducibility of
the smaller to
the smallest, and the non-extendability of
the smallest to
the smaller.
The realms beyond Complexity are Nothing and Fullness (Nothing is too weak for the co-existence of
the smaller AND the smallest, and Fullness is too strong for the co-existence of
the smaller AND the smallest.
The realm beyond Nothing AND Fullness is Unity, which is beyond expression of any kind.
That you simply want to conflate difference with interval, in spite of the fact that there is no difference in some intervals and there is no interval resulting from some differences, is just your problem.
Your reasoning is closed under the complex result of the co-existence of
the smaller AND the smallest).
By using it you are unable to comprehend
the smaller AND the smallest) building-blocks of Complexity, you are unable to comprehend Nothing as the weak limit of Complexity or Fullness as the strong limit of Complexity, and you are unable to comprehend Unity as the source of any expression, which is beyond any expression.
Since I have certainly never asserted that I “understand Collection only in terms of list” and have quite plainly asserted otherwise. It remains simply you who is lying to yourself and still trying to lie to us.
You still do not generalize the considered subject to the level of
Collection.
Your inability to understand that your “essential different ids” are essential only to you and your self-contradictory nonsense is why you will spend another twenty just convincing yourself they are essential. Indeed not a very "profound" insight Doron but one sadly quite evident.
You are invited to define Multiplicity by using only
the smallest.
What do you mean “without the co-existence of
smaller AND smallest”?
The following definition …
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/multiplicity
Makes no reference to your “co-existence of
smaller AND smallest”, though it doesn’t specifically preclude your “co-existence” either. So you’re going to have to try to be more specific.
Another example of your boxes reasoning, which is based only on already agreed definitions of the considered subjects, and therefore naturally blocks itself from any re-consideration of them. What You Choose To See Is What You Get (WYCTSIWYG).
Your are still deliberately ignoring the fact that you again assert you simply have no basis even just under your own assertions to claim they are independent.
The Man, again please define Multiplicity without the co-existence of at least two building-blocks.
Then your independent “non-locality” is impossible as it is more they one location and is specifically by your own assertion dependent on your “locality”.
The Man please show me a 0-dim element that exists in more than one location, and also please show me a 1-dim element that exists in only one location.
