doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Deeper than primes
- Thread starter doronshadmi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- deeper than primes
- Status
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Wrong epix,
We will enter to the 21 century with the ability to distinguish between the Local and the Non-local, and the ability to distinguish between the complex and the non-complex.
A better understanding of Complexity is essential for the survival of complex phenomenon like us in the vary near and far future, and OM is one of the possible ways to develop the awareness of the importance of Complexity's better understanding.
It can't be done if the place value is taken as system of numerals, which prevents any understanding of the existence of non-local numbers, which are essential to our measurement and better understanding of Complexity.
epix, you systematically continue to ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6474902&postcount=12106, I wonder why
Here is a concrete example of the devastating influence of "Traditional Math" on The Man's reasoning, which prevents from him to understand the difference between 1(), 1(0(x)≠0The Man said:
) and 0().
Last edited:
Where are they? There is no woman that would believe BD claims until she sees it.
The concept of the limit got nothing to do with your gross misinterpretation. Point 'x' moves along the horizontal axis and point 'y' moves along the vertical axis with only one possible point of intersection and that's point [0,0] -- the origin. So there can't be x - y = 0 and at the same time x - y ≠ 0 as your day-dreaming claims. Your interpretation of how standard math should work and doesn't is affected by your symbolic illiteracy of it. That's why you didn't comment on the contradiction hereOn the contrary the Limit concept does not have the necessary algebraic terms, because it can't explain how a given distinct 0-dimesional space x reaches distinct 0-dimensioanl space y , such that ( there is nothing between 0(x) and 0
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6492023&postcount=12141
coz you don't have the slightest idea what's going on in there.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6453327&postcount=12048 is in front of your mind, but your wrong notions about the considered subject simply prevent from you to get it, all along this thread.
Wrong epix, all you have is to look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6494154&postcount=12145.epix said:
You are not with me epix.
0(x) and 0
are points along 1-dimensional space like the real-line, for example, where by OM the real-line is 1-dimensional space ( notated by 1() ), which exists independently of any existing sub-space along it, where 0() is such a sub-space.As for your 2-dimensional space ( notated by 2() ) it exits independently of any sub-spaces like 1() or 0().
Also you are using wrong notions like
epix, you have to enter the following fundamental fact to your mind:epix said:
No sub-space moves along a given space. All we have is strict or non-strice sub-spaces w.r.t a given (strict or non-strict ) space, for example:
0.999...[base 10] is a non-strict sub-space w.r.t 1() strict space, and 0() is a strict sub-space w.r.t 1() strict space.
Your claim that 0(x) or 0
moves along 1() clearly demonstrates that you can't comprehend 0() as totally local AND strict space that essentially can't move form its strict location.
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
No, because actually there exists only one 0(), no matter how many names it has.
1) If A and B are distinct from each other, you can’t avoid ≠ between them, so your claim is false.
2) The existence of 1() is independent of any existing sub-space along it.
The Man, the existence of 1() is independent of 0(), whether 0() exists or does not exist as 0() along it.
Your limited 0()-only reasoning can’t comprehend the independence of spaces w.r.t each other, whether they are defined as non-complex ( 1(), 0() ) or complex ( 1(0()) ) forms.
Wrong.The Man said:
For example: Local number 0.000... (a point, which is 0-dim space) < Non-local number 0.000...1[base 10], where ...1 is a line (a 1-dim space) between Non-local number 0.999...[base 10] (a complex of 1 and 0 dim spaces) and Local number 1 (a point, which is 0-dim space).
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Wrong.The Man said:
Let us take, for example 3() and 2():
You can’t comprehend that 3() exists independently of any 2() spaces w.r.t it, as clearly seen in the following diagram:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_subspace
It has to be stressed that this diagram is a piece of 3() space, which has a form of a cube, where a cube is a complex w.r.t 3() exactly as a line segment is a complex w.r.t 1().
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
So the existence of your “1-dim space” does depend on the existence of more than one point. I’m glad that you have finally come to realize that.
I claimed you were trying not that you were succeeding. Your next assertion shows clearly that you are still “trying “to avoid ≠ between some arbitrary distinct pair” and the dependence of the “1-dim space” on and resulting from that inequality” and still not succeeding
You have just asserted above that it is dependent on the existence of more than one point.
Again see your first assertion quoted above where you claim the “existence of” your “1()” is dependent on there being more than one point.
Again, stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.
Evidently you simply can not comprehend the meaning of the word independence.
So after I state the consequences of a non-zero infinitesimal, you then say “Wrong.” and proceed to assert that you are in fact using a non-zero infinitesimal and evidently would simply prefer to ignore those consequences. So how many points are “between Non-local number 0.999...[base 10] (a complex of 1 and 0 dim spaces) and Local number 1 (a point, which is 0-dim space)”?
Next time try actually reading the article instead of just looking at the pictures.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
No problem, you accidently attributing a quote from epix to me is of little concern. However, you deliberately trying to attribute your own assertions to others, well, when are you going to apologize for that?
ETA:
For example….
The Man said:
Again just you unapologetically trying to pawn off your own (evidently deliberate) ignorance and assertions on to others
Last edited:
What you demonstrate got nothing to do with algebraic terms. I've already replied to that argument of yours, but you simply disregarded it, coz your argument went up the smoke.
Here is a related example of a complete backwardness of OM: There are two finite positive numbers a and b such as a < 1 and b < 1. Number a has twenty thousand zeroes after the decimal point and ends with 1318; number b has twenty-five thousand zeroes after the decimal point and ends with 666. How does OM express the multiplication of both numbers and its result; how does a*b = c look like in OM?
You always mention the word "equivalent" but never write down the actual equation that would demonstrate the argument in the language standard math speaks with. If you have anything against standard math, you need to show where it stutters. Your OM translation of the alleged problem is illegal; such a translation is maybe permissible in translating the Bible, but math is not a religion. You need to demonstrate that your mind isn't the one of a fanatic priest but a mind of a mathematician.
Originally Posted by doronshadmi
Your 0()-only reasoning simply can't get that the claim that "1-dim space is completely covered by 0-dim spaces" is equivalent to the claim that (for example) "variable x ( where x is any arbitrary distinct member of [0,1] ) is both ≤ 1 OR both ≥ 0".
Both claims are definitely a contradiction.
According to OM, plural=singular.
Your 0()-only reasoning simply can't get that the claim that "1-dim space is completely covered by 0-dim spaces" is equivalent to the claim that (for example) "variable x ( where x is any arbitrary distinct member of [0,1] ) is both ≤ 1 OR both ≥ 0".
Both claims are definitely a contradiction.
According to OM, plural=singular.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
That really seems to be his problem of late epix. That for some reason he seems to think some point must be both greater than and equal to zero as opposed to just one point being equal to zero and all other points (in the interval) being greater than zero. I think it really comes back to his non-zero infinitesimal assertions, where such a non-zero infinitesimal would encompass both zero and greater than zero to some infinitesimal but non-zero extent. It is rather bizarre though that he asserts “any arbitrary distinct member of [0,1]” as opposed to just two specific ones. Since in the interval (0,1) all members are greater than zero and less then one. While for the interval [0,1] zero and one are now also members of that interval. So the only difference is the inclusion of the two boundary points in the closed interval that are not included in the open. Thus the majority of a collection of “arbitrary distinct member of [0,1]” would be both greater than zero and less than one, while only one specific “distinct member of [0,1]” equals zero and only one specific “distinct member of [0,1]” equals one. Further he claims “both ≤ 1 OR both ≥0” (so it is "both" one "OR" "both" the other) as if he has simply divided the interval into two subsets and “any arbitrary distinct member of [0,1]” must encompass one subset or the other and both subsets must include one boundary point each.
If you conceive a total logical goulash, then you won't be able to serve it in the bowl shaped by the standard math expressive symbolism, and that's what is happening to Doron. Just follow the yellow line . . .
The same goes for his "equivalencies" that he can express only verbally, such as "your claim is equivalent to . . . ," but he never writes down the equation to show you where you go allegedly wrong. Instead, he goes into a verbal assertive mode supplemented by OM notation made of parenthesis and numbers. The more he feels that he messed up, the more parenthesis appear in his defensive arguments. In that case, he also adds more afterthoughts and explanatory remarks enclosed in ( ), so it all makes a lovely configuration reminiscent of Salvator Dali paintings.
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
No The Man.
1-dim space exists independently of any sub-space like 0-dim space along it.
Your 0-only reasoning simply can't get anything without using 0-dim space.
If only non-local number 0.999...[base 10] and local number 1 are considered, then there is 0.000...1[base 10] between them , such that ...1 is a line (with no points along it) between 0.999...[base 10] and 1.
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Your limited 0-only reasoning is exactly the framework that its users\developers have to apologize in front of the the people around the world, because they are deliberately forcing their ignorance for the past 3000 years on our civilization and block any improvement of the understanding of Complexity and its essential building-blocks.
Next time try to understand that your 0-only reasoning can't comprehend the independence of the existence of spaces w.r.t each other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_subspace
No The Man, a space is not a collection, and you simply can't get it because your reasoning is limited to 0-only elements.
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
So now your smoke prevents from you to get what have been written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6499689&postcount=12164.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
The Man, you still do not get that your R members are exactly distinct 0() spaces, and each distinct 0() space is different from another distinct 0() space only if there is 1() space between them, where only 1() can be at AND beyond the location of any given distinct 0() (which is a property that no 0() space has.)
0.000...1[base 10] exists only in your imagination, as does a line with no points on it.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
The logical goulash is done by you, when you claim that:
Do you understand that a point is totally local where immobility is one of its essentials?
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
It is better than your imagination, which according to it totally local and different distinct 0-dim spaces completely cover a 1-dim space.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
oppsss..
Last edited:
Of course it is. Doron's imagination by far excels over everyone else's. In fact he should probably change "OM" to "IM" for "Imaginary Math".
It must be so "clear" that the writer who contributed to the unrelated topic in Wiki didn't bother to support your assertion. The truth of the matter is though that the writer didn't get infected by OM, and so the concurrence is missing from the text. Obviously, you don't have the slightest idea what the text is all about, otherwise you wouldn't use it as a supporting argument for one of your declaration of independence.Wrong.
Let us take, for example 3() and 2():
You can’t comprehend that 3() exists independently of any 2() spaces w.r.t it, as clearly seen in the following diagram:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_subspace
It has to be stressed that this diagram is a piece of 3() space, which has a form of a cube, where a cube is a complex w.r.t 3() exactly as a line segment is a complex w.r.t 1().
The shape of a 3-dim object depends on
f(x,y) = z
where x and y are the independent variables and z, which makes the 3rd dimension, is the dependent variable. Since we live in 3-dim space, you can crumple a sheet of paper. The way the crumpled sheet looks like depends exactly on f(x,y) = z. How do you think I made this "stool?"
Note that the shape is enclosed in a cube. Does it ring a bell? Do you know what happens when you stack up 2-dim spaces?
http://www.mytechinterviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/ryanlerch_deck_of_cards.png
The manipulation of a matrix can be considered a 2-dim algebra, and so there can be a natural extension:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Investigating_3D_geometric_algebra
There is something that 3-dim algebra and OM have in common:
There is also a profound difference and we all know what it is: Clifford knew what he was doing.
Last edited:
Your reference is a poor excuse bag staffed with irrelevancy and it can't avert the disaster OM is heading for, e.g. it is becoming obvious that OM cannot manipulate very small but finite numbers, coz it doesn't have the means to express them.
Here it is once again:
You better start inventing, if you want that 'M' in the acronym stand for "Mathematics," and not for "Miscarriage" (of reason).
If you had used other letters than x and y, which are letters reserved for points that lie on the x and y coordinates, I wouldn't have to be that descriptive. You put anything that you call 1() object into one bag and make far-reaching conclusions . . .
Btw, the description of a point "moving" isn't something that would wreak havoc with some math ideas put forward:
"Conversely, if a point moves continuously on the sphere, then the ray through it also rotates continuously, and therefore the point X at which the ray..."
So, there is no reason to GET EXCITED,
x = ?
x = the thief, he kindly spoke.
????? ??????x
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
epix, all of your last posts have a common failure.
They can't comprehend the independence of different things w.r.t each other, such that no thing is defined by any other thing, accept itself.
As a result you can't distinguish between the non-complexity of , for example 3() (3-dim space) and 0(x,y) or 0(x,y,z) w.r.t to 3(), where 3() holds even if there are no 0(x,y) or 0(x,y,z) w.r.t to it.
This notion is true for any given thing, whether it is strict (like PI()) or non-strict ( like 3.14...[base 10() ), and according to this notion 3.14...[base 10](PI()) is an example of false expression, and PI(3.14...[base 10()) is an example of true expression, even if 3.14...[base 10] and PI() are independent w.r.t each other under the given complex false and true examples.
By understanding the independent of Emptiness (that has no predecessor) and Fullness (that has no successor) w.r.t each other, one immediately understands that any thing between some predecessor and some successor, is independent of any given predecessor or any given successor exactly as Emptiness is defined independently of any successor and Fullness is defined independently of any predecessor.
So even if we are dealing with several things and get a complex, this complex does not change the fact that any thing of that complex is independent of the other things that share this complex.
For example, your notion of a line segment can't comprehend the following notions:
1) No line segment, which is at most 1(0(x)≠0) w.r.t 1(), is 1().
2) No line segment, which is at least 1(0(x)≠0) w.r.t 0(), is 0().
A diagram of (1) and (2) facts is:
..._____________________.__________.__________________________________ ...
where 1(), which is represented by ..._______________..., is at AND beyond any given 0(), which is represented by . along 1().
By understanding (1) and (2), it is immediately understood that .__________. is non-extendible to ..._______________... AND irreducible to .
Let us take again the example of 3() and 2():
You can’t comprehend that 3() exists independently of any 2() spaces w.r.t it, as clearly seen in the following diagram:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_subspace
Moreover, each given 2() in this diagram is independent of any other 2().
You have missed this important part:
It has to be stressed that this diagram is a piece of 3() space, which has a form of a cube, where a cube is a complex w.r.t 3() exactly as a line segment is a complex w.r.t 1(), as can be seen by the following diagram:
..._____________________.__________.__________________________________ ...
"moving" ≠ moving
They can't comprehend the independence of different things w.r.t each other, such that no thing is defined by any other thing, accept itself.
As a result you can't distinguish between the non-complexity of , for example 3() (3-dim space) and 0(x,y) or 0(x,y,z) w.r.t to 3(), where 3() holds even if there are no 0(x,y) or 0(x,y,z) w.r.t to it.
This notion is true for any given thing, whether it is strict (like PI()) or non-strict ( like 3.14...[base 10() ), and according to this notion 3.14...[base 10](PI()) is an example of false expression, and PI(3.14...[base 10()) is an example of true expression, even if 3.14...[base 10] and PI() are independent w.r.t each other under the given complex false and true examples.
By understanding the independent of Emptiness (that has no predecessor) and Fullness (that has no successor) w.r.t each other, one immediately understands that any thing between some predecessor and some successor, is independent of any given predecessor or any given successor exactly as Emptiness is defined independently of any successor and Fullness is defined independently of any predecessor.
So even if we are dealing with several things and get a complex, this complex does not change the fact that any thing of that complex is independent of the other things that share this complex.
For example, your notion of a line segment can't comprehend the following notions:
1) No line segment, which is at most 1(0(x)≠0
) w.r.t 1(), is 1().2) No line segment, which is at least 1(0(x)≠0
) w.r.t 0(), is 0().A diagram of (1) and (2) facts is:
..._____________________.__________.__________________________________ ...
where 1(), which is represented by ..._______________..., is at AND beyond any given 0(), which is represented by . along 1().
By understanding (1) and (2), it is immediately understood that .__________. is non-extendible to ..._______________... AND irreducible to .
You are right epix, because he\she and you suffering of the same misunderstanding that does not comprehend the independence of different things w.r.t each other.epix said:
Let us take again the example of 3() and 2():
You can’t comprehend that 3() exists independently of any 2() spaces w.r.t it, as clearly seen in the following diagram:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_subspace
Moreover, each given 2() in this diagram is independent of any other 2().
You have missed this important part:
It has to be stressed that this diagram is a piece of 3() space, which has a form of a cube, where a cube is a complex w.r.t 3() exactly as a line segment is a complex w.r.t 1(), as can be seen by the following diagram:
..._____________________.__________.__________________________________ ...
epix said:
"moving" ≠ moving
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
sympathic it simply avoids the contradiction that is derived from the imagination which claims that distinct and different 0-dim spaces completely cover 1-dim space.
The claim that 0-dim spaces completely cover 1-dim space is equivalent to the claim that
an arbitrary pair of different and distinct 0-space are = AND ≠ w.r.t each other.
Last edited:
Let's consider a cube with axis U, S and A that has volume 1776 units. Independence is rendered with those 2-dim spaces OUTSIDE the cube, NOT INSIDE. as you demonstrate, coz the modification of a 2-dim subspace affects the property of a 3-dim space, coz both differently dimensioned spaces share the same coordinates 'x' and 'y'. Independence is about apart and not together. You need to quote from any related text so the quote would directly address the issue of independency between an n-dim object and its subspace.
You shouldn't worry about that anyway, coz you still need to demonstrate that OM is capable of multiplying very small but finite numbers.
Last edited:
there was once a local point
that decided to smoke a joint
as its lungs got really busy
the point became really dizzy
with no value, with no sign
it fell quickly off the line
that's what happened, now you prove
that the point just couldn't move.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Wrong, any given space is essentially independent of any other space.
You are talking about the dependency under the complex results among independent spaces.
Let me give you an example:
The existence of 1-dim and 0-dim spaces are independent of each other, such that if one of them is missing, the other one still exists.
Now let's observe a complex like line-segment, which is the result of the linkage among 1() and 0().
Even if the length of 1() space under the complex, called line-segment, depends on the values of 0() spaces, it does not mean the 1() or 0() existence depend on each other.
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
0.000...1[base 10], for example, is not a finite number, but it is the irreducibility of 1() to 0() upon infinitely many scales.
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Yet "moving" ≠ moving.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Doron a space is not independent of its sub-space. Though you have made it quite clear that you simply do not understand the meaning of the word independent or the concept of sub-spaces.
Again, stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.
So your non-zero infinitesimal is your “point” and your “point” is not zero dimensional having that non-zero infinitesimal extent, as asserted before.
Again, stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.
OK so “improvement” is evidently another word you simply do not understand.
Again, stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.
Again a space is not independent of its sub-spaces nor are those sub-spaces independent of that space.
Again try actually reading the article. As explained to you before the sub-spaces of a line segment can be represented as line segments. This “limited to 0-only elements” fantasy of yours is, well, just yours and you simply want to continue unapologetically trying to ascribe it to others.
Which once again makes your “1()” dependent on there being more than one “distinct 0()”. That they depend upon each other ( your “1()” and your “another distinct 0()”) does not make them independent but mutually dependent.
Again identify any location or locations in a “a 1-dim space” that is not and can not be covered by a zero dimensional point or points.
Doron you simply can not comprehend if “no thing is defined by any other thing, accept itself” then there is no definable relation to “any other thing”.
Once again Doron the contradiction remains simply yours as “The claim that 0-dim spaces completely cover 1-dim space is” certainly not “equivalent to the claim that an arbitrary pair of different and distinct 0-space are = AND ≠ w.r.t each other”
Simply changing your “equivalent” claim to some other contradiction still does not make it equivalent to “The claim that 0-dim spaces completely cover 1-dim space” or any less simply your own deliberately contradictory claim that you simply want to try to ascribe it to others.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by epix
You shouldn't worry about that anyway, coz you still need to demonstrate that OM is capable of multiplying very small but finite numbers.
Whom do you reply to?
You shouldn't worry about that anyway, coz you still need to demonstrate that OM is capable of multiplying very small but finite numbers.
Whom do you reply to?
Of course there are cases where the independency holds. Suppose that the pic you've presented as a "proof"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Secretsharing-3-point.png
shows a plastic box with three sheets of cardboard paper as the 2-dim subspaces. You can rearrange the sheets any way you wish but that shuffling around wouldn't affect the size and the shape of the plastic box, the same way stirring goulash will not affect the size and shape of the cooking pot. This is an observation that may intrigue a one-year old baby, but can we like move along ahead on the timeline?
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
To one called epix.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Your reply is wrong, as clearly shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6510718&postcount=12190.
And I bet that you don't type that. That's a copy/paste job START -> MY DOCUMENTS -> DORON_REPLIES.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
epix, your transparent box is another collection of 2() spaces that there existence is independent of each other, and so is the 3() space that is used as their common environment, the 3() space exists whether it is used as a common environment of infinity many independent 2() spaces, or not.
If a timeline is what you call development, then in your case the time has 0() size.
Last edited:
This is the problem OM has: that number that you express as 0.999... is not what you call a "local number." That number is approaching its limit 1, as the ellipses (...) indicate. The particular problem lies in the non-algebraic rendition of the number, which is "destined" to approach its limit "from the beginning":
0.9
0.99
0.999
0.9999
0.99999...
This number has its complementary value w.r.t. its limit that you can express only this way:
1 - 0.999... = 0.000...1
If you let p = 0.999... and q = 0.000...1, then also p = {0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999, 0.99999, ...}, coz p is a number whose value is approaching its limit -- number 1. Your weird intuition tells you that 0.9 is just too far away from 1 for p to be approaching its limit number 1. Since OM doesn't use functions, you can't convince yourself that p starts approaching its limit much sooner than you think it does. Since you claim that there is no point between q and 1, there can't be any point between 0.9 and 1 as well:
0___________________________0.9______1
In other words, there can't be point 0.95
0___________________________0.9__0.95__1
which divides the length of the line segment m = 1 - 0.9 = 0.1 in half.
You just couldn't comprehend the simple proof of you being wrong when it was rendered through a standard math language, coz you can't speak it nor can you read it. I bet that you won't again comprehend what was repeated to you by others, namely that the lenghth of a line segment no matter how short is represented by number a where a > 0, and any such number is divisible by any number b where b ≠ 0. The result of such a division appears as an additional point on a given line segment.
You claim that point p is an immediate predecessor of point z = 1, but elsewhere in the thread you agreed that there is no such a thing as immediate successor and predecessor. (Go and stir the goulash.)
Conclusion: There can't be a "line (with no points along it) between 0.999...[base 10] and 1," unless the line segment is the phantasmagorical segment
O___________M
Last edited:
- Status