Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7714133&postcount=37, a reasoning that is based only on verbal_symbolic skills, can't comprehend the result of the transition of finer states to the finest state (which is resulted by a finite collection that no one of its objects is the finest state) and the inaccessibility of finitely or infinitely (which is any amount of) finer states to the finest state (where in the case of infinitely finer states, no transition to the finest state is involved).
Click to expand...

Evidently you just can’t comprehend that “the transition of finer states to the finest state” requires your, well, “transition” which your “no one of its objects is the finest state” implicitly asserts is lacking while your further assertions of “no transition to the finest state is involved” “finitely or infinitely” explicitly asserts no “transition” in your “transition”. Since just your "finest state" is "any amount of) finer states" it is just 'inaccessable' to itself. Thank you for finaily admitting the "inaccessibility" of your notions to just your notions.

doronshadmi said:
Using only Verbal_symbolic_only skills has devastating results on the mathematical science in general, and on the mind of some Verbal_symbolic_only skill(er), in particular.
Click to expand...

What you think has obviously devastated your mind is irrelevant to this thread but since you now do bring your mental stability into question, pretending to ignore posts while replying to them does not bode well for such stability, as noted by other before I recommend you consult a professional therapist or physiatrist.
 
Last edited:
In addition to what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7714559&postcount=39 , verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) simply can't comprehend that the transition from the finer to the finest does not change the fact that no finer object is the finest object.

In other words, no finer object of a given collection is accessible to the finest object state, exactly as (for example) no circle (where a circle has a measured constant pi) is accessible to a point or a straight line.

Once again, since verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) don't use also visual_spatial skills they simply can't get the following example:

An object is considered as a circle only if pi (circumference\diameter) is found, so by following this reasoning a point or a straight are not circles, so a point is smaller than any circle but it is not the smallest circle, and a straight line is bigger than any circle but it is not the biggest circle.

Exactly as no collection of smaller or bigger circles reaches the state of a point or a straight line (the point or the line are inaccessible to the collection of circles, whether this collection is finite or infinite) , so is the case between a collection of curved lines and a straight line, or a collection of points on straight or curved line.

Again these notions are known only by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

When verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't deal with their mind's limitations they reflect it on others, which is a typical response of their imbalanced mind's skills (after all they are using only partially their potential abilities).

Furthermore, they can't comprehend that ignore list can be used in order to ignore a particular person, but it does not mean that given notions are also ignored if they can be useful in order to explain better a given subject.

In other words, ignore list does not necessarily obey "black\white" reasoning, and this is one of the main notions of this thread.

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills it is easily understood that A or B forms are inaccessible to all curves between them (whether the amount of curves is finite or not):

6296000182_d37f5a6074.jpg
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In addition to what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7714559&postcount=39 , verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) simply can't comprehend that the transition from the finer to the finest does not change the fact that no finer object is the finest object.
Click to expand...

Once again you simply assert no “transition” in your “transition”.

doronshadmi said:
In other words, no finer object of a given collection is accessible to the finest object, exactly as (for example) no circle (where a circle has a measured constant pi) is accessible to a point or a straight line.
Click to expand...

Once again your “finest object” is a “finer object” than any other in your “collection” (hint: that’s what makes it your “finest object”). Which is also why your so called “example” simply fails.

doronshadmi said:
Once again, since verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) don't use also visual_spatial skills they simply can't get the following example:

An object is considered as a circle only if pi (circumference\diameter) is found, so by following this reasoning a point or a straight are not circles, so a point is smaller than any circle but it is not the smallest circle, and a straight line is bigger than any circle but it is not the biggest circle.

Exactly as no collection of smaller or bigger circles reaches the state of a point or a straight line (the point or the line are inaccessible to the collection of circles, whether this collection is finite or infinite) , so is the case between a collection of curved lines and a straight line, or a collection of points on straight or curved line.
Click to expand...

“a point or a straight are not circles” by definition, while your “finest object” is definitively a “finer object” than any other in your “collection”. Your example fails once again simply by your apparently deliberate ignorance.


doronshadmi said:
Again these notions are known only by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.
Click to expand...

No Doron they are simply asserted by you, obviously due to deliberate ignorance.
doronshadmi said:
When verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't deal with their mind's limitations they reflect it on others, which is a typical response of their imbalanced mind's skills (after all they are using only partially their potential abilities).
Click to expand...
We already know why you continually try to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others and as to your “imbalanced mind's skills” again please seek professional help .

doronshadmi said:
Furthermore, they can't comprehend that ignore list can be used in order to ignore a particular person, but it does not mean that given notions are also ignored if they can be useful in order to explain better a given subject.
Click to expand...
Evidently you just can’t comprehend that you would not be able to see the posts of those who are on your ignore list, so a usual and as already obvious your “ignore list” is just a lie.
doronshadmi said:
In other words, ignore list does not necessarily obey "black\white" reasoning, and this is one of the main notions of this thread.
Click to expand...
Again pretending to ignore people when you obviously aren’t isn’t going to fool anyone but you. Again please seek professional help as your delusion no longer has even just the pretence of reality.
 
The Man said:
What you think has obviously devastated your mind is irrelevant to this thread but since you now do bring your mental stability into question, pretending to ignore posts while replying to them does not bode well for such stability, as noted by other before I recommend you consult a professional therapist or physiatrist.
Click to expand...
hs-hp.http-www-fourwindshospital-com-thumb.png

While we believe that we offer the finest in psychiatric care, Four Winds has never been content to simply make assumptions about the effectiveness of our treatment programs.
Click to expand...
http://www.fourwindshospital.com/westchester/outcomewes.html

Become the finer part of the finest: four winD.S.
 
Last edited:
Once again, by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills it is easily understood that A or B forms are inaccessible to all curves between them (whether the amount of curves is finite or not):

6296000182_d37f5a6074.jpg


Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't comprehend this simple fact because everything is defined by them only in terms of Verbal_symbolic_only skills (visual_spatial skills are not used).

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills the difference between the suffix "er" and the suffix "st", is easily understood.

For example: "finer than all X" simply means that "all X" is at most finer w.r.t to that is "finer than all X" (where only "finer than all X" is translatable to "finest", which a property that "all X" does not have) but Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't comprehend this simple fact.

Moreover, they will argue that that is "finer than all X" is not defined in terms of X, but by this argument they are actually exclude that is "finer than all X" from "all X", and this exclusion is exactly the term that distinguishes between that is "finer than all X" (whether it is called "finer than all X" or "finest") and "all X".

But Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't get their own arguments, exactly as they can't comprehend the difference between "finer than all X" and " "all X" is at most finer w.r.t to that is "finer than all X" ".

--------------------

"Finer than all thoughts" is not itself a thought exactly as a point or a straight line are not circles' curves (please see the diagram above).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Once again, by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills it is easily understood that A or B forms are inaccessible to all curves between them (whether the amount of curves is finite or not):
Click to expand...

Once again, by using his superior powers of self-delusion, Doron gets the wrong result.
 
That have only verbal_symbolic skills, can response only by these skills (they are ignore visual_spatial skills).
 
doronshadmi said:
That have only verbal_symbolic skills, can response only by these skills (they are ignore visual_spatial skills).
Click to expand...

Still trying to pretend you are ignoring us, Doron? Your unlabeled responses fool no one, except probably you.

Be that as it may, you are wrong, and pretending everyone else lacks some cognitive skill doesn't change the fact you are wrong. It is trivial to demonstrate the depth of your failures because your ideas lack self-consistency and they are riddled with self-contradiction. No amount of pretend alternate reasoning skills you claim to have can alter basic reality.

But do carry on with your fantasy. It does provide amusement.
 
In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7715050&postcount=4 verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) even can't get the difference between "True" and "False" by their non-exclusion approach about verbal_symbolic_only expressions, because "True" can be define only in therms of "False".

For example "False False" is "True", so by their non-exclusion approach about verbal_symbolic_only expressions "True is not excluded form "False", because it is defined by using "False" as the verbal_symbolic_only expression.

"Nice", isn't it?
 
Last edited:
Here is an improved version of post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7715050&postcount=46 .

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills it is easily understood that A or B forms are inaccessible to all curves between them (whether the amount of curves is finite or not):

6296000182_d37f5a6074.jpg


Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't comprehend this simple fact because everything is defined by them only in terms of Verbal_symbolic_only skills (visual_spatial skills are not used), and according to this partial used skills the term "finest" is not excluded from the term "finer", because "finest" can be defined as "finer than all X".

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills the difference between the suffix "er" and the suffix "st", is easily understood.

For example: "finer than all X" simply means that "all X" are at most finer with respect to that is "finer than all X" (where only "finer than all X" is translatable to "finest", which is a property that "all X" do not have) but Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't comprehend this simple fact.

Moreover, they are also argue that that is "finer than all X" is not defined in terms of "all X" (for example: a point or a straight line are not defined in terms of circles) , but by this argument they are actually exclude that is "finer than all X" from "all X" (which contradicts their argument about the non-exclusion between "finer" and "finest, as argued above) and this exclusion is exactly the term that distinguishes between that is "finer than all X" (whether it is called "finer than all X" or "finest with respect to all X") and "all X".

But Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't get their own arguments, exactly as they can't comprehend the difference between "finer than all X" and " "all X" is at most finer with respect to that is "finer than all X" ".

--------------------

"Finer than all thoughts" is not itself a thought exactly as a point or a straight line are not circles' curves (please see the diagram above).

Yet, if only 1-dimesional space is considered, then it is the Unity among (for example) "all curved lines" and a straight line, even if a straight line (whether it is called "finer than all curved lines" or "finest with respect to all curved lines") is excluded from all curved lines, in terms of curvatures, as can be understood by the following diagram:

5721561558_c5b78c3152_b.jpg


This is the beauty of a non-trivial realm, it is Unified AND has entropy-free different expressions, which are changeable by mutations (this realm is developed according to evolutionary principles).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Once again, by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills it is easily understood that A or B forms are inaccessible to all curves between them (whether the amount of curves is finite or not):

[qimg]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6056/6296000182_d37f5a6074.jpg[/qimg]

Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't comprehend this simple fact because everything is defined by them only in terms of Verbal_symbolic_only skills (visual_spatial skills are not used).

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills the difference between the suffix "er" and the suffix "st", is easily understood.

For example: "finer than all X" simply means that "all X" is at most finer w.r.t to that is "finer than all X" (where only "finer than all X" is translatable to "finest", which a property that "all X" does not have) but Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't comprehend this simple fact.

Moreover, they will argue that that is "finer than all X" is not defined in terms of X, but by this argument they are actually exclude that is "finer than all X" from "all X", and this exclusion is exactly the term that distinguishes between that is "finer than all X" (whether it is called "finer than all X" or "finest") and "all X".

But Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't get their own arguments, exactly as they can't comprehend the difference between "finer than all X" and " "all X" is at most finer w.r.t to that is "finer than all X" ".

--------------------

"Finer than all thoughts" is not itself a thought exactly as a point or a straight line are not circles' curves (please see the diagram above).
Click to expand...

You can argue with yourself as much as you like Doron, that is nothing new here. Please let us know when you can spare some time from simply arguing with yourself and do manage to bring yourself to actually agree with yourself.
 
doronshadmi said:
Yet, if only 1-dimesional space is considered, then it is the Unity among (for example) "all curved lines" and a straight line, even if a straight line (whether it is called "finer than all curved lines" or "finest with respect to all curved lines") is excluded from all curved lines, in terms of curvatures, as can be understood by the following diagram:
Click to expand...

How about just understanding “curvatures” in terms of, well, curvature? That would be quite a start for you Doron.

Oh and by the way just what is it about “a straight line” that you think is “finer than all curved lines" or "finest with respect to all curved lines"? If it is in fact curvature then please see above.
 
In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7716750&postcount=52 verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) even can't get verbal_symbolic expressions like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature
curvature is the amount by which a geometric object deviates from being flat, or straight in the case of a line, but this is defined in different ways depending on the context.
Click to expand...
As can be seen, the ugly head of context-dependent-only approach spits its limited view, if things do not fit to the notions of verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers).

Another example of the limited abilities of verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) is their failure to distinguish between "approach" and "reach" (as demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7540470&postcount=16339, and by the following quote:
jsfisher said:
Second off, "approaches" does not mean "can't actually reach". Learn the meanings of words.
Click to expand...
).
 
Last edited:
Let’s see..

First you bemoan the relation and dependence of the definition of a word to the context within which it is used…



doronshadmi said:
In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7716750&postcount=52 verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) even can't get verbal_symbolic expressions like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature

As can be seen, the ugly head of context-dependent-only approach spits its limited view, if things do not fit to the notions of verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers).
Click to expand...

Then you claim some “failure to distinguish” between the different contexts in which two words can be related.

doronshadmi said:
In
Another example of the limited abilities of verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) is their failure to distinguish between "approach" and "reach" (as demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7540470&postcount=16339, and by the following quote:
).
Click to expand...

Is it even possible for you to ever just agree with yourself Doron.
 
In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7719349&postcount=58 verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't distinguish between curved and straight lines (where the line is cross-contexts state and curved or straight states are different and context-dependent expressions of the line, such that no curved line is a straight line and vice versa).

The same case can be seen as follows:

The line is cross-contexts state and approached curves or reached straight state are different and context-dependent expressions of the line, such that no approached curved line is the reached straight line and vice versa.

But, as usual, verbal-only_skill(ers) can't get the Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent comprehensive framework (the partial use of their potential skills is limited only to Context-dependent frameworks, and therefore they can't get a post like http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7719349&postcount=58, as follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature
curvature is the amount by which a geometric object deviates from being flat, or straight in the case of a line, but this is defined in different ways depending on the context.
Click to expand...

As can be seen, verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) use the dependency on context (where each context has its own definitions) in order to claim that there can be a context that according to it "curvature is the amount by which a geometric object does not deviate from being flat, or straight in the case of a line". This is exactly the meaning of "but this is defined in different ways depending on the context" as understood by verbal_symbolic_only Context-dependent_only skill(ers).

Acctually the following quote:
jsfisher said:
Second off, "approaches" does not mean "can't actually reach". Learn the meanings of words.

Third off, the whole thing is a definition. Learn to comprehend.
Click to expand...
completely supports my claim as represented above, because by this quote there can be a context that according to it ""approaches" does not mean "can't actually reach"". In other words, by using context-dependent_only framework, there can be some context, where "approaches" and "reaches" are the same).
 
Last edited:
In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7720195&postcount=61 in has to be stressed that (according to verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers)) definitions are considered as such only if they are expressed by verbal_symbolic_only skills, and this limitation is one of the factors that shape the current mathematical science as a collection of context-dependent frameworks (no cross-contexts attitude is developed in addition to the context-dependent attitude, and so is the case about the development of verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, as a one comprehensive framework of the mathematical science).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In addition to [useless link to previous doronshadmi post] verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't distinguish between curved and straight lines (where the line is cross-contexts state and curved or straight states are different and context-dependent expressions of the line, such that no curved line is a straight line and vice versa).
Click to expand...

Even your favorite source of information for you to misrepresent disagrees. Wikipedia has this to say about curves:
Wikipedia said:
In mathematics, a curve (also called a curved line in older texts) is, generally speaking, an object similar to a line but which is not required to be straight. This entails that a line is a special case of curve, namely a curve with null curvature.
Click to expand...

It is only in the muddled world of doronetics that reality is lost and words have no fixed meaning except for what you choose at any give moment.
 
Again, if only 1-dimesional space is considered, then it is the Unity among (for example) "all curved lines" and a straight line, even if a straight line (whether it is called "finer than all curved lines" or "finest with respect to all curved lines") is excluded from all curved lines, in terms of curvatures, as can be understood by the following diagram:

[qimg]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3296/5721561558_c5b78c3152_b.jpg[/qimg]

This is the beauty of a non-trivial realm, it is Unified AND has entropy-free different expressions, which are changeable by mutations (this realm is developed according to evolutionary principles), but verbal_symbolic skill(ers) can't get this beauty, because their reasoning is only context-dependent framework of verbal_symbolic expressions (the visual_spatial expressions are ignored).

The result of such ignorance is verbal_symbolic nonsense like: "a line is a special case of curve".

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills a line is the Unified form of curved AND straight states, where curved or straight states are its special (and distinguished from each other) expressions.

It is about time to stop the idiotic definitions of the form: "X with null X (namely a curve with null curvature)" and start by understanding Unity and its possible expressions, which are an amplitude between superposition of identities and strict identities (where curved or straight states are special cases of strict identities).

URDT-2 is such amplitude, as follows:

A="curved"
B="straight"

Code: 
(AB,AB) (AB,A)  (AB,B)  (AB)    (A,A)   (B,B)   (A,B)   (A)     (B)     ()

A * *   A * *   A * .   A * .   A * *   A . .   A * .   A * .   A . .   A . .
  | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |
B *_*   B *_.   B *_*   B *_.   B ._.   B *_*   B ._*   B ._.   B *_.   B ._.

(2,2) = (AB,AB)
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)
(2,0)=  (AB)
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)
(1,0)=  (A),(B)
(0,0)=  ()
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Again, if only 1-dimesional space is considered, then it is the Unity among (for example) "all curved lines" and a straight line, even if a straight line (whether it is called "finer than all curved lines" or "finest with respect to all curved lines") is excluded from all curved lines, in terms of curvatures....
Click to expand...

Add "1-dimensional space" to the list of things beyond Doron's comprehension.
 
Unity is beyond the comprehension of a person, which gets it in terms of some special expression of it.

Furthermore, even an analogy about this subject is beyond the comprehension of such person.
 
Last edited:
the PC apeman said:
No it's not. I introduced the word and you can't have it. Sorry. Redefine your own words.
Click to expand...

Not his style. He redefines everyone else's terms, but never discloses what he means by them. It's much simpler for him to maintain a defensible position that way.
 
doronshadmi said:
URDT-2 is such amplitude, as follows:

A="curved"
B="straight"
Click to expand...
Another, taller monument of self-deception. This topic has been already covered by others.

Poirino homoglobal zero curvature theorem: Stau = exp (lambda peron)x - mtv

where m is the first La Magnione moment and tv is any non-negative parameter.

Visual_spacial_only skills version of the theorem:
A = "curved"
B = "straight"
 
doronshadmi said:
In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7719349&postcount=58 verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't distinguish between curved and straight lines (where the line is cross-contexts state and curved or straight states are different and context-dependent expressions of the line, such that no curved line is a straight line and vice versa).

The same case can be seen as follows:

The line is cross-contexts state and approached curves or reached straight state are different and context-dependent expressions of the line, such that no approached curved line is the reached straight line and vice versa.

But, as usual, verbal-only_skill(ers) can't get the Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent comprehensive framework (the partial use of their potential skills is limited only to Context-dependent frameworks, and therefore they can't get a post like http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7719349&postcount=58, as follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature


As can be seen, verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) use the dependency on context (where each context has its own definitions) in order to claim that there can be a context that according to it "curvature is the amount by which a geometric object does not deviate from being flat, or straight in the case of a line". This is exactly the meaning of "but this is defined in different ways depending on the context" as understood by verbal_symbolic_only Context-dependent_only skill(ers).

Acctually the following quote:

completely supports my claim as represented above, because by this quote there can be a context that according to it ""approaches" does not mean "can't actually reach"". In other words, by using context-dependent_only framework, there can be some context, where "approaches" and "reaches" are the same).
Click to expand...





Ah, so now you’ve changed your tune and agree that meaning and definition is dependent upon context, though as we already know you simply prefer your own personal context. While, as already noted many times before a limit does not have to be a member of a set. Or to put it in your current preferred vernacular simply approaching some limit does not mean that it can be reached. However, reaching a limit (as you assert) does infer that it was approached and thusly reached (implicitly and explicitly respectively). You still seem to have problems understanding that your personal language is not going to be effective at relating anything to anyone, particularly when you simply change tunes at your whim. ‘Reach’ carries the implication of traveling or moving as opposed to something simply being “at” some location (which does not imply any motion or “reaching” the location). So while all poodles are dogs not all dogs are poodles. Similarly all limits reached can be approached but not all limits approached are reached (or even reachable). You apparently simply want to claim that your personal “poodle” (reached limit) is not a dog (approachable).
 
Verbal_symbolic_only context-dependent_only skill(ers) can't comprehend that http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7720195&postcount=61 is an argument that explicitly adds Cross-contexts in additional to Context-dependent, such that it does not agree with the Context-dependent_only reasoning.

This is another concrete example of the inability of Verbal_symbolic_only context-dependent_only skill(ers) to comprehend the Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent one comprehensive framework.

Furthermore, Verbal_symbolic_only context-dependent_only skill(ers) can't comprehend that "approach" and "reach" are not processes, but they are distinct states that are defined w.r.t to each other exactly because they are not the same.

Once again, by using the analogy of 1-dimesional space, it is the Unity among "approach" and "reach", where "approach" and "reach" are some special (and distinct from each other) expressions of it.

Since "approach" and "reach" are not processes (they are permanent states, where time is not involved), then an expression like "that is reached can be approached, but not all that is approached can be reached" is an asymmetric nonsense (again, this is nonsense because no process is involved here (time is not involved)).

Again, the problem is derived from the attempt to know X in terms of some special expression of it.

For example: "A non-empty set with null non-emptiness" is nonsense exactly as "X with null X (namely a curve with null curvature)" is nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Another example: while all poodles or terriers are dogs, no terrier is a poodle (and vice versa).

Another one: while all curved lines or straight lines are lines, no curved line is a straight line (and vice versa).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Another example: while all poodles or terriers are dogs, no terrier is a poodle (and vice versa).

Another one: while all curved lines or straight lines are lines, no curved line is a straight line (and vice versa).
Click to expand...

Yes, I was surprised to see someone hinting that a curved line can be a straight line, if it happens to have no curvature.

I can see flat earthers raising their heads above the horizon now.
 
punshhh said:
Yes, I was surprised to see someone hinting that a curved line can be a straight line, if it happens to have no curvature.

I can see flat earthers raising their heads above the horizon now.
Click to expand...
Such one can't get the Cross-context state of being a line and the Context-dependent state of being curved line or straight line.

As a result he\she defines Context-dependent state of being curved line in terms of Context-dependent state of being a straight line (namely a curve with null curvature).
 
Last edited:
the PC apeman said:
By your use of "can't" (which I redefine as "can") I declare victory. Thank you.
Click to expand...
You can declare victory, but still it is limited only to verbal_symbolic_only context-dependent_only realm (no visual-spatial skills are involved).
 
doronshadmi said:
You can declare victory, but still it is limited only to verbal_symbolic_only context-dependent_only realm (no visual-spatial skills are involved).
Click to expand...
You have your solipsistic dictionary and I now have my own. In mine, the above translates into complete and utter submission. Please, get up off your knees. It's embarrassing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom