|
0=1
Jul 12, 2021 21:17:25 GMT
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 12, 2021 21:17:25 GMT
1. You have 1 line.
2. This line is divided by a 0d point.
3. The resulting line is 2 lines in one.
4. You have 1 line.
5. The line is divided by 2 0d points.
6. The resulting line is 3 lines in one.
7. Division by a 0d point (0) is equal to x+1 with x equaling the number of points. Considering x equals a number points each 0d point (0) is equal to one.
|
|
|
0=1
Jul 12, 2021 23:25:56 GMT
via mobile
Post by MAYA-EL on Jul 12, 2021 23:25:56 GMT
Point being?
0 is a actual thing/number so using it in any kind of math will yield some form of outcome
But 0 is not the same as "nothing" if that's what your implying?
|
|
|
0=1
Jul 13, 2021 1:13:22 GMT
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 13, 2021 1:13:22 GMT
Point being? 0 is a actual thing/number so using it in any kind of math will yield some form of outcome But 0 is not the same as "nothing" if that's what your implying? A 0d point is Nothingness quantified by 0......
|
|
|
0=1
Jul 13, 2021 5:13:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by MAYA-EL on Jul 13, 2021 5:13:52 GMT
Point being? 0 is a actual thing/number so using it in any kind of math will yield some form of outcome But 0 is not the same as "nothing" if that's what your implying? A 0d point is Nothingness quantified by 0...... Are you using zero as a zero in a numerical mathematical equation? or are you using a zero as a character to philosophically explain something?
|
|
|
0=1
Jul 13, 2021 17:20:41 GMT
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 13, 2021 17:20:41 GMT
A 0d point is Nothingness quantified by 0...... Are you using zero as a zero in a numerical mathematical equation? or are you using a zero as a character to philosophically explain something? Zero is the quantification of nothingness....thus we get the term 0 dimensionality. Quantification is the application of measurement thus is mathematical.
|
|
|
0=1
Jul 13, 2021 19:54:13 GMT
via mobile
Post by MAYA-EL on Jul 13, 2021 19:54:13 GMT
Are you using zero as a zero in a numerical mathematical equation? or are you using a zero as a character to philosophically explain something? Zero is the quantification of nothingness....thus we get the term 0 dimensionality. Quantification is the application of measurement thus is mathematical. No 0 is a number nothingness is a concept of "nothing" and 0 is often times used as a representation of the concept called "nothing"
|
|
|
0=1
Jul 13, 2021 20:07:09 GMT
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 13, 2021 20:07:09 GMT
Zero is the quantification of nothingness....thus we get the term 0 dimensionality. Quantification is the application of measurement thus is mathematical. No 0 is a number nothingness is a concept of "nothing" and 0 is often times used as a representation of the concept called "nothing" Thus what I just said, zero is the quantification of nothingness as it represents nothing...you should read before you respond. Nothingness is an absence of concepts. As an absence it is only a concept in the respect it points to the multiplicity of things considering an absence points to a minimum two things which relate. The absence of one thing in another is a relation thus Nothingness as a concept points to multiplicity.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jul 14, 2021 16:53:26 GMT
I asked for clarification im not sure why your confused that someone would try to have a dialogue with you? Unless you only want to make rhetorical nonsense statements ? And nothingness (the concept) is a thing so obviously it will point to other things
|
|
|
0=1
Jul 15, 2021 3:23:36 GMT
via mobile
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 15, 2021 3:23:36 GMT
I asked for clarification im not sure why your confused that someone would try to have a dialogue with you? Unless you only want to make rhetorical nonsense statements ? And nothingness (the concept) is a thing so obviously it will point to other things May I ask you, please? You said that: a) a concept (or just one certain concept?) is a thing; b) a thing points to another thing As soon as I'm concerned with as concepts so senses, I please you to comment it (a) further. Also, the (b) is interesting me in that aspect that a thing might have a reference to a thing or more things as a property or something. Usually, we say that a special word, or a certain combinations of words, or some words in a proper place (in a proposition or in a total context), achieves and ability to reference to something, or that word or words already have this ability to reference to something. And from the last one we can try to deduce that at least a part of words/things have reference to some other (or the same) things. P.S. I think you should make more philosophical posts. This forum requires fresh and strong ideas to get.
|
|
|
0=1
Jul 15, 2021 20:46:31 GMT
Post by jonbain on Jul 15, 2021 20:46:31 GMT
Well in 'astrophysics' they have concluded that 1+1=1 so you may yet win the Nobel prize for this.
But the seeds of your afterlife, you all are planting here.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 18, 2021 20:51:55 GMT
1. You have 1 line. 2. This line is divided by a 0d point. 3. The resulting line is 2 lines in one. 4. You have 1 line. 5. The line is divided by 2 0d points. 6. The resulting line is 3 lines in one. 7. Division by a 0d point (0) is equal to x+1 with x equaling the number of points. Considering x equals a number points each 0d point (0) is equal to one. CF. 2: A 0d point = a zero-dimensional point =a LIMIT. This "zero" , being a limit, is NOT the arithmetical quantity 1 (called one). If you divide 1 line by 1 0d points, you obtain 2 lines [segments]. So, if you use x for the number of limit-divisors, then (1L /1x) => 2L, not "x+1". { x+1what?. Your "x+1" is an incomplete or meaningless statement.} // 1L/2x =>3L, by empirical observation, not by deduction from this formula. Each 0d point is 1 0d point [limit], NOT 1 pure and simple. And 0d does not mean 0 {zero} pure and simple. Numerical adjectives may not be added for a specific total, as in the case: I have one apple and one pear. "I have two" does not make any sense.
|
|
|
0=1
Aug 10, 2021 21:58:37 GMT
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 10, 2021 21:58:37 GMT
I asked for clarification im not sure why your confused that someone would try to have a dialogue with you? Unless you only want to make rhetorical nonsense statements ? And nothingness (the concept) is a thing so obviously it will point to other things Nothingness is the absence of being, nothingness is not even a concept...nothingness is not even "is". This statement self negates into nothing as it is nothing. You are applying false definitions to what I am saying and conflating my argument with another I am not even saying. This nothingness occurs in the gaps between one being and another as the absence of one set of distinction in one being with that in another. In other words "x" having "a" qualities and "y" not having the qualities of "a" necessitates "y" as having a void of these qualities. This void of qualities in one being from that of another is observed as nothingness as nothing is there. Therefore in observing void we observe the relationship between one being and that of another with this relationship pointing to absences.
|
|
|
0=1
Aug 10, 2021 21:59:30 GMT
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 10, 2021 21:59:30 GMT
Well in 'astrophysics' they have concluded that 1+1=1 so you may yet win the Nobel prize for this. But the seeds of your afterlife, you all are planting here. 1+1=2 2 is 1 set of things Therefore 1+1 does equal 1 as it results in 1 set.
|
|
|
0=1
Aug 10, 2021 22:06:39 GMT
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 10, 2021 22:06:39 GMT
1. You have 1 line. 2. This line is divided by a 0d point. 3. The resulting line is 2 lines in one. 4. You have 1 line. 5. The line is divided by 2 0d points. 6. The resulting line is 3 lines in one. 7. Division by a 0d point (0) is equal to x+1 with x equaling the number of points. Considering x equals a number points each 0d point (0) is equal to one. CF. 2: A 0d point = a zero-dimensional point =a LIMIT. This "zero" , being a limit, is NOT the arithmetical quantity 1 (called one). If you divide 1 line by 1 0d points, you obtain 2 lines [segments]. So, if you use x for the number of limit-divisors, then (1L /1x) => 2L, not "x+1". { x+1what?. Your "x+1" is an incomplete or meaningless statement.} // 1L/2x =>3L, by empirical observation, not by deduction from this formula. Each 0d point is 1 0d point [limit], NOT 1 pure and simple. And 0d does not mean 0 {zero} pure and simple. Numerical adjectives may not be added for a specific total, as in the case: I have one apple and one pear. "I have two" does not make any sense. 1. If zero is a limit and these limits can be quantified in the respect they are multiples (ie the limit exists x number of times) then zero can equal one in the respect it can be quantified 1 or more number of times. 2. If I divided a line by one point it results in 2 lines. If I divided a line by two points it results in three lines. If I divided a line by three points it results in four lines. The number of lines is always one more than the number of zeros applied. 3. If there is 1 point then 1 equals the number of points just in the same manner 1 may equal a horse or a jet plane. However it differs in the respect lines between quantity and quality blur considering a point is the same thing as zero given zero and nothingness are the same thing. So while 1 may equal a non mathematical entity the point blurs these boundaries as it is the same as nothingness with nothingness being the same as zero. 4. If you have one apple and one pear then you have 2 fruits. If you have 1 apple and another apple you have 2 apples. Just saying "I have two" is unclear in both contexts as another context must be added to each statement (ie "fruit" in the first example and "apple" in the second).
|
|
|
0=1
Aug 10, 2021 22:13:39 GMT
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 10, 2021 22:13:39 GMT
I asked for clarification im not sure why your confused that someone would try to have a dialogue with you? Unless you only want to make rhetorical nonsense statements ? And nothingness (the concept) is a thing so obviously it will point to other things May I ask you, please? You said that: a) a concept (or just one certain concept?) is a thing; b) a thing points to another thing As soon as I'm concerned with as concepts so senses, I please you to comment it (a) further. Also, the (b) is interesting me in that aspect that a thing might have a reference to a thing or more things as a property or something. Usually, we say that a special word, or a certain combinations of words, or some words in a proper place (in a proposition or in a total context), achieves and ability to reference to something, or that word or words already have this ability to reference to something. And from the last one we can try to deduce that at least a part of words/things have reference to some other (or the same) things. P.S. I think you should make more philosophical posts. This forum requires fresh and strong ideas to get. Thus nothingness is not even a thing as nothingness is an absence of even being a concept. The only respect that nothingness can be observed as a thing is in the respect nothingness is observed through relationships thus nothingness as a thing is nothingness as a relationship.
|
|