100 side at best, but you seem to be missing the point.
That shape is “circular”, it is NOT “a circle”.
If there are any straight sides at all, then it is not an actual circle, but rather merely circular - close to being a circle.
There is no room in the very definition of a circle for straight sides. It is a part of the language.
Not where mathematics is concerned because more than one way means most of them are wrong unfortunately
I already stated that a circle has infinite sides or “points”.
Mathematics deals with absolutes, which are abstractions. Infinity is part of the process of determining shape, size, and dimension. Calculus is predicated on the ideal of infinity, that, as a number becomes absolutely large or small, it approaches any “whole” number, which is also an abstraction. In fact any whole number is predicated on the abstraction of infinity.
There is no such thing as a “real” whole number. Here’s what I mean explicitly. Let’s say you have “one” (whole) rock. And then you add another, second, (whole) rock. How many rocks do you have? 2. You have two rocks. But are the rocks equal? Are they the same? Do they have the same weight and shape? Or aren’t rocks different? They weigh differently. They have different shapes. They have different qualities. No two rocks are exactly the same, although some are similar.
Therefore the ideal of “one whole rock” is an abstraction, a premise of measurement. That humanity can use “this” (or that) rock as a standard, by which to measure all other rocks.
So basically, mathematics is abstraction, approximation, and absolutism. Perfection is idealism, and Artifice. It is unnatural. It is anti-nature. Math is unreal, a human imposition upon reality/nature. The functions, processes, equations, and algorithms humanity uses are all artificially imposed, by mankind, to understand, manipulate, and control natural processes.
Mathematical sophistication is directly aligned with heightened intelligence. A “smart” person understands math easier than “stupid” people. Thus mathematics, a reflection of human intelligence, represents the ways in which humanity uses knowledge, education, information, and formulas (algorithms) to ‘leverage’ reality and nature. Using math, science, and every other intellectual tool, mankind has developed severe power differences, giving exponential advantage compared to other (less intelligent) mammals.
Show any animal a quadratic equation. It doesn’t understand it. Because it lacks the sophisticated evolutionary developments and educational procedures that humans have, over generations.
TLDR:
Humans continue to develop sophisticated mathematics (as abstraction) to give us an evolutionary advantage over every other (less sophisticated) life form.
This is Artifice/Artificiality, away from Nature, far “above” Nature, top-down. But most humans forget the foundations, and from whence mathematics originates.
A point is not a “straight side”. Straightness requires at least 3 points combined with infinitesimal distance between them. Having an infinity of points is different than having an infinity of sides. And that is the crux of the disagreement.
I agree with that.
I can agree to most of that, but every word refers to an abstract or conceptual idea used to reference some portion of reality. I think that you missed the concept of “whole”. The word “whole” refers to a complete item as however it is defined in the language, not necessarily identical to any other complete item.
No, that’s not your problem. Your problem is that you suffer from Autistic Spectrum Disorder which means you have difficulties understanding colloquial language. Is it any wonder that you place so much emphasis on language? I don’t think so. You take words way too literally. Whenever I talk to you I always feel like I am talking to Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory.
Let me remind you. Your point was this:
In other words, your point was that A acting upon B, or more precisely, that B changes “in response to” or “due to” A, does not mean that when A changes B changes.
That’s wrong.
You did not explain why you disagree with my claim.
Not at all.
You provided no counter-argument whatsoever.
Instead, you do what you usually do – you just make declarations.
Which also happen to be empty.
Is the following your argument?
You call this an argument?
There is something I can respond to?
You’re full of shit.
Perhaps you were never told that reading involves comprehension of content. My argument was with Brando.
The real world Problem of causality is perhaps a flaw. It is something like Kants critique of metaphysics: there is a drive to speak of it but it can never be captured. Perhaps we must Change the Frame to Performance. I quoted something on it regarding Butler. But in history there was a practice of Performance, which wrapps the formula: A is a cause of B. This is the imaginary (Spencer Brown would love it) - so tragedy in old ancient Greece. We see something in imaginational works, and draw a conclusion to the real world. This Connection may be the real sense of the Problem of causality. And it is performative, critisizing the myth of the given.
This is a bunch of bullshit.
Humans know that off-shore earthquakes cause tidal flooding. For you to ignore the cause or pretend causes don’t exist, when you could have used the information and prevented thousands of people from dying, is irresponsible and imbecilic.
Here I was not speaking mathematically.
I was speaking of many things which we might be able to see/interpret in more than one way.
I was one of those who said that a circle actually does not have sides.
Aside from that, depending on how one looks at it, some will say a circle does not have sides and some will say that it does.
Literally speaking, it does NOT.
Arc is clinging to her ignorance and falsities, playing language games and semantics to cover up her humiliation.
You ought to be embarrassed to be so wrong.
Bury your head deeper in the sand. Tell me again how a million sided shape is not a circle. Here’s the image by the way:
Shall I move upward to a billion sides are will you admit defeat?
Will you tell me a billion-sided shape is not a circle???
You’re wrong, Arcturus.
I have told you twice. I will tell you again:
It doesn’t matter how many sides.
Why are you arguing with the very definition of the word “circle”?
Who is really playing language games at this point? The definition of “a circle” forbids ANY sides at all, regardless of how small they might be. And as stated earlier, a point is NOT a “straight side” nor even a “side”, merely an edge-point.
You argue with Brando by responding to something I wrote?
What does it matter who you argue with if you are responding to something I wrote?
The following was written by me and not by Brando:
Brando simply failed to quote me properly.
So yes, you responded to me.
I am saying this even though it’s completely irrelevant.
Even if the above was written by Brando you’d still be wrong.
Change in B “due to” or “in response to” A does mean that when A changes (in some way) that B changes (in some way.)
Let me quote myself:
And you responded to this with this:
And you’re going to tell me that you are not autistic?
Look how stupid your response is.
The first thing you say is that the statement does not mean the opposite of what it states i.e. that A changes B does not mean that B changes A.
I MEAN FOR GOD’S SAKE WHAT KIND OF ALTERNATE UNIVERSE AM I IN?
Why are you telling me this?
Did my statement somehow imply it?
Does the statement “when A changes B changes” imply that “when B changes A changes”?
SERI-FUCKING-HILARIOUS-LY?
And then you say that whether the Sun changes has nothing to do with the claim?
Really?
You are telling me that the Sun affecting the flower is not an inference from the experential data within which we can CLEARLY see that the presence of light is accompanied by growth in flowers and that the absence of light is not?
When there is light, there is growth.
When there is no light, there is no growth.
The Sun being the main source of light it’s easy to see why change in the Sun (its position in space) is likely to be accompanied by change in flowers (the rate at which they grow.)
There is no such a thing as “metaphysical force” that “acts” between the Sun and flowers.
That’s just a creative use of language.
A creative expression – poetry.
And it’s a legit expression so as long you don’t take it literally.
The problem is that you DO take it literally.
This is why I think you’re autistic.
You think that if there are two different expressions in language that they must mean two different things. Otherwise you scream “inconsistency”. No no no. You scream “LOGICAL inconsistency” as if logic has anything to do with language.
You’re a very funny guy.
There’s a very good reason you keep your comments short.
They are without any substance.
Just for the record, Arcturus and James are claiming this is not a circle:
You’re both wrong.
Here’s another example of James’ autism. He starts with WORDS instead of starting with EXPERIENTIAL DATA. He clings onto one definition – the one that is the most popular – and then proceeds to accuse everyone who deviates from that definition of playing language games. If this is not a text-book example of Autism Spectrum Disorder then I don’t know what is.
UrWrong’s definition is a legit definition. It’s not my preferrable definition – I think that definitions can be ranked based on how fundamental they are – but it is just as legit as the popular definition that involves equidistance.
I don’t think it’s the best definition either. But it’s a useful definition and mathematically sound. As a shape increases its sides, it becomes “circular” to the point where people can no longer distinguish between “sided” and “round”. At some point it is a circle.
Are these rocks round?
But, but, but, they have sides!?!?
It’s not about language games. People accept definitions and estimations pragmatically. Maybe there are gray areas. Maybe a flat rock is also round at the same time as being flat. Reality has complexity. The point is that definitions can be simplified, and so can causes. Humans can understand causes, pragmatically. If there is an offshore earthquake, and 100% of the time a tidal wave follows from that, then we can begin to accept the cause of the tidal wave is an offshore earthquake. Unless of course a meteor crashes into the ocean, or nuclear bomb is set off in the ocean, then those too cause tidal waves.
Some causes and effects are much more difficult to dispute and doubt than others. Some causes are very common. Some are very rare.
If you are going to just ignore the language definitions, then why not just say that a square has 8 sides. Or better yet, just say that ALL shapes have an infinity of sides and make the language completely useless.
You are both being liberal nihilists (a redundant phrase).
Here’s James:
Don’t Forget the philosophy of the as if (Vaihinger) - even concepts of natural science are rooted in Imagination of the as if. Nancy Cartwright wrote critical about this.
The problem with James is that he’s accusing people of violating WORDS rather than REALITY itself. In other words, he’s accusing people of deviating from the norm regardless of whether their deviation is for the better or for the worse. He didn’t say “yes, that’s one way to define circles, and a pretty decent one at that, but it is less precise than the popular definition that involves the concept of equidistance”. What he said is “you don’t agree with the way Google defines circles”. That’s all. Note that I don’t know whether UrWrong’s definition of circles is less precise than the popular definition. I didn’t do the analysis. Though it does appear to be so, given that it relies on the concept of side which represents a linear pattern of points in space, I am not sure. And even if it is less precise, I don’t know by how much, so I can’t tell whether such an imprecision is significant or insignificant.
There are many reasons why people violate established definitions. It might be because they want to find better definitions. This is what I do. I want to understand things better, in a more detailed, and thus precise, manner. Or maybe it’s because their circumstances are such that a different definition is more effective at helping them achieve their ends.
You can say that a square has 8 sides. You can also say it has an infinite number of sides. But noone does so because there is no reason to. This is different with circles.