Two or more points constitute a line although there is no minimum length that a point can be. And two lines
touching at their edges constitute a side. This proves that circles have both infinite points and infinite sides
Two lines touching at their edges can be manipulated so they become a curve. So when that occurs there
is no way of knowing where those edges were and this is another reason why circles have infinite sides as
there are an infinite number of possible places on a curve where that could be. No matter how small it is
This discourse is now approaching your limits.
Backup. A point is not a physical object or entity. A point is a location, not an entity. There is no such thing as “two consecutive points” in the physical universe. There is always an infinity of points between any and all points, between all locations.
And what that means is that it isn’t two points that make up a line, fore there are always an infinity of points between those two. Two points can be used to define a particular line segment by designating the segment’s beginning and end locations. Again, the “points” are not a part of the physical line. They are merely locations on the line.
Between any two points on any line, there is a center location/point on the line that is also the center of a 180 degree angle that includes the first two points. No such center points/locations exist on a circumference or curve. That is the difference between the line and the curve or circle.
There can be no lines (3 points on a 180 degree angle) on a geometric circle because EVERY point must be equidistant from a circle center.
…
These are points which means they are a physical entity because you can see them
So although a location in spacetime is the definition of a point it is not the only one
This line can be manipulated to make a circle although each point is already a circle
Those are dots, not geometric points. Geometric points have no width, thus could never be seen.
The smallest possible distance between any two geometric points would be no longer than the points are wide … which is zero.
A dot and a point are the same thing but I accept that a geometric point is not physical
So this means that a circle can only be composed of physical points not geometric ones
A point is a Location, not a dot. A dot is used to represent a point. Or sometimes the center of a dot is said to be the point.
I agree wholeheartedly, James. My initial thoughts which you quoted were the result of “zooming in,” which as I said earlier, will introduce a whole suite of problems since zooming in to the point where you can actually see individual points is to skip over an entire infinity (allowing for paradoxes allows for more paradoxes). I assume you read on past that point as I dismissed that whole thought experiment on the grounds of these difficulties, and offered the alternative idea that circles (and lines and curves in general) are made of infinitely divisible segments, not points. Points still play a role but you have to invent them as you need them–say, for example, when you mark a point on the circumference of the circle. There’s an infinite range of possible locations you could mark a point between any two other points–I agree with that–but I think it’s a mistake to say the circle’s circumference is made of points.
circles (and lines and curves in general) are made of infinitely divisible segments, not points… I think it’s a mistake to say the circle’s circumference is made of points.
That is exactly true. The entire physical universe if made of “segments” or regions (“afflates”), not geometric points.
No matter how small, infinitely small, there is always an infinity of space between any two points. A point has zero width. The smallest space between two points has zero width. So when we add them together, 0+0+0, we get a total distance of zero. Even an infinity of such point pairs will still make only zero distance. A line cannot be built of points. Nor can a volume.
So a circle is made of an infinity of identical curve segments.
Enough of the squabbling and ego-seeking James, this thread is not about you, time to get it back on track:
Causality and Modern Politics:
Liberal-leftists blame nothing, or objects. Conservative-rightists blame victims. But neither side, neither party, blames the cause for the action and event. For example, in light of the recent Las Vegas mass shooting, liberal-leftists immediately repeat their mantra and agenda, “ban guns!” To which the conservative-rightists will defend their base, “you are taking away guns from those who could defend themselves!” But the recent mass-shooting is exceptional. The victims could not defend themselves with guns, as the shooter was at such a vantage point that they could not return fire. Nor do people bring guns to music concerts, or elementary schools, or movie theaters, etc. And hypothetically people should not, ought not, have to bring guns to defend themselves in these ‘safe’ areas.
Thus most people are missing the point, and not attributing Cause to its rightful place. Liberal-leftists are afraid to blame anybody for wrongness. Conservative-rightists tend not to blame the right people. Thus there is a problem of Justice in the u.s. and western culture. Western culture lacks blame. And it lacks correct and accurate blame (Morality). Who ought to be blamed for events such as these, or throughout life, any types of events. Who ought society point the finger at?
Western society has not developed its sense of Justice, blame, morality, judicial law, etc. Again this is evident by the political base, how liberal-leftists want not “to blame anybody at all”. And conservative-rightists are quick to blame the victims. If a desperate bum rapes a woman, then liberal-leftists will say “he was failed and not properly educated by society thus we are all to blame”. Conservative-rightists will say, “she should not have dressed so provocatively” and “she should have carried a gun to defend herself”.
Both sides can be wrong. And this fact escapes most Westerners, as, much or most or even all of their social “privileges” are built around concepts which protect some from blame, while re-directing blame and causality elsewhere. Spiritually, for pop religion, this means a redirect to godliness or some “grand author”. Blame is always redirect to god or satan, a scapegoat. Thus public blame, in events such as these, tend to shift to the political left-right spectrum, or the religious “satanic” scapegoat.
This was done very early in the recent mass shooting, as even the President and other authorities mention “Evil” as the cause.
But, these are mere scape-goating compulsions. Who in Modern discourse, which majority of people, actually blame the shooter, his motivations, and him directly, as the author of his own actions? Who can truly investigate the causes of mass shootings, or 9-11, or any other catastrophe, correctly and accurately? Meanwhile average people, with average intelligence, will ascribe (false) causes to events, or people’s motivations, in order to push underlying political agendas?
Blaming individuals for actions and events is a very confrontational activity, which requires courage. So when a society becomes cowardly, and fears blaming the perpetrator of a crime, then he has advantage and leverage over others. Also it is dangerous to blame the ‘privileged’ members of society, as privilege entails an air of authority and degree of prestige such that normal rules and laws do not apply to the upper class (elites). However blame still exists. And there are many social functions in society operating to blame somebody, or something, if not the perpetrator of a crime.
What the West lacks, in my opinion, is morality, wisdom, and justice, lacks maturity which older or ancient countries and nations sometimes retain. Many cultures throughout the world approach the topic of morality differently, according to customs, social hierarchy, traditions, religious mindsets, how to approach life, how to think about the world, etc. Thus one society will find ‘blame’ in ways that other countries will not. The same applies for individuals. While one person maybe very courageous and outspoken, quick to point the finger and blame somebody, others will be less courageous, silent, and “keep their opinions to themselves”. However that doesn’t change the fact that person X caused harm Y to person Z. And because people can harm each other so grievously, systems of “justice” and law are put into place and enforced, to prevent the widespread manipulation of harm. If some people are allowed to harm others with impunity, then they will, and so society will become held hostage, captive, to the cruelty of those who are blameless for their crimes and harm of others.
I would like to go much more in depth into thoughts like this, but, this forum really lacks the interaction I require.
Thus I conclude this thread. You can find me elsewhere, if you have the drive and curiosity to do so.
Good riddance.
Enough of the squabbling and ego-seeking
Says the conspicuously defeated egotist.
What the West lacks, in my opinion, is morality, wisdom, and justice, lacks maturity which older or ancient countries and nations sometimes retain.
Although I wouldn’t argue with that.
And because people can harm each other so grievously, systems of “justice” and law are put into place and enforced, to prevent the widespread manipulation of harm.
Systems of “justice” are not assembled to prevent harm to the populous nor establish any kind of actual justice. They are constructed entirely for the purpose of obtaining and maintaining power and control over the populous. The idea of such systems existing solely to protect the weak or abused is merely a part of its construction. Minority and feminist outcries are the obvious evidence. Long after the minority is no longer the minority and the feminine is no longer at any disadvantage, the outcries continue on and on, because power over all things is their goal, nothing at all to do with justice.
Get your actual causes straight from institutional rhetoric and appearances.
But then we can define circles in the other context–the geometric context–in which circles adhere to a very specific definition: all points equidistant from the center → no sides. Here you can’t talk about sides that are too small to see because in this context, the definition has nothing to do with visibility or how the object looks from one angle or another, or to one person or another, etc. Here, in this context, it really is black and white–all points on the circumference either are or they are not equidistant to the center. Even if a point is out by an infinitesimal amount, it is out as a fact, and therefore does not adhere to the definition.
What does “all points on the circumference” mean?
You need to ask yourself this question.
What it means is “all the points on the circumference you are focusing on”.
You might be focusing on 16 points.
Or you might be focusing on 1024 points.
It is your choice.
This means that polygons can meet the definition of circles.
Polygons can have a number of points on their boundary that are equidistant from their center.
If you’re focusing on these points and ignoring all other points then they will pass the test.
That’s what you are PRETENDING is not the case.
With that establish, we can now move back to the question of cause and responsibility and resolve that puppy!
Nothing can be resolved if people you are talking to do not know how to think.
No matter how small, infinitely small, there is always an infinity of space between any two points.
The distance between any two points is infinite. This means that there is no such a thing as zero distance which in turn means that there are no points that are adjacent to each other which in turn means that all action is an action at a distance which goes against your pseudo-scientific theory which is based on the principle of locality.
And even if accepting the physically possible circles, they don’t have an infinity of straight sides either. There is no straightness of objects in the physical universe.
More of your pathetic pedantry.
Any set of adjacent points that share the same slope can ne considered a straight line.
In this sense of the word, real life polygons DO have straight lines.
Noone cares about PERFECT straight lines in the same exact way that noone cares about PERFECT circles and in general PERFECT ANYTHING.
The concept of perfection, if taken literally, is meaningless and only utter retards are seduced by it.
Polygons can have a number of points on their boundary that are equidistant from their center
That is true but only circles have every single point on their circumference equidistant from their centre
There are an infinite quantity of these points on every circle although they are finite in size. In the same
way that there are an infinite quantity of numbers between any two numbers which is also a finite space
That is true but only circles have every single point on their circumference equidistant from their centre
That’s not how things work in reality. In reality, we only check that a number of points on the boundary of a shape is equidistant from the center. This means that exceptions are permitted. You can have points that are at a different distance from the center and the shape would still be considered a circle. That’s how we determine whether any given shape is a circle or not. That’s how things work in reality.
There are an infinite quantity of these points on every circle
What you’re saying, or at least what I hope you’re saying, because otherwise there would be no meaning to what you’re saying, is that the greater the number of points on the boundary of a shape the more circular that shape is. And I agree with that.
I don’t understand, what your post have to do with causality. Perhaps causality Points to an endless series of Events. With monads this is nested. Perhaps causality expells to monads.
The thread derailed a while back with heated discussion about how many sides a circle has
But that has got nothing at all to do with what it is supposed to be about which is causality
The thread derailed a while back with heated discussion about how many sides a circle has
But that has got nothing at all to do with what it is supposed to be about which is causality
Although directly related to the cause of conflict.