Mathematical geekout for discussion...
gse313
Posts: 252 Member
Can someone PLEASE prove me wrong on this?? I presented this to my High School math department back when I was a student and stumped them all!! Got some good Extra credit out of it, but still....
Basic Algebra -
Definition of a point = An area of space without dimension.
Definition of a line = An infinate number of points placed end to end.
Accepted beleifs -
1) Any particular section of a line will have the first dimension "Length"
2) Two intersecting lines create the measurable "Angle"
My Theory -
Since all objects are made up of a series of lines and angles (circles included as they are technically an infinate number of equal angles causing the segments to intersect eachother in an eternally repeated pattern) and it is IMPOSSIBLE to get something WITH dimension from something WITHOUT dimension. I propose that NOTHING exists, including time as it is the 4th dimension...
Now discuss...
and you all thought I was NORMAL?!?!?! LOL
Basic Algebra -
Definition of a point = An area of space without dimension.
Definition of a line = An infinate number of points placed end to end.
Accepted beleifs -
1) Any particular section of a line will have the first dimension "Length"
2) Two intersecting lines create the measurable "Angle"
My Theory -
Since all objects are made up of a series of lines and angles (circles included as they are technically an infinate number of equal angles causing the segments to intersect eachother in an eternally repeated pattern) and it is IMPOSSIBLE to get something WITH dimension from something WITHOUT dimension. I propose that NOTHING exists, including time as it is the 4th dimension...
Now discuss...
and you all thought I was NORMAL?!?!?! LOL
0
Replies
-
Math.0 -
Because a line is between two points not a infinite number of points laid end to end0
-
Because a line is between two points not a infinite number of points laid end to end
Even if this were true, you are still attempting to get somrthing with dimension from something without... so my point is still viable0 -
It has length, the length between 2 points0
-
0 -
I got two words for you G... you nerd lol0
-
I got two words for you G... you nerd lol
Luv ya too!!
lol 0 -
all objects are made up of a series of lines and angles
no. All objects are made up of atoms and molecules. lines and angles have no mass.
edited to add:
All objects can be REPRESENTED by lines and angles, but that is not the same as saying they are 'made up of them'.0 -
I think my argument would be more physical in nature - simply because we accept these mathematical definitions for point, line, and angle, does not mean they have physical validity. We know things exist, or else nobody would be there to ask the question. So I'd say you have to add that to your postulates, or you're working with an incomplete system.
My argument would be just the reverse - that because we exist, points and infinitely thin lines cannot, because you cannot construct nothing out of something. Nothing doesn't exist.
I could also construct arguments based on quantum mechanics, wave functions, probability distributions and such, but I don't have the time right now to make them intelligent (or intelligible). Besides, quantum physics and computational physics were the two courses that very nearly stood between me and a physics degree. I conquered both subjects, but it wasn't a decisive victory, so I'm not sure my reasoning would be sound.0 -
See... and this is why I posed the question here!! lol0
-
Answer : algebra is wrong. /nod0
-
All objects can be REPRESENTED by lines and angles, but that is not the same as saying they are 'made up of them'.
Nailed it.0 -
My Theory -
...I propose that NOTHING exists, including time as it is the 4th dimension...
And you just disappeared in a puff of logic!0 -
Ex nihilo nihil fit, 'out of nothing Nothing comes' Nothing can exist but only as defined by nothing. But shouldn't we first define what nothing is? Nothing might be defined as empty space, devoid of mass or energy—including the absence of space itself (even the absence of physical laws) however in modern theory (General Relativity somewhat, and String theory comes to mind.... a few others which I cannot seem to remember but have vague notions of), “nothing” is most often unstable. Not only can something arise from nothing, but most often the laws of physics REQUIRE that to occure (err... Kraus perhaps? I know I read an article on it a few weeks ago). Nothing is now a boiling mass of unstable .... something....virtual energy and virtual particles, popping in and out of existence in a time so short that we cannot detect them directly and are defined by laws of physics that arise without there being laws of physics to describe them---maby. Therefore Nothing can be defined, sort of, and because it is defineable, it can be used to define other things, kinda. See, don't you love how physics and mathmatics can answer all questions?
Yes, I just worked all night; No I haven't slept in 41 something hours. Peace.0 -
and you all thought I was NORMAL?!?!?! LOL
I have not had nearly enough coffee to go on a math binge. But. I had to comment on this. I don't actually believe any of us thought you were "normal" sweets.0 -
Well thank you dear!! I appreciate it!!! ;-)0
