Zeroth Dimesion

[Rybo]

Alkaline wrote "Step 1 - Zeroth Dimension. Imagine a point in space. It is a 0-hypercube."

Im curious as to how a zero-dimensional-- i.e. a metaphysically conceptual and abstract --mathematical point can be a cube or a hyper-cube or any 3-D polyhedral derivative and;
why is it label as hyper-cube than some other polyhedral derivative?


Alkaline wrote "A point is zero dimensional because it has no width, length, or height, and is infinitely small."

Here I go again being nit-picky but "infinity" does not have a size ergo "small" being a term/word related to "size" is improperly used here. Another way of saying this is that there exists three ways of expressing a point. 1) a metaphysically-mathematical-concept of a zero-dimensional point; 2)the 3-D metaphysically-mathematical concept of a point as any polyhedron and; 3) a combined set of 4-D or more-- i.e. physical stuff --as the medium for expressing a real/physical point a.k.a. a dot.

I hope there is no offense taken in my nit-picking. Just appears to be in my nature to replace my lack of mathematical abilities.

Rybo

[Geosphere]

Here's a killer for you then:

Infinitely does not mean Infinity.

Infinity is mathematical.

Infinitely is grammatical.

Alkaline was speaking grammatically - as in an incalculable quanta.

[Rybo]

Here's a killer for you then:
Infinitely does not mean Infinity.
Infinity is mathematical.
Infinitely is grammatical.
Alkaline was speaking grammatically - as in an incalculable quanta.

Hi, Geosphere.
1) Im sorry, Im not sure what the difference is between "infinitely"-- gramatical -- and "infinity"-- mathematical --is and would greatly appreciate in elaboration on your part in explaining, in detail, those differrences. {thanks}.

2) GS, Now specifically in regards to my statements-- that does have some degree of incorrectness --about Pi being an infinite number i.e. numerically irrational Pi has an initial beginning at "3.1" with the addition of "...." representing/symbolizing a non-resolvable condition ergo never-ending in time-- so eternal --as well as infinite or infinitely or both.

3) Finally I want to point out that there is a least two subcatgorizations of the term/word "metaphysical;"
...3a) abstract mathematics and language are a FINITE-set of metaphysical conceptual contructs that include the concept of infinity or infinitely and zero/nothingness
....3b) 3-D geometry is a FINITE-set representing one branch of mathematics,
.....3c) 3-spatially empty dimensions or more-- i.e. 3-D+ --, beyond the physical Universe, is the IFINITE metaphysical space of nothingness.

Hope Im not appearing to argumentative reagrding finite and infinite
non-dimensional and dimensional.

It my belief that we may say that humans have the unigue metaphysical dimension, or power, to conceptually place ourself outside of, our finite and limited dimensions of physical Universe, and be able to conceptually look back in upon physical Universe, ergo ourselves, from a conceptual viewpoint that can be likend to a semi-divine God(es).

Rybo

[Geosphere]

Infinitely is not something you can mathematically use. It implies to vast to calculate.

Infinity is the calculus number.

[Rybo]

Infinitely is not something you can mathematically use. It implies to vast to calculate.
Infinity is the calculus number.

1) Ok,Geosphere, lets see, infinitely implies to "vast" to calcua
late i.e. vastness equates to largness so, what you are saying is ifinitely is to "large" to calculate. I think that is still in correct. I think infintely is beyond vast-ness or large-ness termiologies i.e. it beyond size-ness ergo it beyond time-ness

2) "Infinity is the calculus number." Hmmm, Im familiar with the horizontal figure 8 as a reprsentaion of infninity but i dont recall a specifc "number"-- i.e. a number based on the set of 0-9 --that siginifys infinity. Geo if you can please post that number for me I would be appreicative. {thanks}

Also Geo do you know which catgory I can find the 4 or more page disscussion of "infinity" taht took place?

Rybo

[Geosphere]

Sure the number of infinity is '+1'. Just like tomorrow is always a day away. I believe you learn that on day 1 in calc, and they simply use the horizontal 8 to not confuse you with the plus sign.

I have no idea where in the archives that infinity thing went.

Infinitely is an adjective. Infinity is a noun. Infinitely is non-quanta.

You can be infinitely ugly - but since ugly is not quantifiable, you cannot be in possesion of infinity ugly attributes.

And be careful about the concept of vast to large. Vast may imply speed, weight, time. Large does not apply to speed very well.

[Rybo]

Sure the number of infinity is '+1'. Just like tomorrow is always a day away. I believe you learn that on day 1 in calc, and they simply use the horizontal 8 to not confuse you with the plus sign.
I have no idea where in the archives that infinity thing went.
Infinitely is an adjective. Infinity is a noun. Infinitely is non-quanta.
You can be infinitely ugly - but since ugly is not quantifiable, you cannot be in possesion of infinity ugly attributes.
And be careful about the concept of vast to large. Vast may imply speed, weight, time. Large does not apply to speed very well.

Geosphere, thank you for replying and being tolerant of my mathematical shortcomings.

So, "+1" is the number, or numeration, that is used to calculate-- ergo quantify --infinity. Seems Ive also seen a "n...." or "+1...."as numeric-like enumerating(?) of infinity.

My problem-- first off ive never had any calculus studies --is that quantity or "to quantify" seem like words, or phrases, not properly applicable to "infinity" which is not quantifiable nor quantiziable.

Im sorry dont see how a thing can be "infinitely ugly." Ifinitely is concept related to ifinity ergo beyond size and dimension in that ifinitely is a never-ending space or perahaps a spatial dimension.

OK, vast can be equate as "high" in relation to speed, "heavy' in relation to weight, "long" in relation to time and size, and large in relation to size.

Well Geossphere, it seems im not really getting the gist of this explained very well by me, so If you reply to this post that may be good place for me to stop. {thanks again}.

Rybo

[Geosphere]

No need to stop the post, Rybo. These things are minutiae, but they matter.

The difference between 'infinity' and 'infinitely ugly' is all that there is to grasp here. Just assume they are words that have the same root and different meanings. One for the Mathemetician, one for the Writer.

[Keiji]

To put it a simple way, replace "infinately" with "very very very very <insert thousands more "very"s here>".

If you still don't understand after that, I don't think you ever will. :?

[Rybo]

To put it a simple way, replace "infinately" with "very very very very <insert thousands more "very"s here>".
If you still don't understand after that, I don't think you ever will. :?

Im sorry Bobxp but that still doesnt seem accurate to me. Thousands of anything is not ifinity nor is related to a an infintely repeating of the word "very" becasue only as a concept is it related, but "as phyiscal reality" it is non-existent ergo there is no such reality to connect to the concept of the "infinitely repeating the word very or any "n"-- set -- thereof.

I give in. Im not going to "get-it" as it hs so far been explained to me.
Reality is quantisiz-able and metaphysically-- ergo mathematically -- quantifi-able. {Thanks for your attempts to explain but I feel I must stop beating a dead-- i.e. not going anywhere --concept or set of concepts-- as the case may be --in these regards.}

Rybo

[Geosphere]

Reality is quantisiz-able and metaphysically-- ergo mathematically -- quantifi-able.

No its not.

What smells better - strawberry or vanilla?

[Euclid]

Reality is quantisiz-able and metaphysically-- ergo mathematically -- quantifi-able.

No its not.

What smells better - strawberry or vanilla?

Is fuzzy logic allowed? If so, it would be quite easy to produce membershhip functions for quantizing the smell preference between two scents.

[Geosphere]

Preference is not proof. I did not say which one more people like. I said which one is better.

Just because most people believe in God does not prove his existance. Opinion is not fact.

[Euclid]

Preference is not proof. I did not say which one more people like. I said which one is better.

Just because most people believe in God does not prove his existance. Opinion is not fact.

Well, better is a fuzzy term to begin with. The use of "better" demands some sort reference frame. After that frame is established, which can readily be determined from a collective opinion, then preference becomes proof. Of course, this only holds if everyone agrees to the reference frame.

When we say, "This thing is better than that based on the following criterion (whatever that may be)," then preference does become proof. I agree that belief does not prove anything. In the case of God, or gods, the reference frame becomes quite a bit more stringent. Existence can be more difficult to prove than "better". What does it take to prove something? This is the basis of Euclid's axioms (postulates). They establish a reference frame that everyone must agree upon a priori before any proofs can commence. Once you go for it, all of plane geometry unfolds. Well, assuming you have bought the parallel line postulate, but we need not go there.

[Geosphere]

Back to the point, it IS fuzzy. Reality is not fully quantisiz-able.

Hopefully, it never will be.

[Rybo]

Reality is quantisiz-able and metaphysically-- ergo mathematically -- quantifi-able.

No its not.
What smells better - strawberry or vanilla?

Is fuzzy logic allowed? If so, it would be quite easy to produce membershhip functions for quantizing the smell preference between two scents.

Euclid, are you saying that "reality"-- i.e. the physical -- is not quantisizable?
Weight(mass) and temperture(infra-red) are regularly quantisized in mainstream science and even on a bathroom scale at home.

Isnt mathemetics a metaphysical quantification system associtated with the quantisizing of our reality?

Im not sure what the subjective quality-of-smell has to do with your strawberreis and vanilla reply to my post. Not offfended just don understand tha connection.

Do strawberries smell better that baby crap? I suppose they do but that is irrelvant to quantising reality and its associtated mathematical quantifcation therof.

Another poem to lighten our joureny;

Walking In Time
By Rybo6 alias Os_jbug

Walking in times twilight of uncertainty,
Shrouded by doubts of location relative to speed,
And a plurality of universes that may contain a Heisgnberg,
And some that may not.

The sum of histories are forever branching,
To create the group soul of divine presence
While motions mass pulls upon our individual spirit.
To create the divine presence of consciousness.

We traverse on many trajectories,
Of times evolutionary arrows,
Crisscrossing to form patterns,
Energetically sewn as one great web,
Geodesically economical for eternity.

The triangularly structured stability of reality,
Eternally transforms and changes,
Via entropic destabilization or rearranging of,
The triangularly structured stability of reality.

[Euclid]

Back to the point, it IS fuzzy. Reality is not fully quantisiz-able.

Hopefully, it never will be.

Actually, reality is completely quantized, viz. quantum mechanics.

[Geosphere]

Being a philosophy professor, I will try to control my impulse to point out that reality is by nature indefinable. In the painfully myopic mathematical world, Quantum Mechanics is the latest attempt to define the undefinable.

Let us just say that while there are numbers to do such, they really don't.

If I really wanted to, a study could determine the mathematical correlation between the length of the average woman's hair and the stock market. Calculus tells us that any 2 variables can definitely be connected. So if through time, I determine this formula, and then become a haridresser and start shaving women's heads, how disappointed will I be when the stock market does not respond to my razor?

Wait - I promise this makes sense to the point.

When the next new force/particle is defined - and there will be... the equations all change. Our observance of data and our need to compartmentalize into formulae we understand does not actually define the data. It merely defines our limits to understand the data.

SO I stand by the original proposition: Reality is not quantifiable or quatisizable or whateverable you wish to apply to it. Not completely.

[pat]

Well, better is a fuzzy term to begin with. The use of "better" demands some sort reference frame. After that frame is established, which can readily be determined from a collective opinion, then preference becomes proof. Of course, this only holds if everyone agrees to the reference frame.

The original claim was: "Reality is quantifiable." This doesn't require that everyone agree to the same reference frame. It matters only that each observer be able to have a reference frame. It'd be nice if there were some way to transform between different frames of reference. But, the claim doesn't require a universal reference frame or even a system of isomorphic ones.

So... I agree that better requires a frame of reference. The original claim is only violated if there exists a reference frame in which strawberry smells both better and worse than vanilla.

[pat]

The original claim is only violated if there exists a reference frame in which strawberry smells both better and worse than vanilla.

Or, if there cannot exist a frame of reference in which that question is answerable....

[Rybo]

"Being a philosophy professor, I will try to control my impulse to point out that reality is by nature indefinable. When the next new force/particle is defined - and there will be... the equations all change. Our observance of data and our need to compartmentalize into formulae we understand does not actually define the data. It merely defines our limits to understand the data.
SO I stand by the original proposition: Reality is not quantifiable or quatisizable or whateverable you wish to apply to it. Not completely".

Geosphere, The formulaes, the numbers, the language etc... may all change but, the fact that there is discreet quantities instrumentally quantisized with meters is irrespective(?) of any quantifying mathemetics techniques to identify with those discreet quantities.

If you go to this link-- at bottom of page --and then scroll to the cold neutron experiements you will find that the neutrons response, to the surrounding enviromental gravitational filed, is that of concentrically discreet levels of the gravity.

This is where the inspiration for my concentric circles grapchic at my web sited came from.

As for philosphy I have not read much on that but feel I cna philosphize with the best of them.

The Philosopher Jack
By Rybo6 alias Os-jbug

The philospopher with his philosophy,
Ascended a hill in search of greater wisdom,
On his trek he began to suspect,
Twas the journey that made him much wiser.

Jack and Jill went up a hill,
Too see what lay beyonder,
At the top of the hill, Jill took a spill,
And Jack fell gently upon her.

The horse and sheep went up a hill,
Too find some greener pasture,
They ate some grass, took a nap,
And dreamed of cosmic laughter.
http://www.ill.fr/

[Euclid]

Well, better is a fuzzy term to begin with. The use of "better" demands some sort reference frame. After that frame is established, which can readily be determined from a collective opinion, then preference becomes proof. Of course, this only holds if everyone agrees to the reference frame.

The original claim was: "Reality is quantifiable." This doesn't require that everyone agree to the same reference frame. It matters only that each observer be able to have a reference frame. It'd be nice if there were some way to transform between different frames of reference. But, the claim doesn't require a universal reference frame or even a system of isomorphic ones.

So... I agree that better requires a frame of reference. The original claim is only violated if there exists a reference frame in which strawberry smells both better and worse than vanilla.

I contend that reality is quantifiable, somehow in the discussion that got turned around. What I mean by "if everyone agrees to the reference frame" is just as your example of the smells explains. It is nonsense to say that reality cannot be quantified as it can, either by fuzzy quantifiers that everyone agrees with or by absolute methods such as quantum mechanics.

One can even quantify virtual reality.

[RQ]

I see that this is all a miscommunication in language so why don't we ignore this Rybo and everybody else because of its irrelevance to everything.
Infinitely small is so small its immeasurable
Infinity is the thing your looking for Rybo.

[Euclid]

I see that this is all a miscommunication in language so why don't we ignore this Rybo and everybody else because of its irrelevance to everything.

Actually, discourse in a forum such as this has an implied intent to eliminate or reduce miscommunication in language.

It was said that reality was not quantifiable. I say that is nonsense, you may disagree. That is the point and I, for one, am not willing to "agree to disagree".

If Rybo (or anyone else for that matter) is straying off-topic, then we probably need to start a new one

[Rybo]

Euclid] Actually, discourse in a forum such as this has an implied intent to eliminate or reduce miscommunication in language.
It was said that reality was not quantifiable. I say that is nonsense, you may disagree. That is the point and I, for one, am not willing to "agree to disagree".
If Rybo (or anyone else for that matter) is straying off-topic, then we probably need to start a new one [/quote]

Thanks again Euclid. I think infinity or infinitely are both related to the "Zeroth Dimension" topic. By some means tho, those who dont care for the conversation should go elsewhere, or, steer this conversation in a direction they choose for it to go. One way of steering/directing the dialogue is by suggestions to ignore others comments.

Rybo

[RQ]

Your opinion is your opinion Rybo, if you wish to disagree with the facts and the very definition of infinity that's your opinion, just don't do it here.
Discuss your definition of definitions in another forum.

[Rybo]

Your opinion is your opinion Rybo, if you wish to disagree with the facts and the very definition of infinity that's your opinion, just don't do it here.
Discuss your definition of definitions in another forum.

RQ, you must be talking about some fact of due to dictionary definitions of infinity or something. I have no idea what facts I have been disrepectful here in this forum. If you dontl ike my oppinions in generall I dont know what to tell you. Sorry? I read many books and have encounterd many oppinions. Sorry that mine do not bring you comfort. or agree with yours.

Rybo