My Math Forum Point Set Geometry

 Topology Topology Math Forum

 April 9th, 2017, 09:19 PM #21 Senior Member   Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,364 Thanks: 100 Changed my mind about expanding points. Back to Euclid and Deascartes. The line is the fundamental geometric figure of Euclidean geometry. Points are not geometric figures, they are locations. (2) is a line from an assumed location of length 2. (2,3) are two "different" lines from an assumed location. (1,3,..an) are n different "lines" from an assumed location. The lines above also identify locations. You can't create geometry from points, but you can discuss and analyze sets of points. That's why Point Set Geometry is misleading, it is ambiguous- it implies you start with points and create geometry, making point sets foundational- they aren't. You can abstract infinite sets of "things" and relate them with "rules" using geometric names, which is fine until you derive things using your abstract things and rules and give the result geometric names- Banach-Tarski paradox for example; or claim you have established the foundation of geometry. EDIT This should be generalized to: You can't create a geometric dimension from a zero dimension. Example, you can't create a square by laying lines (0 width) next to each other. Example, Banach Tarski Paradox. Last edited by zylo; April 9th, 2017 at 10:14 PM.
April 10th, 2017, 06:32 AM   #22
Senior Member

Joined: May 2008

Posts: 281
Thanks: 66

Beer soaked query follows.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by zylo Changed my mind about expanding points. Back to Euclid and Deascartes. The line is the fundamental geometric figure of Euclidean geometry. Points are not geometric figures, they are locations. (2) is a line from an assumed location of length 2. (2,3) are two "different" lines from an assumed location. (1,3,..an) are n different "lines" from an assumed location. The lines above also identify locations. You can't create geometry from points, but you can discuss and analyze sets of points. That's why Point Set Geometry is misleading, it is ambiguous- it implies you start with points and create geometry, making point sets foundational- they aren't. You can abstract infinite sets of "things" and relate them with "rules" using geometric names, which is fine until you derive things using your abstract things and rules and give the result geometric names- Banach-Tarski paradox for example; or claim you have established the foundation of geometry. EDIT This should be generalized to: You can't create a geometric dimension from a zero dimension. Example, you can't create a square by laying lines (0 width) next to each other. Example, Banach Tarski Paradox.
This is like a belated April Fools thing, right?

April 10th, 2017, 08:03 AM   #23
Math Team

Joined: Oct 2011

Posts: 12,619
Thanks: 845

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jonah This is like a belated April Fools thing, right?
Right. ZyLOO apparently tried to backdate to Apr.1st:
denied by moderator as a POINTless post

 Tags geometry, point, set

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post 123qwerty Math 18 September 28th, 2015 12:06 AM Perlita Geometry 3 November 9th, 2013 01:10 PM Vibonacci Algebra 5 September 17th, 2012 12:28 AM mathsiseverything Algebra 1 March 4th, 2008 06:41 AM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top