> >but cuts the line into two lines which can be taken > separately without any trouble. > > "taken separately" has no meaning mathematically, > unless you can explain or define it in mathematical > terms.
I should have used "disjoint" rather than "taken separately".
> >So, the point is only something that we imagine on a > line > > Sure, but the line is imaginary too...
A line has length,which we can notice, but a point is dimensionless, without both length and width, so we can't see a point , therefore I'm disposed to use the term "imagine" for a point.
> >I'm impressed, I'm going to contemplate the meaning > of what has been said, but I think this to be > satisfactory for out purpose unless other doubts will > arise > > You two can create your own branch of math... a > perfect match. > > > Cheers, > Joe N