John Gabriel <email@example.com> wrote in news:firstname.lastname@example.org:
> @KQ: To say that a line consists of points is truly absurd. > > A point is an invisible marker that denotes or marks off the distance > from a fixed origin.
A point is not a distance. A point is a location. You can describe that a location in a number of ways: a pair of distances, a distance and a direction, an intersection of two lines etc. But a point is not a distance.
> There are many such distances, so that they can't > be counted.
Just because there are 'many' of something, doesn't mean you can't count them. If you had said there are uncountably many such distances you would have been correct.
> But does that mean that a line consists of distances?
Here you are assuming a point is a distance, which, as I pointed out above, is not the case. So you argument fails.
> Of > course not, a line is the shortest distance between two points.
A line is not a distance either. Even a line segment is not a distance.
OMG you really have no idea what it is you are talking about. I suggest you try a new hobby.