> Hate to say it, but so far, the only necessity demand > for Graph Paper > Euclidean Geometry is that of the Calculus.
Hate to say it, but you're knowledge of basic grammar
is below that of a third-grader. ..the only
necessity demand....? WTF . Go pick up a 3rd-grade
grammar book. > > The Calculus cannot exist within absolute-continuity > of Old Math.
???? Another sentence written in your own private
grammar and language.
It > cannot exist because it has zero width for picket > fences in the > summation of integration and it has no room to form a > slope angle or > tangent in the derivative.
??? Is this Esperanto, or something ??? > > The Hyperbolic Geometry is also nonexistent within > absolute-continuity > because the legs of the triangle bow so much so that > the sides cross > over one another in order to have the vertex meet for > both sides of > the interior angle. This is also seen in Euclidean > geometry where > asymptotes such as F(x) > = 1/x
That's not an asymptote, moron.
when the value of x becomes 10^603 the y value > is 10^-603 and > although you imagine that to be a open curve,
Undefined term in people mathematics, maybe you have
your own pig-definition?
it is > closed at that > moment since that is the infinity borderline.
Maybe it is because of some construction going on
at the moment? > > Calculus is probably enough of a correction to say > that Euclidean > Geometry is Graph Paper Geometry that has empty space > between > successive Real points.
Putting words together at random is not working for you.
Maybe if you write English sentences someone can comment.
Or, to put it in your language: table, boat is further
toaster than it is more hot than something which is
colder from it. > > Now I got out the graph paper last night and been > playing around with > it.
Finally doing something at your skill level. Try
crayons and paper next. > > I come up with this conjecture. I have no way of > proving it > and they are difficult proofs, I suspect, very > difficult.
And difficulty is more for proving than to make
it easier to show it, right? > > Anyway, focused on two triangles, both > right-triangles, the 3,4,5 > triangle and 1,1,sqrt2. > > > It brings to question whether a Real triangle can > have more points of > intersection of Real on top of Real for its third > side. The mind > immediately thinks of the 45 degree angle as the > third side but keep > in mind it is the ruler of Reals applied to that 45 > degree diagonal > that does not line up Real points with the diagonal. > But I wonder if > the diagonal is long enough that the Real points of > the ruler start to > coincide with the Real points of the graph, which the > 3,4,5 triangle > suggests that they match up in proper circumstances. > > Now I think that scalene and oblique triangles would > be far easier to > fulfill the condition that each side has two Real > points of Reals on > top of Reals in intersection. > > I do not know why these proofs would so difficult, > but they look > horribly tough. > > I guess they are so difficult is because mathematics > has never > ventured into these green pastures before and that > who ever does so > comes full of the Old Math view of Euclidean Geometry > of absolute > continuity. > > One thing that is neat, immediately is that given a > line and a point > not on the line there exists one line parallel to the > given line, the > parallel idea. What is neat in this Graph Paper > Euclid geometry is > that we can count a finite number of lines that are > parallel, and not > a infinitude of lines parallel between the point > outside the line and > the given line. For example the given line is the > x-axis and the point > outside is the point (10^-603, 10^-603) so the given > line parallel to > the x-axis is the line that contains the two > Real points (10^-603, 10^-603) and (0, 10^-603). Now > in Old Math they > had an infinitude of more lines parallel between > those two lines, but > in New Math, there are zero > more lines between those two parallel to the x-axis. > So in New Math we > quantize parallel lines, in Old Math, they packed > infinite amounts of > parallel lines. > > I guess Calculus is enough to cause the downfall of > Old Math Euclidean > Geometry.
True: all the bridges, buildings, machines, etc. built
using the assumptions of old math have collapsed,
and/or do not work anymore. Sure, idiot.
> > But I still have not pinpointed why Elliptic Geometry > cannot exist > without empty space between Successive Reals. I do > not recall ever a > Calculus built from Elliptic Geometry, it was always > built with > Euclidean geometry and transfer the results to > Elliptic geometry.
False. As usual, you have no idea of what you're talking
about, you have not bothered to do any research before
posting stupidities, "mr. scientist"
If > there is a calculus built on the axioms of Elliptic > geometry, then I > would have a necessity demand for holes between > Successive Reals.
There are holes of different type, usually denoted by
letters. The ones assigned to you are the a-holes. > > Google's New-Newsgroups censors AP posts but Drexel's > Math Forum does > not and my posts in archive form is seen here: > http://sexwithanimals.com> > Archimedes Plutonium > http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium > whole entire Universe is just one big atom > where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies