## Lines and Numbers are Inseperable as Relativistic Unit-Parti

Philosophical, mathematical and computational logic, linguistics, formal argument, game theory, fallacies, paradoxes, puzzles and other related issues.  ### Lines and Numbers are Inseperable as Relativistic Unit-Parti

Presented Argument:

1) A 1 dimensional line compresses, ie it shrinks in volume, as it approaches a 0d point. With the line equivalent in quantity and quality to "1", this results in the line turning into a fractal dimension.

****1 qualitatively equates to dimension as directional space, hence "dimensionality" is synonymous to space as movement. Space exists through direction, as movement, with this direction existing relative to other directional space, as dimensions. Space and direction are inseperable.

2) The line as a fractal dimension continues to fractate, as it is compressed through 0d space. Example: 1 → 1/2 → 1/3 → 1/4 to infinity. These fractal dimensions are synonymous to a line being individuated into further lines, through a 0d point. Hence a 1/2 dimension it strictly a line divided 1 through a zero dimensional point into two lines, 1/3 is three lines and 2 seperations (0d points), etc.

3) The line as 1 direction is infinite, considering "1" is a constant. "1" can never "not" be "1". However this 1 line cannot move anywhere in 0d space, hence for it to exist it must relate to itself, as the standard of the movement of the line is the line itself. Hence the 1d line must individuate into another "line" in order to move, considering movement is relativistic and dependent on the relation of parts. This process of individuation occurs through "compression" where the line continually approaches a 0d space.

4) The line, approaching zero, continually fractures through a process of division. At point zero, the line as one continuous fracttion inverts to produce simultaneously dimensions through the fractals. For example 1/2 inverts to 2/1, 1/3 inverts too 3/1, etc. This inversion of division is conducive to multiplication. This multiplication, through inversion of fractions, occurs through the manifestation of angles. For example the 1/2 fractal line moves towards itself to form and angle, the 1/3 follows the same process to form two angles (as a frequency), etc.

5) This inversion, or altnernation, results in a polarity where a separate line is produce relative to the original line, through which the line can relate. This alternation results in the angle as the origin of relativistic movement. The lines exist as actual movement, and the interior volume of the angle is observes as potential space through which the actual line moves.

6) The actual line, exists as a positive dimension inseperable from "1" both quantitatively and qualitatively, and in these respects the line exists as the foundation for relativistic space as actual movement. The space, which the angle observes as the relation of actual lines, exists as potential space or a negative dimension. Hence the angle as "2" observes a -1 space, the angle as 3 observes a -2 space etc. In these respects number as relativistic unit-particulate structure observes both space and number as synonymous.

Each of these new lines, resulting from the folding process, in turn forms further lines which follow the same form and function as each new line, as a fractal of the original through the angle, is still the "same" line in itself, hence follows the same process of folding through 0d space.

7) The sequence can be observed as follows:
*** The symbol: "⩺" will equate to a alternating function where 1/n "folds" into n/1.

1 ⩺ {2,-1}
1 ⩺ ({3,-2},{2,-1})
1 ⩺ ({4,-3},{3,-2},{2,-1})
1 ⩺ ({5,-4},{4,-3},{3,-2},{2,-1}).

Through this continual compression (fractation as division) and expansion (multiplication), 1→2 and 1→ n>2 maintain themselves as everpresent, and "1" continually folds itself to maintain itself as ever present through a series of fractals, with the fractal themselves (relative to other fractals) existing as whole numbers.

In these respects the fractal is the origin of relativistic numbers.

Hence what we understand of the line in 0d space are three degrees of alternation as:

a) Polarity as 1/n → n/1

b) Actual movement as the lines, Potential Movement as the space within the Angle through which the line "move" relative to eachother. Actual movement, through the lines, can equate to all positive numbers. Potential movement, through which the space moves, can be equated to corresponding negative numbers (The angle as 2 lines, maintains -1 space through which they move as "1" direction. The frequency of 2 angles (4 lines), maintains -3, through which the frequency projects as "1" direction.)

c) Frequency as the constant maintenance of 1→2 and 1→ n>2 repeating themselves across time.

This folding process observes (until I can throw a few graphs in):

1) 1 is a literal unit-particulate which manifests relativistic space, and is inseparable from the "line".

2) There are an "infinite" number of 1's, 2's, etc, not just "1". In these respects 1 can be a continual fractal of itself, which this fractal nature alternating into another number. Alternation is inseperable from number, and number as "unit" may manifest through...."spin cycles".

3) The "angle", not curvature, forms the foundation of temporal space and what we understand of "curvature" (hyperbolic/eliptic geometry) may in fact may just be an empirical approximation of hyper-dense angulature as folding frequencies.

4) 1 dimensional lines may in fact be quantum (I hate using that word because it is overused, but it the one available for the time) frequencies. With frequencies in turn existing as quantum lines. Hence a duality between the line and frequency observes a further dualistic relation of number inseperable from division and multiplication as "fractals". This inherent dualism, as "2" observes and inherent qualitity of the dualism as movement through angulature.

5) The angles continually increase into fractal degrees yet maintain a constant proportionality to their original source, so the problem occurs in the respect as to what "constitutes" a degree considering angle "A" may be proportional to angle "B", however angle "B" may be 72 degrees and angle "A" could fit into one of the 72 degrees in Angle B. The paradox occurs in the respect that "A" and "B" are proportional.

So the question occurs is "A" composed of fractal degrees, Doe the number of Degrees in Angle B multiply because the compression of angle "A" cause the expansion of angle "B", or both?

Geometric shapes may not be the founded in their angulature as the "degree", but in actuality it may be reversed: shape is the foundation for the degree, with this shape, as angle, conducive (in all probability) to the triangle as the foundation for relativistic space.

6) "Angulature" is the foundation for movement as time. In theory, hyper accurate geometric object, such as the pyramids, may cause a dilation in space time. In a seperate respect The possible "cone" version of the universe, may in fact be a rotating angle, or an infinite number of angles stemming from a 0d point.

7) Geometric shapes exists as relativistic particulate, and what we understand of a geometric shape is less about its angulature, but the number of points (as individuators) through which the lines relate. These geometric shapes exist through their relation to other geometric shapes, hence each geometric "form" is a particle.

8 ) However angulature is movement through the alternation of spatial compression and expansion. Alternation causes space to compress and expand, and is premised in a 4 dimensional construct of:

A) The line as actual movement, as acceleration through compression.
B) The polar line(s) as a result of the inversion.
C) The angulature as potential space, which is negative in dimensionality (not - zero).
D) The frequency as a continual propagation of the 1d line across time space. For example if observing a frequency across "x" length, and we cut each alternation vertically in half, what we observe is a 1d line propagating itself across "x" length as a 2d view of a temporal locality.

9) Frequencies may in fact be fractals of 1, which alternate back to "1" itself from a seperate set of angles. In these respects "1" rotates itself through fractions as the foundation for whole numbers as units in themselves.

10) The line begins with an altnernation into an angle of 2 wavelengths, then 3 ad-finitum, because each angle is a fractal of the original line (2 wavelengths are each 1/2 of the original, 3 are each a 1/3, 4 are each a 1/4, etc.) the angulature continually progress back to point zero of origin. relativistic Infinity (linear motion) cycles back to point zero, through a linear progression.

****Graph will be needed to illustrate this point clearly.

What we understand of relativistic movement, is a cycling to and from infinity through fractals

11)The frequencies, no matter how high always maintain the same length even if approaching a number approaching infinity. The frequencies produce further frequencies which simultaneously move away from the original point of compression.

12)The frequencies overlap further frequencies manifesting a continual set of irrational trapezoids and triangles. In another respect what we understand of as perceived curvature may simply be space measured through a trapezoid, with multiple trapezoid forming an approximate square as a matrix of movement.

****Graph will be needed to illustrate this point clearly.

Agree/Disagree? Why?
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 102
Joined: 02 Mar 2018    ### Re: Lines and Numbers are Inseperable as Relativistic Unit-P

A "divide", which acts as a boundary of separation simultaneously maintains a dual role of connection in a separate respect. Take for instance a "point" in space. If it is divided into two points, it still maintains its nature as a point is still fundamentally the same. However this division observes a linear boundary between them which fundamentally connects them. So while the point may be divided into two points, because of a line, it is still connected because of this same line.

The problem occurs in the respect to how can "nothingness" as a zero dimensional point be divided unless division is its own form of movement, through relation, as "being". In simpler terms, division is an act of being when applied to nothingness. Metaphorically looking at the fraction 0/0, as an example, we can observe that the answer can very from "undefined", "1", "0", etc.

And even these "answers" are controversial in and of themselves, let alone the source.

But what we can observe in 0/0 is "/" and "0,0" where:

1) There is one function of "/".
2) There are two forms of "0,0", but "0" cannot be observed as nothingness unless being, quantitatively as "unit"/"unity", exists as "1".
3) Division is 1 in itself, hence inverts into a form through a function of division, because of zero existing if and only if there is one.
4) Division as 1, because of its active nature of division through 0/0, observes a simultaneous form manifest through an act itself (in this case "/").
5) Form and function are inseparable because of this, and "0/0" can be observed simultaneously as "0,-1,0" with "-1" being a "negation of nothingness" through being...this case division as a form of negation through "1".
6) A higher form/function (unified and simultaneous) exists as "mirroring" or "reflection" in which case a "form/function" exists because of its nature as "direction", which can be observe as "division" in itself being a "direction" of space that cannot be viewed in terms of strict "up/down, left/right, forwards/backwards" considering these "duals" of "direction" exist through a polarity defined through "/".
7) In these respects, while division acts as a form of separation, through a 0d construct (or maybe better put "nothingness") is acts as a form of being through connection as a projection of linear space.
8) This linear space, observed simultaneously as a infinite 1d line projecting through 0d space (we can observe this again in 0/0) requires the line to exist through itself. A problem occurs in the respect that a line cannot project through nothingness, in this case 0/0, as their is nowhere to go.
9) The line, if it is to maintain itself as infinite, must fold through itself in order to relate to itself if there is anywhere for it to project. This folding process of the line, as an act of division through nothingness.[/color]
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 102
Joined: 02 Mar 2018    ### Re: Lines and Numbers are Inseperable as Relativistic Unit-P

0/0 = all fractional (fractal?) quanta? DragonFly
Resident Member

Posts: 2386
Joined: 04 Aug 2012    ### Re: Lines and Numbers are Inseperable as Relativistic Unit-P

DragonFly » May 3rd, 2018, 1:28 pm wrote:0/0 = all fractional (fractal?) quanta?

Elaborate further.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 102
Joined: 02 Mar 2018    ### Re: Lines and Numbers are Inseperable as Relativistic Unit-P

Quantum Angles

1) What we understand of the angle is a line relative to another line through a 0d point. The line as directed in one direction in turn is inverted through the 0d point by being directed into an opposite direction, with the opposite direction giving the relation necessary for the original line to project itself in one direction through 0d space as the point.

2) This original line approaching the 0d point ad-infinitum causes it to appear as condense when taken from a view of progressing from the origin point of view to an extending horizon. This expansion, from the origin point of view, to its condensation at the horizon as it approaches the 0d point in turn gives the line volume. The line as volume observes the line as direction, and the corresponding edges, forming the line as fundamentally having a triadic nature of the exterior lines (2 of them) relating to form and interior line (as 1).

3) This triadic nature of the line approaching the 0d point observes the line existing simultaneously as an angle, and in these respects the angle can be observed as the premise of the line if the point of origin (line or angle) is inverted.

4) The line exists through the angle and the angle exists through the line, and the point of relation observes a difference in size as the line is a quantum angle and the angle is a macro-line. This relation of the angle to the line, observes an inherent nature of ratios which give premise to the size where the line measured against itself result in a multiplictious nature.

5) As observe in point 4 the premise of the ratio is observed by a form of individuation in which the line folds through itself under the 0d point. The line approaching the 0d point in turn results in an angle as a form of multiple lines, with this angle as line inverting through the 0d point as another line which forms the original angle into a relative 1d line to the new line…which in turn exists as its own angle.

a) (((1A/3L → 3L/1A) / (3L/1A → 1A/3L)) / ((1A/3L → 3L/1A) / (3L/1A → 1A/3L))) → f(∞)
****With L= Line and A= Angle

6) The angle as the foundation for degrees exists through an alternation of size where one angle is composed of further angles as the premise for previous and further angles. In these respects as the angle is composed of further angles, the angle maintains a degree of quantum entanglement where “x” angle may be different in size from “y” angle, it is fundamentally the same angle as a ratio or set of relations. In these respects the large affects the small and the small affects the large because of this nature of the “ratio” as the boundary which gives premise to the nature of the angle as a thing in itself.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User

Posts: 102
Joined: 02 Mar 2018  