The border does not exist, in about the same sense that a new object
"cuptable" does not come into existence when I put my cup on the table.
The cup touches the table. Canada touches the US, for 8893 km.
David
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Jesper & Nicolette Nielsen wrote:
>
>
> A border point's size is 0 x 0, because otherwise who's point it is? So does a point excist?
>
> The dimentions of a border line is 0 x length, for CAUS 8893 km x 0. So what is the size of CAUS, 8893 x 0 is 0. So CAUS doesn't excist? Tell that to the border guards! Damn, I should have tried that in Berlin 12 years ago, perhaps I will try arguing with the guards between the Koreans.
>
> Most European border markers show a border line, but the line is like 1 cm thick, but in fact that it way too wide.
>
> Well face it, border lines and border point actually do not physically excist, and are just imaginary.
>
> That's why I like borders, there is nothing there, but the nothing means alot in most cases: different currencies, languages, laws, signs, number plates, flags, perhaps time zones, alphabets, etc.
>
> I like spotting the excact point, where is all changes.
>
> Jesper
>
> PS Are others also experiencing problems sending to BP?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: acroorca2002
> To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 3:24 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Can a point also be a border?
>
>
> well now you have done it doctor
> put your finger on our bp g spot
> nice analysis too
>
> & the extreme beauty of it is that unless you admit the real existence
> of boundaries like nmut & azco within the azconmut point
> you will be forced by degrees to abandon all the rest of the illusion
> of physical reality as well
> because if there is not any reality to a point then how could there be
> any reality to a line
> which is just a locus of points
>
> & if not a line then how a boundary
> which is the further physical elaboration of this growing illusion
> & if no boundaries then how is individuation anything but an illusion
> too
> & if no individuation then we must be not only a single entirety then
> even a single divinity
>
> & since precisely this is punctological reality
> evidently unless busted
> i would go right ahead & defy the illusion of so called reality
> or certainly never be cowed by it again
>
> but just to keep our entire perception of the world from collapsing
> all at once
> yes yes yes of course a point can be a border
>
> m
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "drpotatoes" <drpotatoes@h...> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I've been wondering about this one for a while, and since I'm a
> > newbie to the the group it's quite possible that the subject has
> come
> > up at some point and I just don't know about it. If so please let me
> > know what post it is under.
> >
> > The question I pose is this: can a point, more specifically a
> > quadrapoint (quinta or even more), also be a border? Take Four
> > Corners, USA for example. Is it correct to say that New Mexico and
> > Utah 'border' one another? Or Arizona and Colorado?
> >
> > This is as much of a geometry question as it is geography. So I
> > looked up a few basic terms. The term 'point', in geometry,
> according
> > to ask.com, is this:
> >
> > "A point is one of the basic terms in geometry. We may think of a
> > point as a "dot" on a piece of paper. We identify this point with a
> > number or letter. A point has no length or width, it just specifies
> > an exact location."
> >
> > Ok fine, a point has no width or length. So then I searched
> > for 'border' and 'boundary' in the dictionary.
> >
> > According to dictionary.com, one of the definitions for 'border' is:
> >
> > "The line or frontier area separating political divisions or
> > geographic regions; a boundary"
> >
> > also
> >
> > "To lie along or adjacent to the border of: Canada borders the
> United
> > States"
> >
> > and a search for 'boundary' produces:
> >
> > "That which indicates or fixes a limit or extent, or marks a bound,
> > as of a territory; a bounding or separating line; a real or
> imaginary
> > limit"
> >
> > also
> >
> > " the line or plane indicating the limit or extent of something
> [syn:
> > bound, bounds] 2: a line determining the limits of an area [syn:
> > edge, bound]"
> >
> > So clearly 'border' or 'boundary' is a line (or arguably a vertical
> > plane into space considering a nation's right to control it's own
> > airspace). If I remember correctly from my 10th grade geometry class
> > (which i took while I living in New Mexico, so I have been thinking
> > about this one for 10+ years) that a line is a series of points and
> > can't be one single point by definition.
> >
> > If a point has no width, then do New Mexico and Utah even touch at
> > all? If so, would it then be on almost a microscopic or molecular
> > level at which they do touch? If it is determined that they do touch
> > (which I am not so certain at this point, no pun intended!), would
> it
> > be correct to say that the two states 'border' one another? Or to
> say
> > that they just meet at one point? But a point can't be a border,
> > since a border is defined as a line.
> >
> > So I ask you, can a point be a border?
> >
> > Victor
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>