first
jesper
to the best of our knowledge
meaning brownlie in message 1061
mwmztz tho disputed would appear to occupy in both probabilities a
permanently wet position
& not an alternately wet&dry position in either case
as you seem to indicate
so you may prefer to use a better example of what you mean
say perhaps mdvawv or dcmdvan
both of which are actually at mean low water mark on the potomac
& thus sometimes in the river & sometimes not
for that is the kind of situation you mean isnt it
but since the points themselves
all the points of all kinds
as distinct from their locations
are nonphysical
you are right that the points are neither wet nor dry in every case
not literally anyway
we only speak of drypoints or wetpoints etc in our highly telescopic
shorthand notation so we will know whether to bring water wings etc
second
david
whaattt
really dont you feel some further elucidation of what you are
thinking might help those of us less gifted than jesper to understand
you
i believe we have already agreed that the points & the borders dont
exist in physical reality
so really what is the new news you guys are agreeing to now
certainly
in my mind at least
if i put a cup on a table
i have created
for the nonce at least
a cuptable or cup table
at least to distinguish it from any other table without such a cup
for that is just common syntax in many languages
nor do i understand why this could possibly matter or have anything
to do with the questions you are purporting to answer
namely
does a point exist
&
whose is it
by so weird & indirect a quasianalogical quasianalytical device
really i think you guys are just honking & goosing us again
m
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "Jesper & Nicolette Nielsen"
<jesniel@i...> wrote:
> I totally agree - I oculd have written this myself.
>
> But this raises another question. Tripoint: Malawi - Mozambique -
Tanzania at the bank of Lake Malawi. Is it wet or dry? I would say
half wet, but that would mean it has an area, wouldn't it? So the
tripoint (or any other tripoint) is neither dry or wet, as they donot
exist.
>
> Jesper
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Mark
> To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 4:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Can a point also be a border?
>
>
> 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@y...
> > 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.
> >
> >
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.