hahahaha
& thankfully i must intertwingle again below
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "granthutchison" <granthutchison@b...>
wrote:
> > 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
>
> Jesper will correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood him to mean
> that a point whose position is defined as being on the edge of a
body
> water could be considered to be half-in and half-out of that water -
> half wet, half dry in a *spatial* rather than *temporal* way.
hard swallowing here punctologically grant
& will explain why below
Hence,
> I imagine, his choice of non-tidal water.
the potomac at mdvawv & dcmdvan is nontidal too
so i dont get this imaginary distinction if any
But, as you say, Brownlie
> maybe makes mwmztz a bad example, and the inevitable sloshing of
even
> the stillest body of water interferes with the purity of the
concept.
right
punctological truth allows the concept but doesnt support it in any
way
for at least it is a concept
unlike some of the other stuff we have been treated to recently
>
> Even if I'm not understanding Jesper's point, there is a point here
I
> quite enjoy thinking about. I don't see any reason why a
> dimensionless point can't be half one thing and half another - or
> even further subdivided. It's a matter of viewing infinitesimal
> objects as the limiting state of more extended objects - very much
an
> acceptable notion, since it's exactly how differential and integral
> calculus were invented.
ok but a point isnt an infinitesimal object
in objective truth
& i thought we had all more or less accepted that
maybe you can still make a point an object in your mind
& the idea may be acceptable in calculus
but it feels highly dubious in point of punctological truth
which has already postulated that a point isnt physical
repeat isnt a physical object
but exists only in nonphysical reality
& it exists in nonphysical btw not as an object either
yikes
but only as subject
since in nonphysical all is one
moreover
only in physical reality does that even seem questionable or puzzling
> Imagine you draw a circle, radius r = 1m, around the exact meeting
> point of Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico. A quarter of it
lies
> in each state. Shrink it by half. A quarter of that circle lies in
> each state. And shrink it again. And again. No matter how small the
> circle gets, it's still neatly subdivided into four quadrants. At
the
> limit, as r->0, it's quarters all the way down. So the
infinitesimal
> quadpoint is divided into four equal infinitesimal segments. This
is
> no more unreasonable than the fact that (infinite number) +
(infinite
> number) = (infinite number).
> Now, if you accept this (and why do I think I hear distant rumbles
of
> dissent?) it means that tripoints are not evenly divided between
the
> abutting countries - AZIRTR, for instance, looks to be about 50%
> Iranian, 45% Azeri and only 5% Turkish. So each country has only a
> limited share in its infinitesimal "tripoint territory", and
> somewhere there is a country cursed with acute-angle tripoints that
> has the lowest average tripoint-share of any country in the world.
>
> Grant
hahahaha
hahaha
i would like to find such a victim & resuscitate the pore sucker
become an angle angel so to say
the va of nctnva is pretty acute for starters
& makes me wonder where the worlds cutest multipoint slice is
m