I have generally followed sozobe's pov. But then again, I see what Craven says. I never see what SCoates says, except, except, except, I see him as an adept at obfuscation and some kind of infernal piquance of juxtaposition to tweak new questions... which is why I pay any attention at all, instead of slamming down.
But never mind all that.
What I want to know is, what was the exact assignment, or was that also a construct?
The assigment was "write a four-page paper."
Perhaps we can disprove parallel straight lines far short of infinity if we assume Albert Einstien's ideas are correct. Space is curved so for the lines to be straight they would need to curve to compensate for the curvature of space. This would bring them to the edge of the universe, but there is no edge, or center so perhaps even short straight parallel lines are an illusion if we are considering errors of parts per google. I think I just blew my mind. Good luck all. Neil
Perhaps you could arrange the paper to actually represent your own view and others with no fudging, best representing each, and then just discuss that there are questions about this. You don't really need to attempt to decimate math for a grade in an english paper.
Or is it that bad, how far behind ARE you?
LOL... The paper is already handed in. However, I will recieve it back wednesday to make revisions.
My understanding, osso, is that you cannot become more powerful in the dark side of the force, without simultaneously losing power with the light side.
Dark side of the force? Wha? You want to become more powerful against reason? or against what...
I was relating to what you had said. That I am decimating math, to do well in english.
So, I suppose your teacher likes you, since you are such a smartiepie? Tap, tap, tap. tap....]
Well, yeah, this is probably true, or should be. But the teacher shouldn't let scoates get away with multiple clandestinies.
It's hard not to like me. I'm as lovable as one might imagine looking at my avatar. And my heart is as pink. If it ever seems otherwise, it is because of OCD.
Tell me again what OCD is,
I am so tech slow..
(over counter drugs? orange county dates?)
Obsessive-compulsive disorder. Essentially false messages from the brain. The brain can seriously overheat...
So what are you saying?? what part of your personal posts are a function of having obsessive compulsive disorder, Scoates????
Even though the paper that this discussion was started for has been completed, I would still like to offer up what I think might serve as a valid objection to the original argument concerning the non existence of parallel lines. If I understand it correctly it was argued that there are no parallel lines because if you extend the lines to infinity the ratio between the length of the lines and the distance between them becomes vanishing small, we could even grant it that it becomes zero although this is false. The reason this argument is unacceptable is that the concept of parallel lines has nothing at all to do with the ratio of length to distance of separation of any two given lines. What is required of parallel lines is that they are non- intersecting (I think someone has already brought this to our attention I just want to flesh it out some). To see this is not difficult, imagine two parallel lines as long as they are far apart, now their ratio is 1:1, if we now double the length of the lines our ratio is 2:1, if we double the length again it is 4:1 and so on as much as we like. What is important to note is that one part of the ratio remains constant, in this case the distance between them (length : distance of separation), and this is exactly what we require of parallel lines in Euclidian spaces. Less intuitively but more rigorous is this, if describe our lines as functions, then we can easily see what lines are parallel and what ones are not. If we solve the functions as a system of equations and find a solution, then the lines are not parallel, if however no solution exists, then they are. This is easy to see because if they can be solved as a system then they share a point in common, and thus they intersect at that point, if no solution can be found then they share no point in common and so never intersect. Any way you put it the concept of parallel is perfectly clear without ever making use of the ratio between length and distance of separation. This is why I will not accept the argument as stated.
