fdrake

Can you show me one please?

I suppose that means the great circle isn't a circle, since there's no coplanar points on it... Since there's no way to form a plane out of the points...

Yes! The set {1,2,3} can have the element 3 deleted, giving the subset {1,2}. Is what I meant. The plane without the origin. This is a perfectly cromu...

I had comments I really wanted to make about the original article but considering that a Proofs and Refutations style chat about square circles was ri...

It would if you give yourself the liberty of hammering the cross section down onto a flat plane. Which is an exercise of the imagination, and not some...

I'm gonna bugger off now too. I was imagining putting the point away from the plane and bending the underlying surface we're trying to draw the circle...

Yeah you're right. Circle, n-sphere, all the same thing in my head. Coplanarity works. A set of coplanar points equidistant from a point in their plan...

Well I can tell you what I think a plane figure is. (the definition below looks to me to be a necessary but not sufficient condition for a plane figur...

You do this sort of thing because stipulating a definition and then shit-testing it is standard mathematical practice. I showed you the great circle o...

Exactly. Well who said anything about cross sections? I was talking about the sphere's surface. You chided me before about extraneous points and opera...

Read the definition: A circle is a plane figure... so something which is not a plane figure cannot be a circle. The great circle is the circle I've hi...

Aye. https://www.naturalnavigator.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/great-circle.png Euclid says: not a circle. The great circle is not a plane figure.

I think so, relative to tasks. Yes. Yeah that's a hard one. I don't know if there's a hard and fast answer for systems generically! This seems to be a...

Let's change track. You tell me exactly what you mean by a circle with an intensional definition, and we'll go with that. Then do the same for roundne...

I don't think it is. I agree. They are picked to reflect, capture or illustrate certain ideas. If you came up with a system of arithmetic that couldn'...

We had a related discussion here. My explanation for the weirdness of the staircase paradox. The tl;dr of it is that the length you get by placing a m...

Indeed. Mathematics papers absolutely call taxicab-circles circles. I just wouldn't call them circles to my students learning shapes.

@"Leontiskos" As an aside, here are some possible counterexamples. Take all the points Euclidean distance 1 from the point (0,0) in the Euclidean plan...

It is obtuse, but I don't think it just is. A metric is a way of assigning distances to pairs of points. When you consider a space, it has a metric. T...

I watched The Substance yesterday afternoon. It strikes me as the kind of thing @"Hanover" would enjoy.

Here's a Proofs and Refutations - the source of Lakatos' concept of lemma incorporation - inspired investigation into square circles. It's the corners...

The properties that define circles make shapes that appear as squares in taxicab space. But the geometry jettisons our concept of roundness, unfortuna...

Also @"Carlo Roosen", if you have problems with other members - either try to argue it out with them civilly in the originating thread, or report thei...

I know you feel hard done by. Your remark to carlo was an escalation in tone. I believe this was why it did not go under the radar whereas carlo's did...

@"T Clark", @"fishfry" Just stop.

We even had a long discussion about it 7 years ago.

That's Sellars. Naturalism and Ontology I think.

Wise.

I don't know if you have the ability to take yourself seriously while being that highly strung.

This is just spitballing: I didn't see much new in it? A deformation of Kant? New schema of thought and content? Concretising the schematism into expr...

Still one of my favourite posts over the years.

Thinking and Being is almost impossible for me to put down and pick up while remembering what it was talking about. That's made me give up trying to m...

I agree. The predicate "is bodily", maybe even "involves this person's body" or "is embodied" generically apply to anything the person does. But seemi...

This isn't very fair. The distinction between the "two strands" was done for historical and political, rather than content related reasons. It was als...

https://youtu.be/ey-hYJM7B3I?feature=shared

Also @"Kurt Keefner". I'm just riffing with both of you, I don't think I really disagree with either of you, your posts were thought provoking so I wa...

I'm closing the thread since it's pseudoscience. This isn't to say you can't criticise Einstein or relativity, as @"Wayfarer"'s reference to the Bergs...

I was wondering if this was a reference to the earlier work of Roland Fartes? The casual cancellation of repression, the ecstatic joy of dodging a lib...

There isn't anything more we can do to help you at this point @"Carlo Roosen", try your best.

I can imagine. I have no idea how you'd even do it in principle for complicated models.

In case that remark was too glib, if you ask someone to validate the underlying ideas in your framework exclusively experientially, you can thereby re...

You can validate it yourself.

Makes sense. This is what I was focussing on, though with insufficient context on my part: There's a big distinction between technical documentation i...

That's a very impoverished conception of explainability. Knowing that an AI did something vs being able to know how it did it. Though it is better tha...

I know. And I checked your book and your post for text matches.

Jamal gave you a conditional acceptance of the post. Your post appeared to violate the spirit of that conditional acceptance - being identical, verbat...

To reiterate, the above has been explained to you before!

Consider the contradiction between the following statements. You were told by @"Jamal": And you were told by me: Verbatim copying from previously publ...

The reason for this was because the OP contained large sections verbatim copied from your book. You later clarified that you had taken your forum post...

I realise you're unhappy with the mod decisions which have been made, the reason for subsequent decisions regarding the above has also been explained ...