What if there is just no such thing as a "point" in reality and any objects that appear to be "point like" are in fact rings?
How would you define a ring without a point, narkie?
what is a narkie?
Also, ringed locales are topological spaces that contain no points and are non-trivial. The lattice of open sets (a frame) is treated as primary and points become secondary, derived postulates, not real objects. They're just homomorphisms.Set theory was a mistake.
>>16885690What if my dick was in your mouth and you were choking on it?
>>16885690I mean someone somewhere probably already generalized point, circle and line all into one.
>>16885697From the Greek word "narkē", meaning "numbness" or "torpor".
> What if there is just no such thing as a "point"https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/point-free+topology
>>16885694you define the ring with a ring
>>16885690>yo finna, finna, finna be like, like, finna, wut if erf no be like plain, it be like finna, her me out yo finna, like a hot cheeto?
>>16885765A point is just the other half of each unique line.Think about that.
>>16885765What's at the center of the ring?
>>16885690The "real" answer is, as always, the result of disappointing mathematics. We can measure nothing below the unit defined as the Planck width ergo no conclusive statements can be made on the nature of an infinitely small 1-dimensional point or if such a thing even exists and any such statement is unfalsifiable speculation.All of the astounding mysteries we "know" of physics are pretty much this kind of thing. No one has actually seen it, it's just that's the way the numbers work out to make the charts add up.
>>16885690I've been drawing points as rings for years.Helps draw a point at infinity when drawing polytopes.Or if you need to draw one point on top of another.You can go more general than a ring too.
I get op is a retard, but I am too. Is the implication that what we predict to be a point is actually a sort of average value of a ring, which presents itself as a point in its center?
>>16885989>an infinitely small 1-dimensional pointThere it is again.Who told you kids that lines are points? They might not have understood their terms, you know?
>>16886012>Who told you kids that lines are points?Non sequitur.No one is talking about lines, we are discussing points. The relation of points to lines and whether lines are or are not constructed of points is not a part of the conversation.
>>16886014>no man, we just don't really understand so we're sort of loose with the vocab, dig?I see. You're retarded.
>>16885690points definitely exist and are easy to define and calculate with
>>16886295>points ... are easy to definehttps://www.geeksforgeeks.org/maths/undefined-terms-in-geometry/
It just seems to me like an intuition. There's a hunch that everything that exists should have a "center" or some "point" it collapses into, but I don't think that's true. I think "points" are just postulates, and in reality you cant reduce anything to a point because there's no sucb thing as "center" in reality. Everything is defined relative to something else, so if a "center" exists it must be a postulate that exists due to epistemological constraints, not because points are an ontologically real thing.
>>16885690That's already been proposedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_theory
>>16886310Thanks. I don't use chat bots or any form of AI to come up with my ideas, I base all my thoughts off the material I have read in the college textbooks that other kind anons here on /sci/ have suggested to me, such as the Landau-Lifshitz series on modern physics. I'm about halfway through that track. But, that also means I haven't heard of a lot of stuff if it's not in the textbooks I've read so far.
>>16886300>A point represents a precise location in space but has no dimension—no length, width, or height.Seems easy enough to me.
Rings?
RINGS!
>>16885690What if particles were actually tiny vibrating strings looped around tiny invisible dimensions?
What is a ..... "ring"?
>>16885690>there is just no such thing as a "point" in realityThat is technically correct, just as a holographic projection only appears to have identifiable "points" the same holds true for timespace
>>16886347
>>16885690and I supposed ring don't lie on points?
>>16886418Don't look at me. I'm just quoting the source provided.
>>16885690yes
>>16886309saying there's no true center to something and saying there's no such thing as objective truth are not the same thing you fucking retard
>>16886314you lost tranny
i bet you could map harmonic modes to the undulation of that ring to define all the properties of elementary particles within the standard model that way, but it's probably not the case. what i want to know is what is spacetime at the quantum level, what does it mean for events to occur at the subplanck level, or can they occur at all. and what does it mean to "know" these things, and can you prove without knowing.
look at these two retards, just look:>>16886561
>>16886430>i'm just selectively quoting the source provided. i don't actually understand the words.You are so there planting that flag on top of Mt.Stupid.
>>16886616Nah. You just saw points being described as "undefined terms" and conflated that as meaning there is no definition despite that bery same source providing a definition. PS: that graph does not accurately dwscribe the D-K effect. Which is kinda ironic.
>>16886662No, you don't understand axomatic systems.Welcome home.
>>16885690LICK THE DONUThttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zjc1AFpqIw0
>>16886822All systems are axiomatic you goofball.
>>16886978Then you misunderstand an awful lot.
>>16885989>1-dimensional pointpardon, but i'd have you know that a point is 0D, kind regards
