I dont see what how what I was trying to explain earlier fails to answer this. its how we BUILT IT PATRICIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (the name is a joke, clarifying tone: very very nice :)) )why would you need to prove something that you defined yourself?! its like letting u = smth in integrals then having to prove why it equals that something
#help-28
wary condor
valid nimbus
I dont see what how what I was trying to explain earlier fails to answer this. i...
Hmm
wary condor
goddamn it let 2d lines not exist in 3d. just redefine math so it goes with tha defination too.
valid nimbus
well you see, he defined something and I defined the opposite of that
Realistically, these are nowhere close to being axioms and only are theories
so mathematically when we disagree on something, the one that pushes the idea should explain me and prove me
BUT
I will read vector spaces
so I can better remove his side of the argument
wary condor
so I can better remove his side of the argument
Perfect!
next cedar
I can respect the efforts of someone who know what vector spaces are, has read up on the required literature, AND then come back with a more sophisticated "this is bullshit" argument
but not when, and I have to apologize for my words here, this is the kind of counterarg I'm hearing.
valid nimbus
I know
next cedar
do it for your argument
wary condor
brb
you might need to spend more time understanding vector spaces than what "be right back" implies.
maybe close the channel and when you've done your research, argue against vector spaces and vector spacers will argue against you or with you.
valid nimbus
you might need to spend more time understanding vector spaces than what "be righ...
well I have enough confidence that one google definition and 15 minutes of me calibrating will make amends.
but maybe that confidence can break
let's see
wary condor
I myself am a highschool-math student and I have never dealt with vector spaces (i also have very beginner-level knowledge about math in 3d in general) So i dont really think I will be texting again after you've done your research. hope you find your peace with math 
next cedar
if 15 minutes is all you took from zero to constructing a rigorous argument in your favour I honestly doubt the validity of it, but surprise me.
I too am a high schooler. I have just started dealing with linear algebra and I'm not even the best person to talk about this
wary condor
I too am a high schooler. I have just started dealing with linear algebra and I'...
-# linear algebra in high school 
next cedar
-# linear algebra in high school <:kongouderp:483988392099446794>
talk about that elsewhere.
sacred yarrow
valid nimbus
@next cedar took me a long time
I'm back
I have my arguments ready
alright, now, that essentially says a line that passes through an origin, correct?
but
with all ur vector space ideas and stuff
you need to have an origin
For this to hold
but in 3 dimensional space
we are back to co ordinates
when defining where that origin is
INFACT
you don't need to define the origin with a co ordinate
because
a point in a 3 dimensional space, a 0 dimensional point, is impossible to exist/show
That's why
the origin does not exist
you can only make rough picturizations of where the origin is
even if u wanted to say 0,0,0
a 0 dimensional point does not exist at 0,0,0
valid nimbus
a 0 dimensional point does not exist at 0,0,0
Actually, even if it does
restive geyser
Bro just discovered affine spaces 
valid nimbus
There can be another 0 dimensional point, such that point A - point B is not equal to the empty set
(In english, there's another 0 dimensional point at the same co ordinates
but they both don't touch or intersect
restive geyser
If I define you as a dipshit, that doesn't necessarily make you a dipshit just because I've called you one
valid nimbus
because that's what being 0 dimensional is right
restive geyser
Vulgar example, but stick with it
valid nimbus
If I **define** you as a dipshit, that doesn't necessarily make you a dipshit ju...
wait
that means
if we define a 2d line
restive geyser
Mathematics is much stricter here - if we DEFINE something to be what we want it to be, if it doesn't contradict anything previous to this, then we can continue
valid nimbus
by just saying "there's a 2d line in 3d space"
then it doesn't necessarily be mathematical?
restive geyser
"2D" "line"
restive geyser
"2D" "line"
ffs pick one.
restive geyser
No, you're adding qualifiers you DON'T NEED
valid nimbus
you seem like a learned person
restive geyser
And you don't.
valid nimbus
let me give you an argument right quick
restive geyser
No, you're adding qualifiers you DON'T NEED
This needs to be explicitly understood, and I don't think that's true of you
valid nimbus
valid nimbus
Can u read this argument
And still explain me
how a 2d/1d object can exist
in 3d space
restive geyser
Because you're already working on a faulty premise
valid nimbus
I see
restive geyser
I'm not sure you do
valid nimbus
so u believe u don't need to define which direction x axis, y axis and z axis would be
valid nimbus
ALRIGHT THEN MISTER KNOW IT ALL BELIEVE IT ALL MATHEMATICS SPOKESPERSON
knotty grail
š
valid nimbus
ALRIGHT THEN MISTER KNOW IT ALL BELIEVE IT ALL MATHEMATICS SPOKESPERSON
then is x axis towards ur right hand side?
left leg side?
right nostril facing?
left ear facing?
which side is the x axis facing
I can't decide would u please help me
wary condor
ALRIGHT THEN MISTER KNOW IT ALL BELIEVE IT ALL MATHEMATICS SPOKESPERSON
I'll steal this sentence š¤© btw try not to yell ā¤ļø
valid nimbus
oh oops! Looks like a direction is required
valid nimbus
Let me talk
Alright talk now
restive geyser
First, what should a zero-dimensional object be?
valid nimbus
you define, ur the mathematics spokesperson
restive geyser
That is, an object with no length, height or depth
valid nimbus
okay
restive geyser
You should know what we call such an object
valid nimbus
okay
valid nimbus
That is, an object with no length, height or depth
and 3 dimensional space by definition is something WITH lenght height and width
restive geyser
Just focus for a second
valid nimbus
therefore if a 0 dimensional object, does exist in 3 dimensional space, it does not
valid nimbus
Just focus for a second
Okay
valid nimbus
Focusig
restive geyser
You should know what we call such an object
What do we call this?
full whale
don't even have the patience or courtesy to have a Socratic-style back and forth
valid nimbus
What do we call this?
something that exists in a world ?
full whale
(for the record, you can save your final criticism after the helper has concluded their side. not while they're fucking asking you questions.)
restive geyser
What is the name of an object that has no dimensions, definitionally?
valid nimbus
point?
restive geyser
Correct
Your first question then - do points exist, in any positive-dimensional space?
valid nimbus
yes
restive geyser
Okay
restive geyser
To clarify that a zero-dimensional space doesn't count
Your answer remains unchanged
valid nimbus
okay
so
something like a point
exists in a positive dimension
but WHERE?
how do u show where
restive geyser
So if you accept that it exists, you've already conceded that an object with no dimensions can exist in a space that has dimensions
valid nimbus
So if you accept that it exists, you've already conceded that an object with no ...
erm not yet
restive geyser
This is purely logical reasoning, not empirical reasoning
valid nimbus
alright mister socrates of math
restive geyser
This isn't the same as saying that you know cows exist because you've seen a cow before
full whale
If a point, a 0 dimensional object, exists in a 3 dimensional space
you know
restive geyser
This is closer to understanding that the antithesis (i.e. that points don't exist) is nonsensical
full whale
perhaps you should, you know
fucking listen to the rest of what Waes has to say first?
valid nimbus
okay
valid nimbus
This is closer to understanding that the antithesis (i.e. that points don't exis...
alright
full whale
what's the point of jumping back and forth like that? he's building towards the point
valid nimbus
alright
but
if a point does exist, u have to show where it is (u don't have to do so for an already existing poiint)
you should be able to construct one theoretically/mathematically
and how do u do this in 3d space?
restive geyser
Now - Euclid wrote a book on geometry, The Elements, in which he defined 5 axioms, or postulates - things that are so simple to describe that we don't need to prove that these are true.
valid nimbus
okay
restive geyser
The FIRST one explicitly addresses your problem: that we can "draw a straight line from any point to any point"
That is, if you have two points in a space, we can draw a line through them
valid nimbus
yes
restive geyser
This just exists, you can't not accept this
valid nimbus
if a point does exist, u have to show where it is (u don't have to do so for an ...
again ^ I reply with this
show me the process of constructing the points and line then
if you can, show me the process
restive geyser
if a point does exist, u have to show where it is (u don't have to do so for an ...
you have to show where it is
says who?
valid nimbus
> you have to show where it is
says who?
u have to be able to construct one theoretically
full whale
well might I remind you to not conflate existence with definition?
restive geyser
You're writing this on some screen; it has corners; those corners are points; they exist
valid nimbus
that's what showing where it is is.
valid nimbus
well might I remind you to not conflate **existence** with **definition**?
when definition is literally about existence, then showing/proving existence makes the definition correct
full whale
when definition is literally about existence, then showing/proving existence mak...
definition of existence is not the same as definition of location.
restive geyser
But, you see, NO.
full whale
I mean, that applies to 3D objects too
valid nimbus
To me accepting that points exist in 3 dimensional space
full whale
no, I'm steering the convo here
valid nimbus
okay?
valid nimbus
What is the name of an object that has no dimensions, definitionally?
Just because, an object has no dimensions definitionally
full whale
say, a bag of chips
full whale
ok. suppose I have a bag of chips. how do you define this bag of chips?
valid nimbus
I don't know, you're mathematics spokesperson you tell me
full whale
no, YOU tell me. this is your argument. I'm pointing out how nonsensical it sounds
valid nimbus
no, YOU tell me. this is your argument. I'm pointing out how nonsensical it soun...
I am not, u have a definition that's called maths
and I'm asking how your definition is right
restive geyser
No, you're NOT LISTENING.
valid nimbus
okay
restive geyser
No don't OKAY me.
full whale
ok so I'm going to take that as you saying that the bag exists, but cannot be defined for whatever reason
if that's the case
valid nimbus
ok so I'm going to take that as you saying that the bag exists, but cannot be de...
alright
if u say so
restive geyser
This inherently means you're acknowledging that a definition and an existence are distinct concepts
full whale
can we mathematically define them? technically yes
valid nimbus
if it has length width and breadth
then
it exists in 3 dimensional space
that's what existence is
how about this?
restive geyser
that's what existence is
That's incorrect, for the record
full whale
so you're now operating on the axiom where an object must have length, width, and breadth to exist in 3D space
covert heath
...make this guy study measure theory
valid nimbus
That's incorrect, for the record
OH REALLY? then you must know what existence is
tell me then
valid nimbus
so you're now operating on the axiom where an object must have length, width, an...
yes
full whale
then by your axiom, sure, lower-dimensional objects don't "exist".
onyx glen
valid nimbus
on what existence is
covert heath
what this fuck is this conversation
valid nimbus
what this fuck is this conversation
valid nimbus
This is where the conversation began
and these 2 Corrupted people indulged into this right now
covert heath
š
restive geyser
A cow can exist in a farm; a cow does not need the same properties as the farm for it to exist in the farm
covert heath
also yes just... study measure theory
restive geyser
A cow can exist in a farm; a cow does not need the same properties as the farm f...
In much the same way, a point can exist in a 3D space; a point does not need the same properties to exist in the 3D space
wary condor
if it has length width and breadth
I'd like to think of the 3d plane as somewhere we can express lengths of which have the third dimensions! a three dimensional "point" can only be fully expressed in the 3d plane because it has 3 points that go inwards, upwards and rightwards!!!! maybe 1 dimensional "points" exist in 3d but we dont really need to graph it THERE... but it still can be there yk if you just- plot it with two 0's then it will work š
restive geyser
I'd like to think of the 3d plane as somewhere we can express lengths of which h...
er, slight caveat - in mathematics, a point is definitionally zero-dimensional
valid nimbus
actually
@restive geyser
how about this
I agree THAT a 0 dimensional, point can exist
in 3 dimensional space
okay?
I also give you a point present there
0,0,0 , it's at the centre of itself
now tell me
wary condor
er, slight caveat - in mathematics, a point is definitionally zero-dimensional
yeah, i did put " " to clarify that im talking about plotting a point which the placment of depends on 3 variables.
valid nimbus
how do u construct a line
valid nimbus
how do u construct a line
Which direction would the x, y, z axis lie
?
tell me this now
Forget everything else
restive geyser
You're leaping in logic, so ironically it's you who needs to forget some stuff right this moment
We just need another point, to define a line
Forget labelling directions
full whale
I mean, your insistence on needing direction to define a line is laughable.
valid nimbus
You're leaping in logic, so ironically it's you who needs to forget some stuff r...
u dont tell me anything like this now, I give u what u ask for, u give me what I ask for
restive geyser
u dont tell me anything like this now, I give u what u ask for, u give me what I...
We're not your children.
valid nimbus
alright
covert heath
just what
restive geyser
If I take a two points, just generally, do you understand how you can connect a line between them?
covert heath
how does a zero dimensional object have a centre
restive geyser
If not, there is a fundamental flaw in your understanding in what you're talking about
valid nimbus
If I take a two points, just generally, do you understand how you can connect a ...
uhh I don't know? u draw with a chalk?
restive geyser
The point being, you can
Congratulations, you have constructed a line
Did you at ANY POINT need to define a direction?
full whale
given two points, you can construct a line by considering the set of all points equidistant from both lines
full whale
and nobody gives a flying fuck as to what direction it is in
valid nimbus
all of u stop talking for 2 minutes
full whale
no thank you
covert heath
all of u stop talking for 2 minutes
good idea
full whale
because I have another point to make
covert heath
@restive geyser ?
full whale
if you keep insisting that you need direction to define the existence of something
valid nimbus
I'll tell u why u need direction
full whale
then try saying that a mountain doesn't exist because you can't define it with coordinates
valid nimbus
then u talk this
valid nimbus
given two points, you can construct a line by considering the set of all points ...
I gave u two points
0,0,0
And 5,0,0
alright?
we're at 0,0,0
now we wanna to towards 5,0,0
but here's the problem
to move in the x axis
restive geyser
Okay, we'll suppose that coordinate geometry is required to define two points, sure
valid nimbus
we need to know like where the fuck is it towards
full whale
we need to know like where the fuck is it towards
and therein lies your problem
you can stop talking now
full whale
because when we declare a basis for a space
restive geyser
-# Let Tairi cook
full whale
we don't really give a fuck as to where the axes are pointing
covert heath
@valid nimbus what grade are you in?
maiden vapor
valid nimbus
<@1396468020276367520> what grade are you in?
grade 9
covert heath
i dont believe you.
full whale
all we need to know is
covert heath
but okay
full whale
thus, the distance between the two points is 5, in the direction of the x-axis, whatever direction that may be
also, if you insist on there being an absolute direction
let me remind you that the universe has no preferred frame of reference
so that idea can go get punked
valid nimbus
and the other is at (5, 0, 0)
just for uh my sake? if I started at 0,0,0 which side (with relation to my body), should I move
to get to 5,0,0
ye?
can u tell me this
Or u can't
full whale
that depends on where your x-axis is pointing
valid nimbus
but
full whale
specifically, where your positive x-axis is pointing
again, I warn you that there is no such thing as absolute direction
if you want to but me, make sure you are coming at a different angle than insisting on absolute direction
valid nimbus
but
someone already gave me two co ordinates that I'm at 0,0,0 and the point 2 that I gotta go is at 5,0,0
and I don't really think I can define my own x axis wherever it should be in this case
if I define it as my right hand side
full whale
then it's your skill issue
valid nimbus
I may not reach the person who gave me
full whale
end of story
valid nimbus
then it's your skill issue
I see
how would a particle
define this then?
it doesn't have a brain
which side would it's x axis be?
I can do my right hand side
but for it
full whale
well, particles don't exist in math, do they
valid nimbus
what's the basis of defining the direction
full whale
and once again
valid nimbus
well, particles don't exist in math, do they
they do, particles as 3 dimensional objects that's it
full whale
absolute direction is immaterial
valid nimbus
what
full whale
they do, particles as 3 dimensional objects that's it
thanks for bringing physics into the question
then you justify me bringing relativity in too
valid nimbus
**absolute direction is immaterial**
What are u talking about?
I already gave u a frame of reference
being your particle/you in that case
full whale
I already gave u a frame of reference
you gave me nothing
full whale
you gave me a goddamn particle without basis vectors
valid nimbus
frame of refernce to this
maiden vapor
If everyone (or every system) agrees on the same rules, then movement works, maths works, physics works etc.
valid nimbus
you gave me a goddamn particle without basis vectors
1,0,0
0,1,0
0,0,1
basis vectors
full whale
then your particle needs to move 5 units in the positive x-direction. nuff said. doesn't matter if the positive x-direction is to the right, upwards, or into your face
leaden ermine
If everyone (or every system) agrees on the same rules, then movement works, mat...
oh my blud 
valid nimbus
then your particle needs to move 5 units in the positive x-direction. nuff said....
well
what exactly is x direction
valid nimbus
right side? left side? Front? Back? Top? Bottom
valid nimbus
you tell me. it's your particle
no
it's not my particle
we're talking about an unbiased particle here
in this thought experiment
wary condor
right side? left side? Front? Back? Top? Bottom
didnt she just address this š„ŗ ?
valid nimbus
right side? left side? Front? Back? Top? Bottom
u tell me which direction it should move
full whale
didnt she just address this š„ŗ ?
I mean I have.
maiden vapor
This is just going in circleā¦
valid nimbus
the particle it has to reach could/would be at another
full whale
but this guy doesn't wish to accept the fact that he's conflating relative direction with absolute direction
dude, let's make it this way
wary condor
This is just going in circleā¦
circles*
maiden vapor
valid nimbus
but this guy doesn't wish to accept the fact that he's conflating **relative dir...
DO YOU HAVE A relative direction atleast?
give me the relative direction
with respect to the particle a
okay?
full whale
then tell me which direction is positive x relative to the particle.
valid nimbus
Front bottom left right?
full whale
remember, you defined this space.
valid nimbus
then tell me which direction is positive x relative to the particle.
why should I
restive geyser
If you really wanted a direction, we can explicitly define "the direction that goes from the first point to the second point"
valid nimbus
I gave u 5,0,0 and basis vectors
restive geyser
Because, as mentioned before, the line between two points definitionally exists
valid nimbus
all u need for a perfect, 3d graph
full whale
I gave u 5,0,0 and basis vectors
and I gave you the direction according to the basis vectors
you are asking for front, left, right, etc.
that is NOT a thing according to the basis vectors
because you never defined the direction of the basis vectors in the first place
see how dumb this argument sounds? never conflate relative direction with absolute direction
valid nimbus
well
let's see this
if I have to define direction of the basis vectors
id need to Contrsuct a line, technically
technically okay?
but then
to get that line
we need another point of reference
to get that point of reference matching with the correct x, y, z direction
we need another line to be constructed technically
as the direction
So EVEN IF I want to
give u the direction
I cannot
that shows
Impossibleness
mathematics becomes delusional
@full whale type shi now
full whale
so, you once again managed to conflate existence with definition of location
valid nimbus
LMAOOOO
full whale
so you wanna define a direction
fine
pick any two points in the space
or rather, first pick one point
fix that point
full whale
then pick a second point
valid nimbus
5,0,0
full whale
now, travelling in the direction from the first point to the second point
that is positive x
because we defined it to be so
valid nimbus
left right front bottom?
full whale
doesn't matter
valid nimbus
doesn't matter
DOESN'T?
full whale
as long as you are moving from the first to the second point
valid nimbus
listen up
full whale
you are travelling in positive x
valid nimbus
if I need to go to particle b
valid nimbus
Do you happen to have a physical map on you?
yea in my mind
better than whatever maths does
valid nimbus
if I need to go to particle b
Then
restive geyser
yea in my mind
...What part of "physical" did you fail to read?
valid nimbus
would I need to move left or right or front or back
full whale
would I need to move left or right or front or back
again
full whale
DO NOT CONFLATE RELATIVE DIRECTION WITH ABSOLUTE DIRECTION
restive geyser
It DOES MATTER
valid nimbus
**DO NOT CONFLATE RELATIVE DIRECTION WITH ABSOLUTE DIRECTION**
what are u even saying here mate
I'm not taking any absolute direction here
restive geyser
That's the problem ffs
valid nimbus
front bottom top left is with respect to my particle aka me
full whale
left, right, front, back are exactly relative terms
valid nimbus
yes
full whale
front bottom top left is with respect to my particle aka me
with respect to
valid nimbus
Answer me in relative terms
full whale
that's fucking relative!
full whale
I don't give a fuck about relative directions
valid nimbus
are u incapable of answering me
valid nimbus
I don't give a fuck about relative directions
I see
then how does the particle navigate?
does it magically teleport
full whale
we define directions in absolute terms
restive geyser
are u incapable of answering me
you're incapable of reading what she's saying; any more clearly and she might as well be sending you glass, she's being that transparent with you
full whale
here's the fun part
because we defined positive x to be the direction travelling from A to B
valid nimbus
we define directions in **absolute terms**
and
full whale
then just fucking travel along whichever direction that is
nobody cares if it's front, back, up, down, left, right, or at some weird angle
it's a definition
valid nimbus
then just fucking travel along whichever direction that is
how is the particle supposed to know which ever direction x is
?
restive geyser
how is the particle supposed to know which ever direction x is
If you're still having trouble trying to understand this concept:
Pick up a map, or open a map in whatever device you're reading this, and find North
Now rotate this map
full whale
how is the particle supposed to know which ever direction x is
can A see B? yes? then fucking travel in that direction
valid nimbus
can A see B? yes? then fucking travel in that direction
no
a cannot see b
how about now
full whale
because you're speaking as if the particle has a mind of its own
valid nimbus
a cannot see b
.
valid nimbus
how about now
.
valid nimbus
so a should be able to see b?
full whale
you are doing so
you were the one that kept asking questions like "how does the particle know..." for your information
full whale
so a should be able to see b?
if A can't see B, then how does A define positive x?
valid nimbus
if A can't see B, then how does A define positive x?
it defines via right hand side or left hand side or right leg side or whatever
like that
full whale
it defines via right hand side or left hand side or right leg side or whatever
that's relative direction
restive geyser
https://discord.com/channels/268882317391429632/903486480985489478/1452639681207...
Which was in response to you saying, and I quote:
how is the particle supposed to know which ever direction x is
that is, you're the one bringing up particles having sentience
valid nimbus
uh huh
full whale
if you are defining via relative direction there is nothing to talk about here
valid nimbus
Which was in response to you saying, and I quote:
> how is the particle suppose...
I'm asking the same thing
full whale
I am not going to continue any argument if you keep bringing in relative direction
valid nimbus
if you are defining via relative direction there is nothing to talk about here
so u are incapable
of doing so in relative direction
restive geyser
However, you can define an absolute direction; the key being you've explicitly defined it, simply because that second point exists
valid nimbus
okay mister
if this absolute direction is called x
I have a thought experiment for u
I call another direction called y
prove me how this x direction is different from y
restive geyser
You "calling" another direction is in and of itself a definition.
valid nimbus
oops! looks like u just said something that cannot be interpreted
valid nimbus
You "calling" another direction is **in and of itself** a definition.
no no
restive geyser
Yes, yes.
restive geyser
Because you're CALLING it something
restive geyser
if it were in the same direction, then it couldn't be labelled y
valid nimbus
I need to break this superposition
and find if it's in the direction of x
or if it is not
u tell me
how do I?
restive geyser
"need" to?
covert heath
@valid nimbus just stop thinking youre really smart (i know that sounds rude but seriously get humility) and.... pick up a goddamn book.
valid nimbus
"need" to?
yeah I have a fetish towards this
full whale
so you have the basis vector for the x direction
valid nimbus
so explain me this
covert heath
scientists and mathematicians are not stupid and we know our shit.
you can learn.
or you can pretend to be intellectual and go down the crank route
valid nimbus
all I'm doing is
full whale
if the basis vector for the y direction is not linearly dependent on the basis vector for the x direction, then you have a distinct direction y
full whale
that's it
covert heath
okay mate
pallid hedge
š 2 hour thread
covert heath
lets just do that
valid nimbus
no not exactly super position
valid nimbus
I have a direction y
and find if it's in the direction of x
or if it is not
do this
that's it
alright?
how would u do this
That's my question
knotty grail
What is a superposition.
i think he means superstition..
valid nimbus
yeah
valid nimbus
do this
.
If u cannot do that
accept that u don't know what x direction is
because if u do know what x direction means
wild sleet
valid nimbus
then u should tell me if y direction is in x direction or not
maiden vapor
syh your head
covert heath
or you can pretend to be intellectual and go down the crank route
i feel like it might be too late
restive geyser
You DEFINE a y-direction going in a direction that is not-the-x-direction
valid nimbus
and find if it's in the direction of x
or if it is not
@covert heath I thought u were doing something here called finding this
valid nimbus
You DEFINE a y-direction going in a direction that is not-the-x-direction
I don't define one
restive geyser
If it DOES go in the x-direction, then you haven't defined a new direction
valid nimbus
I'm the exam paper
restive geyser
!xy.
full forumBOT
Please show the original problem, exactly as it was stated to you, with the entire original context. A picture or screenshot is best. If the original problem is not in English, then post it anyway! The additional context might still be helpful. Do your best to provide a translation.
covert heath
blud has that jee brainrot
valid nimbus
Please show the original problem, **exactly as it was stated to you**, with the ...
I myself am the exam paper
I state it
exactly as I want to
covert heath
didnt know exam papers rage bait as cranks on the internet.
wary condor
and find if it's in the direction of x
or if it is not
we did name a certain gas oxygen. prove to me oxygen and nitrogen are not the same gas.
restive geyser
Bhai, with respect, you're in grade 9; you've no idea how to formulate a test question.
covert heath
i mean maybe he does
restive geyser
(ffs why am I calling him bhai, I'm older than him)
restive geyser
(it's slightly age-specific in Bangla, that's all)
covert heath
ah
restive geyser
Tho ig "chuto bhai" [young bro]... yh fair enough actually
covert heath
bangla sounds like a parody sometimes
wary condor
if we defined every proton that has 1 electron roaming around it as helium... then we can give everything that is not helium another fair and square name!!!!
HELIUM
OH MY GO
covert heath
well
proton
i dont get this guy's thing with a direction
lets just say a direction is a unit vector
do you know what vectors are?
wary condor
i dont get this guy's thing with a direction
I dont get his definition of a definition
valid nimbus
" You have an absolute direction x, you are given an absolute direction y such that, y is the direction of y axis in the situation of a particle going towards particle b where particle a is at 0,0,0 and particle b is 5,0,0.
X direction directly co relates with being x axis's direction, and y co relates with being y axis's direction.
prove if y is in the direction of x or not"
@covert heath
knotty grail
no wait
restive geyser
But you see, you've already written coordinates, which means you've accepted a priori that there IS an x-, a y- and a z-direction
covert heath
do you know a priori is
valid nimbus
ok
restive geyser
I think that's the main gripe you're having
valid nimbus
I think I have a better take here
valid nimbus
**do you know a priori is**
how about this
You told me
we don't need a relative direction
why is that?
is it because u can't find a relative direction
covert heath
i said what
valid nimbus
For me, you need a relative direction cause we need to know where exactly we're going
knotty grail
yeah and thats the x and y coordinates you're talking about here
valid nimbus
yeah and thats the x and y coordinates you're talking about here
if x and y co ordinates
covert heath
wow tairi got replied to
valid nimbus
do exist
in 3 dimensional space
then there should be a relative direction possible
knotty grail
sure..
valid nimbus
then there should be a relative direction possible
because
covert heath
<@1396468020276367520> just stop thinking youre really smart (i know that sounds...
i repeat
covert heath
**do you know what vectors are?**
learn about vectors, to begin with
valid nimbus
that would be a relative direction
Front back or left or right
or whatever
it would move in one of those
that's why you should have a relative direction for x axis
and y qxis
valid nimbus
it would move in one of those
It's not like it wouldn't move in any of thoae
valid nimbus
my point is
to find the relative direction
and
I believe you can't
and I believe if u can't, it's not applicable at all
if the particle has to move to x axis
then it has to move in any one of the relative directions
but if u just say no relative direction
then it moving to x axis
would be senseless
and x axis direction wouldn't mean anything
covert heath
<@&268886789983436800> someone tell us what to do here
valid nimbus
and I believe co ordinate system fails in 3 dimensional space
all I'm asking for u people is
to show me the relative direction
and/or tell me
why relative direction is not required
or it's impossible to find
and/or tell me if it's impossible to find
why is x axis direction an actual direction
knotty grail
uh aren't those just vectors
covert heath
hi hayley
covert heath
uh aren't those just vectors
well he wont answer us about where he knows what vectors are
valid nimbus
all I'm asking for u people is
I don't need to I asked u something, starting from here
Reply me those, ty
Don't reply me anything else, if u could.
spiral vigil
it seems to me that this thread would benefit from more thoughtful, self-contained, clear discussion.
when you write
like this in multiple messages
it makes it very hard
to tell when you're finished
making your point
I think you should take some time to consolidate your question and clearly ask it in one message, because it seems like despite two hours of back and forth neither one of you has managed to understand the other more effectively.
knotty grail
hope this is the final stretch
valid nimbus
So, The idea started with me questioning why the construction of 1d/2d objects is possible in 3d objects.
About 12 hours ago, I got an answer that you take 2 positions, and subtract q-p to go to p from q or something like that, vice versa.
So with basis vectors situated at 1,0,0 and 0,1,0 and 0,0,1 I thought of this.
If p was 5,0,0 and q was 0,0,0 we're at q, we subtract 5,0,0 - 0,0,0 to get 5,0,0 .
That works out and we need to move 5 units in x axis.
But something really troubled me here, because I imagined an actual particle/ball/object in 3 dimensional space, and to me, it seemed that, with an omnidirectional perspective of it, there's like infinite directions for it to move.
Sure, it has to move in the x axis direction, but what exactly is the x axis direction?
and even if I, the creator, the destroyer, wanted to give it a direction.
For me to specify that direction, which, indirectly means I need to construct a line for the direction theoretically,
I need to know another x axis direction for me to construct the line, do u see where this is going? for construction of a line, I need to know the x axis direction, which I can give by constructing a line in any arbitrary direction.
But do u see that I need to do the same, infinitely more times back and forth?
This is where I stood my argument on, but then some people really troubled me by just saying "u don't need to know the relative direction, u need to know the absolute direction which is x direction"
I really didn't like this approach of not wanting something with no explanation whatsoever, that is why, I argue upon a few more things now.
Now, I argue that, "x direction" would technically be any one of those relative directions, it can be front or back, or left or right, but it would be any one of those, by logics. since if the particle/object moves, it has to move in any one of those.
Now I'm asking you to tell me which one of those is it, and if you say none of those or you can't, then how is
x direction an actual direction at all.
valid nimbus
So, The idea started with me questioning why the construction of 1d/2d objects i...
And one more thing here, the requirement to visualize an actual object is there because, 3 dimensional space is not empty space is it? it requires objects to make it 3 dimensional
I hope I get no more disturbing arguments that did not understand what I'm talking about now, and actually clear, logical arguments.
Thank you.
austere cove
In 2 dimensional space it is also possible to specify an infinite number of directions to go. We call this value an "angle" and it can take any of the uncountably infinite values from 0 to 2pi
covert heath
hi omnipotent
austere cove
hi 
covert heath
And one more thing here, the requirement to visualize an actual object is there ...
space is 100% just space
as in, empty fucking space
valid nimbus
that's not 3 dimensional
covert heath
what?
austere cove
I hope I get no more disturbing arguments that did not understand what I'm talki...
So I guess, based on the above, that I don't understand your objection about the difference between 2d and 3d space, if it's based on the fact that you can specify infinite directions.
covert heath
3 dimensional space is not 3 dimensional?
split hatch
If you're uncomfortable with picking a direction for the ball to move in, why are you comfortable with picking a origin (0, 0, 0) to place the ball at?
valid nimbus
So I guess, based on the above, that I don't understand your objection about the...
perhaps more on the fact to define which of those directions should I go
valid nimbus
If you're uncomfortable with picking a direction for the ball to move in, why ar...
because I can do that
but for picking a direction, I literally can't
valid nimbus
3 dimensional space is not 3 dimensional?
yes, no space is any dimensional unless an object of dimension comes in
split hatch
Why can you do that? There are as many points in R^3 that you could arbitrarily declare to be the origin as there are "directions" you can move in
They are both 2^(aleph_0)
covert heath
yes, no space is any dimensional unless an object of dimension comes in
...if you say so, i guess??
austere cove
I am as clear as daylight
Communication is a 2 way street, you may think you are being clear, but we are all operating in good faith here, and we collectively do not understand your position. We ask your patience while we attempt to determine what it is you actually mean.
austere cove
yes, no space is any dimensional unless an object of dimension comes in
This is not what dimension means
valid nimbus
Why can you do that? There are as many points in R^3 that you could arbitrarily ...
but, how would define a position for that direction as a line?
covert heath
I am as clear as daylight
also unrelated but
valid nimbus
how would u construct the line
covert heath
light isnt 'clear'
that isnt what clear means
you dont know clear means
that should be a sign
valid nimbus
**you dont know clear means**
u dont know what clear means then, even the dimmest of cosmic background radiation could be considered clear
we humans have made clear for our purposes
as to the understanding/ visibility or more interpretations of it
valid nimbus
This is not what dimension means
well
austere cove
I don't understand what light has to do with space, are we talking about abstract mathematical spaces? If so, why talk about light at all?
valid nimbus
This is not what dimension means
what exactly is dimension then?
if u have a 2 dimensional object in 3 dimensional space and no 3 dimensional object
then nothing would seem 3 dimensional at all
even though the space u considered was 3 dimensional
shouldn't space not be considered in dimensions?
austere cove
what exactly is dimension then?
Well, so math can get extremely abstract, especially when talking about spaces, but typically when talking about n-dimensional euclidean spaces, the n is the fewest number of vectors required to specify any point in the space uniquely.
valid nimbus
I see
austere cove
in other words, if I have a 4 dimensional space, then I can create a set of 4 vectors, such that any point in that space can be referenced uniquely by a linear combination of those vectors.
valid nimbus
Well, so math can get extremely abstract, especially when talking about spaces, ...
I don't understand something here
why do u need more than 2 vectors
austere cove
We write this as a e_1 + b e_2 + c e_3 + d e_4, where my e_i are my vectors
valid nimbus
to describe a position/ anything of 2 dimensional objects
covert heath
why do u need more than 2 vectors
you dont need for 2d space
valid nimbus
Even thoin 3 dimensional space
covert heath
you do for >2d space
austere cove
or alternatively as (a, b, c, d) if the e_i are previously specified.
valid nimbus
Even thoin 3 dimensional space
if there's only 2 dimensional objects
like why can't I just say x, y
what's the need of z?
if it's truly a 2 dimensional object
austere cove
so imagine a circle in a 3d space
valid nimbus
z is always gonna be 0
austere cove
this circle has a center
austere cove
the location of this center can be any (a, b, c)
covert heath
it doesnt matter even if your 2d shape is fully inside the xy, yz, or xz place
its still in 3d space
austere cove
after all you must be able to distinguish between circles at (0, 0, 1) and circles at (0, 0, 20)
valid nimbus
the location of this center can be any (a, b, c)
but why is c involved? I mean.. if the objects are truly 2 dimensional in one single plane widthless
covert heath
you can simplify down to 2d space if your problem doesnt require the extra dimension ever
valid nimbus
c is always gonna be 0 or useless
covert heath
but thats.. not related?
valid nimbus
Yes, but there are many planes in 3d space.
yes but if we have only one plane of 2 dimensional objects only
then c is not required
and to have more planes
would mean we did not take a truly 2d object
austere cove
which plane is the priviledged one?
covert heath
sure it is
covert heath
unless you define basis vectors to be in that plane
valid nimbus
other than empty space I guess
austere cove
you're asserting that in euclidean space that there is one special plane for which you get a copy of the 2d plane, but that's not true
any plane in 3d space is equivalent to any other
there is no special plane
valid nimbus
but
austere cove
you can designate a plane as special
valid nimbus
if we take different planes
then the objects that we took
wouldn't be 2 dimensional
we need to take only one plane
austere cove
why not?
valid nimbus
and fit all the 2d objects on it
austere cove
have you ever read flatland?
valid nimbus
in one 2d plane all the 2d objects should come
valid nimbus
have you ever read flatland?
nope
austere cove
I suggest maybe reading flatland
valid nimbus
in one 2d plane all the 2d objects should come
if there's another plane
we can technically consider them both to have a width
austere cove
it might help you understand how 2d and 3d interacts, and also teach you a bit about higher dimensional spaces as well
valid nimbus
hmm
I still don't get something here
how can u construct
a line
in 3d space
if u have 0,0,0 and u wanna construct a line between 5,0,0 and your 0,0,0
which direction is the 5,0,0 towards?
left? Right? top? Back?
austere cove
so here's a method
covert heath
back to this again
valid nimbus
yeah
austere cove
let's say you have two points, x and y, these are represented as triples of numbers
valid nimbus
alright
austere cove
the direction from x to y is represented as y-x
valid nimbus
yes
austere cove
so if x = (a, b, c) and y = (d, e, f) the y - x = (d-a, e-b, f-c)
austere cove
We can define a line as all of the points x + t(y-x), where t is a real number and allowed to vary from -infinity to infinity
we can see if we take t = 0 then we get back x and if t = 1 we get back y
valid nimbus
We can define a line as all of the points x + t(y-x), where t is a real number a...
but that's an absolute direction, I mean.. u don't really tell the object to go left/right/front/up etc..
and, if u already have 2 destined points created, the object at point one wouldn't know if you already situated point 2 at 5 units in front of it
austere cove
any other value of t is somewhere else on the line
valid nimbus
why do you ignore relative directions
austere cove
but that's an absolute direction, I mean.. u don't really tell the object to go ...
these ideas "left/right/front/up etc" are ideas that we use to qualitatively define spaces in real life. But they don't have mathematical definitions
you need to define them for them to make sense
valid nimbus
these ideas "left/right/front/up etc" are ideas that we use to qualitatively def...
they do I can define u it right now
If you construct a line
austere cove
I could say "left is something with a lower x value than my current x value" (assuming I am also in the space)
valid nimbus
If you construct a line
in a direction x (technically any ray from our object is a direction)
then it would be direction x, front right or back or left
a direction like that
valid nimbus
I could say "left is something with a lower x value than my current x value" (as...
well, I know front, right, left or back are very vague
austere cove
why do you ignore relative directions
because relative directions must be relative to something. But we need to define what that something is, and you haven't yet done this
valid nimbus
because relative directions must be relative to something. But we need to defin...
but
that something
is our object
our object that we're travelling of/in
I want u to give me direction based on that
we're the frame of reference here, relative to us
austere cove
but this is also the object that you're attempting to define the location of using those relative directions?
austere cove
you can see the problem now, you're attempting to define relative directions using the object, and then you're attempting to define the location of the object using those relative directions.
valid nimbus
sorry but
if we have a third frame of reference
looking at object a
and conveying object a to be 0,0,0
wouldn't the third frame of reference be able to give it a direction that's relativistic
While not compromising on the location
austere cove
we're talking about euclidean spaces no?
austere cove
ok, just checking
so if we convey a point to be 0, 0, 0 this is still not enough information to fully define our coordinate system for a space
valid nimbus
right but, now isn't it possible to get the direction (using a line) and then position as well (without compromise)
austere cove
as you rightly point out
in order to define a space we need to define an origin and 3 independent directions.
(for 3d space)
valid nimbus
in order to define a space we need to define an origin and 3 independent directi...
Wouldn't the third person be able to do this without any problems?
if they situate object a at 0,0,0
austere cove
anyone can define an origin and 3 independent directions.
in fact, you can have multiple definitions for the space, and then convert between them, and any set is no better than any other set.
valid nimbus
anyone can define an origin and 3 independent directions.
Well I don't get what's the problem here for u to not tell me a relative direction, with relation to the third frame of reference
for example, object a's forward could be our object 3 (frame of reference btw) 's right or left
like that
why can't we make it a relative direction now?
austere cove
sure, but you still haven't defined "left" or "right"
covert heath
there isnt such a thing as forward
austere cove
if I have an origin and 3 vectors, what is "left"? what is "forward"?
valid nimbus
Hmm
austere cove
we can say "left is somewhat positive in the z direction and somewhat negative in the x direction from my current location and heading"
but that's something you have to explicitly say
valid nimbus
we can say "left is somewhat positive in the z direction and somewhat negative i...
that's vague isn't it
hmmm
covert heath
thats definitely categorically not vague
restive geyser
but that's something you have to explicitly say
And this, which is what something like 6 people have been trying to explain to you, is what a definition is.
austere cove
and then you find out it's vague, and now you have to refine it, and explicitly say when something is or is not left.
valid nimbus
I have
covert heath
sigh
austere cove
for instance, maybe we refine it and say that the region enclosed in a roughly spherical shaped blob (which we define explicitly) is "left" and anything outside of that region is not "left"
valid nimbus
Yet another idea now
austere cove
but that's something you actually need to do
and once you do that, it's no longer vague
oh crap, I just looked at the time, I need to prep for a lecture I'm giving in 15 minutes.
Sorry @covert heath @restive geyser I'll leave this back with you
(alternatively, I will be back in about an hour and 15 minutes, and I'll be happy to talk then)
valid nimbus
but that's something you actually need to do
What if, we categorize it like this; imagine a cube that forms with object a and object b (we're watching from object c)
An imaginary cube okay?
now object c, has determined object a to be 0,0,0 co ordinates alright?
and object b to be 5,0,0 co ordinates.
The cube would be formed linear to 5,0,0 everywhere ( if we construct a line to the 5,0,0 and then another line to -5, 0,0 and then 0,5,0 and then 0,-5, 0 and we have a perfect cube region now. We could make the direction not vague by first, making equations of rays / line segments to all the points of the cube's surface area from the center
then
we can define x axis, y axis and z axis, with relative direction
proud dirge
This is still going 
valid nimbus
we can define x axis, y axis and z axis, with relative direction
X axis is a 1 dimensional plane towards the object b or against the direction of object b horizontally
covert heath
What if, we categorize it like this; imagine a cube that forms with object a and...
this is pure word salad.
valid nimbus
y axis is a 1 dimensional plane that's distance will never change from the object b
it goes vertically
and z likewise
but right now we have
equations for every direction
from 0,0,0 co ordinates of object a
and one of these equations leads to object b
Therefore
I propose that we can have relative directions for x, y, z as well in 3d space, rigorously defined
valid nimbus
and one of these equations leads to object b
now, it's not always gonna be the same
Even though there's only 2 points
valid nimbus
guys if you look at here
object c, who is the frame of reference
is outside of this
Currently looking at it
It says, the red dot is at 0,0,0
and the cube around it
is having uh 10 units as side length
valid nimbus
Now it can bring object B at any point
and object b would always be
5 units
away from the object A
and
guys if u look at here
just consider the blue lines as all possible lines / distances from the points on the surface to the centre
consider them equations okay?
valid nimbus
Now, if object c places the object b at any one of these points for example
we have
a white dot, that's object c
but only one equation
that blue line's equation is the relative direction we're looking for
KEEP in mind
that this direction varies
maiden vapor
AAH THERE IS A SPIDER IN MY CUBE
valid nimbus
valid nimbus
if u see here
object c changed object b's position
and we didn't get the same equation
which symbolizes that we have different directions other than an absolute "x" direction for x axis that we should go when it's 5,0,0
valid nimbus
if u see this
covert heath
im seeing too much
valid nimbus
this removes our problem
that, both of these situations can have 5,0,0
all we needed
was a third object's reference where the third object is situated still
twin wolf
hello
valid nimbus
and an imaginary cube (not so required, just for understanding purposes)
to get the relative direction, without compromising on anything
so, what is your opinion
knotty grail
only thing you can do is to define the relative direction to be along the line joining them and move on
valid nimbus
no no
knotty grail
sometimes it does no good to try to bring the relative direction in a real world notion of up down left right
valid nimbus
a relative direction for the x, y, z axis
not just the path
to point a to point b/ object a to b
knotty grail
a relative direction for the x, y, z axis
so you want to define the x, y and z axes in terms of these two points on the 3d space
valid nimbus
yes
valid nimbus
as you can see the cube here, we define it like that, and if u place this object b at any point inside/outside/on/in that cube
we have a relative direction for everything and navigation is possible
knotty grail
you can pretty much keep any direction as your x, y and z axes as long as they can define any point on the space with a combination of the three
valid nimbus
even when object a doesn't know object b's position by sight
and sees empty space
and a co ordinate in his paper
valid nimbus
you can pretty much keep any direction as your x, y and z axes as long as they c...
yeah
twin wolf
is this a tesseract?
twin wolf
hm
valid nimbus
you can pretty much keep any direction as your x, y and z axes as long as they c...
but hey
The idea before me that came from math side
didn't tell about this relative direction
they just said x or y or z direction (if it's 5,0,0 or 0,5,0 or 0,0,5)
queen flame
it's called imagination
valid nimbus
but they didn't give a way for our object a to understand the relative direction
but I did
olive saffron
what is occurring here
covert heath
hi ratgirl!
knotty grail
they just said x or y or z direction (if it's 5,0,0 or 0,5,0 or 0,0,5)
in general we define the coordinate system first and then place the objects
queen flame
what is occurring here
we trying to figure out
knotty grail
on the other hand you are trying to place the objects and then define the coordinate system
valid nimbus
what is occurring here
So, The idea started with me questioning why the construction of 1d/2d objects is possible in 3d objects.
About 12 hours ago, I got an answer that you take 2 positions, and subtract q-p to go to p from q or something like that, vice versa.
So with basis vectors situated at 1,0,0 and 0,1,0 and 0,0,1 I thought of this.
If p was 5,0,0 and q was 0,0,0 we're at q, we subtract 5,0,0 - 0,0,0 to get 5,0,0 .
That works out and we need to move 5 units in x axis.
But something really troubled me here, because I imagined an actual particle/ball/object in 3 dimensional space, and to me, it seemed that, with an omnidirectional perspective of it, there's like infinite directions for it to move.
Sure, it has to move in the x axis direction, but what exactly is the x axis direction?
and even if I, the creator, the destroyer, wanted to give it a direction.
For me to specify that direction, which, indirectly means I need to construct a line for the direction theoretically,
I need to know another x axis direction for me to construct the line, do u see where this is going? for construction of a line, I need to know the x axis direction, which I can give by constructing a line in any arbitrary direction.
But do u see that I need to do the same, infinitely more times back and forth?
This is where I stood my argument on, but then some people really troubled me by just saying "u don't need to know the relative direction, u need to know the absolute direction which is x direction"
I really didn't like this approach of not wanting something with no explanation whatsoever, that is why, I argue upon a few more things now.
Now, I argue that, "x direction" would technically be any one of those relative directions, it can be front or back, or left or right, but it would be any one of those, by logics. since if the particle/object moves, it has to move in any one of those.
Now I'm asking you to tell me which one of those is it, and if you say none of those or you can't, then how
olive saffron
dios mio
knotty grail
nahhhh
valid nimbus
Is x direction an actual direction at all.
okay yea u should read this
to get into the conversation
wary condor
what is occurring here
more hepfuls (more recent) trying to convince him that his arguments are flawed. (its been hours.)