By having both sides with the maximum possible length
And how do you measure lenght? with the metro, the numbers.
So you belive that first we got the metro, or the axiom defined the metro or simply calculus?
They first draw 2 lines to locate the middle point, and hence the metro was defined.
Now we only need only line, asn sicen we got the metro we measure the line cut it in half, adn there is no need for the second, but now this occurs. At start we needed 2 lines to define it, now is another matter, and hence how axioms define universal truths and how the axiomatic system gave birth to the calculus.
To find the middle point of a circle, you can do it with any number of lines, not just 2
Ofc mate, but not with only one, unless you got the 2 and define the metron. 2 is the base, this is exactly what am saying, the additional ones are not needed, we only need 2, no less, no more.
The meaning of the word axiom in English.
Axiom is not English, and also, what am i confusing?
In mathematical numeral systems, the base or radix is usually the number of various unique digits, including zero, that a positional numeral system uses to represent numbers. For example, the decimal system, the most common system in use today, uses base ten, hence the maximum number a single digit will ever reach is 9, after which it is necessary to add another digit to achieve a higher number.
But this is exactly what i am saying, either from 1 to 10 or from 0 to 9, the unique amount of numbers is 10, so its doesnt matter. The unique amount of numbers.
The amount of numbers that are unique, not repeated.
In the radix, the unique amount of numbers is 10 numbers that reach to 9, but they are 10.
The unique amount of numbers you need to reach to the unique 10 is 4 and the unique amount of numebrs you need to reach to the unique 4 is 2.
I am repeating myself Andres, please do not make me repeat myself again.
Say with one word, where do you disagree, what is your thesis?
By redefining what i say, and also go that far to call false something that i said and you gave me what i said back to tell that what you say is correct instead of what i say when ive already said it, like yesterday, you gave the link i gave you back, and you said false, here, you gave me back what i told you the Radix and you said false again?
Are you ok Andres?
If not tell me, do not try to redefine me, and hence prove to me my proof. Say it where do you disagree?
Purpose? gain? Isn't all science and philosophy concerned only with establishing the truth? If it causes a problem for calculus, then so be it. That's a problem with calculus, not with the truth. You just can't go making stuff up in order to keep calculus alive (if you say there is a problem with it)
The calculus at least tries, you redefinition, does not even try to measure, itsends back to the dinosaurs.
What you say, is correct, and everyone agrees with this, but we know that, we understand that, and do what we can do best, measure, you say stop meauring, ok and do what, then?
Propose another method, and ill be the first to take it.
You think that he or you discovered soemthing, nope you didnt, this is well known for centuries now, as humans we use the calculus, we define a particle, an atom, to dewfine an atom we use 2 lines that interect in order to find the core aqnd define the particle. You disagree wit this method because it reaches to infinity and hence its inability to explain the Holon, the whole, have you ever wondered that oits not the fault of the numbers, its because it is infinity, and it cannot be measured? Numbers prove this, also the parabole proves this, it extends to infinity. Because the telos is apeiron, because the universe is apeiron, not because the method is incorrect, because thats how it is. And thus we know how it is, apeiron it is. On our way to the apeiron, we discover the laws that govern this apeiron, without trying to reach to the apeiron we discover nothing.
And thus what is the bloody purpose?
What you say, every single religion agrees with, every single physician agrees with, every single human agrees with.
And hence we define a particle and start the measurement, tou say not, ok, then what?
And if you read my articles you will see that "after conducting very serious thought" i said, instead of trying to find the apeiron it is more wise for us humans to align ourselves with the apiron of silence through prayer, yoga and stuff. That way we choose to live ignorance and lead a simple life, and hence the monks, they do not ask why?
Philosophy does, and since we are in the philosophy section, if you do not ask why, then you do not belong here, by definition, you belong to the religious department.