Resorting to vague generalisations, rather than addressing the point I'm making.

See how Devans keeps repeating UNDEFINED - his allcaps - as if it were a magic spell that will render his ideas true?

One sees the same thing in, for example, @Bartricks repetition of "there are no actual infinities".

Yes, I am generalising your approach to the forums, as a topic in itself.

I think it interesting - and the popularity of that thought in this thread seems to back me up here.

:grimace: Your problem is that you do not take sufficient time reading and understanding other people's posts. You have not addressed in any way the point I gave here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/362723

Ok, and what is meant by “properly”?

Dude, I did...

here is the second place I addressed your reply: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/362728

A third time: do not divide by zero.

@Devans99, what is missing is not that 1/0 is equal to "undefined", but that mathematics, for good reason, forbids division by zero.

A third time: do not divide by zero — Banno

I know, that's why a write 1/0=UNDEFINED - I know it is an illegitimate operation - so I write UNDEFINED. This is the normal convention from maths.

But maths, by assuming a point has zero extent - is legitimatising division by zero - a point composes a line so you have to divide by zero to find out how many points there are on a particular line segment.

Facepalm.

So you know you shouldn't do it, but you just can't help yourself?

Why?

Are you asking me why you can't help yourself?

I don't know.

The following statements are equivalent:

- You should not divide by zero
- (any number)/0 = UNDEFINED

See here for example:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Undefined.html

Well, for our purposes here, that's not quite right. One says don't do it. The other is illformed, since it treats UNDEFINED (why allcaps?) as if it were a number - which it isn't.

...which does not have meaning...

UNDEFINED is not a number. So any equation involving it is not well-formed.

It's shorthand for "Don't do it!"

Why are you using math if you reject its rules?

Its like you are fishing, and your friend catches a fish and says “i caught the biggest fish, 3 feet!”
And you say “no mines bigger”, but your friend protests after seeing your fish “its only 2 feet!” To which you reply “I dont use feet when measuring my fish, its way bigger”

Thats what you are doing here, propping up your argument using math but not using math when it shows your basis to be incorrect.
Is there another way of framing things not using math? If not, might be time to reevaluate.

what you are missing is that 1/0 is not equal to "undefined", but that mathematics, for good reason, forbids division by zero — Banno

UNDEFINED is a legitimate mathematical expression. It is perfectly valid to write 1/0=UNDEFINED. Or √-1 = UNDEFINED (in non-complex maths). Or whatever.

It matters little, however, if you squabble with my syntax, the definition of a point as having zero extend implies divide by zero whenever we wish to know how many points constitute a line segment, a plain, etc... that was my point.

UNDEFINED is a legitimate mathematical expression... — Devans99

...that says "this expression is illegitimate".

Yeah. You don't get it. I understand that. I'm not going to continue the discussion of the error of dividing by zero - that's not the point of this thread.

Ok, and what is meant by “properly”? — DingoJones

One that is rendered in evolutionarily amenable terms. One built upon universal criterion. One built upon knowledge of all thought and belief.

One without exception. One that is capable of taking account of that which exists in it's entirety prior to our awareness. One that is capable of taking account of that which is prior to our language. One that is capable of setting out a coherent account of all thought and belief.

You are the one not understanding the point and I concur that this conversation is serving no purpose.

UNDEFINED — Devans99

"Undefined" means undefined. It is not a license to define. And if you could define it one way, I can then define it another. Pay attention to the language; in the hard sciences it's often meaningful and intended to mean what it says.

You are the one not understanding the point and I concur that this conversation is serving no purpose. — Devans99

Let me leave you with one thing to consider. The folk who get paid to do mathematics are on my side. They agree with me that the number of points in a line segment is uncountable, not undefined.

So are you suggesting that:

1/0 <> UNDEFINED

?

Why are you using math if you reject its rules?

Its like you are fishing, and your friend catches a fish and says “i caught the biggest fish, 3 feet!”
And you say “no mines bigger”, but your friend protests after seeing your fish “its only 2 feet!” To which you reply “I dont use feet when measuring my fish, its way bigger”

Thats what you are doing here, propping up your argument using math but not using math when it shows your basis to be incorrect.
Is there another way of framing things not using math? If not, might be time to reevaluate. — DingoJones

That seems apt.

They agree with me that the number of points in a line segment is uncountable, not undefined — Banno

How can you count something that does not exist? (if a point has zero extent, it does not exist). How can you flaunt basic mathematics. 1/0 is clearly not equal to 'uncountable'.

I guess this is the point of the thread - there are people (not just me) who disagree with the received wisdom of science and mathematics. Is it correct to dismiss/discourage them or engage with them to understand their issues?

In the interests of concision: undefined may be said to be a definition, but if taken in that sense, then nothing more can be said. Perhaps you do not recognize that among us are folks who have read your posts over some time. I'll speak for myself alone: I no longer have patience with the nonsense often found in your posts, and if I don't ignore it, I'll call it out. Whatever mathematical endeavor you're about, dividing by zero destroys it. Allowed, and you can prove 1=2, or any number you please. If you're going that way, then put your money up. I'll give you one dollar and you give me five, many times. We can do it through Paypal. Is that agreeable to you?

As usual you are obnoxious and unwilling to engage with the argument.

Thank you! I try to please. You get what your arguments are worth.

Yep.

So back to the topic of this thread - Devan's, and similar behaviour can be explained as entering into critique before having sufficient grasp of the topic.

You have failed to counter my argument and move on to a therefore completely unwarranted conclusion. That is childish and also admitting defeat.