Glen -
> Ha! I can't pardon the tone because the authority is simply wrong. Besides,
> asserting such things with no justification is not merely a tone.
Can you unpack that in the light of Euclid's definition of a point, to
whose authority I presume Frank was deferring/invoking.
I'm curious if this is a matter of dismissing/rejecting Euclid and his
definitions in this matter, or an alternative interpretation of his text?
αʹ. Σημεῖόν ἐστιν, οὗ μέρος οὐθέν. 1. A point is that of which there
is no part
I'm always interested in creative alternative interpretations of
intention and meaning, but I'm not getting traction on this one (yet?)
- Steve
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
