Posted on 05/20/2002 12:53:27 PM PDT by rpage3
See source for details....
Areacircle = Pi (r)squared......
Very good :)
I've been waiting hours for some to ask...... actually, I assumed someone would have pointed this out long ago.
A degenerate square has sides of length = 0.
A degenerate circle has radius = 0.
As such they consist of a single point. In the degenerate sense, the point is both four sides of length = 0 AND equidistant from itself. It therefore technically satisfies the definition of BOTH a square AND a circle.
It's not a fancy trick; it's just a ramification of the definitions for square and circle. They don't exclude the dengenerate case.
Yes. Cornbread is square.
We don't allow degeneracy on this board!
I resemble that reply!
This brings to mind the image of an aging man dressed in long raincoat, hanging out in the shadows behind the Math Department whispering to passers-by:
"Pssst! Wanna buy some degenerate geometric figures?"
Degenerate Placemarker (purple)Fucia seems best, wouldn't you agree?
Degenerate Placemarker (blueviolet)
Degenerate Placemarker (Darkorchid)
Degenerate Placemarker (deeppink)
Degenerate Placemarker (hotpink)
Degenerate Placemarker (Fuchsia)
Degenerate Placemarker (Magenta)
Degenerate Placemarker (violet)
Degenerate Placemarker (Plum)
And which part do you object to in that - the premise, or the conclusion?
They are synonymous color codes FF00FF
Cub Scout geometric figures?
But you pick and chose what you want and then add to it, much like those who try to prove evolution. It is appropriate that the word that was added is “degenerated”.
It seems this argument has gone full ‘circle’. (or is it square)
Methinks ‘you are’ a weasel.
I think you are not satisfactorily interacting with my arguments.
Here is my answer.
No. The term "square circle" is meaningless rendering the proposition meaningless.
Nonsense. You yourself gave it meaning in post #808 - to wit:
Now tell me how a thing can simultaneously be both a square and a circle.
Obviously a "square circle" is something that is simultaneously both a square and a circle. You have thoughtfully defined what a square circle is for us - for you to claim that it is "meaningless" is equivalent to labeling your own post 808 as "meaningless". Was it? If the whole thing is "meaningless", why do you persist in asking questions you yourself consider to be meaningless?
And worst of all, if the very concept of a "square circle" is meaningless, then your assertion that God can't make one is equally meaningless.
Try this one on. "God can/cannot make an asehcweiwde," where "asehcweiwde" is clearly, obviously meaningless. You want me to accept that the statement "God can make an asehcweiwde" is meaningless, but the statement "God cannot make an asehcweiwde" is somehow meaningful?
First you tell me that "square circles" are meaningless. Then you define them. You assert that the statement that God cannot make one is valid. Then you assert that the statement that God can make one is invalid.
Absurd. Ridiculous. I beg of you, sir - do not engage in this foolishness. This is simple, rank casuistry, and it does not become you. Do not litter your posts with such sophistic nonsense. If the concept is meaningless, then leave it off the thread - we discuss meaningful things here. When you have something meaningful to say, I will again entertain your posts.
No. Gravity is not a logical proposition. Gravity Logic is a natural phenomenon. Since God sustains this phenomenon in its existence, he can suspend the phenomenon according to his Wisdom. It's his prerogative as Creator.
Again, "God can make 2 + 2 = 5" considered as a statement is not a coherent assertion but not merely a grouping of words.
You have misspoken, I think, therefore I have corrected your errors accordingly. I find that my bare, unsupported assertion here is much more tolerable than your original bare, unsupported assertion.
Of course, since they're both nothing more than assertions, it's just a personal preference, I suppose...
Here's an interesting paradox that I just realized. God's Revelation tells us that "being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death? even death on a cross!" (Philippians 2:8)." Certainly God in some sense humbled Himself to become man.
"Certainly"? You were there, were you?
How can this paradox be resolved?
I don't see a paradox that needs resolution, since I find the whole thing absurd on its face. It's your book - you figure it out.
Perhaps because Jesus humbled himself in taking on human nature while still retaining all of his power in his divine nature.
Perhaps it didn't happen in the first place. That would certainly also resolve this "paradox", wouldn't it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.