Replies

If you are saying that my argument has no bearing on your argument; and I am saying that your argument has no bearing on my argument (that is mathematics vs. philosophy) would you not agree that we are arguing about two different things?

I'm arguing over the answer to YOUR question: can a square be perfectly circular and still be a square? I'm also pointing out that your philosophical argument that is "illustrated" by your question doesn't affect the answer to your question.

I'm saying the (Mathematical) illustration you used in your philosopical argument is flawed (assuming you want to be able to say "apples can't be both apples AND oranges" or something like that). Thus it DOES affect your philosophical argument. But the opposite is NOT true: your philosophical argument doesn't affect the Mathematics of your "can a square be a circle" question.

So, once again, I suggest you find a better illustration for your philosophical argument.

BTW, since you haven't provided any counter evidence to my example of a square with side length = 0 being identical to a circle of radius = 0, I assume you are now in agreement with me that there is, in fact, one case where a square can be both a circle and a square. Right?

And, if not, you'll post specific details pointing out how my example violates the previously provided definitions of "square" and "circle," right?

I'm saying the (Mathematical) illustration you used in your philosopical argument is flawed (assuming you want to be able to say "apples can't be both apples AND oranges" or something like that). Thus it DOES affect your philosophical argument.

Exactly! Apples cannot be oranges… If an apple was an orange it would not be an apple. I think you are getting it. Hey, and you know what… a vegetable is not a fruit!

Once someone called me a scum sucking, no good, apple-headed – job shopper.
Of course I responded, “who are you calling apple-headed?”

BTW, since you haven't provided any counter evidence to my example of a square with side length = 0 being identical to a circle of radius = 0, I assume you are now in agreement with me that there is, in fact, one case where a square can be both a circle and a square. Right?

This is the same as asking you to admit the earth is square. Or red is green. Black is white. Or for you to state that the only truth is that truth does not exist.

Keep things in context. Again:
If God were to change His Law’s the ‘Perfectness’ or ‘Justness’ or other intrinsic qualities (depending on the change) would not apply.”

If you need your mathematical data, try AndrewC’s prior post # 816:

That the circle could not be squared with Euclidean tools was not shown until 1882 when Lindemann proved that pi is a transcendental number.