Is there nothing that doesn't exist?

[nkt]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Hmmm, no. Not physically. Any drawing that you make will never be an isosceles triangle, or even just a triangle. It will always be a drawing of one!

To a mathematician, they exist. But a mathematician doesn't say they exist physically.

Yet you can buy one at the shop, with the geometry supplies... It a plastic ruler thing, but it is *also* an isoceles triangle. I would also argue that the drawing of an isoceles triangle is a triangle, if it is seen from the usual perspective.

The points may or may not exist in reality, but all things that exist can be modelled by the maths. Not all things in maths map back to the real world.

[Qfwfq]

No, nkt, neither the ruler nor the drawing is a triangle as defined in geometry.

Originally Posted by learnin to learn

Thats genious! was the student like

We all rocked in our seats laughing.

[majordinkydau]

Originally Posted by kyle8921

It all really started when I said that he can't think of an animal that doesn't exist, because he would only be taking parts of animals that he's seen and combine them.

I still don't know what to say to him. I guess people could have just made up the thought of God, with or without supernatural intervention.

The number "4" might not physically exist, but it does exist. So, just because God doesn't physically exist doesn't mean that he doesn't exist at all.

And you could draw an isoceles triangle, and it would then exist, right?

What if you cross an elephant with a rinocerous? EllifIknow

[infamous]

Originally Posted by nkt

The points may or may not exist in reality, but all things that exist can be modelled by the maths. Not all things in maths map back to the real world.

Very good point nkt a good example of this would be, the square root of a minus 1.

[nkt]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

No, nkt, neither the ruler nor the drawing is a triangle as defined in geometry.

You will forgive me for not taking this one on trust... The bit of plastic has three and only three connected points on the same plane, forming a closed shape with three sides, with interior angles summing to 180 degrees. That, last I looked, was the definition of a triangle.

[niviene]

Originally Posted by nkt

Yet you can buy one at the shop, with the geometry supplies... It a plastic ruler thing, but it is *also* an isoceles triangle. I would also argue that the drawing of an isoceles triangle is a triangle, if it is seen from the usual perspective.

The points may or may not exist in reality, but all things that exist can be modelled by the maths. Not all things in maths map back to the real world.

No... they don't. You can never create a real, perfect triangle. It exists in it's perfect form only in the mind, as an ideal. This was one of the things Plato wrote about. We can only make representations of the ideal in the physical world.

[niviene]

Originally Posted by infamous

There is really only one thing that does'nt exist and that one thing is NOTHING .

this is why I think the universe is infinite.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by nkt

That, last I looked, was the definition of a triangle.

Good enough dictionary definition, not the best geometrical one. Anyway, looking at the hunk of plastic, what are the three points?

[nkt]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Good enough dictionary definition, not the best geometrical one. Anyway, looking at the hunk of plastic, what are the three points?

Each of the three corners?

I figured someone would say "But it's not *exactly* aligned in the same plane", or whatever. That doesn't matter, since any three points that are connected form a triangle, regardless of the surface it is mapped on to. Length variations don't matter either. You could also argue that the physical triangle has depth, but that matters not, either, since the three arbitary points can be chosen as on the bottom edge of the triangle.

It's like saying that cardboard doesn't exist - it's just really thick paper. Actually, paper doesn't exist, because it's just mashed up trees...

Basically, it is semantics.

Q, want to give us a better definition?

[infamous]

Originally Posted by niviene

this is why I think the universe is infinite.

As I also believe niviene.Those that prefer to limit the vastness of this universe to an event in history we call the Big Bang must answer the question: What lies beyond the limit, another universe or nothingness. Wasn't it nothingness that the Big Bang entered itself into at the beginning. But truely, that was just the beginning of the Big Bang, what existed before this event. Some will contend that absolutely nothing existed before this event, I must respectfully disagree. When experiment is not possible, logic must lead the way. There is a saying, "nothing from nothing leaves nothing", likewise I'll invent a new saying. "Something from something leaves something". My logic tells me that because the universe exists today, it must be eternal. Where experiments fail, logic must prevail.