Genady

I see a relation between models in physics and reality akin the relation between living organisms and environment. Models in physics evolve to fit their domains of reality, like organisms evolve to fit their environment. Models in physics don't reflect or describe the reality, but they represent aspects of reality by being able to successfully work with it. Similarly, organisms don't look like their environment, but they represent aspects of the environment by being able to successfully operate in it.

Just for the reference: Real numbers don't have "next", shown here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/128915-concerns-about-the-geometry-of-the-real-number-line/?do=findComment&comment=1231919 Real numbers don't have "smallest", shown here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/128915-concerns-about-the-geometry-of-the-real-number-line/?do=findComment&comment=1232309

I thought that I have already shown to you earlier that there is no 'smallest real number', haven't I?

So, now you are talking about a different 'line', not the one we have defined earlier in real vector space as per the linked video? If so, we need a new definition. Riemann integral does not deal with lines, it deals with numbers. Again, a different 'line', this time, geometric one. No, they cannot be real numbers. Points are not numbers and numbers are not points. My not understanding was not that of an English language. It was a way to say, that saying "the same sense", or "the same way" in this case is meaningless. You are comparing different animals, lines and numbers. There is no obvious "same" between them. Another 'line'. R is a set of real numbers. There are no lines in this set, only numbers.

Evidently, not so famous and not so widespread, as I lived in five countries, among four religions, on three continents, and never heard of him.

We can get into a discussion on pets. In what way? I have two dogs. They are very good to people. But not between themselves. Fortunately, my house layout allows for an easy separation. So, one is a king of front yard, and the other of backyard.

I've suggested this four days ago (https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/128832-zero-point-lorentz-transformation-split-from-the-twin-paradox-revisited/?do=findComment&comment=1232116). It didn't help then. I am certain it will not help now.

It was not meant to be binary. I've identified the two extremes of the range but allowed for any combination of them. However, anything spiritual would've been OT.

Nothing to explain. I don't see that history supports this hypothesis.

That the hypothesis, is not supported.

No, I'm not.

It is a null hypothesis. The hypothesis that needs support is that it is a fundamental reason etc.

More science-is-wrong bots, but fewer god bots, isn't it?

It has an anti-particle, И.

If they create an artificial brain, they perhaps can fix the artificial brain. But what if your brain is not artificial?

No. To the contrary, there are different things that can be called this, and I need to know what you mean. I don't understand this statement without your definitions of segment (line segment) and its division. I don't know how they relate to real numbers and can't figure what "the same sense" means. Also, I don't know what you try to accomplish. I guess, you try to get some contradiction. There are no contradictions in real numbers, it is a mathematical fact. If your definitions regarding segments establish correspondence with real numbers, then automatically, there will be no contradictions in the segments as well. For example, following the definitions in the video you've linked, we can define a segment as part of a parametrized line, which is covered by the parameter t being in an interval [a,b], IOW, a ≤ t ≤ b. Then, we define segment division. Etc. After everything is consistently defined, there will be no contradictions. I'll do my best. * This definition of segment assumes that the vector space is real. If it is complex, then a ≤ t ≤ b is undefined.

Yes, it refers to the bp number in Y chromosome compared to the total bp number in the genome.

I agree with your clarification. In fact, there are many cases when people say "faster than light" while meaning "faster than c."

OK. First, there still no such thing as "parameters of vectors". Second, I see what they define as a "line" and its parameters. Now, to your original question, the answer is, a) not always, b) they are real numbers when you consider vectors in a real vector space. If the vectors space is real vector space, the parameters are real by definition. If the vector space is some other kind of vector space, the parameters will belong to a different field as well.

There are about 2% genetic difference between human males and females. They considered the same species, though.

I don't think they are defined in linear algebra.

What do you call "parameters" of vectors? What is 'lines' in linear algebra?

Vectors in linear algebra may be elements of a real vector space, a complex vector space, a rational vector space, or any other field vector space. I don't think there are 'lines' in linear algebra.

I don't know what would make me think that human need to conform is in human nature. For contrast, human physiology makes me think that human need to breathe is in human nature.