- #106
phya
- 171
- 0
The actual existence's line has the width. If this width is invariable, then on the one hand on the other hand its one and another is parallel. I said own and own parallel this aim at do not have the width curve to say.
This was the old idea, mathematics was also progresses unceasingly.Upisoft said:Concentric circles are not parallel, they are equidistant. "Parallel" is defined only for straight lines.
Upisoft said:When I was learning math definitions were very strict. At least in my country. Using "parallel" instead of "equidistant" would mean I will not pass the exam even I answer correct to every other question.
That's not nit-picking. In any geometry except Euclidean the set of points equidistant from a line (and on one side of it) is NOT a line. For example in spherical geometry, the equator is a line (a great circle) but the set of points at a fixed distance north of equator is NOT a great circle and so not a "line".G037H3 said:well, mathematics tries to be precise, but that sort of nit-picking is not the best way to test your understanding of concepts
Yes, by any definition of "parallel" I know, a line and itself are NOT parallel. The most fundamental definition of "parallel" is "they do not cross". And that is certainly not true for a line and itself.phya said:Are you acknowledge a straight line own and own parallel? If you acknowledged that then curve own and oneself not parallel?
Upisoft said:Concentric circles are not parallel, they are equidistant. "Parallel" is defined only for straight lines.
No, that is the new idea. Your notion of "parallel" being the same as "equidistant" is the old idea.phya said:This was the old idea, mathematics was also progresses unceasingly.
Although in daily massive use parallel curve, but the present scholars did not acknowledge that the curve parallel, they only think the existence equidistant curve.G037H3 said:parallel curves exist, it's just that phya is using too loose of a definition for parallel :/
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ParallelCurves.html
Perhaps your son will study the curve parallel theory.Upisoft said:When I was learning math definitions were very strict. At least in my country. Using "parallel" instead of "equidistant" would mean I will not pass the exam even I answer correct to every other question.
Ask that the great-circle own and oneself is parallel?HallsofIvy said:That's not nit-picking. In any geometry except Euclidean the set of points equidistant from a line (and on one side of it) is NOT a line. For example in spherical geometry, the equator is a line (a great circle) but the set of points at a fixed distance north of equator is NOT a great circle and so not a "line".
In hyperbolic geometry we have the concept of "equidistant curve" which is not a line.
phya said:Were we may also say that the parallel straight line was the equal-space straight line? Actually the equal-space straight line and the equidistant curve all are parallel lines, why can the same thing use the different terminology?
HallsofIvy said:Yes, by any definition of "parallel" I know, a line and itself are NOT parallel. The most fundamental definition of "parallel" is "they do not cross". And that is certainly not true for a line and itself.
But the old concept did not acknowledge that the equidistant curve is a parallel line.HallsofIvy said:No, that is the new idea. Your notion of "parallel" being the same as "equidistant" is the old idea.
What your chart mainly wants to explain is what?G037H3 said:...
CRGreathouse said:But they're not the same; this depends on the underlying geometry. It is a theorem in Euclidean geometry that parallel lines are equidistant. This is false in hyperbolic geometry. In elliptic geometry, of course, parallel lines are not only equidistant but also equal. (In the usual formulation, parallel lines in elliptic geometry are also unicorns.)
Sorry, why isn't the curve a line?HallsofIvy said:Actually, variations of Euclidean geometry did acknowledge that- I believe Euclid himself mentions it.
But now we know that there exist geometries in which "the equidistant curve is a parallel line" is NOT true- it is not even a line. I have repeatedly given examples to show that, yet you keep asserting it is true!
G037H3 said:that if you have two parallel lines, and flip one over a line (a reflex, reflection, transform), that the line that is flipped remains parallel with the other line
the same is not true with curves, it becomes an inverse curve to the one that remains in position
phya said:Hyperbolic geometry's parallel concept is wrong. Does not intersect was not equal to that is parallel.
phya said:Perhaps your son will study the curve parallel theory.
What do you ask? If a straight line is parallel to itself? If so, the answer is "no". Parallel lines are defined as lines that do not share common points. And a straight line has every point common with itself.phya said:Is a straight line own and own parallel?
:rofl:CRGreathouse said:Mountain, meet Mahomet.
Upisoft said:I certainly hope not. I'll try to find the best school for him.
What do you ask? If a straight line is parallel to itself? If so, the answer is "no". Parallel lines are defined as lines that do not share common points. And a straight line has every point common with itself.
I understand what you are trying to do. It is not wrong. What is wrong is "how" you are trying to do it. You certainly may have a geometry in which your concentric circles are parallel. What you must do is to define consistent set of axioms that define such geometry. Good luck!
That completely ignores the question of where two objects moving in such a way will move along straight lines, which is the whole point.phya said:If has moving point a and moving point c, straight line B through a and c, the direction which a and c move is always vertical to B, and a and the c straight line's distance maintains invariable, then a and the c path is a parallel line, regardless of this path is a straight line, or is the curve.
HallsofIvy said:That completely ignores the question of where two objects moving in such a way will move along straight lines, which is the whole point.
You seem to be insisting on Euclidean geometry while refusing to use "parallel" as Euclid defined it.
Mathematics is develops unceasingly, might not Euclid say anything, therefore forever was anything. Newton said that the space and time is absolute, but Einstein said that the space and time is relative. Euclid said that the parallel line is only a straight line, but we said that the parallel line is also the curve, the curve may also be parallel. This is not to the geometry development?HallsofIvy said:Well, that was not his definition. For one thing Euclid define "parallel" only for lines, not curves. If you would say "equidistant curves" rather than "parallel curves", I would have no trouble with what you say.
G037H3 said:phya, i would like to reiterate:
lines are perfectly straight curves
all lines are curves, but not all curves are lines
Why in front of this word adds “ straight” in “the line”, is for the line of demarcation extension. The line has two kinds, one kind is a straight line, one kind is a curve.G037H3 said:but a line is perfectly straight
so a 'curving line' is just a curve that isn't a line
phya said:Why in front of this word adds “ straight” in “the line”, is for the line of demarcation extension. The line has two kinds, one kind is a straight line, one kind is a curve.