From: johnebravo836
Date: 7/15/2004 7:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



S888Wheel wrote:
From: johnebravo836
Date: 7/12/2004 7:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



S888Wheel wrote:

From: johnebravo836
Date: 7/9/2004 1:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



S888Wheel wrote:


From: Lionel ahc
Date: 7/7/2004 10:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel a écrit :




From: Lionel il
Date: 7/6/2004 1:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

MINe 109 wrote:




http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/dimensions.html

"Not unless some four-dimensional life-form pulls us from our
three-dimensional Spaceland and gives us a view of the world from its

perspective."

"S888Wheel" is the messiah ? ;-)

No, you are just an idiot. It is easy to visualize a simple 4D space
for

some



of us. I suppose something as simple as that may make one look like a

deity


to



a moron.

No misunderstanding, you are a joke, loser, not a deity. ;-)


Who said anything about a misunderstanding? You can't even get that
right.

If


you don't think I am a deity why do you continue to worship me? If you
are

not


a moron why is something as simple as the visualization of a simple 4D

space


seem so perplexing to you?

Unless that fourth dimension is a temporal one, "visualizing" is surely
the wrong word to use here.









No. Not at all.

Wow. Well, I guess I stand corrected, then . . .









Yep. But if you want an explination as to how, start with this question.
Can
one visualize a three dimensional space with a two dimensional
representation?

Visualize? No -- you can *represent* or *describe* a 3-D space with a
*collection* of 2-D images, but if by "visualize" you mean something
like "form a mental image of one in your head", it would be impossible
to do that with a single 2-D image.

I think you are quite mistaken here. This is the on line definition.
Main Entry: vi·su·al·ize
Pronunciation: 'vi-zh&-w&-"lIz, 'vi-zh&-"lIz, 'vizh-w&-"lIz
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing
Date: 1863
transitive senses
: to make visible: as a : to see or form a mental image of :

So a drawing of a cube or a photo of a landscape does not make visable or allow
you to form a mental image of a three dimensional space or object? It does for
me.

S888Wheel wrote:

From: johnebravo836
Date: 7/15/2004 7:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



S888Wheel wrote:

[snip]

Yep. But if you want an explination as to how, start with this question.

Can

one visualize a three dimensional space with a two dimensional

representation?

Visualize? No -- you can *represent* or *describe* a 3-D space with a
*collection* of 2-D images, but if by "visualize" you mean something
like "form a mental image of one in your head", it would be impossible
to do that with a single 2-D image.


I think you are quite mistaken here. This is the on line definition.
Main Entry: vi·su·al·ize
Pronunciation: 'vi-zh&-w&-"lIz, 'vi-zh&-"lIz, 'vizh-w&-"lIz
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing
Date: 1863
transitive senses
: to make visible: as a : to see or form a mental image of :

So a drawing of a cube or a photo of a landscape does not make visable or allow
you to form a mental image of a three dimensional space or object? It does for
me.

Please note that you just changed the question -- you're now saying that
one can use a 2-D picture as a *prompt*, and from that prompt,
extrapolate and "visualize" (or form a mental image, if you will) a 3-D
space in one's imagination. The point, however, is that the 2-D
representation itself does not, in fact, depict a 3-D space; to see
that, all you have to do is notice that the 2-D representation is, as it
stands by itself, ambiguous.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 7/15/2004 3:51 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 7/14/2004 3:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


No, the issue was time wasted. I did waste some time on this.
Nothing that got in the way of anything. You had nothing better to
do with your life than live it on Usenet? That isn't just a waste
of time it is a waste of life.

Unlike you Scott, I manage to learn useful things on Usenet.

Useful things like the art of calling people pedophiles after you
loose a debate. Well learned.

Admittedly I
learn useless things like the fact that there actually are people
like you,

Is this some kind of attempt at an insult. Looks like you didn't
learn much after learned to call people pedophiles.


but I do learn and share a fair amount of useful things.

You hide it well.



I made those posts hoping that they would be read. You sued me
hoping to win. I succeeded, you failed.

If that is your idea of success I can see why you never excelled at
anything.

Tell us what you think you excel at Scott.

Don't you mean tell you? I think most of the other regulars know what
I do for a living.

I've asked you this question
before and you've dodged it.

You have asked the question before. I fond it amusing that you are
unable to find the answer for yourself.

(a) That's a false claim as I did find the answer for myself.
(b) But no, I didn't fond it for myself

Asked and answered, Prove it, Thanks for admitting you make false claims, I am
sure you didn't "fond" it yourself, Thanks for proving you don't know what what
the word "find" means. Melt down noted.



But, thanks for dodging the question again Scott, apparently because you
find the truth about your life to be so embarrassing.


Thanks for proving you don't know what "dodge" means, Thanks for admitting your
life is an embarrassment. As if you lived in a real house or had a real system.
LOt's

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 7/15/2004 4:45 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 7/14/2004 3:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message



Hasn't anyone else noticed that now that we're all making fun of
Lionel's painfully fractured English, it's now suddenly close to
perfect?

Say what?

Another Internet geek exposed...

Whatever.

****ed off that you have competition?

I'm sorry that the meaning of whatever is over your head, Scott.

I'm sorry you don't know what competition means, Arny, if that's your real
name.

Don't worry I am confident that you will remain #1 geek.

Whatever.

Thanks for showing your iliteracy. You definately don't know what whatever
means. LOt's

From: johnebravo836
Date: 7/15/2004 8:16 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



S888Wheel wrote:

From: johnebravo836
Date: 7/15/2004 7:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



S888Wheel wrote:

[snip]

Yep. But if you want an explination as to how, start with this question.

Can

one visualize a three dimensional space with a two dimensional

representation?

Visualize? No -- you can *represent* or *describe* a 3-D space with a
*collection* of 2-D images, but if by "visualize" you mean something
like "form a mental image of one in your head", it would be impossible
to do that with a single 2-D image.


I think you are quite mistaken here. This is the on line definition.
Main Entry: vi·su·al·ize
Pronunciation: 'vi-zh&-w&-"lIz, 'vi-zh&-"lIz, 'vizh-w&-"lIz
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing
Date: 1863
transitive senses
: to make visible: as a : to see or form a mental image of :

So a drawing of a cube or a photo of a landscape does not make visable or
allow
you to form a mental image of a three dimensional space or object? It does
for
me.

Please note that you just changed the question --

No I didn't.

you're now saying that
one can use a 2-D picture as a *prompt*, and from that prompt,
extrapolate and "visualize" (or form a mental image, if you will) a 3-D
space in one's imagination.

I didn't say prompt. I offered two dictionary definitions to the word
visualization
1.: to make visible: as a
2.: to see or form a mental image of :
I then asked if a drawing of a cube or a photo of a landsape allows you to
visyualize a three dimensional space or object by either of those definitions.
It does for me by *both* definitions.


The point, however, is that the 2-D
representation itself does not, in fact, depict a 3-D space;

Actually it does in the examples I cited. Do we have to look up *depict*? Do we
need to keep coming up with new words? I said it is possible to visualize a
simple four dimensional space in less than four dimesions. I tried to
illustrate this by starting with three dimensional spaces that are easily seen
on a two dimensional canvas.

to see
that, all you have to do is notice that the 2-D representation is, as it
stands by itself, ambiguous.


I suppose a drawing of a cube or a photo of a landscape may be ambiguous for
some people. Not to all people. I have no trouble with it.

S888Wheel wrote:

From: johnebravo836
Date: 7/15/2004 8:16 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



S888Wheel wrote:


From: johnebravo836
Date: 7/15/2004 7:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



S888Wheel wrote:

[snip]


Yep. But if you want an explination as to how, start with this question.

Can


one visualize a three dimensional space with a two dimensional

representation?

Visualize? No -- you can *represent* or *describe* a 3-D space with a
*collection* of 2-D images, but if by "visualize" you mean something
like "form a mental image of one in your head", it would be impossible
to do that with a single 2-D image.


I think you are quite mistaken here. This is the on line definition.
Main Entry: vi·su·al·ize
Pronunciation: 'vi-zh&-w&-"lIz, 'vi-zh&-"lIz, 'vizh-w&-"lIz
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing
Date: 1863
transitive senses
: to make visible: as a : to see or form a mental image of :

So a drawing of a cube or a photo of a landscape does not make visable or

allow

you to form a mental image of a three dimensional space or object? It does

for

me.

Please note that you just changed the question --


No I didn't.

you're now saying that

one can use a 2-D picture as a *prompt*, and from that prompt,
extrapolate and "visualize" (or form a mental image, if you will) a 3-D
space in one's imagination.


I didn't say prompt. I offered two dictionary definitions to the word
visualization
1.: to make visible: as a
2.: to see or form a mental image of :
I then asked if a drawing of a cube or a photo of a landsape allows you to
visyualize a three dimensional space or object by either of those definitions.
It does for me by *both* definitions.

Has it occurred to you that the reason why one is able to look at a 2-D
image and extrapolate from that to mentally "visualize" a 3-D space is
because you have actually *viewed* real 3-D spaces every day of your life?

Please explain, then, when (and, just as importantly, how) you have
actually *viewed* any 4-D spaces, which would then make it possible for
you to look at a single 3-D representation and extrapolate from that to
"visualize" a 4-D space.



The point, however, is that the 2-D

representation itself does not, in fact, depict a 3-D space;


Actually it does in the examples I cited. Do we have to look up *depict*? Do we
need to keep coming up with new words? I said it is possible to visualize a
simple four dimensional space in less than four dimesions.

Do you see how visualizing a 4-D space in less than 4 dimensions is
rather different from looking at a 2-D image and, from that, mentally
visualizing a 3-D space?

I tried to
illustrate this by starting with three dimensional spaces that are easily seen
on a two dimensional canvas.

to see

that, all you have to do is notice that the 2-D representation is, as it
stands by itself, ambiguous.



I suppose a drawing of a cube or a photo of a landscape may be ambiguous for
some people. Not to all people. I have no trouble with it.

Have you ever noticed that when you look at, for example, a 2-D
depiction of a cube, that which face of the cube is "closer" to you as
the viewer is ambiguous? Or are you suggesting that it's not ambiguous?

Marc Phillips a écrit :

Hasn't anyone else noticed that now that we're all making fun of Lionel's
painfully fractured English, it's now suddenly close to perfect?

Another Internet geek exposed...

You are too stupid to be a good Sherlock Holmes, Boon-Boon.
Another idiot exposed...

tor b a écrit :

George M. Middius wrote in message . ..

La Salope s'est decouverte mentir encore une fois.


Even Middius thinks that Wheeler is despicable

You really must be desperate, Slut. Krooger is despicable and loathsome.
You are grotesque and pathetic. Even I am more annoying than Wheeler.


Yes, you are "George", in the same way that a horsefly is more annoying
than a housefly: the housefly eats ****, while the horsefly is out for blood.

George is very, very, very vexed because in October 2003 I predicted
that his champion will lose the lawsuit against Krueger. You should read
"I am grotesque and desperate."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
De :Lionel )
Objet : Scott Wheeler's extraordinary life.
View: Complete Thread (40 articles)
Date :2003-10-17 06:37:39 PST

S888Wheel wrote:

You do have way too much spare time. Ironic though. This time you
found the
truth sort of.

I'm spending my "too much spare time" to laugh at you. It doesn't cost
me one cent.
You're spending your free time to sue one guy, you are sad and exposed
to other's sarcasm. Moreover this costs you money.
Ooops ! I forget that you do that for nothing because you will fail.

Who is wrong ? Who is right ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

George also loves to make predictions but he is never successful.
Note that in this particulary case it wasn't difficult to see that
Wheeler was only a whining loser. ;-)

S888Wheel a écrit :

From: Lionel ahc

Do you remember my prediction ?


No I didn't.

So I can refresh your memory loser :

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
De :Lionel )
Objet : Scott Wheeler's extraordinary life.
View: Complete Thread (40 articles)
Date :2003-10-17 06:37:39 PST

S888Wheel wrote:

You do have way too much spare time. Ironic though. This time you
found the
truth sort of.

I'm spending my "too much spare time" to laugh at you. It doesn't cost
me one cent.
You're spending your free time to sue one guy, you are sad and exposed
to other's sarcasm. Moreover this costs you money.
Ooops ! I forget that you do that for nothing because you will fail.

Who is wrong ? Who is right ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

S888Wheel a écrit :

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 7/15/2004 10:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel a écrit :


From: Lionel ahc

Do you remember my prediction ?


No I didn't.

So I can refresh your memory loser :


No, half number french beer nonperson man with dissatisfied sow. ;-)

Is your father proud of you, S888Loser ? Despite his advices you have
failed lamentably in your lawsuit... Sad for a professional, no ?
You are a *JOKE* a *FAKE*.
The little monkey predicted that you will fail and you failed pathetically.
Don't worry the little monkey takes care of you. Last autumn you was a
despicable little whining thing, now you are a despicable little
arrogant thing.
You should say "thank you" to the little monkey. ;-)

Arny said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message

Arny said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message



Hasn't anyone else noticed that now that we're all making fun of
Lionel's painfully fractured English, it's now suddenly close to
perfect?

Say what?

Another Internet geek exposed...

Whatever.

Since you conveniently chose to snip the examples, we can only assume
that you're in on it.

If anything, the quotes demolished your claim, Phillips.

If that was true, you would have underlined them instead of snipping them.


As I've said before, no one who supports you
is on the up-and-up.

As if your supporters are paragons of virtue, Phillips.

As if you would know, since they are strangers on the Internet to you.


Want to tell the newbies who your buddy Jamie Benchimol was, what he did,
and how many ISPs he got kicked off of?

Why? I don't know the answers to those questions. But you have a big
"INTERNET GEEK" sign hanging around your neck right now.

Boon

From: johnebravo836
Date: 7/15/2004 9:01 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



S888Wheel wrote:

From: johnebravo836
Date: 7/15/2004 8:16 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



S888Wheel wrote:


From: johnebravo836
Date: 7/15/2004 7:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



S888Wheel wrote:

[snip]


Yep. But if you want an explination as to how, start with this question.

Can


one visualize a three dimensional space with a two dimensional

representation?

Visualize? No -- you can *represent* or *describe* a 3-D space with a
*collection* of 2-D images, but if by "visualize" you mean something
like "form a mental image of one in your head", it would be impossible
to do that with a single 2-D image.


I think you are quite mistaken here. This is the on line definition.
Main Entry: vi·su·al·ize
Pronunciation: 'vi-zh&-w&-"lIz, 'vi-zh&-"lIz, 'vizh-w&-"lIz
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing
Date: 1863
transitive senses
: to make visible: as a : to see or form a mental image of :

So a drawing of a cube or a photo of a landscape does not make visable or

allow

you to form a mental image of a three dimensional space or object? It does

for

me.

Please note that you just changed the question --


No I didn't.

you're now saying that

one can use a 2-D picture as a *prompt*, and from that prompt,
extrapolate and "visualize" (or form a mental image, if you will) a 3-D
space in one's imagination.


I didn't say prompt. I offered two dictionary definitions to the word
visualization
1.: to make visible: as a
2.: to see or form a mental image of :
I then asked if a drawing of a cube or a photo of a landsape allows you to
visyualize a three dimensional space or object by either of those
definitions.
It does for me by *both* definitions.

Has it occurred to you that the reason why one is able to look at a 2-D
image and extrapolate from that to mentally "visualize" a 3-D space is
because you have actually *viewed* real 3-D spaces every day of your life?

We really haven't discussed *why* people can visualize 3D spaces and objects
when they are represented in 2D The point was to show that one does not *need*
3 dimensions to represent or visualize 3 dimensions. Further one can visualize
three dimensional spaces and objects from viewing them in 2D without ever
having seen that particular space or object. One can even visualize 3D spaces
and objects via 2D renderings that cannot even possibly exist in the real
world. The mind's eye is not limited to actual literal experience.



Please explain, then, when (and, just as importantly, how) you have
actually *viewed* any 4-D spaces, which would then make it possible for
you to look at a single 3-D representation and extrapolate from that to
"visualize" a 4-D space.

I have never said I have actually "viewed" any 4D spaces. I said I have
visualized them. And I havedrawn models of them. If you can understand that one
can visualize a 3D space or object with just two dimensions to work with it
shouldn't be that big a lead to figure out how one can do the same for simple
four dimensional spaces with just three dimensions to work with. Heck, you can
do it with two dimensions.





The point, however, is that the 2-D

representation itself does not, in fact, depict a 3-D space;


Actually it does in the examples I cited. Do we have to look up *depict*?
Do we
need to keep coming up with new words? I said it is possible to visualize a
simple four dimensional space in less than four dimesions.

Do you see how visualizing a 4-D space in less than 4 dimensions is
rather different from looking at a 2-D image and, from that, mentally
visualizing a 3-D space?

It is a little bit more of a brain tease at first but it isn't essentially
different at all.



I tried to
illustrate this by starting with three dimensional spaces that are easily
seen
on a two dimensional canvas.

to see

that, all you have to do is notice that the 2-D representation is, as it
stands by itself, ambiguous.



I suppose a drawing of a cube or a photo of a landscape may be ambiguous
for
some people. Not to all people. I have no trouble with it.

Have you ever noticed that when you look at, for example, a 2-D
depiction of a cube, that which face of the cube is "closer" to you as
the viewer is ambiguous? Or are you suggesting that it's not ambiguous?

You are assuming a transparent cube no? I wasn't. But with a rendering of a
transparent cube you have a 3 dimensional visualization wrought in 2
dimensions. You can visualize a cube with one face forward or you can visualize
a cube with the opposite face forward or you can visualize one square, two
triangles and four rectangles. That is up to your mind's eye. That is
visualization.

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 7/15/2004 2:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel a écrit :

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 7/15/2004 10:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel a écrit :


From: Lionel ahc

Do you remember my prediction ?


No I didn't.

So I can refresh your memory loser :


No, half number french beer nonperson man with dissatisfied sow. ;-)

Is your father proud of you, S888Loser ?

Once again you have for to insult my family you assvaginaballsack dick
worshiper. you rape you sow and her litter with you little unit you snake of
the worse kind half man number boy. You are wseven times worse than Bush and
Hitler with french beer in your cowardice window. You mate with the fathers of
dead animals you pig swine cow **** lover eater. You agree to be the despicable
snake minkey dancer lover of sows and litters. You are lucky you never hav e
meet with me in your sewer you coward half number ono person man. You are the
small bitch in heat of RAO no? Just trying to help the French Bull dog sucker
;-)

S888Wheel a écrit :

Just a question loser.
With all the elements I provided you to support your lawsuit how it is
possible that you failed so miserably ?
All this insults that you avidly collected from me was supposed to
increase the file and your prejudice no ?
Can you explain this mystery the the group ?
You love to give explanations to the group isn't it ? ;-)

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 7/15/2004 3:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel a écrit :

Just a question loser.


I don't know who satisfies you "sow" when you are posting after midnight sop
don't ask. Monkey boy.

S888Wheel a écrit :

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 7/15/2004 3:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel a écrit :

Just a question loser.



I don't know who satisfies you "sow" when you are posting after midnight sop
don't ask. Monkey boy.

You see I was *right* on all the points.
You finally understood that you are better in *bull***** writing than in
respectable lawsuit. I just helped you to reveal your *real* nature...

Don't worry the psychoanalyse to the contrary of the lawsuit is free of
charge (but don't tell that to Dr. Richman). ;-)

S888Wheel wrote:

From: johnebravo836
Date: 7/15/2004 9:01 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

[snip]

Please explain, then, when (and, just as importantly, how) you have
actually *viewed* any 4-D spaces, which would then make it possible for
you to look at a single 3-D representation and extrapolate from that to
"visualize" a 4-D space.


I have never said I have actually "viewed" any 4D spaces. I said I have
visualized them. And I havedrawn models of them. If you can understand that one
can visualize a 3D space or object with just two dimensions to work with

Please notice that that's possible only because one has already actually
*viewed* real 3-D spaces. Hence my inquiry about exactly when and how
you've had the remarkable privilege of actually viewing any 4-D spaces.
The point is that just as there's no mental "visualization" of 3-D
spaces without prior viewing of actual 3-D spaces, the same goes for 4-D
spaces.

it shouldn't be that big a [deal] to figure out how one can do the same for simple
four dimensional spaces with just three dimensions to work with.

Er, well, unless you're congenitally blind, you've *seen* 3-D spaces --
that's why you can mentally visualize one by extrapolating from a 2-D
representation.

Heck, you can do it with two dimensions.

I don't doubt that you believe you can.

This was surely the kind of thing Jeremy Bentham hand in mind when he
coined the expression "nonsense on stilts".

From: johnebravo836
Date: 7/16/2004 8:19 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



S888Wheel wrote:

From: johnebravo836
Date: 7/15/2004 9:01 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

[snip]

Please explain, then, when (and, just as importantly, how) you have
actually *viewed* any 4-D spaces, which would then make it possible for
you to look at a single 3-D representation and extrapolate from that to
"visualize" a 4-D space.


I have never said I have actually "viewed" any 4D spaces. I said I have
visualized them. And I havedrawn models of them. If you can understand that
one
can visualize a 3D space or object with just two dimensions to work with

Please notice that that's possible only because one has already actually
*viewed* real 3-D spaces.

Are you sure about this? How do you know? It is possible for one to visualize
three dimensional object and spaces that one has never seen from viwing a two
dimensional rendering of such objects and spaces. It is also possible to
visualize three diemensional spaces and objects that cannot exist in the real
world simply by viewing 2 dimensional renderings of them. this is the case with
simple four dimensional spaces like the ones I have rendered.

Hence my inquiry about exactly when and how
you've had the remarkable privilege of actually viewing any 4-D spaces.

Your question is built on a false premise. One does not have to see something
incarnate to be able to visualize it.


The point is that just as there's no mental "visualization" of 3-D
spaces without prior viewing of actual 3-D spaces, the same goes for 4-D
spaces.

You are just making this up. It is my understanding that the opposite might
very well be true. When I was taking calculous at my old university the teacher
told us about a blind mathematician he knew that had no problem visualizing
multidimensional spaces on x,y,z,a,b,c..... coordinants. Now this guy was
apparenty a pretty brilliant mathematician and he wasn't hindered by normal
vision. I think you are making some odd assumptions about what people can and
cannot visualize in their mind's eye. I am sure that mathetaticians who work
with complex non-Euclidean geometry spend much of their time visualizing things
people have never seen.



it shouldn't be that big a [deal] to figure out how one can do the same for
simple
four dimensional spaces with just three dimensions to work with.

Er, well, unless you're congenitally blind, you've *seen* 3-D spaces --
that's why you can mentally visualize one by extrapolating from a 2-D
representation.

That is an assumption you are mistakenly making.



Heck, you can do it with two dimensions.

I don't doubt that you believe you can.

I don't doubt you believe that nobody can. I feel sorry for anyone who ever
takes a stab at telling you about special reletivity or quantum physics. I can
see you fighting it the whole way. Or are you one of those folks who believes
those things are incomprehensable?

This was surely the kind of thing Jeremy Bentham hand in mind when he
coined the expression "nonsense on stilts".

Surely it wasn't.

S888Wheel a écrit :
From: Lionel ahc
Date: 7/15/2004 10:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel a écrit :


From: Lionel ahc
Date: 7/15/2004 3:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel a écrit :

Just a question loser.



I don't know who satisfies you "sow" when you are posting after midnight

sop

don't ask. Monkey boy.

You see I was *right* on all the points.



I just see a dancing monkey who hangs on my every word on RAO. Who took care of
the sow last night? Surely it wasn't the dancing monkey. Just try to be of help
little monkey. ;-)

I just see a congenital loser which is full of rage because he
humiliated himself on a public forum. It's really funny. )

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 7/16/2004 10:08 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel a écrit :
From: Lionel ahc
Date: 7/15/2004 10:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel a écrit :


From: Lionel ahc
Date: 7/15/2004 3:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel a écrit :

Just a question loser.



I don't know who satisfies you "sow" when you are posting after midnight

sop

don't ask. Monkey boy.

You see I was *right* on all the points.



I just see a dancing monkey who hangs on my every word on RAO. Who took
care of
the sow last night? Surely it wasn't the dancing monkey. Just try to be of
help
little monkey. ;-)

I just see a congenital loser which is full of rage because he
humiliated himself on a public forum. It's really funny. )







The guy who services your "sow" at night sees the loser on other side of the
room venting his rage after midnight on RAO. Just trying to be for help with
the angry dancing monkey no? ;-)

S888Wheel a écrit :

The guy who services your "sow" at night sees the loser on other side of the
room venting his rage after midnight on RAO. Just trying to be for help with
the angry dancing monkey no? ;-)

Ho, ho, ho, you make me laugh but you are the one who loses... Always. :-)

Note that the "sow" is Porky's female.
Perhaps Phillips doesn't like that you speak like that of his wife.
Oh I see, you are adept of wife-swapping. What a band of pervert. :-)

S888Wheel wrote:

From: johnebravo836
Date: 7/16/2004 8:19 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



S888Wheel wrote:


From: johnebravo836
Date: 7/15/2004 9:01 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

[snip]


Please explain, then, when (and, just as importantly, how) you have
actually *viewed* any 4-D spaces, which would then make it possible for
you to look at a single 3-D representation and extrapolate from that to
"visualize" a 4-D space.


I have never said I have actually "viewed" any 4D spaces. I said I have
visualized them. And I havedrawn models of them. If you can understand that

one

can visualize a 3D space or object with just two dimensions to work with

Please notice that that's possible only because one has already actually
*viewed* real 3-D spaces.


Are you sure about this? How do you know? It is possible for one to visualize
three dimensional object and spaces that one has never seen from viwing a two
dimensional rendering of such objects and spaces.

Do you understand the distinction between being able to "visualize" a
*particular* 3-D object or space that one has never seen from being able
to "visualize" a 3-D space having never seen *any*?

It is also possible to
visualize three diemensional spaces and objects that cannot exist in the real
world simply by viewing 2 dimensional renderings of them. this is the case with
simple four dimensional spaces like the ones I have rendered.

Hence my inquiry about exactly when and how

you've had the remarkable privilege of actually viewing any 4-D spaces.


Your question is built on a false premise. One does not have to see something
incarnate to be able to visualize it.



The point is that just as there's no mental "visualization" of 3-D
spaces without prior viewing of actual 3-D spaces, the same goes for 4-D
spaces.


You are just making this up. It is my understanding that the opposite might
very well be true. When I was taking calculous at my old university the teacher
told us about a blind mathematician he knew that had no problem visualizing
multidimensional spaces on x,y,z,a,b,c..... coordinants.

All this shows, of course, is that the man is capable of
*conceptualizing* multidimensional matricies. It does not in any way
show that he could mentally *visualize* such a thing. I never suggested
that 4-D spaces can't be described or represented mathematically, or
via a series of 2-D or 3-D representations.

Now this guy was
apparenty a pretty brilliant mathematician and he wasn't hindered by normal
vision. I think you are making some odd assumptions about what people can and
cannot visualize in their mind's eye. I am sure that mathetaticians who work
with complex non-Euclidean geometry spend much of their time visualizing things
people have never seen.



it shouldn't be that big a [deal] to figure out how one can do the same for

simple

four dimensional spaces with just three dimensions to work with.

Er, well, unless you're congenitally blind, you've *seen* 3-D spaces --
that's why you can mentally visualize one by extrapolating from a 2-D
representation.


That is an assumption you are mistakenly making.



Heck, you can do it with two dimensions.

I don't doubt that you believe you can.


I don't doubt you believe that nobody can. I feel sorry for anyone who ever
takes a stab at telling you about special reletivity or quantum physics. I can
see you fighting it the whole way. Or are you one of those folks who believes
those things are incomprehensable?

There's nothing "incomprehensible" about either one. Neither is there
anything incomprehensible about a 4-D space, or indeed about any
multi-dimensional space. They can be described or depicted via
representations in a variety of ways. The only problem is your silly
suggestion that you can conjure up in your mind a 4-D "visualization".
But we've already wasted far more time on this than it merits.


This was surely the kind of thing Jeremy Bentham hand in mind when he
coined the expression "nonsense on stilts".


Surely it wasn't.

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 7/16/2004 11:43 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Note that the "sow" is Porky's female.
Perhaps Phillips doesn't like that you speak like that of his wife.
Oh I see, you are adept of wife-swapping. What a band of pervert. :-)







Nice tap dance little monkey. You are to regret the only one I know who calls
to the wife as for a sow. It was your sow that clearly need the service of man
while the monkey of french beer vent your rage after clock struck 12 each
night. Just try to clarification for the monkey dancer no? ;-)
The french monkey prefer the blow job to the bull dog I regret to remember no?
;-) Beware le police, France have laws against monkeys blowing bull dogs no?
;-)

S888Wheel a écrit :

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 7/16/2004 11:43 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Note that the "sow" is Porky's female.
Perhaps Phillips doesn't like that you speak like that of his wife.
Oh I see, you are adept of wife-swapping. What a band of pervert. :-)








Nice tap dance little monkey. You are to regret the only one I know who calls
to the wife as for a sow. It was your sow that clearly need the service of man
while the monkey of french beer vent your rage after clock struck 12 each
night. Just try to clarification for the monkey dancer no? ;-)
The french monkey prefer the blow job to the bull dog I regret to remember no?
;-) Beware le police, France have laws against monkeys blowing bull dogs no?
;-)
;-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-)

*Good no* ? :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-)

From: johnebravo836
Date: 7/16/2004 12:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



S888Wheel wrote:

From: johnebravo836
Date: 7/16/2004 8:19 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



S888Wheel wrote:


From: johnebravo836
Date: 7/15/2004 9:01 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

[snip]


Please explain, then, when (and, just as importantly, how) you have
actually *viewed* any 4-D spaces, which would then make it possible for
you to look at a single 3-D representation and extrapolate from that to
"visualize" a 4-D space.


I have never said I have actually "viewed" any 4D spaces. I said I have
visualized them. And I havedrawn models of them. If you can understand
that

one

can visualize a 3D space or object with just two dimensions to work with

Please notice that that's possible only because one has already actually
*viewed* real 3-D spaces.


Are you sure about this? How do you know? It is possible for one to
visualize
three dimensional object and spaces that one has never seen from viwing a
two
dimensional rendering of such objects and spaces.

Do you understand the distinction between being able to "visualize" a
*particular* 3-D object or space that one has never seen from being able
to "visualize" a 3-D space having never seen *any*?

Please explian the distintion between being able to visualize a particlular 3D
object or space that does not and cannot exist in the real world from being
able to visualize a 3-D space having never seen any. You are hanging your
argument on an assumption that is uproven and probably quite untrue. Until you
can prove that people who have never had sight can not possibly visualize
things in their mind you are arguing purely from an assumption. One that I am
conficent is quite untrue.



It is also possible to
visualize three diemensional spaces and objects that cannot exist in the
real
world simply by viewing 2 dimensional renderings of them. this is the case
with
simple four dimensional spaces like the ones I have rendered.

Hence my inquiry about exactly when and how

you've had the remarkable privilege of actually viewing any 4-D spaces.


Your question is built on a false premise. One does not have to see
something
incarnate to be able to visualize it.



The point is that just as there's no mental "visualization" of 3-D
spaces without prior viewing of actual 3-D spaces, the same goes for 4-D
spaces.


You are just making this up. It is my understanding that the opposite might
very well be true. When I was taking calculous at my old university the
teacher
told us about a blind mathematician he knew that had no problem visualizing
multidimensional spaces on x,y,z,a,b,c..... coordinants.

All this shows, of course, is that the man is capable of
*conceptualizing* multidimensional matricies.

Nonsnese, You cannot speak for what he sees in his mind.

It does not in any way
show that he could mentally *visualize* such a thing.

It is entirely possible that the whole thing was made up but the notion that a
blind mathematician cannot visualize graphs is ridiculous.

I never suggested
that 4-D spaces can't be described or represented mathematically, or
via a series of 2-D or 3-D representations.

Indeed you are simply speculating as to what others can and cannot visualize
based on false premesis.



Now this guy was
apparenty a pretty brilliant mathematician and he wasn't hindered by normal
vision. I think you are making some odd assumptions about what people can
and
cannot visualize in their mind's eye. I am sure that mathetaticians who
work
with complex non-Euclidean geometry spend much of their time visualizing
things
people have never seen.



it shouldn't be that big a [deal] to figure out how one can do the same
for

simple

four dimensional spaces with just three dimensions to work with.

Er, well, unless you're congenitally blind, you've *seen* 3-D spaces --
that's why you can mentally visualize one by extrapolating from a 2-D
representation.


That is an assumption you are mistakenly making.



Heck, you can do it with two dimensions.

I don't doubt that you believe you can.


I don't doubt you believe that nobody can. I feel sorry for anyone who ever
takes a stab at telling you about special reletivity or quantum physics. I
can
see you fighting it the whole way. Or are you one of those folks who
believes
those things are incomprehensable?

There's nothing "incomprehensible" about either one. Neither is there
anything incomprehensible about a 4-D space, or indeed about any
multi-dimensional space. They can be described or depicted via
representations in a variety of ways. The only problem is your silly
suggestion that you can conjure up in your mind a 4-D "visualization".
But we've already wasted far more time on this than it merits.

Indeed, It has been a waste of time. Maybe someday you will have an easier time
with visualization of things.




This was surely the kind of thing Jeremy Bentham hand in mind when he
coined the expression "nonsense on stilts".


Surely it wasn't.

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 7/16/2004 1:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel a écrit :

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 7/16/2004 11:43 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Note that the "sow" is Porky's female.
Perhaps Phillips doesn't like that you speak like that of his wife.
Oh I see, you are adept of wife-swapping. What a band of pervert. :-)








Nice tap dance little monkey. You are to regret the only one I know who
calls
to the wife as for a sow. It was your sow that clearly need the service of
man
while the monkey of french beer vent your rage after clock struck 12 each
night. Just try to clarification for the monkey dancer no? ;-)
The french monkey prefer the blow job to the bull dog I regret to remember
no?
;-) Beware le police, France have laws against monkeys blowing bull dogs
no?
;-)
;-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-)

*Good no* ? :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-)







Glad I could to help. ;-) Bull dogs in France sleep better for tonight no? ;-)
Poor sow still needs for a man, I regret all to offer her you have is a dancing
monkey that remains occupied for with his imaginary hero is Le city of Angels.
I regret for your sow again tonight. ;-)

S888Wheel a écrit :

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 7/16/2004 1:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel a écrit :


From: Lionel ahc
Date: 7/16/2004 11:43 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Note that the "sow" is Porky's female.
Perhaps Phillips doesn't like that you speak like that of his wife.
Oh I see, you are adept of wife-swapping. What a band of pervert. :-)








Nice tap dance little monkey. You are to regret the only one I know who

calls

to the wife as for a sow. It was your sow that clearly need the service of

man

while the monkey of french beer vent your rage after clock struck 12 each
night. Just try to clarification for the monkey dancer no? ;-)
The french monkey prefer the blow job to the bull dog I regret to remember

no?

;-) Beware le police, France have laws against monkeys blowing bull dogs

no?

;-)

;-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-)

*Good no* ? :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-)








Glad I could to help. ;-) Bull dogs in France sleep better for tonight no? ;-)
Poor sow still needs for a man, I regret all to offer her you have is a dancing
monkey that remains occupied for with his imaginary hero is Le city of Angels.
I regret for your sow again tonight. ;-)
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) )
;-) Still good ?

Paul Dormer a écrit :
"S888Wheel" emitted :


Once again you have for to insult my family you assvaginaballsack dick
worshiper. you rape you sow and her litter with you little unit you snake of
the worse kind half man number boy. You are wseven times worse than Bush and
Hitler with french beer in your cowardice window. You mate with the fathers of
dead animals you pig swine cow **** lover eater. You agree to be the despicable
snake minkey dancer lover of sows and litters. You are lucky you never hav e
meet with me in your sewer you coward half number ono person man. You are the
small bitch in heat of RAO no? Just trying to help the French Bull dog sucker
;-)


LOL ;-)

Good you don't need to rob your mother's antidepressants this week-end. ;-)

Paul Dormer a écrit :

"S888Wheel" emitted :


Glad I could to help. ;-) Bull dogs in France sleep better for tonight no? ;-)
Poor sow still needs for a man, I regret all to offer her you have is a dancing
monkey that remains occupied for with his imaginary hero is Le city of Angels.
I regret for your sow again tonight. ;-)


BwaahhahahahaHAAAAA!

N2O overdose ?