----- Hamish (DP) Harvey said:

>
>
>On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Serg Koren wrote:
>
>> >> I disagree: a point is NOT a magnitude.
>> >
>> >And I agree, or, er, uh, I disagree too.
>> >
>> 
>> But a point IS a location.  And some locations are bigger than others ;-)
>> S
>
>But how? How is a given location 'bigger' than another given location? If
>you define #<,#>,#= etc for locations (points) then the definitions are
>necessarily arbitrary, are they not? If a point is not < another and not >
>another, then it logically must be = to the other, but what happens with
>1 at 2 and 2 at 1?

Well it depends on how close to one point in relationship to the other 
point you are.
If you are at say 0 at 0 then a point at 10 at 10 will be bigger than a point 
at 1000 at 10.
 
Closer points appear bigger.

NOTE: This logic only applies in Flatland.

With tongue firmly in cheek,
S

PS - And one can argue that a 3D point is "bigger" than a 2D point 
because it takes more
room for storage ;-)


-------------------------------------------------
VisualNewt Software: http://www.VisualNewt.com/

Maker of Newt'sPaper(tm) the Premier Newton(R)
MessagePad(tm) News Reader.
-------------------------------------------------