The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[MarkE]

Another wrong assertion by you!

Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work.  According to the fair use act, brief excerpts do not need permission to be republished if used for teaching and research purposes and is not considered wrongful appropriation, as you once again wrongly asserted.  I never claimed the excerpts as my own original work, and it is also not defined as stealing under the fair use act if used for teaching and research purposes.

Are you claiming the two images you provided in your previous posts are your own work?  If not, then I'm sure you didn't obtain permission to republish those copyrighted images.

Gravock

LOL, you really don't want to read do you?  Attribution is not the same as permission.  Plagiarism is a failure to attribute. 

[MarkE]

Are you asserting euclidean circles drawn in taxicab geometry is the one postulate of Euclidean geometry in which it fails?

Gravock

LOL, it's fun to watch you troll by making things up.  In case you didn't know: a taxicab "circle" is drawn as a Euclidean square. 

[gravityblock]

LOL, you really don't want to read do you?  Attribution is not the same as permission.  Plagiarism is a failure to attribute.

Another wrong assertion and misdirection made by you.  Plagiarism is not a failure to attribute.  Plagiarism is wrongfully appropriating (borrowing without permission) and stealing and taking credit for someone else's work as your own.  According to the fair use act, brief excerpts do not need permission to be used for teaching or for research purposes, thus it does not fall under wrongful appropriation and/or stealing.  I also didn't take credit for someone else's work as my own.  It is you who don't want to read and this is another psychological projection made by you.  This is nothing more than another distraction to the main purpose of this thread.

Gravock

[MarkE]

Another wrong assertion and misdirection made by you.  Plagiarism is not a failure to attribute.  Plagiarism is wrongfully appropriating (borrowing without permission) and stealing and taking credit for someone else's work as your own.  According to the fair use act, brief excerpts do not need permission to be used for teaching or for research purposes, thus it does not fall under wrongful appropriation and/or stealing.  I also didn't take credit for someone else's work as my own.  It is you who don't want to read and this is another psychological projection made by you.  This is nothing more than another distraction to the main purpose of this thread.

Gravock

LOL, you've buried yourself with your own words.   

[gravityblock]

LOL, it's fun to watch you troll by making things up.  In case you didn't know: a taxicab "circle" is drawn as a Euclidean square.

Once again, taxicab geometry has traditionally included elements that are not native to the geometry. The primary example is Euclidean angles. Since angles are defined as arc length along a circle and the taxicab circle is quite different than the Euclidean circle, native taxicab angles are not Euclidean. Pure taxicab geometry uses angles that are native and natural to the geometry.  I have already stated many times prior to this in regards to the diagram of sarkeizen that there was both euclidean and non-euclidean geometry in it.  You're not telling me anything I do not already know.  So, how can a euclidean circle in taxicab geometry fail one of the postulates of euclidean geometry?

Gravock