>>14427815>The table has a definite lengthThis is not proven in either the physical or mathematical case.
>Whether we can measure it AT ALL means nothingIt does mean something however. If there is a table you can't measure the length of, then it should raise questions as to whether or not length is such a universal concept or only applicable to special cases. If there really is length, then you should be able to measure it. Length after all is given in terms of measurements IRL along a ruler given a specific demarcation of that ruler or calculations mathematically. In the mathematical cases, if you cannot resolve a calculation, then it should raise suspicions about whether or not identifying length with say the hypotenuse of a hypothetical triangle formed between a two points is really a valid approach mathematically.
After all:
1. Pythagoras' theorem which such definitions are derived from is not an existence theorem. The definition of length is based on a necessary condition.
2. Pythagoras' theorem only specifies a relation between three known lengths or square areas pertaining to the sides of a GIVEN triangle. The equation specified is only the necessary condition. It does not involve the converse. That is: it's not guaranteed a triangle actually exists given only two known lengths or two known areas and it certainly has not been proven.
3. Any such """proofs""" rely on dubious constructions using dubious axioms and dubious reasoning.
>>14428096It doesn't.
