[r6r6]

"relational" = 'concerning the way in which two or more people or things are connected.' Got that in a google search

Gem-good enough definition.

Yes it covers your A and B.

There is no A or B in fact, only the equal relation, so I just use the A and B dots as a representation.

The problem removing A and B doing that is that you then have no visual expression to aid you in whatever definition/meaning your trying to apply to your word "relational".
So basically, if you do away with A and B your left with the google definition I offered, and agree with.

So were back todefining what a 'thing' is. How we define a 'thing' and that leads to using words like dot, A dot B, line-of-relationship etc.....

And some of the words I added to disscussion, ex angle, 2D area is the mininmal expression of a dot and a dot is really just a short line.

You're getting caught up in the representation but that representation is only an explanation of the concept. It needn't be dots or lines at all. Another representation would be as good.

As I originally concept of a metaphysical-1 dot cannot be expressed with less than 2D area.

The minimal area is a 2D triangle and it has;

..3 angles,
..3 lines-of-relationship,
..3 corners/vertices connecting only two lines,

and similar too--- tho not exact --it divides infinite "U"niverse and finite Universe into two parts;

...all the space inside and all the space outside of the triangle.

One thing has one aspect. Equal relation. But the philosophy shows how equal relation has different possibilities.

Well relation = relationship and that is at minimal is composed of three aspects, that I presented to you previously. A C B

A terminal end point/dot or whatever you want to call it

B terminal end point/dot that is 180 degrees diametric at other end of the,

C line-of-relationship.

The dot represents a zero dimensional entity.

That is what I refer to as a metaphysical-1 ergo conceptual dot, or point.

It expressing the equal relation, so it is equalateral.

All polyhedra all symmetrically equal in their a respective set of;
... interior angle,
...surface angle and,
.... exterior angle

A as beginning point/dot of line-of-relationship C, is not equal to B, if we consider that A comes before B in the actualy creation of a line-of-relatonship, between beginning A and ending point B.

And again, any metaphysical-1, i.e. conceptual line-of-relationship, actually expressed, can be no less than 2D area i.e. a expressed line, at mininimum is just a long dot.

gem-The tet can express equal relation but the cube can not because there are three different distances between a cubes vertices. (Dots would be at vertices.)

True, insofar as, the tetrahedrons design does not allow for lines-of-relationship between the vertices across the volumetric interior i.e. the tetrahedron does not have allow for diametric diameters between vertices ergo those 6 lines-of-relationships are chords.

Whereas the cube and other three regular polyhedra I mentioned previously do allow for volumetrically diametric lines-of-relationship.

r6



Where more that 4 dots exist there can not be an equal relation.


Not exactly, the inside and outside is an act of distinction (see George Spencer Brown) - the equal relation is not. The shapes I used only represent the equal relation concept. The 4 dot relation just shows that space is an inevitable facet of equal relation.[/quote]