It doesn’t matter, because you don’t remember your past lives anyway.

For example, if you go for coffee and forget to come back to work, this child will say what was said when you were not in the hall, and will say who you should counter-attack.

Is this really not the onion?

Even more, if you count water as a drug.

No.

Do you mind if I do not do that?

What I meant is that some people portray the thin flat object itself as a 2D object, e.g. a piece of paper opposed to a box. I do understand that it’s intuitive to associate the absence of a dimension with a value close to 0 for it and vice versa, because that’s how we visualize it.

Yes, they are only abstractions, just like numbers are. I do not understand your conclusion that they therefore do not exist.

I still upvoted this, because I can see where you are coming from. It’s frustrating when adults portray thin flat objects as “2D objects” to explain dimensions to children. It’s not a simplification; it’s simply wrong.

Recursion