>>128109378Sorry anon, but why should I bother debating with someone who's not even going to put forth the effort to read? How do you know what's said in the part you didn't read didn't prove you wrong? Because, well, it did.
You still haven't addressed how the words "Equivalence of statements" mean nothing when used in that sequence. And I never dodge questions. That's what you do. Don't you see how you did it just now? You flat out said you're not going to read what's written. Now that this wasn't demonstrated already by how you asked for terms to be defined when they already were in the very posted you linked at the time.
And as for the values. It is really rather simple. Have must not have taken calculus or any kind of math class where you study relative values. It's not numerical in the finite sense. Its value is abstract. And every single thing on the face of existence has at the very least one value; whole (e.g. 1). To that effect, each case of flatness has the relative value of 1 (whole). Meaning the equation is set up at equal value in each instance.
But again. I really should have to reword what's already been said just because you don't want to read.
