I think you meant Q is dense in R

Natural Language Processing

I feel this in my soul

I think I understand, thanks!

It seems like this can be used to argue that any ontological argument contradicts itself, but the Stanford Encyclopedia claims no such argument has been found. Am I (a beginner in both logic and ontological arguments) misunderstanding? plato.stanford.edu/entries/onto...

The domain of f would give the shape of S wouldn't it? Maybe the question is more interesting if instead of f we are given h = f ∘ c where c : [0, 1] → ∂S is a parametrisation of ∂S.