A hidden assumption

Last edited:
So, you are retracting your claim that silence is the simplest audio state?

The use of "silence" here is no more than some analogy.

So try to understand the things behind the analogy.
 
Last edited:
The completeness of a researchable thing is exactly its restriction.

No researchable thing is complete (is total).

Of these, I asked:
Please clarify which of these two conflicting statements you are actually propounding.

To which you replied:
There is no conflict, since a researchable think is incomplete, otherwise it is not researchable.

So I asked:
So, when you wrote 'The completeness of a researchable thing is exactly its restriction.' you were not describing a researchable thing? Is that what you are now saying?

To which you claimed:
A researchable thing cannot be both researchable AND complete.

So I asked the obvious followup question:
So it is possible for a researchable thing to not be researchable? Is that what you're saying?

And you said:
No. A researchabe thing is not total (not complete).

From this I deduce that your statement:
A researchable thing cannot be both researchable AND complete.
reduces to 'A researchable thing cannot be complete', because, by definition, a researchable thing is researchable. Is that correct?

If that is so, can you clarify what you meant by:
The completeness of a researchable thing is exactly its restriction.
 
"Related to ..." is not used here as "a member of ...." but as two mathematical concepts that are inseparable of each other.


Know please answer to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3634327&postcount=740 .


You are very good about telling us what something doesn't mean, aren't you? Now, if you could just work out how to let people know what something does mean.

Replacing "related to" with "inseparable from" swaps one vague term with one even more so.


As drkitten has pointed out, your words don't mean what you think they do, and you don't know what your are talking about, either.
 
Last edited:
The use of "silence" here is no more than some analogy.
This is not an answer to whether you're retracting your claim about silence being the simplest audio state. If you don't claim that silence is the simplest audio state, in what way is it an analogy?
 
This is not an answer to whether you're retracting your claim about silence being the simplest audio state. If you don't claim that silence is the simplest audio state, in what way is it an analogy?

Nathan, Silence is the best point of view to get any sound, becuae it is the simplest audio state.

If you disagree with me then please provide somthing which is simpler than Total Silence, in this analogy.
 
Last edited:
You are very good about telling us what something doesn't mean, aren't you? Now, if you could just work out how to let people know what something does mean.

Replacing "related to" with "inseparable from" swaps one vague term with one even more so.


As drkitten has pointed out, your words don't mean what you think they do, and you don't know what your are talking about, either.

No, your ability to understand simple terms was lost because of too many sophisticated formal mechanical and unconscious games.
 
Last edited:
No, your ability to understand simple terms was lost because of too many sophisticated formal mechanical and unconscious games.


No, I seem to do fairly well with ordinary English and with standard Mathematics terminology. There isn't much support for your claim.

Still, humor me: What do you mean by "inseparable" as used in "|N| and N are inseparable"? Or, equivalently, what do you mean by "related" as used in "|N| and N are related"?

Or, if you like, I will just invent some new meaning (which I won't share, of course), then we can continue to not communicate.
 
jsfisher, PixMisa, Nathan, drkitten, Apathia, ArmillarySphere, and all the other persons that shared their time in this thread.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

I wish you the best.



Doron :)
 
Last edited:
jsfisher, PixMisa, Nathan, drkitten, Apathia, ArmillarySphere, and all the other persons that shared their time in this thread.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart, I wish you the best.

Doron​


Translation: Everyone here realizes I have no clue what I'm talking about, so I shall now go run and hide.
 
jsfisher, PixMisa, Nathan, drkitten, Apathia, ArmillarySphere, and all the other persons that shared their time in this thread.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

I wish you the best.



Doron :)

Farewell Doron.
It's well to cut your losses in communication here. I hope you will find a way to translate your ideas into language that doesn't confuse. Then you will be able to get some specific criticism of work instead of misunderstanding at every word.
 
Last edited:
I hope you will find a way to translate your ideas into language that doesn't confuse.

I predict doron will just take is monologue on the road to the next worthy forum he finds. He's proven his mastery of the copy/paste. The same opening post will soon appear elsewhere, possibly with a few quotes from here integrated into it. (We got a quote or two from "drmatt"; he's a poster at another forum doron had visited earlier.)
 
I predict doron will just take is monologue on the road to the next worthy forum he finds. He's proven his mastery of the copy/paste. The same opening post will soon appear elsewhere, possibly with a few quotes from here integrated into it. (We got a quote or two from "drmatt"; he's a poster at another forum doron had visited earlier.)

Yup.
He's 20 years into this and getting more and more obscure.
 
Doron,
If you are still reading this thread, you'd asked about a relationship between N and |N|. I will now provide my answer.

There are of course many, many ways in which the set of natural numbers and its cardinality are related; there are also many, many ways in which the two are unrelated. (And that's why what you asked was not a well-formed question.)

Be that as it may, they are related in a way I find interesting, but in order to present it, I must take an aside to lay my foundation so we are all on the same page. I'll develop the set of integers in a fairly standard set-theoretic way.

Define 0 to be {} and define the Successor function, S(x) to be (x∪{x}).
S(0) = (0∪{0}) = ({}∪{0}) = {0}. The successor of 0 we will call 1. So, 1 = {0}.

And then,
2 = S(1) = (1∪{1}) = ({0}∪{1}) = {0,1}
3 = S(2) = (2∪{2}) = ({0,1}∪{2}) = {0,1,2}
4 = S(3) = (3∪{3}) = ({0,1,2}∪{3}) = {0,1,2,3}

So, ∀x∊N, x = {0,1,2,...,x-1}. That is, any natural number x is the set of all natural numbers less than x.

So far so good? All I have done is represented the natural numbers as sets.

The ZF Axiom of Infinity reads as follows: ∃N ({}∊N ∧ ∀x∊N ((x∪{x})∊N))

It postulates the existence of a set that includes the empty set and the successor for every member of the set. This is precisely the set of all natural numbers.

What about cardinality? Well, take 6 for example: 6 = {0,1,2,3,4,5} and |{0,1,2,3,4,5}| = 6. So, |6| = 6.

As it turns out, ∀x∊N, |x| = x, and by extension, |N| = N.

In other words, N = [font=+4]ℵ[/font]0


Well, I find it interesting, at least.
 

Back
Top Bottom