Deeper than primes

doronshadmi · May 24, 2009

jsfisher said:
I never thought that, nor would I. You really, really must do something about your reading comprehension. Did you really think I said [X,Y] was a finite interval and (X,Y) was not? They are both finite intervals.

Here we go again.

jsfisher, [X,Y] or (X,Y) have infinitely many R members, whether your community likes it or not.

Furthermore, all of these members are in these intervals, and as a result there is an immediate predecessor to Y, whether Y is excluded or included, it does not matter.

zooterkin · May 24, 2009

doronshadmi said:
Here we go again.

jsfisher, [X,Y] or (X,Y) have infinitely many R members, whether your community likes it or not.

Who is saying there is not an infinite number of real numbers in the interval? I think you misunderstand the meaning of the term 'finite interval'.

Furthermore, all of these members are in these intervals, and as a result there is an immediate predecessor to Y, whether Y is excluded or included, it does not matter.

Really? If Y is 7.3, what is its immediate predecessor?

doronshadmi · May 24, 2009

The Man said:
No Doron again and as usual the contradiction is simply in your own assertions

“infinitely many finite cases” has “the quality of a non-finite collection” because you specifically gave it that ‘quality’ by declaring that you are concerned with “using infinitely many finite cases”. Then you say "no finite case alone has the quality of a non-finite collection", but your assertion was about "infinitely many finite cases” not any one "finite case alone".

Organic Mathematics does not have this problem, because by it only Fullness is actual infinity.

Your framework cannot get the notion of the incomplete non-finite collection, because its abstraction can't get things beyond the existence of a collection, and it also force the term all on a non-finite collection, which clearly shows that your community simply does not understand the non-finite.

Stop forcing Weak Emergence on OM's non-standard Strong Emergence, because each time that you do that you get the "spring of contradiction" right back in your face.

zooterkin · May 24, 2009

In case you overlooked it, I'm still waiting for the definition of 'crisp' and some example crisp ids.

doronshadmi · May 24, 2009

zooterkin said:
Who is saying there is not an infinite number of real numbers in the interval? I think you misunderstand the meaning of the term 'finite interval'.

So why to call to an ordered collation of infinitely many elements 'finite interval'?

By using this style of reasoning, the words have no meaning, so instead 'finite' or 'non-finite' we can use any meaningless sting of symbols, for example 'yoklo' and 'non-yoklo'.

In that case the meaning of 'yoklo' is derived form the axioms, definitions, etc. of the given framework, where the axioms, definitions must have a meaning, otherwise we are under a meaningless non-finite regression.

zooterkin said:
Really? If Y is 7.3, what is its immediate predecessor?

This is exactly my claim.

Standard Math cannot explicitly define or disproves the existence of the immediate predecessor of 7.3, if 7.3 is a value used at [X, 7.3] or [X, 7.3) non-finite intervals.

doronshadmi · May 24, 2009

jsfisher said:
Let's try this again, but only one question at a time:

If B is in the open interval (A,C), then is B < C ?

Simple enough question, isn't it?

By B < C we mean that any member of (A,C) is < C.

zooterkin · May 24, 2009

doronshadmi said:
So why to call to an ordered collation of infinitely many elements 'finite interval'?

Because the interval is finite?

In that case the meaning of 'yoklo' is derived form the axioms, definitions, etc. of the given framework, where the axioms, definitions must have a meaning, otherwise we are under a meaningless non-finite regression.

Quite. How's that definition of 'crisp' coming on?

This is exactly my claim.

Standard Math cannot explicitly define or disproves the existence of the immediate predecessor of 7.3, if 7.3 is a value used at [X, 7.3] or [X, 7.3) non-finite intervals.

So, by your OM, what is the immediate predecessor of 7.3?

doronshadmi · May 24, 2009

zooterkin said:
Because the interval is finite?

Why, because we explicitly know X and Y of the interval [X,Y]?

zooterkin · May 24, 2009

doronshadmi said:
Why, because we explicitly know X and Y of the interval [X,Y]?

Um, exactly because X and Y are defined, the interval is finite. It's from X, to Y. Finite.

doronshadmi · May 24, 2009

zooterkin said:
Um, exactly because X and Y are defined, the interval is finite. It's from X, to Y. Finite.

Well, on the the contrary to you I do not ignore the non-finite elements of [X,Y] interval.

An interval can be called 'finite' iff each element of the interval [X,Y] is clearly defined exactly as X and Y are clearly defined.

doronshadmi · May 24, 2009

zooterkin said:
So, by your OM, what is the immediate predecessor of 7.3?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4736517&postcount=2995

zooterkin · May 24, 2009

doronshadmi said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4736517&postcount=2995

doronshadmi said:
Little 10 Toes said:

Using OM, tell us what the predecessor of y is in the expression [x,y] when using a number line.

Click to expand...

Organic Mathematic explicitly defines the immediate predecessor of y, as the non-local element that is both on y AND on any arbitrary member of [x,y] interval.

So, what is that value in the case of y=7.3?

zooterkin · May 24, 2009

doronshadmi said:
Well, on the the contrary to you I do not ignore the non-finite elements of [X,Y] interval.

Who's ignoring the infinite number of elements? The term 'finite interval' refers to the interval as being finite, because it is fixed in size. Why are you having trouble understanding that?

An interval can be called 'finite' iff each element of the interval [X,Y] is clearly defined exactly as X and Y are clearly defined.

You really don't understand, do you?

doronshadmi · May 24, 2009

Since you can't get the red photon analogy, then the is no choice but to show it to you step-by-step according to your "proof".

Here is your "proof":

jsfisher said:
Assume the set {X : X<Y} does have a largest element, Z.

For Z to be an element of the set, Z < Y.
Let h be any element of the interval (Z,Y).
By the construction of h, Z < h < Y.
Since h < Y, h is an element of the set {X : X<Y}.
Since Z < h, the assumption Z was the largest element of the set has been contradicted.

Therefore, the set {X : X<Y} does not have a largest element.

Now let us analyze it row by row:

jsfisher said:
Assume the set {X : X<Y} does have a largest element, Z.

By this assumption we get Z as the immediate predecessor of Y, but this is the point
where the assumption does not hold (even before the Z < h < Y constriction is used as a part of the "proof").

The reason that it is immediately does not hold is very simple:

If the element is clearly defined, then we deal with the interval [Z,Y), and Z is obviously not the immediate predecessor of Y (because to any "most left" distinct member of some interval, there must be members that are greater than it) and therefore not the largest element of the interval that is < Y.

Z<Y is nothing but finite case that can't be used in order to conclude anything about the immediate predecessor of Y.

In other words, your "proof" dies on its own assumption, and as a result there is no conclusion.

The Man · May 24, 2009

doronshadmi said:
Organic Mathematics does not have this problem, because by it only Fullness is actual infinity.

Your framework cannot get the notion of the incomplete non-finite collection, because its abstraction can't get things beyond the existence of a collection, and it also force the term all on a non-finite collection, which clearly shows that your community simply does not understand the non-finite.

Stop forcing Weak Emergence on OM's non-standard Strong Emergence, because each time that you do that you get the "spring of contradiction" right back in your face.

Doron you are the one who referenced “This inability to conclude something about the non-finite, by using infinitely many finite cases” and then claimed it was “because no finite case alone has the quality of a non-finite collection”. You simply can not make up you mind whether you want to talk about using “infinitely many finite cases” or just some “finite case alone”. Stop trying to pin your crap on others, because each time you do that you will get your crap sprayed right back in your face.

zooterkin · May 25, 2009

doronshadmi said:
In other words, your "proof" dies on its own assumption, and as a result there is no conclusion.

That's the point.

jsfisher said:
I will use a simple proof by contradiction. As with all such proofs, it begins with an assumption then proceeds to construct a contradiction, thereby showing the assumption to be false.

Assume the set {X : X<Y} does have a largest element, Z.

For Z to be an element of the set, Z < Y.
Let h be any element of the interval (Z,Y).
By the construction of h, Z < h < Y.
Since h < Y, h is an element of the set {X : X<Y}.
Since Z < h, the assumption Z was the largest element of the set has been contradicted.

Therefore, the set {X : X<Y} does not have a largest element.

(My bolding.) Try reading all the words, in order.

doronshadmi · May 25, 2009

The Man said:
Doron you are the one who referenced “This inability to conclude something about the non-finite, by using infinitely many finite cases”

No, at OM I use the actual infinity of fullness, in order to conclude that there is no such a thing like, the interval of all non-finite elements.

Standard Math is the framework that claims that there is such a thing like the interval of all non-finite elements.

What I show is that because of this claim, standard Math can't explicitly define or disprove the existence of the immediate predecessor of Y.

In other words, you simply do not understand what you read.

doronshadmi · May 25, 2009

zooterkin said:
That's the point.

(My bolding.) Try reading all the words, in order.

You have totally missed my argument once again.

What I show is that if Z is distinct, then it is not the immediate predecessor of Y.

It does not mean that the immediate predecessor of Y does not exist.

It simply shows that Standard Math can't use any formal method, based on symbols, in order to explicitly define of disprove the existence of the immediate predecessor of Y.

The Man · May 25, 2009

doronshadmi said:
No,

No? You mean you did not make those claims I quoted?

doronshadmi said:
at OM I use the actual infinity of fullness, in order to conclude that there is no such a thing like, the interval of all non-finite elements.

So now you’re saying the claims you made before were not the claims you made before because you are now making some other claim about disproving “the interval of all non-finite elements” which no one has claimed anything about except you.

doronshadmi said:
Standard Math is the framework that claims that there is such a thing like the interval of all non-finite elements.

Please show where that claim is made.

doronshadmi said:
What I show is that because of this claim, standard Math can't explicitly define or disprove the existence of the immediate predecessor of Y.

In other words, you simply do not understand what you read.

Again, Doron you are only showing that you make claims about standard math without understanding the claims you make or that standard math.

jsfisher · May 25, 2009

doronshadmi said:
Since you can't get the red photon analogy....

How would you know? Your analogy has not been discussed at all except for a side reference you completely failed to understand. So, the only evidence available so far is that you are the only one lacking some understanding of the red photon analogy.

...
By this assumption we get Z as the immediate predecessor of Y...

By this assumption we get Z as the largest element of the set.

...
In other words, your "proof" dies on its own assumption, and as a result there is no conclusion.

It doesn't "die" at all. That is exactly how proofs-by-contradiction work. The assumption leads to a contradiction, and therefore the assumption must be false. And thus, the set {X : X<Y} has no largest element. QED

doronshadmi · May 25, 2009

The Man said:
So now you’re saying the claims you made before were not the claims you made before because you are now making some other claim about disproving “the interval of all non-finite elements” which no one has claimed anything about except you.

You mix between two different answers of mine.

One was about the solution of OM, which clearly shows that there is no immediate local predecessor to Y (Here I use Fullness as the actual infinity).

The other is about the inability of Standard Math to explicitly define or disprove the existence of the immediate predecessor of Y, because it uses a finite case of collection in order to conclude something on a non-finite case of collection.

In other words, OM uses a viewpoint that is more comprehensive than the researched thing (an interval with non-finite elements, in this case) , and therefore my argument holds.

On the contrary, Standard Math forces a viewpoint based on the Finite in order to conclude something about the Non-finite, and therefore this argument does not hold.

The Man said:
Please show where that claim is made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_(mathematics)

In mathematics, a (real) interval is a set of real numbers with the property that any number that lies between two numbers in the set is also included in the set. For example, the set of all numbers x satisfying 0 ≤ x ≤ 1 is an interval which contains 0 and 1, as well as all numbers between them.

The Man said:
Again, Doron you are only showing that you make claims about standard math without understanding the claims you make or that standard math.

Again, The Man you are only showing that you make claims about standard math without understanding the claims you make or that standard math.

doronshadmi · May 25, 2009

jsfisher said:
How would you know? Your analogy has not been discussed at all except for a side reference you completely failed to understand. So, the only evidence available so far is that you are the only one lacking some understanding of the red photon analogy.

The red photon is equivalent to a finite case that is used in order to conclude something about a non-finite case.

It is obvious that we can't used notions taken from a finite collection and use them in order to conclude something about a non-finite collection.

Standard Math fails exactly because of this reason, as follows:

jsfisher said:
By this assumption we get Z as the largest element of the set.

In this case you are based on the finite case of the comparison between distinct X and distinct Z, which are the two (where two is a finite cardinal) extreme cases of [X,Z] interval, such that X < Z < Y.

It has to be noticed that Z is the smallest element of the interval [Z,Y), so we are still under a,b construction , where in this case Z is the smallest distinct element and Y is the largest distinct element.

Also in this case we deal with the finite case of two (where two is a finite cardinal) distinct values, that can't be used in order to conclude anything about the non-finite collection of all elements of [Z,Y) interval.

In other words, no matter what you do, you are closed under the finite case of a,b construction, and cannot use it in order to conclude anything about the non-finite case of a,b construction (whether it is (X,Y) , (X,Y] , [X,Y) or [X,Y], it does not matter).

It means that you are stacked at the first row of your "proof" (under the finite case of a,b construction) and never reach to the second row of your "proof".

As a result, there is no proof, and there is no conclusion that is derived from this proof.

jsfisher said:
It doesn't "die" at all.

You are right about this. Your "proof" is not even born.

jsfisher · May 25, 2009

doronshadmi said:
It is obvious that we can't used notions taken from a finite collection and use them in order to conclude something about a non-finite collection.

It is neither obvious nor true. This is just another baseless allegation offered without evidence. It is a fantasy of doronetics, formed out of ignorance, inconsistency, and contradiction.

Doron, you really need to stop just making stuff up.

doronshadmi · May 25, 2009

jsfisher said:
It is neither obvious nor true. This is just another baseless allegation offered without evidence. It is a fantasy of doronetics, formed out of ignorance, inconsistency, and contradiction.

Doron, you really need to stop just making stuff up.

It is a "solid rock" true, whether you accept is or not.

jsfisher · May 25, 2009

doronshadmi said:
In this case you are based on the finite case of the comparison between distinct X and distinct Z, which are the two (where two is a finite cardinal) extreme cases of [X,Z] interval, such that X < Z < Y....

I see your reading comprehension issues continue. You don't understand what I wrote, so you misrepresent and misinterpret it.

No wonder you don't get it. Instead you just invent fiction of contradiction, inconsistency, and ignorance.

jsfisher · May 25, 2009

doronshadmi said:
It is a "solid rock" true, whether you accept is or not.

It is a bare allegation from you. You allege many, many things, things you cannot explain or proof. This is just another in a long history.

...and like most of these things you allege, they are just your fantasy.

doronshadmi · May 25, 2009

jsfisher said:
I see your reading comprehension issues continue. You don't understand what I wrote, so you misrepresent and misinterpret it.

No wonder you don't get it. Instead you just invent fiction of contradiction, inconsistency, and ignorance.

I understand exactly what you wrote.

Again:

We are in the same state of Godel's incompleteness theorems, where things must be true but cannot be proved or disproved within the deductive framework that deals with the non-finite.

doronshadmi · May 25, 2009

jsfisher said:
It is a bare allegation from you. You allege many, many things, things you cannot explain or proof. This is just another in a long history.

...and like most of these things you allege, they are just your fantasy.

jsfisher, you have nothing more to say about this case, so you attack me personally, is't it?

jsfisher · May 25, 2009

doronshadmi said:
I understand exactly what you wrote.

The evidence you provide contradicts you. You have misrepresented what I wrote every time you tried. You have accused me of writing things I didn't write, "forcing" things I didn't force, and concluding things I didn't conclude.

In the past you have demonstrated your inability to hold a thought for more than about two steps, then start filling in gaps with your own fantasy. This is no exception.

Again:

We are in the same state of Godel's incompleteness theorems, where things must be true but cannot be proved or disproved within the deductive framework that deals with the non-finite.

No one in this thread (other than you) seriously believes you have even a shallow understanding of Gödel's work, so your statement has no credibility. Moreover, it contradicts your most recent pet allegation.

doronshadmi · May 25, 2009

jsfisher said:
The evidence you provide contradicts you.

Really?

So by using what I wrote, please show explicitly where I fail, exactly as I did to your stuff.

There are no shortcuts here, and no only-personal-attack can help here.

Here it is http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4746186&postcount=3102 , so please do your best.

jsfisher · May 25, 2009

doronshadmi said:
jsfisher said:

It is a bare allegation from you. You allege many, many things, things you cannot explain or proof. This is just another in a long history.

...and like most of these things you allege, they are just your fantasy.

Click to expand...

jsfisher, you have nothing more to say about this case, so you attack me personally, is't it?

The facts are what they are.

You do make many, many fantastical allegations. You do not often provide any evidence to support your allegations. You do have a long history (here, in these fora and elsewhere) of this behavior.

doronshadmi · May 25, 2009

jsfisher said:
The facts are what they are.

You do make many, many fantastical allegations. You do not often provide any evidence to support your allegations. You do have a long history (here, in these fora and elsewhere) of this behavior.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4746319&postcount=3110

jsfisher · May 25, 2009

doronshadmi said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4746319&postcount=3110

If and when you are able to compose something that can actually stays with the proof, we can talk about that. However, I have invested too much already with your tangents off on to things nowhere in the proof.

The Man · May 25, 2009

doronshadmi said:
You mix between two different answers of mine.

One was about the solution of OM, which clearly shows that there is no immediate local predecessor to Y (Here I use Fullness as the actual infinity).

The other is about the inability of Standard Math to explicitly define or disprove the existence of the immediate predecessor of Y, because it uses a finite case of collection in order to conclude something on a non-finite case of collection.

Well the latter is what we were talking about, that you chose to respond with what you now claim is basically some other answer, is simply your problem.

doronshadmi said:
In other words, OM uses a viewpoint that is more comprehensive than the researched thing (an interval with non-finite elements, in this case) , and therefore my argument holds.

Which Argument would that be the one we were talking about where you claimed to be “using infinitely many finite cases” then asserted your ‘conclusion’ “because no finite case alone has the quality of a non-finite collection” or your augment now that your other answer was about something else?

doronshadmi said:
On the contrary, Standard Math forces a viewpoint based on the Finite in order to conclude something about the Non-finite, and therefore this argument does not hold.

No Doron that is just your viewpoint, again please show us where ‘Standard Math’ makes any claim referring to “the interval of all non-finite elements”.

doronshadmi said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_(mathematics)

In mathematics, a (real) interval is a set of real numbers with the property that any number that lies between two numbers in the set is also included in the set. For example, the set of all numbers x satisfying 0 ≤ x ≤ 1 is an interval which contains 0 and 1, as well as all numbers between them.

Click to expand...

Again, The Man you are only showing that you make claims about standard math without understanding the claims you make or that standard math.

Well you highlighted ‘all’ but no reference to an “interval of all non-finite elements” appears in the quotation you provided. Is ‘all’ somehow synonymous with your “interval of all non-finite elements” in your ‘notion’? Which would be kind of redundant and nonsensical since your statement cantinas the word ‘all’ so apparently you do not associate ‘all’ directly and only with your “interval of all non-finite elements” assertion. Again Doron you just demonstrate that instead of reading what is written you simply insert whatever meaning suits your whim.

Just for your edification the interval [0,1] of the real numbers has a infinite number of elements but each of those elements are finite and the interval itself is finite as it spans a finite rage meaning the difference between the boundaries is a finite value (1 in this example). It is in fact your “infinitely many finite cases”.

The Man · May 25, 2009

jsfisher said:
How would you know? Your analogy has not been discussed at all except for a side reference you completely failed to understand. So, the only evidence available so far is that you are the only one lacking some understanding of the red photon analogy.

Well in this regard ‘red photons’ do have the energy required to produce the photoelectric effect depending on the material being bombarded, as you note with cesium. In fact most remote controls (those not using radio frequencies) operate by infa-red or photons with energy lower (longer wavelength) then visible ‘red’ light causing the photoelectric effect. Since we can turn on our TVs Doron’s analogy just doesn’t work as usual. Again Doron’s analogies only serve to demonstrate that his understanding of physics, technology and even philosophy are as abysmal as his understanding of math and language.

The Man · May 25, 2009

doronshadmi said:
In other words, OM uses a viewpoint that is more comprehensive than the researched thing (an interval with non-finite elements, in this case) , and therefore my argument holds.

Here we have an admission by Doron that his OM uses a ‘viewpoint’ that is not directly related to “the researched thing” or as he puts it is “more comprehensive” meaning that it encompasses additional aspects not part of his “researched thing”. As such those additional aspects are independent and not related to his “researched thing”, thus just a consequence of his ‘OM viewpoint’. So Doron’s notion of research is not about some or limited to “the researched thing” but simply an expression of aspects of his ‘OM viewpoint’ that by his own assertion exceed the scope of whatever he claims he is ‘researching’. In the case of when he is ‘researching’ his ‘OM viewpoint’ (which apparently he never really does) must mean that his ‘OM viewpoint’ is "more comprehensive than", well, his ‘OM viewpoint’

doronshadmi · May 25, 2009

jsfisher said:
If and when you are able to compose something that can actually stays with the proof, we can talk about that. However, I have invested too much already with your tangents off on to things nowhere in the proof.

There is no proof, jsfisher.

You invested too much with something that does not hold.

doronshadmi · May 25, 2009

The Man said:
In the case of when he is ‘researching’ his ‘OM viewpoint’ (which apparently he never really does) must mean that his ‘OM viewpoint’ is "more comprehensive than", well, his ‘OM viewpoint’

So once again you demonstrate your inability to get self-reference results ( as clearly explained in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf pages 15 - 17).

Ride on The Man on your Weak Emergence horse, and keep your ignorance as long as you can along your dragged point path.

After this dialog with you and your friends, it is clear that you are nothing but a fanatic community of people like any religious sect, no more no less.

Here is a concrete example of your inability to get new notions: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4736064&postcount=2973 .

jsfisher · May 25, 2009

So, Doron, when can we expect your proof that real numbers must have immediate successors and/or immediate predecessors?

Little 10 Toes · May 25, 2009

doronshadmi said:
There is no proof, jsfisher.

You invested too much with something that does not hold.

Thank you for agreeing that your tangents do not hold.

Deeper than primes

Penultimate Amazing

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

Penultimate Amazing

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

Penultimate Amazing

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Unbanned zombie poster

Unbanned zombie poster

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Master Poster