Deeper than primes

doronshadmi · Jan 5, 2010

The Man said:
Exactly just as a bound line segment has some finite length. However, the sum of an infinite number of such segments or an infinite number of times around that circumference is an infinite length. Given Doron's propensity for continually going around in circles, one might have thought that this would be obvious to him.

I am talking about a one and only one "around the closed curve".

If the collection of points is finite, then each point is both a beginning and end along a closed curve.

If the collection of points is infinite, then each point is only a beginning along a closed curve.

Your understanding of pointless closed curve as a finite length clearly demonstrates your inability to grasp the notion of actual infinity as a non-local atom (and a pointless closed curve is exactly actual infinity).

jsfisher · Jan 5, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Really?

Please show us how each one of 1,2,3,4,5,6,8 (by the way, order has no significance here) is not both a beginning and end along a closed curve.

It is quite amazing that you can't get such a simple fact.

And please show us why this is not limited to a finite set.

It is quite amazing you can't get such a simple fact.

epix · Jan 5, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Again cardinality one is not less than a dot along a closed curve.

The meaning of this sentence is virtually identical to $20 is not less than a jacket in the store. Did you really mean, "Again cardinality one is not less than a dot along a closed curve," or was it meant to say that cardinality one is not less than cardinality of a dot along a closed curve?

Wanna take a shot at this?

1) POINT is to CIRCLE as DOT is to C______?

or

2) CIRCLE is to POINT as DOT is to C______?

No one could make the right choice with justification. So be the first one.

The Man · Jan 5, 2010

doronshadmi said:
I am talking about a one and only one "around the closed curve".

Well that is simply your limitation.

doronshadmi said:
If the collection of points is finite, then each point is both a beginning and end along a closed curve.

If the collection of points is infinite, then each point is only a beginning along a closed curve.

The collection of points represented by a “closed curve” is infinite, even though the length of that curve may be finite. If you think not then start listing them for some defined close curve and then show us that you have them all listed.

doronshadmi said:
Your understanding of pointless closed curve as a finite length clearly demonstrates your inability to grasp the notion of actual infinity as a non-local atom (and a pointless closed curve is exactly actual infinity).

Your “closed curve” “model” is not “pointless” remember.

Where did I ever say anything about a “pointless closed curve as a finite length”?

Are you just going to start attributing whatever claim suits you to someone else? Oh wait that just another part of you modus operandi.

The Man · Jan 5, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Really?

Please show us how each one of 1,2,3,4,5,6,8 (by the way, order has no significance here. You can put them in any order along a closed curve) is not both a beginning and end along a closed curve.

It is quite amazing that you can't get such a simple fact.

1 is one boundary of that interval and 8 is the other boundary of that interval no other numbers in that interval is a boundary of that interval

“It is quite amazing that you can't get such a simple fact”.

Are you claiming now that your OM can not deal with simple ordered and linear relations like that of an interval?

ETA:
Doron can your ‘closed curve model’ be discontinuous (have gaps) and still be ‘closed’?

The Man · Jan 6, 2010

doronshadmi said:
I am talking about a one and only one "around the closed curve".

I didn’t have time to completely address this before but will now.

So Doron you are deliberately limiting your consideration of “complete” to “one and only one "around the closed curve", (a finite number of revolutions) to claim that no infinite collection (of even revolutions) is complete?

If one revolution is complete how is two revolutions not complete, or 3, 4, 5, or an infinite number or revolutions?

Deliberately limiting your “complete” to some finite value, specifically 1, (like your one dimensional “endless atomic straight line”) is just another contrivance on your part and makes your OM rather ineffective in considering “complete” any rotation of more than just, well, one.

Also your “0 < ∞\0 < ∞” is specifically an ordered relationship. If you consider it “complete” by your “definition” where you specifically claim “order has no significance here” then your required ordered relationship simply disappears.

doronshadmi · Jan 6, 2010

The Man said:
1 is one boundary of that interval and 8 is the other boundary of that interval no other numbers in that interval is a boundary of that interval

“It is quite amazing that you can't get such a simple fact”.

Are you claiming now that your OM can not deal with simple ordered and linear relations like that of an interval?

ETA:
Doron can your ‘closed curve model’ be discontinuous (have gaps) and still be ‘closed’?

At this fundamental level we care only about the distinction of each point, along the closed curve, from any other point in a given collection of points.

By consider only this fundamental term, order has no significance here.

The Man said:
Also your “0 < ∞\0 < ∞” is specifically an ordered relationship. If you consider it “complete” by your “definition” where you specifically claim “order has no significance here” then your required ordered relationship simply disappears.

0 alone or ∞ alone are beyond the given model of distinct points along a closed curve. By this model only Complexity (∞\0) is considered, so your reply about this particular subject is irrelevant.

According to these initial terms (where only Complexity (∞\0) is considered) any arbitrary distinct point is both a beginning and end along a closed curve only if we deal with a finite collection.

If the collection of distinct points along the closed curve is infinite, then each arbitrary distinct point of that collections is only a beginning point.

As a result any given infinite collection along a closed curve is incomplete, according to definition A, which states that:

A non-empty collection is considered as complete if each element of it is both the beginning and the end of this collection (a complete complex is not actual completeness, as found by the actual finite or inifinte aspects of the atomic state).

The inability of any arbitrary distinct point along the closed curve, to be both a beginning and end along a closed curve determines the considered collection as an incomplete collection.

The Man said:
Doron can your ‘closed curve model’ be discontinuous (have gaps) and still be ‘closed’?

The closeness of a non-local aspect of the atomic state (which is pointless, and therefore has no beginning and no end) has nothing to do with any collection of local aspects (points) of the atomic state along it.

Your understanding of "continuum" is closed under Complexity and as a result you do not understand actual continuum, which is exactly the non-local aspect of the atomic state.

EDIT:

By getting these fundamental notions we immediately understand the following:

1) The term “all” is relevant only to finite collections.

2) Cardinality is satisfied only if the term “all” is a property of a given collection.

3) The Cardinality of an infinite collection is unsatisfied.

4) The cardinality of the collection of all collections that are not elements of themselves (according to (1) it is a finite collection) , is not satisfied, because we can’t determine if the collection is one of its own elements or not.

5) Both (3) and (4) have unsatisfied Cardinalities.

6) According to (5), Russell’s Paradox is the result of the misunderstanding of the concept of completeness, which is actual by nature (actual finite or actual infinite), and can’t be found under Complexity (∞\0).

7) The term “all” is relevant only to a finite complex, and has nothing to do with the actual aspects (finite or infinite) of the atomic state.

doronshadmi · Jan 6, 2010

jsfisher said:
And please show us why this is not limited to a finite set.

It is quite amazing you can't get such a simple fact.

You are invited to show us that any arbitrary element of an infinite collection of distinct points (their order has no significance) along a closed curve, is both a beginning and an end of this infinite collection of distinct points.

zooterkin · Jan 6, 2010

doronshadmi said:
I clearly said "." along a closed curve, has cardinality 1 (we have a complex).

"." alone has cardinality 0 (we do not have a complex).

When you refer to ".", are you referring to a single point? What is the cardinality of two dots?

How {} has cardinality of zero?

Because there are no elements in the set.

Again cardinality one is not less than a dot along a closed curve.

What does that mean? "Not less than a dot"?

doronshadmi said:
If the collection of distinct points along the closed curve is infinite, then each arbitrary distinct point of that collections is only a beginning point.

What do you mean, 'if'? Are you choosing a subset of the points along the closed curve? If so, how? Or are you claiming that there is only a finite set of points which exist on the curve? If so, please give a list of all the points on the curve, or the method by which you determine them.

doronshadmi · Jan 6, 2010

Apathia said:
Originally Posted by Apathia:

Ok, the non-local atom can be a closed curve.

But an "incomplete" infinity.
Now that's interesting.
Of course points-wise you would have it incomplete. Infinity that way must always be "incomplete."

Any complex is incomplete w.r.t its actual building-blocks.

The Man · Jan 6, 2010

doronshadmi said:
At this fundamental level we care only about the distinction of each point along the closed curve, from any other point, in a given collection of points.

By consider only this fundamental term, order has no significance here.

“At this fundamental level” your ‘closed curve model’ does not consider your ‘starting point’ to be ‘distinct’ from your ‘end point’ (or any other points as you claim they can all be your ‘starting/end point’) so ordering is the only way to get your so called “distinction” of your points at your so called “fundamental level” of your "complete" "closed curve" .

doronshadmi said:
0 alone or ∞ alone are beyond the given model of distinct points along a closed curve. By this model only Complexity (∞\0) is considered, so your reply about this particular subject is irrelevant.

So your “0 < ∞\0 < ∞” is not “complete” by your given “definition” of “complete” or do you just consider it so without it meeting your ‘complete definition’?

doronshadmi said:
According to these initial terms (where only Complexity (∞\0) is considered) any arbitrary distinct point is both a beginning and end along a closed curve only if we deal with a finite collection.

Your points are not “distinct” by what you ‘define’ as a “complete” “finite collection”.

doronshadmi said:
If the collection of distinct points along the closed curve is infinite, then each arbitrary distinct point of that collections is only a beginning point.

The "collection of distinct points along" any “closed curve is infinite” so your “definition” of “complete” fails.

doronshadmi said:
As a result any given infinite collection along a closed curve is incomplete, according to definition A, which states that:

A non-empty collection is considered as complete if each element of it is both the beginning and the end of this collection.

Again, the failure is in your “definition” of “complete” not in an infinite collection being complete.

doronshadmi said:
The inability of any arbitrary distinct point along the closed curve, to be both a beginning and end along a closed curve determines the considered collection as an incomplete collection.

Again the points along your “complete” “closed curve” are not distinct by your “definition” of “complete” without ordering distinction. (must be one of your hidden assumptions).

doronshadmi said:
The closeness of a non-local aspect of the atomic state (which is pointless, and therefore has no beginning and no end) has nothing to do with any collection of local aspects (points) of the atomic state along it.

Indeed your “atomic state” remains, well, pointless. So now your “local aspects (points)” are not “atomic”?

doronshadmi said:
Your understanding of "continuum" is closed under Complexity and as a result you do not understand actual continuum, which is exactly the non-local aspect of the atomic state.

A continuum is, well, continuous so again…

The Man said:
Doron can your ‘closed curve model’ be discontinuous (have gaps) and still be ‘closed’

You do remember those gaps you claim are not covered by points on your “endless atomic straight line” that you want to shove your “non-local” numbers into, don’t you?

You might try actually answering the question this time instead of your usual “closed under Complexity” labeling dodge.

doronshadmi · Jan 6, 2010

zooterkin said:
When you refer to ".", are you referring to a single point? What is the cardinality of two dots?

Again, please think about a necklace, which is not less than a point AND a closed curve.

This necklace with a single point along it is a collection of Cardinality 1.

A point alone (which is not a necklace) has cardinality 0

A closed curve alone (which is not a necklace) has cardinality ∞

The Man · Jan 6, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Again, please think about a necklace, which is not less than a point AND a closed curve.

This necklace with a single point along it is a collection of Cardinality 1.

A point alone (which is not a necklace) has cardinality 0

A closed curve alone (which is not a necklace) has cardinality ∞

"A point alone (which is not a necklace)" "is a collection of Cardinality 1."

“It is quite amazing that you can't get such a simple fact.”

doronshadmi · Jan 6, 2010

The Man said:
“At this fundamental level” your ‘closed curve model’ does not consider your ‘starting point’ to be ‘distinct’ from your ‘end point’ (or any other points as you claim they can all be your ‘starting/end point’) so ordering is the only way to get your so called “distinction” of your points at your so called “fundamental level” of your "complete" "closed curve" .

No ordering is needed. ≠ relation does the job.

The rest of your post is a result of this misunderstanding.

doronshadmi · Jan 6, 2010

The Man said:
"A point alone (which is not a necklace)" "is a collection of Cardinality 1."

“It is quite amazing that you can't get such a simple fact.”

Another abstraction problem of The Man.

Thank you The Man, for exposing your reasoning limitations vary clearly.

Edit:

It will help others to learn what not to do.

The Man · Jan 6, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Another abstraction problem of The Man.

Another comprehension problem of Doron.

Again abstraction does not mean 'just make up whatever you want and posit it as valid'.

doronshadmi · Jan 6, 2010

The Man said:
Another comprehension problem of Doron.

Again abstraction does not mean 'just make up whatever you want and posit it as valid'.

Exactly.

And this is why your reasoning is invalid, because you can't distinguish between the actual and the complex (which is potential w.r.t the actual).

The Man · Jan 6, 2010

doronshadmi said:
No ordering is needed. ≠ relation does the job.

The rest of your post is a result of this misunderstanding.

Just how are they "≠" Doron, they are all your 'starting/ending' points and have no ordering distinction?

All your posts remain the result of your misunderstanding.

The Man · Jan 6, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Exactly.

And this is why your reasoning is invalid, because you can't distinguish between the actual and the complex (which is potential w.r.t the actual).

Well thank your for finally admitting that you have a comprehension problem. The first step to recovery Doron is admitting that you have a problem.

doronshadmi · Jan 6, 2010

The Man said:
Just how are they "≠" Doron, they are all your 'starting/ending' points and have no ordering distinction?

All your posts remain the result of your misunderstanding.

You can put the distinct elements of a given collection in any arbitrary way along the closed curve.

doronshadmi · Jan 6, 2010

The Man said:
Well thank your for finally admitting that you have a comprehension problem. The first step to recovery Doron is admitting that you have a problem.

Yes. Go for it, and extend your reasoning beyond the complex. It will solve your current limited reasoning.

zooterkin · Jan 6, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Again, please think about a necklace, which is not less than a point AND a closed curve.

This necklace with a single point along it is a collection of Cardinality 1.

A point alone (which is not a necklace) has cardinality 0

Really? What is the cardinality of zero points? What is the cardinality of two points?

A closed curve alone (which is not a necklace) has cardinality ∞

I'm not sure of the relevance of the necklace reference, but it's good to see you now realize a curve has an infinite number of points.

Now, about the rest of my post, which you seemed to miss:

zooterkin said:
What do you mean, 'if'? Are you choosing a subset of the points along the closed curve? If so, how? Or are you claiming that there is only a finite set of points which exist on the curve? If so, please give a list of all the points on the curve, or the method by which you determine them.

The Man · Jan 6, 2010

doronshadmi said:
You can put the distinct elements of a given collection in any arbitrary order along the closed curve.

Since your comprehension problem persists, let me make it easier for you.

X is your ‘staring/ending’ point.

X =X

All ‘staring/ending’ points and thus all points are the same by your ‘complete closed curve definition’.

Thus nothing can distinguish one of your ‘staring/ending’ points form another . You can mix them up in “any arbitrary order along the closed curve” and call them whatever you want. The only thing that distinguish one location (or point) “along” your “closed curve” from another is the ordering “along the closed curve”.

“It is quite amazing that you can't get such a simple fact.”

ETA:

The only way you can claim that X₁≠X₂ with any validity is by ordering (that little subscript in case you missed or don‘t comprehend it)

doronshadmi · Jan 6, 2010

zooterkin said:
Really? What is the cardinality of zero points? What is the cardinality of two points?

I'm not sure of the relevance of the necklace reference, but it's good to see you now realize a curve has an infinite number of points.

Now, about the rest of my post, which you seemed to miss:

zooterkin, you do not understand the difference between the potential (∞\0 , which is not less AND no more then a complex and has cardinality > 0 and < ∞) and the actual, which is a point alone (cardinality 0) or a closed curve alone (cardinality ∞).

doronshadmi · Jan 6, 2010

The Man said:
Since your comprehension problem persists, let me make it easier for you.

X is your ‘staring/ending’ point.

X =X

No The Man. It holds only in the case of a single point along the closed curve.

zooterkin · Jan 6, 2010

doronshadmi said:
zooterkin, you do not understand the difference between the potential (∞\0 , which is not less AND no more then a complex and has cardinality > 0 and < ∞) and the actual, which is a point alone (cardinality 0) or a closed curve alone (cardinality ∞).

What's the matter, can't you answer the questions? I'm asking them to improve my understanding; I'm assuming (in the face of evidence, perhaps) that you can understand what you're talking about.

What is the cardinality of zero points? What is the cardinality of two points?

Are you choosing a subset of the points along the closed curve? If so, how? Or are you claiming that there is only a finite set of points which exist on the curve? If so, please give a list of all the points on the curve, or the method by which you determine them.

The Man · Jan 6, 2010

doronshadmi said:
No The Man. It holds only in the case of a single point along the closed curve.

X is a "single point along the closed curve".

X₁ is also a "single point along the closed curve" as is X₂. It is just that X₁ is a different “single point along the closed curve” than X₂ as defined by, well, ordering.

You still have that comprehension problem.

doronshadmi · Jan 6, 2010

The Man said:
X is a "single point along the closed curve".

X₁ is also a "single point along the closed curve" as is X₂. It is just that X₁ is a different “single point along the closed curve” than X₂ as defined by, well, ordering.

You still have that comprehension problem.

You are using X_n where _n=_1,_2,_{3 ...}

But this is your limitation because _n values can appear in any arbitrary way.

For example _n=_31,_2,_{147 ...} along the closed curve, where all we care is the difference of each _n value from any other _n value, along the closed curve.

doronshadmi · Jan 6, 2010

zooterkin said:
What's the matter, can't you answer the questions? I'm asking them to improve my understanding; I'm assuming (in the face of evidence, perhaps) that you can understand what you're talking about.

What is the cardinality of zero points? What is the cardinality of two points?

The cardinality of a point is 0 because a point is the minimal form of the limited that has no internal structure.

The cardinality of a pointless line is ∞ because a pointless line is the minimal form of the limitless that has no internal structure.

zooterkin said:
Are you choosing a subset of the points along the closed curve? If so, how? Or are you claiming that there is only a finite set of points which exist on the curve? If so, please give a list of all the points on the curve, or the method by which you determine them.

I am choosing any amount of distinct points, finite or infinite, along the closed curve.

zooterkin · Jan 6, 2010

doronshadmi said:
The cardinality of a point is 0 because a point is the minimal form of the limited that has no internal structure.

Then what do you actually mean by 'cardinality'? What is the cardinality of two points?

The cardinality of a pointless line is ∞ because a pointless line is the minimal form of the limitless that has no internal structure.

What is a pointless line?

I am choosing any amount of distinct points, finite or infinite, along the closed curve.

You are choosing a subset of the infinite number of points that are on the closed curve? How do you choose which ones?

doronshadmi · Jan 6, 2010

zooterkin said:
Then what do you actually mean by 'cardinality'? What is the cardinality of two points?

If you wish to get me, then you have to think about the cardinality of n=1,2,3,... points in terms of not less than a necklace.

zooterkin said:
What is a pointless line?

The minimal form of actual infinity.

zooterkin said:
You are choosing a subset of the infinite number of points that are on the closed curve? How do you choose which ones?

No, I use each one of (for example) the natural numbers, where each n is a unique point along the closed curve.

zooterkin · Jan 6, 2010

doronshadmi said:
If you wish to get me, then you have to think about the cardinality of n=1,2,3,... points in terms of not less than a necklace.

Dodging the question?

If the cardinality of one point is zero, what is the cardinality of two points?

The minimal form of actual infinity.

How does this line exist with no points on it?

No, I use each one of (for example) the natural numbers, where each n is a unique point along the closed curve.

And what about the gaps between these points? Are you saying the nature of the curve changes depending on which points you choose to consider?

jsfisher · Jan 6, 2010

doronshadmi said:
You are invited to show us that any arbitrary element of an infinite collection of distinct points (their order has no significance) along a closed curve, is both a beginning and an end of this infinite collection of distinct points.

More invitations to do your work, I see. You made the claim; it is up to you to support it.

Now, as to the other matter: Either address http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5474317&postcount=7827 or apologize for your lies.

The Man · Jan 6, 2010

doronshadmi said:
You are using X_n where _n=_1,_2,_{3 ...}

But this is your limitation because _n values can appear in any arbitrary way.

As I said Doron

The Man said:
You can mix them up in “any arbitrary order along the closed curve” and call them whatever you want. The only thing that distinguish one location (or point) “along” your “closed curve” from another is the ordering “along the closed curve”.

You can ignore anything you want Doron, including that points along your “closed curve” are ordered (one between two others X₁, X₂, X₃….). Changing that ordering around, or more specifically simply changing the ordering of your labeling, X₃, X₁, X₂, does not make them any less ordered as one between two others. Without that ordering of one between two others you no longer have your “closed curve”.

doronshadmi said:
For example _n=_31,_2,_{147 ...} along the closed curve, where all we care is the difference of each _n value from any other _n value, along the closed curve.

No Doron all you “care is the difference of each _n value from any other _n value, along the closed curve”. So tell us how many _n values will you need for you to label each of the points on your “closed curve” in whatever order you want?

The Man · Jan 6, 2010

doronshadmi said:
You are invited to show us that any arbitrary element of an infinite collection of distinct points (their order has no significance) along a closed curve, is both a beginning and an end of this infinite collection of distinct points.

Again Doron it is the boundary of that "infinite collection of distinct points" if it was not a single point boundary your curve would not be, well, "closed"

Again

The Man said:
Doron can your ‘closed curve model’ be discontinuous (have gaps) and still be ‘closed’?

doronshadmi · Jan 7, 2010

The Man said:
As I said Doron

You can ignore anything you want Doron, including that points along your “closed curve” are ordered (one between two others X₁, X₂, X₃….). Changing that ordering around, or more specifically simply changing the ordering of your labeling, X₃, X₁, X₂, does not make them any less ordered as one between two others. Without that ordering of one between two others you no longer have your “closed curve”.

No Doron all you “care is the difference of each _n value from any other _n value, along the closed curve”. So tell us how many _n values will you need for you to label each of the points on your “closed curve” in whatever order you want?

"How many" has nothing to do with the order of these many.

Now we learn the you also do not distinguish between Ordinal and Cardinal.

The rest of your replies is based on this indistinguishability.

The Man said:
Without that ordering of one between two others you no longer have your “closed curve”.

Worng.

One between two others can be found only among a finite amount of distinct points along a closed curve, such that any arbitrary distinct point of that collection is both a beginning AND an end point of the considered collection.

This is not the case with an infinite collection along a closed curve (a closed curve is definable even if not a single point is found along it), where each arbitrary distinct point of that infinite collection is exactly a beginning point of that infinite collection.

The Man said:
Again Doron it is the boundary of that "infinite collection of distinct points" if it was not a single point boundary your curve would not be, well, "closed".

Worng.

The closeness of a curve has nothing to do with the sub-things that may be found along it, because a closed curve is a non-local aspect of the atomic state.

The Man said:
Doron can your ‘closed curve model’ be discontinuous (have gaps) and still be ‘closed’?

Yes.

For example:

Each ≠ between any distinct pair of points is not any of these points, and therefore it is considered as uncovered by these points.

In the case of a finite collection of points along a closed curve, there are finitely many uncovered ≠, which is a fact that enables each point of a given finite collection to be both a beginning AND an end of the considered collection.

In the case of an infinite collection of points along a closed curve, there are infinitely many uncovered ≠, which is a fact that prevents each point of a given infinite collection to be both a beginning AND an end of the considered collection.

doronshadmi · Jan 7, 2010

zooterkin said:
Dodging the question?

No zooterkin, you are dodging the answer.

Please thing about the concept of Collection.

0 alone is less than collection (it is like a bead-only state).

∞ alone is more than collection (it is like a string-only state).

∞\0 is collection (it is like a necklace state).

The Cardinality of the states mentioned above is:

0 (less than collection) < ∞\0 (collection) < ∞ (more than collection).

zooterkin · Jan 7, 2010

doronshadmi said:
No zooterkin, you are dodging the answer.

Please thing about the concept of Collection.

0 alone is less than collection (it is like a bead-only state).

∞ alone is more than collection (it is like a string-only state).

∞\0 is collection (it is like a necklace state).

The Cardinality of the states mentioned above is:

0 (less than collection) < ∞\0 (collection) < ∞ (more than collection).

So, what is the cardinality of two dots?

How do you get less than an infinite number of points on a closed curve? Are you saying there is only a finite number, or that you are considering only a subset of the infinite number of points?

What exactly is ∞\0 supposed to represent? What does the \ mean?

doronshadmi · Jan 7, 2010

zooterkin said:
So, what is the cardinality of two dots?

Cardinalities 1 and 2 are under ∞\0 (necklace state).

2 dots under necklace state has Cardinality 2.

1 dots under necklace state has Cardinality 1.

zooterkin said:
How do you get less than an infinite number of points on a closed curve? Are you saying there is only a finite number, or that you are considering only a subset of the infinite number of points?

Finite or infinite number of points along a closed curve is under necklace state.

zooterkin said:
What exactly is ∞\0 supposed to represent?

The necklace state.

zooterkin said:
What does the \ mean?

It means AND (∞ AND 0 is a necklace state).

doronshadmi · Jan 7, 2010

jsfisher said:
Where did I make such statements? Please point out any post by me where I even used the phrase, "deductive context-dependent frameworks", let along any of the other claims you attribute to me.

When I say "You" ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5474317&postcount=7827) in this case, I mean the majority of the community of currently active mathematicians, where you, jsfisher, is one of them.

According the You (the majority of the community of currently active mathematicians), “pure” mathematics is Deductive and context-dependent frameworks that are generally disjoint of each other (there is no common basis to “pure” mathematics according to the current paradigm of the majority of the community of currently active mathematicians).

If you, jsfisher, as a "pure" mathematician, disagree with this paradigm, then I am apologise in front of you only if you rigorously provide the needed evidence, which clearly shows that Contemporary “pure” Mathematics indeed has a concrete common basis (a “trunk).

Deeper than primes

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Banned

Unbanned zombie poster

Unbanned zombie poster

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

Penultimate Amazing

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

ETcorngods survivor

Unbanned zombie poster

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing