Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
jsfisher said:
Yes, you have said nonsense like this before. Still no substance to your claim. Your approach has no future in mathematics. Your approach isn't mathematics.
Click to expand...
If Mathematics is a kind of dogmatic belief that can't be changed in front of new facts (whether they are abstract or not) then OM is not what is called Mathematics.

I rigorously defined an infinite framework where the Cantorean system fails.

For example: The Man's struggle (which is a failure up to this moment) to break down my new model of the infinite simply exposes his irrational approach when confront with unfamiliar facts about the nature of the infinite.

Both of you also can't get the beauty of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5563876&postcount=8224.

jsfisher said:
I see you are still trying to perpetuate that same lie. Give it up.
Click to expand...
No jsfisher.

It will be a lie and I will apologize in front of you here in this thread only if you clearly say that Mathematics is not deductive context-dependent frameworks.

The ball is in your yard, I am waiting.

jsfisher said:
Besides, mathematics -- completely without your help -- continues to work just fine, solving real problems in a consistent way without too many contradictions.
Click to expand...
Yes, it solves only finite problems.

jsfisher said:
Your approach, on the other hand, still has nothing to offer except contradictions. Nothing.
Click to expand...
No it offers new notions that can lead us to develop things that deal with the infinite in terms of the infinite, which is something that the current mathematical paradigm can't do because it tries to get the infinite in terms of the finite.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
If Mathematics is a kind of dogmatic belief
Click to expand...

It isn't.

...that can't be changed in front of new facts (whether they are abstract or not)
Click to expand...

It can.

...then OM is not what is called Mathematics.
Click to expand...

The truth of the consequent is independent of the antecedent in a conditional where the antecedent is false. Meaning: Your sentence is completely bogus.

However, it is already well-established that doronetics is not Mathematics, so the statement was also completely unnecessary.

I rigorously defined an infinite framework where the Cantorean system fails.
Click to expand...

"Rigorously defined"? You have no concept of what the adverb means, and you have never, ever succeeded at the action indicated by the verb. (Curiously, I believe it qualifies in linguistics as a non-finite verb.) So, besides yourself, doron, who are you trying to delude with this statement?

In point of fact, you have been offered considerable help and assistance to do exactly what you have not been able to do.

...delusions snipped...
It will be a lie and I will apologize in front of you here in this thread only if you clearly say that Mathematics is not deductive context-dependent frameworks.

The ball is in your yard, I am waiting.
Click to expand...

Interesting sense of ethics you have, doron. Your statement is a lie independent of anything further I post in this thread. You clearly have no sense of moral decency; lying is just a way of life for you, I guess.

Yes, it solves only finite problems.
Click to expand...

We all anxiously await your demonstration of this incredible assertion.

No it offers new notions that can lead us to develop things that deal with the infinite in terms of the infinite, which is something that the current mathematical paradigm can't do because it tries to get the infinite in terms of the finite.
Click to expand...

Again, you demonstrate you lack of understanding of Mathematics. Or maybe you are just lying. Probably both, since you do both so easily.
 
jsfisher said:
It isn't.



It can.



The truth of the consequent is independent of the antecedent in a conditional where the antecedent is false. Meaning: Your sentence is completely bogus.

However, it is already well-established that doronetics is not Mathematics, so the statement was also completely unnecessary.



"Rigorously defined"? You have no concept of what the adverb means, and you have never, ever succeeded at the action indicated by the verb. (Curiously, I believe it qualifies in linguistics as a non-finite verb.) So, besides yourself, doron, who are you trying to delude with this statement?

In point of fact, you have been offered considerable help and assistance to do exactly what you have not been able to do.



Interesting sense of ethics you have, doron. Your statement is a lie independent of anything further I post in this thread. You clearly have no sense of moral decency; lying is just a way of life for you, I guess.



We all anxiously await your demonstration of this incredible assertion.



Again, you demonstrate you lack of understanding of Mathematics. Or maybe you are just lying. Probably both, since you do both so easily.
Click to expand...

Thank you for this post which demonstrates again that what I say is true:

1) Mathematics is a dogma for your school of thought.

2) This dogma is called deductive context-dependent frameworks.

3) There is no use to find rationality among dogmatic community.
jsfisher said:
However, it is already well-established that doronetics is not Mathematics, so the statement was also completely unnecessary.
Click to expand...
jsfisher said:
"Rigorously defined"?
Click to expand...
No, Rigorously defined in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5553203&postcount=8194 and since you can't face it you choose the way of personal attacks, which is the common way of the members of dogmatic communities to avoid real re-search of some considered subject.

jsfisher said:
In point of fact, you have been offered considerable help and assistance to do exactly what you have not been able to do.
Click to expand...
No, in fact you and your friends here trying all along this thread to fit OM to your deductive context-dependent frameworks.

But you see, OM does not fit to this dogma because it goas also beyond it.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You simply can't grasp that there is a playground with no players along it (cardinality 0 of the game, exactly as the empty set is a playground for 0 players).
Click to expand...

Again Doron that simply demonstrate you continually missing the target that your closed curve requires to be closed.

Again.

Please define a "closed curve" without any references to locations or points as you claimed you could.
 
doronshadmi said:
Thank you for this post which demonstrates again that what I say is true:

1) Mathematics is a dogma for your school of thought.

2) This dogma is called deductive context-dependent frameworks.

3) There is no use to find rationality among dogmatic community.
Click to expand...

I challenge you to identify any parts of my post you quoted that demonstrates these three points. Again, doron, you are making stuff up. The common name for that behavior is lying.

No, Rigorously defined in....
Click to expand...

It is appropriate in its own way, I suppose, that for your bogus example of "rigorously defined" you choose a game that would easily be imagined to be on the playground during kindergarten recess.

Your example defines nothing. It is in no way rigorous.

...since you can't face it you choose the way of personal attacks, which is the common way of the members of dogmatic communities to avoid real re-search of some considered subject.
Click to expand...

I have accused to you out and out lying. That is something you actually did. Are you trying to suggest you can lie as much as you like, but if anyone points it out it is a personal attack?


If you have something at qualifies as Mathematics you'd like to discuss, go right ahead. but since we now have complete agreement -- meaning you finally admitted it, too -- that nothing you have offered so far can be construed as Mathematics, all we have is your organic mathematics setting in the trash bin.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No The Man, rule (2) is xor.
Click to expand...

I put no "or" or "xor" in your "rule (2)", what the heck are you talking about.

doronshadmi said:
It was my answer to Apathia about his limitation to some class. Since we are not limited to any particular class, then "missing by class" has no meaning. Missing has a meaning only beyond class, if the first point is not a target to another point along an infinite collection.
Click to expand...

So then including me was a mistake?

So then your first point is missing as a target, but since “"missing by class"” (like target) “has no meaning” your first is not missing as a target and is a target.

Again

Thank You.

Game Over.

Please insert more quarters and play again.


doronshadmi said:
Changing order has no influence on the completeness of incompleteness of a given collection. You still do not grasp rule (2) because you are using "or" instead of "xor".
Click to expand...

Again with your “"or" instead of "xor"” nonsense. I never claimed it would “influence on the completeness of incompleteness of a given collection” just that

The Man said:
What is does do is belie your ordering distinction between a source and a target that you try to maintain as a hidden assumption to assert that your “first arbitrary” point is a source but not a target.
Click to expand...

In other words you assertion of incompleteness based on an ordering distinction, specifically that your first point is a source but not a target, is simply a lie you are telling to yourself.


doronshadmi said:
EDIT: You still do not get the right diagram in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5564918&postcount=8227, which violates rule (2) because the first point is a source for more than one target along the closed curve.
Click to expand...

Agian

The Man said:
Nope reverse ordering simply changes a source to a target and a target to a source. It certainly does not increase the number a targets for any given source.
Click to expand...

So your “violates rule (2)” is just another lie you are telling yourself.

It might actually help if you read my posts before your reply to them.

doronshadmi said:
It is self contradictory nonsensical gibberish exactly because your notions are closed under what you have learned in your Math classes.
Click to expand...

Nope, I learn new things every day while you just keep peddling the same self contradictory nonsensical gibberish wrapped up in different ill defined and misused terminology.
 
doronshadmi said:
For example: The Man's struggle (which is a failure up to this moment) to break down my new model of the infinite simply exposes his irrational approach when confront with unfamiliar facts about the nature of the infinite.
Click to expand...


What struggle am I having Doron? Your “new model of the infinite simply” breaks down on its own. The only one I see struggling is you trying to hold the pieces together with an ordering distinction as a hidden assumption along your “closed curve” where you claimed ordering did not matter, as well as you assenting that your “closed curve” is incomplete and thus not “closed”. Doron your “new model of the infinite simply exposes” the irrationality of you and your “new model of the infinite”.

Got that definition of a pointless “closed curve” yet, how’s your struggle with that coming?
 
The Man said:
Nope it solves infinite ones too, like the sum of all real numbers or all integers being 0.
Click to expand...

This needs a little more discussion since there is an outside possibility, however slim, that doron may learn something. Addition provides a good example of something that works differently when we deal with the infinite. Despite dorons assertions to the contrary, mathematics doesn't assume the infinite to be a simple extension of the finite.

Addition is commutative. In computing the sum of numbers in any finite set, it does not matter what order the additions take place. Commutativity guarantees the final sum will be the same regardless. (Compare that to subtraction, which is not commutative, and you'll find the order does very much matter.)

However, the same cannot be said for the addition over infinite sets. The Man asserted the sum of all integers is 0. His statement is true, but it rests on a hidden assumption about the presumed order in which the additions are made.

Consider these two summations:

0 + (1 + -1) + (2 + -2) + (3 + -3) + ...
(1 + 0) + (2 + -1) + (3 + -2) + (4 + -3) + ...

The first reduces to 0+0+0+... while the second, 1+1+1+.... Yet, both are a summation of all the integers. Depending on how things are arranged, you can get any integer result you like as the sum of all integers, or even an infinite sum if you so prefer.

ETA: ...or no definite sum at all (meaning the partial summation oscillates).
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
I put no "or" or "xor" in your "rule (2)", what the heck are you talking about.
Click to expand...
In other words you reply even if you have no clue with what you deal with, how "interesting".


The Man said:
Again Doron that simply demonstrate you continually missing the target that your closed curve requires to be closed.

Again.

Please define a "closed curve" without any references to locations or points as you claimed you could.
Click to expand...

A closed curve is some non-local aspect of the atomic state, exactly as a point is a local aspect of the atomic state.

No points are required for a closed curve, unless all you get is locality, and indeed this is your case, you simply can't grasp the notion of non-locality and how there is a closed curve without even a single point along it.

Again, this is your abstraction problem, not mine, so you have to solve this problem between you and yourself.

The Man said:
So your “violates rule (2)” is just another lie you are telling yourself.

It might actually help if you read my posts before your reply to them.
Click to expand...
No, The Man by switching between source and target you only change direction, where the amount can be finite or infinite. Rule (2) is about the inability of a source to be a source for more than one target, and you violate it because you are using "or" instead of "xor".

It is simply "amazing" that you can't get a single word of what you read (and as a result, also what you write).
The Man said:
What struggle am I having Doron? Your “new model of the infinite simply” breaks down on its own.
Click to expand...
Yes I know, that's exactly what happens in your head.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
In other words you assertion of incompleteness based on an ordering distinction, specifically that your first point is a source but not a target, is simply a lie you are telling to yourself.
Click to expand...
First it is, but no particular order (as seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5542852&postcount=8152) is needed to understand that if the collection is infinite then the first point not a target for any other point along the closed curve.
 
The Man said:
Nope it solves infinite ones too, like the sum of all real numbers or all integers being 0.
Click to expand...
Since the phrase "all infinitely many ..." is a contradiction, and reals or integeres are infinite collections, that there is no such a thing like "the sum of all real numbers or all integers being 0".

It is true only if you deal with finite collections of reals or integers.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
This needs a little more discussion since there is an outside possibility, however slim, that doron may learn something. Addition provides a good example of something that works differently when we deal with the infinite. Despite dorons assertions to the contrary, mathematics doesn't assume the infinite to be a simple extension of the finite.

Addition is commutative. In computing the sum of numbers in any finite set, it does not matter what order the additions take place. Commutativity guarantees the final sum will be the same regardless. (Compare that to subtraction, which is not commutative, and you'll find the order does very much matter.)

However, the same cannot be said for the addition over infinite sets. The Man asserted the sum of all integers is 0. His statement is true, but it rests on a hidden assumption about the presumed order in which the additions are made.

Consider these two summations:

0 + (1 + -1) + (2 + -2) + (3 + -3) + ...
(1 + 0) + (2 + -1) + (3 + -2) + (4 + -3) + ...

The first reduces to 0+0+0+... while the second, 1+1+1+.... Yet, both are a summation of all the integers. Depending on how things are arranged, you can get any integer result you like as the sum of all integers, or even an infinite sum if you so prefer.

ETA: ...or no definite sum at all (meaning the partial summation oscillates).
Click to expand...
jsfisher said:
...,both are a summation of all the integers.
Click to expand...
"all infinitely many ..." is a contradiction

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5561041&postcount=8211
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Since the phrase "all infinite ..." is a contradiction....
Click to expand...


This is merely a self-imposed boundary on your own cognitive abilities, doron. The rest of us aren't so limited in our thinking.

Funny, isn't it, how you are so willing to accuse everyone else of such things where all along it is doron that is extremely narrow-minded.
 
jsfisher said:
Give it up, doron. Your silly post is you harping on the word "complete". Stop pretending you meant anything different.

ETA: And upon rereading your silly post, it is apparent you have no concept of the significance of my post on summations.
Click to expand...

jsfisher 0+0+0+... or 1+1+1+... are both incomplete.
 
jsfisher said:
This is merely a self-imposed boundary on your own cognitive abilities, doron.
Click to expand...

The self-imposed boundary is called "ALL" if related to an infinite collection, so your community has this self-imposed boundary on your own cognitive abilities, jsfisher.
 
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher 0+0+0+... or 1+1+1+... are both incomplete.
Click to expand...

Only for someone with self-imposed cognitive limitations.

Be that as it may, however, what difference do you imagine from it? Within doronetics it is incomplete, whatever that means; let's agree to that. Then what? Other than you pointing at everyone else claiming they are wrong or they don't get it, what benefit do you derive from labeling an infinite set incomplete?


doronshadmi said:
The self-imposed boundary is called "ALL" if related to an infinite collection, so your community has this self-imposed boundary on your own cognitive abilities, jsfisher.
Click to expand...

Umm, I see again that basic logic and reasoning escapes you. The novel use of the word, all, is yours and of your own making. It is your self-imposed boundary, not mine.
 
jsfisher said:
Only for someone with self-imposed cognitive limitations.

Be that as it may, however, what difference do you imagine from it? Within doronetics it is incomplete, whatever that means; let's agree to that. Then what? Other than you pointing at everyone else claiming they are wrong or they don't get it, what benefit do you derive from labeling an infinite set incomplete?
Click to expand...
We open the door for real research of Complexity, where infinite interpolation\extrapolation are not swept under the carpet anymore.
 
jsfisher said:
Umm, I see again that basic logic and reasoning escapes you. The novel use of the word, all, is yours and of your own making. It is your self-imposed boundary, not mine.
Click to expand...

Do you mean that "all" and "complete" have different meanings in your framework?
 
doronshadmi said:
We open the door for real research of Complexity, where infinite interpolation\extrapolation are not swept under the carpet anymore.
Click to expand...

We, huh? That aside, you give yourself credit for something you have yet to demonstrate.

How do you get to complexity, whatever that means in doronetics, with incomplete as a necessary concept?
 
zooterkin said:
They do in English.

When I refer to all positive integers, which ones do you think are missing?
Click to expand...

For the last time, the concept of infinite collection is not limited to any particular class.

From this general view, it simply the inability of a first element to be also a target for another element of the same collection, where each element is a source for one and only one target.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
For the last time, the concept of infinite collection is not limited to any particular class.

From this general view, it simply the inability of a first element to be also a target for another element, where each element is a source for one and only one target.
Click to expand...

Great, but this has nothing to do with the post to which you were responding. Luckily for us, though, this was the last time you will ever mention it.

Let's get back to this, shall we? You seem to be ducking and evading this very simple question:

jsfisher said:
How do you get to complexity, whatever that means in doronetics, with incomplete as a necessary concept?
Click to expand...
 
doronshadmi said:
For the last time, the concept of infinite collection is not limited to any particular class.

From this general view, it simply the inability of a first element to be also a target for another element of the same collection, where each element is a source for one and only one target.
Click to expand...

I think you hit the random post generator, that has no relevance to the post you were responding to.

When I refer to all positive integers, which ones do you think are missing?
 
doronshadmi said:
Some problems to grasp infinite interpolation\extrapolation, jsfisher?
Click to expand...


Nope, but we are not to the point, yet. We could be, mind you, but you seem compelled to evade this simple question:

jsfisher said:
How do you get to complexity, whatever that means in doronetics, with incomplete as a necessary concept?
Click to expand...

You are the one who alleged the connection. Why are you having such difficulty exhibiting the connection?
 
jsfisher said:
Nope, but we are not to the point, yet. We could be, mind you, but you seem compelled to evade this simple question:
Click to expand...

EDIT:

The simple answer is that some complexity is incomplete if it is also infinite. So nothing is necessary here (for example: A collection can be finite, which means complete complexity).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The simple answer is that some complexity is incomplete if it is also infinite. So nothing is necessary here (for example: the collection can be finite).
Click to expand...

Complexity is incomplete? What a curious use of English. Be that as it may, you have established a connection between complexity, whatever that means in doronetics, and infinite sets. If fact it is very similar to the connection you claim for incomplete, whatever that means in doronetics, and infinite sets. However, having two things similarly related to a third thing doesn't establish a separate relationship between the first two.

So, unless you have something more to add, it looks like incomplete, whatever that means in doronetics, is extraneous.
 
jsfisher said:
Complexity is incomplete? What a curious use of English.
Click to expand...

EDIT:

So you do have problems to grasp infinite interpolation\extrapolation, which is an example of infinite (and therefore incomplete) complexity.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom