Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
jsfisher said:
Infinite sets don't exist in your universe, doron, remember? There can be no set of the integers (which necessarily would be all of them), there can be no set of the reals, there can be no infinite sets of any kind.
Click to expand...
They exist as incomplete collections (1+1+1+... form).
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
All of Doron's answers to this question so far have led me to conclude that the achievements or practical applications of OM (except for the conventional strictly quantitative aspects of number) are non-local in nature, qualitative and inspirational.
Click to expand...
Not correct. OM exposes the qualitative atomic aspects that enable Quantity, which is not less than the linkage between Non-locality and Locality.

Apathia said:
Though, I seem to remember Doron saying that a positive contribution was liberation from the evils of mathematics as it has developed since Euclid strayed from the path.
Click to expand...
Since a fundamental concept like Number is the result of Memory\Object Linkage, then Math is not totally disjoint from the one that develops and uses it.

By developing this linkage, Math becomes a tool that enables to define the bridge between Ethic AND Logic under a one comprehensive framework, which is based on better understanding of Evolutionary Ethics Model (http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM) that stands at the basis of Complexity’s understanding.

Apathia said:
Another answer he has given is that you, yourself are an example of ./__ Interaction. An amazing achievement!
Click to expand...
Only if this notion is understood by many parsons.

Apathia said:
(Bottom line: what we're asking of him is some "local only," "deductive," profane expectation that doesn't pertain to OM.
Or the question we are asking is incoprehensible to him.)
Click to expand...
OM’s answers are incomprehensible to "local only" AND/OR "deductive only" reasoning.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The "sum" of an infinite collection.
Click to expand...

Perhaps in your imagination, but the reference to Cantor says nothing about geometric series, an infinite collection or a sum, it simply expresses Poincaré’s distain for Cantor's theory of transfinite numbers.

doronshadmi said:
In a diverges series each size is bigger than any arbitrary previous size.

In a converges series each size is smaller than any arbitrary previous size.
Click to expand...

Again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series


The behavior of the terms depends on the common ratio r:
If r is between minus 1 and plus 1 the terms of the series become smaller and smaller, approaching zero in the limit. The series converges to a sum, as in the case above, where r is a half, and the series has the sum one.

If r is greater than one or less than minus one the terms of the series become larger and larger. The sum of the terms also gets larger and larger, and the series has no sum. (The series diverges.)

If r is equal to one, all of the terms of the series are the same. The series diverges.

If r is minus one the terms take two values alternately (e.g. 2, -2, 2, -2, 2,... ). The sum of the terms oscillates between two values (e.g. 2, 0, 2, 0, 2,... ). This is a different type of divergence and again the series has no sum.
Click to expand...

In case you have missed it again

If r is equal to one, all of the terms of the series are the same. The series diverges.
Click to expand...

Your “1+1+1+…” “general form” is specifically and only a divergent form of series.





doronshadmi said:
1+1+1+… is the general form of both cases, and it has no sum, if we deal with infinitely many sizes (diverges or converges, it does not matter).
Click to expand...

If by “sizes” you mean the terms in the series, then your “1+1+1+…” “general form” does not “deal with infinitely many sizes” since every term in that series is the same.

Again “1+1+1+…” is not any form (general or otherwise) of a convergent series, it is specifically divergent and that fact does specifically matter to anyone except apparently just you. Your continued, deliberate and self-serving ignorance of that fact clearly demonstrates the inherent, deliberate and self-serving dishonesty of your own ethics that you would simply like to impose upon others.
 
doronshadmi said:
OM’s answers are incomprehensible to "local only" AND/OR "deductive only" reasoning.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand this question people are asking you when they ask for a demonstration of how OM generates practical scientific or ethical content. Or when they ask "How does it work?"

They ask what does OM give us that traditional math can't?
You answer:

OM exposes the qualitative atomic aspects that enable Quantity, which is not less than the linkage between Non-locality and Locality.
Click to expand...

They ask: And what does that do?

You answer:
By developing this linkage, Math becomes a tool that enables to define the bridge between Ethic AND Logic under a one comprehensive framework, which is based on better understanding of Evolutionary Ethics Model (http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM) that stands at the basis of Complexity’s understanding.
Click to expand...

They ask: Could you maybe show how that development proceeds to a practical application?"

And you just return to saying it reveals the atomic linkage.

then Math is not totally disjoint from the one that develops and uses it.
Click to expand...
There's that ongoing debate over whether human discover or create mathematics.
It's a both to me. And already i don't find even traditional mathematics disjoint from Humanity.
It's not a matter of a Creation/Discovery Linkage, but that creation is discovery and discovery is creation. They interpenitrate in our participation as integral organisms in reality.
(That's the Way I tend to go.)


Does awareness of non-locality encourage ethical behavior?
Sure!
It does that in the context of many different philosophical and religious traditions, or just on its on in the case of non-religious people who transcend their prejudices.
But you have a specific Way of your own: the Way of the Atomic Linkage.
You state that your Way is the superior one.

That requires you to demonstrate its superiority.

Many Ways require practice to understand, especially when they offer something beyond ordinary comprehension.

So, I reword the question:

How does one practice OM?
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
If by “sizes” you mean the terms in the series, then your “1+1+1+…” “general form” does not “deal with infinitely many sizes” since every term in that series is the same.
Click to expand...

Only to an ignorant like you that does not understand that any infinite collection of sizes or not, is incomplete, because infinite collection is not necessarily closed under any class.

For example: 1+1+… is smaller than 1+1+1+… by 1 and both of them a infinite and incomplete.

1+1+1/2+1+… is smaller than 1+1+1+1+… by 1/2 and both of them are infinite and incomplete.

1+1+0.111…[base 2]+1+… is smaller than 1+1+1+1+… by 0.000…1[base 2] and both of them are infinite and incomplete.

Etc, etc. ... ad infinituum …


So there are infinitely many incomplete sizes, whether you interpret them by cardinality or by long addition of absolute sizes, where each one of them is > 0.

Your understanding of infinite collections is trivial and naïve.

Again, if infinitely many positive R members + infinitely many negative R members = 0 it does not mean that any one of these collections is complete. It simply means that these collections have the same incomplete size, where sum 0 is a direct result of the symmetry between opposite and (in this case) incomplete sizes.

The Man, your naïve approach of infinite collections does not let you to understand that (1/2+1/4+1/8+…) - (1/2+1/4+1/8+…) = 0 ( again, 0 is a direct result of the symmetry between opposite and (in this case) incomplete sizes) even if 1/2+1/4+1/8+… < 1 (because the sum of 1/2+1/4+1/8+… is based on asymmetry).

By dealing (in the absolute values sense) with asymmetrical cases like infinite diverges series (where each size is bigger than any arbitrary previous size) or infinite converges series (where each size is smaller than any arbitrary previous size) there is no doubt that these series are both incomplete AND have no sum, whether Cardinality or long addition is used here.

You still do not get that Wikipedia (and in this case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series) is nothing but a documentation of already agreed knowledge about any discussed subject.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
By facing Complexity, which is naturally unexpected and can't be captured by any method that is not direct perception.
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
By facing Complexity, which is naturally unexpected and can't be captured by any method that is not direct perception.
Click to expand...

That answer has much merit by me.
And it touches the place in which you and I agree.
The place to begin is in the complex of direct perception which is non-linear and pre-logical.

Seventeenth Century Japanese Zen Master Bankei called it "The Unborn."
In Japanese Esoteric Buddhism it's called the "Cosmic Womb."
It's also called "The Faith Mind."

Now I realize you include in "Direct Perception" the special construct of your two interacting limbs. This is very absent from the Buddhist Way, and may have more in common with Taoist teaching about Yin and Yang.
However, I get the message, OM has no applicable construct or method to be used in multiple situations (except where number is restricted to mere quantity/quantity.). It simply asks one to be aware in each unique circumstance. Seeing things in their own light, we are then able to bring in the appropriate tools.

In that sense of "OM" I set aside some time early each morning to sit in focused awareness and openness.

Pardon me then while I pursue that. Since no matter, that is the essential.

Now, what the mathematicians want of you, that is a different matter.
I leave that to be fought out between you and them.
 
doronshadmi said:
They exist as incomplete collections (1+1+1+... form).
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Sets are not of the form of some vague summation. Sets are, well, sets. Collections of distinct objects. Stop trying to obfuscate things with ridiculous asides.

Either you accept that there are infinite sets, like the set of the integers for example, or you don't. And if you don't, then your set theory doesn't include the Axiom of Infinity.

So, which is it?
 
doronshadmi said:
Only to an ignorant like you that does not understand that any infinite collection of sizes or not, is incomplete, because infinite collection is not necessarily closed under any class.
Click to expand...

Nope the only ignorance remains yours in not understanding that you assumption are simply your assumptions.

doronshadmi said:
For example: 1+1+… is smaller than 1+1+1+… by 1 and both of them a infinite and incomplete.

1+1+1/2+1+… is smaller than 1+1+1+1+… by 1/2 and both of them are infinite and incomplete.

1+1+0.111…[base 2]+1+… is smaller than 1+1+1+1+… by 0.000…1[base 2] and both of them are infinite and incomplete.

Etc, etc. ... ad infinituum …

So there are infinitely many incomplete sizes, whether you interpret them by cardinality or by long addition of absolute sizes, where each one of them is > 0.

Your understanding of infinite collections is trivial and naïve.
Click to expand...

I noted your use of “size” to specifically refer to the terms in the series in your previous post, but surmised that you might change that reference to the sum of the series when questioned. Which is why I specifically said “If by “sizes” you mean the terms in the series”, but you simply choose to ignore that.


doronshadmi said:
Again, if infinitely many positive R members + infinitely many negative R members = 0 it does not mean that any one of these collections is complete. It simply means that these collections have the same incomplete size, where sum 0 is a direct result of the symmetry between opposite and (in this case) incomplete sizes.

The Man, your naïve approach of infinite collections does not let you to understand that (1/2+1/4+1/8+…) - (1/2+1/4+1/8+…) = 0 ( again, 0 is a direct result of the symmetry between opposite and (in this case) incomplete sizes) even if 1/2+1/4+1/8+… < 1 (because the sum of 1/2+1/4+1/8+… is based on asymmetry).
Click to expand...

What? That “(1/2+1/4+1/8+…) - (1/2+1/4+1/8+…) = 0” is a key element of the proof that such a convergent series has a sum. Try reading the article again.

doronshadmi said:
By dealing (in the absolute values sense) with asymmetrical cases like infinite diverges series (where each size is bigger than any arbitrary previous size) or infinite converges series (where each size is smaller than any arbitrary previous size)
Click to expand...

Now your specifically using “size” to refer to the terms of the sires again, well at least your ignorance extends even to yourself, I’ll give you that much.


doronshadmi said:
there is no doubt that these series are both incomplete AND have no sum, whether Cardinality or long addition is used here.
Click to expand...

Again an assumption you base on you deliberately confusing a divergent series with a convergent one.

doronshadmi said:
You still do not get that Wikipedia (and in this case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series) is nothing but a documentation of already agreed knowledge about any discussed subject.
Click to expand...

Again try reading Wikipedia sometime you will find sometimes part of the “discussed subject” are the disagreements about that subject. (but I guess you just choose to ignore that as well)
 
jsfisher said:
And if you don't, then your set theory doesn't include the Axiom of Infinity.
So, which is it?
Click to expand...

By the axiom of infinity if n is a member of N then n+1 is a member of N, and as a result N is inherently an incomplete collection of distinct things.
 
The Man said:
Again try reading Wikipedia sometime you will find sometimes part of the “discussed subject” are the disagreements about that subject. (but I guess you just choose to ignore that as well)
Click to expand...
No The Man, by using old knowledge that is found in Wkipedia on this interesting subject, you simply block your mind to novel notions of the discussed subject.

In order to see how your mind is blocked to novel notions, let us use again Koch fractal.

We start by a 1-dim element that has a triangle shape of length 1 with 3 equal angles.

Now we bend in the outside direction each side of the triangle in its 1/3 middle length, by keeping that same proportion of the initial triangle.
As a result, the length 1 of the 1-dim element is not changed, but the closest circumference, which is around the bended 1-dim, becomes smaller.

Infinitely many bended level, do to change the fact that the 1-dim has length 1, or is other words, the shrinked circumference can’t be a point, because if it become a point, we get finitely many bended levels.

If we insist that the circumference is a point (gets to the limit point in the middle of the area that is closed by the bended 1-dim element) and the bended 1-dim is still found, the we actually say that 1=0.

The only solution that keeps length 1 of the bended 1-dim element, and also deals with infinitely many bended level, is the solution where the circumference around the bended 1-dim element of length 1, can’t reach the limit where the circumference is actually a point.

By using this novel notion if the infinite, we understand better, why, for example, the mass of a shrinked star increases but is will not become a point, even it is compressed by infinitely many scale levels.

I do not think that this novel view is achieved if we insist to keep the old notions of Lmit AND infinite and complete collection of bended levels.
 
doronshadmi said:
No The Man, by using old knowledge that is found in Wkipedia on this interesting subject, you simply block your mind to novel notions of the discussed subject.

In order to see how your mind is blocked to novel notions, let us use again Koch fractal.

We start by a 1-dim element that has a triangle shape of length 1 with 3 equal angles.

Now we bend in the outside direction each side of the triangle in its 1/3 middle length, by keeping that same proportion of the initial triangle.
As a result, the length 1 of the 1-dim element is not changed, but the closest circumference, which is around the bended 1-dim, becomes smaller.

Infinitely many bended level, do to change the fact that the 1-dim has length 1, or is other words, the shrinked circumference can’t be a point, because if it become a point, we get finitely many bended levels.

If we insist that the circumference is a point (gets to the limit point in the middle of the area that is closed by the bended 1-dim element) and the bended 1-dim is still found, the we actually say that 1=0.

The only solution that keeps length 1 of the bended 1-dim element, and also deals with infinitely many bended level, is the solution where the circumference around the bended 1-dim element of length 1, can’t reach the limit where the circumference is actually a point.

By using this novel notion if the infinite, we understand better, why, for example, the mass of a shrinked star increases but is will not become a point, even it is compressed by infinitely many scale levels.

I do not think that this novel view is achieved if we insist to keep the old notions of Lmit AND infinite and complete collection of bended levels.
Click to expand...

In "Standard English" the inflected form of "bend" is "bent"
 
zooterkin said:
Excuse me?
Click to expand...

shape-triangle.gif
 
This is a corrected version of post (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5694975&postcount=8932)

The Man said:
Again try reading Wikipedia sometime you will find sometimes part of the “discussed subject” are the disagreements about that subject. (but I guess you just choose to ignore that as well)
Click to expand...

No The Man, by using the old knowledge that is found in Wkipedia on this interesting subject, you simply block your mind to novel notions of the discussed subject.

In order to see how your mind is blocked to novel notions, let us use again Koch’s fractal.

We start by a 1-dim element that has a triangle shape of length 1 with 3 equal angles.

Now we bend in the outside direction each side of the triangle in its 1/3 middle length, by keeping the same proportion of the initial triangle.

As a result, length 1 of the 1-dim element is not changed, but the closest circumference, which is around that bended 1-dim, becomes smaller.

Infinitely many bended levels do to change the fact that the 1-dim has length 1, or in other words, the shrinked circumference can’t be a point, because if it becomes a point, we have lost our 1-dim element of length 1.

If we insist that the circumference is a point (which is the limit point in the middle of the area that is closed by the bended 1-dim element) and the bended 1-dim is still found, then we actually say that 1=0.

The only solution that keeps length 1 of the bended 1-dim element, and also deals with infinitely many bended levels, is the solution where the circumference around the bended 1-dim element of length 1, can’t reach the limit , which is actually an 0-dim.

By using this novel notion of the infinite collection, we understand better why, for example, the mass of a shrinked star increases, but it does not become a point even if it is compressed by infinitely many scale levels.

I do not think that this novel view is achieved if we insist to keep the old notions of Limit AND infinite (and complete) collection of bended levels.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No, I mean a one closed 1-dim element.
Click to expand...

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till I tell you. I meant, 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."
 
dafydd said:
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till I tell you. I meant, 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."
Click to expand...

dafydd said:
Lol,you call yourself a mathematician,yet you don't know the difference between one and two dimensions? Please tell me that this has all been an elaborate joke.
Click to expand...
So you have a problem to understend a closed 1-dim element, where only length is considered.

How boring.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
This is a corrected version of post (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5694975&postcount=8932)



No The Man, by using the old knowledge that is found in Wkipedia on this interesting subject, you simply block your mind to novel notions of the discussed subject.
Click to expand...

Doron your self –inconsistent, self serving and morbid fantasy of saving our civilization from self-destruction by you deliberately misinterpreting and misrepresenting what you call “standard math” does not constitute “novel notions of the discussed subject” much that you might require it to be so (we see it all the time on this forum).

doronshadmi said:
In order to see how your mind is blocked to novel notions, let us use again Koch’s fractal.

We start by a 1-dim element that has a triangle shape of length 1 with 3 equal angles.

Now we bend in the outside direction each side of the triangle in its 1/3 middle length, by keeping the same proportion of the initial triangle.

As a result, length 1 of the 1-dim element is not changed, but the closest circumference, which is around that bended 1-dim, becomes smaller.
Click to expand...

If “length 1 of the 1-dim element is not changed” then it’s circumference doesn’t become “smaller”. Again being self-inconsistent is not a ‘novel notion’ (at least not on this forum).

doronshadmi said:
Infinitely many bended levels do to change the fact that the 1-dim has length 1, or in other words, the shrinked circumference can’t be a point, because if it becomes a point, we have lost our 1-dim element of length 1.
Click to expand...

So now your ““length 1 of the 1-dim element is” “changed” and your circomfrance ‘shrinks’.

doronshadmi said:
If we insist that the circumference is a point (which is the limit point in the middle of the area that is closed by the bended 1-dim element) and the bended 1-dim is still found, then we actually say that 1=0.
Click to expand...

We do not “insist” or “say” any of that nonsense nor do we need to, but you do. Unnecessary and self serving nonsense is also not a ‘novel notion’ (at least not on this forum).

doronshadmi said:
The only solution that keeps length 1 of the bended 1-dim element, and also deals with infinitely many bended levels, is the solution where the circumference around the bended 1-dim element of length 1, can’t reach the limit , which is actually an 0-dim.
Click to expand...

Nope again an infinite convergent series having a finite sum was proven some 2,300 years ago and you thinking that simply your self –inconsistent, self serving and morbid fantasy refutes some proof is also not a ‘novel notion’ (at least not on this forum).

doronshadmi said:
By using this novel notion of the infinite collection, we understand better why, for example, the mass of a shrinked star increases, but it does not become a point even if it is compressed by infinitely many scale levels.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming you have a version of general relativity that does not result in a singularity for catastrophic gravitational collapse? If that is the case you will have to prove that and not just fantasies about it. Again thinking you can change established theories and formulism with just your fantasies is not a ‘novel notion’ (at least not on this forum).

doronshadmi said:
I do not think that this novel view is achieved if we insist to keep the old notions of Limit AND infinite (and complete) collection of bended levels.
Click to expand...

Doron again your self –inconsistent, self serving and morbid fantasy of saving our civilization from self-destruction by you deliberately misinterpreting and misrepresenting what you call “standard math” does not constitute a “novel view” of anything and the only one who needs it is you.
 
doronshadmi said:
So you have a problem to understend a closed 1-dim element, where only length is considered.

How boring.
Click to expand...

You are the one who lacks any understanding of mathematics,you are not boring though,I find your made-up-on-the-spot ramblings very amusing.
 
The Man said:
If “length 1 of the 1-dim element is not changed” then it’s circumference doesn’t become “smaller”.
Click to expand...
EDIT:

Yes it does.

Take a closed and non-searched string, give it a triangle shape with 3 equal angles, and than start to band each given side, according to the shape of Koch’s fractal.

If you do that you will find that the length of the closest circumference of the circle around that bended closed string, becomes smaller if more bended levels are added, yet the length of the bended string is not changed.

You are invited to do this experiment, and realize by yourself that I am right.

This is by the way how, for example, our DNA is packed in a very small space, even if its length is much bigger than the closest circumference of the circle, which is equal to the geodetic line around this space.

Again we see how standard Math does not have the tools to deal with real complexity.
 
Last edited:
sympathic said:
All we see is that you do not have the tools to deal even with simple concepts in math.
Click to expand...

EDIT:

Really? please use your standard tools in order to explain how the length of a given Koch fractal (that is based on non-stretched 1-dim element) which is bended upon infinitely many levels, saves its length, where the circumference of the smallest circle around it, becomes smaller but > than 0 (otherwise the Koch's fractal length is changed to 0, and we do not find infinitely many bended levels that are based on the invariant length of the non-starched 1-dim closed element).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Really, please use your standard tools in order to explain how the length of a given Koch fractal (that is based on non-stretched 1-dim element) which is bended upon infinitely many levels, saves its length, where circumference of the smallest circle around it, becomes smaller but > then 0 (otherwise the Koch's fractal length is changed to 0, and we do not find infinitely many bended levels that are based on the invariant length of the non-starched 1-dim closed element).
Click to expand...

Humpty Dumpty words again.
 
The Man,

Here are the results of the experiment:

4417179545_d4e9c86236_o.jpg


Each Koch's fractal has the same length as the triangle above, yet we have an infinite convergent series of circles, where within each one of them there is the invariant length of Koch's fractal, which is > 0.

If this convergent series has the value of the limit point, then the Koch's fractal has 0 length, which is impossible.

Conclusion: Since the length of Koch's fractal > 0 and it is invariant upon infinitely many bended levels, then the convergent series of circles must be incomplete because it can't have the value of the limit, which is 0.
 
doronshadmi said:
By the axiom of infinity if n is a member of N then n+1 is a member of N, and as a result N is inherently an incomplete collection of distinct things.
Click to expand...

The Axiom of Infinity is far more elegant and precise than that. In perhaps its most general formulation, it looks like this:

[latex]$$$ \exists x \ (\{ \} \in x \wedge \forall y \in x \ (S(y) \in x)) $$$ [/latex]​

where S(y) is the successor function for the domain under consideration.

The direct consequence of the Axiom of Infinity, though, a consequence you seem to ignore, is there exists a set of all the integers.
 
doronshadmi said:
The Man,

Here are the results of the experiment:

[qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4070/4417179545_d4e9c86236_o.jpg[/qimg]

Each Koch's fractal...
Click to expand...

Ahem. None of those are fractals.

...has the same length as the triangle above, yet we have an infinite convergent series of circles, where within each one of them there is the invariant length of Koch's fractal, which is > 0.
Click to expand...

Again, those are not fractals. The only fractal would be at the limit of the construction, where such a limit to exist. The construction would be far more interesting without the extra constraint on circumference length, though.

If this convergent series has the value of the limit point, then the Koch's fractal has 0 length, which is impossible.
Click to expand...

Proof by crude drawing? Care to add any rigor to this hand-waving? Be that as it may, do you have any understanding whatsoever of the impact fractals have had on the meaning of length and dimension?

Conclusion: Since the length of Koch's fractal > 0 and it is invariant upon infinitely many bended levels, then the convergent series of circles must be incomplete because it can't have the value of the limit, which is 0.
Click to expand...

Conclusion: Doron doesn't understand. You just throw in unnecessary muddle (like the Koch Curve in this case) to obscure the fact you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

You still cannot distinguish between the terms incomplete and infinite, can you? That alone makes your whole presentation trivial and trite.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
The Axiom of Infinity is far more elegant and precise than that. In perhaps its most general formulation, it looks like this:

[latex]$$$ \exists x \ (\{ \} \in x \wedge \forall y \in x \ (S(y) \in x)) $$$ [/latex]​

where S(y) is the successor function for the domain under consideration.

The direct consequence of the Axiom of Infinity, though, a consequence you seem to ignore, is there exists a set of all the integers.
Click to expand...
No jsfisher.

the axiom of infinity is precise and interesting exactly because "if n is a member of N, then n+1 is a member of N" rigorously express the notion of inherent openness (and therefore incomplete nature) of any infinite collection.

Again, you have a non-interesting notion of infinite collection exactly because your notion is closed under completeness that is based on classes, instead of the real completeness that naturally derived from the non-local and local atomic aspects of any given collection (finite or not).
 
jsfisher said:
Ahem. None of those are fractals.



Again, those are not fractals. The only fractal would be at the limit of the construction, where such a limit to exist. The construction would be far more interesting without the extra constraint on circumference length, though.



Proof by crude drawing? Care to add any rigor to this hand-waving? Be that as it may, do you have any understanding whatsoever of the impact fractals have had on the meaning of length and dimension?



Conclusion: Doron doesn't understand. You just throw in unnecessary muddle (like the Koch Curve in this case) to obscure the fact you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

You still cannot distinguish between the terms incomplete and infinite, can you? That alone makes your whole presentation trivial and trite.
Click to expand...
Thank you jsfisher for providing once again the needed proof of why your school of thought has the exact properties of a dogmatic sect.

You are doing the job for me, in order to expose your limited notions infront of the public.

jsfisher said:
Ahem. None of those are fractals.
Click to expand...
Ahem. Yes they are fractals (from the second form).

jsfisher said:
Be that as it may, do you have any understanding whatsoever of the impact fractals have had on the meaning of length and dimension?
Click to expand...
Yes.

The self similarity over scales like 0.111..[base 2] < 1 is a perfect example of a fractal (or more precisely, a single path along the scales of a given fractal):
4318895416_366312cf0e_o.jpg


Your Limit approach is exactly the way of how not to understand fractals.

jsfisher said:
Proof by crude drawing?
Click to expand...
It is a rigorous drawing that is used as a proof without words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_without_words) (it is generalized to any self similarity over scales).
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Proof by crude drawing? Care to add any rigor to this hand-waving? Be that as it may, do you have any understanding whatsoever of the impact fractals have had on the meaning of length and dimension?
Click to expand...

Well, dimension is one of the terms Doron clearly does not understand.
doronshadmi said:
a 1-dim element that has a triangle shape of length 1 with 3 equal angles.
Click to expand...
Expecting him to understand the implications of something more advanced when he can't manage the basics seems a little unfair.
 
zooterkin said:
Well, dimension is one of the terms Doron clearly does not understand.
Expecting him to understand the implications of something more advanced when he can't manage the basics seems a little unfair.
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5696182&postcount=8949 , http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5696845&postcount=8951 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5699060&postcount=8955 are beyond you, isn't it up-to zooterkin?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Thank you jsfisher for providing once again the needed proof of why your school of thought has the exact properties of a dogmatic sect.

You are doing the job for me, in order to expose your limited notions infront of the public.
Click to expand...

This is the wrong crowd for such observations. Actually I think there is no crowd for this or for your ideas altogether. People who do not know enough math don't really know what you are talking and I guess don't really care... people who do know math understand right away that you don't really know what you are talking about and don't really care. The remaining are probably posting on this thread, but you don't really care...
 
sympathic said:
This is the wrong crowd for such observations. Actually I think there is no crowd for this or for your ideas altogether. People who do not know enough math don't really know what you are talking and I guess don't really care... people who do know math understand right away that you don't really know what you are talking about and don't really care. The remaining are probably posting on this thread, but you don't really care...
Click to expand...

So you don't have any meaninful thing to say about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5696182&postcount=8949 , http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5696845&postcount=8951 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5699060&postcount=8955 .

sympathic said:
People who do not know enough math
Click to expand...
Your obsolete knowledge of this subject is the exact reason behind your inability to get any of my 3 posts above.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
So you don't have any meaninful thing to say about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5696182&postcount=8949 , http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5696845&postcount=8951 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5699060&postcount=8955 .


Your obsolete knowledge of this subject is the exact reason behind your inability to get any of my 3 posts above.
Click to expand...

My obsolete knowledge of this subject has enabled me to successfully obtain a math degree, a decent job and the proper approach to be successful at it.

The obsolete knowledge of others enables you to post 224 pages of gibberish on this forum using the Internet and your computer.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom