Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
You may say that the limit of the non-local number 3.14159265...[base 10], is the local number pi, such that 3.14159265...[base 10] < pi....
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't, but this is irrelevant to the question at hand. You are evading the question.

We are left with the conclusion doronetics has no concept of limit and doronshadmi has no concept of limit. That's great, but it diminishes the value of doronetics even further, were that possible,

Too bad for you, but leave Mathematics alone. It has a perfectly reasonable concept for limit. It is consistent and generates no apparent contradictions. Clearly you don't understand it, but so what else is new?
 
jsfisher said:
No, I wouldn't, but this is irrelevant to the question at hand. You are evading the question.

We are left with the conclusion doronetics has no concept of limit and doronshadmi has no concept of limit. That's great, but it diminishes the value of doronetics even further, were that possible,

Too bad for you, but leave Mathematics alone. It has a perfectly reasonable concept for limit. It is consistent and generates no apparent contradictions. Clearly you don't understand it, but so what else is new?
Click to expand...

Limit of a number.... Thanks Doron for your convincing demonstration that you have no clue what a limit is or what it is used for.
 
Here is an interesting part of Prof. Richard Arthur (http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~rarthur/index.shtml#What's new) article about the real line and the Cantorian actual infinite “Leibniz and Cantor on the Actual Infinite” (http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~rarthur/papers/LeibCant.pdf . page 4):
Questions of applicability, of course, lead us to some other salient issues. One of
these concerns the applicability of the mathematics of the real line. If one rejects the
(Cantorian) actual infinite, Cantor claimed, then one must also reject irrationals:


The transfinite numbers are in a certain sense new irrationalities, and in my view the
best method of defining the finite irrational numbers is quite similar to, and I might
even say in principle the same as, my method of introducing transfinite numbers.
One can say unconditionally: the transfinite numbers stand or fall with the finite
irrational numbers: they are alike in their innermost nature, since both kinds are
definitely delimited forms or modifications of the actual infinite.



Here Cantor alludes to the fact that just as irrationals can be conceived as limits of
infinite sequences of rational numbers, so transfinite numbers can be conceived as limits of infinite sequences of natural numbers, in each case added in immediately after the sequence they limit. If one rejects transfinites, what right has one to allow the extension of the number system to include irrationals?


A reluctance to jettison the theory of the real line thus explains the widespread acceptance among modern mathematicians of the Cantorian theory of the infinite.
Click to expand...

It is clearly shown that Cantor understood actual infinity in terms of Collections.


Because of this misunderstanding he actually missed the real actual infinity which is not less than the non-local atomic aspect, which can’t be captured in terms of Complexity, where Complexity is the result of the linkage of the non-local atomic aspect with the local atomic aspect.


OM, by clearly distinguish between the atomic and the complex, enables to understand the incompleteness of any infinite Complexity w.r.t to the non-local atomic aspect that enables it.


One of OM’s results is the distinction between accurate values and inaccurate values, which is not found under the Cantorian reasoning of Infinity.
 
Last edited:
sympathic said:
Limit of a number.... Thanks Doron for your convincing demonstration that you have no clue what a limit is or what it is used for.
Click to expand...

"the limit of the non-local number ", please be accurate when you quote others.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
"the limit of the non-local number ", please be accurate when you quate others.
Click to expand...

Please use a dictionary when you write posts in English (and since when has accuracy or cohesion been so important to you?). Nonetheless, there isn't such a thing as "local number" or "non-local number". There is no limit of numbers either. A limit is used with functions and sequences. Try actually learning the basics before running out to infinities.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Thank you for exposing your dogmatic attitude about the mathematical science.

Say no more.
Click to expand...

You are very welcome - move on, the need to properly define things and use them consistently is not for you. Try art.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Stay behind, the mathematical science is not for dogmatic persons. Try religion.



Your dogmatic ability prevents from you the get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5717208&postcount=9043, so?
Click to expand...

It is not my dogmatic ability that prevents me from getting whatever you post here. I get it just fine, it is just plainly and utterly wrong. You will find no one here or anywhere else for that matter who will accept your ramblings as math. Keep trying though if this is your idea of fun.
 
sympathic said:
Apparently, it is not for you either.
Click to expand...
As long as it is the science mechanic technicians.

But you see sympathic? OM changes that mechanic limited reasoning, in order to deal with real Complexity, which is something that your mechanic limited reasoning unable to comprehend.
 
Last edited:
sympathic said:
It is not my dogmatic ability that prevents me from getting whatever you post here. I get it just fine, it is just plainly and utterly wrong. You will find no one here or anywhere else for that matter who will accept your ramblings as math. Keep trying though if this is your idea of fun.
Click to expand...
1) Time will air its view, let us live and see.

2) You are not in any position to say any meaningful thing about OM because you are a dogmatic person.
 
doronshadmi said:
As long as it is the science mechanic technicians.

But you see sympathic? OM changes that mechanic limited reasoning, in order to deal with real Complexity, which is something that your mechanic limited reasoning unable to comprehend.
Click to expand...

Inferiority issues combined with megalomania again Doron? if you can't understand it it must be false eh?
 
doronshadmi said:
1) Time will air its view, let us live and see.

2) You are not in any position to say any meaningful thing about OM because you are a dogmatic person.
Click to expand...

I am in a position to say anything I want about Math. I know math to a certain degree and I can prove it (with words and a nice diploma), something you do not and can not do.

And... "time will air its view"? how do you expect this to happen. Or is time an intelligent being in your world?
 
Last edited:
sympathic said:
I am in a position to say anything I want about Math. I know math to a certain degree and I can prove it (with words and a nice diploma), something you do not and can not do.

And... "time will air its view"? how do you expect this to happen. Or is time an intelligent entity in your world?
Click to expand...
A typical response of a dogmatic and mechanic technician.
 
doronshadmi said:
A typical response of a dogmatic and mechanic technician.
Click to expand...

I wish it were that mechanic and technical as you think it is. It would have saved me countless hours trying to understand some concepts and techniques. But you are smarter than all of us - you found a shortcut. Instead of saying "I don't understand" you say "it is wrong" and mumble some in-cohesive pile of words, add some drawings and convince yourself everyone else is wrong. Wow you are some scientist!
 
sympathic said:
I wish it were that mechanic and technical as you think it is. It would have saved me countless hours trying to understand some concepts and techniques. But you are smarter than all of us - you found a shortcut. Instead of saying "I don't understand" you say "it is wrong" and mumble some in-cohesive pile of words, add some drawings and convince yourself everyone else is wrong. Wow you are some scientist!
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5723160&postcount=9132 speaks for itself, and your dogmatic (and therefore anti-scientific) rambling will not change that fact.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5719960&postcount=9080 is exactly what you are, with your diploma and your nice job.

And as for your limited undertanding of the mathematical science http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5720008&postcount=9084 clearly shows it.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
If X - (a2+2b+2c+2d+...) = 0 then X ≠ AND = 0, which is exactly the result of your Limit-oriented reasoning.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Nowhere do you establish that X = 0 at the limit.

The only thing you have shown by repeating this example is that you really, really don't understand Mathematics, and you don't even understand what you call OM.
 
jsfisher said:
Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Nowhere do you establish that X = 0 at the limit.

The only thing you have shown by repeating this example is that you really, really don't understand Mathematics, and you don't even understand what you call OM.
Click to expand...
Thank you jsfisher for proving that your mathematical formal training does not help you to understand the simple fact about the inseparable linkage between constant X and (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) convergent infinite series, as rigorously shown by the proof without words in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5723160&postcount=9132 .

The Man, sympathic and you are perfect triggers for OM’s development, exactly because it exposes your poor abstraction abilities, which is a direct result of your standard formal training.

The devastating results on your abstraction abilities clearly demonstrate why OM has to be developed.

EDIT:

Let alone take The Man's limited reasoning about self similarity and X+X-X=X, his inability to understand that X-X=0 also if X is an inaccurate value, his inability to understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5715251&postcount=9028 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5715530&postcount=9033,
your inability to understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5715292&postcount=9029, and the dogmatic approach of sympathic as exposed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5723206&postcount=9135.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Thank you jsfisher for proving that your mathematical formal training does not help you to understand the simple fact about the inseparable linkage between constant X and (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) convergent infinite series, as rigorously shown by the proof without words in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5723160&postcount=9132 .
Click to expand...

We are all thoroughly familiar with your style of rigor. The more you tout something as rigorous or clearly shown, the more certain we can be that your presentation is neither rigorous nor clear. This is but another example.

You also have a consistent failure in reading comprehension. Here, for example, the challenge was for you to show that X is 0 in the limit. You babble instead about the relationship between X and a convergent series. (It is odd, too, you admit the series is convergent, but will separately argue the series doesn't converge. Such is the was doronetics -- allow no contradiction to go unexpressed.) Care to try again to stay on target, or are you off on yet another tangent of confusion?

You have made a bogus claim, and you cannot back it up. You have failed again.
 
doronshadmi said:
Let me help you.

There are at least two kinds of numbers under OM:

1) Local numbers that have accurate values.

2) Non-local numbers that do not have accurate values.

For example pi(= circumference/diameter) is a local number under OM.

3.14159265...[base 10] is a non-local number that does not have an accurate value.
Click to expand...

Ok so your OM is just self conflicted and self contradictory. It doesn’t help me as I already understand and have repeatedly expressed that aspect of your OM also it doesn’t help you as it only confirms one of the primary deficiencies of your OM.


doronshadmi said:
You may say that the limit of the non-local number 3.14159265...[base 10], is the local number pi, such that 3.14159265...[base 10] < pi.
Click to expand...

Nope I wouldn’t say that as your “non-local” requirement of “belongs to AND does not belong to” is simply self contradictory.

doronshadmi said:
By using this non-trivial notion, you may say that 3.14159265...[base 10] is similar to a virtual particle w.r.t to a non-virtual particle.
Click to expand...

Nope I wouldn’t say that either since I’m quite familiar with quantum mechanics and virtual particles. Not like your OM where you simply mention some topic off hand and think there should be this “sudden effect” where people actually think you understand that topic.

doronshadmi said:
In other words, any local number is surrounded by non-local numbers, exactly as a non-virtual particle is surrounded by virtual particles.
Click to expand...

QED (Quod Erat Demonstrandum your lack of understanding of both math and Quantum ElectroDynamics).

However, ‘Virtual Inaccurate Math’ (VIM) does seem to fit your OM intentions of deliberately being inaccurate.





doronshadmi said:
In that case you do not distinguish, for example, between the accurate results of values like 3.1, 3.14, 3.141, 3.1415, 3.14159, ... ([base 10]) and the inaccurate result 3.14159...[base 10].

Non of these values above (accurate or inaccurate) are the accurate value pi(= circumference/diameter).
Click to expand...

Did you miss the part about rounded numbers being less accurate?

Wait, so OM “accurate results of values like 3.1, 3.14, 3.141, 3.1415, 3.14159, ... ([base 10])” actually aren’t “the accurate value” your OM is tying to represent with them? Please let us know when you get some accuracy or at least self consistency to your OM.
 
doronshadmi said:
Thank you jsfisher for proving that your mathematical formal training does not help you to understand the simple fact about the inseparable linkage between constant X and (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) convergent infinite series, as rigorously shown by the proof without words in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5723160&postcount=9132 .

The Man, sympathic and you are perfect triggers for OM’s development, exactly because it exposes your poor abstraction abilities, which is a direct result of your standard formal training.

The devastating results on your abstraction abilities clearly demonstrate why OM has to be developed.

EDIT:

Let alone take The Man's limited reasoning about self similarity and X+X-X=X, his inability to understand that X-X=0 also if X is an inaccurate value, his inability to understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5715251&postcount=9028 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5715530&postcount=9033,
your inability to understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5715292&postcount=9029, and the dogmatic approach of sympathic as exposed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5723206&postcount=9135.
Click to expand...



I have never claimed “X-X=0” excludes “an inaccurate value” for “X” just another wrong assumption on your part and your inability to understand that your assumptions do not constitute facts. Once again since the difference between the two times series and the original series (in your ½+1/4+1/16… example) is just 1 (an accurate value in your OM) shows that the series has a sum and it is even an “accurate value” in your self contradictory OM nonsense. Guess your direct perception must work sometimes, of course even a broken clock is right twice a day (well unless it is a deliberately inaccurate OM clock)
 
jsfisher said:
You also have a consistent failure in reading comprehension. Here, for example, the challenge was for you to show that X is 0 in the limit
Click to expand...
The failure in reading comprehension is yours, in this case.

If we deal with an infinite convergent series, then exactly because of the inseparable linkage between constant X AND (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) convergent series, X-(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) > 0, and as a result (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X.

In other words, approaches is a constant property of (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) infinite convergent series.

An infinite convergent series is a result of infinitely many points (where a point is a local atom because it can be simultaneously in exactly one location) and infinitely many segments (where a segment is a non-local atom because it can be simultaneously in at least two locations, and a segment is not made by points).

The value of a given limit is reached only if finitely many points and segments are involved, but then we are not dealing anymore with an infinite convergent series.

My proof without words is rigours and clearly and simply shows the clear difference between a finite collection and non-convergent series of points and segments that indeed reaches the value of a given limit, and an infinite convergent series of points and segments that permanently approaches (does not reach) the value of a given limit.

Here is the proof without words, and its inevitable result about the clear difference between permanently approaches, and actually reaches:
doronshadmi said:
1) Take a straight 1-dim with length X.

2) Bend it and get 4 equal sides along it.

3) Since the length between the opposite edges is changed to the sum of only 3 sides, and since the number of the sides after the first bending is 4 sides, we have to multiply the bended 1-dim element by 1/(the number of the bended sides), in order to get back length X.

As a result the bended 1-dim element has length X, but the length between its opposite edges becomes smaller (it converges).

In general, this convergent series of 1/(the number of the bended sides) is resulted by 1/1+1/4+1/16+1/64+1/256+... , where X is subtracted by (2a+2b+2c+2d+…)

Here is the result:

[qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg[/qimg]


4) By Standard Math X – (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = 0


5) (4) is false because (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) can be found as long as X is found.

6) Since X is found upon infinitely many scale levels then (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) must be < X , and as a result X - (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) > 0.

7) Conclusion: (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) does not have sum X.
Click to expand...

A shorter version of the proof:

doronshadmi said:
X = the constant length > 0

[qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg[/qimg]

1) By Standard Math X – (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = 0

2) (1) is false because (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) can be found as long as X is found.

3) Since X is found upon infinitely many scale levels then (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) must be < X , and as a result X - (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) > 0.

4) Conclusion: (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) does not have sum X.
Click to expand...

The Man, jsfisher and sympathic, this result is logically irresistible truth.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The failure in reading comprehension is yours, in this case.

If we deal with an infinite convergent series, then exactly because of the inseparable linkage between constant X AND (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) convergent series, X-(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) > 0, and as a result (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X.

In other words, approaches is a constant property of (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) an infinite convergent series.

An infinite convergent series is a result of infinitely many points (where a point is a local atom because it can be simultaneously in exactly one location) and infinitely many segments (where a segment is a non-local atom because it can be simultaneously in at least two locations, and a segment is not made by points).

The value of a given limit is reached only if finitely many points and segments are involved, but then we are not dealing anymore with an infinite convergent series.

My proof without words is rigours and clearly and simply shows the clear difference between a finite collection and non-convergent series of points and segments that indeed reaches the value of a given limit, and an infinite convergent series of points and segments that permanently approaches (does not reach) the value of a given limit.

Here is the proof without words, and its inevitable result about the clear difference between permanently approaches, and actually reaches:


A shorter version of the proof:



The Man, jsfisher and sympathic, this result is logically irresistible truth.
Click to expand...

Nope, you still end up with the same basic problems Doron. If your “X” has no “sum” (as the sum of its segments) then your “X” has no “length“. Thus the very basis (and requirement) of your example, the invariance of your “X” “length”, fails. Once again all you have done is disprove your own assertions with your own words and your imagined “proof without words”. The only rigor your notions have is rigor mortis', because you keep killing them yourself.
 
The Man said:
Nope, you still end up with the same basic problems Doron. If your “X” has no “sum” (as the sum of its segments) then your “X” has no “length“.
Click to expand...
No The Man.

X has an accurate length, that is reachable only by finitely many steps that are based of finitely many points AND segments.

(2a+2b+2c+2d+…) has no accurate sum exactly because it is based on an infinite convergent series of points AND segments that permanently approaches the value of constant X, where permanently approaches is a direct result of the inseparable linkage between constant X length upon infinitely many scale levels, and (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) infinite and permanently convergent series.

Infinite and permanently convergent series like (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) is found if:

1) Constant X length is found upon infinitely many scale levels.

2) Any arbitrary segment is smaller than any previous arbitrary segment along the considered series.

Both (1) AND (2) are true in the case of (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) series, and as a result X - (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) > 0.

Say hallo to (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) that is permanently approaches the value of constant X ( (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) does not bite your reached hand because it can’t reach it).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
My proof without words is rigours and clearly and simply shows the clear difference between a finite collection and non-convergent series of points and segments that indeed reaches the value of a given limit, and an infinite convergent series of points and segments that permanently approaches (does not reach) the value of a given limit.

Here is the proof without words, and its inevitable result about the clear difference between permanently approaches, and actually reaches:
doronshadmi said:
1) Take a straight 1-dim with length X.

2) Bend it and get 4 equal sides along it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So simple and clear that you still haven't fixed the first two steps (which to my untutored eyes look like words), which actually generate a square.
 
zooterkin said:
So simple and clear that you still haven't fixed the first two steps (which to my untutored eyes look like words), which actually generate a square.
Click to expand...
Don't be shy, please continue to read (3) to (7), unless you are closed under stop-by-stop reasoning.
 
For any one that is closed under a stop-by-stop reasoning, here is a special version of step (2):

2) Bend it and get 4 equal sides along it, where each bend has 60 degrees and there is a length of 3 equal sides between its opposite edges.
 
doronshadmi said:
No The Man.

X has an accurate length, that is reachable only by finitely many steps that are based of finitely many points AND segments.

(2a+2b+2c+2d+…) has no accurate sum exactly because it is based on an infinite convergent series of points AND segments that permanently approaches the value of constant X, where permanently approaches is a direct result of the inseparable linkage between constant X length upon infinitely many scale levels, and (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) infinite and permanently convergent series.

Infinite and permanently convergent series like (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) is found if:

1) Constant X length is found upon infinitely many scale levels.

2) Any arbitrary segment is smaller than any previous arbitrary segment along the considered series.

Both (1) AND (2) are true in the case of (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) series, and as a result X - (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) > 0.

Say hallo to (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) that is permanently approaches the value of constant X ( (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) does not bite your reached hand because it can’t reach it).
Click to expand...


Once again.


The Man said:
Nope, you still end up with the same basic problems Doron. If your “X” has no “sum” (as the sum of its segments) then your “X” has no “length“. Thus the very basis (and requirement) of your example, the invariance of your “X” “length”, fails.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom