Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
Please show where exactly X is not and accurate value, according to my post.
Click to expand...

That is not a accurate quote. If you want to ask me question about so quote of what I have said then you will have to quote what I said. Not just truncate any statement as you see fit.





doronshadmi said:
Exactly The Man.

In the case of Y=(2a+2b+2c+2d+...), Y is an inaccurate value, as long as Y is an infinite convergent series.
Click to expand...

Once again exactly wrong, Y is a variable not a value. It represents a range of values and you have asserted that …

doronshadmi said:
Again, rounded values are accurate values and also ranges of values that (by your own words) have sums, can’t be but accurate values.
Click to expand...

ranges of values that have sums “can’t be but accurate values”. A convergent series is a range of values that has a sum. So by your own assertions it “can’t be but accurate values”. Again you claims are simply based on your assumption that an infinite convergent series has no sum, which was proven wrong some 2,300 years ago.
 
doronshadmi said:
Here is a special longer version for you The Man, since you simply do not get the shroter version:

Fact 1) Constant accurate bended X size (the orange bended element) and convergent accurate Y sizes (the green elements) have common edges upon infinitely many scale levels.

Fact 2) Each accurate Y size is the complement of each accurate size of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…), to the accurate constant X size.

Fact 3) (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X only if Y=0, but if Y=0 then also X=0 because of fact (1).

Fact 4) If (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X, then X > AND = 0, because of fact (3).

Conclusion:

a) OM's claim ((2a+2b+2c+2d+…) < X) is right (X or Y are only > 0).

b) Standard Math's claim ((2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X) is wrong ((X or Y are both > AND = 0).
Click to expand...

Longer and wrong does not make it any less wrong, it just makes it longer. Once again the assertion that your “X” and “Y” have the same size in your now statement “3” (since it isn’t really even a conclusion) just because they have the same edges (or end points) by your statement “1” is proven to be wrong with the very first iteration of your series.
 
The Man said:
Longer and wrong does not make it any less wrong, it just makes it longer. Once again the assertion that your “X” and “Y” have the same size in your now statement “3” (since it isn’t really even a conclusion) just because they have the same edges (or end points) by your statement “1” is proven to be wrong with the very first iteration of your series.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding?

By following the longer version, it is clearly understood that X and Y do not have the same size upon infinitely many scale levels, where both X AND Y > 0.

X and Y have the same size only if we follow the worng notion of Standard Math, which claims that (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Again your assertion is just as wrong today as it was some 2,300 years ago.
Click to expand...

No The Man, you simply can't rid of a wrong reasoning that were made 2,300 years ago, and the the new and right reasoning, about this subject, as clearly shown as follows:

jsfisher said:
doronshadmi said:
Because by your idiotic reasoning the bended constant X > 0 must be also = 0 in order enable (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) to be X.
Click to expand...
You repeat this idiotic claim, yet you cannot demonstrate it. Why is that?
Click to expand...

Let us carefully research who's claim is right, on this case.

Here is the considered diagram:

4464201033_30e7dbd8d4_o.jpg


By understanding this diagram, the following facts are shown (EDITED):

Fact 1) Constant accurate bended X size (the orange bended element) and convergent accurate Y sizes (the green elements) have common edges upon infinitely many scale levels.

Fact 2) Each accurate Y size is the complement of each accurate size of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…), to the accurate constant X size.

Fact 3) (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X only if Y=0, but if Y=0 then also X=0 because of fact (1).

Fact 4) If (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X, then X > AND = 0, because of fact (3).

Conclusion:

a) OM's claim ((2a+2b+2c+2d+…) < X) is right (X or Y are only > 0).

b) Standard Math's claim ((2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X) is wrong (X or Y are both > AND = 0).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Are you kidding?

By following the longer version, it is clearly understood that X and Y do not have the same size.

X and Y have the same size only if we follow the wrong notion of Standard Math, which claims that (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X.
Click to expand...

By following your series it is clearly demonstrated (whether you understand it or not) that your “Constant accurate bended X size (the orange bended element)” it not the same “size” as your shrinking “Y sizes (the green elements)” at the very first iteration. Now if you want to claim that your “Y sizes (the green elements)” plus your 2 “a” elements (not given any particular color by you) in your first iteration equals your “X size” that would be correct. However it still does not make your “(the orange bended element)” the same “size” as your “(the green elements)” just because they have the same edges or end points.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No The Man, you simply can't rid of a wrong reasoning that were made 2,300 years ago, and the the new and right reasoning, about this subject, as clearly shown as follows:



Let us carefully research who's claim is right, on this case.

Here is the considered diagram:

[qimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2794/4464201033_30e7dbd8d4_o.jpg[/qimg]

By understanding this diagram, the following facts are shown (EDITED):

Fact 1) Constant accurate bended X size (the orange bended element) and convergent accurate Y sizes (the green elements) have common edges upon infinitely many scale levels.

Fact 2) Each accurate Y size is the complement of each accurate size of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…), to the accurate constant X size.

Fact 3) (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X only if Y=0, but if Y=0 then also X=0 because of fact (1).

Fact 4) If (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X, then X > AND = 0, because of fact (3).

Conclusion:

a) OM's claim ((2a+2b+2c+2d+…) < X) is right (X or Y are only > 0).

b) Standard Math's claim ((2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X) is wrong ((X or Y are both > AND = 0).
Click to expand...

Doron you can not make that right by simply ignoring how easily a demonstrably wrong it is even with just the first iteration.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Doron you can not make that right by simply ignoring how easily a demonstrably wrong it is even with just the first iteration.
Click to expand...

EDIT:

Please show how fact 1 is wrong, if by fact 2 it is clearly understood that X > any complement Y of the series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…)
and both X AND Y > 0 upon infinitely many scale levels?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
EDIT:

Please show how fact 1 is wrong, if by fact 2 it is clearly understood that X > any complement Y of the series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…)
and both X AND Y > 0 upon infinitely many scale levels?
Click to expand...


First Doron they are simply statements not facts. Second I have never claimed that your statement “1” is wrong as it merely asserts that your “green” line (designated by you as “Y”) and “orange” group of segments (designated by you as “X”) have the same “edges” or end points. Your statement “2” clearly conflicts with your statement “1” even at the first iteration as your “green” line (designated by you as “Y”) is not the sum of your 2 “a” segments that you have not identified with any color. Your statement “3” (which was your statement “2” before) is also disproved by the first iteration as your “green” line (designated by you as “Y”) is not the same “size” as your “orange” group of segments (designated by you as “X”). Adding another clearly wrong statement to your “facts” does not make them facts or any less simply wrong.
 
The Man said:
By following your series it is clearly demonstrated (whether you understand it or not) that your “Constant accurate bended X size (the orange bended element)” it not the same “size” as your shrinking “Y sizes (the green elements)” at the very first iteration. Now if you want to claim that your “Y sizes (the green elements)” plus your 2 “a” elements (not given any particular color by you) in your first iteration equals your “X size” that would be correct.
Click to expand...

Here The Man simply missing the fact that according to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5757465&postcount=9207 X > any one of the infinitely many Y's (where any given particular Y is a complement of some particular finite sum of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…), to constant X value, where X > any given Y upon infinitely many scale levels, and both X AND Y > 0 upon infinitely many scale levels.

The Man said:
However it still does not make your “(the orange bended element)” the same “size” as your “(the green elements)” just because they have the same edges or end points.
Click to expand...
Here The Man can't understand that X=Y only by Standard Math, and this is exactly why Standard Math is wrong, in this case.

The Man said:
Your statement “2” clearly conflicts with your statement “1” even at the first iteration as your “green” line (designated by you as “Y”) is not the sum of your 2 “a” segments that you have not identified with any color.
Click to expand...
The Man,

Again, each "green" line is a complement of some particular finite sum of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…), to constant X value, where X > any given Y upon infinitely many scale levels, and both X AND Y > 0 upon infinitely many scale levels.
 
Last edited:
Here is a clearer version of my argument (fact 2 has been changed).

doronshadmi said:
Let us carefully research who's claim is right, on this case.

Here is the considered diagram:

4464201033_30e7dbd8d4_o.jpg


By understanding this diagram, the following facts are shown (EDITED):

Fact 1) Constant accurate bended X size (the orange bended element) and convergent accurate Y sizes (the green elements) have common edges upon infinitely many scale levels.

Fact 2) Any given particular Y is a complement of some particular finite sum of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…), to constant X value, , where X > any given Y upon infinitely many scale levels, and both X AND Y > 0 upon infinitely many scale levels.

Fact 3) (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X only if Y=0, but if Y=0 then also X=0 because of fact (1).

Fact 4) If (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X, then X > AND = 0, because of fact (3).

Conclusion:

a) OM's claim ((2a+2b+2c+2d+…) < X) is right (X or Y are only > 0).

b) Standard Math's claim ((2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X) is wrong (X or Y are both > AND = 0).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Let us carefully research who's claim is right, on this case.

Here is the considered diagram:

[qimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2794/4464201033_30e7dbd8d4_o.jpg[/qimg]

By understanding this diagram, the following facts are shown (EDITED):

Fact 1) Constant accurate bended X size (the orange bended element) and convergent accurate Y sizes (the green elements) have common edges upon infinitely many scale levels.
Click to expand...

You can't just use simple terms like the length and width of each generation of Koch curve?

Yes, the length of each generation is a constant X > 0. The width is ever decreasing. In fact, the width has a limit (as the generation number approaches infinity) of 0.

Fact 2) Each accurate Y size is the complement of each accurate size of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…), to the accurate constant X size.
Click to expand...

No. This is nonsense on your part, doron. The width of each generation is the difference of X and the finite sum (2a+2b+...+2n) (being the amount of width reduced by each preceding generation).

Fact 3) (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X only if Y=0, but if Y=0 then also X=0 because of fact (1).
Click to expand...

In the limit, the width is 0. However, the conclusion that X must therefore be 0 is baseless.

Major logic fail by doron.

Fact 4) If (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X, then X > AND = 0, because of fact (3).
Click to expand...

This is a restatement of bogus fact 3. It is therefore equally bogus.

Conclusion:

a) OM's claim ((2a+2b+2c+2d+…) < X) is right (X or Y are only > 0).

b) Standard Math's claim ((2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X) is wrong ((X or Y are both > AND = 0).
Click to expand...

Fact:

Doron can't get his facts right.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Again this impropriate word ("believe") about this fine and important subject (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5735963&postcount=9170)?

Sympathic, this subject has nothing to do with beliefs.

This subject is based on direct perception of the re-reached subject, which enables one to under-sand its fundamentals.

What you call Limit is simply a reflection the natural ability of our mind to look beyond some considered subject.

By looking beyond the considered subject (and in this case the considered subject can be infinite convergent series like 0+1/2+1/4+1/8+…, or a divergent series like 1+1+1+…) one must not ignore the fundamental fact that the used viewpoint of the considered subject is exactly beyond (greater or smaller than) the considered subject.

When this fundamental notion is used, one immediately understands that the considered subject can't have any value, which is beyond it.

This is exactly the case with an infinite divergent series like 1+1+1+…, it does not reach the value of the limit, known as aleph0.

Also, this is exactly the case with an infinite divergent series like 0+1/2+1/4+1/8+…, it does not reach the value of the limit, known as 1.
Click to expand...

Doron, I'll give it one more shot. Please try to accept this with an open mind:

Your understanding of the mathematical concepts of set and limit are flawed. You try to ascribe process to both, this is wrong, neither require a process, just a definition. A set is a collection of distinct elements. The collection may be arbitrary or follow some rule (for example the set of all even numbers). The set does not need any process or enumeration in order to contain its elements - this is taken care by the definition. The fact that the elements of N can not be enumerated in a finite amount of time, does not mean it is as you refer to it as "incomplete" it just means that it is infinite. Again, if this is hard for you to grasp, then turn it the other way around and think of N as a magic black box. Every natural number you can think of will be found in that box - how? magic! (and more seriously: because of its definition). We don't need to "load" sets with content, and we don't need to wait forever until the set is "fully loaded" or as you call it "complete", again they are "fully loaded" by their definition. This is abstract thinking doron - not your drawings.
 
Last edited:
sympathic said:
Doron, I'll give it one more shot. Please try to accept this with an open mind:

Your understanding of the mathematical concepts of set and limit are flawed. You try to ascribe process to both, this is wrong, neither require a process, just a definition. A set is a collection of distinct elements. The collection may be arbitrary or follow some rule (for example the set of all even numbers). The set does not need any process or enumeration in order to contain its elements - this is taken care by the definition. The fact that the elements of N can not be enumerated in a finite amount of time, does not mean it is as you refer to it as "incomplete" it just means that it is infinite. Again, if this is hard for you to grasp, then turn it the other way around and think of N as a magic black box. Every natural number you can think of will be found in that box - how? magic! (and more seriously: because of its definition). We don't need to "load" sets with content, and we don't need to wait forever until the set is "fully loaded" or as you call it "complete", again they are "fully loaded" by their definition. This is abstract thinking doron - not your drawings.
Click to expand...



sympathic, Please try to accept this with an open mind:

There is no process here of any kind.

Any given infinite collection is simply an incomplete mathematical element, and this incompleteness is essential to any infinite complex, because of a very simply reason:

No complex can be atomic, were the atomic has two opposite qualitative aspects which are: Locality (total finite) and Non-locality (total infinity).

The linkage between these qualitative aspects is resulted by what is called Quantity.

There is a finite quantity, which is accurate and has a sum.

There is an infinite quantity, which is inaccurate and does not have a sum (it is called a fog under OM (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5734631&postcount=9165)).

Since Standard Math does not understand the qualitative foundations of Complexity and Quantity, its reasoning is limited only the accurate aspect of Complexity.

OM is a reasoning that enables to deal with both inaccuracy and accuracy under a one comprehensive framework, which simply can't be comprehended from Standard Math Accuracy-only reasoning.

In other words sympathic, what you call process is a direct result of the limited understanding of Standard Math of the concept of Quantity and the concept of Complexity.

About your "fully loaded magic black box"; this time please to not ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5735873&postcount=9169 .

Again, the set of oranges is not itself an orange (it is not similar to the property of its members).

The series of accurate values (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) does not itself have an accurate value.

This resoning is beyond the limited reasoning, which deals only with accurate values.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
No. This is nonsense on your part, doron.
Click to expand...

jsfisher, you have missed http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5757786&postcount=9216(see fact 2 there).

Please try again.

EDIT:

jsfisher said:
In the limit, the width is 0. However, the conclusion that X must therefore be 0 is baseless.

Major logic fail by doron.
Click to expand...

Since X and Y sizes are inseparable accurate values (they share common edges) then, if Y=0 then also X=0.

Therefore in the limit both X AND Y = 0.

Jsfisher's forcing reasoning to save X>0 also if Y=0, is resulted by logical contradiction where X > AND = 0, also if Y=0.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher, you have missed http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5757786&postcount=9216(see fact 2 there).

Please try again.
Click to expand...

Nope, I didn't miss it. You edited something you had written that was wrong. It was still wrong when you'd finished editing.

EDIT:
Click to expand...

Oh, look! Doron is about to do it again:

Since X and Y sizes are inseparable accurate values (they share common edges)
Click to expand...

Well, doron doesn't disappoint. The values are not "inseparable". X is constant for all generations. Y is monotonically decreasing with each subsequent generation. Clearly, Y varies independently of X.

They also share no common edges. They are values, like 56 or 2.34345. Doron has confused and conflated measurement with the thing being measured.

...then, if Y=0 then also X=0.
Click to expand...

And here he again shows no understanding of limits. The width of any of Doron's Koch curve generations is never 0. Never. Y is never 0. The fact the limit of Y is 0 is a different matter, but doron is to busy missing the point to, well, get the point.

Therefore in the limit both X AND Y = 0.
Click to expand...

Bogus conclusion drawn from a bogus premise.

Jsfisher's forcing reasoning to save X>0 also if Y=0, is resulted by logical contradiction where X > AND = 0, also if Y=0.
Click to expand...

This is also a bogus claim, also based on a bogus premise.
 
jsfisher said:
They are values, like 56 or 2.34345
Click to expand...

They are two different values that have common edges AND different number of segments along them, where the size of a given segment is the same in both values (upon infinitely many scale levels) such that 3/4 is their invariant ratio upon infinitely many scale levels.

If Y (which is based on the invariant value 3 of 3/4) = 0, then X (which is based on the invariant value 4 of 3/4) = 0.

So, whether Standard Math likes it or not, there is an inseparable linkage between Y and X (defined as the invariant ratio 3/4 upon infinitely many scale levels) which prevents the independency of Y (green elements) from X (the organge bended elements) and vice versa, in the following case:

4464201033_30e7dbd8d4_o.jpg


jsfisher said:
The width of any of Doron's Koch curve generations is never 0. Never. Y is never 0. The fact the limit of Y is 0 is a different matter,
Click to expand...

There is no different matter here. jsfisher's reasoning simply can't get the difference between 0/4 and 3/4, because it claims that 3 or 4 of the invariant ratio 3/4 upon infinitely many scale levels in the diagram above, are independent values, which is simply false claim, in this case.

Again, Jsfisher's forcing reasoning to save X>0 also if Y=0, is resulted by logical contradiction where X > AND = 0, also if Y=0.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
They are two different values that have common edges AND different number of segments along them
Click to expand...

No. You have repeated referred to X and Y as being numerical values. Numerical values do not have edges nor segments. Stop conflating things.

...where the size of a given segment is the same in both values (upon infinitely many scale levels) such that 3/4 is their invariant ratio upon infinitely many scale levels.
Click to expand...

No, X is a constant value for all generations. Y is monotonically decreasing (by 25% each generation). The ratio between Y and X (i.e. Y/X) is also monotonically decreasing, trivial fact to deduce from the preceding.

If Y (which is based on the invariant value 3 of 3/4) = 0
Click to expand...

...which it isn't, ever, on both counts.

...then X (which is based on the invariant value 4 of 3/4) = 0.
Click to expand...

...which it isn't, ever, either, on both counts.

By the way, the invariant value of 4 is, well, 4, and it doesn't matter where it appears. It's 4 in 3/4 and it is 4 in 4x35.

So, whether Standard Math likes it or not, there is an inseparable linkage between Y and X (defined as the invariant ratio 3/4 upon infinitely many scale levels) which prevents the independency of Y (green elements) from X (the organge bended elements) and vice versa
Click to expand...

You failed to show this. Instead, you just made errors in your presentation.

...Again, Jsfisher's forcing reasoning to save X>0 also if Y=0, is resulted by logical contradiction where X > AND = 0, also if Y=0.
Click to expand...

You keep saying that, yet you can't actually demonstrate it.

For instance, when is Y ever 0? [Hint: Never.]
 
Again:

jsfisher said:
The width of any of Doron's Koch curve generations is never 0. Never. Y is never 0. The fact the limit of Y is 0 is a different matter,
Click to expand...

There is no different matter here. jsfisher's reasoning simply can't get the difference between 0/4 and 3/4, because it claims that 3 or 4 of the invariant ratio 3/4 upon infinitely many scale levels in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5761283&postcount=9223 diagram, are independent values, which is simply a false claim, in this case.

Again, Jsfisher's forcing reasoning to save X>0 also if Y=0, is resulted by logical contradiction where X > AND = 0, also if Y=0.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
By the way, the invariant value of 4 is, well, 4, and it doesn't matter where it appears. It's 4 in 3/4 and it is 4 in 4x35.
Click to expand...
It is irrelevant to the discussed case.
 
jsfisher said:
No, X is a constant value for all generations. Y is monotonically decreasing (by 25% each generation). The ratio between Y and X (i.e. Y/X) is also monotonically decreasing, trivial fact to deduce from the preceding.
Click to expand...
This "trivial" fact (where 3/4 is an invariant ratio upon infinitely many scale levels)
is exactly the reason of why the infinite series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) < X.

jsfisher said:
The ratio between Y and X (i.e. Y/X) is also monotonically decreasing,
Click to expand...
No, jsfisher 3/4 is invariant (exactly as X is invariant) upon infinitely many scale levels. Because of this fact the ratio between Y and X (i.e. Y/X) is monotonically decreasing upon infinitely many sacale levels, that do not reach 0 (again your ability to deal only with accurate values rises its limited head).
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
So where is Y ever equal to 0, doron? Why do you continue to evade this question?
Click to expand...

Again:

jsfisher said:
The ratio between Y and X (i.e. Y/X) is also monotonically decreasing,
Click to expand...
jsfisher 3/4 is invariant (exactly as X is invariant) upon infinitely many scale levels. Because of this fact the ratio between Y and X (i.e. Y/X) is monotonically decreasing upon infinitely many sacale levels, that do not reach 0 (again your ability to deal only with accurate values rises its limited head).

You simply can't understand the simple fact that (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X exactly because Y or X can't be 0.

jsfisher said:
The fact the limit of Y is 0 is a different matter,
Click to expand...
Simply nonsense, as long as we deal with an infinite convergent series, which can't have the accurate value of the limit as long as it is infinite.

Why do you continue to evade this fact?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher said:
So where is Y ever equal to 0, doron?
Click to expand...
So where (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) is ever equal to X, jsfisher?
Click to expand...


Evasion noted. Is it simply that you don't want to admit that your whole house of cards is based on the bogus precept of Y being equal to 0? Y is never 0. Admit it; let's move on.

As for (2a+2b+2c+2d+...), well, that is an infinite series. As such, it either has a value (if the series converges), or it doesn't. This series converges. It is silly to ask, as you have done, "where" (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) is equal to X. The series has one and only one value; it doesn't take on different values at different places or times or generations. It is X; it is always X.
 
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher said:
So where is Y ever equal to 0, doron? Why do you continue to evade this question?
Click to expand...

Again:
Click to expand...

Again, you have evaded the question. It is a simple question. Why not just answer it?

jsfisher said:
The ratio between Y and X (i.e. Y/X) is also monotonically decreasing,
Click to expand...
jsfisher 3/4 is invariant (exactly as X is invariant) upon infinitely many scale levels.
Click to expand...

Pi is also invariant. So what?

Because of this fact the ratio between Y and X (i.e. Y/X) is monotonically decreasing upon infinitely many sacale levels, that do not reach 0 (again your ability to deal only with accurate values rises its limited head).
Click to expand...

The only one making claims about something reaching 0 is you, doron.

You simply can't understand the simple fact that (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X exactly because Y or X can't be 0.
Click to expand...

That is not a fact. The infinite series (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) does equal X, exactly. Any finite series leading up to it, does not. And that is something you simply can't understand.

jsfisher said:
The fact the limit of Y is 0 is a different matter,
Click to expand...
Simply nonsense, as long as we deal with an infinite convergent series, which can't have the accurate value of the limit as long as it is infinite.

Why do you continue to evade this fact?
Click to expand...

I don't evade it, and it isn't a fact. This "can't have" is your baseless invention. You repeat it often, but you cannot support it with anything but repetition of your empty claim. Parrots have been trained in the very same style of argument.


You started this latest tangent with a claim "By standard mathematics...". You were called on your bogus statement, and all you have been able to show so far is "By Doron's gross misunderstanding of everything Mathematic...".

You continue to reinforce what you have already show. How very conscientious of you.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
The infinite series (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) does equal X, exactly.
Click to expand...
No, (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X and in order to understand this let us understand the following diagram:

4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg


The added accurate values of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) are a direct result of the existence of accurate and constant X value upon infinitely many bended scale levels as follows:

Each bended level has finitely many bends and any bended X has two different edges that actually enable the existence of each added accurate value of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+...).

(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) = X only if 2*0 is one of the added accurate values of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+...), but if 2*0 is one of the added values of (2a+2b+2c+2d+...), then it is obvious that the two different edges of the bended accurate and constant X value are not found, or in other words, X must be 0 (it has 0 size) if 2*0 is one of the elements of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+...).

In that case X > AND = 0 in order to enable 2*0 to be one of the accurate elements of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+...).

Since X > AND = 0 is false, then (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) = X is false, and the true result in this case can’t be but (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X, where (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) is incomplete by the right reasoning (a,b,c,d ... of the added values of the infinite convergent series
(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) are > 0 , exactly because X is a constant and accurate value > 0, upon infinitely many bended scale levels).

So where (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) is ever equal to X, jsfisher?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
sympathic, Please try to accept this with an open mind:

There is no process here of any kind.

Any given infinite collection is simply an incomplete mathematical element, and this incompleteness is essential to any infinite complex, because of a very simply reason:

No complex can be atomic, were the atomic has two opposite qualitative aspects which are: Locality (total finite) and Non-locality (total infinity).

The linkage between these qualitative aspects is resulted by what is called Quantity.

There is a finite quantity, which is accurate and has a sum.

There is an infinite quantity, which is inaccurate and does not have a sum (it is called a fog under OM (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5734631&postcount=9165)).

Since Standard Math does not understand the qualitative foundations of Complexity and Quantity, its reasoning is limited only the accurate aspect of Complexity.

OM is a reasoning that enables to deal with both inaccuracy and accuracy under a one comprehensive framework, which simply can't be comprehended from Standard Math Accuracy-only reasoning.

In other words sympathic, what you call process is a direct result of the limited understanding of Standard Math of the concept of Quantity and the concept of Complexity.

About your "fully loaded magic black box"; this time please to not ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5735873&postcount=9169 .

Again, the set of oranges is not itself an orange (it is not similar to the property of its members).

The series of accurate values (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) does not itself have an accurate value.

This resoning is beyond the limited reasoning, which deals only with accurate values.
Click to expand...

Doron, your reply is a non sequitur. Instead of replying directly to my post, you choose to tangent to your interpretation of mathematical concepts (which is wrong). Please try to address the core of my post without tangents: N is not incomplete, it is infinite. The definition of N or any other infinite series is they key. You seem to be mixing up between the concept of a set and a given set. A set is a pre-defined collection of elements. Once it is defined it "contains" all its elements.
 
sympathic said:
A set is a pre-defined collection of elements. Once it is defined it "contains" all its elements.
Click to expand...
Not if it is an infinite collection (the term "all" is false, in this case).

sympathic, you are still using a non sequitur interpretation of an infinite collection.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Not if it is an infinite collection (the term "all" is false, in this case).

sympathic, you are still using a non sequitur interpretation of an infinite collection.
Click to expand...

Doron - the sad fact is that you are banging your head against a wall. A set is "complete" by its definition regardless of whether it is finite or infinite. You simply do not understand what a mathematical definition is.
 
sympathic said:
Doron - the sad fact is that you are banging your head against a wall. A set is "complete" by its definition regardless of whether it is finite or infinite. You simply do not understand what a mathematical definition is.
Click to expand...
sympathic - the sad fact is that you do not understand the foundations of the reasoning that enable consistent mathematical definitions.

This lack of understanding makes you no more than a mechanic technician without any reasoning at the basis of his mathematical activity.

You are even not banging your head against a wall, because your mechanic activity has no head nor tail.

EDIT:

Again, Standard Math does not understand the qualitative atomic foundations of Complexity and Quantity.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher said:
The infinite series (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) does equal X, exactly.
Click to expand...

No, (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X and in order to understand this let us understand the following diagram:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg
Click to expand...

Your reliance on proof-by-AutoCAD is commendable, but misguided.

The added accurate values of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) are a direct result of the existence of accurate and constant X value upon infinitely many bended scale levels
Click to expand...

Those are all words you used just there, and individually they each mean something, but in that arrangement they unite to become gibberish.

...as follows:

Each bended level has finitely many bends and any bended X has two different edges that actually enable the existence of each added accurate value of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+...).
Click to expand...

The word you want is bent. Please try to get at least one thing right. I see you are conflating X, the length of the Koch curve generation with the curve itself. You also are conflating an infinite series with a sequence of related finite series. No wonder you have such trouble with Mathematics. You confuse everything with everything else.

(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) = X only if 2*0 is one of the added accurate values of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+...)
Click to expand...

Nope, not true. This is just something you made up because, as you so accurately demonstrated in the same post, you confuse everything.

...but if 2*0 is one of the added values of (2a+2b+2c+2d+...)
Click to expand...

...and it isn't

...then it is obvious that the two different edges of the bended accurate and constant X value are not found, or in other words, X must be 0 (it has 0 size) if 2*0 is one of the elements of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+...).
Click to expand...

I see we are back to lost-and-found. Doesn't matter, though, since the premise is false, no conclusion can be drawn.

...[more doron conflation/confusion/contortion snipped]...
Click to expand...

So where (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) is ever equal to X, jsfisher?[/QUOTE]

Your goofy reasoning notwithstanding, my answer is unchanged from before.

Are you ever going to answer my question, or just continue to evade and spam this forum with your AutoCAD drawing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom