Deeper than primes

doronshadmi · Mar 28, 2010

jsfisher said:
The word you want is bent. Please try to get at least one thing right.

Bend it is ( http://morfix.mako.co.il/default.aspx?q=bend ).

jsfisher said:
You also are conflating an infinite series with a sequence of related finite series.

Wrong, for example:

Each added value of the infinite convergent series (of base 10) 0.9+0.09+0.009+0.0009+… is finite and accurate. Yet that series has no sum if it is infinite.

jsfisher said:
since the premise is false, no conclusion can be drawn.

Indeed your premise (an infinite convergent series is resulted by an accurate value) is false, and it is clearly and simply demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5762557&postcount=9233 .

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

jsfisher said:
...[more doron conflation/confusion/contortion snipped]...

Jsfisher after your last post I am sure that you have an irrational and dogmatic behavior (and I am polite here) about this fine and beautiful subject.

jsfisher · Mar 29, 2010

doronshadmi said:
jsfisher said:

The word you want is bent. Please try to get at least one thing right.

Click to expand...

Bend it is ( http://morfix.mako.co.il/default.aspx?q=bend ).

Still wrong.

jsfisher said:
jsfisher said:

You also are conflating an infinite series with a sequence of related finite series.

Click to expand...

Wrong, for example:

Each added value of the infinite convergent series (of base 10) 0.9+0.09+0.009+0.0009+… is finite and accurate. Yet that series has no sum if it is infinite.

Your statement is unrelated to mine. Your statement is also wrong.

jsfisher said:
jsfisher said:

since the premise is false, no conclusion can be drawn.

Click to expand...

Indeed your premise (an infinite convergent series is resulted by an accurate value) is false, and it is clearly and simply demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5762557&postcount=9233 .

You're so cute when you pretend to be Peewee Herman.

jsfisher said:
jsfisher said:

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

Click to expand...

jsfisher said:

...[more doron conflation/confusion/contortion snipped]...

Click to expand...

Jsfisher after your last post I am sure that you have an irrational and dogmatic behavior (and I am polite here) about this fine and beautiful subject.

Have an irrational and dogmatic behavior about this fine and beautiful subject? What excellent gibberish you utter.

Be all that as it may, you continue to evade my question, doron. When is Y = 0?

doronshadmi · Mar 29, 2010

jsfisher said:
Still wrong.

Unless bend is understood as a noun.

This is also a typical example of your dogmatic and hard attitude of any given discussed subject, whether it is Math or not.

jsfisher said:
Be all that as it may, you continue to evade my question, doron. When is Y = 0?

Do you see any Y in my last post? (some delay problems in you understanding abilities, probably).

You continue to evade my answer, and here is more precise version of it:

doronshadmi said:
(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X and in order to understand this let us understand the following diagram:

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>0 value upon infinitely many bended scale levels as follows:

Each bended level has finitely many bends and any bended constant X>0 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>0 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 added 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).

dafydd · Mar 29, 2010

doronshadmi said:
This is also a typical example of your dogmatic and hard attitude of any given discussed subject, whether it is Math or not.

There are not enough laughing dogs or irony meters in the world for that one.

jsfisher · Mar 29, 2010

doronshadmi said:
jsfisher said:

Be all that as it may, you continue to evade my question, doron. When is Y = 0?

Click to expand...

Do you see any Y in my last post? (some delay problems in you understanding abilities, probably).

That would be part of your continued evasion. So, when is Y = 0, as you claimed it?

zooterkin · Mar 29, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Do you see any Y in my last post?

Is this like Where's Wally/Waldo? I can play that:

doronshadmi said:
Bend it is ( http://morfix.mako.co.il/default.aspx?q=bend ).

Wrong, for example:

Each added value of the infinite convergent series (of base 10) 0.9+0.09+0.009+0.0009+… is finite and accurate. Yet that series has no sum if it is infinite.

Indeed your premise (an infinite convergent series is resulted by an accurate value) is false, and it is clearly and simply demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5762557&postcount=9233 .

Jsfisher after your last post I am sure that you have an irrational and dogmatic behavior (and I am polite here) about this fine and beautiful subject.

doronshadmi · Mar 29, 2010

jsfisher said:
That would be part of your continued evasion. So, when is Y = 0, as you claimed it?

Figure out by yourself.

It can be a good exercise for your reasoning's development.

jsfisher · Mar 29, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Figure out by yourself.

It can be a good exercise for your reasoning's development.

Once again, doron makes a bogus claim, then runs away from it when exposed for the fraud he is.

doronshadmi · Mar 31, 2010

jsfisher said:
Once again, doron makes a bogus claim, then runs away from it when exposed for the fraud he is.

Bye, jsfisher The black knight ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4 ).

jsfisher · Mar 31, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Bye, jsfisher The black knight ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4 ).

As has been continually the case, you do analogies very badly, doron.

The fact remains, you said that by "standard mathematics" X must be 0 and greater than 0 because Y = 0. When challenged on this ridiculous claim, you ran away.

And still through all that, all my limbs remain intact.

sympathic · Apr 1, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Bye, jsfisher The black knight ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4 ).

Glad to see you still have your sense of humor. This one is for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loyjm4SOa0

doronshadmi · Apr 1, 2010

jsfisher said:
As has been continually the case, you do analogies very badly, doron.

The fact remains, you said that by "standard mathematics" X must be 0 and greater than 0 because Y = 0. When challenged on this ridiculous claim, you ran away.

And still through all that, all my limbs remain intact.

I did better than that.

In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5766097&postcount=9243 I show how X > AND = 0 by Standard Math without using Y=0.

But as usual, you can't follow the developments of my arguments.

I wish you a pleasant time by struggling with irrelevancy.

You will not find me there, jsfisher The Black Knight ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Knight_(Monty_Python) ).

Here are 2 longer vesions specially for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CLwxObfaNE&feature=related

The Man · Apr 1, 2010

doronshadmi said:
I did better than that.

In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5766097&postcount=9243 I show how X > AND = 0 by Standard Math without using Y=0.

But as usual, you can't follow the developments of my arguments.

I wish you a pleasant time by struggling with irrelevancy.

You will not find me there, jsfisher The Black Knight ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Knight_(Monty_Python) ).

Here are 2 longer vesions specially for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CLwxObfaNE&feature=related

Once again since your augments about what you would simply like “Standard Math” to assert do not actually involve what you like to call “Standard Math”, the “irrelevancy” and “struggling” remains simply yours. What you like to call “Standard Math” does not assert and can not assert that “X > AND = 0” if that is a conclusion that you get, then you have done so specifically by not employing what you like to call “Standard Math”.

sympathic · Apr 1, 2010

The Man said:
Once again since your augments about what you would simply like “Standard Math” to assert do not actually involve what you like to call “Standard Math”, the “irrelevancy” and “struggling” remains simply yours. What you like to call “Standard Math” does not assert and can not assert that “X > AND = 0” if that is a conclusion that you get, then you have done so specifically by not employing what you like to call “Standard Math”.

Standard math is what doron likes it to be. Exactly like everything else with him. What matters in the end is what he thinks. You can not change that. I doudbt this will ever be any different with him. Too bad for him things are different in the real world.

jsfisher · Apr 2, 2010

doronshadmi said:
I did better than that.

You did better than run away from a question?

In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5766097&postcount=9243 I show how X > AND = 0 by Standard Math without using Y=0.

Really? So, where exactly is Y ever 0? Simple question, but you keeping running away from it (or maybe did something better, we're not sure).

But as usual, you can't follow the developments of my arguments.

That's something of a universal. Your arguments are nonsense.

doronshadmi · Apr 2, 2010

The Man said:
Once again since your augments about what you would simply like “Standard Math” to assert do not actually involve what you like to call “Standard Math”, the “irrelevancy” and “struggling” remains simply yours. What you like to call “Standard Math” does not assert and can not assert that “X > AND = 0” if that is a conclusion that you get, then you have done so specifically by not employing what you like to call “Standard Math”.

In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5766097&postcount=9243 its is rigorously proved that if the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X, then 2*0 is one of the added accurate values of that series.

The Man said:
“Standard Math” does not assert and can not assert that “X > AND = 0”

Since Standard Math insists that 2*0 is one of the values of the convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) AND since Standard Math insists that (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) is also an infinite series, AND since each one of its added accurate values is derived from X, then if the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X , then X can't be but > AND = 0.

The Man, your twisted maneuvers with words can't erase the facts of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5766097&postcount=9243 , whether you like it or not.

jsfisher · Apr 2, 2010

doronshadmi said:
In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5766097&postcount=9243 its is rigorously proved that if the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X, then 2*0 is one of the added accurate values of that series.

See, here's where that dictionary you didn't get for Chanukah might have helped. There is nothing rigorous about your AutoCAD drawing. In point of fact, simple drawings never constitute rigorous proof.

You drawing is at best suggestive that the infinite series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) converges to X. And in actual fact it can be proven (rigorously) that the series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) converges to X. That much I'll grand you.

However, that is no proof, not even a suggestion that 2*0 is one of the added terms. This again shows your deep misunderstanding of anything Mathematics.

By the way, you still evade the simple question: Where is Y = 0?

doronshadmi · Apr 2, 2010

sympathic said:
Standard math is what doron likes it to be. Exactly like everything else with him. What matters in the end is what he thinks. You can not change that. I doudbt this will ever be any different with him. Too bad for him things are different in the real world.

Too bad for you sympathic, in the real word if (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X, then this series has finitely many accurate values that are derived from the accurate constant X>0 value, where 2*0 is the final accurate value of the finite convergent series, which is not derived from the accurate constant X>0 value.

doronshadmi · Apr 2, 2010

jsfisher said:
In point of fact, simple drawings never constitute rigorous proof.

Ho yes they are ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_without_words ).

jsfisher said:
You drawing is at best suggestive that the infinite series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) converges to X. And in actual fact it can be proven (rigorously) that the series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) converges to X.

Converges to X yes, reaches X no.

jsfisher said:
However, that is no proof, not even a suggestion that 2*0 is one of the added terms. This again shows your deep misunderstanding of anything Mathematics.

This is not a suggestion jsfisher, 2*0 is one of the added values if (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X, but then (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) is a finite series that has a sum (= X).

The Man · Apr 3, 2010

doronshadmi said:
In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5766097&postcount=9243 its is rigorously proved that if the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X, then 2*0 is one of the added accurate values of that series.

Once again Doron if 0 (or 2*0) is one of your “added accurate values” then the sum of your “series” must have already been “X” before you added zero to it. Once again Doron, in case you still do not understand, adding 0 does not change a value. So if it is equal to “X” after you add 0 then it must have been equal to “X” before you added 0.

doronshadmi said:
Since Standard Math insists that 2*0 is one of the values of the convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) AND since Standard Math insists that (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) is also an infinite series, AND since each one of its added accurate values is derived from X, then if the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X , then X can't be but > AND = 0.

Once again Doron you’re the only one insisting “2*0 is one of the values of the convergent series”. So once again your erroneous conclusion that “X can't be but > AND = 0” is still simply yours.

doronshadmi said:
The Man, your twisted maneuvers with words can't erase the facts of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5766097&postcount=9243 , whether you like it or not.

Doron your “twisted maneuvers with” gibberish and drawings still do not constitute facts, “whether you like it or not”.

The Man · Apr 3, 2010

sympathic said:
Standard math is what doron likes it to be. Exactly like everything else with him. What matters in the end is what he thinks. You can not change that. I doudbt this will ever be any different with him. Too bad for him things are different in the real world.

Unfortunately and that’s the sad part, these really aren’t very difficult concepts, but Doron simply seems to prefer his own fantasies.

doronshadmi · Apr 3, 2010

The Man said:
Once again Doron if 0 (or 2*0) is one of your “added accurate values” then the sum of your “series” must have already been “X” before you added zero to it. Once again Doron, in case you still do not understand, adding 0 does not change a value. So if it is equal to “X” after you add 0 then it must have been equal to “X” before you added 0.

The Man, you simply can't get the fact that if 2*0 is one of the added values, then (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) is a finite series, which its sum is indeed X.

This is not the case if (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) is an infinite series, and in that case 2*0 is not one of the added values and as a result (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) < X exactly because any value of (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) is derived from the invariant X>0 up infinitely many bended levels.

jsfisher · Apr 3, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Ho yes they are ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_without_words ).

Perhaps you should actually read the references you cite. From the second sentence: Such proofs can be considered more elegant than...mathematically rigourous proofs

I say you are wrong; wikipedia says you are wrong. "Proof without words" are not rigorous proofs.

ETA: ...and your attempt doesn't even qualify as a proof without words.

Converges to X yes, reaches X no.

Again you demonstrate your lack of understanding of mathematics and mathematical terminology. (Hint: There are limits involved here, and we already know you can't cope with such things.)

This is not a suggestion jsfisher, 2*0 is one of the added values if (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X

Oh, yeah? Which term is that? Are you going to run from this question, too? It is equivalent to the "when is Y = 0?" question that scares you so.

Will this one scare you off, too?

...but then (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) is a finite series that has a sum (= X).

Um, no. It is an infinite series, and its value is X.

The Man · Apr 3, 2010

doronshadmi said:
The Man, you simply can't get the fact that if 2*0 is one of the added values, then (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) is a finite series, which its sum is indeed X.

This is not the case if (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) is an infinite series, and in that case 2*0 is not one of the added values and as a result (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) < X exactly because any value of (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) is derived from the invariant X>0 up infinitely many bended levels.

Doron you simply can’t get the fact that adding 0 does not change a sum, whether it is the sum of a finite series or an infinite series. So once again your erroneous assertions are simply based on your ignorance (deliberate or otherwise) of mathematics, in this case the fact that zero is the additive identity.

doronshadmi · Apr 3, 2010

The Man said:
Doron you simply can’t get the fact that adding 0 does not change a sum, whether it is the sum of a finite series or an infinite series. So once again your erroneous assertions are simply based on your ignorance (deliberate or otherwise) of mathematics, in this case the fact that zero is the additive identity.

Let us use the terminology of Standard Math (including the term "all" about a given class), in order to demonstrate the failure of Standard Math within its own context, about the argument that the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X, where X is a constant and accurate value > 0.

It is obvious that any accurate value of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) is the result of the projection of the different ends of any given bended form of the class of all bended forms of constant X>0 accurate value, upon the non-bended form of constant X>0.

Since any bended form of X has two different ends, then 2*0 is not one of the projections of the class of all bended forms of constant X>0 upon the non-bended form of constant X>0.

As a result the two different ends are an essential property of both [the class of all bended forms of constant X>0 accurate value] AND [the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…), which is the result of the projection of the different ends of any given bended form of the class of all bended forms of constant X>0 accurate value, upon the non-bended form of constant X>0].

Conclusion: the result of the added accurate values of all projections that are derived from the class of all bended forms of constant X>0 upon the non-bended form of constant X>0, can't be but < constant X>0.

This proof is rigorously seen by the following proof without words:

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

The Man, you simply can't get the fact that all added elements "before" 2*0 are > 0, and as a result there is an unclosed gap between the class of all bended forms of constant X>0 accurate value, and its projection ( which is exactly the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) ) upon the non-bended form of the constant and accurate value X>0.

We rigorously proved that we can't conclude that if all the added values of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) are accurate, then the value of this added accurate values, is also accurate, even if all infinitely many added accurate values are included (no accurate value is missing).

The set of all oranges is not itself and orange.

The set of all added accurate values, is not itself an accurate value.

This proof is done under Standard Math.

doronshadmi · Apr 3, 2010

jsfisher said:
Um, no. It is an infinite series, and its value is X.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5785618&postcount=9265 .

doronshadmi · Apr 3, 2010

jsfisher said:
Perhaps you should actually read the references you cite. From the second sentence: Such proofs can be considered more elegant than...mathematically rigourous proofs

I say you are wrong; wikipedia says you are wrong. "Proof without words" are not rigorous proofs.

Simply wrong conclusion. Here is the whole text ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_without_words ):

"In mathematics, a proof without words is a proof of an identity or mathematical statement which can be demonstrated as self-evident by a diagram without any accompanying explanatory text. Such proofs can be considered more elegant than more formal and mathematically rigourous proofs due to their self-evident nature."

So according the whole text, a proof without words is even better then formal proofs that are based only of strings of text and symbols.

"[1] When the diagram demonstrates a particular case of a general statement, to be a proof, it must be able to be generalised."

Indeed my proof without words, is related also to 0.1+0.01+0.001+...[base 2] ... < ... 0.9+0.09+0.009+...[base 10] ... < 1

jsfisher · Apr 3, 2010

doronshadmi said:
So according the whole text, a proof without words is even better then formal proofs that are based only of strings of text and symbols.

Ah! So in doronetics, the lack of rigor makes something better than a formal proof.

Doesn't matter anyway, since your AutoCAD sketch isn't a proof of any sort, with or without words.

jsfisher · Apr 3, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Let us use the terminology of Standard Math (including the term "all" about a given class), in order to demonstrate the failure of Standard Math within its own context, about the argument that the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X, where X is a constant and accurate value > 0.

It is obvious that any accurate value of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…)

An infinite series either has a value (i.e. it converges) or it doesn't. There's no sequence of values as you are implying. So, already you have failed to use "the terminology of Standard Math," and the assumes we'd overlook your "accurate value" nonsense.

Doron fail 1, Mathematics, 0.

...is the result of the projection of the different ends of any given bended form of the class of all bended forms of constant X>0 accurate value, upon the non-bended form of constant X>0.

Back to "bended", I see. There's a high gibberish quotient, here, too, and you are again trying to characterize an infinite series as a sequence. It is not.

Doron fail 2, Mathematics, 0.

Since any bended form of X has two different ends, then 2*0 is not one of the projections of the class of all bended forms of constant X>0 upon the non-bended form of constant X>0.

Are you now trying to say that the width of each of your Koch curve generations (which you denoted as Y before you ran away from a simple question) is greater than 0 for all generations? Another "bended", too.

Hard to count this as any additional doron fail, so the score remains unchanged.

As a result the two different ends are an essential property of both [the class of all bended forms of constant X>0 accurate value] AND [the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…)

"Essential", eh? Interesting choice of words. What would have made the property non-essential? Be that as it may, the conclusion is faulty. The "class of all bended forms"[sic] is an infinite set, and an infinite series is a singleton.

Doron fail 3, Mathematics, 0.

...which is the result of the projection of the different ends of any given bended form of the class of all bended forms of constant X>0 accurate value, upon the non-bended form of constant X>0].

Maybe it is your notation that fails you. (Well, it's one of many things that fails you....) Let S₁ = 2a, and S₂ = 2a+2b, and S₃ = 2a+2b+2c, and so on. And let S = (2a+2b+2c+2d+...).

Are all these things you are trying to say about S really about the sequence S_i? Sure looks like it.

Doron fail 4, Mathematics, 0.

Conclusion: the result of the added accurate values of all projections that are derived from the class of all bended forms of constant X>0 upon the non-bended form of constant X>0, can't be but < constant X>0.

You can make the true statement that for all i, S_i < X. You cannot make the same statement about S, though. S is the limit of S_i as i approaches infinity, and as such S = X.

Doron fail 5, Mathematics, 0.

Doron, you didn't do so well with your demonstration. In fact, you proved the opposite of what you expected.

doronshadmi · Apr 3, 2010

jsfisher said:
Ah! So in doronetics, the lack of rigor makes something better than a formal proof.

Doesn't matter anyway, since your AutoCAD sketch isn't a proof of any sort, with or without words.

jsfisher http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5785618&postcount=9265 proof without words is an irresistible fact

In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5785618&postcount=9265 version I use the term "all" and yet it is rigorously proved that (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) < X.

You simply can't do anything about this buautiful fact.

jsfisher · Apr 3, 2010

doronshadmi said:
jsfisher http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5785618&postcount=9265 proof without words is an irresistible fact

More of a pipe dream on your part. See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5786101&postcount=9269

In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5785618&postcount=9265 version I use the term "all" and yet it is rigorously proved that (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) < X.

You keep using that word, rigorously, incorrectly. It doesn't mean fail. See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5786101&postcount=9269

You simply can't do anything about this buautiful fact.

You haven't produced anything approaching a beautiful fact. See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5786101&postcount=9269

doronshadmi · Apr 3, 2010

jsfisher said:
You can make the true statement that for all i, S_i < X. You cannot make the same statement about S, though. S is the limit of S_i as i approaches infinity, and as such S = X.

A load of crap.

(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) inaccurate value < X accurate value, so if S = X then (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) inaccurate value < S accurate value.

Your game with symbols has no impact on this fact, jsfisher.

jsfisher said:
An infinite series either has a value (i.e. it converges) or it doesn't.

An infinite series does not have an accurate value, which is a fact that your limited reasoning can't comprehend.

jsfisher · Apr 3, 2010

doronshadmi said:
A load of crap.

(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) inaccurate value < X accurate value, so if S = X then (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) inaccurate value < S accurate value.

So you claim. Yet, you are unable to establish your claim by any means other than brute-force repetition.

The fact remains, the fact you cannot comprehend, is that infinite series are defined by the limits of their underlying infinite sequence. (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) is X, exactly, as a matter of definition.

You failures in comprehension do not constitute errors in Mathematics.

Your game with symbols has no impact on this fact, jsfisher.

It wasn't a "game of symbols". It was a question of series versus sequence. You are conflating the two. You clearly don't understand the difference. And you refuse to learn the difference.

You also don't appreciate the hypocritical irony in you statement, either, do you?

An infinite series does not have an accurate value, which is a fact that your limited reasoning can't comprehend.

Prove it.

By the way, when is Y = 0? Or will this be yet another of the long sequence of completely wrong statements made by doronshadmi from which doronshadmi runs and hides?

doronshadmi · Apr 3, 2010

jsfisher said:
The fact remains, the fact you cannot comprehend, is that infinite series are defined by the limits of their underlying infinite sequence. (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) is X, exactly, as a matter of definition.

Your "matter of definition" is nothing but a game with text and symbols, without any underlying of what you call "reasoning".

The order of (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) has no significance on the result, which is an inaccurate value < X.

Exactly the same thing can be shown about Aleph0 and 1+1+1+…

1+1+1+… inaccurate value < Aleph0 accurate value, and it is absolutely clear that each 1 of 1+1+1+… is mapped with some unique natural number, such that no natural number is missing.

Your "reasoning" about the infinite Complexity is a load of crap, jsfisher and I proved that it is a load of crap.

You play with finite collections and imagine that they are infinite collections, but this is only is your false dream, jsfisher.

jsfisher said:
Yet, you are unable to establish your claim by any means other than brute-force repetition.

The brute-force repetition is a exactly your false dream about infinite collections by forcing on them properties that are taken from finite collections, for example: your false claim that infinitely many positive added accurate (and finite) values have an accurate value.

In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5785618&postcount=9265 it is proved (and this proof is done under Standard Math) that your "reasoning" does not hold water.

doronshadmi · Apr 3, 2010

jsfisher said:
Maybe it is your notation that fails you. (Well, it's one of many things that fails you....) Let S₁ = 2a, and S₂ = 2a+2b, and S₃ = 2a+2b+2c, and so on. And let S = (2a+2b+2c+2d+...).

Are all these things you are trying to say about S really about the sequence S_i? Sure looks like it

Only in your limited dream.

I am talking about exactly S_∞ = (2a+2b+2c+2d+...)

jsfisher · Apr 3, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Your "matter of definition" is nothing but a game with text and symbols, without any underlying of what you call "reasoning".

Perhaps if you actually understood the definitions, you'd be less willing to ignore them. Still, they are what they are, and they are not subject you your arbitrary changes.

The order of (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) has no significance on the result, which is an inaccurate value < X.

Order can make a difference in a series, but not this one...and this result is exact.

Exactly the same thing can be shown about Aleph0 and 1+1+1+…

Exact what same thing? The series, 1+1+1+1+..., doesn't converge. What point are you trying to make, other than an additional display of your ignorance?

1+1+1+… inaccurate value < Aleph0 accurate value

No, on several counts. The series does not have a value, period. Aleph₀ doesn't have a value, either, at least not in a meaningful sense of the instant example. Values don't get categorized as accurate and inaccurate in real Mathematics, either.

...and it is absolutely clear that each 1 of 1+1+1+… is mapped with some unique natural number, such that no natural number is missing.

Not "is mapped". "Can be mapped" perhaps, but certainly not "is mapped". Must you muddle everything?

Your "reasoning" about the infinite Complexity is a load of crap, jsfisher and I proved that it is a load of crap.

"Complexity" is your undefined term, not mine. The load of crap regarding it is all yours, as well.

You play with finite collections and imagine that they are infinite collections, but this is only is your false dream, jsfisher.

When did I do that? Another doron lie, I see.

The brute-force repetition is a exactly your false dream about infinite collections

What does this non sequitur have do to with you repeating your claims without proof?

...by forcing on them properties that are taken from finite collections, for example: your false claim that infinitely many positive added accurate (and finite) values have an accurate value.

And yet, you cannot show any claim I have made to be false. You can only repeat them without evidence....just as I said: your brute-force repetition.

In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5785618&postcount=9265 it is proved (and this proof is done under Standard Math) that your "reasoning" does not hold water.

Not quite. Your post is nonsense, as demonstrated in yet another post you run away from: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5786101&postcount=9269

jsfisher · Apr 3, 2010

doronshadmi said:
jsfisher said:

Maybe it is your notation that fails you. (Well, it's one of many things that fails you....) Let S₁ = 2a, and S₂ = 2a+2b, and S₃ = 2a+2b+2c, and so on. And let S = (2a+2b+2c+2d+...).

Are all these things you are trying to say about S really about the sequence S_i? Sure looks like it

Click to expand...

Only in your limited dream.

I am talking about exactly S_∞ = (2a+2b+2c+2d+...)

Too bad for you, then.

That only makes your posts sillier. First, even here you insist on changing the notation from what was already introduced -- what was that you said about dumb notation games? Second, you have confirmed that you really meant to give the infinite series S (or S_∞ if you insist) characteristics of a sequence, which it isn't.

At least you are consistent in being wrong.

doronshadmi · Apr 3, 2010

jsfisher said:
you have confirmed that you really meant to give the infinite series S (or S∞ if you insist) characteristics of a sequence, which it isn't.

S = (2b+2c+2a+2d+...) = (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X, whether you like it or not.

jsfisher, your limited notion can get things only in terms of accurate values.

As a result you are unable to comprehend my proof ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5785618&postcount=9265 ) about (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X.

doronshadmi · Apr 3, 2010

jsfisher said:
The series, 1+1+1+1+..., doesn't converge

It does not matter if it is converges or diverges , you simply have no ability to deal with inaccurate values because you do not understand the real nature of infinite collections, and this is exactly the reason for your failure.

jsfisher · Apr 3, 2010

doronshadmi said:
S = (2b+2c+2a+2d+...) = (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X, whether you like it or not.

Only according to you. For those of us grounded in real Mathematics, we'll choose not to believe you.

jsfisher, your limited notion can get things only in terms of accurate values.

Yes, that would be the sane thing to do.

As a result you are unable to comprehend my proof.

For it to be a proof, it would, at the very least, have fewer errors.

Deeper than primes

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

ETcorngods survivor

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Critical Thinker

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Critical Thinker

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor