Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
zooterkin said:
Fog off:

1 / 3 = 0.333...

0.333... * 3 = 1.
Click to expand...

Only by fixed-valued reasoning that can't comprehend fogs ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5734631&postcount=9165 ), so?

For example fixed-valued reasoning (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5735873&postcount=9169) can't comprehend the following:

doronshadmi said:
The Man said:
No Doron “S” is just a sum (in this case the sum of a convergent infinite series) and has nothing to do with your “inaccurate” fantasies.
Click to expand...

No The Man “S” is just a fog (in this case the fog of a convergent infinite series) and has nothing to do with your “accurate” fantasies.

Look at this:

S=(0.9+0.09+0.09+0.009+...[base 10]) and it is a fog < 1 by fog 0.000...1[base 10]

As you see, all infinitely many added sums of the form above are not resulted by a sum, but they are resulted by a fog.

Exactly the same result is truth for all infinitely many finite bended Koch’s fractal forms that have constant sum X AND different endpoints, where S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) is exactly the projection of all these different endpoints upon the non-bended constant sum X.

Since all projections are the result of all bended Koch’s fractal forms that have constant sum X AND different endpoints, then the two different points are an invariant property of this projection, exactly because they belong to all infinitely many finite bended Koch’s fractal forms that have constant sum X, that can’t be reduced to sum 0.

As a result the fog of S < the constant sum X.

This result is clearly seen by this proof without words:

4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
EDIT:

"...1" of "0.000...1" represents (for example) the non-local unclosed gap between the infinite convergent series 0.9+0.09+0.009+...[base 10] and the natural number 1.

You can't get that because you can't comprehend the non-local atomic aspect, that can't be reduced to 0 (the local atomic aspect) by an infinite convergent series like 0.9+0.09+0.009+...[base 10], for example.

0.000...1 is a non-local number, also known as fog.
Click to expand...

I think you are being stubborn on purpose. "0.000....1" is not a non-local number, it is not even an imaginary number. It can not exist because it is based on a contradiction. Once again "...." means infinite repetition, if you "break" this repetition it is no longer infinite, and the number becomes a constant. for example "0.0000000001" or "0.0000000000000000000001" depending on how many "0" you want before the 1. You can not have an infinite number of "0" before the "1". Is that so hard to understand? If you still disagree, then prove us all wrong by typing this number in whole (it should keep you busy for a while though).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I use Difference relationship between sums.
Click to expand...

Now novel of you. Why risk intelligent communication when it is so easy to protect against it by casual misuse of simple terms.

I use Complement relationship between fogs ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5734631&postcount=9165).
Click to expand...

...or by the introduction of meaningless ones.

EDIT:

Some correction of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5795158&postcount=9314.

Instead of “As a result the sum of S < the constant sum X” it has to be “As a result the fog of S < the constant sum X”.
Click to expand...

Thank you for making your intentions so very, very clear. Your statements have long lost any semblance of sanity. You must be putting on an act solely for your own amusement. There is no intellectual content in your posts, just the mindless repetition of the irrelevant, the inconsistent, and the just plain wrong.
 
jsfisher said:
Now novel of you. Why risk intelligent communication when it is so easy to protect against it by casual misuse of simple terms.



...or by the introduction of meaningless ones.



Thank you for making your intentions so very, very clear. Your statements have long lost any semblance of sanity. You must be putting on an act solely for your own amusement. There is no intellectual content in your posts, just the mindless repetition of the irrelevant, the inconsistent, and the just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

Well, communication with Doron is not all in vain; at least you got a good quote from him for your signature on this forum.
 
sympathic said:
I think you are being stubborn on purpose. "0.000....1" is not a non-local number, it is not even an imaginary number. It can not exist because it is based on a contradiction. Once again "...." means infinite repetition, if you "break" this repetition it is no longer infinite, and the number becomes a constant. for example "0.0000000001" or "0.0000000000000000000001" depending on how many "0" you want before the 1. You can not have an infinite number of "0" before the "1". Is that so hard to understand? If you still disagree, then prove us all wrong by typing this number in whole (it should keep you busy for a while though).
Click to expand...
A typical local-only view of this fine subject.

No infinitely many points or infinitely many segments can reduce ...1 (which is the non-local part of 0.000...1) to 0.

Actually this irreducibility is exactly the reason of why there are infinitely many things, in the first place.

You simply don't have the needed knowledge in order to comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5795672&postcount=9323.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
A typical local-only view of this fine subject.

No infinitely many points or infinitely many segments can reduce ...1 (which is the non-local part of 0.000...1) to 0.

Actually this irreducibility is exactly the reason of why there are infinitely many things, in the first place.

You simply don't have the needed knowledge in order to comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5795672&postcount=9323.
Click to expand...

Gibberish aside, care to fully write the number down?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No The Man “S” is just a fog (in this case the fog of a convergent infinite series) and has nothing to do with your “accurate” fantasies.

Look at this:

S=(0.9+0.09+0.09+0.009+...[base 10]) and it is a fog < 1 by fog 0.000...1[base 10]

As you see, all infinitely many added sums of the form above are not resulted by a sum, but they are resulted by a fog.

Exactly the same result it true for all infinitely many finite bended Koch’s fractal forms that have constant sum X AND different endpoints, where
S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) is exactly the projection of all these different endpoints upon the non-bended constant sum X.

Since all projections are the result of all bended Koch’s fractal forms that have constant sum X AND different endpoints, then the two different points are an invariant property of this projection, exactly because they belong to all infinitely many finite bended Koch’s fractal forms that have constant sum X, that can’t be reduced to sum 0.

As a result the sum of S < the constant sum X.

This result is clearly seen by this proof without words:

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


Well once again Doron you simply demonstrate the contradictory “fog” that are your notions “exactly because they belong to all infinitely many finite bended Koch’s fractal forms that have constant sum X”. You’re the only one trying to claim that sum is “0”. Actually you are erroneous trying to claim that others would claim (by what you like to call “standard math”) that sum is zero. What you apparently fail to realize, even though you have essentially claimed it above, is that your “constant sum X” remains constant even with an “infinitely” “bended Koch’s fractal”. So you are in fact asserting that an infinite set can have a finite sum. Otherwise your “constant sum X” is not, well, constant. So which is it Doron your “constant sum X” remains constant even with a “infinitely” “bended Koch’s fractal” or your “constant sum X” is not, well, constant? The choice is up to you since these are suppose to be your notions.






doronshadmi said:
Anything that has a sum (range or not) is a finite (fixed) mathematical object.
Click to expand...

No, Doron the sum is finite and “fixed”, the common ratio of the series is finite and “fixed” (for that particularly series) but the thing that has both that sum and that common ratio, the particular infinite convergent series in question, is not itself finite or “fixed”, specifically in the number of elements being added.


doronshadmi said:
Anything that has a fog (range or not) is an infinite (non-fixed) mathematical object.
Click to expand...

You certainly seem to have a “fog” about quite a number of things including what you like to call “Standard Math”.

doronshadmi said:
The Man you simply unable to comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5735873&postcount=9169 because of your "fixed-only" reasoning.
Click to expand...

Once again the failure in comprehending that paper you quoted is clearly yours and no doubt a result of you reading it in your “fog”.


doronshadmi said:
No, a convergent series is a range of values that has a fog.
Click to expand...

Nope, it is just you “that has a fog”.
 
The Man said:
What you apparently fail to realize, even though you have essentially claimed it above, is that your “constant sum X” remains constant even with an “infinitely” “bended Koch’s fractal”. So you are in fact asserting that an infinite set can have a finite sum. Otherwise your “constant sum X” is not, well, constant.
Click to expand...
The Man you apparently fail to realize that infinite series of added sums is not itself a sum, exactly as a collection of all oranges is not itself an orange.

Actually S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X exactly because the two different endpoints can’t be reduced into a single point, and this irreducibility is based on the fact that X>0 is a constant upon infinitely many bended levels, that are irreducible to 0.

The generalization here is the irreducibility of a non-local element (which its minimal representation is a 1-dim element) into a local element (which its minimal representation is a 0-dim element).

Please look at the non-local green elements of the following diagram:

4464201033_30e7dbd8d4_o.jpg


The Man said:
No, Doron the sum is finite and “fixed”, the common ratio of the series is finite and “fixed” (for that particularly series) but the thing that has both that sum and that common ratio, the particular infinite convergent series in question, is not itself finite or “fixed”, specifically in the number of elements being added.
Click to expand...

It is obvious that the collection of all infinitely many convergent triangles, where each one of them has a non-local green side, are not reducible into a single point.

By following this fact, it is immediately and unconditionally understood that S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X
 
Last edited:
sympathic said:
Gibberish aside, care to fully write the number down?
Click to expand...
Sympathic: “I have a nice job and a diploma, which enables me to define a sun that rises and shines in the middle of the night”

Doron: “Please wake me up when it happens”
 
doronshadmi said:
Sympathic: “I have a nice job and a diploma, which enables me to define a sun that rises and shines in the middle of the night”

Doron: “Please wake me up when it happens”
Click to expand...

non sequitur aside, care to fully write this number down? (you can use an autocad program if you prefer not doing it manually).
 
sympathic said:
non sequitur aside, care to fully write this number down? (you can use an autocad program if you prefer not doing it manually).
Click to expand...

sympathic, your reply is non sequitur because a fog is not a sum (fixed-value) (which is something that fixed-valued-only "care to fully write this number down?" reasoning can't get).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
sympathic, your reply is non sequitur because a fog is not a sum (fixed-value) (which is something that fixed-valued-only "care to fully write this number down?" reasoning can't get).
Click to expand...

Could you point to where you have actually defined 'fog'?
 
doronshadmi said:
sympathic, your reply is non sequitur because a fog is not a sum (fixed-value) (which is something that fixed-valued-only "care to fully write this number down?" reasoning can't get).
Click to expand...

who is talking about fogs, smogs or any other terms you invent for things you do not understand (I suggest "smoke monster" by the way for your next invented term). You were referring to the "number" 0.0000.....1 . This is not a number, there is no such number - it is just a string of characters. You don't even understand what "...." means. You have once again climbed a tree you are unable to climb down from.
 
The Man said:
None of your assumptions, misinterpretations, contrivances or drawings will change the fact that the difference between the series ½+1/4+1/8+1/16…. and the self similar two times series 1+½+1/4+1/8+1/16… is just 1 (an “accurate value” by your own assertions) which is itself the sum of the series ½+1/4+1/8+1/16…. by that same two times self similar relationship. That is all anyone needs to show that you are just completely and utterly wrong about the sum of a convergent infinite series even some 2,300 yea
Click to expand...
An obsolete and wrong reasoning that can’t comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5734631&postcount=9165 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5721761&postcount=9104 , so?
 
sympathic said:
who is talking about fogs, smogs or any other terms you invent for things you do not understand (I suggest "smoke monster" by the way for your next invented term). You were referring to the "number" 0.0000.....1 . This is not a number, there is no such number - it is just a string of characters. You don't even understand what "...." means. You have once again climbed a tree you are unable to climb down from.
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5796671&postcount=9329 just change the name there to sympathic.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
Ah, got it.
Click to expand...
Translation: "I can't get your proof without words ( including the following: )"

doronshadmi said:
X is an accurate value, called a sum.

(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) is an inaccurate value < X, and it is called (and here comes a novel concept) a fog.

Fogs are only approach to a given sum (what is called by you a limit).

For example: pi is a sum, and it is used by Standard Math as the limit of fog 3.14...[base 10], where fog 3.14...[base 10] < pi (fog 3.14...[base 10] only approaches sum pi).

In order to reach pi, one simply "jumps" form any arbitrary chosen scale level straight to sum pi, but then fog 3.14...[base 10] < pi is not found anymore, and we get a sum, which is based on finitely many segments AND points that have sum pi.

This novel reasoning about infinite convergent series is clearly demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5721761&postcount=9104.

In other words, sums are local numbers, and fogs are non-local numbers.

By OM the place value method is a fog if infinitely many scale levels are involved.

By Standard Math the place value method is a representation of a sum (fogs are not found under the Standard framework).

Since Standard Math paradigm does not deal with fogs, then X can't be but a sum.

By using the limited reasoning, one simply can't get (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) as a fog (called also a non-local number, under OM).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Translation: "I can't get your proof without words ( including the following: )"
Click to expand...

I wasn't asking for one of your 'proofs', I was asking for a definition of your latest term, 'fog'. You have yet to provide one.

ETA: Oh, and your reply included a whole bunch of words (so much for 'proof without words') from a completely different post than the one you originally referred me to, but you still try to pretend it's my fault that I don't find any meaning in the gibberish. Still no definition of 'fog', though.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
I wasn't asking for one of your 'proofs', I was asking for a definition of your latest term, 'fog'. You have yet to provide one.

ETA: Oh, and your reply included a whole bunch of words (so much for 'proof without words') from a completely different post than the one you originally referred me to, but you still try to pretend it's my fault that I don't find any meaning in the gibberish. Still no definition of 'fog', though.
Click to expand...
EDIT:

zooterkin, if you really follow my posts, you will find this:

k < x < n

A fog is the infinite irreducibility of x to k or the infinite non-increaseability of x to n
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
What You See Is What You Get sympathic, and you do not see (or in your words: "More useless gibberish").
Click to expand...

Please stop deluding yourself. Your gibberish is no more than just, well... gibberish. Seeing things that are not there is not a healthy symptom.
 
doronshadmi said:
EDIT:

zooterkin, if you really follow my posts, you will find this:

k < x < n

A fog is the infinite irreducibility of x to k or the infinite non-increaseability of x to n
Click to expand...


Well, that's completely different from what was there the last time i looked at that post. Doesn't make any more sense, mind. Exactly what is foggy about two values being different?
 
zooterkin said:
Well, that's completely different from what was there the last time i looked at that post. Doesn't make any more sense, mind. Exactly what is foggy about two values being different?
Click to expand...

x is a a placeholder for a fog, for example: fog S=(0.9+0.09+0.009+0.0009+...[base 10]) which is < than sum 1 by fog 0.000...1[base 10]

In the case of infinite non-increaseability x is a placeholder for fog S and n is a placeholder for sum 1

In the case of infinite irreducibility x is a placeholder for fog 0.000...1[base 10] and k is a placeholder for sum 0
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
x is a a placeholder for a fog, for example: fog S=(0.9+0.09+0.009+0.0009+...[base 10]) which is < than sum 1 by fog 0.000...1[base 10]

In the case of infinite non-increaseability x is a placeholder for fog S and n is a placeholder for sum 1

In the case of infinite irreducibility x is a placeholder for fog 0.000...1[base 10] and k is a placeholder for sum 0
Click to expand...


I think you have completely overlooked the cyclone of S occluded by the partly cloudy x. (Highs in the mid-60's with a 30% chance of rain in non-local areas.)
 
I am amazed that there are now 234 pages of this drek.

I was attracted only by one of the post titles - something about Deeper than primes...

Silly rabbits! Nothing is deeper than primes.
 
doronshadmi said:
The Man you apparently fail to realize that infinite series of added sums is not itself a sum, exactly as a collection of all oranges is not itself an orange.
Click to expand...

Once again Doron you apparently fail to relies that “a collection of all oranges” is “not itself an orange”, because it’s “a collection of all oranges”. Just as an “infinite series of added sums is not itself a sum” because it is “an “infinite series of added sums”. Howeevr such a series can have a sum. You are the only one trying to conflate a “collection of all oranges” with an orange or an “infinite series of added sums” with the sum of that series.

doronshadmi said:
Actually S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X exactly because the two different endpoints can’t be reduced into a single point, and this irreducibility is based on the fact that X>0 is a constant upon infinitely many bended levels, that are irreducible to 0.
Click to expand...

Once again that brings us to a circle. In X and Y coordinates a circle starts and ends at the same point. In polar coordinates the circle starts at zero degrees and ends at 360 with the same R. Is that your whole problem that you simply do not understand coordinates and how different reference frames give you different coordinates for what might even be the same point is some given reference frame?

doronshadmi said:
The generalization here is the irreducibility of a non-local element (which its minimal representation is a 1-dim element) into a local element (which its minimal representation is a 0-dim element).
Click to expand...

Well as your “belongs to AND does not belong to” reduces to a simple contradiction, I can certainly understand why you want to claim your “non-local element” “generalization” to be, well, ‘irreducible’.

doronshadmi said:
Please look at the non-local green elements of the following diagram:

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

“non-local green elements”? Obviously you were able to not only localize them, but also give them finite and “fixed” lengths for each iteration (otherwise you could not have drawn them).


doronshadmi said:
It is obvious that the collection of all infinitely many convergent triangles, where each one of them has a non-local green side, are not reducible into a single point.

By following this fact, it is immediately and unconditionally understood that S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X
Click to expand...

You do understand that a triangle converges at three, well, points, don’t you (that’s what makes it a triangle)? You do understand that your “green side” is always local to your triangle, don’t you (otherwise it would not be a side of your triangle)?

Oh look, we finally have Doron defining a line (his green side of his triangle) by points (his “two different endpoints”). So what happens when there is no difference in points? Well it either ain’t a line and is just a point or it is some closed curve like a circle (or other geometric figure) that starts and ends at some singular point in one reference frame, but like a circle may start and end at different points in some other reference frame. Once again Doron you are the only one trying to conflate the labels we ascribe to some point or points with that point or points themselves. The labeling convention depends upon the reference frame being used which is just some particular convention for labeling points in some space.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
The labeling convention depends upon the reference frame being used which is just some particular convention for labeling points in some space.
Click to expand...
Here you fail, because a space is not less than the linkage of local element like a single point and a non-local element, like single line (closed or not)

The point belongs XOR does not belong w.r.t a given line.

The line belongs AND does not belong w.r.t a given point.

The contradiction is a direct result of the understanding of that linkage only from its local (point) aspect.

The rest of your post is based on this local-only reasoning of a considered space, and What You See Is What You Get, which by this local-only reasoning it can't be but a contradiction.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom