Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
Please provide more details that support your argument.
Click to expand...

I haven't made an argument; I made an assertion.

I have offered and shall offer no evidence to support my assertion.

Although I was combative and argument seeking when I was younger, I've grown tired of hollow, interminable, dishonest, ego-filled, or unproductive discussions. (n.b. the only two of these terms that I think apply to this thread are 'interminable' and 'unproductive')

Suffice it to say that I think my assertion is defensible and widely shared, but I don't wish to engage anyone in a 9000-post discussion of the point.
 
Complexity said:
I haven't made an argument; I made an assertion.

I have offered and shall offer no evidence to support my assertion.

Although I was combative and argument seeking when I was younger, I've grown tired of hollow, interminable, dishonest, ego-filled, or unproductive discussions. (n.b. the only two of these terms that I think apply to this thread are 'interminable' and 'unproductive')

Suffice it to say that I think my assertion is defensible and widely shared, but I don't wish to engage anyone in a 9000-post discussion of the point.
Click to expand...

Complexity said:
Silly rabbits! Nothing is deeper than primes.
Click to expand...

Complexity, this quote looks like a strong deretmination, so why do you call it an assertion?
 
doronshadmi said:
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?
Click to expand...

Again, 1 is an "accurate value" by your own assertions and is proven to be the sum of the infinite convergent series ½+¼+1/8+1/16 by that difference (of 1) from the two times self similar infinite convergent series 1+½+¼+1/8+1/16 . That you obviously can’t comprehend that is simply your problem. A problem that was as obsolete even some 2,300 years ago as it is today. So?


doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Once again there “you fail” in not being definitive about what constitutes your ascription of ‘belonging’ even in your own “linkage of local element like a single point and a non-local element, like single line (closed or not)”.

doronshadmi said:
The contradiction is a direct result of the understanding of that linkage only from its local (point) aspect.
Click to expand...

No it simply and directly results from your inconsistent and directly conflicting use of the ascription “belongs” in your “linkage of local element like a single point and a non-local element, like single line (closed or not)”.

doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...

All of your posts as well as your notions are based simply on your indefinite and inconsistent use of the ascription “belongs”. "What You See Is What You Get", a “fog”. Though, much as you might like to prefer roaming around and “researching” in your own personal “fog”. Myself and others here, having utilized both the flexibility and definitive nature of mathematics, actually get things done. You strive for the flexibility of mathematics, but are obviously dismayed by the definitive nature of mathematical terminology, symbols and references. Hence your assertions and notions remain, well, foggy, even to you. However it is that “linkage”, the flexibility of mathematics (like choosing a particular reference frame) and the definitive nature of mathematical terminology, symbols and references (once that frame has been established and defined) that gives mathematics it’s utility. Give up that definitive nature (as you obviously insist upon doing) or that flexibility (the only thing you want to keep) and you lose the utility. Which is why, after all your blustering, your notions remain without any utility. Except in your own fantasy of saving our civilization from your own paranoia of your, much despised by you, own interpretation of the ‘L value of the Drake equation’.
 
The Man said:
All of your posts as well as your notions are based simply on your indefinite and inconsistent use of the ascription “belongs”.
Click to expand...
Since you are using a local-only reasoning, What You See Is What You Get, including this artificial limitation of the mathematical science:
The Man said:
the flexibility of mathematics (like choosing a particular reference frame) and the definitive nature of mathematical terminology, symbols and references (once that frame has been established and defined) that gives mathematics it’s utility. Give up that definitive nature (as you obviously insist upon doing) or that flexibility (the only thing you want to keep) and you lose the utility.
Click to expand...

Again, your reasoning is limited to a local-only reasoning of that science.

On top of this limitation your frame has been established and defined so again, What You See Is What You Get (which in this case is a local-only view of the mathematical science) and no mathematical terminology, symbols and references can change the fact that you are closed under a local-only reasoning, which naturally get non-locality as a contradiction under your What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG).

Your forcing attitude to establish any definition on localities (points) including lines, is simply an artificial attempt to avoid the simple notion that a line is not made by a collection of points. Since your forcing attitude to establish any definition on localities, does its “best” in order to not dealing with the notion of non-locality, you indeed get a framework that can’t assert or conclude anything that is not derived from local-only reasoning of the researched subject.

Again The Man, WYSIWYG.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Since you are using a local-only reasoning, What You See Is What You Get, including this artificial limitation of the mathematical science:


Again, your reasoning is limited to a local-only reasoning of that science.
Click to expand...

Again with your loco-only labels and “reasoning”

doronshadmi said:
On top of this limitation your frame has been established and defined so again, What You See Is What You Get (which in this case is a local-only view of the mathematical science) and no mathematical terminology, symbols and references can change the fact that you are closed under a local-only reasoning, which naturally get non-locality as a contradiction under your What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG).
Click to expand...

So I guess you are going to also ignore the flexibility of math that I mentioned, as well as definitive terminology, symbols and references that are not limited to any particular reference frame.

Again “What You See Is What You Get”. You see a “fog” and you express a “fog”, which naturally makes your notion foggy, even to you. Don't blame us that your notions are simply as foggy as you intend them to be.
 
The Man said:
Again with your loco-only labels and “reasoning”



So I guess you are going to also ignore the flexibility of math that I mentioned, as well as definitive terminology, symbols and references that are not limited to any particular reference frame.

Again “What You See Is What You Get”. You see a “fog” and you express a “fog”, which naturally makes your notion foggy, even to you. Don't blame us that your notions are simply as foggy as you intend them to be.
Click to expand...

Again, Your forcing attitude to establish any definition on localities (points) including lines, is simply an artificial attempt to avoid the simple notion that a line is not made by a collection of points. Since your forcing attitude to establish any definition on localities, does its “best” in order to not dealing with the notion of non-locality, you indeed get a framework that can’t assert or conclude anything that is not derived from local-only reasoning of the researched subject.

The Man said:
A problem that was as obsolete even some 2,300 years ago as it is today. So?
Click to expand...
A solution (of Archimedes) that was as obsolete even some 2,300 years ago as it is today. So?


Again The Man, WYSIWYG.

EDIT:

A fog is a natural result of the infinite linkage among the local and non-local atomic qualities, that are the nutural foundation of infinite Complexity and infinite Quantity.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Which is why, after all your blustering, your notions remain without any utility. Except in your own fantasy of saving our civilization from your own paranoia of your, much despised by you, own interpretation of the ‘L value of the Drake equation’.
Click to expand...
Open your TV, Listen to the radio, Look at the Internet, Learn the History of Mankind, and then re-examine the degree of the probability of my interpretation of ‘L value of the Drake equation’ in the near and far future, which unfortunately is still based on a dichotomy between Ethics(where the technology of the consciousness’ development is included) and Logics\Technology.

More details are seen in http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM and http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE
 
Last edited:
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...

Sympathic: "ripe tomatoes are red"

Doron: "ripe tomatoes are blue"

This discussion is pointless and leads nowhere. I would comment that it is appropriate to question the sanity of an individual insisting that ripe tomatoes are blue.
 
sympathic said:
Sympathic: "ripe tomatoes are red"

Doron: "ripe tomatoes are blue"

This discussion is pointless and leads nowhere. I would comment that it is appropriate to question the sanity of an individual insisting that ripe tomatoes are blue.
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: "I would comment that it is appropriate to question the sanity of an individual insisting that he has a nice job and a diploma, which enables him to define a sun that rises and shines in the middle of the night”
 
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: "I would comment that it is appropriate to question the sanity of an individual insisting that he has a nice job and a diploma, which enables him to define a sun that rises and shines in the middle of the night”
Click to expand...

Thank you for confirming any attempt to communicate with you is pointless. And by the way: you are aware that the earth is round, and while it is night your time the sun rises somewhere else around the globe, are you?
 
Last edited:
sympathic said:
you are aware that the earth is round, and while it is night your time the sun rises somewhere else around the globe, are you?
Click to expand...
Are you aware of the meaning of "somewhere else"?

sympathic said:
Thank you for confirming any attempt to communicate with you is pointless.
Click to expand...

Thank you for confirming any attempt to communicate with you is lineless.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Don't blame us that your notions are simply as foggy as you intend them to be.
Click to expand...
Don’t blame me that your notions get a fog as some "white noise" that has to be eliminated, in order to define fixed-only reasoning.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
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?
Click to expand...
Given two values to the same location does not make it two different locations, and in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5799260&postcount=9332 we are dealing with at least two different locations (endpoints).
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
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.)
Click to expand...
Some correction, it can start by 30% chance of rain in non-local lines.
 
k < x < n


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


x is 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


So, x of the expression k < x < n is the placeholder for any infinite series of fixed added values, which is not itself a fixed value.


More details are seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5795672&postcount=9323 , http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5799260&postcount=9332 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5799988&postcount=9344.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
k < x < n


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


x is 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]
Click to expand...
Doron, try to keep your terms straight at least within posts, if not between them. Make up your mind; is your unnecessary 'fog' the infinite irreducibility of x, or x itself? What are the possible values of k, x and n?
 
zooterkin said:
Doron, try to keep your terms straight at least within posts, if not between them. Make up your mind; is your unnecessary 'fog' the infinite irreducibility of x, or x itself? What are the possible values of k, x and n?
Click to expand...

EDIT:

k and n are placeholders for fixed values (known also as sums or local numbers).

x is a placeholder for non-fixed values (known also as fogs or non-local numers).

For example x is a placeholder for fogs S=(0.9+0.09+0.009+0.0009+...[base 10]) or 0.000...1[base 10]

k is a placeholder for some sum < some fog kept by x placeholder.

n is a placeholder for some sum > some fog kept by x placeholder.

What do you mean by: unnecessary 'fog'?
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
Because, as far as I can tell, you are using 'fog' to stand for something that doesn't exist.

1 - 0.999... = 0

Where is the need for your fog?
Click to expand...

"As far as you can tell" is closed under fixed values.

Fogs are not closed under the notion of fixed values, and can be used to measure infinite irreducibility or infinite non-increaseability, which is an ability that no fixed value has.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
"As far as you can tell" is closed under fixed values.

Fogs are not closed under the notion of fixed values, and can be used to measure infinite irreducibility or infinite non-increaseability, which is an ability that no fixed value has.
Click to expand...

And what do you mean by "closed"?
 
EDIT:

According to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5804628&postcount=9379 k < x < n is a general expression of fog\sum relations, such that x, k or n can be placeholders for negative or positive values, for example:


If the fogs are negative then n is a placeholder for sum 0 and k is a placeholder for some negative sum.

For example x is a placeholder for fogs S= -(1+0.9+0.09+0.009+0.0009+...[base 10]) and -0.000...1[base 10], as follows:

sum -2 < fog S < sum 0, where fog -0.000...1[base 10] is the complement of fog S to sum -2, and fog -0.000...1[base 10] < 0

In that example fog S is an infinite irreducibility to sum -2, and fog -0.000...1[base 10] is an infinite non-increaseability to sum 0


If the fogs are positive then k is a placeholder for sum 0 and n is a placeholder for some positive sum.

For example x is a placeholder for fogs S= (1+0.9+0.09+0.009+0.0009+...[base 10]) and 0.000...1[base 10], as follows:

sum 0 < fog S < sum 2, where fog 0.000...1[base 10] is the complement of fog S to sum 2, and fog 0.000...1[base 10] > 0

In that example fog S is an infinite non-increaseability to sum 2, and fog 0.000...1[base 10] is an infinite irreducibility to sum 0


Since x is a placeholder for two complement fogs, let us chage its notation to x

In that case the general expression of fog\sum relations is: k < x < n

So:

k and n are placeholders for fixed values (known also as sums or local numbers).

x is a placeholder for non-fixed values (known also as fogs or non-local numers).

k is a placeholder for some sum < some fog kept by x placeholder.

n is a placeholder for some sum > some fog kept by x placeholder.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Man, the number of labels of a given location (point) in some mathematical space (which is not insincerely a metric space), is in direct relation with the degree of that space.

For example:

0-space (an isolated point) has sum 0 labels.

1-space (a connected point by 1-space element, like a line) has sum 1 labels.

2-space (a connected point by 2-space element, like an area) has sum 2 labels.

3-space (a connected point by 3-space element, like a sphere) has sum 3 labels.

…

n-space (a connected point by n-space element) has sum n labels.

…

∞-space (a connected point by ∞-space element) has fog ∞ labels.

So, a point has a label only by its connection with at least 1-space (where a 1-space element is at least a line) and it is obvious that a line is not made by a collection of 0-space elements.

Furthermore, a 0-space element has a label only by the linkage of 0-space with at least 1-space.

In that case it does not matter how many labels a 0-space element has, because the ability of labels is the result of the linkage of 0-space with some x>0-space.

So, in the case of a circle, if some 0-space along a closed 1-space (for example the circumference of a circle) has one or more labels, then the labels are possible in the first place, only because of the linkage of 0-scape with 1-space, in this case.

So, also by Standard Math a limit-point has a label as log as there is a linkage of 0-space with at least 1-space.

This linkage is not defined at the isolated state of 0-space, and as a result the there is no label (a value) at the limit point, if only 0-space is considered.

In my proof without words (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5795672&postcount=9323 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5799260&postcount=9332 ) sum X of the bended Koch's form does not exist at 0-space state because as we have just seen, 0-space element has no labels at all (sum X or any other label) as long as it is not connected at least with a 1-space element.


This fact is truth also in the case of fog S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+…) and fog 0.000…3/4, which is its complement to sum X.

Conclusion: Circumference of a circle or a bended form of sum X, in both cases (whether the labels are related to the same location in the case of the circumference, or whether the labels are not related to the same location in the case of the bended form), there are no labels at all and therefore no measurement, unless there is a linkage of 0-space with at least 1-space.

A 1-space element is a fundamental necessity of the existence of measurement units, and since no collection of 0-space elements can be a 1-space element (or more generally, a x>0-space element), then there must be a fog, which is exactly the result of the linkage of 0-space with x>0-space.

A fog is an infinite irreducibility or infinite non-increaseability to some sum, exactly because no amount of 0-space elements can be x>0-space element.

Some claims that, for example, a segment is a 1-space element, but this claim is false because a segment is at least the result of a linkage of 0-space with 1-space, where the result of that linkage is called a complex.

As a result only a finite addition of complex elements can fully cover some other complex element of the same complexity degree, where an infinite addition of complex elements cannot fully cover some other complex element of the same complexity degree, exactly because no infinite 0-space elements can be a x>0-space element.

So, fogs (non-local numbers) are must have results of any linkage of different spaces, in addition to the already known sums (local numbers).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Again, Your forcing attitude to establish any definition on localities (points) including lines, is simply an artificial attempt to avoid the simple notion that a line is not made by a collection of points. Since your forcing attitude to establish any definition on localities, does its “best” in order to not dealing with the notion of non-locality, you indeed get a framework that can’t assert or conclude anything that is not derived from local-only reasoning of the researched subject.
Click to expand...


Again abstract concepts (like point of a line) are only their definitions, that you deliberately make your notions indefinitive is why you end up in your “fog”. As a result you “can’t assert or conclude anything, however your deliberate “fog” prevents you from seeing that as well.


doronshadmi said:
A solution (of Archimedes) that was as obsolete even some 2,300 years ago as it is today. So?
Click to expand...

Well since it was not “obsolete” then nor is it now, that statement would actually be correct.

doronshadmi said:
Again The Man, WYSIWYG.

EDIT:

A fog is a natural result of the infinite linkage among the local and non-local atomic qualities, that are the nutural foundation of infinite Complexity and infinite Quantity.
Click to expand...

No Doron a fog is naturally the condensation of water vapor in the air near to the ground and generally obscures everyone’s view. Your unnatural “fog” is a condensate of your nonsensical gibberish that is near to your ego and obscures only your view.






doronshadmi said:
Open your TV, Listen to the radio, Look at the Internet, Learn the History of Mankind, and then re-examine the degree of the probability of my interpretation of ‘L value of the Drake equation’ in the near and far future, which unfortunately is still based on a dichotomy between Ethics(where the technology of the consciousness’ development is included) and Logics\Technology.

More details are seen in http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM and http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE
Click to expand...




“Open your TV, Listen to the radio, Look at the Internet, Learn the History of” ethics and logic, neither is a dichotomy in and of itself nor do they create a dichotomy together (as they are not mutually exclusive). That you unfortunately insist on such only shows how deliberately naive your notions about ethics and logic are. As well as the most probable source for your paranoia that you try to express as the ‘L value of the Drake equation’


doronshadmi said:
Don’t blame me that your notions get a fog as some "white noise" that has to be eliminated, in order to define fixed-only reasoning.
Click to expand...

It is only your “fog” and "white noise" Doron. No one else need eliminate it as their view is not obscured nor their hearing perturbed by it.




doronshadmi said:
Given two values to the same location does not make it two different locations, and in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5799260&postcount=9332 we are dealing with at least two different locations (endpoints).
Click to expand...


Once again location is only an ascription of the coordinate system being used. A line entirely along an axis called X is only one location along a perpendicular axis perhaps called Y. Similarly in polar coordinates the points on a circle are all in the same location of the ordinate R and only differ in location by the rotational ordinate of angle. With that angle given in radians one can define a location on, or circular segment of, any circle of any radius ( R). That is why a circle is one dimensional as it only requires one ordinate (the rotational angle) to define any location along that circle.
 
doronshadmi said:
The Man, the number of labels of a given location (point) in some mathematical space (which is not insincerely a metric space), is in direct relation with the degree of that space.

For example:

0-space (an isolated point) has sum 0 labels.

1-space (a connected point by 1-space element, like a line) has sum 1 labels.

2-space (a connected point by 2-space element, like an area) has sum 2 labels.

3-space (a connected point by 3-space element, like a sphere) has sum 3 labels.

…

n-space (a connected point by n-space element) has sum n labels.

…

∞-space (a connected point by ∞-space element) has fog ∞ labels.

So, a point has a label only by its connection with at least 1-space (where a 1-space element is at least a line) and it is obvious that a line is not made by a collection of 0-space elements.

Furthermore, a 0-space element has a label only by the linkage of 0-space with at least 1-space.

In that case it does not matter how many labels a 0-space element has, because the ability of labels is the result of the linkage of 0-space with some x>0-space.

So, in the case of a circle, if some 0-space along a closed 1-space (for example the circumference of a circle) has one or more labels, then the labels are possible in the first place, only because of the linkage of 0-scape with 1-space, in this case.

So, also by Standard Math a limit-point has a label as log as there is a linkage of 0-space with at least 1-space.

This linkage is not defined at the isolated state of 0-space, and as a result the there is no label (a value) at the limit point, if only 0-space is considered.

In my proof without words (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5795672&postcount=9323 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5799260&postcount=9332 ) sum X of the bended Koch's form does not exist at 0-space state because as we have just seen, 0-space element has no labels at all (sum X or any other label) as long as it is not connected at least with a 1-space element.


This fact is truth also in the case of fog S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+…) and fog 0.000…3/4, which is its complement to sum X.

Conclusion: Circumference of a circle or a bended form of sum X, in both cases (whether the labels are related to the same location in the case of the circumference, or whether the labels are not related to the same location in the case of the bended form), there are no labels at all and therefore no measurement, unless there is a linkage of 0-space with at least 1-space.

A 1-space element is a fundamental necessity of the existence of measurement units, and since no collection of 0-space elements can be a 1-space element (or more generally, a x>0-space element), then there must be a fog, which is exactly the result of the linkage of 0-space with x>0-space.

A fog is an infinite irreducibility or infinite non-increaseability to some sum, exactly because no amount of 0-space elements can be x>0-space element.

Some claims that, for example, a segment is a 1-space element, but this claim is false because a segment is at least the result of a linkage of 0-space with 1-space, where the result of that linkage is called a complex.

As a result only a finite addition of complex elements can fully cover some other complex element of the same complexity degree, where an infinite addition of complex elements cannot fully cover some other complex element of the same complexity degree, exactly because no infinite 0-space elements can be a x>0-space element.

So, fogs (non-local numbers) are must have results of any linkage of different spaces, in addition to the already known sums (local numbers).
Click to expand...

More of your deliberately ‘foggy’ nonsensical gibberish. It seems that you are now deliberately confusing a space (and the dimensions of that space) with some element in that space. Once again you make entirely erroneous assertions (a line is defined by points a point is not defined by a line) then pretend to draw some conclusion, you had already decided must be so, from those erroneous assertions.

Let’s just take your primary erroneous assertion as it seems to be your jumping off point (pun intended).

doronshadmi said:
So, a point has a label only by its connection with at least 1-space (where a 1-space element is at least a line) and it is obvious that a line is not made by a collection of 0-space elements.
Click to expand...

You just gave it a label “a point”, you could call it whatever you want X, 5, red, Fred but “a point” is the most accurately descriptive and definitive label. If “a point” is the entire space your are considering then you are considering a 0 dimensional space.

Now if you want to consider two points then you need to distinguish them from each other and the label of just “a point” is no longer applicable. Once again we could call the points whatever we want like point “A” and point “B”. The important thing to note is that we have added some aspect to the label to distinguish those points from one another. As we perhaps consider more points it is often helpful to give them some ordering in their labeling, hence that aspect of the labeling has become know as an ordinate. That it takes at least one ordinate to distinguish one of our two points from the other is what establishes the minimal space we are considering those points in and the element those points define (a line segment) to be one dimensional. Again the point being that you do not need a line or 1 dimensional space to consider, label or define a point, it is just that a point alone, even labeled and as the entire 0 dimensional space being considered, is not by itself of much practical utility. However that should not be of much concern to you as your notions have no utility themselves.
 
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]
Click to expand...

Well, we can add infinite decimal representation to the long list of mathematical concepts Doron doesn't understand.
 
doronshadmi said:
0-space (an isolated point) has sum 0 labels.

1-space (a connected point by 1-space element, like a line) has sum 1 labels.

2-space (a connected point by 2-space element, like an area) has sum 2 labels.

3-space (a connected point by 3-space element, like a sphere) has sum 3 labels.
Click to expand...

Doron is, naturally, just making up his own pseudo-mathematical terms again. But, speaking of space and dimensions, Doron reminds me of the point, the sole occupier of "pointland", in Edwin Abbot's Flatland:

Edwin Abbot said:
"What," said I, "does the puny creature mean by 'it'?"

"He means himself," said the Sphere: "have you not noticed before now, that babies and babyish people who cannot distinguish themselves from the world, speak of themselves in the Third Person? But hush!"

"It fills all Space," continued the little soliloquizing Creature, "and what It fills, It is. What It thinks, that It utters; and what It utters, that It hears; and It itself is Thinker, Utterer, Hearer, Thought, Word, Audition; it is the One, and yet the All in All. Ah, the happiness, ah, the happiness of Being!"


"Can you not startle the little thing out of its complacency?" said I. "Tell it what it really is, as you told me; reveal to it the narrow limitations of Pointland, and lead it up to something higher." "That is no easy task," said my Master; "try you."


Hereon, raising by voice to the uttermost, I addressed the Point as follows:
"Silence, silence, contemptible Creature. You call yourself the All in All, but you are the Nothing: your so-called Universe is a mere speck in a Line, and a Line is a mere shadow as compared with—" "Hush, hush, you have said enough," interrupted the Sphere, "now listen, and mark the effect of your harangue on the King of Pointland."


The lustre of the Monarch, who beamed more brightly than ever upon hearing my words, shewed clearly that he retained his complacency; and I had hardly ceased when he took up his strain again. "Ah, the joy, ah, the joy of Thought! What can It not achieve by thinking! Its own Thought coming to Itself, suggestive of its disparagement, thereby to enhance Its happiness! Sweet rebellion stirred up to result in triumph! Ah, the divine creative power of the All in One! Ah, the joy, the joy of Being!"


"You see," said my Teacher, "how little your words have done. So far as the Monarch understand them at all, he accepts them as his own—for he cannot conceive of any other except himself—and plumes himself upon the variety of 'Its Thought' as an instance of creative Power. Let us leave this God of Pointland to the ignorant fruition of his omnipresence and omniscience: nothing that you or I can do can rescue him from his self-satisfaction."
Click to expand...


Indeed, the same applies here. Nothing we can do, or say, or write, or explain to Doron will ever rescue him from his self-satisfaction, his belief that he is more or less the greatest mathematician that ever lived.

In reality, like the monarch of pointland, he is an absolute nothing in world of mathematics; he has no more, in fact much less, understanding of mathematics than a mediocre first-year math college student.

But it is precisely due to his limitations that he is, like the monarch of pointland, so perfectly and unshakably sure of his own superiority.
 
Skeptic said:
Well, we can add infinite decimal representation to the long list of mathematical concepts Doron doesn't understand.
Click to expand...

That one was very high on the list - see, e.g., this link from 2003.

But seriously, Skeptic, do you keep a list which mathematical concepts Doron doesn't understand? I keep a list he does understand - that's much less labour-intensive. :D
 
doronshadmi - I don't think that you are capable of having a meaningful conversation with me or other people that I know. I certainly don't have any confidence that patience in trying to understand your words will be worth the trouble.

It is possible that your personal language, manner, and odd ways of thinking are masking something significant and interesting, but you haven't done anything to motivate us to expect it or to want to work for it.

You've been saying the same stuff for years. I have better things to do than wade through it. Sorry, but you need to change your ways if you want meaningful and effective communications with the rest of us.
 
ddt said:
But seriously, Skeptic, do you keep a list which mathematical concepts Doron doesn't understand? I keep a list he does understand - that's much less labour-intensive. :D
Click to expand...

I keep a list of both. I like to practice infinite cardinal and ordinal addition, and the empty set was always a favorite of mine...
 
Doron makes the mistake of thinking that complex language implies profound thought. It's typical of cranks to invent a language "nobody can prove wrong" -- because, as Dudley, the author of "Mathematical Cranks" wrote, it's like fog, and you can't stab fog.
 
Skeptic said:
Doron is, naturally, just making up his own pseudo-mathematical terms again. But, speaking of space and dimensions, Doron reminds me of the point, the sole occupier of "pointland", in Edwin Abbot's Flatland:
Click to expand...

"Flatland" has been something I've wanted to read, but have never gotten around to actually acquiring.
 
Skeptic said:
I keep a list of both. I like to practice infinite cardinal and ordinal addition, and the empty set was always a favorite of mine...
Click to expand...

:D It's a good thing I wasn't drinking anything when I read that - could have costed me a keyboard.
 
The Man said:
Again abstract concepts (like point of a line) are only their definitions,
Click to expand...
By OM a point is the minimal representation of Locality and a line is the minimal representation of Non-locality.

A line or a point are undefined by Hilbert's axioms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_axioms ), where these axioms are considered as the foundation for a modern treatment of Euclidean geometry , so you are simply ignorant about the modern treatment of concepts like point or line.

The Man said:
“Open your TV, Listen to the radio, Look at the Internet, Learn the History of” ethics and logic, neither is a dichotomy in and of itself nor do they create a dichotomy together (as they are not mutually exclusive).
Click to expand...
Thank you for help me to demonstrate how Ethics and Logics are disjoint concepts by your limited reasoning.

The Man said:
Once again location is only an ascription of the coordinate system being used.
Click to expand...
No matter what coordinate system is used, there are different locations in it, no matter how many labels are attached to any given location.

The Man said:
That is why a circle is one dimensional as it only requires one ordinate (the rotational angle) to define any location along that circle.
Click to expand...
The Man you simply do not understand that rotational angle is done beyond 0-space, so each label of some location is possible only if at least 0-space and 1-space are linked.
 
The Man said:
It seems that you are now deliberately confusing a space (and the dimensions of that space) with some element in that space.
Click to expand...
No The Man, your confusion of my reply is a direct result of your inability to understand the qualitative atomic local and non-local aspects that sand at the basis of a complex like Segment.


The Man said:
You just gave it a label “a point”, you could call it whatever you want X, 5, red, Fred but “a point” is the most accurately descriptive and definitive label. If “a point” is the entire space your are considering then you are considering a 0 dimensional space.
Click to expand...
Actually you are the one who claims that the dimension of some space is determined by the number of the values (labels) that are related to some point (coordinate) of that space.

Here is the relevant part from Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension ):

"In mathematics and physics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it."

By following this reasoning, a point in 0-space has no label at all, so a label is provided to some point only if it is linked with at least 1-space element.

The Man said:
Once again we could call the points…
Click to expand...

In order to be able to define more than a one point, you need a higher space that actually enables the transition from one point to many points.

Without this higher space you have no ability to distinguish between different points (and give them different labels).
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
Indeed, the same applies here. Nothing we can do, or say, or write, or explain to Doron will ever rescue him from his self-satisfaction, his belief that he is more or less the greatest mathematician that ever lived.
Click to expand...
A typical reply of one that deals with the person because he can't deal with the subject.

Let us quote the relevant part from Edwin Abbot's story:

Edwin Abbot said:
"Tell it what it really is, as you told me; reveal to it the narrow limitations of Pointland, and lead it up to something higher."
Click to expand...
Indeed Skeptic your view of this subject is based on a limited reasoning that deals only with sums (localities), and therefore can't deal also with something "higher" than sums, called fogs (non-localities).


Skeptic said:
Doron makes the mistake of thinking that complex language implies profound thought.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Since you try to understand my language by using a limited reasoning, you get it as a complicated (not complex) language.

Furthermore, by your limited reasoning you do not distinguish between the good pair Complex\Simple and the bad pair Complicated\Trivial, as shown, for example in, this part of my work:

4389327007_f968923c21_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
A typical reply of one that deals with the person because he can't deal with the subject.
Click to expand...

No, doroshadmi, you are wrong. The fault lies not with us but with you.

You are speaking nonsense that is deliberately cloaked in obscuring froth.

It is not worth trying to figure out what the hell you are talking about.
 
doronshadmi said:
By OM a point is the minimal representation of Locality and a line is the minimal representation of Non-locality.
Click to expand...

Your ‘belongs to and does not belong’ requirement of your “Non-locality” is still simply self contradictory.

doronshadmi said:
A line or a point are undefined by Hilbert's axioms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_axioms ), where these axioms are considered as the foundation for a modern treatment of Euclidean geometry , so you are simply ignorant about the modern treatment of concepts like point or line.
Click to expand...

They are undefined primitives of that of that axiomatization…

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

Primitive notion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In mathematics, logic, and formal systems, a primitive notion is an undefined concept. In particular, a primitive notion is not defined in terms of previously defined concepts, but is only motivated informally, usually by an appeal to intuition and everyday experience. In an axiomatic theory or other formal system, the role of a primitive notion is analogous to that of axiom. In axiomatic theories, the primitive notions are sometimes said to be "defined" by one or more axioms, but this can be misleading. Formal theories cannot dispense with primitive notions, under pain of infinite regress.
Click to expand...

and their role is analogous to that of the stated axioms.
The first axiom from your cited link

1.
Two distinct points A and B always completely determine a straight line a. We write AB = a or BA = a. Instead of “determine,” we may also employ other forms of expression; for example, we may say “A lies upon a”, “A is a point of a“, “a goes through A and through B”, ”a joins A to B”, etc. If A lies upon a and at the same time upon another straight line b, we make use also of the expression: “The straight lines a and b have the point A in common,” etc
Click to expand...

Oh look two points defining a line segment.

Once again the ignorance remains simply yours. Having actually found that reference you could have actually tried to understand it instead of displaying your ignorance of the role of points and lines as undefined primitives in that axiomatization of Euclidean geometry.


doronshadmi said:
Thank you for help me to demonstrate how Ethics and Logics are disjoint concepts by your limited reasoning.
Click to expand...

Just because they are not mutually exclusive and the two of them do not create a dichotomy (as you would like to think), does not make them disjoint. Thank you for helping me demonstrate your limited reasoning when it comes to ethics and logic.

doronshadmi said:
No matter what coordinate system is used, there are different locations in it, no matter how many labels are attached to any given location.
Click to expand...

In a zero dimensional space there are no “different locations” period. Who said anything about a coordinate system not having more then one location? Are you still trying to confuse the location or locations of some element in some space with that space being considered?


doronshadmi said:
The Man you simply do not understand that rotational angle is done beyond 0-space, so each label of some location is possible only if at least 0-space and 1-space are linked.
Click to expand...

Doron “you simply do not understand that” I specifically told you that a circle is one dimensional because you only need the rotational angle to identify any location on that circle. That there is more than one location means that it is specifically not a 0 dimensional space being considered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom