Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
Since you are in the business of counting things, then you probably know that a point is an existing thing with cardinality 1 if our universe is based on the concept of Dimension, for example |{.}| = 1.

If our universe is based on the concept of Apples then 0 apples or no apples have cardinality |{}| = 0.

See the difference?
Click to expand...

Er, yes. If you have one thing, then you have one thing; if you have zero things, then you have no things.
 
doronshadmi said:
Since you are in the business of counting things, then you probably know that a point is an existing thing with cardinality 1 if our universe is based on the concept of Dimension, for example |{.}| = 1.

If our universe is based on the concept of Apples then 0 apples or no apples have cardinality |{}| = 0.

See the difference?
Click to expand...

If |{}| = 0
and
|{.}| = 1
then
|{..}| = ?

(Does the || enclosure mean the absolute value of the set?)

Doron! Customer service. Doron!

Have you ever heard that sounding similar?

You can hear that from the PA in the store when there is only one cash register opened and a line is forming impatient.

The line is made of shoppers, even though you deny the fact. The line is a collection of shoppers/points organized in a particular manner.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Since you are in the business of counting things, then you probably know that a point is an existing thing with cardinality 1 if our universe is based on the concept of Dimension, for example |{.}| = 1.

If our universe is based on the concept of Apples then 0 apples or no apples have cardinality |{}| = 0.
Click to expand...


Actually I’m currently in the business of fixing things. Unfortunately some things are just beyond any possible repair, your understanding of both cardinality and dimension being continuing examples of that fact.

A point does not have cardinality, but a set containing a point (as apparently are trying to represent in your “example”) does. Just as a set containing an apple, a period or the number of apples you have (even when you have 0) does. As does a set containing the ordinate or co-ordinates locating some point in some space or object and that set actually relates to the dimensionality of that space or object.

See the difference? No? Well that is most likely due to the demonstrative fact that your “universe is based on the concept” of obfuscation.


The Man said:
Again if you think just a point has dimension then give us a set of the ordinate or coordinates to locate that point in itself and give us the cardinality of that set (and thus the dimensionality of your "point" with dimension)
Click to expand...

Are you claiming you “point” to be one dimensional by your “|{.}| = 1” “example”?


doronshadmi said:
See the difference?
Click to expand...

Which one? Do you mean the difference between your “|{.}| = 1” and the cardinality of a set of the ordinate or coordinates locating that point in some space? Yep got that difference right away. Perhaps you mean the difference between your “|{.}| = 1” where you deliberately included some element (a point but not the ordinate or coordinates locating that point in some space) and your “|{}| = 0” where you deliberately excluded any elements (including an apple). That deliberate difference was obvious as well. Perhaps you mean the difference between your “universe” “based on the concept of Apples” where “0 apples or no apples have cardinality |{}| = 0” was your assertion and your “universe” “based on the concept of Dimension” where you simply ignore 0 or no dimensions? Yep, another obvious and apparently deliberate difference on your part. Are you done comparing apples to oranges or do you need me to point out those differences as well?
 
The Man said:
A point does not have cardinality, but a set containing a point (as apparently are trying to represent in your “example”) does
Click to expand...
You still miss it.

If a set that containing a point has cardinality 1 it means that the contained is not nothing even if the considered universe is Dimension.

The set that containing no apples has cardinality 0 if the considered universe is Apples.

In other words, “0 apples” is equivalent to “0 points”, but “0 points” is not equivalent to “0 dimension”, so your “0 apples” argument does not hold water.

Sine 0 dimensional element and 1 dimensional element are both existing things under the universe of Dimensions, then 1 dimensional element is included NXOR excluded w.r.t 0 dimensional element under that universe, and 0 dimensional element is included XOR excluded w.r.t 1 dimensional element under that universe.

Furthermore, there is a difference between “element”, which is a non-composed thing, and “object” that can be a composed thing (in both cases we are talking about existing things, where contained existing things of some set is resulted by cardinality > 0 of the considered set).

The Man said:
Subtracting some one dimensional object (like a line segment) from a one dimensional space (like a line or a line segment) can still leave you with a one dimensional object or multiple one dimensional objects.
Click to expand...
A line segment is a composed result of 0 and 1 non-composed dimensional spaces.

You simply can’t grasp the notion of existing and non-composed things, because you do not understand differences that are based on magnitudes.

The one who enables to get differences that are based on magnitudes (where Magnitude is defined according to “How much?” question, which is essentially different than “How many?” question) , immediately grasps the difference of the existing 0 dimensional element and 1 dimensional element w.r.t each other.
The Man said:
Are you claiming you “point” to be one dimensional by your “|{.}| = 1” “example”?
Click to expand...
No, I am claiming that a point is an existing element and the cardinality of a set that includes it as a member, clearly demonstrates it.

The Man said:
Actually I’m currently in the business of fixing things.
Click to expand...
Start by fixing your reasoning's abilities (for example: the difference between “How much?” and “How many?” questions).

Some exercises:

How much size a point has?

Does an element that has 0 size exists?

What is the cardinality of a set that have at least a point as its member?
 
Last edited:
epix said:
The line is a collection
Click to expand...
No, a collection is a composition, where line or point (or any other dimensional space) are non-composed sizes.

For example: a line segment is a composition, which is composed by points and a line, where a line or a point are non-composed sizes.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You still miss it.

If a set that containing a point has cardinality 1 it means that the contained is not nothing even if the considered universe is Dimension.
Click to expand...

You still miss it, “a set that containing a point has cardinality 1” does not imbue that point with dimension. Who ever said a point or a set containing a point it was “nothing”?

doronshadmi said:
The set that containing no apples has cardinality 0 if the considered universe is Apples.
Click to expand...

Just as a set containing the ordinate or coordinates of a point “has cardinality 0” when a point is the space being considered as that considered space has no dimensions. Again that is why it is 0 dimensional.

doronshadmi said:
In other words, “0 apples” is equivalent to “0 points”, but “0 points” is not equivalent to “0 dimension”, so your “0 apples” argument does not hold water.
Click to expand...

So now you have shifted your ‘universe based on dimension’ by your “other words” to a universe (or more precisely a space) based on points? In spite of yourself, Doron, you may actually be learning some geometry.

Well if you’re going to equate “0 apples” with “0 points” that’s a different analogy than the “0 apples” to “0 dimensions” I had been specifically making. Hey, no problem, I’m flexible. So please tell us how many dimensions you have when your have “0 points”? That a point is 0 dimensional certainly does not mean you have “0 points”. As that would simply be self-contradictory. Though having a point AND having “0 points” would be consistent (if the word consistent could even be used with regard to your OM notions) with the self-contradictory nature of your OM. Where as zero dimensions does not exclude a point (again as a point is specify 0 dimensional) “0 points” actually does exclude any dimensions (as the definition of dimension in this consideration is based on the ordinate or co-ordinates needed to specify some unique point ). So if you are going to equate "0 apples” with “0 points” then “0 dimensions” equates to '0 apple pies' in that analogy. An apple has 0 apple pies, though apples are a defining aspect of an apple pie. Similarly a point has 0 dimensions though points are a defining aspect of a dimension. Having 0 apple pies does not exclude having an apple just as having 0 dimensions does not exclude having a point. However having 0 apples excludes having any apple pies just as having 0 points excludes having any dimensions.

doronshadmi said:
Sine 0 dimensional element and 1 dimensional element are both existing things under the universe of Dimensions, then 1 dimensional element is included NXOR excluded w.r.t 0 dimensional element under that universe, and 0 dimensional element is included XOR excluded w.r.t 1 dimensional element under that universe.
Click to expand...

So you’re still simply going to ignore the issue of your ‘universe based on apples’ having a set of 0 apples that you assert has a cardinality of 0 and your “universe of Dimensions” not having the empty set for 0 dimensions?


doronshadmi said:
Furthermore, there is a difference between “element”, which is a non-composed thing, and “object” that can be a composed thing (in both cases we are talking about existing things, where contained existing things of some set is resulted by cardinality > 0 of the considered set).
Click to expand...

So now you gone from “atom” to “element” “which is a non-composed thing”. Would these “non-composed” ‘elements’ of yours be similar to your “non-composed” and “indivisible” “atoms” that you occasional, well, composed specifically as divisions?

doronshadmi said:
A line segment is a composed result of 0 and 1 non-composed dimensional spaces.
Click to expand...

So now your “point” is 0 dimensional? Then it can not include your “line” having dimension. By the way, how does your “line” (without points as you have asserted) have even 1 dimension anyway? You seem to be ignoring the obvious consequence, as pointed (pun intend) out by I think epix, that your “non-composed” line would be 0 dimensional.

doronshadmi said:
You simply can’t grasp the notion of existing and non-composed things, because you do not understand differences that are based on quality.
Click to expand...

You simply can’t grasp the notion of > 0 dimensionality is based on a quantity of points > 1, because of, evidently, a lack of quality in your understanding of that notion.

doronshadmi said:
The one who enables to get differences that are based on quality, immediately grasps the difference of the existing 0 dimensional element and 1 dimensional element w.r.t each other.
Click to expand...

“The one who enables to get differences that are based on” quantity (specifically of dimension in this case) “immediately grasps the difference of the existing 0 dimensional element and 1 dimensional element w.r.t each other”.

Also “The one who enables to get differences that are based on quality, immediately grasps the difference” in the self-consistent quality of existing mathematics and the abysmal lack of any quality (self-consistent or otherwise), in your OM.


doronshadmi said:
Start by fixing your reasoning's abilities.
Click to expand...

Start by gaining some reasoning abilities yourself and stop just fixating on your OM fantasies.
 
Let's do it clearer


The Man said:
A point does not have cardinality, but a set containing a point (as apparently are trying to represent in your “example”) does
Click to expand...
You still miss it.

If a set that containing a point has cardinality 1 it means that the contained is not nothing even if the considered universe is Dimension.

The set that containing no apples has cardinality 0 if the considered universe is Apples.

In other words, “0 apples” is equivalent to “0 points”, but “0 points” is not equivalent to “0 dimension”, so your “0 apples” argument does not hold water.
The Man said:
Who ever said a point or a set containing a point it was “nothing”?
Click to expand...
That is why a point is an existing thing that has 0 dimension.

Since 0 dimensional element and 1 dimensional element are both existing things under the universe of Dimensions, then 1 dimensional element is included NXOR excluded w.r.t 0 dimensional element under that universe, and 0 dimensional element is included XOR excluded w.r.t 1 dimensional element under that universe.

Furthermore, there is a difference between “element”, which is a non-composed thing, and “object” that can be a composed thing (in both cases we are talking about existing things, where contained existing things of some set is resulted by cardinality > 0 of the considered set).

The Man said:
Subtracting some one dimensional object (like a line segment) from a one dimensional space (like a line or a line segment) can still leave you with a one dimensional object or multiple one dimensional objects.
Click to expand...
A line segment is a composed result of 0 and 1 non-composed dimensional spaces.

You simply can’t grasp the notion of existing and non-composed things, because you do not understand differences that are based on magnitudes.

The one who enables to get differences that are based on magnitudes (where Magnitude is defined according to “How much?” question, which is essentially different than “How many?” question) , immediately grasps the difference of the existing 0 dimensional element and 1 dimensional element w.r.t each other.
The Man said:
Are you claiming you “point” to be one dimensional by your “|{.}| = 1” “example”?
Click to expand...
No, I am claiming that a point is an existing element and the cardinality of a set that includes it as a member, clearly demonstrates it.

The Man said:
Actually I’m currently in the business of fixing things.
Click to expand...
Start by fixing your reasoning's abilities (for example: the difference between “How much?” and “How many?” questions).

Some exercises:

How much size a point has?

Does an element that has 0 size exists?

What is the cardinality of a set that have at least a point as its member?
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
doronshadmi said:
The set that containing no apples has cardinality 0 if the considered universe is Apples.
Click to expand...
Just as a set containing the ordinate or coordinates of a point “has cardinality 0” when a point is the space being considered as that considered space has no dimensions. Again that is why it is 0 dimensional.
Click to expand...
Nope.

There is a difference between “How many?” (apples) and “How much?” (size).

A point is an existing element with 0 size, and if it is the only thing that included in some set, then the cardinality of that set is at least 1.

This is not the case with no apples because no apples is not an existing thing, so if no apples are the only thing that is included in a given set, then the cardinality of that set is 0.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
So now your “point” is 0 dimensional? Then it can not include your “line” having dimension. By the way, how does your “line” (without points as you have asserted) have even 1 dimension anyway? You seem to be ignoring the obvious consequence, as pointed (pun intend) out by I think epix, that your “non-composed” line would be 0 dimensional.
Click to expand...
Yes, a point is an existing element exactly a line is an existing element, and both of them are exiting things under the concept of Dimension.

By understanding this fact a point is included XOR excluded w.r.t a line and a line is included NXOR excluded w.r.t a point.

You seem to be ignoring the obvious fact that a point is not the building-block of a line and as a result a point and a line are different and existing magnitudes that have different properties if compared w.r.t each other, and they are comparable under the concept of Dimension.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
So now you have shifted your ‘universe based on dimension’ by your “other words” to a universe (or more precisely a space) based on points?
Click to expand...
Nothing was shifted. A point is an existing element under the concept of Dimension, and if some set includes elements of that concept,
then |{.}| = 1 where cardinality 1 indicates the existence of a point as an element of the concept of Dimension.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
So you’re still simply going to ignore the issue of your ‘universe based on apples’ having a set of 0 apples that you assert has a cardinality of 0 and your “universe of Dimensions” not having the empty set for 0 dimensions?
Click to expand...
A point is an existing element under the universe of Dimensions exactly as some apple is an existing element under the universe of apples.

If the universe of apples has no apples, then we deal with the empty set.

If the universe of dimensions has no elements (where a point is one of the elements of this universe) then we deal with the empty set.

EDIT:

There is no element that lacks the property of apple under the universe of apples.

There is no element that lacks the property of dimension under the universe of dimensions.

Since a point is an element under the universe of dimensions that has exactly "0 dimension", then "0 dimension" is not the same as "no dimension", because an element that has "no dimension" is not under the universe of dimensions.
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
Asking again.
Click to expand...
You need to accept the fact that you are waiting in the line defined by Doron to get answers from him. Since such a line is not composed of points, it cannot be composed of inquisitive folks like you and therefore you are not a part of that line --you are actually not standing in the line to buy some of Doron's definitions, and that accounts for the lack of Doron's responses. He just doesn't see you in that line. You are non-local to the line and need to become local to it in order to get noticed. The prerequisite is to grasp the definition of non-local and local W.R.T. that line. But in order to grasp the meaning of the definition, you need to ask some additional questions. That invokes the image of the witches circle, the 1-dimensional object with a radius line on which you are standing unnoticed. Move to the circumference line and pray that Doron hasn't defined it yet.
 
doronshadmi said:
A realm where the measured and the measurer are interacted.
Click to expand...

So after several times of you having to clarify what your previous answer is, we're at the point where your definition of a domain is "A realm where the measured and the measurer are interacted". Clear as mud.

Define "interacted".

If I use a tool to measure the measured, what/who is the measurer? For example, I have a book with a unknown weight. When I place the book (the measured object) the scale will give me a measurement. Who is the measurer?
 
Last edited:
Your reply does not parse into English. Try again.

Let me duplicate my question with a complete sentence. Bolded words are the added.

If I use a tool to measure the measured, what/who is the measurer? For example, I have a book with a unknown weight. When I place the book (the measured object) on the scale, it will give me a measurement. Who is the measurer?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
A realm where the measured and the measurer are interacted.
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
Who asks the questions?

Who is that whishes to know the "interacted" definition (or any other definition)?
Click to expand...

Very bad netiquette there doronshadmi. Your original post was
How asks the questions?
Click to expand...
EDIT: Now you've changed it a third time.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=11299

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=...b80ac4b30ec5d5
Click to expand...


Edit2: changed it a fourth time
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=...b80ac4b30ec5d5
Click to expand...
Why couldn't you just post another message?

Anyways, I want to know. Paranoid? You keep using unique definitions of words, like domain.
 
Last edited:
Since you want to play little games.

Your mom has an apple. She wants to know the weight of the apple. She places the apple on the scale. When she places the apple (the measured object) on the scale, it will give her a measurement. Who is the measurer?
 
doronshadmi said:
Who is I?
Click to expand...

Really. Are you that dense? Do you speak/type English? It's a pronoun.

From wikipedia I_(pronoun)WP
I (pronounced /aɪ/) is the first-person, singular personal pronoun (subject case) in Modern English. It is used to refer to one's self and is usually capitalized, although other pronouns, like he or she are not capitalized.

Edit: In the statement "I ask", I refers to Little 10 Toes.

Edit2: Google Translate gives me the Hebrew translation of I to be אני and/or אנוכי (Hebrew text shown)
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
Really. Are you that dense? Do you speak/type English? It's a pronoun.

From wikipedia I_(pronoun)WP
I (pronounced /aɪ/) is the first-person, singular personal pronoun (subject case) in Modern English. It is used to refer to one's self and is usually capitalized, although other pronouns, like he or she are not capitalized.

Edit: In the statement "I ask", I refers to Little 10 Toes.

Edit2: Google Translate gives me the Hebrew translation of I to be אני and/or אנוכי (Hebrew text shown)
Click to expand...
I told you, so. Just step into the circumference line that makes up the witches circle and you get answers from Doron that your shopping bag is too small to hold. A couple of scrolls down the thread, and I might learn some new ideas in interior decorating.

The hand that rocks the cradle.
Who is the cradler?

You must persevere . . .
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by doronshadmi
Who is I?

Little 10 Toes said:
Really. Are you that dense? Do you speak/type English? It's a pronoun.
Click to expand...

Doron asked "Who is I?" not "What is I?"

Edit2: Google Translate gives me the Hebrew translation of I to be אני and/or אנוכי (Hebrew text shown)
Click to expand...

God kicked himself in His Divine Butt by doing the Tower of Babel tongue discombobulation. As a consequence, the Bible had to be translated from one language to another and again and again to the effect of God not getting any of His Divine Ideas across -- lost in translation.
 
Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes
Your reply does not parse into English.
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
Worng:
Click to expand...

LOL. The influence of mischievous demon Ekklund felt right there. Came into existence in the early Bronze Age period, but it's not that difficult to get rid of. Just eat 6 oz of cherry yogurt right before sunrise. Then throw the spoon on the floor while repeating three times "depart!" But you have to say it in Ogam, not in English.
 
epix said:
LOL. The influence of mischievous demon Ekklund felt right there. Came into existence in the early Bronze Age period, but it's not that difficult to get rid of. Just eat 6 oz of cherry yogurt right before sunrise. Then throw the spoon on the floor while repeating three times "depart!" But you have to say it in Ogam, not in English.
Click to expand...

:D

Demonic influences would be one explanation why Doron's foot seems to be almost permanently wedged metaphorically in his mouth. He does seem to have a propensity for introducing more errors when trying to make a correction.

(Not sure how you can say something in OghamWP, though, as it's an alphabet, not a language.)
 
zooterkin said:
(Not sure how you can say something in OghamWP, though, as it's an alphabet, not a language.)
Click to expand...

That's the way mischievous demon Ekklund protect its presence: you've finally found the ancient text that instructs you how to get rid of Ekklund, but you can't read it aloud, coz Ogam is not a language, just an alphabet. But...

The etymology of the word ogam or ogham remains unclear. One possible origin is from the Irish og-úaim — 'point-seam', referring to the seam made by the point of a sharp weapon.
Click to expand...

Doron can simply start explaining to Ekklund the concept of zero-dimensional point w.r.t. seam and then localize the disoriented Ekklund into the realm of unmanifested by poking the demon with the framework of OM:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6251481#post6251481
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
He does seem to have a propensity for introducing more errors when trying to make a correction.
Click to expand...
zooterkin said:
Nonsense. You don't use the point as a co-ordinate, the co-ordinates tell you where the point is.
Click to expand...
zooterkin said:
By dragging the point, you are defining, for example, a line, which is 1-dimensional.
Click to expand...
This reasoning has infinitely many errors.

The right reasoning is this:

A point is an existing dimensional space that has 0 degrees of freedom (no coordinates are related to points).

A line is an existing dimensional space that has 1 degrees of freedom (singletons of ordinates are related to points).

A plan is an existing dimensional space that has 2 degrees of freedom (pairs of coordinates are related to points).

A sphere is an existing dimensional space that has 3 degrees of freedom (triples of coordinates are related to points).

Etc... ad infinituum.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom