Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
A better version of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6386427&postcount=11794 :

Magnitude of existence means:

"The measurement value that is related to the ability of totally be, totally not be, or to any level between totally be or totally not be."

In terms of dimensional spaces:

{

{} is 0 dimensional space

{{}} is 1 dimensional space

{{{}}} is 2 dimensional space

...

...{...}... is ∞ dimensional space


}
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Magnitude of existence means: "The measurement value that is related to the ability to be, not to be, or any level between to be or not to be."
Click to expand...


Shakespeare said it much better in Hamlet. Moreover, what he wrote wasn't gibberish.

If you want to make any sense at all out of your pseudo-definition, you will need to tell us what you mean by measurement value and how it is determined, what is it's relationship to the ability to be, not to be, or any level in between, and what it means to be, not to be, or any level in between.

Otherwise, you are again just connecting together words in ways that don't mean anything, and your attempt to define "magnitude of existence" remains a solid fail.
 
doronshadmi said:
A better version of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6386427&postcount=11794 :

Magnitude of existence means:

"The measurement value that is related to the ability of totally be, totally not be, or to any level between totally be or totally not be."
Click to expand...
That could, like, totally replace Rudolf Carnap on my sig line
In terms of dimensional spaces:

{

{} is 0 dimensional space

{{}} is 1 dimensional space

{{{}}} is 2 dimensional space

...

...{...}... is ∞ dimensional space


}
Click to expand...

There is a perfectly good way of representing n dimensional space in maths already.
 
doronshadmi said:
Not at all, this old Sigma function simply demonstrates a partial but consistent case of recursion over the partition function p(n).

The important notion here is the recursion, whether it is demonstrated partially or not.
Click to expand...
It's not the Sigma function where some recursion is claimed to take place, but the product function. Read again what you wrote in your seminal work: "Every Partitionα defines different Organic Numbers D(alpha) that are calculated by the recursion."
Right bellow is the product function that generates Organic Numbers, but not their value. That comes next . . .

You did a "great job" by choosing the variants and the font: letter 'a' is very hard to distinguish from lower-case Greek Alpha.

I know that you won't be able to list the values of the first 20 Organic Numbers, coz you don't know how. The only way to prove me wrong is to list them. But if you do it, then I show you how important the Organic Numbers are.

I forgot to ask you about this. It's fairly important: Does the year of 1981 hold any importance to you?
 
Last edited:
epix said:
I did. But no matter what, I always find your opening salvo contradictory:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT

n
∑ i‧ai = n
i=1

Can you expand the summands for at least n=5? Maybe you interpret the Sigma function differently and have failed to inform about it beforehand.
Click to expand...

The problem is that since Doron has trouble expressing complete thoughts, it is easy to miss that Doron is using a non-obvious encoding for a partition. For example, here are the partitions for 5, and there encoding in Doronese.

1+1+1+1+1 ==> (5,0,0,0,0)
2+1+1+1 ==> (3,1,0,0,0)
2+2+1 ==> (1,2,0,0,0)
3+1+1 ==> (2,0,1,0,0)
3+2 ==> (0,1,1,0,0)
4+1 ==> (1,0,0,1,0)
5 ==>(0,0,0,0,1)

I may have left out one or two partitions.
 
jsfisher said:
The problem is that since Doron has trouble expressing complete thoughts, it is easy to miss that Doron is using a non-obvious encoding for a partition. For example, here are the partitions for 5, and there encoding in Doronese.

1+1+1+1+1 ==> (5,0,0,0,0)
2+1+1+1 ==> (3,1,0,0,0)
2+2+1 ==> (1,2,0,0,0)
3+1+1 ==> (2,0,1,0,0)
3+2 ==> (0,1,1,0,0)
4+1 ==> (1,0,0,1,0)
5 ==>(0,0,0,0,1)

I may have left out one or two partitions.
Click to expand...
Doron got very defensive upon reading that his Sigma function suffered from a contradiction and said that the function was not that important. He never asked about the nature of the contradiction and never made the attempt to expand the summands. He didn't fight well enough. :confused:

Just for the heck of it:

31 = (7 + 6 + 6 + 4 + 3 + 3 + 2) = (a1 + 2a2 + 3a3 + 4a4 + ... + 30a30 + 31a31)

I tried and tried but to no avail -- the solution eluded me. Maybe it would remain hidden to you as well, but that doesn't matter, coz we can always ask Doron who is the formula inventor, and he kindly shows us the solution.
 
jsfisher said:
Shakespeare said it much better in Hamlet. Moreover, what he wrote wasn't gibberish.

If you want to make any sense at all out of your pseudo-definition, you will need to tell us what you mean by measurement value and how it is determined, what is it's relationship to the ability to be, not to be, or any level in between, and what it means to be, not to be, or any level in between.

Otherwise, you are again just connecting together words in ways that don't mean anything, and your attempt to define "magnitude of existence" remains a solid fail.
Click to expand...
In other words, you have missed http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6387661&postcount=11801 .
 
Robin said:
There is a perfectly good way of representing n dimensional space in maths already.
Click to expand...

Not exactly.

You have missed the outer "{" "}" for Fullness (that has no successor)

{

}

,which its magnitude of existence is ∞

and you also have missed Emptiness (that has no predecessor)
,which its magnitude of existence is 0.


{

{} is the weakest thing that has predecessor AND successor, which is known as Point.

{{}} is a things that has predecessor AND successor, which is known as Line.

{{{}}} is a things that has predecessor AND successor, which is known as Plane.

...

...{...}... is a things that has predecessor AND successor, which is known as non-strict demensional space.

}
 
Last edited:
epix said:
It's not the Sigma function where some recursion is claimed to take place, but the product function. Read again what you wrote in your seminal work: "Every Partitionα defines different Organic Numbers D(alpha) that are calculated by the recursion."
Right bellow is the product function that generates Organic Numbers, but not their value. That comes next . . .

You did a "great job" by choosing the variants and the font: letter 'a' is very hard to distinguish from lower-case Greek Alpha.

I know that you won't be able to list the values of the first 20 Organic Numbers, coz you don't know how. The only way to prove me wrong is to list them. But if you do it, then I show you how important the Organic Numbers are.

I forgot to ask you about this. It's fairly important: Does the year of 1981 hold any importance to you?
Click to expand...
Epix, you take a dead end street, but then I am not with you in this voyage.

Again, the important notion here is the extension of p(n) by recursion, where Distinction is essential property of that extension.

This notion does not stand or falls by any calculation of the number of distinct-only forms, and you still miss the extension of p(n) by recursion, where Distinction is essential property of that extension.

You are still missing http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6176489&postcount=10850.

Why you ignored http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6199545&postcount=10963 ?

Do you get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5569905&postcount=8290 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5660394&postcount=8824 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5685853&postcount=8905 ?
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
What? That “(1/2+1/4+1/8+…) - (1/2+1/4+1/8+…) = 0” is a key element of the proof that such a convergent series has a sum.
Click to expand...
( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5693834&postcount=8930 )

The Man, your naïve approach of infinite collections does not let you to understand that (1/2+1/4+1/8+…) - (1/2+1/4+1/8+…) = Θ , where Θ is an equilibrium between values, whether they are strict (sums) of non-strict (fogs).

Also your naïve approach of infinite collections can't grasp http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5749148&postcount=9183 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5735873&postcount=9169 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5723113&postcount=9127.

Also your your naïve approach of Distinction can't grasp http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5961667&postcount=9954.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
There is no difference under you limited reasoning, your limitation, your problem.
Click to expand...

No Doron it’s your "magnitude of existence" so it is still just your problem. You want to define it differently than cardinality, fine do so and stop trying to use cardinality as your "magnitude of existence".

doronshadmi said:
“Emptiness” is totality exactly as "Fullness" is totality.
Click to expand...

And both are totally limiting.

doronshadmi said:
If linked they are able the existence of that has predecessor AND successor.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

doronshadmi said:
I was too generous to your reasoning's abilities by say that your reasoning gets "0 < x" expression.
Click to expand...

Doron I’m sure everyone here gets the expression, it is just that you’re the only one claiming it as a “framework” and then trying to pawn it off onto others as their “framework”.

doronshadmi said:
Actually your reasoning is x-only (relative-only), such that there is no awareness to the total building-blocs that actually enable that has cardinality x.

Your relative-only reasoning is indeed total loss (a loss of totality).
Click to expand...

Again stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.
 
doronshadmi said:
Epix, you take a dead end street, but then I am not with you in this voyage.

Again, the important notion here is the extension of p(n) by recursion, where Distinction is essential property of that extension.

This notion does not stand or falls by any calculation of the number of distinct-only forms, and you still miss the extension of p(n) by recursion, where Distinction is essential property of that extension.
Click to expand...

The bottom line is that you can't list the first 20 Organic Numbers, as I suspected, coz you don't have the slightest idea how to do it. You don't understand all the formulas that you think are particular to the creation of the sequence. For example, you listed a combination formula with parameter 'b', but you never defined it.

It's a very interesting case of automatic writing. Some folks have been compelled to write stuff down that they had only a partial understanding of. Some of them got concerned about the sudden compulsion and made an appointment with a psychiatrist. The scribbles were never examined properly, but by some "sheer luck," a method has emerged that can see what is running in the background. I don't think it's all done yet, but I know that specific formula examples is a big no-no in your case: that is the proof of you not being able to follow stuff that you claim is yours -- a proof that you might be able to understand. That might stop you dead in putting out additional info.
 
doronshadmi said:
( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5693834&postcount=8930 )

The Man, your naïve approach of infinite collections does not let you to understand that (1/2+1/4+1/8+…) - (1/2+1/4+1/8+…) = Θ , where Θ is an equilibrium between values, whether they are strict (sums) of non-strict (fogs).

Also your naïve approach of infinite collections can't grasp http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5749148&postcount=9183 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5735873&postcount=9169 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5723113&postcount=9127.

Also your your naïve approach of Distinction can't grasp http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5961667&postcount=9954.
Click to expand...

Doron, adding a new symbol “Θ” for zero to your nonsense does not make you any less wrong then you were before.
 
doronshadmi said:
( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5693834&postcount=8930 )

The Man, your naïve approach of infinite collections does not let you to understand that (1/2+1/4+1/8+…) - (1/2+1/4+1/8+…) = Θ , where Θ is an equilibrium between values, whether they are strict (sums) of non-strict (fogs).
Click to expand...
If Θ is a symbol for equilibrium between values, aren't you compelled to adjust the look of '=' as well? It makes the 'DΘRΘN = s' equation too unsophisticated a case.

'Θ', formerly '='.

Aha.
 
Last edited:
epix said:
The bottom line is that you can't list the first 20 Organic Numbers, .
Click to expand...

The bottom line is that in this informal version of OM http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT it does not matter how many distinct forms a given Organic Number has.

Since you are trapped by Moshe's formula , I have changed this informal version of OM, and now there is no formula or anything that is related to it, in this informal version of OM.

Now if you wish, then please read http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
epix said:
If Θ is a symbol for equilibrium between values, aren't you compelled to adjust the look of '=' as well? It makes the 'DΘRΘN = s' equation too unsophisticated a case.

'Θ', formerly '='.

Aha.
Click to expand...

You don't like "equilibrium" (which is different than "equality"), then use "balance" instead.
 
Last edited:
epix said:
Doron got very defensive upon reading that his Sigma function suffered from a contradiction and said that the function was not that important. He never asked about the nature of the contradiction and never made the attempt to expand the summands. He didn't fight well enough. :confused:
Click to expand...

Doron has hauled out the same nonsense before. It is riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies, but he persists. For the most part, he dismisses the objections as unimportant. When pressed, it becomes obvious he doesn't understand any of the functions, so he cannot possibly appreciate the objections let alone mastermind any corrections.

In summary, the entire document is a major fail.
 
doronshadmi said:
Since you are trapped by Moshe's formula , I have changed this informal version of OM, and now there is no formula or anything that is related to it, in this informal version of OM.
Click to expand...
The bridging plays a big part in this remarkable communication.
There is no need to bridge OM, coz M is the successor of O, which is the predecessor of M. But when the magnitude of existence is '-n+', then both objects can't see each other, coz O exists in a different plane of existence then M. It's like when your upper torso is in 3D physical and your lower torso is in 4D physical. In that case you miss the toilet, which is in 3D physical. The symbolic rendition of OM being in two different states of existence is rendered this way:

O__________M


You need to bridge the gap to bring O and M to a full awareness of unity. In this particular case, the bridging problem can be solved. There is a place in Poland that has name that starts with O and ends with M. Just think about what you did to Moshe's formulas when they became undesirable, and you get that bridging done in a sec.

In this particular case of inter-dimensional separation due to a strong gravitational imbalance, 'M' remained fixed and 'O' "travelled" changing its magnitude of existence '-n' due to the materialization of attractant 'ehs':

OM

? <--------- O___M

ehs <---O_______M

That means the value of the first 20 Organic Numbers can be recovered, but the proof of it arrives only when they are really recovered. It's like the mysteries of the universe and its mind-boggling physical transformations that makes some think in terms of determinism being a fantasy.
 
Ho, and jsfisher,

After you demonstrate that Emptiness flaws, you are invited to prove that S = X.

The form below is a proof without words ( http://books.google.com/books?id=cy...m=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false ) that the bended forms of constant X>0 (which stand at the basis of the projected S = (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) upon the non-bended constant X>0) are irreducible to 0 size, and as a result there is an invariant unclosed gap between S and constant X>0, which its value is 0.000…3/4 > 0, where 3/4 is the invariance among infinitely many bended forms of constant X>0 that are projected upon the non-bended form of constant X>0 (Infinite interpolation is True).

Analytical thinking, which is based on non-visual thinking, can't deal with the anomaly that is exposed by
4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg


This part was taken from the back cover of http://books.google.com/books?id=cy...m=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Just what are "proofs without words?" First of all, most mathematicians would agree that they are not "proofs" in the formal sense. Indeed, the question does not have a simple answer. But, as you will see in this book, proofs without words are pictures or diagrams that help the reader see why a particular mathematical statement is true, and also to see how one could begin to go about proving it true. While in some proofs without words an equation or two mat appear to help guide that process, the emphasis is clearly on providing visual clues to stimulate mathematical thought. Proofs without words bear witness to the observation that often in English language to see means understood, as in "to see the point of an argument."
Click to expand...
,which demostrates that most mathematicians are unable to grasp visual thinking.

As a result the mathematical science of the past 3000 years is considered as non-visual science, just because is was developed during the years by people that are skillful by analytical thinking, which is non-visual by nature.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Since when totalities are flaw?

Got one?

Let us start by Emptiness.

Please demonstrate its flaw.
Click to expand...

Your reading comprehension hasn't improved.

The flaw is now and continues to be that you haven't yet presented a definition for magnitude of existence. Instead you have thrown around other terms in meaningless ways.

You did at one point start with "Magnitude of existence means...". That was good, but you didn't follow it with something intelligent and constructive.
 
doronshadmi said:
Ho, and jsfisher,

After you demonstrate that Emptiness flaws, you are invited to prove that S = X.
Click to expand...

Doron, are you really so vacant and vacuous that the best you can do is recycle old crap that has already been discussed and dismissed?

Please, just focus on that task at hand: Define "magnitude of existence". Stop flittering from topic to topic without addressing any of them. Let's stay on just this one. Can you constrain your attention long enough for that?
 
jsfisher said:
Your reading comprehension hasn't improved.
Click to expand...

Your reasoning comprehension hasn't improved.

Let us do it in baby steps.

Magnitude of existence means:

"The measurement unit of totally be, totally not be, or to any level between totally be and totally not be."

"Totally not be" means: Emptiness.

"Totally be" means: Fullness.

The measurement unit of Emptiness is 0 , it has no predecessor and no notation.

The measurement unit of Fullness is ∞ , it has no successor and its notation is the outer "{" "}" .

If only Emptiness and Fullness are considered, then the notation is:

{

}

Any thing that has predecessor AND successor, its measurement unit > 0 and < ∞.

Some examples of things that have predecessor AND successor:

{

0 dimensional space, known as point and notated as {}, has measurement unit 1.

1 dimensional space, known as line and notated as {{}}, has measurement unit 2.

2 dimensional space, known as plane and notated as {{{}}}, has measurement unit 3.

...

In general, any n dimensional space, notated as {...{}...}, has measurement unit n+1.

...

∞ dimensional space, notated as ...{...}... , has non-strict measurement unit.

}
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Doron, are you really so vacant and vacuous that the best you can do is recycle old crap
Click to expand...

This "old crap" is another evidence of the weakness of your reasoning abilities, and since in both cases your reasoning fails, then both subjects are relevant.

So after you read http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6394776&postcount=11828, then demonstrate how totality like Emptiness flaws.

After this demonstration please prove that S=X ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6393884&postcount=11825 ).
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Then why did you say it was?



So which is the lie Doron, your former assertion or your latter?
Click to expand...


Well, you can always surprise me, unless there are no surprises in a Black\White reasoning, where anything is T or F and your best is F.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Your reasoning comprehension hasn't improved.

Let us do it in baby steps.

Magnitude of existence means:

"The measurement unit of totally be, totally not be, or to any level between totally be and totally not be."
Click to expand...

It is a measurement unit. Really? You haven't used it as such. Did you really mean unit, like ohm are kilometer are units?

And apparently it is a unit of being, ranging from "totally be [sic]" to "totally not be [sic]".

This, of course, raises the questions of (1) what does it mean to be or not be (totally) or fall somewhere in between and (2) how does one measure "being", total or otherwise?

"Totally not be" means: Emptiness.
Click to expand...

Great! Now, what does emptiness mean?

"Totally be" means: Fullness.
Click to expand...

Ditto, fullness.

The measurement unit of Emptiness is 0
Click to expand...

The number 0 is not a unit of anything; it is, well, a number.

it has no predecessor and no notation.
Click to expand...

You contradict yourself. Thanks to the arabs of long ago, we have a very convenient notation for zero. As for predecessor, well, that would depend on the meaning of the term, and since you, Doron, seldom use accepted terminology, the question would be, "What do you mean by predecessor?"

The measurement unit of Fullness is ∞ , it has no successor and its notation is the outer "{" "}" .
Click to expand...

Again, not a unit.

If only Emptiness and Fullness are considered, then the notation is...
Click to expand...

Notation has never been a substitute for definition. Define first; you can notate later.

So, let's summarize:

Given the simple task of defining what you mean by "magnitude of existence" you have failed, yet again, to do that, but instead have falsely claimed it to be a unit of measure instead of a measure, you have made ignorant statements about zero and absolute infinity being units, and you have thrown in a few additional undefined terms just for distraction.

Would an example help? Here's an informal definition for cardinality of a set.

Cardinality of a set a measure of set "size" based on the number of members the set has.​

It is not a mathematically precise definition, but it is a good basis for understanding the term and for further discussion. Why can't you do the same for magnitude of existence?
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
It is a measurement unit. Really? You haven't used it as such. Did you really mean unit, like ohm are kilometer are units?
Click to expand...
Exactly Cardinality, which is the measurement unit of the size (or magnitude) of existence.


jsfisher said:
You contradict yourself.
Click to expand...
Nope.

Cardinality 0 is the measurement unit of Emptiness, where Emptiness has no notation.

I believe that you have no problems to get the notion of the existing thing, called The empty set, where one of its notations is: {}.

By looking at {} you see that there is no notation to Emptiness (that is between "{" "}" ), nevertheless the measurement unit of Emptiness is Cardinality 0.

jsfisher said:
The number 0 is not a unit of anything; it is, well, a number.
Click to expand...
Well, in this case, this number is the measurement unit of the existence (the cardinality) of Emptiness, where Emptiness has no notation (as shown above).

jsfisher said:
what does emptiness mean?
Click to expand...

That has no predecessor, and Fullness is that has no successor, which its cardinality is ∞, and its notation is the outer "{" "}".

If only Emptiness and Fullness are considered, then the notation is:

{

}

jsfisher said:
Notation has never been a substitute for definition. Define first; you can notate later.
Click to expand...
All done, the definition, the notation (or no notation), and the measurement unit (Cardinality) of the defined.

So, let's summarize:

You have failed to understand the definition of Emptiness and Fullness, and the measurement unit (Cardinality) of the defined.

Would an example help?

Cardinality is the measurement unit of Emptiness (that has no predecessor), Fullness (that has no successor) or that has predecessor AND successor.

Any thing that has predecessor AND successor, its cardinality > 0 and < ∞.

Some examples of things that have predecessor AND successor:

{


0 dimensional space, known as point and notated as {}, has measurement unit (cardinality) 1.

1 dimensional space, known as line and notated as {{}}, has measurement unit (cardinality) 2.

2 dimensional space, known as plane and notated as {{{}}}, has measurement unit (cardinality) 3.

...

In general, any n dimensional space, notated as {...{}...}, has measurement unit (cardinality) n+1.

...

∞ dimensional space, notated as ...{...}... , has non-strict measurement unit (cardinality).

}
 
Last edited:
Doron, I said that there is a place in Poland that starts with O and ends with M, (O_______M), where you sent Moshe Klein's formulas, coz you found them no good for your own purpose. Did I ask to solve S_____I?
doronshadmi said:
Analytical thinking, which is based on non-visual thinking, can't deal with the anomaly that is exposed by [qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Yes, Sierpinski was a Polish mathematician but his name doesn't start and end with O and M (formerly "Organic Mathematics").

Your phantasmagoria excursion doesn't have a problem to solve -- it doesn't follow the natural development of mathematics, which is a particular problem-solving method. But in the background, it does: it's the Organic Number sequence. You listed the beginning of the sequence -- the first seven numbers that no longer exist, coz you deleted the text with all Moshe Klein's formulas. That's too late, coz the problem has been identified. As a matter of fact, it's the Organic Number #18 that matters. The sequence follows a pretty tight exponential development, as I found out by doing a regression analysis on the first seven terms.

Now there are only the first 7 numbers, and the task is to derive the rest with no Moshe Klein's generating formula. Do you think that your "Total Fulness, Emptiness be-or-not-to-be-that's-the-question" could contribute to the Final Solution of the Mystery of Organic Number #18?

I give you a little clue why that number matters, coz Father Totti broke through:

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
Revelation 22:13

The first is A and the last is Z. And so

(O_____M) = (A_____Z)

Aren't you curious how many and why, Doron?
 
doronshadmi said:
Ho, and jsfisher,

After you demonstrate that Emptiness flaws, you are invited to prove that S = X.

The form below is a proof without words ( http://books.google.com/books?id=cy...m=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false ) that the bended forms of constant X>0 (which stand at the basis of the projected S = (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) upon the non-bended constant X>0) are irreducible to 0 size, and as a result there is an invariant unclosed gap between S and constant X>0, which its value is 0.000…3/4 > 0, where 3/4 is the invariance among infinitely many bended forms of constant X>0 that are projected upon the non-bended form of constant X>0 (Infinite interpolation is True).

Analytical thinking, which is based on non-visual thinking, can't deal with the anomaly that is exposed by [qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg[/qimg]


This part was taken from the back cover of http://books.google.com/books?id=cy...m=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

,which demostrates that most mathematicians are unable to grasp visual thinking.

As a result the mathematical science of the past 3000 years is considered as non-visual science, just because is was developed during the years by people that are skillful by analytical thinking, which is non-visual by nature.
Click to expand...
Suppose that the side of the equilateral triangle is 1. Based on the drawing, you presented the sum S = 2(a + b + c + d + ...). And I say that under no circumstances you'll be able to substitute a, b, c, and d with numeric values based on the given condition. Not because they don't exist (duh), but because you can't figure them out.

There is a prerequisite for the substitution to be correct: practice by substituting "non-bended constant" with a form that includes the word "inflection." Such an inclusion will lesser the chances nailed to the impression that you are just joking by mentioning an "invariant unclosed gap" frivolously roaming the eq. triangle.
 
epix said:
Suppose that the side of the equilateral triangle is 1. Based on the drawing, you presented the sum S = 2(a + b + c + d + ...). And I say that under no circumstances you'll be able to substitute a, b, c, and d with numeric values based on the given condition. Not because they don't exist (duh), but because you can't figure them out.

There is a prerequisite for the substitution to be correct: practice by substituting "non-bended constant" with a form that includes the word "inflection." Such an inclusion will lesser the chances nailed to the impression that you are just joking by mentioning an "invariant unclosed gap" frivolously roaming the eq. triangle.
Click to expand...

If S = contant X>0, then contant X > AND = 0.

Since "contant X > AND = 0" is always false, then S must be ≠ contant X>0.

Indeed S is a non-local number < contant X>0, which its complement to constant X>0 is the non-local number 0.000...3/4 > 0.

Q.E.D
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
If S = contant X>0, then contant X > AND = 0.

Since "contant X > AND = 0" is always false, then S must be ≠ contant X>0.

Indeed S is a non-local number < contant X>0, which its complement to constant X>0 is the non-local number 0.000...3/4 > 0.

Q.E.D
Click to expand...
'S' is the length of the side of the triangle minus 'z' where lim. z --> 0. There is no need for "constant X."

In case S = 1, the length of a particular line segment is |ai - ai+1| = t minus z where lim. z --> 0.

What is AND? The drawing doesn't include any AND.

Mathematicians have only problem visualizing thing that you have drawn, coz a half of the terms that you come up with later are not included in your drawings.
 
doronshadmi said:
Exactly Cardinality, which is the measurement unit of the size (or magnitude) of existence.
Click to expand...

Ok, add unit to the list of words and concepts Doron doesn't understand.

No, Doron. Cardinality is not a unit just like length is not a unit. Length is a measure; meter is a unit of length (as are Angstrom, furlong, and parsec).

For once, Doron, please learn from your mistake and not simply repeat your blunder again and again after you think people have forgotten.
 
jsfisher said:
Ok, add unit to the list of words and concepts Doron doesn't understand.

No, Doron. Cardinality is not a unit just like length is not a unit. Length is a measure; meter is a unit of length (as are Angstrom, furlong, and parsec).

For once, Doron, please learn from your mistake and not simply repeat your blunder again and again after you think people have forgotten.
Click to expand...

1 doron = 6.6 absurds (Both units are proposed to measure the magnitude of futility.)

Since "contant X > AND = 0" is always false, then S must be ≠ contant X>0.
Click to expand...
 
jsfisher said:
No, Doron. Cardinality is not a unit just like length is not a unit. Length is a measure; meter is a unit of length (as are Angstrom, furlong, and parsec).
Click to expand...

"Length" is not a unit exactly as "Size (or magnitude) of existence" is not a unit.

Cardinality is a measurement unit of the "size (or magnitude) of existence", exactly as Meter is a measurement unit of "Length".

jsfisher, you still miss http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6397061&postcount=11833.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom