Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
No it is not a process, because time is not considered.
Click to expand...
The process of collecting data for creating the calibration curve is critical to the success of the calibration program.
Click to expand...
http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/mpc/section3/mpc362.htm


Thus, the classical process of collecting data, building a model, and validating relative to the data, seems to be problematic in the social sciences since the range of both the data and the models is so vast.
Click to expand...
http://www.rchoetzlein.com/theory/?p=55

Gee, there are so many professionals who mistakenly believe that collection is actually a process. Email them, correct them, explain yourself politely but be assertive if you meet resistance. Fulfill your destiny and doronize the world to its salvation.
 
epix said:
The irreducibility of 1() to 0() means that there can't be 1/2() or 1/3()... In other words there can't be no values between 1 and 0 that would lead to the reduction of 1 toward 0.
Click to expand...
Not at all.

It means exactly that no amount of 0() is 1().
 
epix said:
Gee, there are so many professionals who mistakenly believe that collection is actually a process. Email them, correct them, explain yourself politely but be assertive if you meet resistance. Fulfill your destiny and doronize the world to its salvation.
Click to expand...
Do you have a problem to distinguish between "collecting" (where time is involved) and "collection" (where time is not involved)?
 
epix said:
If you are in the Euclidean space, then be advised that


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_(geometry)

If your are not in Euclidean space, where are you then?

Once a 1-D object is defined continuous, then its definition assures that there is no point on the object that cannot be located. f(x) = 1/x or g(x) = Log(x) are not defined continuous in the domain -∞ < x < ∞. If this is what you mean by "not all points can cover 1()," then you just made a "far-reaching discovery."
Click to expand...
I re-define spaces, such that no given space ( whether it is strict ( like 0.999[base 10]() or pi() ),
or non-strict ( like 0.999…[base 10]() or 3.14...[base 10]() ) ) is defined by other spaces.

All you have to do is to get the difference between (just for example) non-complex spaces like:

∞(
0(),0.999…[base 10](),1(),2(),3(), …
)

and complex results like:

∞(
... 3(2(1(0.999…[base 10](0())))) ...
)

If you can't grasp http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6425352&postcount=11946, you can't get OM.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No The Man it simply demonstrates that you can't comprehend that "≠" is the non-local property of 1() w.r.t 0().
Click to expand...

You’re "non-local property” nonsense doesn't make "≠" a location on a line either Doron.

doronshadmi said:
By using Traditional Math, please prove that variable x ( where x is any arbitrary distinct 0() of [0,1] ) is both ≤ 1 OR both ≥ 0.
Click to expand...

How about you first learn what the symbols “≤” and “≥” mean?
 
doronshadmi said:
( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_singularities ).
Click to expand...

I’m quite familiar with mathematical singularities, thank you.


doronshadmi said:
(
By understanding 1/0 as 1()/0() we actually discover the irreducibility of 1() to 0(), such that 1(0()) where, 1() is non-local w.r.t 0() and 0() is local w.r.t 1().

In other words, the "explosion" to ±∞ is actually the irreducibility of 1() to 0(), such that no amount of 0() is 1().

n=1 to ∞

k= 0 to n-1
Click to expand...

None of your above nonsense is mentioned in that wiki article or any of those papers you cited.


doronshadmi said:
The irreducibility of n() to k() stands at the basis of gravitational singularity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity ).
Click to expand...

Nope.

Doron the “irreducibility of n() to k() stands” simply as result of you limiting your “k” to, well, “n-1”

Ok so you can’t actually show that you understand those papers you cited or that they have any relevance to your OM, as expected.
 
The Man said:
How about you first learn what the symbols “≤” and “≥” mean?
Click to expand...
I got a whiff of something hard to believe when Doron became unhappy with me limiting the range of x to the open interval a ≤ x ≤ b. Doron indicated that x couldn't equal a and at the same time equal b, or something to that extent.
 
epix said:
I got a whiff of something hard to believe when Doron became unhappy with me limiting the range of x to the open interval a ≤ x ≤ b. Doron indicated that x couldn't equal a and at the same time equal b, or something to that extent.
Click to expand...

Evidently now he is just asking anyone to show 'that x is "both" greater than OR equal to a OR "both" less then OR equal to b' whatever he thinks that means.
 
doronshadmi said:
Do you have a problem to distinguish between "collecting" (where time is involved) and "collection" (where time is not involved)?
Click to expand...
No, I don't, coz the distinction that converts a verb to a noun doesn't exist -- only in your dreams and perhaps in the Torah.

They should collect all the food of these good years that are coming and store up the grain under the authority of Pharaoh, to be kept in the cities for food.
Genesis 41:35

How about hitting this for a change?
 
doronshadmi said:
Not at all.

It means exactly that no amount of 0() is 1().
Click to expand...

You can locate any point on a defined continuous line when the line is defined by a function that involves coordinates where 'x' and 'y' actually live.

If 'x' belongs to a set of integers, then you won't find a point 'y' on the y-axis for x=1.5, for example, and the line is not continuous. If 'x' belongs to a set of real numbers, the situation is quite different. Your 0() and 1() musing doesn't have proper correspondence to see what is really being meant. You just repeat that same thing all over again that this and that can't be reduced, covered, and so on, and when things get tight, you hide behind some "non-locality."
 
I don't like them mathematicians that much. I respect them, though, coz they seem to be smart guys, but they argue. That's okay -- wheat needs to be separated from chaff -- but the way they do it with all that name calling if they disagree is not nice.

A degenerate interval is any set consisting of a single real number. Some authors include the empty set in this definitions. An interval that is neither empty nor degenerate is said to be proper, and has infinitely many elements.
Click to expand...

The primitive recursive functions are defined using primitive recursion and composition as central operations and are a strict subset of the total µ-recursive functions (µ-recursive functions are also called partial recursive). The term was coined by Rózsa Péter.
Click to expand...
 
The Man said:
You’re "non-local property” nonsense doesn't make "≠" a location on a line either Doron.
Click to expand...
"≠" is exactly the non-local property of 1() w.r.t any 0(x),0(y), such that 1(0(x)≠0(y)).


The Man said:
How about you first learn what the symbols “≤” and “≥” mean?
Click to expand...
How about you first learn things beyond your 0() only reasoning?
 
Last edited:
epix said:
Doron indicated that x couldn't equal a and at the same time equal b, or something to that extent.
Click to expand...

I indicated that x is equal a and at the same time equal b, only if x is non-local w.r.t a or b, for example:

1(0(a)≠0(b)), where x = ≠, and ≠ is the irreducibility of 1() to any amount of 0().
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I indicated that x is equal a and at the same time equal b, only if x is non-local w.r.t a or b...
Click to expand...
When a stands for Aberdeen, x for a train, and b for Birmingham, for example, you don't have to indicate anything like that to anyone including the railroad station pigeon. Trains move and the reason why is that they can't be in two places at once. Of course, some trains never reach their destination due to the derailment, coz some lines/railroad tracks cannot be fully covered by points and are therefore not continuous. In the time-line arena, the year 2012 seems to be such a "blind point."

Have you ever noticed that some folks die sooner than the others?
If life is a timeline that cannot be fully covered by points called "days" for example, then the distribution of these non-covered points in the life timeline is the reason why.
Well, the development of the theory of immortality isn't easy, right?
 
Originally Posted by epix
Trains move and the reason why is that they can't be in two places at once.
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
But the railroad can, without moving.
Click to expand...
A train can be actually in two different places at once without moving as well. The engine is in Grand Central in New York and the caboose in Santa Fe Depot, New Mexico. The longer train, the more passengers aboard; the more passengers aboard; the bigger profit for the company that operates the train. Since the train is not moving, there are no expenditures for the fuel. See? And someone says that the Set theory is more or less useless to apply in practical life. Wrong, right?
 
zooterkin said:
I agree completely. In fact, the whole "expression" is pointless.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

1() is pointless.

In 1(0(x)≠0(y)) only ≠ is pointless.

You can't get it because by your limited reasoning ( which is based only on 0() ) "pointless" means: "Meaningless".
 
ddt said:
What has knowledge about a certain old-fashioned operating system to do with this discussion? :)
Click to expand...

By correcting the typo mistake (and the obsolete local-only reasoning), we get a novel operating system.
 
doronshadmi said:
Wrong.

1() is pointless.

In 1(0(x)≠0(y)) only ≠ is pointless.
Click to expand...
If 1() is pointless, then there are no points in () and therefore 1(0(x)≠0(y)) contradicts your statement, coz '≠' relates '0(x)' and '0(y)' which are zero-dimensional points. 1() stands for a one-dimensional object and 0() for a zero-dimensional object -- remember?

That kind of reminds me God walking past Adam and Eve wondering what that nature can come up with and why is Adam deficient in the ribcage area.
 
epix said:
If 1() is pointless, then there are no points in () and therefore 1(0(x)≠0(y)) contradicts your statement, coz '≠' relates '0(x)' and '0(y)' which are zero-dimensional points. 1() stands for a one-dimensional object and 0() for a zero-dimensional object -- remember?

That kind of reminds me God walking past Adam and Eve wondering what that nature can come up with and why is Adam deficient in the ribcage area.
Click to expand...

Wrong epix.

1() has no 0(), where 1(0(x)≠0(y)) is a complex such that no amount of 0() is 1() exactly becaue 0(x)≠0(y) is an invariant fact upon infinitely many scales.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Wrong epix.

1() has no 0(), where 1(0(x)≠0(y)) is a complex such that no amount of 0() is 1() exactly becaue 0(x)≠0(y) is an invariant fact upon infinitely many scales.
Click to expand...
The degree of your verbal and symbolic incoherency is approaching infinity . . .

Go and read up on the Hausedorff dimension scale, if you decided to use it.

You failed to notice that 1() is nothing but the set of real numbers. There is also a set of positive integers. If you prove that there is a gap between 5 and 7 for example, then you may stand a chance with the set of real numbers. Do you know about a number that is an element of the set of real numbers that doesn't exist?
 
doronshadmi said:
Wrong epix.

1() has no 0(), where 1(0(x)≠0(y)) is a complex such that no amount of 0() is 1()exactly becaue 0(x)≠0(y) is an invariant fact upon infinitely many scales.
Click to expand...

Are you under the impression that the number of points 0() has something to do with the length of a line segment 1()? "No amount of 0() is 1()" brings this question to the spotlight.
 
epix said:
Are you under the impression that the number of points 0() has something to do with the length of a line segment 1()? "No amount of 0() is 1()" brings this question to the spotlight.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think it's one of Doron's failings. He seems to think that to construct a line, you must enumerate every point on it. Since that's not possible, he sees that as proof that you can't define a line in terms of points. Similarly, when we have spoken of intervals before (e.g. (4,5]), he can't get his head around the idea that you don't need to be able to specify the point which immediately precedes '5' for it to be a workable definition.
 
epix said:
Are you under the impression that the number of points 0() has something to do with the length of a line segment 1()? "No amount of 0() is 1()" brings this question to the spotlight.
Click to expand...
Are you under the impression that some amount of 0() completely covers 1() (in that case 1() is a collection of 0(), which does not exist if 0() does not exist)?
 
zooterkin said:
Similarly, when we have spoken of intervals before (e.g. (4,5]), he can't get his head around the idea that you don't need to be able to specify the point which immediately precedes '5' for it to be a workable definition.
Click to expand...
zooterkin can't get his head around the idea that we don't need to be able to specify the point which immediately precedes '5' for it to be a workable definition, exactly because given any pair of distinct 0(), there is always 1() beyond the location of each one of them (notated by ≠), such that 1(0(x)≠0(y)).
 
doronshadmi said:
zooterkin can't get his head around the idea that we don't need to be able to specify the point which immediately precedes '5' for it to be a workable definition, exactly because given any pair of distinct 0(), there is always 1() beyond the location of each one of them (notated by ≠), such that 1(0(x)≠0(y)).
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
zooterkin can't get his head around the idea that we don't need to be able to specify the point which immediately precedes '5' for it to be a workable definition, exactly because given any pair of distinct 0(), there is always 1() beyond the location of each one of them (notated by ≠), such that 1(0(x)≠0(y)).
Click to expand...
So you decided to sodomize the "not equal to" symbol to symbolize the existence of things "beyond" certain location. It can work with "beyond comprehension" when tugged into your ideas, but otherwise the idea of using well-defined symbolism for other purposes completely unrelated to the function that ≠ has clearly signals sheer, unbounded ignorance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom