Deeper than primes

epix · Oct 21, 2010

readme.txt said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...#Skepticism_in_education

Just sayin'

What are you saying? If you're saying that the kids got confused by idiotic symbolism that is strongly counterintuitive, then you are right.

readme.txt · Oct 21, 2010

epix said:
What are you saying? If you're saying that the kids got confused by idiotic symbolism that is strongly counterintuitive, then you are right.

Not only the kids, I'd say. Pseudomathematicians too.

epix · Oct 21, 2010

readme.txt said:
Not only the kids, I'd say. Pseudomathematicians too.

Pseudomathematicians invented the symbolism out of their laziness. 0.999... simply implies a number whose fractional part comprise 9's the number of which approaches infinity. When 1, 2, 3, 4, ... shows up, no one talks any limits, so why should things be different with 0.999...?

epix · Oct 21, 2010

Here is an example of the fact that we may not see every arrangement there is, coz we can't be "omnifocused."

Doron, [text]

So you began to write a short letter/post to Doron. The nature of the text depends on what you want to say and the name that you've already written doesn't affect the composition of the text. But it can. Doron makes often ascriptions that are not immediately clear and here is a model of such.

Doron, 14_5

Assuming that the numerical assignment isn't random, the possible logical explanation to the choice of the numbers is that it applies to the last letter in the name: N is the 14th letter in the alphabet and the 5th one in the name. So substitute "text" in the brackets with both numbers:

Doron, [14_5]

Now you respond in kind. Would Doron be able to decode the symbolism, which says to look for a sentence that is made of 14 words where 5 of them include letter N? If he does, would you be able to compose such a sentence given the numerical restriction?

The Man said:
Again, stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.

Wow! That was fast.

doronshadmi · Oct 22, 2010

epix said:
Here is an example of the fact that we may not see every arrangement there is, coz we can't be "omnifocused."

Doron, [text]

So you began to write a short letter/post to Doron. The nature of the text depends on what you want to say and the name that you've already written doesn't affect the composition of the text. But it can. Doron makes often ascriptions that are not immediately clear and here is a model of such.

Doron, 14_5

Assuming that the numerical assignment isn't random, the possible logical explanation to the choice of the numbers is that it applies to the last letter in the name: N is the 14th letter in the alphabet and the 5th one in the name. So substitute "text" in the brackets with both numbers:

Doron, [14_5]

Now you respond in kind. Would Doron be able to decode the symbolism, which says to look for a sentence that is made of 14 words where 5 of them include letter N? If he does, would you be able to compose such a sentence given the numerical restriction?

Wow! That was fast.

Epix, Traditional Math takes the palace value system as one of many methods of numerals' representation.

By following this notion, a numeral is not the number itself, so according this notion anyone who claims that, for example, the numeral 0.999…[base 10] is smaller than the number 1, simply shows (according Traditional Math) that he\she can't distinguish between the representation (place value method, in this case) and the represented (the number itself).

By following Traditional Math 1 = 0.999…[base 10] = …= 0.111…[base 2] , where in this case "=" simply says that number 1 has many representations that are numerals, where no numeral is actually the number 1 itself.

As long as Traditional Math understands the place value system as a representation method out of many other representations' methods, there can't be any dialog between OM (which claims that the place value is a system of numbers) and Traditional Math.

doronshadmi · Oct 22, 2010

Take for example this part, taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number :

When a real number represents a measurement, there is always a margin of error. This is often indicated by rounding or truncating a decimal, so that digits that suggest a greater accuracy than the measurement itself are removed. The remaining digits are called significant digits. For example, measurements with a ruler can seldom be made without a margin of error of at least 0.01 meters. If the sides of a rectangle are measured as 1.23 meters and 4.56 meters, then multiplication gives an area for the rectangle of 5.6088 square meters. Since only the first two digits after the decimal place are significant, this is usually rounded to 5.61

For example, number PI itself (which is not a Q member) can't be accuratly defined by place value mathod, which is alwasy based of collections of equale sizes upon infinitely many given scale levels (which is a property of Q members).

Such fractals simply can't define the accurate value of PI, as clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6465716&postcount=12075 example.

But since Traditional Math understands the place value method as a system of numerals, it does not have any problem to use an expression like number "PI = numral 3.14...[base 10]", where "=" in this case means: "represented by ...".

------------------------------

OM is developed beyond the notions of Traditional Math about the concept of Number, and shows that the concept of Number of Traditional Math is the particular case of a collection of distinct 0() spaces on 1() space, where any given distinct 0() space is local w.r.t 1() space, and 1() space is non-local w.r.t any given distinct 0() space.

This novel notion is expressed by 1(0()), which is based on the novel notion of different levels of existence between fullness (that has no successor) and emptiness (that has no predecessor), so 1(0()) is actually under the following framework:

∞(
1(0())
)

readme.txt · Oct 22, 2010

epix said:
Pseudomathematicians invented the symbolism out of their laziness. 0.999... simply implies a number whose fractional part comprise 9's the number of which approaches infinity. When 1, 2, 3, 4, ... shows up, no one talks any limits, so why should things be different with 0.999...?

I don't get why it is "laziness", but well, that's not really important. And I know 0.9(bar) = 0.999... = 1. That's for sure. I'm just saying only pseudomathematicians or kids/students say it's not.

I'm not here for the whole "Deeper than primes" debate (because I didn't read it and I'm still wondering what this is all about), I'm here for the 0.9(bar) = 1 debate.

P.S. Why is this thread in the "Religion" subforum?

zooterkin · Oct 22, 2010

readme.txt said:
P.S. Why is this thread in the "Religion" subforum?

It's "Philosophy"; well, it certainly isn't mathematics.

readme.txt · Oct 22, 2010

zooterkin said:
It's "Philosophy"; well, it certainly isn't mathematics.

Really? But I read some maths here and there. How is it philosophy?

doronshadmi · Oct 22, 2010

readme.txt said:
Really? But I read some maths here and there. How is it philosophy?

Hi readme.txt,

This thread is here exactly because of what you say:

readme.txt said:
And I know 0.9(bar) = 0.999... = 1. That's for sure. I'm just saying only pseudomathematicians or kids/students say it's not.

For better understanding, please look at:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6468807&postcount=12085

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6469003&postcount=12086

doronshadmi · Oct 22, 2010

Let's show the first 7 levels of the non-strict number 3.141592 …[base 10] < PI.

PI is shown by the green vertical line, and it is clear that 3.14…[base 10] < PI even if there are infinitely many places after the redix point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix_point).

The reason is very simple:

The place value system is based on equal sizes that exist upon infinitely many scale levels, and such a system simply can't be an accurate measurement tool of any irrational number.

But Traditional Mathematics does not care about this fact, because according to its notion, the place value method is no more than a numeration (some representation technique, out of many other representations) and not the number itself.

------------------------------

Again,

OM is developed beyond the notions of Traditional Math about the concept of Number, and shows that the concept of Number of Traditional Math is the particular case of a collection of distinct 0() spaces on 1() space, where any given distinct 0() space is local w.r.t 1() space, and 1() space is non-local w.r.t any given distinct 0() space.

This novel notion is expressed by 1(0()), which is based on the novel notion of different levels of existence between fullness (that has no successor) and emptiness (that has no predecessor), so 1(0()) is actually under the following framework:

∞(
1(0())
)

epix · Oct 22, 2010

readme.txt said:
I don't get why it is "laziness", but well, that's not really important. And I know 0.9(bar) = 0.999... = 1.

The reason why you "know" that 0.999... = 1 is simple:

Many are persuaded by an appeal to authority from textbooks and teachers...

The symbolic rendition 0.999... = 1 is a short of the full representation that starts bellow:

0.999... = (10ⁿ - 1)/10ⁿ where n → ∞.

When you substitute n in the formula with 1, 2, 3, 4, the result is 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999 respectively. Obviously, substituting n with positive integer that approaches infinity results in a number that can be rendered as 0.999.... The ellipses indicate that the 9's will repeat ad infinitum. This number is always smaller than 1, but . . .

lim[n → ∞] (10ⁿ - 1)/10ⁿ = 1

The above identity says that the limit of the expression equals 1; it doesn't say that in some moment, as n approaches infinity, 0.999... suddenly becomes identical to integer 1. But in practical applications, such as in calculus, various limits are treated as an exact representation of the results that involve numbers that are approaching certain values through a convergence, but never reach them. The margin of error is simply "infinitely small", and can be safely neglected. No one ever went wrong by doing so.

There are surely kids out there who now believe that 0.999... as a number where the 9s repeat infinitely doesn't simply exist and that Doron has been right after all saying that a straight line has "blind spots" -- that there are segments on that line that cannot be covered by points.

doronshadmi · Oct 22, 2010

epix said:
The reason why you "know" that 0.999... = 1 is simple:

The symbolic rendition 0.999... = 1 is a short of the full representation that starts bellow:

0.999... = (10ⁿ - 1)/10ⁿ where n → ∞.

When you substitute n in the formula with 1, 2, 3, 4, the result is 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999 respectively. Obviously, substituting n with positive integer that approaches infinity results in a number that can be rendered as 0.999.... The ellipses indicate that the 9's will repeat ad infinitum. This number is always smaller than 1, but . . .

lim[n → ∞] (10ⁿ - 1)/10ⁿ = 1

The above identity says that the limit of the expression equals 1; it doesn't say that in some moment, as n approaches infinity, 0.999... suddenly becomes identical to integer 1. But in practical applications, such as in calculus, various limits are treated as an exact representation of the results that involve numbers that are approaching certain values through a convergence, but never reach them. The margin of error is simply "infinitely small", and can be safely neglected. No one ever went wrong by doing so.

There are surely kids out there who now believe that 0.999... as a number where the 9s repeat infinitely doesn't simply exist and that Doron has been right after all saying that a straight line has "blind spots" -- that there are segments on that line that cannot be covered by points.

OM does not agree with the notion that a given existing space is completely covered by any given previous existing space, and it does not matter if the considered spaces are strict or non-strict.

Such a notion is strictly developed beyond the notion of Limit, and it is based on the difference between Locality and Non-locality, which can't be comprehended by the reasoning that defines Limits.

The reasoning of Limits can't comprehend the place value system as numbers, because it has no understanding of different levels of existence between Emptiness (that has no predecessor) and Fullness (that has no successor).

Even if we ignore the place value system, the notion of distinct 0() spaces along 1() unconditionally leads to the conclusion that there are distinct 0() spaces along 1() only if there is ≠ between them, and ≠ is clearly free of any 0() space, otherwise no two arbitrary distinct 0() spaces along 1() can be defined.

jsfisher · Oct 23, 2010

readme.txt said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...#Skepticism_in_education

Just sayin'

You, sir or madam, are trivializing Doron's breath and depth of cognitive limitations.

epix · Oct 23, 2010

doronshadmi said:
The reasoning of Limits can't comprehend the place value system as numbers, because it has no understanding of different levels of existence between Emptiness (that has no predecessor) and Fullness (that has no successor).

Doron, it's "limits" not "Limits," therefore a limit cannot join the OM gods that you named Fullness and Emptiness and engage in some lewd act of reasoning. Change the letter case and you find out that limits don't have a mind to comprehend anything -- the folks who use them do.

The limits are essential in calculus. Without them, there would be no calculus and without calculus we would be on the same scientific level when there was no calculus.

You used inequality 3.1415... < Pi. How do you know what the decimal digits of Pi look like? Did you go through the result of the "traditional math" and simply copied them? Why don't you let Fulness and Emptiness get closer to the exact value of Pi, which will always remain unknown?

You think that there is no difference between rational and irrational numbers as far as the approximate value is concerned, and that the approximate value of Pi is getting more precise through 3, 3.1, 3.14, 3.141 and so on, but it doesn't go like that. The ever-more precise approximate form is a result of various summation formulas, and Pi is the limit when the number of summands is approaching infinity. One of the summation formula is the simple looking one that Euler came up with, and it goes like this:

pi = √[6*(1/1² + 1/2² + 1/3² + 1/4² + ...)]

It is said to approach Pi very slow, so I became curious how slow and found out that a dead snail is faster. It takes about ten million additions to get the first seven digits right!

The very first value is √6, which is 2.449....

So I wonder if Fullness and Emptiness can churn out a formula that outruns the one Euler came up with. Organic Mathematics shouldn't rely on the obsolete traditional approach; it should come up with its own version to account for the approximate rendition of number Pi, right?

doronshadmi · Oct 23, 2010

epix said:
Organic Mathematics shouldn't rely on the obsolete traditional approach; it should come up with its own version to account for the approximate rendition of number Pi, right?

You are still missing the fact that according OM, 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(), PI()…
)

and complex results like:

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

Traditional Math can't comprehend that "≠" is the non-local property of 1() w.r.t 0().

Furthermore, Traditional Math actually claims that 1() is completely covered by 0() , which is equivalent to the claim that (for example) variable x ( where x is any arbitrary distinct 0() of [0,1] ) is both ≤ 1 OR both ≥ 0.

--------------

Again,

OM does not agree with the notion that a given existing space is completely covered by any given previous existing space, and it does not matter if the considered spaces are strict ( for example: PI() ) or non-strict ( for example: 3.14...[base 10]() ).

Such a notion is strictly developed beyond the notion of Limit, and it is based on the difference between Locality and Non-locality, which can't be comprehended by the reasoning that defines Limits.

The reasoning of limits can't comprehend the place value system as numbers, because it has no understanding of different levels of existence between Emptiness (that has no predecessor) and Fullness (that has no successor).

Even if we ignore the place value system, the notion of distinct 0() spaces along 1() unconditionally leads to the conclusion that there are distinct 0() spaces along 1() only if there is ≠ between them, and ≠ is clearly free of any 0() space, otherwise no two arbitrary distinct 0() spaces along 1() can be defined.

epix said:
The limits are essential in calculus. Without them, there would be no calculus and without calculus we would be on the same scientific level when there was no calculus.

What is called traditional calculus, is simply a system that uses techniques which avoid non-strict results.

It does not mean that there can't be an extension of that system, which also deals with non-strict results, such that (for example)
1 - 0.999…[base 10] = 0.000…1[base 10]

doronshadmi · Oct 23, 2010

By the way, OM is different than the notion of Infinitesimals ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal ) or the notion of Non-standard analysis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_analysis ) which uses Infinitesimals, because the Infinitesimals are still taken as strict numbers , such that there is a strict number h that is smaller than all positive 1/n, and 1/h > any positive R member.

The Man · Oct 23, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Some reading problems?

Just yours, as usual.

doronshadmi said:
The considered number is smaller than any arbitrary number of (0,1] AND it is also > 0.

In other words, this considered number is not 1 AND it is not 0.

Again the interval (0,1] doesn’t restrict a member of the resulting set from being 1 while the interval (0,1) does.

doronshadmi · Oct 23, 2010

The Man said:
Again the interval (0,1] doesn’t restrict a member of the resulting set from being 1 while the interval (0,1) does.

Unless it is clearly written that the considered member is smaller than any arbitrary number of (0,1], where 1 is one of these arbitrary numbers, and you simply can't get it.

epix · Oct 23, 2010

doronshadmi said:
By the way, OM is different than the notion of Infinitesimals ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal ) or the notion of Non-standard analysis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_analysis ) which uses Infinitesimals, because the Infinitesimals are still taken as strict numbers , such that there is a strict number h that is smaller than all positive 1/n, and 1/h > any positive R member.

The greatest and defining difference between Organic Mathematics and contemporary mathematics is that the former is purely intuitive and the latter is purely analytic.

doronshadmi · Oct 24, 2010

epix said:
The greatest and defining difference between Organic Mathematics and contemporary mathematics is that the former is purely intuitive and the latter is purely analytic.

Look, for example, at Relative Set Theory http://maths.york.ac.uk/www/sites/default/files/Hrbacek-slides.pdf .

This approach uses also different levels of existence, but it still misses the fact that a given level can't completely be defined by some previous level, because it does not understand Emptiness (that has no predecessor) and Fullness (that has no successor).

Any given existing thing between these totalities has predecessor AND successor, such that there are strict ( for example: PI() ) or non-strict ( for example: 3.14…[base 10]() ) things that appear as non-complex ( for example: ∞( PI() , 3.14…[base 10]() ) ) or complex ( for example: ∞( PI(3.14…[base 10]()) ) ) forms.

OM is the linkage between Intuition and Analysis, where Traditional Math is mostly Analysis.

The Man · Oct 24, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Unless it is clearly written that the considered member is smaller than any arbitrary number of (0,1], where 1 is one of these arbitrary numbers, and you simply can't get it.

Doron, your nonsense assertions don’t help you, Please let us know when you actually find your “considered member” that is “smaller than any arbitrary number” of the interval. Much like your location on a line that can not be covered by points once you identify a location you show that it is and can be covered by a point. In fact your own assertions indicate that a location must be a point. Once you indentify your “considered member” you’ll also indentify an infinite number of members of that interval that it is larger than.

epix · Oct 24, 2010

doronshadmi said:
What is called traditional calculus, is simply a system that uses techniques which avoid non-strict results.

Calculus doesn't avoid handling values that approach zero -- it just handles them properly. You are under a wrong impression that in

a = [lim n → ∞] (1 + 1/n)ⁿ
the term 1/n gets simply canceled, coz it's "infinitely small" with the result being

a = [lim n → ∞] (1 + 1/n)ⁿ = (1 + ~~1/n~~)ⁿ = 1ⁿ = 1

Such "avoidance" is not possible, coz you have a number that approaches infinity in the exponent and that means the infinitely small value added to 1 creates a sum that will infinitely multiply itself. That's why you just can't cancel anything that appears to be "too small," and therefore your are heading in this particular case for a solution of

a = (1 + 1/n) ∙ (1 + 1/n) ∙ (1 + 1/n) ∙ (1 + 1/n) ∙ ...

You just jump into any conclusion, for you know that Fullness and Emptiness shall lift you up in their hands, so that you shall not strike your foot against a stone. (It's not just "Philosophy"; its "Religion & Philosophy".)

Feed it to OM and let's see what kind of result that method of yours comes up with. Or is it true that calculus handles problems, which OM doesn't have the slightest idea that they could exist?

epix · Oct 24, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Look, for example, at Relative Set Theory http://maths.york.ac.uk/www/sites/default/files/Hrbacek-slides.pdf .

This approach uses also different levels of existence, but it still misses the fact that a given level can't completely be defined by some previous level, because it does not understand Emptiness (that has no predecessor) and Fullness (that has no successor).

The alleged shortcomings don't seem to have any impact on the ability to find the derivative of a function, for example. Why don't you identify a particular problem that only OM can deal with? "Emptiness" and "Fullness" never appear other than names -- they can't be spotted in the graph, in algebraic terms, equations... They only contribute to the solution of

(O - - M - - -) = (O l y M p u s)

doronshadmi · Oct 24, 2010

The Man said:
In fact your own assertions indicate that a location must be a point.

I see that your 0()-only reasoning prevents from you to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6472238&postcount=12096.

doronshadmi · Oct 24, 2010

epix said:
Why don't you identify a particular problem that only OM can deal with?

I see that your conservative view of "What is the mathematical science?" prevents from you to grasp OM's novel approach about Logic\Ethics linkage, and its connection the Complexity in evolutionary scale, as expressed by:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE

You also ignore OM's novel contribution to Zeno's Achilles\Tortoise Race:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21967511/...considerations-of-Some-Mathematical-Paradigms.

You also ignore OM's Non-locality\Locality novel approach:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18453171/International-Journal-of-Pure-and-Applied-Mathematics-Volume-49

You are aslo ignore OM's novel contribution for the understanding of the common source of both Intuition and Analysis:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17039028/OMDP

You also ignore OM's novel contribution to Hilbert's 6th problem:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT

In other words epix, you simply have no case.

zooterkin · Oct 24, 2010

doronshadmi said:
I see that your 0()-only reasoning prevents from you to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6472238&postcount=12096.

No.

doronshadmi · Oct 24, 2010

zooterkin said:
No.

Yes.

doronshadmi · Oct 24, 2010

epix said:
The alleged shortcomings don't seem to have any impact on the ability to find the derivative of a function, for example. Why don't you identify a particular problem that only OM can deal with? "Emptiness" and "Fullness" never appear other than names -- they can't be spotted in the graph, in algebraic terms, equations... They only contribute to the solution of

(O - - M - - -) = (O l y M p u s)

Why do you ignore the rest of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6474140&postcount=12101 ?

jsfisher · Oct 24, 2010

epix said:
the greatest and defining difference between organic mathematics and contemporary mathematics is that the former is purely counter-intuitive and the latter is purely analytic.

fify.

epix · Oct 24, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Any given existing thing between these totalities has predecessor AND successor, such that there are strict ( for example: PI() ) or non-strict ( for example: 3.14…[base 10]() ) things that appear as non-complex ( for example: ∞( PI() , 3.14…[base 10]() ) ) or complex ( for example: ∞( PI(3.14…[base 10]()) ) ) forms.

You should elaborate further to highlight the difference between the complex and non-complex case.

non-complex: ∞( PI() , 3.14…[base 10]() )

complex: ∞( PI(3.14…[base 10]()) )

The only discernible difference is the placement of the parenthesis and that's not enough to decode the essence between both opposites non-complex and complex besides the non-complex is to together() as complex is to apart( ).

You decided on using the parenthesis as a part of your symbolic syntax, but you use them often as delimiters in the text, and so that makes is it harder to follow. They say that Serpent had no successor, but I strongly disagree . . .

The Man · Oct 24, 2010

doronshadmi said:
I see that your 0()-only reasoning prevents from you to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6472238&postcount=12096.

Again, stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.

I see you still have not answered this question…

The Man said:
doronshadmi said:

Location a long 1() is exactly 0().

Click to expand...

"≠" still isn't a location.

Are you claiming that any location “a long 1() is exactly” a point?

Nor have you identified any location(s) on a line that is not and can not be covered by points.

doronshadmi · Oct 25, 2010

epix said:
The only discernible difference is the placement of the parenthesis

No, it is about (nested AND complex forms) OR (non-nested AND non-complex forms), where the considered things are strict ( for example: PI() ) or non-strict ( for example: 3.14...[base 10]() ).

According OM, 3.14...[base 10](PI()) is false expression, where PI(3.14...[base 10]()) is true expression.

doronshadmi · Oct 25, 2010

The Man said:
Are you claiming that any location “a long 1() is exactly” a point?

Yes, any given exact location along 1() is 0().

The Man said:
Nor have you identified any location(s) on a line that is not and can not be covered by points.

Still your 0()-only reasoning can comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6472238&postcount=12096.

You are a total 0()-loss and there is no use to continue the dialog with you on this interesting subject.

zooterkin · Oct 25, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Yes, any given exact location along 1() is 0().

Right, so there is no location on the line where there is not a point?

doronshadmi · Oct 25, 2010

jsfisher said:
fify.

Traditional Math actually claims that 1-dim space is completely covered by 0-dim elements , which is equivalent to the claim that variable x ( where x is any arbitrary distinct 0-dim element of [0,1] ) is both ≤ 1 OR both ≥ 0.

So sell your counter-intuitive fantasy in never never land.

doronshadmi · Oct 25, 2010

zooterkin said:
Right, so there is no location on the line where there is not a point?

There is no exact location on a line where there is no point, and ≠ is such non-exact location on a line, which exists between any given arbitrary pair of distinct exact locations (arbitrary pair of distinct points).

epix · Oct 25, 2010

doronshadmi said:
No, it is about (nested AND complex forms) OR (non-nested AND non-complex forms), where the considered things are strict ( for example: PI() ) or non-strict ( for example: 3.14...[base 10]() ).

According OM, 3.14...[base 10](PI()) is false expression, where PI(3.14...[base 10]()) is true expression.

So if I'm not sure, I can use the identity 1pi(radian) = 180(degree) to avoid the aproximate form pi = 3.14..., right?

doronshadmi · Oct 25, 2010

epix said:
So if I'm not sure, I can use the identity 1pi(radian) = 180(degree) to avoid the aproximate form pi = 3.14..., right?

If you get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6470162&postcount=12091 you allready know the answer.

epix · Oct 25, 2010

doronshadmi said:
There is no exact location on a line where there is no point, and ≠ is such non-exact location on a line, which exists between any given arbitrary pair of distinct exact locations (arbitrary pair of distinct points).

That's not true. The function f(x) = (x² - 4)/(x - 2) is not defined for x = 2, so you can't see the point drawn at that exact location.

The OM seems to be a very different computational method. Some drawings would be helpful . . .

Deeper than primes

Banned

Critical Thinker

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Critical Thinker

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

Critical Thinker

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Banned

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned