Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Talk all you want but what you have continually failed to do is to show any location(s) on a line that can’t be covered by (a) point(s).
The Man you are failing all along this thread to answer to the following question:

How the set of all points along an arbitrary line segment are different from each other?


Another subject about points that you do not get:

Please show me a point (at any dimensional space), which is located in more than one location.
 
Last edited:
Nothing useful comes out of his fantasies.
Real complexity "spreading its wings" and flying beyond the limitations of jesfisher's serial-only reasoning, which has no choice but to get the simultaneity of present continuous of ever smaller and ever closer states only in terms of process.

Parallel reasoning is not at the scope of jsfisher's serial-only step-by-step reasoning.
 
Last edited:
Real complexity "spreading it wings" and flying beyond the limitations of jesfisher's serial-only reasoning, which has no choice but to get the simultaneity of present continuous of ever smaller and ever closer states only in terms of process.

Parallel reasoning is not at the scope of jsfisher's serial-only step-by-step reasoning.

So, you rebut criticism of only being able to claim others are wrong while you have no result is to claim others are wrong while producing no result.

Well done.
 
So, the difference between 1.0 and 0.999... is the paradoxical 0.000...1.

0.000...1 is exactly the ever smaller element, which is irreducible into a point.

Without such ever smaller elements, no point is different from the rest of the points of a given set of points.

In other words, the existence of the collection of all different points is possible only if there are ever smaller elements between them, which are irreducible into points.

Without the elementary principle of the co-existence of points AND ever smaller elements, the existence of sets with more than one object, is impossible.
 
Last edited:
So, you rebut criticism of only being able to claim others are wrong while you have no result is to claim others are wrong while producing no result.

Well done.

Understanding Real Complexity is OM's fundamental result.

Your points-only reasoning can't comprehend it, because it is too weak in order to deal with the parallel reasoning of the ever smaller, which is irreducible into points.

For example, you can't comprehend 0.000...1 expression and its usefulness by the framework of Real Complexity.
 
Last edited:
0.000...1 is exactly the ever smaller element, which is irreducible into a point.

Without such ever smaller elements, no point is different from the rest of the points of a given set of points.

In other words, the existence of the collection of all different points is possible only if there are ever smaller elements between them, which are irreducible into points.

Without the elementary principle of the co-existence of points AND ever smaller elements, the existence of sets with more than one object, is impossible.
I wouldn't say it that way, but I agree with the contours of the idea, as far as certain math methods are concerned. The life of the derivative of a function, for example, depends on the existence of two points who approach one another but cannot ever meet and assume identical location.

I don't agree with the idea being applied to sets in a broad sense, coz it seems to dissolve with cases such as Fruit={apple,orange,banana}.
 
So identify a point on a line that can’t be coved by a point, otherwise geometry’s still got you and your line covered with, well, points.
That's a hard request to comply with, coz Doron lacks the computational skills to support his case; he has very likely never looked for a point and couldn't find it in terms of defining the point in a given space. Here is an example: There are two points [a,y1] and [b,y2] in the Euclidean space -- points that cannot be defined and therefore can be suspected not to exist at all.

ab = sin(x)/log(x) dx

In order to find the y-axis coordinates of both points [a,y1] and [b,y2], you need to solve the integral, which creates a problem, coz the solution doesn't exist. Since the y-axis is the set of x in R, both y-axis points in question cannot be "shown" to exist in there and the absence may create the Doronian space "0.000...z" between points on the line.
 
Sorry I’ve just noticed I missed out a “t” in my message to Zooterkin about the paradox.

Rather than stating that you can show that the points can cover the line, I meant to say that you can’t show it.

This has a similarity with Zeno’s arrow, in theory non (0) dimensional points cannot cover any dimensional space atall, they would always occupy an infinitely small portion of that space, even if in infinite quantity.

However if they had any size (dimension) such as the line segment, this “infinitely small portion of that space” would only ever be an infinitely small portion of it even if the line segment were infinitely short.

We have an infinite regress here, the points can neither cover or not cover a line segment, if the line segment is defined as being between two of the points.

Is this a paradox like Zeno’s arrow?

This reminds me of my question about energy in another thread, energy in itself does not have any dimensional presence, it acts between particles through space.
However on closer inspection it appears that those particles are also energy.

So we have an energy with no dimensional presence, no actual presence in space, acting across space between two points constituted from energies occupying no dimensional space. All happening some how in 3 dimensions, through the agency of time.

No.
 
The Man you are failing all along this thread to answer to the following question:

How the set of all points along an arbitrary line segment are different from each other?

Really? How many times have you asked me that “question”?

To repeat a geometric adaptation of an old storefront joke (that I’ve done before on this thread)

What are the three most important things about points?

Location, location and location!!!

And to repeat a question you still fail to answer…

So by all means please explain to us the difference between changing and unchanging with “no past (before) and no future (after)”?


Another subject about points that you do not get:

Please show me a point (at any dimensional space), which is located in more than one location.

Your apparent attempt to deliberately confuse a singular tense with what is explicitly multiple, not with standing (another subject about language that you don’t get). A point has one location while points are, well, “located in more than one location”.
 
That's a hard request to comply with, coz Doron lacks the computational skills to support his case; he has very likely never looked for a point and couldn't find it in terms of defining the point in a given space. Here is an example: There are two points [a,y1] and [b,y2] in the Euclidean space -- points that cannot be defined and therefore can be suspected not to exist at all.

ab = sin(x)/log(x) dx

In order to find the y-axis coordinates of both points [a,y1] and [b,y2], you need to solve the integral, which creates a problem, coz the solution doesn't exist. Since the y-axis is the set of x in R, both y-axis points in question cannot be "shown" to exist in there and the absence may create the Doronian space "0.000...z" between points on the line.

Well it would seem that his thinking is predominantly singular, and not just in that it is his thinking. He considers his “point” to be his ultimate “finite” interpretation and his “line” to be his ultimate “infinite” interpretation. By his own assertions they derive from what he calls “singularity”, attesting only to his own singular predilection. By combining them into what he refers to as a “complex” he comes to his ‘multiple’ (more than his point but less than his line). So yes he has looked for a point and a line and has found only one of each, but then just stopped looking. Which has restricted him to that rather bizarre “singularity” of his own thinking.
 
Well it would seem that his thinking is predominantly singular, and not just in that it is his thinking. He considers his “point” to be his ultimate “finite” interpretation and his “line” to be his ultimate “infinite” interpretation. By his own assertions they derive from what he calls “singularity”, attesting only to his own singular predilection. By combining them into what he refers to as a “complex” he comes to his ‘multiple’ (more than his point but less than his line). So yes he has looked for a point and a line and has found only one of each, but then just stopped looking. Which has restricted him to that rather bizarre “singularity” of his own thinking.
It's hard to clue Doron to spark up his vision generator funny, coz he is not fond of math of the college kind. That's why he misinterprets some descriptions, which may not be the best, but are used informally anyway, coz the listeners are familiar with the real deal. Take this "point coverage," for example. I'm positive that Doron never came across the concept of limits. Suppose that you have a line segment 6 units long and you divided the length by 3. The result is a line with 3 "sub-segments" each of them 2 units long. That's neat, but hardly enough to accommodate the needs of calculus, for example, where the x-axis is in R and needs to be divided into the smallest possible segments. To accomplish that, the domain line a is divided by n, such as n → ∞. The result is identical wherever limits are mentioned:

[lim n→ ∞] a/n = 0

Without knowing what is really going in there, a person suffering from math phobia may come to the conclusion that the domain line a has been divided into infinitely many line segments each of them having its length equal to zero and therefore a is "entirely covered by points." This is not so, otherwise it would be impossible to compute the area under any curve. But the term is used with no problems, coz the real meaning is pretty much understood by everyone hanging around math except by Doron. Even though he may accept the presence of "all points in the line," he insists on some space between them, as if his discovery was hotly contested by the views of the traditional math.

There is no way to learn to swim without getting into water, and that's exactly what Doron think is possible. He never poked the concept of infinity with his pencil, so he is not aware of certain realities that govern over the x-axis populated by points whose job is nothing else but to feed a function, and so fancy points need not apply there. Of course, there is only one set R, but Doron thinks that the angels will carry him to that set, so his fine Nike shoes wouldn't get dirty by stepping into the limits and other assorted tools of "mental exercise" used in Torture Chamber High.

Maybe he is not that good in the perpendicular reasoning, as opposed to his often-mentioned parallel reasoning. That's why he stays away from the Cartesian coordinates and all that high school math for commoners. Or maybe he doesn't want to get bothered by anything like that in his serene ascend to the Doronian metric space (formerly the ionosphere) of mathematical knowledge. :D
 
Last edited:
Really? How many times have you asked me that “question”?
You are the one that do not bother to ask yourself this important question.

Since you do not ask this question your mind did not deal with it.

Instead of your twisted maneuvers please simply try to answer to the following important question:

"How the set of all points along an arbitrary line segment are different from each other?"

A point has one location while points are, well, “located in more than one location”.
Yet, each point has its own exact location, because a point is the smallest possible existing element.

This is not the case about a line, which is an ever smaller element exactly because it can't be both a line AND the smallest existing element.

Your weak reasoning still do not get the must have co-existence of the ever smaller elements AND the smallest elements as the minimal building-blocks of any set of more than one distinct point.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't say it that way, but I agree with the contours of the idea, as far as certain math methods are concerned. The life of the derivative of a function, for example, depends on the existence of two points who approach one another but cannot ever meet and assume identical location.

I don't agree with the idea being applied to sets in a broad sense, coz it seems to dissolve with cases such as Fruit={apple,orange,banana}.
By using your example, "fruit" is equivalent to "line", where "apple" or "orange" or "banana" is equivalent to "distinct point".
 
Last edited:
coz Doron lacks the computational skills to support his case
On the contrary. Traditional Math lacks the computational skills to comprehend the following equation: 0.999...[base 10]+ 0.000...1[base 10]=1
 
So yes he has looked for a point and a line and has found only one of each, but then just stopped looking.

1) From a qualitative point of view all is needed is one line (an ever smaller element) and one point (the smallest element).

2) A set of more than one distinct point (which is a quantitative existence) exists as a result of the co-existence of the qualitative aspects.

3) The co-existence is possible because both qualities have a one source, known as Singularity, which is the absence of any difference, whether it is qualitative or quantitative.

The Man's reasoning gets only the quantitative aspect of collections of distinct locations, without any understanding of their qualitative foundations, and Singularity, which is the absence of any difference.
 
Last edited:
On the contrary. Traditional Math lacks the computational skills to comprehend the following equation: 0.999...[base 10]+ 0.000...1[base 10]=1

What's to understand? It's nonsense, or, to take a more charitable view, meaningless.

Since:
0.999...[base 10]=1
then
0.000...1[base 10]=0
 
There is no way to learn to swim without getting into water, and that's exactly what Doron think is possible.
Wrong epix. This is exactly what Traditional Math does. Its current used agreed reasoning gets only the quantitative aspect of collections of distinct locations, without any understanding of their qualitative foundations, and Singularity, which is the absence of any difference.
 
What's to understand? It's nonsense, or, to take a more charitable view, meaningless.

Since:
0.999...[base 10]=1
then
0.000...1[base 10]=0

Your reasoning is nonsense because 0.999...[base 10] < 1 by 0.000...1[base 10]
 
What's to understand? It's nonsense, or, to take a more charitable view, meaningless.

Since:
0.999...[base 10]=1
then
0.000...1[base 10]=0

I'm not a mathematician, but even I can see that this is wrong. Have you not heard of infinite regress?

Doron is simply pointing out how something finite can arise from a singularity.

A point in a singularity is infinitely small and infinitely numerous. In order to pull the points apart to form 3 dimensional space a gap or line must be placed between the point/s. This line has and consists of relative quality.
By quality I mean an attribute or quality which is different from singularity.
 
On the contrary. Traditional Math lacks the computational skills to comprehend the following equation: 0.999...[base 10]+ 0.000...1[base 10]=1
That idea have been handled so it would accommodate cases other than the one you used explicitly. Just check out an example.

limit_division_tan_and_x.gif


The symbol x → 0 replaces your 0.000...1.

Now solve (0.999...)/(0.000...1) = x.
 
I'm not a mathematician, but even I can see that this is wrong.

Really?

So, what do you get if you divide 1 by 3, then multiply by 3?

What do you get if you subtract .99999... from 1?

Doron is simply pointing out how something finite can arise from a singularity.
No, Doron simply points out his own lack of understanding.

A point in a singularity is infinitely small and infinitely numerous. In order to pull the points apart to form 3 dimensional space a gap or line must be placed between the point/s. This line has and consists of relative quality.
By quality I mean an attribute or quality which is different from singularity.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.
 
I'm not a mathematician, but even I can see that this is wrong. Have you not heard of infinite regress?

Yes, most of us have. It's you who has absolutely no idea what it is and how it proves the very point you are arguing against.

Doron is simply pointing out how something finite can arise from a singularity.

A point in a singularity is infinitely small and infinitely numerous. In order to pull the points apart to form 3 dimensional space a gap or line must be placed between the point/s. This line has and consists of relative quality.
By quality I mean an attribute or quality which is different from singularity.

Inane drivel.
 
Really?

So, what do you get if you divide 1 by 3, then multiply by 3?

What do you get if you subtract .99999... from 1?

The source of confusion is the mixing of exact and approximate numerical formats and insufficient definition of the terms in question. Dividing integers such as 1 and 3 can take on various forms. The result can appear as an irreducible fraction 1/3 (exact format) or you can use an algorithm called "the long division," stick it into an infinite loop and watch a never-ending array of threes:

1 LD 3 => .333333333333333333333333333333333333333... (approximate format)

The idea that 1/3 = 0.333... is wrong as much as EXACT=APPOXIMATE is wrong, but it is harmless in practical computations. The fraction 1/3 is basically the limit of 1 LD 3; it is a hypothetical value that 1 LD 3 = 0.333... never reaches, but comes "infinitely close to." Since most of the numerical and symbolic operations require the usage of the exact format, limits are used and so 1/3 * 3 = 1. But 1 LD 3 * 3 = 0.999... The practical difference between 1 and 0.999... is something only Doron is capable of worrying about.
 
Please explain how this is the case.

Explain? To you? Do you think I'm some kind of masochist? I assure you, I'm not. I have no illusions anymore about you being able or not to learn.

Ask someone who is not yet fed up with your nonsense. Read zooterkin's post. Or epix's post. It's in there.

ETA: Oh, and to top it off, you're dishonest too, as the arguments against materialism thread showed.
 
Last edited:
A point in a singularity is infinitely small and infinitely numerous.
A point is exactly the smallest possible element.

A line segment is "at its best" an ever smaller element, that logically can't be reduced into the smallest possible element.

This reasoning is consistent, straightforward and easily understood by any opened mind.

The reasoning that can't get that is used by persons that do not have an opened mind, which is the majority of the current community of pure mathematicians, which has no clue about the real complexity of the co-existence of the ever smaller AND the smallest.
 
The practical difference between 1 and 0.999... is something only Doron is capable of worrying about.
If one wishes to deal with real complexity, he\she simply can't ignore the difference among the ever smaller and the smallest.
 
0.999...[base 10]/ 0.000...1[base 10] = [base 10]
The expression "[base 10]" is the smoking gun: you really treat infinity as a number. There is enough elementary and very informal stuff on the net to exorcise the devil out of your head, but only if you want to get rid of it.

What is infinity?

Infinity is not a number; it is the name for a concept. Most people have sort of an intuitive idea of what infinity is - it's a quantity that's bigger than any number. This is sort of correct, but it depends on the context in which you're using the concept of infinity (see below).

There are no numbers bigger than infinity, but that does not mean that infinity is the biggest number, because it's not a number at all. For the same reason, infinity is neither even nor odd. [continues...]
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.large.numbers.html

Since infinity is not a number, the math folks must adjust the terms for handling the same question I asked you. Here is the answer:

[lim x → 0](1 - x)/x = ∞

The above says that as x is approaching zero, ∞ is the limit of f(x) = (1 - x)/x. That means f(x) grows unbound in a divergent manner. The usage of "infinity is the limit" is very unfortunate, coz it may imply that infinity is a number or a point on the real line that cannot be reached by any sequence or a function.

Read up a bit on the abbreviated history of infinity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity
 
Last edited:
So infinity in base 2 is five times as big as infinity in base 10?
Yes.

EDIT:

Yet there is a bijection between the number of "0" symbols, which represent the locations along "0.000...1[base 2]" and "0.000...1[base 10]" expressions, upon infinitely many different scale levels.
 
Last edited:
Yes, most of us have. It's you who has absolutely no idea what it is and how it proves the very point you are arguing against.



Inane drivel.

Really laca, science tells us that all the atoms (points) where present in one point (singularity), at or slightly before the Planck epoc during the big bang.

We have a vast quantity of atoms in the universe, nearly infinite in number. Perhaps these atoms or their precursors were nearly infinitely small at this point of time.

During the period of inflation presumably these atoms (points) somehow moved apart to form 3 dimensional space, they moved from nearly infinitely small to just small.

This “small” is the qualitative or relative aspect (line segment), the size (quality) of which is clearly finite as opposed to nearly or wholly infinite.

Without this relative finite small space between and defining the size of these atoms they could not have emerged from that nearly infinite point.
 
Last edited:
Really laca, science tells us that all the atoms (points) where present in one point (singularity), at or slightly before the Plank epoc during the big bang.

"Atom" is one of many terms Doron uses with no regard to their actual meanings. It is certainly not being used in this thread by anyone in the sense of a physical particle, nor are we discussing the Big Bang. You seem to be going off on a tangent entirely of your own.

(You might want to check that your keyboard is working, you seem to be losing characters. (Planck, epoch, for example.))
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom