Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
Yes it does. Only a point has the minimal needed term (exactly one location), which defines its exact position.
Click to expand...

Minimal doesn’t mean only. So if you want to constrain your locations to only points, that’s up to you.

doronshadmi said:
A line segment is non-local exactly because more than one location is used in order to define it.
Click to expand...

That would be your “point” locations, so again your “non-local”, by your own assertion, requires and is dependent upon your “local” points.


doronshadmi said:
X="local"

Furthermore, not-X is not necessarily the negation of X, not-X is "anything but X" where some of the possible cases is "the negation of X".
Click to expand...

“not-X” is specifically the negation of “X” (that’s what “not” means). That you would simply like it to mean something else is just your problem.

So if “not-X is not necessarily the negation of X” then “not necessarily” is “not necessarily” the negation of ‘necessarily’. Looks like you just don’t necessarily know what you’re not saying.

doronshadmi said:
Your limited understanding of negation, is one of the reasons the you don't get an expression like "non-local".
Click to expand...

Your simple and deliberate misrepresentation of negation is why you claim above that negation is “not necessarily”, well, negation.


doronshadmi said:
It is not about points, but about smaller dimensions > 0 and bigger dimensions > 0, for example : 1-dim is local w.r.t 2-dim and 2-dim is non-local w.r.t 1-dim (and also w.r.t 0-dim).
Click to expand...

According to you above it is…

doronshadmi said:
Only a point has the minimal needed term (exactly one location), which defines its exact position.
Click to expand...


doronshadmi said:
A line segment is non-local exactly because more than one location is used in order to define it.
Click to expand...


doronshadmi said:
0-dim is the smallest dim and it is local w.r.t to any other dim.
Click to expand...

Again a lack of dimensions isn’t a dimension.


doronshadmi said:
In other words, you do not distinguish between 0-dim and nothing.
This distinction is clearly seen in what I wrote here:
Click to expand...

I used no such “other words” so stop lying and simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.


doronshadmi said:
Things that exist at the same level existence (for example distinct points) are not necessarily ordered by some common rule.

This is not the case between different levels of existence, which are necessarily ordered between two extremes, which are nothing (anything but a thing) and fullness (total thing).
Click to expand...

So you haven’t got that definition of your “successor” without ordering yet (You could have just said so). Please let us know when you do have it.

doronshadmi said:
As I said. In term of existence, things of the same level of existence are not necessarily ordered, and this is not the case about " < 0 < x ≤ ∞ < ∞"
Click to expand...


So you don’t have a definition of your “predecessors” without ordering yet either (you could have just said that too). Please let us know when you do have it.


doronshadmi said:
Try to get " < 0 < x ≤ ∞ < ∞"
Click to expand...

Try to get that “non-existence” is a “notation” even though you just don’t want to note it. So you now have…

“non-existence” “< 0 < x ≤ ∞ < ∞"


doronshadmi said:
No, there is Unity beyond " < 0 < x ≤ ∞ < ∞"
Click to expand...

So there is something “beyond” your “fullness” and it has a “successor” that you call “Unity”.

doronshadmi said:
No, there is Unity beyond " < 0 < x ≤ ∞ < ∞"
Click to expand...

The question was…

“Are you claiming there is “Nothing” “beyond” your “Unity”?



doronshadmi said:
You still do not comprehend Unity beyond " < 0 < x ≤ ∞ < ∞" expression.
Click to expand...

You still haven’t answered the question…

“Are you claiming there is “Nothing” “beyond” your “Unity”?


doronshadmi said:
Unity is beyond complexity, where the complexity is expressed by at least two opposites, or any other form of interaction among distinct concepts (abstract or not).
Click to expand...

Nope as you already asserted your “Unity” is simply beyond your own ability to express it accurately.
doronshadmi said:
( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7115044&postcount=15223 )

According to The Man's reasoning "there is nothing between A and B" is equivalent to "there is difference between A and B"

His "reasoning" speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

The nonsense “reasoning” remains simply yours Doron, no matter how much you’d simple like to ascribe it to others.

To alleviate your apparently deliberate confusion…

In the interval (1,1) "there is nothing between” 1 and 1 with no “difference between” 1 and 1. So clearly “there is nothing between” and “there is difference between” have only been equivocated by just you. As an interval with no difference and nothing between its limits has specifically been asserted to you before, you must just be lying to yourself and trying to lie to us, again.
 
The Man said:
Minimal doesn’t mean only. So if you want to constrain your locations to only points, that’s up to you.
Click to expand...
0-dim is the minimal expression of Locality, such that any other dim > 0 is non-local w.r.t 0-dim, where 0-dim is local w.r.t all dims > 0.


The Man said:
That would be your “point” locations, so again your “non-local”, by your own assertion, requires and is dependent upon your “local” points.
Click to expand...
By generalization, given x-dim < y-dim, x-dim is local w.r.t y-dim and y-dim is non-local w.r.t x-dim., even if x-dim is different than 0-dim.

You can't get this generalization, exactly as you are unable to understand that not-X is "anything but X", where some particular case of "anything but X" is "the negation of X".

The Man said:
“not-X” is specifically the negation of “X” (that’s what “not” means). That you would simply like it to mean something else is just your problem.

So if “not-X is not necessarily the negation of X” then “not necessarily” is “not necessarily” the negation of ‘necessarily’. Looks like you just don’t necessarily know what you’re not saying.
Click to expand...
“not necessarily” is "anything but necessarily" where some case of "anything but necessarily" is "the negation of necessarily".

Looks like you are able to get “not necessarily” only in terms of "the negation of necessarily", but that is your forced limitation of the comprehensive meaning of “not necessarily”, which is "anything but necessarily".

The Man said:
Your simple and deliberate misrepresentation of negation is why you claim above that negation is “not necessarily”, well, negation.
Click to expand...
You get only the particular case of "the negation of X" of "anything but X", where "anything but X" is the comprehensive meaning of "not-X".

Again, this is your forced limitation and entirely your problem, which is derived directly from your ignorence of the comprehensive meaning of not-X, which is "anything but X.

The Man said:
Again a lack of dimensions isn’t a dimension.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. Therefore 0-dim is different than "a lack of dimensions".

The Man said:
I used no such “other words” so stop lying and simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.
Click to expand...
The Man, you clearly do not distinguish between 0-dim and nothing.

The Man said:
So you haven’t got that definition of your “successor” without ordering yet (You could have just said so). Please let us know when you do have it.
Click to expand...
Wrong. you simply can't comprehend the "anything but ordered" state of thinks that exist at the same level of existence.

The Man said:
So you don’t have a definition of your “predecessors” without ordering yet either (you could have just said that too). Please let us know when you do have it.
Click to expand...
Please define the order at the level of nothing, which is "that has no predecessor".

The Man said:
Try to get that “non-existence” is a “notation” even though you just don’t want to note it. So you now have…

“non-existence” “< 0 < x ≤ ∞ < ∞"
Click to expand...
Another example of your weak reasoning.

In this case you are unable to deal with the actuality of nothing as expressed by “ < 0 < x ≤ ∞ < ∞", by forcing “non-existence” expression. In other words you have a fundamental abstraction problem.

The Man said:
So there is something “beyond” your “fullness” and it has a “successor” that you call “Unity”.
Click to expand...
Wrong, you are unable to get Unity, which is beyond any expression (where “successor” is some expression).


The Man said:
The question was…

“Are you claiming there is “Nothing” “beyond” your “Unity”?

You still haven’t answered the question…

“Are you claiming there is “Nothing” “beyond” your “Unity”?
Click to expand...
You still unable the do the needed abstraction in order to get Unity beyond any expression, what so ever.

The Man said:
Nope as you already asserted your “Unity” is simply beyond your own ability to express it accurately.
Click to expand...
You still unable the do the needed abstraction in order to get Unity beyond any expression, what so ever.

The Man said:
The nonsense “reasoning” remains simply yours Doron, no matter how much you’d simple like to ascribe it to others.
Click to expand...
Wrong The Man, your weak reasoning simply reflects its own ignorance on the considered subject.


The Man said:
To alleviate your apparently deliberate confusion…

In the interval (1,1) "there is nothing between” 1 and 1 with no “difference between” 1 and 1. So clearly “there is nothing between” and “there is difference between” have only been equivocated by just you. As an interval with no difference and nothing between its limits has specifically been asserted to you before, you must just be lying to yourself and trying to lie to us, again.
Click to expand...
Now you demonstrate your inability you distinguish between (1) and (1,1).

At (1) there is nothing between 1 and 1.

At (1,1) there is redundancy (which is a kind of interval) between 1 and 1.
 
Last edited:
I think this will clear up a few things (including .000...1). :)

number_line.png
 
In terms of SRT ,which uses metric space, "... length of an object is variable depending on the observer" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length ).

In that case it has to be stressed that:

1) The observer (or its agent) is a factor of the measured result.

2) 0-dim is an absolute measured result.

3) Any k>0-dim is a relative measured result.

4) Nothing is below measurement.

5) Fullness is above measurement.

6) Unity is beyond 1 to 5 expressions.
 
zooterkin said:
The normal English meaning. What have you shown using OM that could not be done with conventional maths? What is it good for?
Click to expand...
It is good for establishing the mathematical science on Unity, such that its developments are no longer used for destruction.
 
doronshadmi said:
It is good for establishing the mathematical science on Unity, such that its developments are no longer used for destruction.
Click to expand...

And in practice? The only way I can see that happening is by replacing maths which works with OM which doesn't.

Please give an example of what you mean.
 
zooterkin said:
And in practice? The only way I can see that happening is by replacing maths which works with OM which doesn't.

Please give an example of what you mean.
Click to expand...

You already gave an example of your :boxedin: to get OM by saying:
zooterkin said:
The only way I can see that happening is by replacing maths which works with OM which doesn't.
Click to expand...
In other words, all along this thread you do not look beyond your :boxedin: and as a result you simply blind to any given example that was given by me right from the first post of this thread.
 
Last edited:
Let us take for example the following diagram:
The cardinality of the real number line is the same as a finite open interval of the real number line

proofwowords.png
Click to expand...
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/8846/proofs-without-words

Although the number of points or sub-segments is the same, the length of the represented lines is not the same.

So what makes the difference between Cardinality (which is the same) and Length (which is not the same)?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Let us take for example the following diagram:

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/8846/proofs-without-words

Although the number of points or sub-segments is the same, the length of the represented lines is not the same.

So what makes the difference between Cardinality (which is the same) and Length (which is not the same)?
Click to expand...
Note the difference between symbols 0 and 1 and follow an analogy:

aleph0 , aleph1 <==> location = '0-dim measure' , distance = '1-dim measure'
 
epix said:
Note the difference between symbols 0 and 1 and follow an analogy:

aleph0 , aleph1 <==> location = '0-dim measure' , distance = '1-dim measure'
Click to expand...
Note that only aleph1 is considered in the case of the real-line, where aleph1 is Cardinality, which is the number of the objects that is the same for both line segments, where Length (between the considered line segments) is different.

So once again, please use Taditional Math in order to rigorously define the difference between Cardinality (which is the same for both line segments) and Length (which is not the same for the considered line segments).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Note that only aleph1 is considered in the case of the real-line, where aleph1 is Cardinality, which is the number of the objects that is the same for both line segments, where Length (between the considered line segments) is different.

So once again, please use Taditional Math in order to rigorously define the difference between Cardinality (which is the same for both line segments) and Length (which is not the same for the considered line segments).
Click to expand...
Length is a function of 2 points and location is a function of 1 point. So 2-1 = 1-0 ==> aleph1, aleph 0.

All points must be located in k-space, otherwise no action.

 
epix said:
Length is a function of 2 points and location is a function of 1 point. So 2-1 = 1-0 ==> aleph1, aleph 0.

All points must be located in k-space, otherwise no action.

Click to expand...
Length 0 is Length exactly as cardinality 0 is Cardinality.

So, your "Length is a function of 2 points" has no impact on the difference between Cardinality and Length, if the the considered values are not 0.

Again.

Aleph1 is Cardinality, which is the number of the objects that is the same for the different line segments, where Length (between the considered line segments) is different, as shown in the following diagram:

5736095487_99cb0b393a_b.jpg


So once again, please use Traditional Math in order to rigorously define the difference between Cardinality (which is the same for the different line segments) and Length (which is not the same for the considered line segments).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
So once again, please use Traditional Math in order to rigorously define the difference between Cardinality (which is the same for the different line segments) and Length (which is not the same for the considered line segments).
Click to expand...

A) In mathematics, the cardinality of a set is a measure of the "number of elements of the set".

B) In geometric measurements, length most commonly refers to the longest dimension of an object.

Therefore Difference = A - B
 
epix said:
A) In mathematics, the cardinality of a set is a measure of the "number of elements of the set".

B) In geometric measurements, length most commonly refers to the longest dimension of an object.

Therefore Difference = A - B
Click to expand...

Traditional Math claims that line segments with different length are completely covered by sets of distinct points with the same Cardinality.

Please provide the formal proof of that claim.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Traditional Math claims that line segments with different length are completely covered by sets of distinct points with the same Cardinality.

Please provide the formal proof of that claim.
Click to expand...
No, that's what you claim. The definition says that there is no location on the line segment where a point couldn't be drawn. Hence "completely covered."
 
epix said:
No, that's what you claim. The definition says that there is no location on the line segment where a point couldn't be drawn. Hence "completely covered."
Click to expand...
If there is no location on the line segment where a point couldn't be located, then there are no gaps between the distinct points of a given set of points, which are located along a given line segment, no matter what length > 0 that line segment has.

Please provide the formal mathematical proof of line segments with different lengths, which have such sets of points along them with the same cardinality.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
If there is no location on the line segment where a point couldn't be located, then there are no gaps between the distinct points of a given set of points, which are located along a given line segment, no matter what length > 0 that line segment has.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's called the continuum.
Please provide the formal mathematical proof of line segments with different lengths, which have such sets of points along them with the same cardinality.
Click to expand...
Your request doesn't make any sense, coz it's based on your phantasmagorical definition of point/member of R. You think that if there is no gap between points on the real line, the points are necessarily adjacent, but the concept of adjacency doesn't exist with 0-dim objects. That's one reason why there are "no gaps," coz non-adjacent means a space between two objects: If the concept of adjacency cannot be applied to the spacial relationship, so cannot the concept of "gaps."

Your embedded experience acquired by peeling potatoes in the kitchen is an insurmountable obstacle to navigate through the topic.
 
epix said:
Yes, that's called the continuum.

Your request doesn't make any sense, coz it's based on your phantasmagorical definition of point/member of R. You think that if there is no gap between points on the real line, the points are necessarily adjacent, but the concept of adjacency doesn't exist with 0-dim objects. That's one reason why there are "no gaps," coz non-adjacent means a space between two objects: If the concept of adjacency cannot be applied to the spacial relationship, so cannot the concept of "gaps."

Your embedded experience acquired by peeling potatoes in the kitchen is an insurmountable obstacle to navigate through the topic.
Click to expand...
Your reply makes no sense as follows:

1) If the concept of adjacency doesn't exist with 0-dim objects, then there exists one and only one 0-dim element, because all locations have 0 distance between them (which means one and only one location).

2) Let us say that by some miracle there are many distinct 0-dim elements that have no gaps between them. In that case you still have to provide the formal mathematical proof of line segments with different lengths, which have sets of points with no gaps between them, where those sets have the same cardinality.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Your reply makes no sense as follows:

1) If the concept of adjacency doesn't exist with 0-dim objects, then there exists one and only one 0-dim element, because all locations have 0 distance between them (which means one and only one location).

2) Let us say that by some miracle there are many distinct 0-dim elements that have no gaps between them. In that case you still have to provide the formal mathematical proof of line segments with different lengths, which have sets of points with no gaps between them, where those sets have the same cardinality.
Click to expand...
You continue to apply your kitchen experience. You should check in for the summer season: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel
 
epix said:
You think that if there is no gap between points on the real line, the points are necessarily adjacent,
Click to expand...
Wrong. If there are no gaps between points, then there is one and only one point.

Actually by your reasoning multiplicity is impossible, no matter what dim is used.


epix said:
You continue to apply your kitchen experience. You should check in for the summer season: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel
Click to expand...

Please provide the formal mathematical proof for the existence of two 0-dim objects, such that "adjacency doesn't exist with 0-dim objects" is an essential part of that proof.

The stage is yours.
 
Last edited:
In general it has to be stressed that existing things (where dim elements are some particular case of existing things) do not have multiple elements (finite or infinite) if only the same dim is used.

For example:

If only 0-dim level is used, then there is only one 0-dim element.

If only 1-dim level is used, then there is only one 1-dim element.

...

If only n-dim level is used, then there is only one n-dim element.

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

In other words, multiple elements are defined only by co-existence of more than single dim level.

By the co-existence the greater dim level is non-local w.r.t to the smaller dim level , exactly because it is irreducible to the smaller dim level (otherwise smaller and greater dims do not exist, in the first place).

By the co-existence the smaller dim level is local w.r.t to the greater dim level, exactly because it is non-extendible to the greater dim level (otherwise smaller and greater dims do not exist, in the first place).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Wrong. If there are no gaps between points, then there is one and only one point.
Click to expand...
According to your kitchen experience.

Please provide the formal mathematical proof for the existence of two 0-dim objects, such that "adjacency doesn't exist with 0-dim objects" is an essential part of that proof.

The stage is yours.
Click to expand...

proofqh.jpg
 
epix said:
According to your kitchen experience.



[qimg]http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/8656/proofqh.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Homeomorphism is a bidirectional function which enables deformation of a given space without making separations of that space.

Since separation is essential for the existence of more than one 0-dim element, there can't be a bidirectional function which (enables deformation between 0-dim and 1-dim) AND (also enables the existence of no more then one 0-dim element).

Furthermore, stretched 0-dim is not 0-dim anymore, because we get at least 1-dim.

Also a totally reducible 1-dim is not 1-dim anymore, because we get at most 0-dim.

In other words, your quote is a load of nonsense (and once again you do not provide the origin of this quote, as if it is your original work ( it was taken from http://www.math.wisc.edu/~miller/res/map.pdf , which is Arnold W. Miller's work )).


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

Let us use WikiPedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeomorphism ):
Mug_and_Torus_morph.gif


A continuous deformation between a coffee mug and a doughnut illustrating that they are homeomorphic. But there need not be a continuous deformation for two spaces to be homeomorphic—only a continuous mapping with a continuous inverse.
Click to expand...

Please formally define a continuous mapping with a continuous inverse between, at least, 0-dim and 1-dim (please be aware that the example above is done at the same dim, which is 3-dim, in this case).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Homeomorphism is a bidirectional function which enables deformation of a given space without making separations of that space.

Since separation is essential for the existence of more than one 0-dim element, there can't be a bidirectional function which (enables deformation between 0-dim and 1-dim) AND (also enables the existence of more then one 0-dim element).
Click to expand...
How about providing a rigorous proof of your statement? Anything based on your own tailor-made definition of 0-dim object will not be accepted.
 
epix said:
How about providing a rigorous proof of your statement? Anything based on your own tailor-made definition of 0-dim object will not be accepted.
Click to expand...
Proof?

No proof is needed here because separation is an axiom (a self evident truth) that without it multiple 0-dim elements simply do not exist.

Actually Traditional Math uses such axioms ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_axiom ):
These conditions are given in order of increasing strength: Any two topologically distinguishable points must be distinct, and any two separated points must be topologically distinguishable. Furthermore, any two separated sets must be disjoint, any two sets separated by neighbourhoods must be separated, and so on.
Click to expand...

If points x and y of topological space X have the same set of neighbourhoods, then x and y are called topologically indistinguishable simply because x and y is actually the same point (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_distinguishability ).

In other words, you do not understand even Traditional Math about this subject.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Proof?

No proof is needed here because separation is an axiom (a self evident truth) that without it multiple 0-dim elements simply do not exist.

Actually Traditional Math uses such axioms ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_axiom ):

... Since separation is essential for the existence of more than one 0-dim element, there can't be a bidirectional function which (enables deformation between 0-dim and 1-dim) AND (also enables the existence of more then one 0-dim element).

If points x and y of topological space X have the same set of neighbourhoods, then x and y are called topologically indistinguishable simply because x and y is actually the same point (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_distinguishability ).

In other words, you do not understand even Traditional Math about this subject.
Click to expand...

Why do you steer things away from the metric space to the topological space? Can't you read?
... But any separable zero dimensional metric space is homeomorphic to set of reals (in fact, a subset of the Cantor set) and we are done.
Click to expand...
Or is it your tutor who missed?

0-dim objects cannot be located without the presence of a-dimensional objects (a>0) on the same plane. And that's where you start...

I proved what you asked me to prove and that's it.
 
epix said:
0-dim objects cannot be located without the presence of a-dimensional objects (a>0) on the same plane. And that's where you start...
Click to expand...
Exactly, there must be co-existence of more than one dimensional space, and as a result of this co-existence the smaller dimensional is local w.r.t the greater dimensional space, where the greater dimensional space is non-local w.r.t the smaller dimensional space.

Since 0-dimensional space is the smallest dimensional space, it is local w.r.t the rest dimensional spaces.

I used Topological Space because your quoted part of Miller's work (which you used, without giving him the needed reference and credit) uses homeomorphism.

Please look at this ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_space ):
Two spaces are called homeomorphic if there exists a homeomorphism between them. From the standpoint of topology, homeomorphic spaces are essentially identical.
Click to expand...

Please also look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeomorphism , you will find there "Topological Space" as well.


epix said:
I proved what you asked me to prove and that's it.
Click to expand...

You proved nothing. All you did is to quote a part of Miller's work, without giving him any credit, and without any understanding of what you quoted ( you simply do not understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7202595&postcount=15472 ).

But any separable zero dimensional metric space is homeomorphic to set of reals (in fact, a subset of the Cantor set) and we are done.
Click to expand...
This is the relevant part taken from Miller's work, and it is wrong because:
Two spaces X and Y are homeomorphic if it is possible to transform X into Y by rescaling it, bending it, twisting it but without introducing puncture or a tear
Click to expand...
( http://www.ualberta.ca/MATH/gauss/fcm/Manifolds/PncrCnjctr/hmmrphsm.htm )

Tear and Separation is the same concept.

So " ... any separable zero dimensional metric space is" anything but "homeomorphic to set of reals", simply because homeomorphic spaces can't have tears.

Actually " ... any separable zero dimensional metric space is" exactly one and only one point.
 
Last edited:
In order to understand better why separable zero dimensional metric space is not homeomorphic to set of reals, think about this version of Hilbert's Hotel ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel ):

Hilbert's Hotel has only one room, so no matter what number of guests wish to stay in it, only one guest actually can do that.

This version is the precise description of the following part of Millers work:
...any separable zero dimensional metric space...
Click to expand...
which is defiantly not homeomorphic to set of reals.
 
Last edited:
Here is another version of Hilbert's Hotel:

Hilbert's hotel has a one room with two entrances, where the room is a 1-dim space and the two entrances are 0-dimensional spaces each.

All the guests that stay in that room are 0-dimensional spaces, such that given any arbitrary pair of guests staying in that room, there is always a room for infinitely many guests between them.

In other words, no matter how many guests are in the room there is always plenty of 1-dim space for more guests.

Conclusion, no amount of guests completely fills Hilbert's hotel.

This version of Hilbert's hotel is the precise description of any arbitrary part of the real-line, which is not less than co-existence of infinity many 0-dim spaces that can't fully fill (or completely cover) Hilbert's hotel 1-dim space room.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
0-dim is the minimal expression of Locality, such that any other dim > 0 is non-local w.r.t 0-dim, where 0-dim is local w.r.t all dims > 0.
Click to expand...

Again if you what a location to only be a point that is up to you.


doronshadmi said:
By generalization, given x-dim < y-dim, x-dim is local w.r.t y-dim and y-dim is non-local w.r.t x-dim., even if x-dim is different than 0-dim.
Click to expand...

By your own specifications your “local” is only one point and your “non-local” is more than one point.

doronshadmi said:
You can't get this generalization, exactly as you are unable to understand that not-X is "anything but X", where some particular case of "anything but X" is "the negation of X".
Click to expand...

You can’t get that simply typing the word “generalization” doesn’t change what you have specifically claimed.

doronshadmi said:
“not necessarily” is "anything but necessarily" where some case of "anything but necessarily" is "the negation of necessarily".

Looks like you are able to get “not necessarily” only in terms of "the negation of necessarily", but that is your forced limitation of the comprehensive meaning of “not necessarily”, which is "anything but necessarily".
Click to expand...

So your “non-local” is “anything but” your “local”? Like your “Emptiness”, “Fullness”, “complex” or "unity"? Each of them is “anything but” your “local”. This also means that your claim of your “non-local” being at least two location is false as “anything but” your “local” doesn’t have to involve any of your “locations”.

doronshadmi said:
You get only the particular case of "the negation of X" of "anything but X", where "anything but X" is the comprehensive meaning of "not-X".

Again, this is your forced limitation and entirely your problem, which is derived directly from your ignorence of the comprehensive meaning of not-X, which is "anything but X.
Click to expand...


No Doron it is just the nonsense meaning you want to ascribe that as usual simple contradicts your own claims.

doronshadmi said:
I agree with you. Therefore 0-dim is different than "a lack of dimensions".
Click to expand...

So how many dimensions does your point have now?


doronshadmi said:
The Man, you clearly do not distinguish between 0-dim and nothing.
Click to expand...

I have made no such assertion and you have been advised of this, so again stop lying.

doronshadmi said:
Wrong. you simply can't comprehend the "anything but ordered" state of thinks that exist at the same level of existence.
Click to expand...

So you haven’t got that definition of your “successor” without ordering yet (You could have just said so). Please let us know when you do have it.


doronshadmi said:
Please define the order at the level of nothing, which is "that has no predecessor".
Click to expand...

What? Please define your own nonsense assertions if that is what you want?

doronshadmi said:
Another example of your weak reasoning.
Click to expand...

Another example of you deliberately ignoring your own notation of ““non-existence”

doronshadmi said:
In this case you are unable to deal with the actuality of nothing as expressed by “ < 0 < x ≤ ∞ < ∞", by forcing “non-existence” expression. In other words you have a fundamental abstraction problem.
Click to expand...

In this case you are unable to deal with the actuality of your own “non-existence” notation as expressed by ““non-existence” < 0 < x ≤ ∞ < ∞", by forcing your deliberate ignorance of your “non-existence” expression onto just yourself. In other words you have a fundamental problem with just, well, yourself.

doronshadmi said:
Wrong, you are unable to get Unity, which is beyond any expression (where “successor” is some expression).
Click to expand...

So there is “nothing” “beyond” your “fullness” and it has a “successor” that you call “non-existence”.

doronshadmi said:
You still unable the do the needed abstraction in order to get Unity beyond any expression, what so ever.



You still unable the do the needed abstraction in order to get Unity beyond any expression, what so ever.
Click to expand...

You’re still unable, apparently deliberately, to get the implications of your own ordering and notations.

doronshadmi said:
Wrong The Man, your weak reasoning simply reflects its own ignorance on the considered subject.
Click to expand...

As usual Doron the ignorance remains evidently and apparently deliberately entirely yours.


doronshadmi said:
Now you demonstrate your inability you distinguish between (1) and (1,1).
Click to expand...

Nope, evidently that is again just you as I have made no such assertions.

doronshadmi said:
At (1) there is nothing between 1 and 1.
Click to expand...

“1 and 1”? You’ve only got “(1)”. Yep it is just you that can’t “distinguish between (1) and (1,1)”

doronshadmi said:
At (1,1) there is redundancy (which is a kind of interval) between 1 and 1.
Click to expand...

“(1,1)” is an interval with no difference and nothing between the limits. Which again simply makes your equivocation of “difference” with “interval” and “nothing between” with “difference” demonstrably false.
 
The Man said:
By your own specifications your “local” is only one point and your “non-local” is more than one point.
Click to expand...
The Man said:
You can’t get that simply typing the word “generalization” doesn’t change what you have specifically claimed.
Click to expand...
Your ignorance of generalization does not change the following:

1) Any smaller dimensional space is local w.r.t to any greater dimensional space.

2) Any greater dimensional space is non-local w.r.t to any smaller dimensional space.

3) 0-dimensional space is the smallest dimensional space and therefore it is local w.r.t the rest of dimensional spaces.

The Man said:
So your “non-local” is “anything but” your “local”? Like your “Emptiness”, “Fullness”, “complex” or "unity"? Each of them is “anything but” your “local”. This also means that your claim of your “non-local” being at least two location is false as “anything but” your “local” doesn’t have to involve any of your “locations”.
Click to expand...
You still can't comprehend the involvement of things that save their ids under co-existence, for example:

Stretched 0-dim is not 0-dim anymore, because we get at least 1-dim.

Totally reducible 1-dim is not 1-dim anymore, because we get at most 0-dim.

In other words, there is no homeomorphism among different dimensional spaces.

The Man said:
So how many dimensions does your point have now?
Click to expand...
A point is something that has 0 dimension.

The Man said:
I have made no such assertion and you have been advised of this, so again stop lying.
Click to expand...
Do you agree that a point is something that has 0 dimension?

The Man said:
So you haven’t got that definition of your “successor” without ordering yet (You could have just said so). Please let us know when you do have it.
Click to expand...
Please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7205990&postcount=15478 .

The Man said:
In this case you are unable to deal with the actuality of your own “non-existence” notation as expressed by ““non-existence” < 0 < x ≤ ∞ < ∞", by forcing your deliberate ignorance of your “non-existence” expression onto just yourself. In other words you have a fundamental problem with just, well, yourself.
Click to expand...
The actuality of nothing is no symbol at all, exactly as the actuality of silence is no sound at all.

You can add "actuality" to the words that you don't understand.

The Man said:
So there is “nothing” “beyond” your “fullness” and it has a “successor” that you call “non-existence”.
Click to expand...
Now you demonstrate your inability to understand the actuality of "beyond expressions"

The Man said:
Nope, evidently that is again just you as I have made no such assertions.
Click to expand...
The Man said:
“(1,1)” is an interval with no difference and nothing between the limits. Which again simply makes your equivocation of “difference” with “interval” and “nothing between” with “difference” demonstrably false.
Click to expand...
In other words, you do not understand that nothing between 1 and 1 is resulted by (1), where redundancy between 1 and 1 (which is a kind of an interval) is resulted by (1,1).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom