doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
oppss... (which is another use of ...)
Last edited:
Deeper than primes
- Thread starter doronshadmi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- deeper than primes
- Status
That's why OM cannot be applied to anything anywhere. You can't build a circular swimming pool, coz pi = 3.14159... and your computation will never reach the OM-required Final Precision no matter what.
What did you say? Who? Doron? I think he's home swimming in his bathtub, coz he doesn't know better.
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
FIFY.
Oh, good. Let's consider that.
In Doronetics, 1 - 0.999... = 0.000...1 and 10 - 9.999... = 0.000...1
We also know that (10 - 9.999...)/10 = (10/10) - (9.999.../10) = 1 - 0.999... = 0.000...1 and that (10 - 9.999...)/10 = (0.000...1)/10 = 0.000...10
Therefore, 0.000...1 = 0.000...10.
Moreover, since 0.000...1 = 0.000...10 = (0.000...1)/10, it follows directly that 0.000...1 = 0.
Ain't arithmetic wonderfully consistent? Too bad Doronetics cannot make the same claim.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Nope, by your own assertions your “superposition” does not involve the principle of superposition so your “AB’ is strictly (by you own assertions) not a superposition.
Wrong again, as shown before any binary variable AND FALSE is strictly FALSE, while any binary variable AND TRUE is strictly just that binary variable.
Again as stated before that commutative property’s “influence” on the output is that the output can not change due to changes in the ordering of the variables.
Since you claim your “superposition” does not involve the principle of superposition you know your “superposition” is not a superposition and you just like to call it a “superposition” to pretend you know what you’re talking about, which is just a variable that you simply don’t want to call a variable.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
So you're just going to deliberately ignore the actually question…
…how typically deliberately ignorant of you.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Wrong.
AND connective provides a strict result only if both inputs are strict.
Since AB is non-strict, the output is non-strict and the commutativity of AND connective no influence on it.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
The Man, you are unable to get the generalization of my non-local number/ local number example,
which is equivalent to non-strict AB\(strict A;strict B) case.
You are still closed under your fragmented context-dependent reasoning.
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Mistake a: (10 - 9.999...)/10 = 1 - 0.999... = 0.000...1
Mistake b: (0.000...1)/10 = 0.000...0.1[base 10] = 0.000...1[base 100]
Your local-only arithmetic does not hold water.
Last edited:
Let's see if it does:
1. (a - b)/a = 1 - a/b
2. (1 - a/b)/a = (b - a)/(a*b)
3. If (b - a)/(a*b) = 0, then a=b.
4. If a=10 and b=9.999..., then a≠b, and (3) is false in its premise, unless 10 = 9.999... by a standalone assertion.
Aah, an excerpt from The Joy of Doronian Inequalities...
The fact that pi is the limit that no convergent series designed to approach it ever reaches doesn't mean that pi > 3.14159... , coz "3.14159... "(approximate format) is the equivalent expression to "pi" (exact format). Hence pi = 3.14159...
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
By standard approach 3.14159...[base 10] is a numeral that represents number pi.
By OM 3.14159...[base 10] is a non-local number < local number pi.
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Actually I made a mistake in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7365848&postcount=15909.
Let us correct it.
1.0 - 0.9 = 0.1
10*(1.0-0.9) = 10*(0.1) = 1.0
By following the same reasoning:
1.0 - 0.999... = 0.000...1
10*(1.0-0.999...) = 10*(0.000...1) = 0.000...10 , which is 10 times greater than 0.000...1
According to this correction:
(10 - 9.999...)/10 = (0.000...10)/10 = 0.000...1
(0.000...1)/10 = 0.000...0.1[base 10] = 0.000...1[base 100] , etc.
For more details please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7367971&postcount=15918.
Let us correct it.
1.0 - 0.9 = 0.1
10*(1.0-0.9) = 10*(0.1) = 1.0
By following the same reasoning:
1.0 - 0.999... = 0.000...1
10*(1.0-0.999...) = 10*(0.000...1) = 0.000...10 , which is 10 times greater than 0.000...1
According to this correction:
(10 - 9.999...)/10 = (0.000...10)/10 = 0.000...1
(0.000...1)/10 = 0.000...0.1[base 10] = 0.000...1[base 100] , etc.
For more details please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7367971&postcount=15918.
Last edited:
In that case, you need to change the "non-local" expression 3.14159... into something else, coz it doesn't make a bit of sense. Even if you make adjustments with respect to the continuous values of various pi series, be adviced that some of the series which approach pi can take on values that exceed pi -- they oscilate toward pi,
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PiFormulas.html
and so any "non-local s" you come up with may not satisfy s<pi, unless OM has its own special formulas that generate the digits of pi in such a way that the values always stay below 3.14159... Speaking of which, let's see at least one pi-generating formula made in the local OM factory that manufactures ideas previously never conceived by the mortals of the Milky Way and other assorted galaxies.
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Not a mistake at all, Doron. Well, not mine, anyway.
(10 - 9.999...) /10 = (0.000...1) / 10 = 0.000...0.1
-and-
(10 - 9.999...) / 10 = (10/10) - (9.999.../10) = 1 - 0.999... = 0.000...1
Mistake, no. Typographic error, yes. Your fanciful notation makes it easy to drop a stray period. All my 0.000...10s should have been 0.000...0.1s.
The point remains, 10-9.999... can be evaluated in either of two ways, leading to the conclusion 0.000...1 = 0.000...0.1. That, in turn, leaves you with the result both are 0.
You only think that you "follow the same reasoning."
Look at the first line again:
1.0 - 0.9 = 0.1 = 1.0 - 9/10
So if you follow the same reasoning, then
1.0 - 0.999... = 0.000...1 = 1.0 - p/q
You can solve p/q = 0.9 as an irreducible fraction (if p/q stands for the long division instruction), but can you solve p/q = 0.999...? If not, then 0.9 and 0.999... do not belong to the same group of numbers and therefore you don't follow the same reasoning.
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
You have missed http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7370579&postcount=15933.
Please try again.
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
"The same reasoning" is not the same as "The same result".
You do not distinguish between "the same reasoning" (what I say) and "the same result" (what you say).
Please this time read http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7370579&postcount=15933 according to what I say (and please do not miss the link there).
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
EDIT:
Only because you try to get it by using local-only reasoning, which takes 3.14159...[base 10] as a numeral of pi, and not as a kind of a number of its own (a non-local number).
Please look again at:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6465716&postcount=12075
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6470162&postcount=12091
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6474140&postcount=12101
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6474902&postcount=12106
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6498188&postcount=12160
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6514886&postcount=12204
in order to get OM's new notion.
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
You are just making this nonsense up on the fly, aren't you? Ok, so you decided you needed to readjust your fantasy because of reality encroachment. According to this latest goal post placement, we have:
10 - 9.999... = 0.000...10
We also have:
10 - 9.999... = (9 + 1) - (9 + 0.999..) = (9 - 9) + (1 - 0.999...) = 0 + 0.000...1.
Therefore, 0.000...10 = 0.000...1, and from there it immediately follows that they both equal 0.
Care to readjust things in the hopes of not contradicting yourself again?
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Let me help you:
1 - 0.999... = 0.000...1
10*(1 - 0.999...) = 10*(0.000...1) = 0.000...10
By your (9 - 9) + (1 - 0.999...) nonsense you simply eliminated the fact that both equation sides were multiplied by 10.
Let us demonstrate your nonsense by local numbers:
1 - 0.99 = 0.01
10*(1 - 0.99) = 10*(0.01) = 0.10
((9 - 9) + (1 - 0.99) = 0.01) ≠ (10*(1 - 0.99) = 10*(0.01) = 0.10)
You are just making this nonsense up on the fly, aren't you?
Care to readjust things in the hopes of not repeating your nonsense again?
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Yes, that's your latest notational nonsense.
It is not nonsense at all. It's called arithmetic. It provides several equivalent ways to evaluate an expression, all providing identical answers. Arithmetic is nicely consistent that way.
By one sequence of operations, I can transform 10-9.999... into 10*(1-0.999...) and then into 0.000...10. By another sequence, I can transform 10-9.999... into (10-9)-0.999... and then into 0.000...1.
Nothing was eliminated and no facts were lost in the process. However, it does show that 0.000...10 and 0.000...1 have exactly the same value, and that value must be 0.
Heck, given Doronetics accepts that 10*0.999... = 9.999..., it can be directly shown 0.999... is identical to 1, despite your inconsistent assertion to the contrary.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
You provide two different results by two different sequences.
Transforming results do not change the fact that there is more than one result.
Only in your nonsense dreams.
Transforming results do not change the fact that there is more than one result.
It can't be shown since 10 - 9.999... = 0.000...10
jsfisher, once again your local-only reasoning forces its view on the co-existence of non-locality with locality.
Last edited:
But that argument isn't a part of your "correction" which says
In other words spoken by induction, your corrective measure holds 0.10 > 0.1; it doesn't mention any difference between 0.10 and 0.01 that you are trying to sneak in and which jsfisher never referred to.
I think it's the Straw man fallacy that you loaded your musket with, but there is the Red herring showing up too, I think. The Man knows all of them fallacies, so maybe he can place your latest activity right.
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
No. Arithmetic guarantees the results are identical. Didn't you ever learn any arithmetic, Doron?
Whether you admit it or not,
10 - 9.999... = (10*1) - (10*0.999...) = 10 * (1 - 0.999...) and
10 - 9.999... = 10 - (9 + 0.999...) = (10 - 9) - 0.999... = 1 - 0.999...
Arithmetic is obsessively consistent that way, unlike Doronetics.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Let us demonstrate your nonsense (whether you admit it or not) by using only local numbers:
1 - 0.99 = 0.01
10*(1 - 0.99) = 10*(0.01) = 0.10
0.01 ≠ 0.1
Let us demonstrate your nonsense (whether you admit it or not) by using also non-local numbers:
1 - 0.999... = 0.000...1
10*(1 - 0.999...) = 10*(0.000...1) = 0.000...10
0.000...1 ≠ 0.000...10
-----------
Didn't you ever learn the fundamental principle of Equation (changes are equally done at both sides)?
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Nobody has disputed this. Why do you insist on irrelevant arguments made of straw?
Let's stick to the basic derivation, as presented. You claim 0.000...1 and 0.000...10 are different numbers. So, where is the mistake in the following?
(1a) 10 - 9.999... = (10*1) - (10*0.999...)
(1b) (10*1) - (10*0.999...) = 10 * (1 - 0.999...)
(1c) 10 * (1 - 0.999...) = 10 * (0.000...1)
(1d) 10 * (0.000...1) = 0.000...10
(2a) 10 - 9.999... = 10 - (9 + 0.999...)
(2b) 10 - (9 + 0.999...) = (10 - 9) - 0.999...
(2c) (10 - 9) - 0.999... = 1 - 0.999...
(2d) 1 - 0.999... = 0.000...1
(3) Therefore, 0.000...10 = 0.000...1
Surely, Doron, there must be a mistake in the arithmetic, right? Otherwise, Doronetics would, once again, be fundamentally wrong.
Why do you use these local and non-local numbers to verify correctness of a statement when algebraic substitution does the job better?
Just set 10 = a, 9.999...= b and run jsfisher's statement that way:
1. a - b = (a*1) - (a*b/10) = a*(1 - b/10) = a - ab/10
2. a - b = a - (a - 1 + b/10) = (a - (a - 1)) - b/10 = 1 - b/10
Now you can clearly see that the results don't equal and therefore don't follow the premise (a - b) = (a - b). And so what? Inequalities are a part of mathematics, aren't they?
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
You still do not get all of what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7374411&postcount=15946, isn't it jsfisher?
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
No, you are again projecting onto others your own failings. Your cited post doesn't do anything to dispute my proof 0.000...1 = 0.000...10.
All you need do is point out which step is wrong and state why its wrong. What could be easier?
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
So why don't you use the fundamental principle to prove that 0.10 > 0.1? See, inequalities are solved by the same laws that govern over the solution of equations. Or are they?
Well let's see. We multiply each side of the Doronian inequality by 10, and then we compare:
a) 0.10 * 10 = 01.0
b) 0.1 * 10 = 01
Since the result of (a) is a collection of 4 ASCII characters and the result of (b) is a collection of only 2 characters, 01.0 > 01, which is consistent with the initial inequality 0.10 > 0.1 (4 characters > 3 characters) and we're done. Well, not yet.
OM to the classrooms, OM to the classrooms...!!!
Now we are.
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Which step? Be specific.
Are you claiming 9.999... does not equal 9 + 0.999... ? That would be a most bizarre claim, even by Doronetics standards. That rates right up there with your insistence 2 may not be a member of set, {2}.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
and agian
You can go around this circle as many times as you like Doron, it won't change anything but it will continue to show how nonsensical your assertions are.
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
So you’re still just going to deliberately ignore the actual question....
….you are still just deliberately being ignorant.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
EDIT:
Let us demonstrate your nonsense (whether you admit it or not) by using only local numbers:
1 - 0.99 = 0.01
10*(1 - 0.99) = 10*1 – 10*0.99 = 10 - 9.9 = 10*(0.01) = 0.10
(1a) 10 - 9.9 = (10*1) - (10*0.99)
(1b) (10*1) - (10*0.99) = 10 * (1 - 0.99)
(1c) 10 * (1 - 0.99) = 10 * (0.01)
(1d) 10 * (0.01) = 0.10
(2a) 10 - 9.9 = 10 - (9 + 0.9)
(2b) 10 - (9 + 0.9) = (10 - 9) - 0.9
(2c) (10 - 9) - 0.9 = 1 - 0.9
(2d) 1 - 0.9 = 0.10
As you see, in both cases you have got the same 0.10 result, which is different than 1 - 0.99 = 0.01
The same reasoning holds in the case of 10-9.999… = 0.000…10 (which is different than 1 - 0.999… = 0.000…1) as long as no nonsense (2b) trick is used on infinite interpolation.
No, I claim that your arithmetic changed 9.999... to 0.999... by your (10-9)+0.999... nonsense (2b) trick.
In order to get it clearer, your arithmetic eliminates the "shift to the left" of 1 and 0.999..., which are actually 10 and 9.999..., and as a result you get 0.000...1 instead of 0.000...10
Your arithmetic does not have any influence on the result, in the case of finite interpolation, as can be seen above.
Your local-only arithmetic can't show the non-locality of 0.000...1, which is 10 times closer to a given limit (1, in this case) than 0.000...10 (10, in this case) along an infinite interpolation, such that both non-local numbers are < AND = to a given limit, which is a property that no locality has.
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
The Man, you are the one who running in circles in your context-dependent-only closed box, exactly because you are not using the co-existence of Cross-contexts with Context-depended reasoning.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
So, do you still can't get that AB is a non-strict value?
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Again stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.
- Status