Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
Please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583 .
Click to expand...

I am aware of that post, it makes zero sense to me and it is completely beyond my skill to see what practical use it has. This is why I am asking for clarification. In clear, simple, easy to understand terms.

Me, I am not a mathematician, nor a paleontologist, nor some noble prize winning super genius rocket scientist. I'm Joe Everybody, working man holding two part-time jobs and a full time student.

Please try again, keeping that in mind.
 
Mudcat said:
I am aware of that post, it makes zero sense to me and it is completely beyond my skill to see what practical use it has. This is why I am asking for clarification. In clear, simple, easy to understand terms.

Me, I am not a mathematician, nor a paleontologist, nor some noble prize winning super genius rocket scientist. I'm Joe Everybody, working man holding two part-time jobs and a full time student.

Please try again, keeping that in mind.
Click to expand...
Mudcat,

Are you aware of yourself as the calm source of any possible mantel activity in your mind?
 
doronshadmi said:
Mudcat,

Are you aware of yourself as the calm source of any possible mantel activity in your mind?
Click to expand...

I am aware that mental activity can be influenced by environmental stimuli, and quite strongly at that. But I fail to see how it connects with my post.
 
Mudcat said:
I am aware that mental activity can be influenced by environmental stimuli, and quite strongly at that. But I fail to see how it connects with my post.
Click to expand...
You did not answer my question, please try again.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You did not answer my question, please try again.
Click to expand...

This question?

doronshadmi said:
Are you aware of yourself as the calm source of any possible mantel activity in your mind?
Click to expand...

I don't know what to make of it. What is a calm source? What do you mean by it? What kind of brain activity do you mean? Why do you ask this question? What does have to with my post? What does it have to do with the price of tea in China?
 
zooterkin said:
Oh, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that... ;)
Click to expand...

I'm sure, too. But say zoo (sorry about having to shorten your name, my iPad is giving me fits about it) do you have any clue what they are going on about? If so, please let me know.
 
Last edited:
Mudcat said:
I'm sure, too. But say zoo (sorry about having to shorten your name, my iPad is giving me fits about it) do you have any clue what they are going on about? If so, please let me know.
Click to expand...

Doron fails to understand several fundamental things about maths, logic and the English language. Rather than take correction from people who do understand, he continues to build his fantasies on the sand of his poor comprehension, and the "insight' that a stick laid across a circle is both inside and outside the circle at the same time, to occasional comic effect. Some of the things he fails to grasp are that a line is covered in points, that .999... is the same as 1, and that infinity is not just a very large number.
 
Why are you guys talking about fireplaces now :(

I swear, this thread just gets more and more confusing.
 
zooterkin said:
Doron fails to understand several fundamental things about maths, logic and the English language. Rather than take correction from people who do understand, he continues to build his fantasies on the sand of his poor comprehension, and the "insight' that a stick laid across a circle is both inside and outside the circle at the same time, to occasional comic effect. Some of the things he fails to grasp are that a line is covered in points, that .999... is the same as 1, and that infinity is not just a very large number.
Click to expand...
Zooterkin,

1) You can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8007222&postcount=396 .

2) You repeat like a parrot after what other people say without actually understand what I say.

3) A line (which is a particular case of "host" space) can't fully be covered by any amount of points (which are particular case of "hosted" spaces) exactly because no higher (mathematical or physical) space is reducible into collection of lower (mathematical or physical) spaces, but your verbal_symbolic-only context-dependent-only view of the considered subject is too weak in order to get it.

4) One of the results of the irreducibility of higher space into a collection of lower spaces is non-local numbers like 0.999...10 < local number 1 by non-local number 0.000...110

5) Actual infinity is not less than the power of the continuum of a given host (mathematical or physical) space, and no amount of lower (mathematical or physical) spaces is actual infinity, so your claim that I think that infinity is some very large number is actually an example of your inability to get my arguments.

6) And yes, "a stick laid across a circle is both inside and outside the circle" exactly because of what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8007222&postcount=396 (a line can be at AND beyond (not at) a given domain), which is something beyond your verbal_symbolic-only context-dependent-only limited comprehension of this fine subject (you can't get it beyond collections of localities, exactly like the people that you repeat like a parrot after what they say).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Please look at the analogy of Unity awareness in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583 .
Click to expand...
This is the same as this post:

doronshadmi said:
Please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583 .
Click to expand...

It is still not making any sense to me. I am asking nicely can you please break it down into simpler terms? After that can you provide how it is in any way useful, practical, and beneficial?
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
"insight' that a stick laid across a circle is both inside and outside the circle at the same time, to occasional comic effect.
Click to expand...
How is this in anyway 'insightful'? A stick laid across a circle with a diameer smaller than the length of the stick would mean that it is both inside and outside the circle (provided you ignore the problem that it's reaaly just a three-dimensional object on top of a two dimensional shape so can't be 'in' or 'out' of it in the first place).

zooterkin said:
Some of the things he fails to grasp are that a line is covered in points.
Click to expand...
What's so hard to grasp? A line is figure stretches out in oposite directions infinitely, so is covered with an equally infinite number of points. choose two points, and you get a segment, choose one, you get a ray. Basic geometry.

zooterkin said:
that .999... is the same as 1.
Click to expand...
I thought that was one of those things that go without saying?
zooterkin said:
and that infinity is not just a very large number.
Click to expand...

It's not a number at all, any more than zero is.

And this guy wants to make a new 'science'?
 
doronshadmi said:
If there is nothing between considered things (numbers or whatever) then there is actually one and only one thing, for example:

There is an endless straight line, which is actually one and only one thing.
Click to expand...

Oh, so there are other "one and only one thing(s)"? Please list them all.

For now, I agree that we have only have a line.

doronshadmi said:
Now, there is a point which is located along it, end as a result we are able to distinguish between, for example, left and right rays w.r.t the considered point, even if the point has 0 dimensional space, so 0 dimensional space is not nothing, because if it is omitted, we get a single endless straight line.
Click to expand...
No. If I have a single line and a single point is removed or "omitted", then I do not have a endless line. I have two rays.

The rest of your post is based off incomplete information and your own special words and phrases.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
Oh, so there are other "one and only one thing(s)"? Please list them all.

For now, I agree that we have only have a line.

No. If I have a single line and a single point is removed or "omitted", then I do not have a endless line. I have two rays.

The rest of your post is based off incomplete information and your own special words and phrases.
Click to expand...

You contradict yourself because:

1) You agree that we have only a line (a 1-space without any sub-spaces (segments) or lower space(s)(0-space(s)) along it.

2) If you have a single line (according to your agreement with (1)), then this single line remains a single line if no lower space like a point (0-space) exists along it, or in other words, no rays are defined without the existence of a point along the endless line, so you are wrong when you are claiming that "If I have a single line and a single point is removed or "omitted", then I do not have a endless line. I have two rays."
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
2) If you have a single line (according to your agreement with (1)), then this single line remains a single line if no lower space like a point (0-space) exists along it, or in other words, no rays are defined without the existence of a point along the endless line, so you are wrong when you claiming that "If I have a single line and a single point is removed or "omitted", then I do not have a endless line. I have two rays."
Click to expand...

Oh, yes, I'd forgotten this one. The points are there, by definition, whether you choose to identify them or not, Doron.
 
Mudcat said:
What's so hard to grasp? A line is figure stretches out in oposite directions infinitely, so is covered with an equally infinite number of points. choose two points, and you get a segment, choose one, you get a ray. Basic geometry.
Click to expand...
The basic geometry is that no point (0-space element) is extendible into a line (1-space element) and no line is reducible into a point (0-space element).

As a result not amount of points (collection of 0-spaces) completely covers a line (1-space element).

This simple fact is generalized to any association among lower and higher spaces, such that no collection of lower spaces completely covers the higher space.

Therefore I am using the terms "host"\"hosted" spaces in order to clarify that they are defined but not made of each other.

Mudcat said:
I thought that was one of those things that go without saying?
Click to expand...
This thought is changed if you understand the principle of "host"\"hosted" spaces.


Mudcat said:
It's not a number at all, any more than zero is.
Click to expand...
Numbers are measurement tools of X and not X in itself, for example:

If X is nothing then its cardinality is measured by number 0, where number 0 is not nothing.

If X is fullness (the opposite of nothing) then its cardinality is measured by number ∞, where number ∞ is not fullness.

Mudcat said:
And this guy wants to make a new 'science'?
Click to expand...
Now you are closed under your own loop and ignore what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8007812&postcount=411 under paragraph (5).
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
Oh, yes, I'd forgotten this one. The points are there, by definition, whether you choose to identify them or not, Doron.
Click to expand...
Wrong zooterkin,

1-space exists even if no sub-spaces (line segments) or elements of lower space (points) exist along it.

Because you can't grasp this simple fact you can't understand how a line is at AND beyond (not at) a given domain.

Furthermore, multiple points are there exactly because of the association among lower and higher spaces such that they are defined but not made of each other, or in other words, no amount of lower spaces completely covers the higher space (no collection of lower spaces or sub-spaces has the power of continuum of the higher space).

In order to get that one's brain must use not less than its verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, which is something that you definitely don't do.

How convenient for you to ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8007812&postcount=411 , isn't it zooterkin?
 
Last edited:
Mudcat said:
This is the same as this post:



It is still not making any sense to me. I am asking nicely can you please break it down into simpler terms? After that can you provide how it is in any way useful, practical, and beneficial?
Click to expand...

Once again, please read only the part about Unity awareness (as has been written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583) in order to get my previous question to you ("Are you aware of yourself as the calm source of any possible mantel activity in your mind?")
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You contradict yourself because:

1) You agree that we have only a line (a 1-space without any sub-spaces (segments) or lower space(s)(0-space(s)) along it.
Click to expand...
Didn't contradict myself. You have assumed that I was using your "definition" of a line. The rest of your post is based on me using your "definition" of a line.

doronshadmi said:
The basic geometry is that no point (0-space element) is extendible into a line (1-space element) and no line is reducible into a point (0-space element).
Click to expand...
I, and I think most people here, would agree with this statement minus your "definitions" of point and line because your "definitions" are wrong.


doronshadmi said:
As a result not amount of points (collection of 0-spaces) completely covers a line (1-space element).
Click to expand...
Wrong. Again you're using your "definitions" that only you believe in. In addition, your original statement stays that we can't stretch a point to cover a line, but then you say we can't use an infinite amount of points to cover an infinite line.

We can, and do in fact, use points to make up a line. How you may ask? Draw me a standard graph using graph paper. Show me points of X and Y that will make the following statement correct: X + Y = 0. After marking all the points that you can on your paper, you should have a collection of points that has endpoints in the upper left and the lower right quadrants of the paper. I am assuming that you have stayed within the boundaries of the paper. Guess what, you've just created a line segment. Now if your paper was of infinite size, your line segment could turn into a line, but you would still have points covering your line.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
Now if your paper was of infinite size, your line segment could turn into a line, but you would still have points covering your line.
Click to expand...
1) A line exists even if there are no points along it, exactly because a line is not a collection of lower spaces (for example, points along a line or along line segments) or sub-spaces (for example, line segments).

2) As a result no amount of lower spaces or sub-spaces has the power of continuum of a line, such that a line can't be completely covered by any amount of collection of lower spaces (points), and its continuum is beyond a collection of segments, simply because actual continuum is beyond the state of collection, no matter what cardinality a given infinite collection has.

3) You can't get actual continuum because your mind is not actually based on your verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

Little 10 Toes said:
Show me points of X and Y that will make the following statement correct: X + Y = 0.
Click to expand...
It can't be done if X and Y are different points (in this case there is a gap between them in the absolute sense).

Little 10 Toes said:
After marking all the points that you can on your paper, you should have a collection of points that has endpoints in the upper left and the lower right quadrants of the paper
Click to expand...
This infinite collection of distinct points does not have the power of the continuum of the 1-space, which they are ordered along it.

In general, no infinite collection of distinct lower spaces or sub-spaces (known also as the "hosted" space) has the power of the continuum of the higher space (known also as the "host" space).

Little 10 Toes said:
doronshadmi said:
The basic geometry is that no point (0-space element) is extendible into a line (1-space element) and no line is reducible into a point (0-space element).
Click to expand...
I, and I think most people here, would agree with this statement minus your "definitions" of point and line because your "definitions" are wrong.
Click to expand...
Your twisted verbal_symbolic-only maneuvers have no impact on the "host"\"hosted" association among spaces, which is actually known only by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
In addition, your original statement stays that we can't stretch a point to cover a line, but then you say we can't use an infinite amount of points to cover an infinite line.
Click to expand...
Little 10 Toes,

An infinite amount of points can't cover also a finite line (known as Segment).

Furthermore, a finite line is not a collection of sub-segments, simply because given any arbitrary member of the collection of sub-segments, the line-segment is at and beyond (not at) the domain of the arbitrary sub-segment, and as a result the collection of sub-segments does not have the power of the continuum of the line-segment.

Moreover, the power of continuum of the collection of sub-segments decreasing by inverse proportionality to the cardinality of this collection.

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

Let's get a precise understanding of the power of the continuum of a given space:

Any given space or sub-space > 0 has the power of the continuum, where any collection of lower spaces with cardinality > 0 or collection of sub-spaces with cardinality > 1 that are located on any given space or sub-space > 0, decreasing by inverse proportionality to the cardinality of the considered collection.

Here is a verbal _symbolic AND visual_spatial example (the points represent the verbal _symbolic aspect):

...____________________________... is a line and it has the power of the continuum.


.________. is a line-segment, and no collection of line segments or points along a given line, has the power of the continuum of the given line.

Furthermore:

.________. is a line-segment, and no collection of sub line-segments or points along a given line-segment, has the power of the continuum of the given line-segment.

Moreover, the power of continuum of the collection of sub-segments or points on a given line-segment decreasing by inverse proportionality to the cardinality of this collection.
 
Last edited:
I see Zooterkin is still trying to save Doron, the others are new to me.

Doron! Any luck yet with revolutionizing the world of maths?
 
doronshadmi said:
Two locations in time are comparable simultaneously by memory, and yet the location in the future is potential, so Time can't be defined only in terms of collection of localities.

Step-by-step minds are tuned to get things only in terms of collections, and as a result they can't get the true nature of the continuum, which is not reducible to collections.
Click to expand...

You are talking perfect sense to me, unfortunately I don't have sufficient mathematical understanding to join in this debate.

It is remarkable how this step by step abstract thinking cannot break free of its abstraction and entertain the continuum. It just falls back on itself, justifying itself and hiding behind semantics and definitions.
 
punshhh said:
You are talking perfect sense to me, unfortunately I don't have sufficient mathematical understanding to join in this debate.

It is remarkable how this step by step abstract thinking cannot break free of its abstraction and entertain the continuum. It just falls back on itself, justifying itself and hiding behind semantics and definitions.
Click to expand...

That speaks volumes. Doron has no clue about mathematics.
 
punshhh said:
You are talking perfect sense to me, unfortunately I don't have sufficient mathematical understanding to join in this debate.
Click to expand...
I think you are at least as well qualified as Doron.

It is remarkable how this step by step abstract thinking cannot break free of its abstraction and entertain the continuum. It just falls back on itself, justifying itself and hiding behind semantics and definitions.
Click to expand...
See, there you go! Now, if you could just work in something about the event horizon of the formless, or similar...
 
zooterkin said:
I think you are at least as well qualified as Doron.


See, there you go! Now, if you could just work in something about the event horizon of the formless, or similar...
Click to expand...

Maybe Doron and Punshhh could work out the equation for the event horizon of the formless.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
We can, and do in fact, use points to make up a line. How you may ask? Draw me a standard graph using graph paper. Show me points of X and Y that will make the following statement correct: X + Y = 0. After marking all the points that you can on your paper, you should have a collection of points that has endpoints in the upper left and the lower right quadrants of the paper. I am assuming that you have stayed within the boundaries of the paper. Guess what, you've just created a line segment. Now if your paper was of infinite size, your line segment could turn into a line, but you would still have points covering your line.
Click to expand...

Do you understand that punshhh? Or is it just semantics and definitions to you?
 
dafydd said:
Do you understand that punshhh? Or is it just semantics and definitions to you?
Click to expand...

What?!!?!?!???? Still with the infinity issues of points on a line?

I thought I and a few others dealt with that until the subject was so wrung out it could have soaked up an ocean...

Let me more or less repeat in a condensed way what I already showed to Mr. Shadmi:

- Since infinity is actually a 'method boundary' and not a 'thing', you can not put the restraints of 'things' on it.
- A coordinate is a 'thing' and thus has restraints.
- A line is nothing but a method to denote coordinates (i.e. things) and thus does not need to have the constraints of the 'things' it points to.
- Since the line has no end points it stretches into infinity.

Now the biggest problem with the Mr. Shadmi brand of 'science' is that it is all based on what is called 'naive' observations and 'common sense'.
But class 101 in advanced science tells you that common sense is not necessarily a good thing to use when dealing with the extremities of knowledge.

Coordinates are not physical manifestations... physical manifestations do have limits like Planck time and are therefore in reality discreet (yeah yeah, I know, there's a lot of stuff not fitting into that, but for the purpose of this thread, it is correct).

The whole thing with coordinates is that you need to imagine something for our visual cortex to work with... but any computer does not have to and will gladly, provided time and memory, go off into infinity (as an example I give you the hunt for digits in Pi).

So what is hampering progress (for over 2 years.... wow... I never had a discussion that long) is the need to visualize all these concepts into a 1D/2D/3D object...

To @doron did Microsoft welcome you after you mailed Steve Ballmer? Or do I need to give you the email address again?
 
realpaladin said:
What?!!?!?!???? Still with the infinity issues of points on a line?
I thought I and a few others dealt with that until the subject was so wrung out it could have soaked up an ocean...

Let me more or less repeat in a condensed way what I already showed to Mr. Shadmi:

- Since infinity is actually a 'method boundary' and not a 'thing', you can not put the restraints of 'things' on it.
- A coordinate is a 'thing' and thus has restraints.
- A line is nothing but a method to denote coordinates (i.e. things) and thus does not need to have the constraints of the 'things' it points to.
- Since the line has no end points it stretches into infinity.

Now the biggest problem with the Mr. Shadmi brand of 'science' is that it is all based on what is called 'naive' observations and 'common sense'.
But class 101 in advanced science tells you that common sense is not necessarily a good thing to use when dealing with the extremities of knowledge.

Coordinates are not physical manifestations... physical manifestations do have limits like Planck time and are therefore in reality discreet (yeah yeah, I know, there's a lot of stuff not fitting into that, but for the purpose of this thread, it is correct).

The whole thing with coordinates is that you need to imagine something for our visual cortex to work with... but any computer does not have to and will gladly, provided time and memory, go off into infinity (as an example I give you the hunt for digits in Pi).

So what is hampering progress (for over 2 years.... wow... I never had a discussion that long) is the need to visualize all these concepts into a 1D/2D/3D object...

To @doron did Microsoft welcome you after you mailed Steve Ballmer? Or do I need to give you the email address again?
Click to expand...

Yes, and now punshhh has waded in. I could dig up a thread where punshhh demonstrates a lack of knowledge about infinity, but why bother.
 
punshhh said:
I do, it has nothing to do with Dorons point.
Click to expand...

But everything to do with this

''It is remarkable how this step by step abstract thinking cannot break free of its abstraction and entertain the continuum. It just falls back on itself, justifying itself and hiding behind semantics and definitions. ''

Entertain the continuum? Is that on this side or the other side of the event horizon of the formless?
 
realpaladin said:
What?!!?!?!???? Still with the infinity issues of points on a line?

I thought I and a few others dealt with that until the subject was so wrung out it could have soaked up an ocean...

Let me more or less repeat in a condensed way what I already showed to Mr. Shadmi:

- Since infinity is actually a 'method boundary' and not a 'thing', you can not put the restraints of 'things' on it.
- A coordinate is a 'thing' and thus has restraints.
- A line is nothing but a method to denote coordinates (i.e. things) and thus does not need to have the constraints of the 'things' it points to.
- Since the line has no end points it stretches into infinity.

Now the biggest problem with the Mr. Shadmi brand of 'science' is that it is all based on what is called 'naive' observations and 'common sense'.
But class 101 in advanced science tells you that common sense is not necessarily a good thing to use when dealing with the extremities of knowledge.

Coordinates are not physical manifestations... physical manifestations do have limits like Planck time and are therefore in reality discreet (yeah yeah, I know, there's a lot of stuff not fitting into that, but for the purpose of this thread, it is correct).

The whole thing with coordinates is that you need to imagine something for our visual cortex to work with... but any computer does not have to and will gladly, provided time and memory, go off into infinity (as an example I give you the hunt for digits in Pi).

So what is hampering progress (for over 2 years.... wow... I never had a discussion that long) is the need to visualize all these concepts into a 1D/2D/3D object...

To @doron did Microsoft welcome you after you mailed Steve Ballmer? Or do I need to give you the email address again?
Click to expand...

I don't want to put words into Mr Shadmi's mouth or miss-represent him. So I am only putting my interpretation on the table.

It appears that Mr Shadmi is merely pointing out the peculiar result of attempting to apply infinity to a timespace. Perhaps he has got something, maybe not, I don't know as I'm not a mathematician.

I am familiar with the ideas he is putting forward and in the appropriate context they are very usefull.
 
punshhh said:
I don't want to put words into Mr Shadmi's mouth or miss-represent him. So I am only putting my interpretation on the table.

It appears that Mr Shadmi is merely pointing out the peculiar result of attempting to apply infinity to a timespace. Perhaps he has got something, maybe not, I don't know as I'm not a mathematician.

I am familiar with the ideas he is putting forward and in the appropriate context they are very usefull.
Click to expand...

Take it from the real mathematicians here that he is talking sheer nonsense. I have no idea what useful purpose his ideas might be put to unless it is printing them out and using them to line a birdcage.
 
dafydd said:
But everything to do with this

''It is remarkable how this step by step abstract thinking cannot break free of its abstraction and entertain the continuum. It just falls back on itself, justifying itself and hiding behind semantics and definitions. ''

Entertain the continuum? Is that on this side or the other side of the event horizon of the formless?
Click to expand...

This was addressed to Doron and I expect he will understand my meaning.
 
dafydd said:
Take it from the real mathematicians here that he is talking sheer nonsense. I have no idea what useful purpose his ideas might be put to unless it is printing them out and using them to line a birdcage.
Click to expand...

No it all makes perfect sense, the debate is at an impasse without anyone considering Doron's perspective on the issue.
 
Perhaps you could elucidate on this for me

Originally Posted by doronshadmi
''In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...3&postcount=37, a reasoning that is based only on verbal_symbolic skills, can't comprehend the result of the transition of finer states to the finest state (which is resulted by a finite collection that no one of its objects is the finest state) and the inaccessibility of finitely or infinitely (which is any amount of) finer states to the finest state (where in the case of infinitely finer states, no transition to the finest state is involved)''
 
dafydd said:
Take it from the real mathematicians here that he is talking sheer nonsense. I have no idea what useful purpose his ideas might be put to unless it is printing them out and using them to line a birdcage.
Click to expand...

THank you for answering the question I put forward to Doron when I joined this thread.

So, his math is wrong and it serves no practical benefit what so ever? That's pretty much what I thought, coming in to the thread.

Edit to add: Still begs the question, why is this on R&P section and not the Bad Science section?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom