Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not forgetting the essentaial onethinhgness emanating from awarenesss of awareness and the being of beingness and experiencing unity in all it's polychotomous manifestations in non-personal configurations of the host continuum.........etc, ad nauseam
 
Not forgetting the essentaial onethinhgness emanating from awarenesss of awareness and the being of beingness and experiencing unity in all it's polychotomous manifestations in non-personal configurations of the host continuum.........etc, ad nauseam

Do you have any links for that?
 
Did someone say you had? The post was in quotes and no one was named as the subject of it.
It does not matter.

How the one that originally express this phrase knows that X have made an utterance which has no literal significance even for itself?

Sometimes it is better to be silent than talk (type) in circles. Life is short. My preference is to keep it for when progress is probable, or communication enjoyable. Proselytizing is not on my list of pleasurable activities.
How what you say is related to your use of the "he has made an utterance which has no literal significance even for himself." quote?

Who is the one that originally expressed the quoted phrase?

Why you just had nothing further to say on http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7796635&postcount=219 ?
 
Last edited:
Posts deleted?

Did someone delete a bunch of posts that were here for a short time on the 21st?
 
Last edited:
Let's follow the traditional mathematical notion in order to show that given any non-empty set of distinct elements according to a given form, no possible set S of that form is complete, because:

a) There is no additional distinct element (there is nothing) between two distinct elements, which are constructed according to the given form.

b) Given the power set P(S) of distinct elements of a given form, there is a set S of distinct elements of that form, where S is a placeholder for any possible set of distinct elements of that form.

c) The largest power set P(S) of distinct elements of that form does not exist.

By using <0,1>^k(k=0 to ∞) as a common form for both S and P(S), we show that any possible non-empty S of distinct objects of a given form, is incomplete, no matter if S is finite or not.

<0,1> is the common notation of the forms, ^ is the power operation on some given S, and k is the cardinality of a given S of distinct objects, whether it is finite or not.

By generalization, S and P(S) are based on <0,1>^k form, where k = 0 to ∞, as follows:

By <0,1>^1 (2^1)
P(S)=
{0,1}
and
S=
(
{0}
or
{1}
)

By <0,1>^2 (2^2)
P(S)=
{00,01,10,11}
and
S=
(
{
10,
11
} → 00
or
{
10,
00
} → 01
or
{
00,
11
} → 10
or
{
01,
10
} → 11
)

...

Nothing is changed even if k=∞, because also in this case, given S with distinct elements of a given form, there is a distinct element of that form, which is an element of P(S) but it is not an element of S.

Since (every P(S) of distinct elements of a given form has a power set of distinct elements of that given form) AND (the largest power set of distinct elements of that form does not exist) then no given S with distinct elements of that given form, is complete (no matter if k is the cardinality of a finite or non-finite non-empty S).
 
Last edited:
...<snip>...

Resurrecting this garbage from long ago does not improve its odor. There is nothing "traditional mathematical" about it, just more custom notation gibberish and math concept abuse. You cannot even get the order correct, that a set gives rise to a power set, not the other way around.
 
Traditional mathematicians can't comprehend the parallel existence of S as a placeholder for any possible set of distinct elements of a given form, and the power set ( notated as P(S) ) of these possible sets ( shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8137722&postcount=890 ).


The best they can get in this case is ...<snip>...

Furthermore, they believe that Mathematics is their fixed-object property.
 
Last edited:
Traditional mathematicians can't comprehend the parallel existence of S as a placeholder for any possible set of distinct elements of a given form, and the power set ( notated as P(S) ) of these possible sets ( shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8137722&postcount=890 ).


The best they can get in this case is ...<snip>...

Furthermore, they believe that Mathematics is their fixed-object property.

Where didn't you study maths?
 
Where didn't you study maths?
Furthermore, traditional mathematicians do not understand their own reasoning, if they claim that "a set gives rise to a power set", because according to ZF(C) the existence of power set is guaranteed by an axiom, and axioms are mutually independent of each other, or in this case, P(S) is not rise from S (a set does not give rise to a power set).

So you can ask some traditional mathematicians that claims that "a set gives rise to a power set" where didn't he\she study maths.
 
Last edited:
Lets improve the last part of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8137722&postcount=890 (also be aware of
a) There is no additional distinct element (there is nothing) between two distinct elements, which are constructed according to the given form.
which follows traditional maths' point of view):

Since (every P(S) of distinct elements of a given form has a power set of distinct elements of that given form) AND (for every given set under placeholder S there is a distinct element of that form, which is an element of P(S) but it is not an element of that set) AND (the largest power set of distinct elements of that form does not exist) then no given set (under placeholder S) with distinct elements of that given form is complete (no matter if k is the cardinality of a finite or non-finite non-empty set under placeholder S).
 
Last edited:
Lets improve the last part of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8137722&postcount=890 ( also be aware of which follows traditional maths' point of view):

Since (every P(S) of distinct elements of a given form has a power set of distinct elements of that given form) AND (for every given set under placeholder S there is a distinct element of that form, which is an element of P(S) but it is not an element of that set) AND (the largest power set of distinct elements of that form does not exist) then no given set (under placeholder S) with distinct elements of that given form is complete (no matter if k is the cardinality of a finite or non-finite non-empty set under placeholder S).

You could put those words in any order and they would still make as much sense.
 
Furthermore, traditional mathematicians do not understand their own reasoning, if they claim that "a set gives rise to a power set", because according to ZF(C) the existence of power set is guaranteed by an axiom, and axioms are mutually independent of each other, or in this case, P(S) is not rise from S (a set does not give rise to a power set).

So you can ask some traditional mathematicians that claims that "a set gives rise to a power set" where didn't he\she study maths.

At least mathematicians have reasoning. Goodbye.
 
You could put those words in any order and they would still make as much sense.
If you don't get A, no order of its expression makes it understandable to you, especially if getting A is independent of any particular order of its expression (exactly as X,Y,Z order has no impact on (Z AND X AND Y) = (Y AND X AND Z) = (X AND Y AND Z) ... ect. expression).
 
Last edited:
Just a quick recap of the past several posts:

  1. Doron presents something claiming it to be traditional mathematical notation.
  2. Doron defends it by claiming it isn't traditional mathematics notation.

Not his best example of self-contradiction, but a fairly common one.
 
doronshadmi said:
The claim that any post in this thread must be a response to some other poster, is ridiculous.

Where, in that sentence, do you read that?

I am only accusing you of posting so that the thread gets bumped into the current listing.

Edit: And that is something I think quite sad.
 
Last edited:
X borrowed some reasoning from Y.
So X has no reasoning unless it enables to get out of its box in order to borrw some reasoning from Y.

But X can't do it because its paradigm is context-dependent-only reasoning, as can be seen all along this thread.
 
So X has no reasoning unless it enables to get out of its box in order to borrw some reasoning from Y.

But X can't do it because its paradigm is context-dependent-only reasoning, as can be seen all along this thread.

Content dependent paradigm reasoning is contextually dependent upon contextual paradigms and unitary axioms of a dualistic nature. I'm surprised you didn't spot that.
 
Let's look at these phrases given by some traditional mathematician:

"
  1. Doron presents something claiming it to be traditional mathematical notation.
  2. Doron defends it by claiming it isn't traditional mathematics notation.
"


This is wrong since I defend my claims by using only Traditional Maths because <0,1>^k form is a Traditional Mathematics expression.
 
Last edited:
Let's look at these phrases given by some traditional mathematician:

"
  1. Doron presents something claiming it to be traditional mathematical notation.
  2. Doron defends it by claiming it isn't traditional mathematics notation.
"


This is wrong since I defend my claims by using only Traditional Maths because <0,1>^k form is a Traditional Mathematics expression.

I prefer Contemporary Jazz maths.
 
Content dependent paradigm reasoning is contextually dependent upon contextual paradigms and unitary axioms of a dualistic nature. I'm surprised you didn't spot that.
The dualistic nature of a given axiomatic system is the mutual independence state among its axiom, or in other words, there is no hierarchy of dependency among axioms, so P(S) is not rise form S, as some traditional mathematician wrongly claims (not all traditional mathematicians have reasoning as can be seen, for example, in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8138972&postcount=908).
 
Last edited:
The dualistic nature of a given axiomatic system is the mutual independence state among its axiom, or in other words, there is no hierarchy of dependency among axioms, so P(S) is not rise form S, as some traditional mathematician wrongly claims.

P(S) is axiomatically uber-dependent upon S, as S is the empirical form of the set of non-independent states.
 
...<0,1>^k form is a Traditional Mathematics expression.

Not for power sets, it isn't.

Moreover, since you appear incapable of using notation in any sort of intelligible or intelligent way, one can only guess what you might have meant by the exponentiation of tuples.
 
Where, in that sentence, do you read that?

I am only accusing you of posting so that the thread gets bumped into the current listing.

Edit: And that is something I think quite sad.

realpaladin, what you aware of is what you get, so it is indeed sad that your awareness gets bumped.
 
doronshadmi said:
Wrong, axioms are mutually independent self evident truths (no empirical (in)formation is needed) of a given axiomatic system.

mutually independent... neato!
 
Look how poor is the reasoning of some traditional mathematicians, they can't get simple thing like:

<0,1>^1 expression = 2^1 expression

<0,1>^2 expression = 2^2 expression

<0,1>^3 expression = 2^3 expression

...

etc. ad infinitum, as shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8137722&postcount=890.


I see. So, we have Doronetics on the left and something more traditional on the right along with an extraneous word, 'expression'. Doron is very good at chucking in the extraneous; it helps bolster the gibberish.

Still, from this we conclude several things. First, the tuple exponentiation was in fact not traditional mathematical notation, as Doron claimed. Doron lied to us. Second, the now-alleged equivalent still in no way relates to power sets in the way Doron used his sham notation. Third, Doron's goal is to obscure, not communicate--why else would he substitute a meaningless notation of his own invention all the while claiming it to be "standard" then claim it related to some subject in a manner it didn't?
 
Wrong, axioms are mutually independent self evident truths (no empirical (in)formation is needed) of a given axiomatic system.

Perhaps, Doron, if you actually read with comprehension what has been posted here you'd realize there is only one axiom at issue, and that it is clear from that axiom the relationship between a set and its power set.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom