Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Little 10 Toes said:
Faulty premise. I define a collection and find elements that fit. What is "naturally changeable" about that?
Click to expand...
It is a true premise, exactly because you are able to define a collection of more than one element, because the power of the continuum is your memory and the elements are gathered by it but they can't have the power of the gatherer.

In other words, given any collection, you can always change its gathered elements (and be aware of these changes) exactly because the memory remains unchanged w.r.t these changes (or in other words, it has the power of the continuum w.r.t the given elements).
 
doronshadmi said:
It is a true premise, exactly because you are able to define a collection of more than one element, because the power of the continuum is your memory and the elements are gathered by it but they can't have the power of the gatherer.

In other words, given any collection, you can always change its gathered elements (and be aware of these changes) exactly because the memory remains unchanged w.r.t these changes (or in other words, it has the power of the continuum w.r.t the given elements).
Click to expand...

HAAHAHAH!!!! The power of my mind!!! I will use it to beat the number seven into submission for scaring the number six. Why?!?! Because seven ate nine!!!

In other words, I can't change the gathered elements because they are part of the set that I have defined. The elements are what they are. They are not gathered by my mind, or my memory. They never had, or will never have, any power from me. There is no power of the continuum, that is unless they are part of the Q ContinuumWP. But wait, that's a fictional place!
 
Keep in mind you are attempting to reason with someone convinced 2 may not be a member of the set containing 2 as a member.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
In other words, I can't change the gathered elements because they are part of the set that I have defined.
Click to expand...
Your decisions and your definitions influence on the gathered elements, so if you choose not to change them and define them not to be change, that is exactly what you get.

Little 10 Toes said:
The elements are what they are.
Click to expand...
By your decisions and your definitions.

If you find more minds that agree with these definitions, than there is a community of minds, which support the same decisions.

Little 10 Toes said:
They are not gathered by my mind, or my memory. They never had, or will never have, any power from me.
Click to expand...
Yes I know, you think that you are just an observer of things beyond your influence, but in that case you have to ask yourself, what enables you to observe them in the first place, after all as pure observer they are totally independent of you, such that you actually can't be aware of them (according to the model of pure observation).

Little 10 Toes said:
There is no power of the continuum, that is unless they are part of the Q ContinuumWP. But wait, that's a fictional place!
Click to expand...
Your memory, which enables you to be aware of elements (whether its is done step-by-step, in parallel, or any possible serial\parallel combination), is an essential factor of your observation and your reasoning, whether you like it, or not.

In other words, any ability to observe holds in it the ability to influence and be influenced by the observed, whether the influence is abstract or not.

In this case, any mind has some degree of responsibility on the results, and through responsibility Ethics and logical reasoning are factors of a one framework (which I call Organic Mathematics).
 
Last edited:
Let's observe once again the following analogy:

[qimg]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7043/6840987626_c9c426828a_z.jpg[/qimg]

NOthing is weaker than any tool that is used to measure it.

YESthing is stronger than any tool that is used to measure it.

Unity (thing) is the source of NO,SOME,EVERY,YES ploychotomy.

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

By following the notions above the outer "{" "}" represent YESthing, no symbols between the outer "{" "}" represent NOthing, and between these extremes we have SOMEthing and EVERYthing.

According to these notions the universe of elements is between YESthing and NOthing, where YESthing is not included as one of the elements.

In this case the considered universe in the case of 2 and {2} is {2,{2}}, where the bold outer "{" "}" is beyond collections.



Unity (thing) is the source of NO,SOME,EVERY,YES ploychotomy.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Wrong, Cross-contexts reasoning can't be used by Traditional Maths, exactly because it is context-dependent-only reasoning.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Only you claim that and you keep failing at providing any proof as to either why this is or how it is.
 
doronshadmi said:
Let's observe once again the following analogy:

[qimg]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7043/6840987626_c9c426828a_z.jpg[/qimg]

NOthing is weaker than any tool that is used to measure it.

YESthing is stronger than any tool that is used to measure it.

Unity (thing) is the source of NO,SOME,EVERY,YES ploychotomy.

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

By following the notions above the outer "{" "}" represent YESthing, no symbols between the outer "{" "}" represent NOthing, and between these extremes we have SOMEthing and EVERYthing.

According to these notions the universe of elements is between YESthing and NOthing, where YESthing is not included as one of the elements.

In this case the considered universe in the case of 2 and {2} is {2,{2}}, where the bold outer "{" "}" is beyond collections.

Unity (thing) is the source of NO,SOME,EVERY,YES ploychotomy.
Click to expand...

Only by your decisions and your definitions. You have a closed mind indeed.
 
doronshadmi said:
It is clear that the realm of collections is naturally changeable, because no collection has the power of the continuum, which is not changeable w.r.t to the collections.
Click to expand...

They also do not have the power of Grayskull.
 
doronshadmi said:
You repeat on yourself, the answer was already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8168509&postcount=1144 .

Since I find you boring you are going to my ignore list.
Click to expand...

Excellent! That means I do not have to care for any Doronetic evasions and can comment under each post without it being buried by senseless waffling.

The link is an evasion, by the way...

I would have asked next:

Define set S as containing the digits of Pi, concatenated to their position, like 3-1,1-2,4-3,1-4,5-5 etc...

What is the cardinality of S?
 
Little 10 Toes said:
Doron, you still have not told me why my set of {four, five, nine} is not complete.
Click to expand...

Watch it... he may punish you by putting you on the ignore list.
 
realpaladin said:
Linkstringing, no explanation as to why and finally...'think abstract'?

Doron must either think sets are concrete or, more likely, does not get the concept of 'abstract'.
Click to expand...

Precisely. And this suggestion to think abstract comes from someone who favors drawings instead of explanations and thinks proofs can be provided using them.
 
sympathic said:
Precisely. And this suggestion to think abstract comes from someone who favors drawings instead of explanations and thinks proofs can be provided using them.
Click to expand...
Being able to think abstract has to be done both by using verbal_symbolic and visual_spatial mind's skills.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Yes I did, the opposite explicit elment of the 0;1 diagonal form of a given set, is not an element of that set.
Click to expand...

But it's not supposed to be. "Elephant" is also not a member of the set, that doesn't make the set any less complete. If all the elements of a set are present, then it is complete, by any rational interpretation.

We're back to you being surprised that a set of 4 elements doesn't contain all the elements that are in a superset of 16 elements.

Perhaps you would care to define your concept of 'completeness', and tell us what use it has.
 
zooterkin said:
We're back to you being surprised that a set of 4 elements doesn't contain all the elements that are in a superset of 16 elements.
Click to expand...
We are back to the fact that a given set, which its elements are constructed by 0;1 bits (and the number of the elements is the same as the number of the bits in each element) does not include the all possible elements, which are constructed as described.

As a result the given set is incomplete.

Since the largest powerset does not exist, this result is extendible to powersets.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
We are back to the fact that a given set, which its elements are constructed by 0;1 bits (and the number of the elements is the same as the number of the bits in each element) does not include the all possible elements, which are constructed as described.

As a result the given set is incomplete.

Since the largest powerset does not exist, this result is extendible to powersets.
Click to expand...

The given set did not consist of 0;1 elements. It was Doronified into it.
 
zooterkin said:
But it's not supposed to be. "Elephant" is also not a member of the set, that doesn't make the set any less complete. If all the elements of a set are present, then it is complete, by any rational interpretation.

We're back to you being surprised that a set of 4 elements doesn't contain all the elements that are in a superset of 16 elements.

Perhaps you would care to define your concept of 'completeness', and tell us what use it has.
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
We are back to the fact that a given set, which its elements are constructed by 0;1 bits (and the number of the elements is the same as the number of the bits in each element) does not include the all possible elements, which are constructed as described.

As a result the given set is incomplete.
Click to expand...
Only for your definition of 'incomplete', which appears to be trivially true. I repeat, what use is it?
 
doronshadmi said:
Already done in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8168491&postcount=1143 .
Click to expand...

Nope. You are talking about sets that have members that are infinite. You are also talking about powersets. I am talking about a finite set with a finite amount of numbers that are finite.

Please learn to comprehend and try again.

I have a set that is the set of signed whole numbers when written out in English will have four letters. The set is {four, five, nine}. Please tell me why this set is incomplete.
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
Nope.
Click to expand...
Yep.

And you ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8168975&postcount=1164 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8169090&postcount=1165.

Little 10 Toes said:
I have a set that is the set of signed whole numbers when written out in English will have four letters. The set is {four, five, nine}. Please tell me why this set is incomplete.
Click to expand...
The outer "{" "}" (which represent your memory) is always beyond the given elements, which are gathered by your given rule.

Actually without your memory your "the set of signed whole numbers when written out in English will have four letters" rule can't be expressed (four, five, nine are not gathered into a set, which expresses that rule).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Yep.

And you ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8168975&postcount=1164 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8169090&postcount=1165.


The outer "{" "}" (which represent your memory) is always beyond the given elements, which are gathered by your given rule.

Actually without your memory your "the set of signed whole numbers when written out in English will have four letters" rule can't be expressed (four, five, nine are not gathered into a set, which expresses that rule).
Click to expand...

The whole diagonalization excercise was just to show exactly nothing.

His argument is, was and will always be in the end: It's magic, and you don't get it!

Here is Doron saying "think abstract", but he balks at using abstractions...
 
Last edited:
To those who do not get it (yet) memory is a natural property of our realm, and it is always beyond the remembered, exactly as the outer "{" "}" is always beyond the included elements.
 
Last edited:
Ah, so doronnetics is useless. A set doesn't care about memories. Memories don't care about sets. 1 isn't true neutral, and pi doesn't have any lawful evil tendencies.

Edit: you want to assign things to things that don't need assigning. Example: you want to assign diaginalzation (sp) to a complete set that does not need any else added to it. Why do you need to change the set to anything? If I ask a simple question, why can't you provide a simple answer?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom