Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
jsfisher said:
He didn't come back. Are we the victims of a drive-by? Doron will be so upset to lose his presumed ally.

Hey Doron,

What about 1/7 -- rational or not? kghosh says not.
What about 1 and 0.999... -- equal or not? kghosh says equal.
Click to expand...

Well I hope Kaushik is for real and not a piece of laundry. Otherwise we never will find out what paper he was jabbering about.

As for the how... well, in Calcutta it is normal to go to the official Apple store to have them install software for you. Complete with all the trojans and virii that were inserted at the torrent site.
 
Let's take these parts form kghosh's work:

"In section II we will show that a line is not just a collection of points and we will have to introduce one-dimensional line-intervals as fundamental geometric elements."

"For real numbers only the concept of ”two numbers separated by an interval” or “two numbers coincident” have meaning but “two numbers adjacent” is not defined. That is given any two real numbers we can always find a real numbers lying between the two."

If I understand kghosh correctly, then no amount of adjacent real numbers construct any given one-dimensional line-interval, because it is a fundamental geometric element.

In this case, given any two arbitrary close real-numbers (where each real number has a 1-to-1 correspondence to a given point), they have one-dimensional line-interval as fundamental geometric element (non-composed object) between them, or the two numbers are coincident, such that there is actually only one real number (the two points are collapsed into one point).

kghosh wrote that "n.99999.... where all the decimal places are '9' is same as 'n'."

This statement is not clear since n is a variable that can be any non-fractional number, where .99999.... is not a variable and not a fractional number.

So let's give kghosh the chance to clarify this statement, before any further discussion on this subject.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
kghosh wrote that "n.99999.... where all the decimal places are '9' is same as 'n'."

This statement is not clear since n is a variable that can be any non-fractional number, where .99999.... is not a variable and not a fractional number.

So let's give kghosh the chance to clarify this statement, before any further discussion on this subject.
Click to expand...

No need to wait for his return. The statement (well, misstatement) comes directly from his article, with r, not n, in the orginal:
If r is an integer (> 0)...The numbers r and (r − 1).999... where all the decimal places are 9 equivalent
Click to expand...

He's quite clearly saying 0.999... and 1 are equivalent, 732.999... and 733 are equivalent, and so on.

Come on, Doron. Is he correct in this regard or not?

You also ignored the question about 1/7. Rational or not, Doron?

These are not difficult questions. Why so much difficulty answering them?
 
Let us assume that kghosh is not going to be a participator of this thread.

By following Elements of the Theory of Functions and Functional Analysis, Volume 1 By A. N. Kolmogorov and S. V. Fomin ( http://books.google.co.il/books?id=OyWeDwfQmeQC&pg=PA8&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false ) 0.999... = 1, where this conclusion is not the conclusion of Organic Mathematics, which uses verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning that enables it to define non-local numbers like 0.999...10 and 0.000...110.

The "...1" part of non-local number 0.000...110 is the inability of any amount of points (represented, in this case, by infinitely many points that are notated by symbol 9) to completely cover a 1-dimesional space.

Kghosh's work claims that:

"In section II we will show that a line is not just a collection of points and we will have to introduce one-dimensional line-intervals as fundamental geometric elements."

"For real numbers only the concept of ”two numbers separated by an interval” or “two numbers coincident” have meaning but “two numbers adjacent” is not defined. That is given any two real numbers we can always find a real numbers lying between the two."

Furthermore, he uses this argument:

"A point is a geometric object with zero extension. Thus whatever may be the amount of content (cardinality), a collection of points can not give a geometric continuum, a geometric object with finite homogeneous extension. We can illustrate this aspect in the context of the infinite straight line, a geometric continuum of one dimension. The one-dimensional homogeneous extension of a line-element on the straight line is characterized through the concept of length. Qualitatively, length characterizes finite homogeneous extension in one-dimension and also ordering of points with respect to a given point chosen as origin. Quantitatively, length gives a coordinatization scheme characterizing line-intervals with a given line-interval chosen as unity. We will illustrate this aspect later. Thus, whatever may be the cardinality, a collection of zero-length points can not give a finite-length one-dimensional line. Also a homogeneous collection of points give us a single point as the length of a point is zero. We can illustrate this aspect in the following way:
We consider a homogeneous linear array of marbles touching each other. If we now shrink the volume of each marble keeping them in contact (so that the array is always homogeneous) then in the limit that the volume of the marbles is zero we will get a single point.
These discussions lead us to conclude that a line-element is not just a collection of points but is a fundamental geometric object. Similar arguments lead us to conclude that area-elements (two-dimensional geometric continuums) and volume-elements (three-dimensional geometric continuum) are fundamental geometric objects and we can not obtain points without breaking the continuum geometry. To illustrate, let us consider a square, a geometric continuum of two dimension. We can not consider the square to be a collection of straight lines parallel to the base as each straight line has zero transverse extension and arguments similar to as above apply."

In other words, according to kghosh 0.999... = 1 such that all the 9s are collapsed into a single point, named 1, and we get a 1-dimensional space that is not covered by a collection of infinity many points (which are notated by symbol 9).

Conclusions:

1) kghosh does no agree that "0.999..." is an expression that is different than "1" expression.

2) kghosh agrees that 1-dimensional space is not completely covered by a collection of infinity many "adjacent” points.

I claim that in order to be consistent with (2) kghosh must agree that 0.999...10 < 1 by 0.000...110, exactly because the "...1" part of non-local number 0.000...110 is the inability of any amount of points (represented, in this case, by infinitely many points that are notated by symbol 9) to completely cover a 1-dimesional (abstract or physical) space.

Furthermore, the "...1" part of non-local number 0.000...110 is exactly the irreducibility of 1-dimesional (abstract or physical) space into 0-dimesional (abstract or physical) space, such that 1-dimesional (abstract or physical) space is not a collection of 0-dimesional (abstract or physical) spaces, and it supports kghosh's claim "that a line-element is not just a collection of points but is a fundamental geometric object."

Traditional Mathematicians are in agreement only about (1), where (2) is not an option exactly because their reasoning is restricted into verbal_symbolic-only skills, which is resulted by context-dependent-only "trunk-less" reasoning (this community tells us a lie each time it uses the term "mathematical branches").
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Let us assume that kghosh is not going to be a participator of this thread.

<snipped garbage>

Conclusions:

1) kghosh does no agree that "0.999..." is an expression that is different than "1" expression.

2) kghosh agrees that 1-dimensional space is not completely covered by a collection of infinity many "adjacent” points.

I claim that in order to be consistent with (2) kghosh must agree that 0.999...10 < 1 by 0.000...110, exactly because the "...1" part of non-local number 0.000...110 is the inability of any amount of points (represented, in this case, by infinitely many points that are notated by symbol 9) to completely cover a 1-dimesional space.
Click to expand...

No. In order to be consistent with (1) kghosh must agree that (2) is complete and utter rubbish.
 
This has now become epic utter sadness... To me, it looks like Doron has an obsessive compulsiveness to keep this thread going no matter what measures he needs to take...

But, it may only look to me like that...
 
realpaladin said:
This has now become epic utter sadness... To me, it looks like Doron has an obsessive compulsiveness to keep this thread going no matter what measures he needs to take...

But, it may only look to me like that...
Click to expand...

You may have something there. I would also say this is not his only obsession, but that's only me.
 
For some reason the email address of Kaushik Gosh here and the email address used on the St. Xavier's website are different: http://www.sxccal.edu/xavfms/faculty/fullProfile/KaushikGhosh.pdf

Not exactly the behaviour of a scientist willing to defend his work.

Neither is the fact that according to his profile statistics he only registered, made that one post and never came back looking at replies...

EDIT: I will email him and ask about this behaviour.
EDIT: Done.
 
Last edited:
By looking at http://www.sxccal.edu/xavfms/faculty/science.htm#Mathematics, kghosh (Dr. Kaushik Ghosh) is an Assistant Professor of Cosmology, no matter what email address is currently written in http://www.sxccal.edu/xavfms/faculty/fullProfile/KaushikGhosh.pdf.

"You will never be able to convince all people" taken from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7816732#post7816732 (at the end of the 5th paragraph) and "I will try to talk with people after the article will get published." is some clue about his decision not to be a participator of this thread.

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

Let us look at the following argument about (abstract of physical) spaces:

;||; = the cardinality of NOthing (that has no predecessor).

|;;| = the cardinality of YESthing (that has no successor).

Beyond these states there is the thing, which is the Unity beyond polychotomy.

The power of continuum is defined as the ability of a given space to be at AND beyond (not at) the domain of given lower space(s) or sub-space(s) (where sub-space(s) is\are a mixture of a given space and lower spaces, associated by Unity (by the thing)).

;|c0|; = the cardinality of 0-space does not have the power of the continuum.

;|c1,c0|; = the cardinality of 1-space has the power of the continuum, but the cardinality of 0-spaces on it does not have the power of the continuum.

;|c2,c1,c0|; = the cardinality of 2-space has the power of the continuum, but the cardinality of 1-spaces or 0-spaces on it does not have the power of the continuum.

;|c3,c2,c1,c0|; = the cardinality of 3-space has the power of the continuum, but the cardinality of 2-spaces,1-spaces or 0-spaces on it does not have the power of the continuum.

...

etc. ad infinitum ... where no (abstract of physical) space > 0 has the power of the continuum of YESthing (that has no successor).

In general, no collection of lower (abstract of physical) spaces or (abstract of physical) sub-spaces, has the power of the continuum of a given (abstract of physical) space.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
By looking at http://www.sxccal.edu/xavfms/faculty/science.htm#Mathematics, kghosh (Dr. Kaushik Ghosh) is an Assistant Professor of Cosmology, no matter what email address is currently written in http://www.sxccal.edu/xavfms/faculty/fullProfile/KaushikGhosh.pdf.

"You will never be able to convince all people" taken from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7816732#post7816732 (at the end of the 5th paragraph) is some clue about his decision not to be a participator of this thread.
Click to expand...

Psst... You are ignoring me... remember?

EDIT: You can't have seen that PDF unless you are sneakily NOT ignoring me.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
By looking at http://www.sxccal.edu/xavfms/faculty/science.htm#Mathematics, kghosh (Dr. Kaushik Ghosh) is an Assistant Professor of Cosmology, no matter what email address is currently written in http://www.sxccal.edu/xavfms/faculty/fullProfile/KaushikGhosh.pdf.
Click to expand...


We have no basis to conclude Assistant Professor Ghosh and our very own kghosh are one in the same. In fact, there is evidence to suggest they are not.

By the way, did you notice kghosh's great article is in its 153 revision, and that's based on just what was posted at arXiv? Did you notice that this epistle of confusion dates back six years? Accomplished faculty usually pump out publications at rate not measured in decades. Cranks, on the other hand, tend to obsess.
 
Oh, ghosh! Doron's new hero has another arXiv publication. It has only half as many revisions as his latest, but he was able to run through those in only 19 months time.

And we have this at the end:

XIX. SAMAPTA

Any one, who had seriously disturbed the author academically or non-academically during the last five years, in particular through undue slanging and horning out of a dogging heritage while the article was getting prepared, and/or encouraged to do so is a descendant of Avatar of Dharmaraj.

Reference: Jessy’s artificial hand.
Click to expand...


May the Avatar of Dharmaraj provide for Jessy's artificial hand. Amen.
 
jsfisher said:
By the way, did you notice kghosh's great article is in its 153 revision, and that's based on just what was posted at arXiv? Did you notice that this epistle of confusion dates back six years? Accomplished faculty usually pump out publications at rate not measured in decades. Cranks, on the other hand, tend to obsess.
Click to expand...

Highlighting mine.

Did you notice the rehash that Doron suddenly added to his reply to my 'ignored' post?

Just to mask that he is not ignoring me he is ambling about the yesthing/nothing again.

I wonder how that would work in other language...

Jading/Needing... Quiobjet/Nonobjet... JaDing/NeinDing...
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8186134&postcount=1286 I show that kghosh's work is inconsistent as long as he claims that 0.999...10 = 1

Traditional mathematicians make the same mistake, since their reasoning is only verbal_symbolic (as argued at the end of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8186134&postcount=1286).
Click to expand...

Neither Doron nor Kaushik matter in the world of science... so this does not matter as well.
 
Verbal_symbolic-only minds simply ignore scientific arguments like the following:

------------------------------------------------
Here is the abstract taken from Philip J. Davis and James A. Anderson book called “Nonanalytic Aspects of Mathematics and Their Implication for Research and Education" , SIAM Review 21(1979), 112-117:

Abstract

In this paper we make a distinction between the practice of mathematics as it is usually presented--a logical chain of abstract, analytical reasoning from premises to conclusions--and how mathematics seems to be done in actuality--as a series of nonverbal, analog, often kinesthetic or visual insights. Mathematics in recent years has created a hierarchy with highly abstract, logical and symbolic material at the peak and with more geometrical, visual, and analog material held to be of lesser worth. We argue that humans are known to vary widely in their approaches to cognition and that the areas of the human brain specifically related to language and logical analysis seem to comprise only a part of the machinery of our intellect. We suggest that it would be wise for the practitioners of mathematics, and perhaps especially the students of mathematics to be aware of the very important nonverbal elements in mathematics. We feel that excessive emphasis on the abstract, analytic aspects of thought may have had deleterious effects on the profession and that a more appropriate balance, more in line with our cognitive endowment as humans, is desirable.
----------------------------------------------------------
Here is a part taken from H. M. Hubey book “The diagonal infinity: problems of multiple scales” ( http://books.google.co.il/books?id=wDm_Kzt_vAgC&pg=PA294&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false ) page 297:

“A large part of the human brain is devoted to spatial computation, which in the language of serial logic becomes mere intuition. But the only way in which we can actually comprehend the most primitive concepts of all sciences, including mathematics of course, is in terms of these basic intuitions. If so, then what purpose does it serve to split the formation into syntax and semantics? What is obviously true by what some call intuition is the working of the parallel-visual-spatial system of the brain. Rigor seems to consist of turning these truths into words. Either this is done so that we can then learn from this to solve those problems that cannot be visualized or it’s done to satisfy those that cannot visualize. In no case is it necessary to stamp and certify only serial symbols as constituting rigor. If anything it is our very capability of spatial and parallel processing that even allowed us to entertain the possibility of a language for expressing truths. If anything language is a tool that allows us to partially reconstruct what we can see or seen to those that haven’t. If it were not so, only animals capable of speech (i.e. humans) would be capable of intelligence, and clearly it is not so.”

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

I would add that verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills complement each other into a valuable scientific (abstract of physical) framework (which is beyond the scope of verbal_symbolic-only minds).
 
Last edited:
If Doron was really ignoring me, and if he really was not obsessive/compulsive... then to him this thread must look like one big string of talking to himself...

Or does he really just want his name as 'last poster'... if that is his wish, he can forget it :)
 
doronshadmi said:
I would add that verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills complement each other into a valuable scientific (abstract of physical) framework (which is beyond the scope of verbal_symbolic-only minds).
Click to expand...

Yet Doron has not, in two years and over hundreds of pages and thousands of posts been able to demonstrate any value at all of his work or his defined skills.

So I will add, they are of null and void value, unless otherwise demonstrated.
 
realpaladin said:
Yet Doron has not, in two years and over hundreds of pages and thousands of posts been able to demonstrate any value at all of his work or his defined skills.

So I will add, they are of null and void value, unless otherwise demonstrated.
Click to expand...

Two years? And the rest! It's three and a half on this topic just on this forum, and he has been 'working' on it for much longer (25 years, I think jsfisher has said).
 
zooterkin said:
Two years? And the rest! It's three and a half on this topic just on this forum, and he has been 'working' on it for much longer (25 years, I think jsfisher has said).
Click to expand...
25 years of development that was sacrificially accelerated during internet discussions (since 2003) which helped me to understand better the built-in limitations of verbal_symbolic-only context-dependent-only reasoning.

Form time to time some verbal_symbolic-only context-dependent-only skiller helped me to understand better some aspect that is related to this particular skill, which helped me to improve my work (for example, jsfisher's contribution for further development of Distinction-Trees) and I truly thank them for this, but they decided to ignore their own contribution in order to stick their verbal_symbolic\context-dependent only reasoning.

Posters that their mind is tuned to get things only in terms of verbal_symbolic and context-dependent way, are naturally unaware of Oreganic Mathematics developments, as shown, for example, in http://www.scribd.com/doc/85046673/Dear-Conor-Mayo, and all along this thread.

"At the end of the day" I do not expect much from minds that after all are using "trunk-less" reasoning and talking about "mathematical branches".
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
25 years of development that was sacrificially accelerated during internet discussions, since 2003.

Posters that their mind is tuned to get things only in terms of verbal_symbolic and context-dependent way, are naturally unaware of Oreganic Mathematics developments, as shown, for example, in http://www.scribd.com/doc/85046673/Dear-Conor-Mayo, and all along this thread.

I do not expect much from minds that are using "trunk-less" reasoning and talking about "mathematical branches".
Click to expand...


So, 25 years, and still you are the only one who 'gets' OM? And OM is meant to improve communication and prevent wars?
 
doronshadmi said:
25 years of development that was sacrificially accelerated during internet discussions (since 2003) which helped me to understand better the built-in limitations of verbal_symbolic-only context-dependent-only reasoning.

Form time to time some verbal_symbolic-only context-dependent-only skiller helped me to understand better some aspect that is related to this particular skill, which helped me to improve my work (for example, jsfisher's contribution for further development of Distinction-Trees) and I truly thank them for this, but they decided to ignore their own contribution in order to stick their verbal_symbolic\context-dependent only reasoning.

Posters that their mind is tuned to get things only in terms of verbal_symbolic and context-dependent way, are naturally unaware of Oreganic Mathematics developments, as shown, for example, in http://www.scribd.com/doc/85046673/Dear-Conor-Mayo, and all along this thread.

"At the end of the day" I do not expect much from minds that after all are using "trunk-less" reasoning and talking about "mathematical branches".
Click to expand...

I like Oreganic...

But 25 years, and not a single soul convinced...

The worst thing is however, that true to form Doron avoids producing anything of value and is only able to say 'you don't get it'.

Well, it would be about time that Doron gets that nothing in his line of reasoning, argumentation or plain posing is worth trying to get.

Unless he can show something of value, the minutest effort of 'getting it' is a most colossal waste of time.
 
zooterkin said:
So, 25 years, and still you are the only one who 'gets' OM? And OM is meant to improve communication and prevent wars?
Click to expand...

The only reason he puts up with his constant failing in this thread is that it pops up in Google ever so nicely.

I dare to venture that is the reason he always tries to be the last post with a pedantic nonsensical. And why he grasps at anything to kibitz about.
 
zooterkin said:
So, 25 years, and still you are the only one who 'gets' OM? And OM is meant to improve communication and prevent wars?
Click to expand...

A lot of people easily get the essence of OM, if they are aware of the need to develop consistency among Simplicity and Complexity as a must have term in order to achieve actual harmony at the naturally changeable level of reality.

I took one of the hardest paths in order to develop this consistency, the path of the mathematical science, exactly because I am aware of the strong impact of this science on our survival as complex yet fundamentally simple (abstract and physical) creatures.

Organic Mathematics is an attempt to use Ethics AND Logical reasoning as a unified framework.

A lot of work has to be done by many people in order to actually achieve OM's goal:

Organic Mathematics' goal

Organic Mathematics' goal is to achieve actual harmony among Reasoning and Heart.

What is experienced within one's mind as immaterial entity (one's awareness) recognizes what is out of one's mind as material entity.

This in\out dichotomy is the way of how reasoning actually distinguishes between different levels of awareness, but this dichotomy has no actual existence exactly because these different levels are like different levels of waves of the same sea, such that there is actually no dichotomy but only the Unity of one being, which is aware of itself.

In order to be aware of the Unity of one being, the mind actually has to transcendent the level of thoughts (the realm of expressed waves) and directly know the calm source of any possible expression, which is actually not in itself a thought.

By regularly practicing techniques that enable the mind to be aware of its calm source (to actually directly be aware of itself), Reasoning, as known in terms of dichotomy, is transformed into Unity awareness, such that the calm state is known (is not lost) during the different levels of awareness.

Furthermore, what is known as love and compassion is exactly the properties of one's awareness that are not restricted by reasoning's dichotomy, such that more they are developed, more one's mind is aware of the Unity of one being, until Reasoning and Heart are fulfilled as the unbounded Unity.

Only then awareness achieves its ability to express itself by actual harmony among its expressions, by naturally avoiding contradictions (mutual destruction of diversity) such that each expression is an organ of a one realm.

By actually being a one organism, real creativity is expressed by infinitely many complex ways that are derived from one simplicity that naturally prevents contradictions among its expressed organs.

In terms of Technology OM is actually the development of the Technology Of The Consciousness, which is the most important Technology for our own survival and development as non-entropic complex phenomena, where this technology is "deeper than primes".
 
Last edited:
Holy coprolite... that is an almost verbatim copying of TM...

So, after 25 years it ends with plagiarism?
 
There are minds which think that there is a copy-write on awareness' development, but awareness' development in its most universal and original manner is the actual free (of charge) meal of "mother nature", and it is not a possession of any civilization, culture, religion, organization or any scientific method (abstract or physical).

Only minds that are stuck at the level of thoughts get awareness' development in terms of possession that has to be protected by copy-write.
 
Last edited:
Copyright (not copy-write) was not the issue realpaladin was raising. Intellectually bankruptcy was.
 
doronshadmi said:
There are minds which think that there is a copy-write on awareness' development, but awareness' development in its most universal and original manner is the actual free (of charge) meal of "mother nature", and it is not a possession of any civilization, culture, religion, organization or any scientific method (abstract or physical).

Only minds that are stuck at the level of thoughts get awareness' development in terms of possession that has to be protected by copy-write.
Click to expand...

For someone being ignored, I do get a lot of response...

Doron, the dead giveaway is that when you plagiarise, the grammar and spelling suddenly improves no end.

But even that will not do anything... TM is nothing but wishful thinking... even Scientology has achieved more.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
Wrong. The set can be complete. My set S is the set of positive single digit numbers when written out in English have only 4 letters in them. My set S is (four, five, nine). It is complete. Since you claim that it is incomplete, please provide any missing elements of this set.
Click to expand...

We are in the year 1629 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay )

S is "the set of all English words that are used to only describe a happy person":

S={happy, jovial, jolly, cheerful, gay, delightful, bright, refreshing, joyful}

|S|=9


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


We are in the year 2012.

S is "the set of all English words that are used to only describe a happy person":

S={happy, jovial, jolly, cheerful, delightful, bright, refreshing, joyful}

|S|=8 (because "gay" does not only describe a happy person)


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

In other words, the definition "the set of all English words that are used to only describe a happy person" is temporal, changeable, variant, etc.

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

"the set of positive single digit numbers when written out in English have only 4 letters in them" is not invariant in the absolute sense (it can be changed during the years to come, as demonstrated by the example above), or in other words, it is not actually complete.
 
Last edited:
Some corrections of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8187706&postcount=1310 :

1) "Copy-write" has to be replaced by "Copyright".

2) Awareness' development is understood as Intellectually bankruptcy by minds that their awareness is restricted to the naturally changeable level of thoughts (no actual invariance is known by these minds).

Again:

There are minds which think that there is a copyright on awareness' development, but awareness' development in its most universal and original manner is the actual free (of charge) meal of "mother nature", and it is not a possession, intellectual property etc. of any civilization, culture, religion, country, organization, company, community or any scientific method (abstract or physical).

Only minds that are stuck at the level of thoughts get awareness' development in terms of possession, intellectual property etc. that has to be protected by copyright.

The origin of thoughts does not need any protection of its originality, and it is accessible for any mind for free.

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

As for techniques like Transcendental Meditation, they are indeed "nothing but wishful thinking..." to those minds that do not do anything in order not to be restricted only to the level of thoughts (where definitions are restricted to this level), which is naturally changeable, so?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
We are in the year 1629 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay )

S is "the set of all English words that are used to only describe a happy person":

S={happy, jovial, jolly, cheerful, gay, delightful, bright, refreshing, joyful}

|S|=9


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


We are in the year 2012.

S is "the set of all English words that are used to only describe a happy person":

S={happy, jovial, jolly, cheerful, delightful, bright, refreshing, joyful}

|S|=8 (because "gay" does not only describe a happy person)


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

In other words, the definition "the set of all English words that are used to only describe a happy person" is temporal, changeable, variant, etc.

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

"the set of positive single digit numbers when written out in English have only 4 letters in them" is not invariant in the absolute sense (it can be changed during the years to come, as demonstrated by the example above), or in other words, it is not actually complete.
Click to expand...

Now the clown simply adds an extra dimension to a complete set.
Heck, you do not even need to wait all those years, you might as well have said: "but when written by someone who ran out of ink when he came to joyful..." or any other external influence...

Another example might be: we write the year 2 million BC, the cardinality of the sets of words in english (all of them) is 0.

It does not mean a thing. The question 10 Little Toes asked was 'how is that exact set, with mathematical(!!!) reasoning(!!!) incomplete?'

It is not, and Doron just evades answering, glib little guy that he is.

This is exactly what irks me so in these pseudo-science discussions; they always add an external circumstance, but try to hide it in so much wording.

EDIT: I also notice that Doron has no idea what 'actual' means. So much fun, for the price of none!

Strawman-ing along again and no grasp of science in sight.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
As for techniques like Transcendental Meditation, they are indeed "nothing but wishful thinking..." to those minds that do not do anything in order not to be restricted only to the level of thoughts (where definitions are restricted to this level), which is naturally changeable, so?
Click to expand...

Wasn't I being ignored? Ah, it must be the famous 'telling the truth, but completely context-dependendly from my perspective' by Doron Shadmi.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom