Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Phrase 1:

"You are the one raising the whole "is a concept" construct. You are the one who tried to separate "infinity" from "numbers" by observing that the former was a concept. Well, the later is a concept, too, so your attempt to distinguish the two failed miserably. (That is not to say they are not different, just that you failed to establish any difference. So what else is new.)"

1) I explicitly using numbers, called non-local numbers, which demonstrate the inability of the whole to be a sum of parts. For example: the non-local number 0.999...10 < the local number 1 by the non-local number 0.000...110 , because of the irreducibility of a given non-composed 1-dimensional space (which is not necessarily metric space) into 0-dimensional space (which is not necessarily metric space).

2) The claim about infinity as a concept that can't be used as a number, was done by another traditional mathematician in http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/62486.html , so if the traditional mathematician here has problems about this claim, the right address is Dr. Wallace.


Phrase 2:

"And then you cap it off by exposing your source for the statements you plagiarized and that you didn't understand its context nor the audience for which it was intended."

The traditional mathematician here can't understand that if one provides the references of some stuff that is used by it, he\she can't be considered as a plagiarist.

EDIT: another option is that a given phrase is well-known and does not belong to any particular source ( and so is the case about "infinity is a concept not a number").

If I am not wrong, the traditional mathematician here is also a Math teacher. If this is the case and his students are young children, he actually agree to tell them wrong things about Math, exactly because he does not criticize Dr. Wallace's answer to, probably, some child.


Phrase 3:

"Value of a given limit"? More comprehension issues, I see. Is that like the value of 4? Just the limit, not value of the limit."

A given limit can be expressed also by using a variable, so there is nothing wrong by saying, for example, "the value of L".


Phrase 4:

"Approaching value of a given limit"? That's not particularly meaningful without more context. Did you have in mind some sequence, perhaps, say {0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...}?

You could certainly talk about that sequence "approaching" some value, but that would be a colloquial expression lacking precision. Let's identify the members of the sequence as Si, where S1 is 0.9, and S2 is 0.99, and so on. Then we could note that for all j>0 that Sj+1 is closer to 1 then Sj. If that's getting at what you meant by "approaching", well, then ok, but verb forms used to describe the state of something static (like a sequence in this case) can mislead those weak on conceptual foundation. Under appropriate caveats, the sequence approaches 1 and the limit of the sequence is 1".

No matter how many time I'll express it, our traditional mathematician simply ignores the fact that I am explicitly talking about the non-local number 0.999...10, exactly because he uses only a traditional view of the discussed subject.
 
Last edited:
It may be that this will help. Let's start with

gif.latex


As previously stated, the 0.999... is a notation for representing numbers. Most people get a grasp of the notation at an early age. Finite sequences of digits after the decimal place, like 0.5 and 0.894, are easily understood. Infinite sequences, such as 0.333..., are easily reconciled as well. There is that natural linkage from 1/3 to 0.333... by way of division that makes it no real surprise.

0.999... is the exception. Probably the surprise has more to do with learning that 1 can be expressed in either of two ways than anything else. Since the meaning of 0.999... may not be obvious, an appropriate next step would be to express it in terms of what the notation actually means:

gif.latex


Many of us tuned out in middle school math classes when the teacher tried to emphasize that 245, for example, (as a notation) meant 2 100's + 4 10's + 5 1's. Yeah, ok, whatever. Same thing here; we are just on the other size of the decimal point.

There is that infinite sum, though. Finite sums, sure, but what about this. As above, we need to apply the definition for infinite sum to translate the sum into some more meaningful:

gif.latex


Yeah, it is getting worse from the comprehensible point of view, but in terms of mathematical precision, it is much better. The only thing left would be to apply the definition of what a limit is in Mathematics, and then the above translates to this:

gif.latex


It may look like something a sick dog might generate, but it does express rather precisely the meaning of L=0.999....

Ok, Doron, working from that final bit, it is easy to show that L = 1. The proof is in line with the delta/epsilon approach Kage presented. Since you take issue with it all, please show us the error of our ways.

And please don't waste everyone's time again trying to argue a definition is wrong. You don't get to tell Mathematics what it means by its terms and usage. Mathematics already did that.
 
Last edited:
Another phrase:

"So, pray tell, what is the definition of "approach value"?"

I already know that visual_spatial reasoning (in addition to verbal_symbolic reasoning) is not accepted by the traditional mathematician here, so I am not going to waste my time again.
 
doronshadmi said:
"And then you cap it off by exposing your source for the statements you plagiarized and that you didn't understand its context nor the audience for which it was intended."

The traditional mathematician here can't understand that if one provides the references of some stuff that is used by it, he\she can't be considered as a plagiarist.
Click to expand...


Ok, let's look at the actual post. Not any post you made after it, but the the very post where you, in fact, plagiarized someone else's work.

doronshadmi said:
Kage said:
This also doesn't change that 1/10infinity is 0.
Click to expand...

infinity (also notated as ∞) is a concept (and not a number) according to Traditional Mathematics, so it can't be used by it in order to get a result like 0 = 1/10∞.
Click to expand...

Sure enough. There you are reciting someone else's words without understanding their meaning or context. Funny, though. I don't see any attribution.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Another phrase:

"So, pray tell, what is the definition of "approach value"?"

I already know that visual_spatial reasoning (in addition to verbal_symbolic reasoning) is not accepted by the traditional mathematician here, so I am not going to waste my time again.
Click to expand...


Got it. You have no definition for it. Like all the other terms you make up, this is no exception.
 
The phrase:

"As previously stated, the 0.999... is a notation for representing numbers."

demonstrates again the "numeral only" understanding of 0.999...
 
The phrase

"Got it. You have no definition for it. Like all the other terms you make up, this is no exception."

is a typical response of a person that uses only verbal_symbolic brain skills in order to define things.

As a result he cant get, for example, 0.999...10 as an approaching value (and not just numeral) to 1 .
 
This phrase

"Ok, let's look at the actual post. Not any post you made after it, but the the very post where you, in fact, plagiarized someone else's work.

Sure enough. There you are reciting someone else's words without understanding their meaning or context. Funny, though. I don't see any attribution."

ignores the fact that "infinity is a concept not a number" is a well-known phrase ( https://www.google.co.il/#hl=en&scl...96,d.Yms&fp=4c4631f2b2919a90&biw=1280&bih=861 ( no reference in http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/62486.html ) ).

In other words, it is not an original phrase of Dr. Wallace, whether I cite him, or not (actually according to your clime Dr. Wallace is also a plagiarist).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The phrase:

"As previously stated, the 0.999... is a notation for representing numbers."

demonstrates again the "numeral only" understanding of 0.999...
Click to expand...

It is simply a matter of definition, Doron. Don't like the real one, then you are allowed to make up your own, but (1) it will be confined to the realm of Doronetics since the rest of Mathematics has no interest, and (2) you actually have to define something.

You have trouble with both those constraints.

Meanwhile, Mathematics continues to work in real and important ways, unlike the imaginary Doronetics.
 
doronshadmi said:
This phrase

"Ok, let's look at the actual post. Not any post you made after it, but the the very post where you, in fact, plagiarized someone else's work.

Sure enough. There you are reciting someone else's words without understanding their meaning or context. Funny, though. I don't see any attribution."

ignores the fact that "infinity is a concept not a number" is a well-known phrase ( https://www.google.co.il/#hl=en&scl...96,d.Yms&fp=4c4631f2b2919a90&biw=1280&bih=861 ( no reference in http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/62486.html ) ).

In other words, it is not an original phrase of Dr. Wallace, whether I cite him, or not (actually according to your clime Dr. Wallace is also a plagiarist).
Click to expand...


You backpedal poorly. Switching from "I did cite my reference" when you didn't to "I didn't use a reference because it is generic" only serves to add deceit to your plagiarism.
 
doronshadmi said:
The phrase

"Got it. You have no definition for it. Like all the other terms you make up, this is no exception."

is a typical response of a person that uses only verbal_symbolic brain skills in order to define things.

As a result he cant get, for example, 0.999...10 as an approaching value (and not just numeral) to 1 .
Click to expand...


Oh, let's review the history of Doron's inability to define anything. My first recollection of it was with an absolute hatchet job on logic truth tables wherein somehow AND and OR became unary operations. It also had A and NOT A being independent of each other. The excuse then for your gibberish, misuse, and contradiction was that mathematicians couldn't understand Doronetics. (The prevailing opinion is the the group is actually somewhat larger.)

You continued down a twisty-turny maze of stupid posts with frequent changes of vocabulary. Just new words being substituted for old as if somehow that was equivalent to defining something, anything. It became known as the Doron side-step. Also, you had abandoned the "mathematicians can't understand it" nonsense in favor of the simpler "you don't get it." Truth was, everyone got it; it was all nonsense.

At some point, after circling the block a few times, you introduced "direct perception" as the universal substitute for definition. You didn't have to define anything, you merely perceived it. Better still, you didn't have to prove anything, explain anything, justify anything; you merely perceived it to be so.

That made it very clear to all that you were just making it up. And you were making stuff up mostly because you didn't understand how anything worked. You needed more cover than the direct perception ruse provided, so you double-downed on this visual/verbal reasoning idiocy. It is just more imaginary stuff, and really nothing better than "mathematicians can't understand it", except now you have a label you can apply liberally to anyone who doesn't buy in to your silliness (and that would be everyone).

It also lets you say that since you have a different reasoning ability from everyone else in the world, that reality is different for you. Reality is different for you? Are you sure that's going on?
 
By this phrase "You backpedal poorly. Switching from "I did cite my reference" when you didn't to "I didn't use a reference because it is generic" only serves to add deceit to your plagiarism." the traditional mathematician here does not understand that whether I cite Dr. Wallace or not, the well-known phrase "infinity is a concept, not a number" has no particular source to be cited.

Actually Dr. Wallace himself\herself uses this phrase without using some reference about this phrase.

In other words, the hypocrisy of the traditional mathematician here about the considered subject, is clearly exposed.
 
Last edited:
Let's look at this phrase: "It is simply a matter of definition, Doron. Don't like the real one, then you are allowed to make up your own, but (1) it will be confined to the realm of Doronetics since the rest of Mathematics has no interest, and (2) you actually have to define something.

You have trouble with both those constraints.

Meanwhile, Mathematics continues to work in real and important ways, unlike the imaginary Doronetics."

A) A valid definition (according to the traditional mathematician here) must be expressed only in terms of verbal_symbolic reasoning. In other words this traditional mathematician can't accept definitions that are based on verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning.

B) As a result, this traditional mathematician can't comprehend a framework that is derived from the axiomatic understanding of the irreducibility of a given arbitrary non-composed dimensional space > 0 into lower non-composed dimensional spaces and\or sub-spaces (where sub-spaces are mixed (and therefore) composed results of several non-composed dimensional spaces) on it (where the term "dimensional space" is not necessarily metric space).

C) Since (B) is not in the scope of the traditional mathematician paradigm of the discussed subject, he\she has no ability to deal with non-local numbers like 0.999...10 or 0.000...110, which are valid mathematical objects of a framework that is based on (B).

D) By understanding (A),(B) and (C), one easily knows that (1) and (2) traditional mathematician's claims and the "Meanwhile, Mathematics continues to work ..." phrase, have no impact on the novel framework and its further development (which enables better understanding of Entropy in its most general sense).
 
Last edited:
This

"Oh, let's review the history of Doron's inability to define anything. My first recollection of it was with an absolute hatchet job on logic truth tables wherein somehow AND and OR became unary operations. It also had A and NOT A being independent of each other. The excuse then for your gibberish, misuse, and contradiction was that mathematicians couldn't understand Doronetics. (The prevailing opinion is the the group is actually somewhat larger.)

You continued down a twisty-turny maze of stupid posts with frequent changes of vocabulary. Just new words being substituted for old as if somehow that was equivalent to defining something, anything. It became known as the Doron side-step. Also, you had abandoned the "mathematicians can't understand it" nonsense in favor of the simpler "you don't get it." Truth was, everyone got it; it was all nonsense.

At some point, after circling the block a few times, you introduced "direct perception" as the universal substitute for definition. You didn't have to define anything, you merely perceived it. Better still, you didn't have to prove anything, explain anything, justify anything; you merely perceived it to be so.

That made it very clear to all that you were just making it up. And you were making stuff up mostly because you didn't understand how anything worked. You needed more cover than the direct perception ruse provided, so you double-downed on this visual/verbal reasoning idiocy. It is just more imaginary stuff, and really nothing better than "mathematicians can't understand it", except now you have a label you can apply liberally to anyone who doesn't buy in to your silliness (and that would be everyone).

It also lets you say that since you have a different reasoning ability from everyone else in the world, that reality is different for you. Reality is different for you? Are you sure that's going on?"

simply ignores the developments in http://www.scribd.com/doc/97823738/Unity-Awarness and http://www.scribd.com/doc/98276640/Umes exactly because of the idiotic verbal_symbolic-only reasoning, which easily leads its user into self-made destruction (exactly because by this verbal_symbolic-only reductionist mechanic formal\platonic framework, the user is explicitly excluded in order to get, so called, valid results).
 
Last edited:
There's just one teeny-tiny thing you can't out-gibberish, doron. Care to take a guess what that might be?

Results.

Yep, that's right. "Traditional" mathematics has tons. It's the very foundation for all science. Even if you claim it's closed under whatever idiocy you cooked up. It's got results. Just take a look at the computer in front of you. Your phone. Your TV. The list goes on and on.

On the other side you got what? A couple of posts on an internet forum where you managed to convince... no one. No publications. No results. Nothing.

I do appreciate the level of mental illness required to maintain a straight face and to give the power to get out of bed in the morning after so much fail. It could very well form the basis of a PhD thesis in neuroscience, psychiatry or whatnot. It beats whatever ails no-planers in the 9/11 CT subforum hands down. Quite a feat, if you think about it.
 
Again, about results:

According to my framework 0.111...2 is a number of its own < number 1 by 0.000...12 where the "...1" part of that number is the irreducibility of ___ (non-composed) 1-dimensional space into 0-dimensional space (known as a point).

So, in this case, the result 0.000...12 of the expression 1 - 0.111...2 provides new understanding about the concept of Entropy (0.000...12 is a non-entropic result) that can't be known by using the traditional verbal_symbolic_only reasoning.

The tons of applicative results of Traditional Mathematics do not change the novel result about Entropy.

Furthermore, the term "result" is not limited only to "applicative result" also by Traditional Mathematics, but there are persons that do not understand it.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Again, about results:

According to my framework 0.111...2 is a number of its own < number 1 by 0.000...12 where the "...1" part of that number is the irreducibility of ___ (non-composed) 1-dimensional space into 0-dimensional space (known as a point).
Click to expand...

You have utterly failed to show any such thing.

So, in this case, the result 0.000...12 of the expression 1 - 0.111...2 provides new understanding about the concept of Entropy (0.000...12 is a non-entropic result) that can't be known by using the traditional verbal_symbolic_only reasoning.
Click to expand...

Inane gibberish.

The tons of applicative results of Traditional Mathematics do not change the novel result about Entropy.
Click to expand...

What novel result? What result for that matter?

Furthermore, the term "result" in not limited only to "applicative result" also by Traditional Mathematics, but there are persons that do not understand it.
Click to expand...

Haha, nice try. No cigar, though. Results don't have to be understood in order to be appreciated. See, you have absolutely no idea whatsoever how your computer works. You can still appreciate it, can't you?

Let's chalk this up as abother fail for you, doron. I'm sure you got plenty more. Keep'em coming. We'll keep batting them out of the ballpark. Child's play.
 
There are persons here that do not understand the following quote:

doronshadmi said:
Furthermore, the term "result" in (in is a typo, it has to be is) not limited only to "applicative result" also by Traditional Mathematics, but there are persons that do not understand it.
Click to expand...

This quote simply says that also according Traditional Mathematics the term "result" holds also about abstract realms, which do not have any application in some non-abstract realm.

For example, "pure" Traditional Mathematicians work and get results, even if these results are not expressed in some non-abstract realm.

As about the value of my work, such persons that are unable to understand the quote above, have no ability to criticize it.

Furthermore, such persons are so "clever" because they are able to distinguish between "Inane gibberish" and "Ingenious gibberish".

I hope that there are no many "clever" persons of this kind in this thread.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
There are persons here that do not understand the following quote:



This quote simply says that also according Traditional Mathematics the term "result" holds also about abstract realms, which do not have any application in some non-abstract realm.

For example, "pure" Traditional Mathematicians work and get results, even if these results are not expressed in some non-abstract realm.

As about the value of my work, such persons that are unable to understand the quote above, have no ability to criticize it.

Furthermore, such persons are so "clever" because they are able to distinguish between "Inane gibberish" and "Ingenious gibberish".
Click to expand...

Thank dog for that. BTW, the above, utter inane gibberish.

I hope that there are no many "clever" persons of this kind in this thread.
Click to expand...

You'd like that, wouldn't you? No luck, I'm afraid. You might get lucky peddling your woo elsewhere. Wouldn't count on it though... Reality tends to be a bitch.
 
I have read a great deal of the two parts to this thread, though not all of it. Quite an experience. I also read one of doron's papers, namely http://www.scribd.com/doc/97823738/Unity-Awarness

It has the virtue that at one point it is clear enough to discern a problem. According to definition 5, identity is a property of x that allows recognition. But according to definition 7, there is uncertainty when something has two identities that do not allow recognition.

To avoid contradiction, this can only mean that uncertainty as defined is impossible. This is a problem if these definitions are supposed to be useful.
 
BenjaminTR said:
I have read a great deal of the two parts to this thread, though not all of it. Quite an experience. I also read one of doron's papers, namely http://www.scribd.com/doc/97823738/Unity-Awarness

It has the virtue that at one point it is clear enough to discern a problem.
Click to expand...

:dl:

According to definition 5, identity is a property of x that allows recognition. But according to definition 7, there is uncertainty when something has two identities that do not allow recognition.

To avoid contradiction, this can only mean that uncertainty as defined is impossible. This is a problem if these definitions are supposed to be useful.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, don't sweat it. Someone who's unable to spot a problem with logic truth tables isn't likely to... well just fill in the blanks, really.
 
BenjaminTR said:
I have read a great deal of the two parts to this thread, though not all of it. Quite an experience. I also read one of doron's papers, namely http://www.scribd.com/doc/97823738/Unity-Awarness

It has the virtue that at one point it is clear enough to discern a problem. According to definition 5, identity is a property of x that allows recognition. But according to definition 7, there is uncertainty when something has two identities that do not allow recognition.

To avoid contradiction, this can only mean that uncertainty as defined is impossible. This is a problem if these definitions are supposed to be useful.
Click to expand...
Welcome BenjaminTR,

Please think about bits and qbits.

The identity of a given bit can be, for example, 0 or 1 (definition 5).

This is not the case with the identity of a qbit, which can be simultaneously 0 and 1 (definition 7).

Please look at http://www.scribd.com/doc/98276640/Umes pages 12,13 for more details.
 
Last edited:
"The standard definition of the number 0.999... is the limit of the sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ... A different definition considers the equivalence class [(0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...)] of this sequence in the ultrapower construction, which corresponds to a number that is infinitesimally smaller than 1. More generally, the hyperreal number uH=0.999...;...999000..., with last digit 9 at infinite hypernatural rank H, satisfies a strict inequality uH < 1. Accordingly, Karin Katz and Mikhail Katz have proposed an alternative interpretation of "0.999...":

cfedb2aadc941e3bfa08b3dafb3797dd.png
[51]

"All such interpretations of "0.999..." are infinitely close to 1. Ian Stewart characterizes this interpretation as an "entirely reasonable" way to rigorously justify the intuition that "there's a little bit missing" from 1 in 0.999....[52] Along with Katz & Katz, Robert Ely also questions the assumption that students' ideas about 0.999... < 1 are erroneous intuitions about the real numbers, interpreting them rather as nonstandard intuitions that could be valuable in the learning of calculus.[53][54] Jose Benardete in his book Infinity: An essay in metaphysics argues that some natural pre-mathematical intuitions cannot be expressed if one is limited to an overly restrictive number system:

The intelligibility of the continuum has been found—many times over—to require that the domain of real numbers be enlarged to include infinitesimals. This enlarged domain may be styled the domain of continuum numbers. It will now be evident that .9999... does not equal 1 but falls infinitesimally short of it. I think that .9999... should indeed be admitted as a number ... though not as a real number.[55]" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...#cite_note-51 )


I find http://arxiv.org/pdf/0811.0164v8.pdf and http://www.math.umt.edu/TMME/vol7no1/TMME_vol7no1_2010_article1_pp.3_30.pdf by K. Katz & M. Katz ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Katz#cite_note-6 ) interesting.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I find http://arxiv.org/pdf/0811.0164v8.pdf and http://www.math.umt.edu/TMME/vol7no1/TMME_vol7no1_2010_article1_pp.3_30.pdf by K. Katz & M. Katz ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Katz#cite_note-6 ) interesting.
Click to expand...


Ah! So you agree with Katz' and Katz' point of view! Excellent. I'm glad you finally see the light.

You've fought this notion for so long. It is good to see you coming around. Mathematics is so rich that it can encompass a variety of models for the same phenomenon, even when the consequences are in contradiction. By the most common conventions, 0.999... is identical to 1; under a different set, a non-standard set of conventions, 0.999... can be less that 1. And Mathematics can embrace both.

This has been brought up so many times in the past, thought, Doron. What took you so long?
 
phrase 1:

jsfisher said:
Mathematics is so rich that it can encompass a variety of models for the same phenomenon, even when the consequences are in contradiction.
Click to expand...

A framework is really rich (can develop its complexity out of simplicity by evolutionary principles) only if it also has cross-contexts basis. Without this cross-contexts basis, there is no such a thing called the mathematical science, mathematical branches, etc.

The traditional mathematician here actually speaks about isolated frameworks, where each framework has its own context. In other words, there are no consequences in contradiction, because each consequence is found in some isolated framework.

By the paradigm of isolated frameworks, no mutations of notions and no fundamental creative novel ideas are developed, and no real evolution actually happens.

All is left is mechanical work in isolated frameworks, where the mathematician is not a factor of this work.

Phrase 2:

jsfisher said:
By the most common conventions, 0.999... is identical to 1; under a different set, a non-standard set of conventions, 0.999... can be less that 1. And Mathematics can embrace both.
Click to expand...

So now the mathematical science is isolated frameworks, where each framework gets its popularity not by creativity, but by its common conventions that is derived from mechanical work, where the mathematician is not a factor of this work.

The problem here is that from time to time this mechanical work in isolated frameworks (where the worker is educated not to be a factor) provide technological tools that can determine the further existence of its users.

It is typical for the traditional mathematician here to understand that my work is about dealing with 0.999... < 1 or 0.999... = 1 by using verbal_symbolic-only brain skills (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9189793&postcount=2303 is still closed under verbal_symbolic-only brain skills, which provide isolated frameworks).

For more details about my work (which is not limited to the understanding of the traditional mathematician here) please look at http://www.scribd.com/doc/98276640/Umes .

Edited by Locknar: 
Edited, breach of rule 6. When quoting, please ensure you provide the reference (using the Quote function is the easiest way).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
doronshadmi said:
phrase 1:

"Mathematics is so rich that it can encompass a variety of models for the same phenomenon, even when the consequences are in contradiction."
Click to expand...

Please learn to use the quote button. Your continuation of this non-standard post formatting is impolite, disruptive, and I believe a violation of the membership agreement.

A framework is really rich (can develop its complexity out of simplicity by evolutionary principles) only if it also has cross-contexts basis. Without this cross-contexts basis, there is no such a thing called the mathematical science, mathematical branches, etc.
Click to expand...

Cross-context basis? What do you mean by that? Please define your terms. In what way are you claiming Mathematics (calling it a science is a bit of a misnomer) lacks a cross-context basis, whatever that is?

The traditional mathematician here actually speaks about isolated frameworks, where each framework has its own context. In other words, there are no consequences in contradiction, because each consequence is found in some isolated framework.
Click to expand...

I don't recall using the word, isolated. This is something you made up. Nor did I say there were no consequences to contradiction. I did, however, suggest that Mathematics is rich enough to encompass many branches, and that the branches need not be consistent with other branches, that is, a branch could contradict another. That is entirely different from a branch contradicting itself -- one of the significant shortcomings of Doronetics, by the way.

...<snip of things Doron continued to just imagine were real but really aren't>...
Click to expand...
 
The traditional mathematician here does not understand that if any given framework has only its own context, then this framework is isolated and can't be considered as a branch.

Being branches has a meaning only if they are organs of the same organism, and being an organism is not less than whole (cross-contexts) \ parts (contexts) relations, such that no branch contradicts another branch.

The inability of the traditional mathematician here to get the notion of whole (cross-contexts) \ parts (contexts) relations, is derived from his\her of context-dependent-only paradigm.

This paradigm is anti-evolutionist and can't provide the terms for mutations that develop the diversity of real evolution.

It has to be stressed that we are the results of evolutionary principles, and any attempt to ignore them (as done by the the majority of "pure" mathematicians) is an insane behavior that must not be learned.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The traditional mathematician here does not understand that if any given framework has only its own context, then this framework is isolated and can't be considered as a branch.
Click to expand...

You seem enchanted with this strawman you've constructed. Do let us know when you grow tired of positing your own fiction and would like to have an actual discussion.
 
jsfisher said:
You seem enchanted with this strawman you've constructed. Do let us know when you grow tired of positing your own fiction and would like to have an actual discussion.
Click to expand...

It clearly shown that the traditional mathematician here can't face the failure of his\her fundamental defective attitude about the considered subject, all along this thread, as can be demonstrated, for example, in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9164030&postcount=2208 .

Instead of facing the consequences he run to Locknar for rule 6. :clap:
 
Last edited:
Furthermore, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_non-standard_analysis is some example of how Mathematics (as known today) is not a framework that naturally embraces different models of a given subject (in this case Non-standard_analysis no more than "quite acceptable").
Click to expand...
Non-standard analysis using hyperreals only vindicates one of your claims, the claim that .999... < 1. But your central claims about brain skills and non-composed spaces are false when it comes to hyperreals, as far as I can tell.

Consider the first development of the rigorous treatment of infinitesimals: a key part was the transfer principle, the principle that every first order sentence true of the reals should be true of the hyperreals. The next step is to assert the existence of an infinitesimal, and you can derive non-standard analysis. True, there are other ways to define the system, but this was the first. Appeal to first order sentences is the paradigm of symbol manipulation (for you, verbal_symbolic brain skills). There could not be a clearer case. So your claims about visual_spatial skills fall aside.

Second, the hyperreal line is composed of points. The difference from reals is that some points are infinitely close to each other, and some of them are infinitely far apart. It is still a composed space.

In short, if you are in fact in favor of non-standard analysis, you are giving up on your main claims.
 
Last edited:
BenjaminTR said:
Non-standard analysis using hyperreals only vindicates one of your claims, the claim that .999... < 1. But your central claims about brain skills and non-composed spaces are false when it comes to hyperreals, as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...


No, it does not vindicate his claim. The "out" has been offered on a platter to him multiple times, but he has steadfastly refused to frame his 0.999... < 1 dogma in a alternate context. Instead, he has repeatedly proclaimed that traditional Mathematics is just wrong.

Heck, he's still stuck on 2 not necessarily being a member of the set containing 2 as a member.

It is ironic, too, that Doron finds comfort in the writings of an actual mathematician -- a professional in the very subject he so strongly dismisses. He has done this before, by the way, and each time there have been significant comprehension issues.
 
jsfisher said:
No, it does not vindicate his claim. The "out" has been offered on a platter to him multiple times, but he has steadfastly refused to frame his 0.999... < 1 dogma in a alternate context. Instead, he has repeatedly proclaimed that traditional Mathematics is just wrong.

Heck, he's still stuck on 2 not necessarily being a member of the set containing 2 as a member.

It is ironic, too, that Doron finds comfort in the writings of an actual mathematician -- a professional in the very subject he so strongly dismisses. He has done this before, by the way, and each time there have been significant comprehension issues.
Click to expand...

Re: the first part, how does it fail to vindicate the claim? Does doron believe that standard real analysis and standard conventions about the decimal numbering system also imply that 0.999... < 1? Otherwise, there is room to argue about which system best captures default reasoning about numbers, etc.

Second, I would love a link to the discussion of 2 and sets containing 2 as a member.

Third, another case of someone who denies the authority of experts but tries to gain credibility by appeal to the authority granted to experts.
 
BenjaminTR said:
Re: the first part, how does it fail to vindicate the claim? Does doron believe that standard real analysis and standard conventions about the decimal numbering system also imply that 0.999... < 1? Otherwise, there is room to argue about which system best captures default reasoning about numbers, etc.
Click to expand...

His claim is that 0.999... is less than 1 (period). Anything that might yield a different result is just plain wrong.

Second, I would love a link to the discussion of 2 and sets containing 2 as a member.
Click to expand...

It came up a couple of times in other Doronshadmi threads. I'll do some digging for links. There are many other Doronisms of note, too. I'll see what I can find for you.
 
BenjaminTR said:
Non-standard analysis using hyperreals only vindicates one of your claims, the claim that .999... < 1. But your central claims about brain skills and non-composed spaces are false when it comes to hyperreals, as far as I can tell.

Consider the first development of the rigorous treatment of infinitesimals: a key part was the transfer principle, the principle that every first order sentence true of the reals should be true of the hyperreals. The next step is to assert the existence of an infinitesimal, and you can derive non-standard analysis. True, there are other ways to define the system, but this was the first. Appeal to first order sentences is the paradigm of symbol manipulation (for you, verbal_symbolic brain skills). There could not be a clearer case. So your claims about visual_spatial skills fall aside.
Click to expand...
I claim that the next step, which asserts the existence of an infinitesimal, has no basis without, at least, the irreducibility of a given non-composed dimensional space > 0 into a lower non-composed dimensional space.

BenjaminTR said:
Second, the hyperreal line is composed of points. The difference from reals is that some points are infinitely close to each other, and some of them are infinitely far apart. It is still a composed space.
Click to expand...
The points are infinitely close to each other exactly because of the reason mentioned above, such that no amount of them is the non-composed 1-dimensional space.

Call these points reals, hyperreals or what ever, any amount of them can't completely cover a non-composed 1-dimensional space, or in other words, the power of a non-composed dimensional space > 0 is > than the power of collections of lower dimensional spaces on it.

This notion can't be known without using also visual_spatial brain skills.

Furthermore, by this notion actual infinity is beyond the notion of infinity that is based on the concept of collection.

For more details, please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9170466&postcount=2248 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9170658&postcount=2249.
 
Last edited:
BenjaminTR said:
Third, another case of someone who denies the authority of experts but tries to gain credibility by appeal to the authority granted to experts.
Click to expand...
It is called a paradigm shift (please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift) in the minds of experts, which are considered as the authority by the, so called, non-experts.

If the paradigm shift happens in the minds of, so called, the authority of experts, then and only then my work becomes relevant.

In other words, I have no choice but to deal with the, so called, authority of experts.

In terms of evolutionary principles, I look at my work as some kind of mutation that has to survive and flourish in the environment of, so called, the authority of experts.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Welcome BenjaminTR,

Please think about bits and qbits.

The identity of a given bit can be, for example, 0 or 1 (definition 5).

This is not the case with the identity of a qbit, which can be simultaneously 0 and 1 (definition 7).

Please look at http://www.scribd.com/doc/98276640/Umes pages 12,13 for more details.
Click to expand...

A qbit can be in a superposition of 0 and 1. To me, it seems misleading to describe a superposition as "being in two distinct states at once". Maybe I like classical logic too much.

Still, I do not follow the definitions of identity and uncertainty. Is an identity something that can potentially allow for recognition, but does not always? So if I wear my "BenjaminTR" name tag, allowing you to recognize me, that is an identity. If I have two nametags, one saying "BenjaminTR" and the other saying "someoneElse", and additionally you cannot recognize me, then there is uncertainty, but the nametags are still identities. This still doesn't work, because if I am not someoneElse, that tag would not allow recognition. If I am someoneElse (suppose it is an alias) then both identities allow recognition and you have more identifying information than you need, not uncertainty.

Perhaps my nametag is good enough usually but some joker also has a "BenjaminTR" tag, for increased anonymity and decreased reputation no doubt, and the tag does not allow recognition. This is intuitively a case of uncertainty, but I can't see how it fits your definition.

Please advise.
 
BenjaminTR said:
A qbit can be in a superposition of 0 and 1. To me, it seems misleading to describe a superposition as "being in two distinct states at once". Maybe I like classical logic too much.

Still, I do not follow the definitions of identity and uncertainty. Is an identity something that can potentially allow for recognition, but does not always? So if I wear my "BenjaminTR" name tag, allowing you to recognize me, that is an identity. If I have two nametags, one saying "BenjaminTR" and the other saying "someoneElse", and additionally you cannot recognize me, then there is uncertainty, but the nametags are still identities. This still doesn't work, because if I am not someoneElse, that tag would not allow recognition. If I am someoneElse (suppose it is an alias) then both identities allow recognition and you have more identifying information than you need, not uncertainty.

Perhaps my nametag is good enough usually but some joker also has a "BenjaminTR" tag, for increased anonymity and decreased reputation no doubt, and the tag does not allow recognition. This is intuitively a case of uncertainty, but I can't see how it fits your definition.

Please advise.
Click to expand...

Take, for example, the mathematical expression "A < B".

This expression is possible because the variable tag "A" and variable tag "B" are strictly identified.

Now think about the impossibility to distinguish between variable tag "A" and variable tag "B", such that only "AB" expression is possible.

In this case the inequality "A < B" can't be expressed.

According to my framework "AB" expresses uncertainty, where "A,B" expresses certainty.

For example, by this framework the expression "AB,A" enables one to distinguish between expression "AB" (the uncertain) and expression "A" (the certain).

I claim that Math uses only expressions of "A,B" form, which does not allow it to deal with uncertainty.

Please look at http://www.scribd.com/doc/98276640/Umes pages 12,13 for more details.

BenjaminTR said:
Perhaps my nametag is good enough usually but some joker also has a "BenjaminTR" tag, for increased anonymity and decreased reputation no doubt, and the tag does not allow recognition. This is intuitively a case of uncertainty, but I can't see how it fits your definition.
Click to expand...
("BenjaminTR","BenjaminTR") is redundancy according to my framework.

(As about reputation, increased reputation is another possibility if the other "BenjaminTR" is more reliable than you, in some considered suject).

BenjaminTR said:
A qbit can be in a superposition of 0 and 1. To me, it seems misleading to describe a superposition as "being in two distinct states at once".
Click to expand...

"01" (the uncertain) is not the same as "0,1" (the certain), where "01" does not mean probability 0.5 for "0" and probability 0.5 for "1" (it is not the sum of more than one stimuli of the responses, which would have been caused by each stimulus individually. In other words, it is not the linearity of the Superposition_principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle)).

"01" is the simultaneous associations among 100% "0" AND 100% "1", which disallows the individual recognition of "0" OR "1".

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

Please reply also to:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9193162&postcount=2316

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9193192&postcount=2317

and the other subject in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9193272&postcount=2318

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom