Deeper than primes - Continuation

laca · Dec 19, 2013

AdMan said:
Why can I never remember how to get that exploding irony meter icon?

They've all exploded. Need to tell the admins to restock.

zooterkin · Dec 19, 2013

doronshadmi said:
It does not study mappings like

1 ↔ 1
2 ↔
3 ↔ 2
4 ↔ 3
5 ↔ 4
...

Isn't that exactly what Hilbert was studying?

realpaladin · Dec 19, 2013

doronshadmi said:
In both cases an observer (or its agent) are involved.

In not a single case does that change anything. Unless you can prove otherwise, of course.

doronshadmi said:
Take for example this book http://www.math.toronto.edu/~sigal/semlectnotes/1.pdf

In page 34 we find this sentence:

"(prove this!), which together with the previous inequality gives the desired result."

What exactly is the thing that has a desire for a given result?

This is 'Reading comprehension' at grammar-school, but... ok, let's be lenient towards Doron.

Doron on page 33 the chapter starts with:
"One of the fundamental implications of quantum theory is the uncertainty principle - that is, the fact that certain physical quantities cannot be measured simultaneously with arbitrary accuracy. In this chapter, we establish the precise mathematical statements of the uncertainty principle."

The highlighting is mine.

Doron, this paragraph tells you:
- Because of physical limitations (not mathematical limitations) in measuring, measuring one quantity excludes the measurement of another (for instance velocity versus location)
- However, we want an exact mathematical representation of these physical limitations so that whenever we continue in making mathematical predictions, these limitations are included correctly and precise.

So this tells you that we (since we are in the physical realm and not in the mathematical realm ourselves) want an includable formula (or formulae) to thwart any calculation errors due to physical limitations.

This is the whole goal of chapter 6.

6.1 Gives the basic uncertainty principle, 6.2 gives the refined uncertainty principle and combines it with 6.1 to give you exactly what the stated goal of the starting paragraph of chapter 6 is.

Then they go one further and show how the result is used in the physical world.

There is nothing hard, complex or mystifying in this.

Your main hangup is that you refuse to accept that mathematics is decoupled from physical reality.

realpaladin · Dec 19, 2013

doronshadmi said:
Wrong, calculations are impossible without an observer or its agent.

Again, "Reading comprehension" is your absolute weakest skill.

But I have to admit, I forgot to add the extra clause to make it understandable for you.

The calculations do not have to take an observer into account.

They can be done on a chinese abacus with all of Tibet as a spectator and the UN as an observer for all I care.

realpaladin · Dec 19, 2013

I am willing to pay the JREF 1000 dollars to get a 'diff' feature like on wikipedia pages.
(I am serious)

Doron keeps editing his posts after responses have been posted and I really want to see him caught redhanded.

doronshadmi · Dec 19, 2013

zooterkin said:
Isn't that exactly what Hilbert was studying?

You are invited to provide a Traditional Mathematics' article that uses Hilbert's Hotel in order to show that The Natural Numbers do not have 1-to-1 correspondence with themselves.

Maybe jsfisher can help you.

doronshadmi · Dec 19, 2013

realpaladin said:
Your main hangup is that you refuse to accept that mathematics is decoupled from physical reality.

Your main hangup is that you refuse to accept that the mathematics that is used by QM is linked with physical reality through observation and measurement.

jsfisher · Dec 19, 2013

doronshadmi said:
You are invited to provide a Traditional Mathematics' article that uses Hilbert's Hotel in order to show that The Natural Numbers do not have 1-to-1 correspondence with themselves.

Maybe jsfisher can help you.

I see you continue have trouble with the whole one vs. none concept. Finding a mapping from N to N that isn't one-to-one (never mind onto) does not show that there is none.

Finding one mapping from N to N that is one-to-one (and onto) does show that there is (at least) one.

Why does this simple thing confuse you so? It's those for-all and there-exists constructs that escape you, isn't it?

doronshadmi · Dec 19, 2013

realpaladin said:
Again, "Reading comprehension" is your absolute weakest skill.

But I have to admit, I forgot to add the extra clause to make it understandable for you.

The calculations do not have to take an observer into account.

They can be done on a chinese abacus with all of Tibet as a spectator and the UN as an observer for all I care.

Chinese abacus, a computer, sensors etc. are some examples of agents of a given observer, such that the observer does not have to be present during the measurements in order to calculate the information of a given set of measurements.

jsfisher · Dec 19, 2013

realpaladin said:
I am willing to pay the JREF 1000 dollars to get a 'diff' feature like on wikipedia pages.
(I am serious)

Doron keeps editing his posts after responses have been posted and I really want to see him caught redhanded.

Some have resorted to simply quoting his posts in their entirety for future reference. Since Doron has been caught multiple times having made dramatic revisions to prior posts, it is best to just reject any claim he makes about a previous post that bears the tell-tale tag of editing.

doronshadmi · Dec 19, 2013

jsfisher said:
I see you continue have trouble with the whole one vs. none concept. Finding a mapping from N to N that isn't one-to-one (never mind onto) does not show that there is none.

Finding one mapping from N to N that is one-to-one (and onto) does show that there is (at least) one.

Why does this simple thing confuse you so? It's those for-all and there-exists constructs that escape you, isn't it?

My argument is very simple ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9703638&postcount=2753 ).

Traditional Mathematics deals, in this case, only with the mapping from N to N that is one-to-one (and onto), and ignores the cases where there is no mapping from N to N that is one-to-one (and onto), for example:

1 ↔ 1
2 ↔
3 ↔ 2
4 ↔ 3
5 ↔ 4
...

Why is that?

jsfisher · Dec 19, 2013

doronshadmi said:
My argument is very simple ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9703638&postcount=2753 ).

Traditional Mathematics deals, in this case, only with the mapping from N to N that is one-to-one (and onto), and ignores the cases where there is no mapping from N to N that is one-to-one (and onto), for example:

1 ↔ 1
2 ↔
3 ↔ 2
4 ↔ 3
5 ↔ 4
...

Why is that?

Why do you incorrectly assume that?

Nothing was ignored; just some things are irrelevant to the topic at hand. For the topic at hand, one-to-one mappings of the natural numbers, mappings that aren't one-to-one are not relevant. Citing example mappings that are not one-to-one does nothing to address the existence question at hand.

Why do you continually bring irrelevant issues into the discussion?

realpaladin · Dec 19, 2013

doronshadmi said:
Your main hangup is that you refuse to accept that the mathematics that is used by QM is linked with physical reality through observation and measurement.

I can skip 'Reading'...

No Doron, the mathematics are not 'linked'. The values are.

To capture the constraints on these values is what these formulae do. Nothing more.

Are you even able to read a mathematical formula? The sigma means what the sigma means in every other application of mathematics. The Tau means the same, the brackets. Every single symbol in the QM formulae means the same thing whether or not it is used in QM or in the statistical analysis of the number of udders a sheep has.

Edit: Aaargh... I fell for the kindergarten tactics again. Doron, I answered your question. Quit strawmanning.

doronshadmi said:
Chinese abacus, a computer, sensors etc. are some examples of agents of a given observer, such that the observer does not have to be present during the measurements in order to calculate the information of a given set of measurements.

Argh... I need to add the 'Reading' again in Reading Comprehension.

Without providing any context I asked a visiting 13 year old if they understood what I said in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9704161#post9704161 and she correctly understood that the formulae themselves do not need to take any observer into account.

The calculations, whenever they need to be resolved can be done by matchsticks, by abacus, by counting sudoku-pagenumbers or whatever, but the formulae themselves do not need an observer.

I can only surmise the extent of damage in your parietal lobe, for which I am truly sorry.

But the only thing you ever do is either the old and tired kindergarten 'that is what you are, but what am I?' and evading the bringing forth of any proof at all for your statements.

realpaladin · Dec 19, 2013

jsfisher said:
Some have resorted to simply quoting his posts in their entirety for future reference. Since Doron has been caught multiple times having made dramatic revisions to prior posts, it is best to just reject any claim he makes about a previous post that bears the tell-tale tag of editing.

I know, I have done that exact thing multiple times.

It is almost, but not quite, infuriating in the way he claims something and never backs it up.

doronshadmi · Dec 19, 2013

jsfisher said:
Nothing was ignored; just some things are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The topic at hand is the properties of infinite sets, and in this case, set N (as seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9703638&postcount=2753).

It is shown that in addition to the case where there is mapping from N to N that is one-to-one (and onto), there is also the case that there is no mapping from N to N that is one-to-one (and onto), for example

1 ↔ 1
2 ↔
3 ↔ 2
4 ↔ 3
5 ↔ 4
...

Why this case is irrelevant to the topic at hand?

doronshadmi · Dec 19, 2013

realpaladin said:
but the formulae themselves do not need an observer.

Wrong, formulae themselves are the result of abstract observation that may or may not linked with physical observations, and in the case of QM there are links between abstract and physical observations, which enable useful results.

realpaladin · Dec 19, 2013

doronshadmi said:
Wrong, formulae themselves are the result of abstract observation that may or may not linked with physical observations, and in the case of QM there are links between abstract and physical observations, which enable useful results.

You are being obtuse on purpose aren't you?

Prove what you claim.

doronshadmi · Dec 19, 2013

realpaladin said:
You are being obtuse on purpose aren't you?

Prove what you claim.

ob·ser·va·tion
noun \ˌäb-sər-ˈvā-shən, -zər-\

: a statement about something you have noticed : a comment or remark

: the act of careful watching and listening : the activity of paying close attention to someone or something in order to get information

: something you notice by watching and listening

( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/observation )

Close attention is not limited only to the physical external realm, but it also used in the case of abstract mental activity.

So is the case of the act of careful watching and listening, it can be used in order to get information from inner mental activity and/or information from the outer physical environment.

realpaladin · Dec 19, 2013

doronshadmi said:
( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/observation )

Close attention is not limited only to the physical external realm, but it also used in the case of abstract mental activity.

So is the case of the act of careful watching and listening, it can be used in order to get information from inner mental activity and/or information from the outer physical environment.

Not acceptable.

Try again.

doronshadmi · Dec 19, 2013

realpaladin said:
Not acceptable.

Try again.

Your non-detailed reply is not acceptable.

Try again.

realpaladin · Dec 19, 2013

doronshadmi said:
Your non-detailed reply is not acceptable.

Try again.

ROFL!

jsfisher · Dec 19, 2013

doronshadmi said:
The topic at hand is the properties of infinite sets, and in this case, set N

...with the additional construct of one-to-one mappings as clearly and repeatedly presented in your posts. It is probably fruitless to point this out, though, since if you cannot follow your own posts, why should I expect you to understand this one?

It is shown that in addition to the case where there is mapping from N to N that is one-to-one (and onto), there is also the case that there is no mapping from N to N that is one-to-one (and onto)

Are your language skills that incredibly poor? If there is (at least) one mapping that is one-to-one, then you cannot possibly show that there is no mapping that is one-to-one.

There may be able a mapping that isn't one-to-one, but so what? To say "there is no mapping" means none, zip, zero, nada such mappings. One example that isn't something isn't even close to establishing none, zip, zero, nada that are.

doronshadmi · Dec 19, 2013

jsfisher said:
If there is (at least) one mapping that is one-to-one, then you cannot possibly show that there is no mapping that is one-to-one.

Here is such a case

1 ↔ 1
2 ↔
3 ↔ 2
4 ↔ 3
5 ↔ 4
...

exactly as used by Hilbert's Hotel case, which is prepared to include more visitors.

Edit: It is clear that no N member is missing in both sides, yet there is no 1-to-1 (and onto) from N to N in the given case above.

doronshadmi · Dec 19, 2013

jsfisher said:
Are your language skills that incredibly poor?

No, for example:

It is shown that in addition to the case where there is (mapping from N to N that is one-to-one (and onto)), there is also the case that there is no (mapping from N to N that is one-to-one (and onto)).

realpaladin · Dec 19, 2013

doronshadmi said:
No, for example:

It is shown that in addition to the case where there is (mapping from N to N that is one-to-one (and onto)), there is also the case that there is no (mapping from N to N that is one-to-one (and onto)).

ROFL!

laca · Dec 19, 2013

doronshadmi said:
Here is such a case

1 ↔ 1
2 ↔
3 ↔ 2
4 ↔ 3
5 ↔ 4
...

exactly as used by Hilbert's Hotel case, which is prepared to include more visitors.

Edit: It is clear that no N member is missing in both sides, yet there is no 1-to-1 (and onto) from N to N in the given case above.

Reading comprehension epic fail. Keep digging, doron.

realpaladin · Dec 19, 2013

laca said:
Reading comprehension epic fail. Keep digging, doron.

Yup. That is why I won't dignify him with a response other than a disdainful ROFL whenever he segues into wordspaghetti.

jsfisher · Dec 19, 2013

doronshadmi said:
Here is such a case

1 ↔ 1
2 ↔
3 ↔ 2
4 ↔ 3
5 ↔ 4
...

Yes, your reading and writing comprehension skills are really poor. Your case shows an example that is not a one-to-one mapping. It does not show that there is no one-to-one mapping.

exactly as used by Hilbert's Hotel case, which is prepared to include more visitors.

Yeah? Which Hilbert Hotel case would that be? How did that case work? And don't try to palm this off on zooterkin. I knew what he meant. You, on the other hand....

doronshadmi · Dec 20, 2013

jsfisher said:
Your case shows an example that is not a one-to-one mapping. It does not show that there is no one-to-one mapping.

My example shows that (no 1-to-1 (and onto) from N to N) is also a property of N, in addition to the property of (1-to-1 (and onto) from N to N).

Traditional Mathematics deals only with the case of (1-to-1 (and onto) from N to N) and does not deal with the case of (no 1-to-1 (and onto) from N to N).

It is clear that if N is considered then (1-to-1 (and onto) from N to N) OR (no 1-to-1 (and onto) from N to N), or in other words, both cases are valid in the case of N.

realpaladin · Dec 20, 2013

doronshadmi said:
My example shows that (no 1-to-1 (and onto) from N to N) is also a property of N, in addition to the property of (1-to-1 (and onto) from N to N).

Traditional Mathematics deals only with the case of (1-to-1 (and onto) from N to N) and does not deal with the case of (no 1-to-1 (and onto) from N to N).

It is clear that if N is considered then (1-to-1 (and onto) from N to N) OR (no 1-to-1 (and onto) from N to N), or in other words, both cases are valid in the case of N.

Not that I am calling Doron dumb, because that would be an ad-hominem, but in my opinion, only dumb people would write a reply like the above.

It uses posturing words like 'shows' and 'it is clear' but has no validity at all.

After 7 years Doron even fails to be able to answer anything except with posturing and childish 'back-at-you's'.

Imagine the shame his family and friends must have when they read this, since it does not matter whether he blocks it or not, all employers, friends and family can publicly read this thread.

And while he may think he has 'put us in our place', the rest of the world sees the sad, sad truth.

laca · Dec 20, 2013

doronshadmi said:
My example shows that (no 1-to-1 (and onto) from N to N) is also a property of N, in addition to the property of (1-to-1 (and onto) from N to N).

Welcome to the wonderful world of infinities.

Traditional Mathematics deals only with the case of (1-to-1 (and onto) from N to N) and does not deal with the case of (no 1-to-1 (and onto) from N to N).

Does too.

It is clear that if N is considered then (1-to-1 (and onto) from N to N) OR (no 1-to-1 (and onto) from N to N), or in other words, both cases are valid in the case of N.

Yes, that is old news, nothing new there, Useful Mathematics^* deals with that just fine.

^*I propose to use the more meaningful distinction "Useful" vs. "Useless" Mathematics when discussing mathematics vs. Doron-Fantasy Word-Salad-Filled Useless-Inane-Gibberish pile of crap.

laca · Dec 20, 2013

realpaladin said:
Not that I am calling Doron dumb, because that would be an ad-hominem<snip>

You're wrong because you're dumb is ad hominem.
You're dumb because of the 9000+ posts of yours irrefutably prove that is just a statement of fact.

realpaladin · Dec 20, 2013

laca said:
You're wrong because you're dumb is ad hominem.
You're dumb because of the 9000+ posts of yours irrefutably prove that is just a statement of fact.

You got Doronetics down to a pat...

doronshadmi · Dec 20, 2013

laca said:
Does too.

Please provide some professional mathematical article which shows that there is no (1-to-1 and onto from N to N).

Maybe jsfisher can help you to find such an article.

doronshadmi · Dec 20, 2013

realpaladin said:
Not that I am calling Doron dumb, because that would be an ad-hominem, but in my opinion, only dumb people would write a reply like the above.

It uses posturing words like 'shows' and 'it is clear' but has no validity at all.

After 7 years Doron even fails to be able to answer anything except with posturing and childish 'back-at-you's'.

Imagine the shame his family and friends must have when they read this, since it does not matter whether he blocks it or not, all employers, friends and family can publicly read this thread.

And while he may <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)">think</a> he has 'put us in our place', the rest of the world sees the sad, sad truth.

After you gave your point of view about me, try to reply in details to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9705134&postcount=2783

You can also use jsfisher's help.

laca · Dec 20, 2013

doronshadmi said:
Please provide some professional mathematical article which shows that there is no (1-to-1 and onto from N to N).

If there would be such an article, it would be erroneous and therefore unworthy of publishing in anything else than a prepaid sudoku-publishing venture. Your post only shows your complete lack of understanding in the considered subject.

realpaladin · Dec 20, 2013

doronshadmi said:
After you gave your point of view about me, try to reply in details to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9705134&postcount=2783

You can also use jsfisher's help.

Do you have delusions of grandeur as well?

Since when do you think you can order me around?

The evasion on getting to grips with your failure in reading comprehension is noted and added to your body of worthless work.

realpaladin · Dec 20, 2013

doronshadmi said:
Here is such a case

1 <-> 1
2 <->
3 <-> 2
4 <-> 3
5 <-> 4
...

exactly as used by Hilbert's Hotel case, which is prepared to include more visitors.

Edit: It is clear that no N member is missing in both sides, yet there is no 1-to-1 (and onto) from N to N in the given case above.

The failure here is that this is not an answer to the question.

Let me try, against all experience, to explain the question and then explain why this answer is wrong.

Jsfisher said:
If there is at least 1 N-to-N mapping, you can not show that there are *no* N-to-N mappings.

Your 'answer' shows 1 N-to-N mapping, 1 N-to-nil mapping and 3 N-to-M mappings.

So therefore you failed the assignment.

doronshadmi · Dec 20, 2013

laca said:
If there would be such an <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)">article</a>, it would be erroneous and therefore unworthy of publishing in anything else than a prepaid sudoku-publishing venture. Your post only shows your complete lack of understanding in the considered subject.

You are invited to show in details why http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9705134&postcount=2783 is mathematically invalid.

realpaladin · Dec 20, 2013

doronshadmi said:
You are invited to show in details why http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9705134&postcount=2783 is mathematically invalid.

Don't move the goalposts, little slick Rick. Stay with the program and show something, anything that is originally yours and which can not be done with traditional math.

You can't, can you?

Deeper than primes - Continuation

Illuminator

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

Master Poster

Master Poster

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Master Poster

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Illuminator

Master Poster

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Illuminator

Illuminator

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Master Poster

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster