Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
Exactly, but unlike sets with bounded amount of objects, sets with unbounded amount of objects can be greater than themselves or even smaller than their proper subsets, if a function with no inverse is used, in additional to the traditional function (which must have an inverse form).
Click to expand...

There really is so much about Mathematics that you don't understand. Still, you should stop making stuff up as cover. Most functions have no inverse function.
 
jsfisher said:
Most functions have no inverse function.
Click to expand...
So what?

Traditional Mathematics does not handle with
Code: 
{1,2,3,4,5,...}
 ↓ ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
  {1,2,3,4,...}

or

Code: 
{2,4,6,8,...}
 ↓ ↕ ↕ ↕   
  {1,2,3,...}

because a function with no inverse is (arbitrarily) not used by it, in the cases above.

As a result traditional Mathematicians simply fail to understand the difference between actual infinity (which is above collections) and potential infinity (which is at the level of collections), as seen, for example, in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9800545&postcount=3440.

Moreover, since traditional mathematicians deduce thing almost only in terms of verbal_symbolic reasoning, they simply can't grasp the notion that the same mathematical object has verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial expression, as explained, for example, in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9794292&postcount=3418 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9793529&postcount=3411.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
So what?
Click to expand...

The point was you said Mathematics required functions had inverses. That was a lie.

Traditional Mathematics does not handle with
Code: 
{1,2,3,4,5,...}
 ↓ ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
  {1,2,3,4,...}

or

Code: 
{2,4,6,8,...}
 ↓ ↕ ↕ ↕   
  {1,2,3,...}

because a function with no inverse is (arbitrarily) not used by it, in the cases above.
Click to expand...

Gibberish aside, (1) those aren't functions, so your statement is a lie, and (2) Mathematics handles those sorts of relationships just fine, so your statement is doubly so a lie.
 
jsfisher said:
(1) those aren't functions, so your statement is a lie,
Click to expand...

(1) ↓ is exactly a function with no inverse (unlike ↕, which is a function and its inverse) , so your statement is a lie, exactly because you are missing the term "function between A and B" that has no direction (unlike the the traditional "function from A to B" that gives the illusion of direction, called injection. It is an illusion of direction exactly because given some injection from A to B, it has an inverse from B to A, or in other words, ↕ between A and B is the accurate one, and it is essentially different from function ↓ that does not have an inverse).

(2) Traditional mathematicians do not use ↓, so your statement is doubly so a lie.

Moreover, you avoid detailed discussion about the rest of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9803104&postcount=3442.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
(1) ↓ is exactly a function with no inverse (unlike ↕, which is a function and its inverse) , so your statement is a lie
Click to expand...

We've been through this, doron. You couldn't grasp that mathematical functions, by definition, map each and everything in the function's domain to something in the function's range.

This whole nonsense about something mapping to nothing while still calling it a function was your invention. That's why we gave it its own special name, doron function, because of its backwards, convoluted origins.

...some gibberish snipped...
(2) Traditional mathematicians do not use ↓, so your statement is doubly so a lie.
Click to expand...

Repeating your lie under the cover of an idiotic notational diversion doesn't make it any less a lie. Perhaps you have an example in mind.


And all that aside, we still have the situation where you, Doron, have gone out of your way to attempt to redefine cardinality by way of redefining function and domain to arrive at a version that is fundamentally useless. Then you claim it is somehow superior to that which you redefined.

This strategy is not serving you well. You are supposed to be showing doronetics is more useful than Mathematics, not less, and certainly not completely useless, which is all you have accomplished so far.
 
jsfisher said:
by definition, map each and everything in the function's domain to something in the function's range.
Click to expand...
It is no more than the definition of the traditional mathematicians, so?

jsfisher said:
This whole nonsense about something mapping to nothing while still calling it a function was your invention.
Click to expand...
Mapping between something and nothing to nothing is exactly function with no inverse, and it is nonsense only by the traditional definition of function, so?

jsfisher said:
That's why we gave it its own special name, doron function, because of its backwards, convoluted origins.
Click to expand...
The backwards is only in the minds of the people who use the directional A to B approach.

I use "between A and B" approach, so no backwards is related to my framework.
 
jsfisher said:
And all that aside, we still have the situation where you, Doron, have gone out of your way to attempt to redefine cardinality by way of redefining function and domain to arrive at a version that is fundamentally useless. Then you claim it is somehow superior to that which you redefined.

This strategy is not serving you well. You are supposed to be showing doronetics is more useful than Mathematics, not less, and certainly not completely useless, which is all you have accomplished so far.
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9800545&postcount=3440 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9803104&postcount=3442 explicitly show its usefulness, and also the illusion of the verbal_symbolic-only game of collections with unbounded amount of objects.
 
doronshadmi said:
It is no more than the definition of the traditional mathematicians, so?

Mapping between something and nothing to nothing is exactly function with no inverse, and it is nonsense only by the traditional definition of function, so?
Click to expand...

Finally, you fully admit you are talking doronetics and not Mathematics. Now, if we can just get you to the next level where you realize conclusions in doronetics based on your convoluted, incomplete, contradictory definitions don't extend beyond the boundaries of doronetics.

By the way, your claim that your mapping to nothing is a function without an inverse is yet another example of you working things exactly backwards. This is one of the great constants in the world.
 
jsfisher said:
Finally, you fully admit you are talking doronetics and not Mathematics.
Click to expand...
jsfisher, this is no more than one of your ridiculous maneuvers, which poorly try to claim that Mathematics is the property of the community of traditional mathematicians.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
By the way, your claim that your mapping to nothing is a function without an inverse is yet another example of you working things exactly backwards.
Click to expand...

Once again.

The backwards is only in the minds of the people who use the directional A to B approach.

I use "between A and B" approach, so no backwards is related to my framework.

jsfisher said:
This is one of the great constants in the world.
Click to expand...
This is no more than stagnation of verbal_symbolic-only thinkers.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
:eye-poppi
Click to expand...

Yup! It is part of his |N|>|N| story. I still suspect him of using pixie dust in his equations.

Another screamer is his UMES 'paper'; he starts off with a few, admittedly, well-formed questions, but then, out of the blue and without any linking narrative we head off into the rabbit hole and things go on about yes-thing/no-thing and cybernetic kernels (I get the mental image of metallic tasting popcorn here).

We still do not know *how* his convulsions in mathematics contribute to any form of knowledge or decision making; he has not made a single observation and prediction that traditional mathematics has not done better and more elegant.
 
realpaladin said:
he has not made a single observation and prediction that traditional mathematics has not done better and more elegant.
Click to expand...
You are wrong realpaladin.

Traditional Mathematics has no clue about the difference between actual infinity and potential infinity, exactly because it is no more than a community of verbal_symbiotic-only thinkers, which get things only in terms of collections.

The difference between actual infinity (which is beyond collections) and potential infinity (which is at the level of collections with unbounded amount of objects) can be known only by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning, as can be found, for example in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9794314&postcount=3420 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9800545&postcount=3440.
 
doronshadmi said:
Traditional Mathematics has no clue about the difference between actual infinity and potential infinity, exactly because it is no more than a community of verbal_symbiotic-only thinkers, which get things only in terms of collections.
Click to expand...

No, not true at all. As has been explained to you many times before, and you insist on willful ignorance about, is that Mathematics is rich enough to support many, many models. This can include many, many models for infinity.

The fact you disagree with the dominate model is of no consequence. The fact you are unable to formally (or even informally) describe your model is amusing, but otherwise of no consequence. The fact you stamp your feet and shout how wrong Mathematics appears to you is also amusing and also of no consequence.

Mathematics continues to produce results. Doronetics, not so much.
 
doronshadmi said:
You are wrong realpaladin.

Traditional Mathematics has no clue about the difference between actual infinity and potential infinity, exactly because it is no more than a community of verbal_symbiotic-only thinkers, which get things only in terms of collections.

The difference between actual infinity (which is beyond collections) and potential infinity (which is at the level of collections with unbounded amount of objects) can be known only by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning, as can be found, for example in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9794314&postcount=3420 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9800545&postcount=3440.
Click to expand...

Nothing has been shown in any of these posts you mention.

Things have been claimed and they have been stated, but nothing that is of any significance has been shown.

Can you provide a *practical * example for day-to-day use where your concoction actually is more useful than traditional mathematics?

In 8 years you never have.
 
realpaladin said:
Nothing has been shown in any of these posts you mention.

Things have been claimed and they have been stated, but nothing that is of any significance has been shown.

Can you provide a *practical * example for day-to-day use where your concoction actually is more useful than traditional mathematics?

In 8 years you never have.
Click to expand...
realpaladin, as long as you avoid any understanding of non-entropic realms (as explicitly given by posts like http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9807561&postcount=3453, including the links and the links of the links) you don't have any meaningful thing to say about my suggested framework, and so is the case about zooterkin and jsfisher.

You verbal_symbolic-only reasoning determines your misunderstanding of non-entropic realms (including their practical day-by-day use) all along this thread.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Mathematics continues to produce results. Doronetics, not so much.
Click to expand...
These results can't be used by the stronger framework of non-entropic realm, which is strong enough to be a one comprehensive framework for ethics (in terms of evolutionary scale) and logical\technological skills of our species.

As long as you and your friends here deduce everything only in terms of verbal_symbolic reasoning, you by your own minds determine your inability to grasp definitions that are based on visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning.
 
Last edited:
You're the champ of lameness, doron. You know what? You don't have to explain anything, just show some result. Any result will do. Anything at all. You had your chance to start making sense. I think 40 years is plenty. The time for words is gone. It's now time to show what you've got.
 
doronshadmi said:
realpaladin, as long as you avoid any understanding of non-entropic realms (as explicitly given by posts like http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9807561&postcount=3453, including the links and the links of the links) you don't have any meaningful thing to say about my suggested framework, and so is the case about zooterkin and jsfisher.

You verbal_symbolic-only reasoning determines your misunderstanding of non-entropic realms (including their practical day-by-day use) all along this thread.
Click to expand...

A longwinded way of saying "I, Doron Shadmi, am unable to provide such an example."
 
realpaladin said:
A longwinded way of saying "I, Doron Shadmi, am unable to provide such an example."
Click to expand...
Wrong realpaladin and the rest of your verbal_symbolic-only friends.

For example, the following links

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9808629&postcount=3457

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9793529&postcount=3411

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9794292&postcount=3418

are not at the scope of your verbal_symbolic-only reasoning, and you are actually the practical example of the need of verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning as soon as possible.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Wrong realpaladin and the rest of your verbal_symbolic-only friends.

For example, the following links

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9808629&postcount=3457

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9793529&postcount=3411

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9794292&postcount=3418

are not at the scope of your verbal_symbolic-only reasoning, and you are actually the practical example of the need of verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning as soon as possible.
Click to expand...

Many young children have invisible friends. You know, someone or something they image to be there but really isn't. Most out-growth such things.

Doronetics is Doron's invisible friend. Too bad, too, because reality is much more interesting.
 
doronshadmi said:
Wrong realpaladin and the rest of your verbal_symbolic-only friends.

For example, the following links

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9808629&postcount=3457

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9793529&postcount=3411

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9794292&postcount=3418

are not at the scope of your verbal_symbolic-only reasoning, and you are actually the practical example of the need of verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning as soon as possible.
Click to expand...

This is just corroboration that you, Doron Shadmi, are unable to provide a practical example. *Practical* meaning that it has a practice, an application.

You have not shown this, and no matter how you dress it, your words do not mean anything unless you can show it.
 
realpaladin said:
*Practical* meaning that it has a practice, an application
Click to expand...
The application is changing verbal_symbolic-only reasoning into verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning.

As long as you do not practice it, you have no application, and indeed in your case there is no day-by-day application.
 
But it is worthless. How can something that can't even understand that three sets are equal to each other be useful?

Where are the ethics in 1+1=2? Why should there even be ethics in math? Is 1+1 good while 1+2 evil? Is 0+0 neutral? Should we be on a crusade to stamp out y=mx+b? Will I be sent to jail if I teach the FOIL method? Since I'm not Greek, will I be able to use Pythagorus as a role model? Will your plan be able to answer all these questions?

More importantly, will anyone care?

Don't go into the visual/verbal reasoning junk that you spout. That's not going to be able to answer my questions.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The application is changing verbal_symbolic-only reasoning into verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning.

As long as you do not practice it, you have no application, and indeed in your case there is no day-by-day application.
Click to expand...

Doron Shadmi, this is not about me, or what I practice or what any traditional mathematician practices.

This is about your definitions, your work, your realms, your whatever-you-want.

And in nothing of *your* work has any practical application. Even the simplest framework has basic tests and if it is being developed, basic regression tests.

You have no tests in the real world, in reality, hence your work has no value in the real world, in reality.

Maybe, instead of acting like a 6 year old on the playground saying "that is what you are, but what am I?", maybe, just maybe, you could put your intellect to work on showing something practical.

If that is not possible; you can not show a prediction or an explanation of an observation which then can be used to predict something hitherto unknown (which can be verified independently afterwards), then you have shown (and shown something for the first time), then your work has no value except for passing some time and honing of sarcasm skills.
 
realpaladin said:
Doron Shadmi, this is not about me, or what I practice or what any traditional mathematician practices.
Click to expand...
It is exactly about you, me or what any traditional mathematician practices.

realpaladin said:
maybe, just maybe, you could put your intellect to work on showing something practical.
Click to expand...

Practice 1: Use your visual_spatial reasoning in addition to your verbal_symbolic reasoning, during your mathematical research.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
But it is worthless. How can something that can't even understand that three sets are equal to each other be useful?
Click to expand...
This is one of the options of the realm of collections with unbounded amount of objects.

In order to know these options, verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning has to be used.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Practice 1: Use your visual_spatial reasoning in addition to your verbal_symbolic reasoning, during your mathematical research.
Click to expand...

No, doron, NO! YOU use your whatever reasoning during your mathematical research and show us your RESULTS.

While it's perfectly fine to expect your audience to do some work, we've been trying to do that for years now. You have utterly failed not only to show any result whatsoever, but you have also failed at the most basic task of MAKING ANY SENSE. So, no, you cannot expect any of us to use your seemingly idiotic, inconsistent and useless gibberish. If you want us, or anyone for that matter, to take you seriously, YOU will have to show something. Something other than gibberish-generating skills.
 
Come on doron, since you're the only - admittedly self-appointed - possessor of both visual_spatial and verbal_symbolic skills, surely you must be able to amaze us poor earthlings with your awesome new results. If you also add your moronic_gibberish skills to the mix, the sky's the limit.

:popcorn1
 
doronshadmi said:
This is one of the options of the realm of collections with unbounded amount of objects.

In order to know these options, verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning has to be used.
Click to expand...


Any particular reason why you did not quote the rest of the post? Any reason why you did not answer the ethics portion of the post? Any reason why you ignored the request at the bottom of the post?

Anyways, if your "math" can't see that three sets are the same, why should anyone use it?
 
doronshadmi said:
It is exactly about you, me or what any traditional mathematician practices.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And since you make a claim, all the others are exempted from providing anything.

And since you, Doron Shadmi, are unable to substantiate your claim, you, Doron Shadmi, prove that it is worthless.

Doron Shadmi, your claims are not better than the following:

"I claim that Doron Shadmi is not able to farsnoogle his worshuck over his obloodabam whenever the Elberm bammels bup."
 
realpaladin said:
Exactly. And since you make a claim, all the others are exempted from providing anything.
Click to expand...
EDIT:

Not at all, in order to be able to understand my claims, you have to use verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning.

In other words, you are an active participator and an essential factor of what I have to suggest.

The last concrete deduction, which is based on verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning (as given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9794292&postcount=3418 and (without loss of generality) in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9793529&postcount=3411 is a function with no inverse, which has a fundamental novel impact on the understanding of collections with unbounded amount of objects, as clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9794314&postcount=3420 by anyone who really uses verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning.

I can't do anything about your choices, the best I can do is to suggest you to use verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning, which is the only way to be aware of what I have to offer.

Since you chose to deduce only by verbal_symbolic reasoning, there is no communication between us on the discussed subject.

A long as you demand to reduce verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning into verbal_symbolic-only reasoning, there is no use to continue the discussion on the given subjects.

This post is written to any poster that demands to reduce verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning into verbal_symbolic-only reasoning.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Not at all, in order to be able to understand my claims, you have to use verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning.

The last concrete deduction, which is based on verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning (as given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9794292&postcount=3418 and (without loss of generality) in forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=9793529&postcount=3411 is a function with no inverse, which has a fundamental novel impact on the understanding of collections with unbounded amount of objects as clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9794314&postcount=3420 by anyone who really uses verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning.

You can't do anything about your choices, the best I can do is to suggest you to use verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning, which is the only way to be aware of what I have to offer.

Since you chose to deduce only by verbal_symbolic reasoning, there is no communication between us on the discussed subject.

A song as you demand to reduce verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning into verbal_symbolic-only reasoning, there is no use to continue the discussion on the given subjects.

This post is written to any poster that demands to reduce verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning into verbal_symbolic-only reasoning.
Click to expand...

So, this is all about an imaginary quality of something that can't be demonstrated, measured, translated, nor explained - and has no known use?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom