Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
Hi Kid Edgar,

Did you carefully read all of what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9814240&postcount=3478 (including the links), as the basis of your question?

If your answer is no, then your question is probably a rhetoric question.
Click to expand...

Short answer - yes. I've been lurking on this thread for several months.

I have read not only the referenced post, but many hundreds of your other posts, as well as responses thereto.

As yet, I have seen nothing beyond the use of a contrived symbology, and dismissal of objections raised against it.

ETA - I get it that you have an apparent obsession with numbers or set theory or something, but that doesn't mean reality has to take a rain check on your behalf. I see only numeric pareidolia.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
<snipped irrelevant garbage>
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...

Nonsense. All I "demand" is results. I don't care how you obtain them. Use whatever skills you want. Just get some results. You can't, can you?
 
Kid Eager said:
I have seen nothing beyond the use of a contrived symbology,
Click to expand...
What do you mean exactly by "contrived symbology"?

Also, is there a reason of why you avoid any detailed reply (including some detailed questions) for the last several months?
 
Last edited:
realpaladin said:
Correct!!!

(Annoying, isn't it? If someone only cherry-picks parts of a post to respond to. That is what Doron Shadmi keeps on doing so as to avoid answering questions for real.)
Click to expand...
Nothing is annoying here. You simply determine your reasoning in order to not be aware of any result that is derived from using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning.
 
doronshadmi said:
What do you mean exactly by "contrived symbology"?

Also, is there a reason of why you avoid any detailed reply (including some detailed questions) for the last several months?
Click to expand...

The most detailed and concise reply for you is this one: you're not even wrong.
 
doronshadmi said:
Nothing is annoying here. You simply determine your reasoning in order to not be aware of any result that is derived from using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning.
Click to expand...

You are thusly misguided that you can not even utilize the amazing powers of verbal_symolic AND visual_spatial reasoning to show 'normal reasoning' people that there even *is* a result derived from your methodology.

This makes your methodology useless.
 
As it turns out, visual_spatial reasoning is an excellent way to show that Doron's cardinality claims are based on confusion. Ironically, these confusions come from relying too much on verbal_symbolic representations.



If you think visual_spatially, the set {1,2,3...} is one thing. Visualize it as a collection of objects stretching on forever. It is one collection of particular objects (numbers). It does not matter how many times the name of that set is written down or how many different names we give it; it remains one thing. Thus, when we have a function from {1,2,3...} into {1,2,3...}, we are still talking about that one thing. It has not split or reproduced itself into a domain and a separate codomain. So keep that visualization of the one thing in your mind.



Thinking this way we can see that a set cannot be bigger than itself. After all, there it is. It is just itself. A function from the set to itself does not alter the set, it just tells us that if we start with one member and consider it as an input, the function tells us which other member is defined as the output. The set is one thing that is not changed by the function, the function is just a way of looking at different members. However, if we lose track of the set and focus entirely on the ways we represent it symbolically, we can run into trouble. One can get confused into thinking the set is over here and also over there, then wondering which is bigger. This is a mistake. In particular, the fact that we can decide that a function defines nothing as the output when 1 is input does not show us that the one set {1,2,3...} has more members than itself. It is only if we start to focus too much on the fact that we write down the domain and codomain as two separate entries, or that we have two sides in our doron-arrow representation, that it could even be remotely tempting to see it that way. Once we think visual_spatially as well as verbal_symbolically, it is easy to spot the error.



This shows again that doron-cardinality is not a legitimate notion of the size of a set. It also shows that it is possible to communicate about visual_spatial reasoning. Doron is content merely to say "it's visual_spatial" as if that completes communication. But it is possible to guide visualization. I can tell you to imagine a triangle, or a line segment, or a single set of elements. The verbal expression does not exhaust the thought, but given our similar cognitive skills, I can convey the visualization I have in mind. So, Doron, if visual_spatial reasoning will help your case, tell us how.
 
The whole visual_spatial gibberish is just a lame cop-out. AFAICT, it's defined as follows:

one has visual_spatial skills iff one agrees with doronetics​

Needless to say, only one person's been deemed worthy of wearing the visual_spatial badge of dishonor: doron.
 
doronshadmi said:
What do you mean exactly by "contrived symbology"?
Click to expand...

Arrangements of existing symbols or standard symbologies in ways that are possible to place on a screen or paper, yet are meaningless in any context, but mistaking the situation that the ability to contrive the symbols in any given way to mean that the representation therefore makes sense.

Also, is there a reason of why you avoid any detailed reply (including some detailed questions) for the last several months?
Click to expand...

What's to avoid? I'm under no obligation to participate, except to the extent and timing of my choice.

You've had several months to present your case and it's come up empty, so I chose to make that observation.
 
BenjaminTR said:
Thinking this way we can see that a set cannot be bigger than itself.
Click to expand...

EDIT:

{1,2,3...} is indeed one and only one thing and still it can also be bigger than itself if visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning is used on a collection with unbounded amount of objects.

BenjaminTR all what you are doing is to force verbal_symbolic-only reasoning (that is based on collections with bounded amount of objects) on collections with unbounded amount of objects, by simply missing the abstract aspect of visual_spatial reasoning.

As long as you do not get actual infinity (which is beyond collections as shown, for example, in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9794314&postcount=3420) you simply have no way to deal with collections with unbounded amount of objects, which are no more than potential infinity, where one of the properties of potential infinity is the ability to be bigger than itself and even smaller than its own proper subset, or in other words, potential infinity does not have necessarily clear self identity, and this is exactly the meaning of an expression like

Code: 
{1,2,3,4,5,...}
 ↓ ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
  {1,2,3,4,...}

Again, one and only one unbounded collection is involved in the expression above (no two separate entries are involved here, and it can be known only if one really uses his\her abstract visual_spatial reasoning (in addition to its abstract verbal_symbolic reasoning) and you BenjaminTR still failing to use your abstract visual_spatial reasoning. As a result, you get the expression above in terms of two separate entries), which simply expresses its unclear identity in terms of visual_spatial tool.



Your current state about the discussed subject is analogous to using measurements of macro scale on QM micro scale.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
[...] where one of the properties of potential infinity is the ability to be bigger than itself and even smaller than its own proper subset, or in other words, potential infinity does not have necessarily clear self identity, and this is exactly the meaning of an expression like

Code: 
{1,2,3,4,5,...}


 ↓     


  {1,2,3,4,...}

Again, one and only one unbounded collection is involved in the expression above, [...] which demonstrates its unclear identity.
Click to expand...
Holy crap, this is great stuff. Take this argument.:

1. Every set is identical to itself.

2. If two things are identical, neither is bigger than the other.

3. Therefore no set is bigger than itself.

Where a lesser person would concede the argument, Doron objects to premise 1! Questioning self-identity, that is bold.
 
What is *your* definition of "visual_spatial reasoning", as this term does not appear to correlate with the general definition, in the context in which you are using it.
 
BenjaminTR said:
Holy crap, this is great stuff. Take this argument.:

1. Every set is identical to itself.

2. If two things are identical, neither is bigger than the other.

3. Therefore no set is bigger than itself.

Where a lesser person would concede the argument, Doron objects to premise 1! Questioning self-identity, that is bold.
Click to expand...

As I said a lot of posts earlier: Doron is an anglerfish; he waits for someone that thinks TL;DR and asks something he feels comfortable rehashing his same old and lame arguments with...

And then we get the 'There's a hole in yer bucket, dear Doron, dear Doron...'
 
realpaladin said:
dear Doron, dear Doron...'
Click to expand...
EDIT:

Dear realpaladin, dear realpaladin.

Let's do it even better.

1. Every set is identical to itself.

For example "N is N".

The fact that "N is N" does not mean that necessarily |N| = |N|, exactly because the cardinality of collections with unbounded amount of objects can be also (by using visual_spatial expression)

Code: 
|{1,2,3,4,5,...}|
  ↓ ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
  |{1,2,3,4,...}|

that is translated to |N| > |N| verbal_symbolic expression (more details are given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9794292&postcount=3418).

Again, we are dealing here with one and only one collection with unbounded amount of objects.
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
What a sad limitation doronetics has. It can't tell that the next natural number after 4 is 5.
Click to expand...
Wrong conclusion (you simply ignore what's going on the left side of the visual_spatial expression. The right side is simply unbounded).

But this is not the case at all.

The case is that any collection with unbounded amount of objects is no more than potential infinity, and anything that is potential infinity does not have well-defined size, which is an essential property of the identity of collections with unbounded amount of objects (their size is = OR ¬= w.r.t themselves).

In order to realize that this is indeed an essential property of the identity of collections with unbounded amount of objects, one has to understand actual infinity, which is non-local and beyond collections, which are no more than forms of potential infinity.

More details of this fine subject are given, for example, in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9800545&postcount=3440.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The case is that any collection with unbounded amount of objects is no more than potential infinity, and anything that is potential infinity does not have well-defined size, which is an essential property of the identity of collections with unbounded amount of objects (their size is = OR ¬= w.r.t themselves).
Click to expand...

So, let me get this straight... You define "collection with unbounded amount of objects" as not identical to anything, including itself. And make no mistake about it, it's a definition, just as the idiocy that is "well-defined size" and the garbage about "essential property of identity". Those are axioms you choose for your "framework".

OK. Those are (some of) your choices. Let's see where you go from there. Non-finite sets are not identical to themselves. Jolly good. You have the floor, doron. Lead the way.
 
EDIT:

There are people here that have a hard time to understand that the identity of collections with unbounded amount of objects is involved with the inability to determine their size (their size is = OR ¬= w.r.t themselves). The identity of collections with bounded amount of objects is not involved with such inability (their size is = w.r.t themselves).

These people have hard time to understand it, exactly because they try to get collections with unbounded amount of objects in terms of the identity of collections with bounded amount of objects.

Moreover, they are doing it by using verbal_symbolic-only reasoning, which is insignificant in order to understand the non-locality of actual infinity (without the understanding of actual infinity in terms of non-locality, one has no way to understand collections with unbounded amount of (local) objects as potential infinity, where potential infinity does not have clear size (its size is = OR ¬= w.r.t itself).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9815560&postcount=3498 can help.
 
Last edited:
Stop it, doron. It's not about what others get or do, it's about what you do. So stop finding excuses for your incompetence and start showing results.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
Edited and fixed. Can't fix doronetics since it doesn't work.
Click to expand...
EDIT:

All you did is to force your verbal_symbolic-only reasoning (which uses notions that are taken from collections with bounded amount of objects) on an abstract visual_spatial expression that shows that the size of a given collection with unbounded amount of objects can also be greater than itself, or in other words, the self identity of N involved with unclear size, as an essential property of being a collection with unbounded amount of objects (or more generally, N is some form of potential infinity, where the size of such form is = OR ¬= w.r.t itself).

Again, by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial abstract abilities as shown, for example in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9800545&postcount=3440 , the unclear size of collections with unbounded amount of objects is simply one of the essential properties of potential infinity, which simply can't be known by any one that uses only his\her abstract verbal_symbolic reasoning.
 
Last edited:
BenjaminTR said:
Take this argument.:

1. Every set is identical to itself.
Click to expand...
I agree.

BenjaminTR said:
2. If two things are identical, neither is bigger than the other.
Click to expand...

This is true among sets with bounded amount of members.

This is not true among sets with unbounded amount of members, because the identity of such sets is involved with unclear size (their size is = OR ¬= w.r.t itself), as already explained in the following links:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9816893&postcount=3506

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9816583&postcount=3502
 
sympathic said:
I am not even sure he understands that functions are sets.
Click to expand...

The following abstract visual_spatial expression

Code: 
|{1,2,3,4,5,...}|
  ↓ ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
  |{1,2,3,4,...}|

holds exactly because one and only one set is involved here.
 
There are people here that are waiting to some results without doing the needed paradigm-shift (moving from verbal_only reasoning into the abstract aspect of visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning) in their mind.

Without this paradigm-shift no results are known.

This is one of the beauties of the novel approach, the mathematician is an observer AND a participator of the given framework and its results.
 
Last edited:
The results should be obvious to anyone, doron. I don't need to do any paradigm-shift to enjoy the benefits of a bunch of theories I know next to nothing about. You're enjoying the computer, aren't you? Yet you know absolutely nothing about the work laid down during centuries that enabled it. What's worse, you spit on most of that work in this very thread.

So, again, cut the bullcrap excuses and stop generating gibberish. Show us results.
 
doronshadmi said:
The following abstract visual_spatial expression

Code: 
|{1,2,3,4,5,...}|
  ↓ ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
  |{1,2,3,4,...}|

holds exactly because one and only one set is involved here.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't because they don't have the same starting point. According to you :

Set A (1,2,3,...)
Set B (1,2,3,4,...)
Set C (1,2,3,4,5,...)

are all different sets. If I extend sets A and B I get

Set A (1,2,3,4,5,...)
Set B (1,2,3,4,5,...)
Set C (1,2,3,4,5,...)

and now they are all the same.

You like to do
Code: 
Set A (1,2,3,4,5,...)
Set B   (1,2,3,4,5,...)
and claim they are different.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
As about valuable results, they are totally depend on peoples' mind's abilities in order to value them in the short and long run by using both local AND global (non-local) view of the results, as already explained in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9578867&postcount=2721.
Click to expand...

So, as an objective tool to further humanity it is of no value at all?

I can tell you that the effort to convert enough people to the Doronetics mindset is too large to be of any use to humanity.

How is the crowd-effort going? I am betting you have little to zero response there, considering the time you are able to spend in here rehashing all your old arguments with new arguees.

Doron Shadmi, you are but an anglerfish and you need others to argue with you to get some semblance of a feeling of being not entirely insignificant.
 
No, doron, you cannot be this dense. Not even you. Results do not depend on anyone else's abilities. A person in a coma has no abilities yet can enjoy all the results that science and is trusty sidekick, useful math provide. You can not talk your way out of this. You just expose yourself even more for the incompetent fraud that you are.
 
realpaladin said:
So, as an objective tool to further humanity it is of no value at all?
Click to expand...
Realpaladin, the objectivity of the tool is its non-local level, and by using the abstract aspect of verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning in one's mind, we get a comprehensive framework that consistently links the non-local and objective aspect of one's mind with the local and subjective aspect of one's mind.

The result of this link is a one unified realm, which is free from contradictions that are derived from the current dichotomy between the objective and the subjective.

Organic Mathematics fundamental result is the consistent linkage between the objective and the subjective, which is actually the natural state of mind of any healthy human being on this planet.

This unification in one's mind can't be achieved as long as he\she uses only his\her subjective (local) aspect of his\her mind.

One of the main obstacles to achieve real unity is the a partial use of one's mind ,which is derived from the dichotomy between the abstract verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills in one's mind.

As long as one's mind works under this dichotomy, no results of the unification between the subjective and the objective are known and actually used day-by-day by this dichotomous mind.

The paradigm-shift is actually the transition from the dichotomous realm into the unified real among the objective and the subjective, and this unification is the most important result, where this result is actually the foundation of any further development (abstract or non-abstract) of creatures like us.

You and your friends still miss it, and as a result, you are unaware of the results of the unification among the objective and the subjective.
 
Last edited:
No one accept the person in coma (and no one can determine his\her exact abilities, if he\she suffers or enjoys etc.), can determine if math results are hail or heaven (or any degree between them) for him/her.

Such approach is an example of a person that understands results by mechanical\technological achievements, by ignoring the non-trivial impacts on their users (whether they are aware or unaware users of a given technology).

No one can escape from these non-trivial relations.
 
Last edited:
Still no results, I see. Don't give up, doron! Just keep in mind that your pathetic excuses do not constitute a result that stems from your "work". Also, try to understand that results do not suppose any kind of paradigm-shift from anyone. You supposedly went through the paradigm-shift. You use whatever you got and produce a result, which is obvious to anyone. Easy. We're waiting eagerly.
 
doronshadmi said:
No one accept the person in coma (and no one can determine his\her exact abilities, if he\she suffers or enjoy etc.), can determine if math results are hail or heaven for him/her.
Click to expand...

What? I was referring to the person in coma enjoying the benefits of top-notch medical care, even while lying unconsciously. That person doesn't need to know anything about the science that built the machines that are keeping him alive and quite possibly making him better.

Such approach is an example of a person that understands results by mechanical\technological achievements, by ignoring the non-trivial impacts on their users (whether they are aware or unaware users of a given technology).

No one can escape from these non-trivial relations.
Click to expand...

Inane, useless, pathetic gibberish of excuses. So, no results, then?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom