Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
realpaladin said:
Actually, this is all that is needed to convince anyone that you have not even your own work in check.
Click to expand...
Good, since you know something about my work, then please use your skills in order to correct it in the currently discussed subject.
 
Last edited:
Is it frustrating to be unable to show any result from your "work", doron? It's painful just looking at you wriggle in vain trying to save face. Guess what? It's not working.
 
doronshadmi said:
Good, since you know something about my work, then please use your skills in order to correct it in the currently discussed subject.
Click to expand...

Well, if you want to be embarrassed...

Your whole discourse on |N|>|N| has been broken by that specific comment.

Because if you allow:

some_thing ->

then, according to that post you also must allow

<- some_thing

and then all of your examples with the curly brackets and up and down arrows are null and void....

EDIT:

So, either you drop the whole 'inverse' charade, or you drop the |N| > |N| charade... your call...
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Good, since you know something about my work, then please use your skills in order to correct it in the currently discussed subject.
Click to expand...

Yes, we know all there is to know about your work. It's unadulterated, inane gibberish. All of it. There can never be any result stemming from it, as it's a hopeless mess of contradictions and it's lacking any kind of rigor, presumably to hide its failures.

Your bluff has been called a long time ago. Instead of showing your losing cards, you keep arguing about the smell in the room, the color of the lighting and similar inconsequential banalities. Everyone is aware of it. The only thing you could do to get out of this impasse is to show some results. You can't. Game over.
 
realpaladin said:
So, either you drop the whole 'inverse' charade, or you drop the |N| > |N| charade... your call...
Click to expand...

Gah! Doronetics can accommodate all kinds of contradictions. See, it's not supposed to be useful, so it can safely do that.
 
doronshadmi said:
EDIT:

Good, so by using this function please give some explicit example:

Some_positive_integer → some_real.

If you do that, you simply can't avoid some_positive_integer ← some_real.

That is how the fundamental level of comparison works.
Click to expand...

I could care less about the bizarre tangles found in doronetics. We are talking exclusively about Mathematics, here.

You made a bogus claim about mathematicians and inverse functions. It was a lie. When confronted with that lie, you moved the goal posts to include mappings between sets. You claim remained bogus, and you have been called on your lie, too.

The function, f(x) = x^2, has no inverse function. The function can be used to map the set of positive integers to the set of reals, but even with that restricted domain, it still has no inverse.

Your attempt to fog the issue with your partial inverse gibberish is not saving you. Your lie stands as disproved nonsense.

Mathematics copes just fine with non-invertible functions.
Mathematics copes just fine with such functions used to map elements between sets.
Mathematics, unlike doronetics, actually works.
 
realpaladin said:
Well, if you want to be embarrassed...

Your whole discourse on |N|>|N| has been broken by that specific comment.

Because if you allow:

some_thing ->

then, according to that post you also must allow

<- some_thing
Click to expand...

You still don't get

In other words, there is no inverse function for one some_thing.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9833866&postcount=3639 shows exactly how your abstract ability can't go beyond descriptions.

By your non-abstract abilities, you get it as follows:

some_positive_integer → some_real is equivalent to something → nothing for you, and as a result you conclude that

some_real ← some_positive_integer is equivalent to nothing ← something
 
Last edited:
realpaladin said:
So Nothing and Something are also comparable, even if they are different?
Click to expand...
Still can't grasp the actuality of

Isn't it realpaladin?

You still get things only by their descriptions, and in that case all you do is something ↔ nothing
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
The function, f(x) = x^2, has no inverse function. The function can be used to map the set of positive integers to the set of reals, but even with that restricted domain, it still has no inverse.
Click to expand...
In that case you do not work at the fundamental level of comparison.
 
doronshadmi said:
Still can't grasp the actuality of

Isn't it realpaladin?

You still get things only by their descriptions, and in that case all you do is something ↔ nothing
Click to expand...

So you now are saying that something does not differ from

What is it? According to your PDF's that is the whole of it; the fundamental difference (*you* wrote that, not I) between something and nothing.

Are you calling yourself a liar now? Reread your own PDF's Doron...
 
realpaladin said:
So you now are saying that something does not differ from

What is it? According to your PDF's that is the whole of it; the fundamental difference (*you* wrote that, not I) between something and nothing.

Are you calling yourself a liar now? Reread your own PDF's Doron...
Click to expand...
The keyword is *abstraction*

When you read NOthing you go beyond the description.
 
doronshadmi said:
The keyword is *abstraction*

When you read NOthing you go beyond the description.
Click to expand...

No, little liar Doron, the keyword may be *everything* but abstraction.

Remember what you said and what adorns my signature?

Let me spell it out again for you, so you can read again why *abstraction* it can not be:

"All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually"
Click to expand...

If it is actually, it is not abstract.
 
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9834232&postcount=3654 is a perfect example of a mind that can't go beyond descriptions.

For example, look at his response about the following:

Nothing is actually
realpaladin said:
If it is actually, it is not abstract.
Click to expand...
In this case, realpaladin can't do the needed abstraction in order to go beyond the written.

(

He gets it in terms of

Nothing is actually.

instead of

Nothing is actually

)

Realpaladin, instead of look for "others" [that] "have the same fun with Doron", try to develop your absatract skills by asking yourself what you can't do.

Lesson 1:

Please get the difference between the following:

1) Nothing is actually.

2) Nothing is actually

Some hint: No written words is actually

The inability to distinguish between (1) and (2) is indeed Hilarious (in the bad sense).
 
Last edited:
a is a singleton.

The mapping of Traditional Mathematics in case of a is done only in terms of pairs, in a given mathematical universe, as follows:

(a,a) or (a, )

OM goes beyond the restrictions of pairs by define mapping without an inverse mapping to (a), as follows:

a →

This mapping is essentially different than

a → a (based on (a,a))

or

a ← (based on (a, )
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
a is a singleton.

The mapping of Traditional Mathematics in case of a is done only in terms of pairs, in a given mathematical universe, as follows:

(a,a) or (a, )

OM goes beyond the restrictions of pairs by define mapping without an inverse mapping to (a), as follows:

a →

This mapping is essentially different than

a → a (based on (a,a))

or

a ← (based on (a, )
Click to expand...


Inaccuracies and blunders aside, all this says is that doronetics does math differently and for no apparent purpose other than reveling in inconsistency. This is all well-established, Doron. You need not belabor it.

Now, there is still this little matter of the fib you told regarding Mathematics and inverse functions. Care to correct your lie?
 
jsfisher said:
This is all well-established, Doron. You need not belabor it.
Click to expand...
Traditional mathematics is no more than a particular universe of mathematical multiverse.

jsfisher said:
Now, there is still this little matter of the fib you told regarding Mathematics and inverse functions. Care to correct your lie?
Click to expand...
Care to not force your particular mathematical universe on the mathematical multiverse (more deails are given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9830197&postcount=3609, but they are currently not in the scope of jsfisher (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9830684&postcount=3610))?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Care to not force your particular mathematical universe on the mathematical multiverse (more deails are given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9830197&postcount=3609, but they are currently not in the scope of jsfisher (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9830684&postcount=3610))?
Click to expand...

No Doron Shadmi the liar, it is not about forcing universes on things; it is about Doron Shadmi stating that traditional mathematics did not have functions without an inverse.

That, and that statement alone is what it is about.

Either retract it or apologize for the error.
 
doronshadmi said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9834232&postcount=3654 is a perfect example of a mind that can't go beyond descriptions.

For example, look at his response about the following:

Nothing is actually

In this case, realpaladin can't do the needed abstraction in order to go beyond the written.

(

He gets it in terms of

Nothing is actually.

instead of

Nothing is actually

)

Realpaladin, instead of look for "others" [that] "have the same fun with Doron", try to develop your absatract skills by asking yourself what you can't do.

Lesson 1:

Please get the difference between the following:

1) Nothing is actually.

2) Nothing is actually

Some hint: No written words is actually

The inability to distinguish between (1) and (2) is indeed Hilarious (in the bad sense).
Click to expand...

When I read something childish like this (with the .) I can hear Red (from that 70's show) say exactly what is needed here: "Dumbass!"
 
Functions and their inverses are done among existing things of the same level of existence, for example:

{1,2}

There is no inverse function from the outer "{" and "}" to 1 or 2, or form 1 or 2 to the outer "{" and "}".

But there is an inverse function from 1 to 2 or from 2 to 1.
 
doronshadmi said:
Functions and their inverses are done among existing things of the same level of existence, for example:

{1,2}

There is no inverse function from the outer "{" and "}" to 1 or 2, or form 1 or 2 to the outer "{" and "}".

But there is an inverse function from 1 to 2 or from 2 to 1.
Click to expand...


I don't care about the twisted treatment in doronetics. Doronetics is useless, and it bears little resemblance to Mathematics.

You said Mathematics cannot "deal with" a function without an inverse. Trivial examples with f(x) = x^2 prove your statement to be a lie. The only honorable thing would be for you to retract the bogus statement and apologize, but you persist in obscuring things with gibberish and doronetics contortions.
 
doronshadmi said:
It is exactly about forcing a particular mathematical universe on mathematical mulitverse.
Click to expand...

No, it's about you trying to cover up your own incompetence, ignorance and plain stupidity with gibberish. Luckily, such level of fail is near impossible to hide. You keep trying, though! We'll keep shoving the bullcrap off and show your "work" what it really is: more bullcrap.
 
doronshadmi said:
Care to not force your particular mathematical universe on the mathematical multiverse
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
It is exactly about forcing a particular mathematical universe on mathematical mulitverse.
Click to expand...

Doron Shadmi the liar is caught again redhanded.

Doron, stop being so squiddy (by trying to cloud the issue and then flee into other discussions) and face that you said that:

"Traditional mathematics does not have a function without an inverse."

Are you denying that traditional mathematics has functions without inverse?
 
realpaladin said:
Doron Shadmi the liar is caught again redhanded.

Doron, stop being so squiddy (by trying to cloud the issue and then flee into other discussions) and face that you said that:

"Traditional mathematics does not have a function without an inverse."

Are you denying that traditional mathematics has functions without inverse?
Click to expand...

He is not lying, he is just talking about something else. When he says 'function' he means a mapping, when he says 'no inverse' he means a mapping that does not map some of the source domain members. He does not understand that a function is just a set of n-tuples. He is wilfully ignorant. Wishes to stay that way because he know Math is well beyond his capabilities. You are trying to reason with an the unreasonable. That is impossible.
 
sympathic said:
He is not lying, he is just talking about something else. When he says 'function' he means a mapping, when he says 'no inverse' he means a mapping that does not map some of the source domain members.
Click to expand...

Well, I would have bought that if he had said that his definition of inverse is different from the definition of traditional mathematics.

But he keeps comparing it to traditional mathematics, and in fact, he got his butt handed to him by someone from the Wolfram Alpha team on the Wolfram fora on exactly this quite a few years ago.

Also, if he pretends to know what traditional mathematics is about and where it is wrong, then I can, and will, call him out on that.

If he stops pointing at traditional mathematics and just works on his, what the guy from Wolfram Alpha calls 'hacktower' of logic, work then by all means.

On the talkrational fora, also a few years ago, the fact that he should stop comparing things with traditional mathematics *or* really learn it first was pointed out to him as well.

If you Google for Doron Shadmi then you will find that he has visited a ridiculous amount of math and science fora and on each and everyone this has been said to him.

Also, if you look at the sheer amount of information he *did* look up, then you can not sincerely believe that this has escaped him.

So therefore I can call him a pathological liar, since he knows the difference, he just chooses to act as if we all don't know it and just tries to bluff his way through it.

But you are right in that it is impossible to teach Doron anything, but as I said earlier; Doron is like having a favourite toothache.
 
realpaladin said:
Are you denying that traditional mathematics has functions without inverse?
Click to expand...
At the level that I am talking about, Traditional mathematics does not use a function without an inverse (which means, a function that has an input, but it does not have any output).

You simply have problems to grasp http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9833876&postcount=3640 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9837661&postcount=3659

realpaladin said:
Well, I would have bought that if he had said that his definition of inverse is different from the definition of traditional mathematics.
Click to expand...

Your are a liar (you are actually lying to yourself), because this is exactly what I have said in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9837661&postcount=3659 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9833876&postcount=3640.
 
Last edited:
realpaladin said:
Well, I would have bought that if he had said that his definition of inverse is different from the definition of traditional mathematics.

But he keeps comparing it to traditional mathematics, and in fact, he got his butt handed to him by someone from the Wolfram Alpha team on the Wolfram fora on exactly this quite a few years ago.

Also, if he pretends to know what traditional mathematics is about and where it is wrong, then I can, and will, call him out on that.

If he stops pointing at traditional mathematics and just works on his, what the guy from Wolfram Alpha calls 'hacktower' of logic, work then by all means.

On the talkrational fora, also a few years ago, the fact that he should stop comparing things with traditional mathematics *or* really learn it first was pointed out to him as well.

If you Google for Doron Shadmi then you will find that he has visited a ridiculous amount of math and science fora and on each and everyone this has been said to him.

Also, if you look at the sheer amount of information he *did* look up, then you can not sincerely believe that this has escaped him.

So therefore I can call him a pathological liar, since he knows the difference, he just chooses to act as if we all don't know it and just tries to bluff his way through it.

But you are right in that it is impossible to teach Doron anything, but as I said earlier; Doron is like having a favourite toothache.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct. We can't resist responding. We all have that hidden hope that finally he will come around -- but I suspect he won't. He can't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom