Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Continuation Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

 Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
 21st November 2014, 11:02 AM #161 realpaladin Master Poster     Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,585 Originally Posted by Dessi In the mean time, Doron, you will enjoy reading the evolution of a Haskell programmer I am missing the Google version, where you just spend a few clusters on generating an immense lookup table for al the 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,45 6 possible values on an unsigned octaword. __________________ "All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually" - Doron Shadmi "But this means you actually have nothing." - Realpaladin ---
 21st November 2014, 12:19 PM #163 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,872 Originally Posted by Dessi can I say that one worker who places an infinite number of stones infinitely fast also completes the mission? Dear Dessi, Infinitely fast (where in this case, we do not measure fast in terms of time) does not provide the needed accurate information if we use only ∞ to describe Infinity. The accurate way to do that is as follows (if the term fast is considered (again, not in terms of time)): |N| fast < |P(N)| fast < |P(P(N))| fast < |P(P(P(N)))| fast < |P(P(P(P(N))))| fast < ... __________________ As long as notion is impossible because of partial usage of one's brain skills, new glasses will not help. ---- If a tree falls in the forest, and no one’s there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com ) Last edited by doronshadmi; 21st November 2014 at 12:27 PM.
 21st November 2014, 12:32 PM #164 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,872 Originally Posted by Dessi I hypothesize that Doron interprets mathematical notation as a kind of source code. Dear Dessi, It is probably your way to communicate in this thread since you are a professional software engineer. __________________ As long as notion is impossible because of partial usage of one's brain skills, new glasses will not help. ---- If a tree falls in the forest, and no one’s there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )
 21st November 2014, 12:36 PM #165 realpaladin Master Poster     Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,585 Originally Posted by Dessi He could not comprehend that anything could improve upon his already perfect stories. See for yourself. In his own words, he is an exceptionally gifted writer, like a present-day Milton or Dante. He has 7 or 8 more novels and novellas, literally 1000s of pages, each as faultless as the others. I definitely see what you mean... garbled tenses, missing words but what would put me off is... well, the dashes... I can see no function for them... Other than that, I'd read that story. I read about 3 books a week (I don't do anything 'smart' on my smartphone other than reading books and checking the upcoming weather). Originally Posted by Dessi His perception of his writing ability is a little biased. But, at the end of the day, this acquaintance writes and keeps writing because its fun and stimulating. Likewise for Doron. He genuinely seems to enjoy the stimulation of highly abstract thoughts and conversation. I wrote an article on the D-K effect and it's implications in peer-assessment for the purpose of recruiting. But here's the thing, if this is the case, then Doron is breaking his 'contract' with the forum. However, he might not realize it. So, in essence he adheres, within the boundaries of his abilities but with the fullest intentions, to the 'contract'. Let's see how far you get. I'll be quiet and become an E. for a while. __________________ "All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually" - Doron Shadmi "But this means you actually have nothing." - Realpaladin ---
 21st November 2014, 12:42 PM #166 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,872 Originally Posted by Dessi Quote: As Apathia stated; the pattern repeats and repeats; whatever happens, his joy is in the discussing of something and not in the achieving of something. Well, my joy is discussing of something by also being aware of the silence among the discussed, like music, where both sound and silence complement each other into some piece of music. As for my goal, it is using neutral monist view of Consciousness in terms of mathematical reasoning, as can be seen, for example, in http://www.sciencechatforum.com/view...269245#p269245. __________________ As long as notion is impossible because of partial usage of one's brain skills, new glasses will not help. ---- If a tree falls in the forest, and no one’s there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com ) Last edited by doronshadmi; 21st November 2014 at 12:57 PM.
 21st November 2014, 01:15 PM #167 Dessi Species Traitor   Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Omaha, NE Posts: 3,614 Originally Posted by doronshadmi As for my goal, it is using neutral monist view of Consciousness in terms of mathematical reasoning, as can be seen, for example, in http://www.sciencechatforum.com/view...269245#p269245. Gorgeous diagrams, they remind me of minimalistic mathematical art. Strictly out of curiosity, how did you generate this image. __________________ >^.^<
 21st November 2014, 03:25 PM #168 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,872 Originally Posted by Dessi Gorgeous diagrams, they remind me of minimalistic mathematical art. Thank you dear Dessi, and also thank you for the beautiful link. Originally Posted by Dessi Strictly out of curiosity, how did you generate this image. I used AutoCad without any programing, in this case. But I know to write programs with AutoLisp. Please look at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3h...ew?usp=sharing. Thank you. __________________ As long as notion is impossible because of partial usage of one's brain skills, new glasses will not help. ---- If a tree falls in the forest, and no one’s there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com ) Last edited by doronshadmi; 21st November 2014 at 04:10 PM.
 22nd November 2014, 01:30 AM #170 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,872 Originally Posted by Apathia Please just consider that we humans have other ways of transcending our us vs thems, and will probably survive to send signals to other worlds though none of us are getting your program. Dear Apathia, This transcending is exactly Unity Consciousness as addressed by neutral monist point of view in http://www.sciencechatforum.com/view...269245#p269245. With all the respect dear Apathia, I think that what you call you in others is not satisfied without both personal AND non-personal aspects of you. As for Mathematics, it is the main tool for our technological developments, and if its main stream is based on false\true excluded middle reasoning that also excludes the mathematicians as factors of the results, there is no wonder that our technological developments are fully fulfilled only if the mathematicians eliminating themselves in order to get the requested results, or more generally, human beings have to eliminate themselves in order to fully fulfill technological developments. This is exactly the point where Organic Mathematics gets on stage and its first step is to point out the danger of excluding (pure or applied) mathematicians as an essential factor of their works, which unfortunately has a very high probability of human beings' self destruction as a natural conclusions of the current main-stream reasoning. And the tragedy is that the work of few determine the destiny of the rest of human beings, where the rest of human beings as mathematical laymen have no clue what actually going on, until it is too late. So dear Apathia, your naive approach is too dangerous as a strategic\tactic needed actions. __________________ As long as notion is impossible because of partial usage of one's brain skills, new glasses will not help. ---- If a tree falls in the forest, and no one’s there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com ) Last edited by doronshadmi; 22nd November 2014 at 02:45 AM.
 22nd November 2014, 09:44 AM #171 Apathia Illuminator     Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Mesa, AZ Posts: 4,962 Doron, Unity Consciousness is something I get and have a felt sense for. I don't attache the same same philosophy, politic, and supernatural expectations the TM people do, but I relish the Unity. I'm a neutral monist merely in the sense that I'm an empiricist who doesn't deal with metaphysical substances, be they "mind" or "matter." For me it's just the "Suchness," and the quality of acceptance and inclusion in relation to myself, others and my environment. That quality is my spirituality. It transcends any content about beliefs and languages. It isn't dependent upon a mental framework. It informs and transforms my heart first. From there it's a question of what we do with our tools. Yes technology without heart is crippling, and worse. But heart cannot be an engineered component. Religions and, perhaps, Organic Mathematics, give a language and structure people can use to speak of their spirituality. But empathy and compassion always transcend their systems, and sometimes must even break them. People are more important than religion, ethics and any attempted logic of ethics. But if the perpetuity of the Human Race is dependent upon your system of belief, then we are certainly toast. We don't understand it. It doesn't help. I hope it helps you have heart. I accept it as your process. But alas, the rest of us are as good as retarded. So perhaps it's natural that we will become extinct. You and I have some common ground: Unity Consciousness, natural empathy, and a conscience that wants a better world. You attach these values to your Organic Mathematics. I don't understand how they attach. I don't see how empathy and responsibility follow from .9999999.... does not equal 1. In my opinion things get dangerous when people attach the core values of Humanity to their exclusive religious or ethical system, and then exclude others who don't believe or understand it from being truly Human. You have yet to demonstrate to any of us how your Organic Mathematics actually enhances empathy, compassion, Inclusion, and acceptance. You have not presented it in any sort of way that speaks to the direct perception of our hearts, much less a cogent mental presentation. You need to show us how it works. Have you presented your work to an audience in the Transcendental Meditation Community? I would be interested in how they translate it into their perspective. It may be that someone of that tradition has a view on how it meshes with their philosophy. I don't know how to communicate with you about Organic Mathematics. Ordinary Mathematics is already a struggle for me. So I just have my naive things to speak of. __________________ "At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections." Justice William O. Douglas "Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures." Author Unknown
 22nd November 2014, 10:28 AM #172 RickM Thinker     Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 203 doron, I know this 7-year thread seems arcane to most, but to a set theorist is this stuff just {elementary}? :) __________________ RickM Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform -- (or pause and reflect). Mark Twain Use what language you will, you can never say anything but what you are. Ralph Waldo Emerson
 22nd November 2014, 10:49 AM #173 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,872 Originally Posted by Apathia I don't understand how they attach. I don't see how empathy and responsibility follow from .9999999.... does not equal 1. Very simple, the mathematician's observations' abilities is an essential factor of the results. Moreover, the linkage between head and heart can't be achieved without us as essential factors of the results or our developed technologies, where the technology of consciousness is exactly the art of the linkage among head and heart, that can't be fully fulfilled only at the multiple aspect of reality. Originally Posted by Apathia I don't attache the same same philosophy, politic, and supernatural expectations the TM people do, but I relish the Unity. Techniques like TM are simply the natural ability of Consciousness to become aware of itself as Unity, and by achieve this awareness, multiplicity naturally becomes an ever developed harmonious reality. No supernatural woo is involved here exactly because Unity is the foundation among multiplicity but not vise versa. Can we find problems within TM movement?, probably yes. Does it mean that things can't be improved?, probably no. In other words, I am still optimist about the success of techniques like TM, and I wish to use systematic scientific methods in order to improve them in such a way that they will not be depend on any particular movement. __________________ As long as notion is impossible because of partial usage of one's brain skills, new glasses will not help. ---- If a tree falls in the forest, and no one’s there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com ) Last edited by doronshadmi; 22nd November 2014 at 11:24 AM.
 22nd November 2014, 10:59 AM #174 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,872 Originally Posted by RickM doron, I know this 7-year thread seems arcane to most, but to a set theorist is this stuff just {elementary}? Hey RickM, This 7-year thread is not elementary to set theorists that exclude themselves as essential factors of the results. __________________ As long as notion is impossible because of partial usage of one's brain skills, new glasses will not help. ---- If a tree falls in the forest, and no one’s there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com ) Last edited by doronshadmi; 22nd November 2014 at 11:00 AM.
 22nd November 2014, 06:04 PM #177 psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics     Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 13,875 Originally Posted by doronshadmi 0.999... = 1 OR 0.999... < 1 according to the mathematician's observation of the real-line, and this is exactly what I mean by say that the mathematician is an essential factor of mathematical results. Are you saying that 0.999... < 1 no matter how many 9's you add to the string (true) or that even with an infinite number of 9's, 0.999... < 1 (untestable since infinity is not a number)? __________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
 22nd November 2014, 06:44 PM #179 jsfisher ETcorngods survivorModerator     Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 22,265 Originally Posted by Apathia TYou are positing an ambiguity in Mathematics. I'm not a Mathematician. I suspect that most Mathematicians wouldn't necessarily accept such an ambiguity. Doron is not positing ambiguity. Doron redefines things to yield a different result, then claims it is a matter of perspective. __________________ A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
 22nd November 2014, 08:10 PM #180 Apathia Illuminator     Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Mesa, AZ Posts: 4,962 Originally Posted by jsfisher Doron is not positing ambiguity. Doron redefines things to yield a different result, then claims it is a matter of perspective. I think he has a perspective with which he tries to stretch and twist mathematical terms to accommodate. The perspective itself is ambiguous and not formally logical. It bears some similarity to the notions of Complexity expressed in Arthur Koestler's Janus, a summing Up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus:_A_Summing_Up Doron attempts his own logic and mathematic based on these principles, but the framework doesn't seem robust enough to build the calculus necessary for the equations of physics. Is there ambiguity in Mathematics? Mathematical Logic is certainly no longer the bastion of certainty Bertrand Russell expected it to be. I think that Doron primarily uses the language of Mathematics analogically to express his philosophy. He's happy he can do that with his framework and so isn't concerned about applications beyond his "Technology of Consciousness. He hopes his Organic Mathematics could umbrella contemporary Mathematics as a perspective within it. He hasn't shown how that would work yet. It seemed to me back seven years ago that his position was that Euclid had led mathematics astray, so that now it is simply wrong. Now it looks like he's taking a more tolerant view. There's the old split over whether Mathematics is created or discovered. The Neutral Monist view is that it is both. Doron sees that as a place to assert Humanity into Science. He feels his framework leaves room for the humanities to wiggle. Yes, I've walked out onto the plank again. It's very possible that Doron will give me a shove in his next reply, and I'll be wrong for suggesting that his use of the word "OR" had any significance. But that's OK. It will simply show things as they are. __________________ "At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections." Justice William O. Douglas "Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures." Author Unknown
 22nd November 2014, 09:48 PM #181 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,872 Originally Posted by psionl0 Are you saying that 0.999... < 1 no matter how many 9's you add to the string (true) or that even with an infinite number of 9's, 0.999... < 1 (untestable since infinity is not a number)? Hey psionl0, Please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=163. 0.999... = 1 if |N| fast observation is used. 0.999... < 1 if more than |N| fast observation is used. __________________ As long as notion is impossible because of partial usage of one's brain skills, new glasses will not help. ---- If a tree falls in the forest, and no one’s there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )
 22nd November 2014, 09:51 PM #182 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,872 Originally Posted by Apathia I think he has a perspective with which he tries to stretch and twist mathematical terms to accommodate. The perspective itself is ambiguous and not formally logical You are wrong dear Apathia, please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=181. Originally Posted by jsfisher Doron is not positing ambiguity. Doron redefines things to yield a different result, then claims it is a matter of perspective. My suggested view of the real-line (and also the view beyond it) is more accurate than the traditional point of view that uses only ∞ to describe Infinity, in this discussed case. Moreover, I don't care if transfinite cardinality is discovered or invented. I do care about the mathematician's abilities to use it as a part of his\her mathematical work, in this discussed case. __________________ As long as notion is impossible because of partial usage of one's brain skills, new glasses will not help. ---- If a tree falls in the forest, and no one’s there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com ) Last edited by doronshadmi; 22nd November 2014 at 10:06 PM.
 22nd November 2014, 10:29 PM #183 psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics     Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 13,875 Originally Posted by doronshadmi Hey psionl0, Please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=163. 0.999... = 1 if |N| fast observation is used. 0.999... < 1 if more than |N| fast observation is used. I do not know the term "fast observation" let alone "Infinitely fast". __________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
 22nd November 2014, 11:04 PM #184 Apathia Illuminator     Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Mesa, AZ Posts: 4,962 Yup! I was wrong about Ambiguity. Organic Mathematics has out raced me again. I can't even keep up with the "fast observation." And since I realize that I'm not going to get what you mean by a "fast observation" as opposed to a "more than fast observation," I'm not going to speculate or attempt to understand. Grace and peace, Doron. I wish I could understand this topic which is so fine and important to you. I wish I could find a common place of understanding we could work with. But again, I'm not confident I understand any word you say. We don't share a common language. So please just accept a smile, as I leave you to whatever is going on here with the wish that it gives you happiness. __________________ "At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections." Justice William O. Douglas "Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures." Author Unknown
 23rd November 2014, 08:03 AM #185 jsfisher ETcorngods survivorModerator     Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 22,265 Originally Posted by Apathia Yup! I was wrong about Ambiguity. Organic Mathematics has out raced me again. I can't even keep up with the "fast observation." That's just another of Doron's lateral shifts. His track record at defining things is, well, poor, but he does often substitute in different words now and again. I guess he thinks he's moving forward, but it is really sideways. __________________ A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
 23rd November 2014, 08:10 AM #186 jsfisher ETcorngods survivorModerator     Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 22,265 Originally Posted by doronshadmi My suggested view of the real-line (and also the view beyond it) is more accurate than the traditional point of view that uses only ∞ to describe Infinity, in this discussed case. No, your "suggested view" abandons meaning. The notation 0.999... has a precise meaning, and that meaning gives it a precise value, and that value is 1. Make up as many excuses as you like about points and speed blended with an unending supply of strawmen, and the value remains unchanged. __________________ A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
 23rd November 2014, 01:01 PM #187 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,872 Originally Posted by psionl0 I do not know the term "fast observation" let alone "Infinitely fast". Please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=158. __________________ As long as notion is impossible because of partial usage of one's brain skills, new glasses will not help. ---- If a tree falls in the forest, and no one’s there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )
 23rd November 2014, 01:03 PM #188 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,872 Originally Posted by Apathia Yup! I was wrong about Ambiguity. Organic Mathematics has out raced me again. I can't even keep up with the "fast observation." Also please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=158 (including the links). __________________ As long as notion is impossible because of partial usage of one's brain skills, new glasses will not help. ---- If a tree falls in the forest, and no one’s there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )
 23rd November 2014, 01:06 PM #189 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,872 Originally Posted by jsfisher That's just another of Doron's lateral shifts. Wrong jsfisher, I simply communicate with Dessi, as seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=158. __________________ As long as notion is impossible because of partial usage of one's brain skills, new glasses will not help. ---- If a tree falls in the forest, and no one’s there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )
 23rd November 2014, 01:10 PM #190 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,872 Originally Posted by jsfisher No, your "suggested view" abandons meaning. The notation 0.999... has a precise meaning, and that meaning gives it a precise value, and that value is 1. The meaning is given by observation, as done in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=158. Your observation is simply limited only to |N|. More details are given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=110 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7&postcount=73. __________________ As long as notion is impossible because of partial usage of one's brain skills, new glasses will not help. ---- If a tree falls in the forest, and no one’s there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com ) Last edited by doronshadmi; 23rd November 2014 at 01:20 PM.
 23rd November 2014, 04:06 PM #191 jsfisher ETcorngods survivorModerator     Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 22,265 Originally Posted by doronshadmi The meaning is given by observation.... Only in the stuff you make up, but the stuff you make up isn't Mathematics. __________________ A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
 23rd November 2014, 04:07 PM #192 jsfisher ETcorngods survivorModerator     Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 22,265 Originally Posted by doronshadmi Wrong jsfisher, I simply communicate with Dessi.... Were that true, you'd be defining your terms, not shifting to a different set of undefined terms. __________________ A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
 23rd November 2014, 06:38 PM #193 psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics     Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 13,875 Originally Posted by doronshadmi Please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=158. Your diagram appears to depict the building of a set whose elements are the empty set and sets of sets containing the empty set. If you continue the building process indefinitely, you would have a "countably infinite" set. I still don't see what any of that has to do with "fast observation" or "Infinitely fast". __________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
 24th November 2014, 09:22 AM #194 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,872 Originally Posted by jsfisher Only in the stuff you make up, but the stuff you make up isn't Mathematics. Again, what you call Mathematics is simply |N| observation of the real-line. Fortunately Mathematics is not restricted only to this particular observation, as seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=110. __________________ As long as notion is impossible because of partial usage of one's brain skills, new glasses will not help. ---- If a tree falls in the forest, and no one’s there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com ) Last edited by doronshadmi; 24th November 2014 at 11:11 AM.
 24th November 2014, 09:40 AM #195 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,872 Originally Posted by psionl0 I still don't see what any of that has to do with "fast observation" or "Infinitely fast". Please read all of http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=158 including the links. Thank you. __________________ As long as notion is impossible because of partial usage of one's brain skills, new glasses will not help. ---- If a tree falls in the forest, and no one’s there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )
 26th November 2014, 02:19 AM #196 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,872 Originally Posted by jsfisher Were that true, you'd be defining your terms, not shifting to a different set of undefined terms. My terms are rigorously defined by the fact that |n>1| < |N| < |P(N)| < |P(P(N))| < |P(P(P(N)))| < |P(P(P(P(N))))| < ... , so you claim has no basis. __________________ As long as notion is impossible because of partial usage of one's brain skills, new glasses will not help. ---- If a tree falls in the forest, and no one’s there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )
 26th November 2014, 06:52 AM #197 jsfisher ETcorngods survivorModerator     Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 22,265 Originally Posted by doronshadmi My terms are rigorously defined by the fact that |n>1| < |N| < |P(N)| < |P(P(N))| < |P(P(P(N)))| < |P(P(P(P(N))))| < ... , so you claim has no basis. Which of your many made-up terms are you rigorously defining with this trivial iteration of Cantor's Theorem? Be that as it may, what does any of this have to do with the mathematical meaning of 0.999...? __________________ A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
 26th November 2014, 03:28 PM #198 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,872 Originally Posted by jsfisher Which of your many made-up terms are you rigorously defining with this trivial iteration of Cantor's Theorem? Be that as it may, what does any of this have to do with the mathematical meaning of 0.999...? http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=190. The mathematical meaning of 0.999... is changed by observation, or in other words, the mathematician is an essential factor of the meaning of a given mathematical object. __________________ As long as notion is impossible because of partial usage of one's brain skills, new glasses will not help. ---- If a tree falls in the forest, and no one’s there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com ) Last edited by doronshadmi; 26th November 2014 at 03:39 PM.
 26th November 2014, 03:47 PM #199 jsfisher ETcorngods survivorModerator     Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 22,265 Originally Posted by doronshadmi Pointing back to a previous post of yours doesn't suddenly make it do what it did not do before. You did not define anything in that prior post; you mostly pointed to yet other previous posts where you also failed to define anything. Perhaps rather than reiterating empty statements by URL proxy, you could simply post, in one place, a definition for one of these made-up terms of yours. Quote: The mathematical meaning of 0.999... is changed by observation.... No, it isn't. It is well-fixed, and Doron doesn't get to rewrite the meaning of things to suit his personal incredulity. __________________ A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
 26th November 2014, 09:22 PM #200 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,872 Originally Posted by jsfisher No, it isn't. It is well-fixed, Dear jsfisher, This is my last post to you on this fine subject. Fortunately Mathematics is not restricted only to your arbitrary |N| observation. __________________ As long as notion is impossible because of partial usage of one's brain skills, new glasses will not help. ---- If a tree falls in the forest, and no one’s there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )

International Skeptics Forum