
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. 
24th September 2020, 05:30 AM  #561 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,265

You have missed my correction in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=559 and replied to an irrelevant post.

__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

24th September 2020, 05:56 AM  #562 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,964


__________________
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 

24th September 2020, 06:05 AM  #563 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,265

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=559 is a new post, where you replied to the older one.

__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

24th September 2020, 06:15 AM  #564 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,964

No, it was not a new post. It was an substantial edit to an existing post.
And I replied to the version of the post in place at the time I hit the Quote button. It is rude for you to dismiss my post in its entirety, too. If it comments on mistakes of yours that have been corrected, point out in response to my post how your mistakes were corrected. If it comments on things you thought were correct in the first place, comment on that. I await the mitigation to your rudeness. 
__________________
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 

24th September 2020, 06:30 AM  #565 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,265

jsfisher your post was created almost two hours after my new post was created.
So next time please refresh your screen before you reply. Please reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=559. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

24th September 2020, 06:44 AM  #566 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,265

Originally Posted by jsfisher

__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

24th September 2020, 07:33 AM  #567 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,265

The relevant details are as follows:
jsfisher, in order to establish the minimal set satisfying the requirements of the Axiom of Infinity, one first has to show that all the natural numbers (which are defined by von Neumann's treatment of the natural numbers in terms of sets) are actually establish a set that satisfying the requirements of the Axiom of Infinity. So at the first stage the following definitions are restricted only to all the members of this minimal set, such that the initial member is the empty set (v=∅) and the rest of the members are defined as v⋃{v}, which are all finite sets: Definition 1: v = v iff there is bijection from v to v. Definition 2: v < v⋃{v} iff (there is an injective nonsurjective function from v to v⋃{v}) OR (injective function from v to v⋃{v} that is based on empty function) (in case that v=Ø) Definitions 1 and 2 look trivial at first glance, but these are the functions among the finite sets, which define all the natural numbers by von Neumann's treatment. Since ∀v ∈ V(v∪{v} ∈ V ∧ v∪{v} can't be but < V) V is not established, simply because it can't be defined as the cardinality of all V members, which are all the finite sets by von Neumann's treatment of all the natural numbers. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

24th September 2020, 08:11 AM  #568 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,964


__________________
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 

24th September 2020, 09:08 PM  #569 
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,240

I'm starting this message at 9:13pm local time according to my tablet. I am purposely waiting and stalling a few minutes to have the forum clock to change.
Edit: the system clock is 78 minutes behind. This would confirm that the time on the post is not when you start writing it, but when you submit/save/post it. Edit 2: trying to see what the edit time is based off. Waiting about 30mins. Looks like it's based off the save button. 
__________________
I'm an "intellectual giant, with access to wilkipedia [sic]" "I believe in some ways; communicating with afterlife is easier than communicating with me." Tim4848 who said he would no longer post here, twice in fact, but he did. 

25th September 2020, 06:52 PM  #570 
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,240

And what the deal about waiting almost two hours before posting the final "edit"?

__________________
I'm an "intellectual giant, with access to wilkipedia [sic]" "I believe in some ways; communicating with afterlife is easier than communicating with me." Tim4848 who said he would no longer post here, twice in fact, but he did. 

25th September 2020, 07:16 PM  #571 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,964

From my point of view, I don't care. I responded to an actual post. It matters not that I was interrupted by something more important in real life that delayed my complete response. I responded to an actual post.
For Doronshadmi to then claim I hadn't responded to a post he had edited to become something else and therefore I had to start all over is unacceptable rudeness, especially since my observations about the post I responded to were still valid after all of Doronshadmi's editing. If Doronshadmi chooses to dismiss my post out of hand, so be it, we are done. The only other option is to address it as is and respond to the comments directly or how he has (yet again) changed is argument in a way that my remarks aren't about what he currently believes. 
__________________
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 

27th September 2020, 08:38 AM  #572 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,265

Let's see.
1) He ignores the minimal set that satisfies the requirements of the Axiom of Infinity. 2) This minimal set is exactly the von Neumann's treatment of the natural numbers in terms of sets (let's call this set V (which, of course, can be replaced by any other chosen name)). 3) All the members of set V are finite sets. 4) There are four functions, divided into two types, among V members, as follows: a) 2 functions from a given member to itself: a.1) Empty function from Ø to itself. a.2) Bijective function from v (where v≠Ø) to itself. a.3) Bijective function from v⋃{v} to itself. b) 2 functions from a given member to a different member: b.1) Injective nonsurjective function from v to v⋃{v} (in case that v≠Ø). b.2) Injective function from v to v⋃{v} (in case that v=Ø, where all v⋃{v} in V are finite sets, according to von Neumann's treatment of the natural numbers in terms of sets).
Originally Posted by jsfisher
∀v ∈ V(v∪{v} ∈ V) ∧ (v∪{v} < V). No wonder that jsfisher ignores "weak limit cardinal" as seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=451.
Quote:

__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

29th September 2020, 02:45 AM  #573 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,265

The foundations of mathematics
Please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=478 in order to understand better why ZF(C) is not the actual foundations of mathematics.

__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

29th September 2020, 08:08 AM  #574 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,265

Originally Posted by jsfisher
circles = onetoone AND onto functions So, according to you, not all onetoone functions are onetoone AND onto functions (in this case we have A < B) , but all onetoone AND onto functions are onetoone functions (in this case we have A = B).
Originally Posted by jsfisher
(not all onetoone functions are onetoone AND onto functions) OR (all onetoone AND onto functions are onetoone functions) Since all the members of the von Neumann's treatment of the natural numbers in terms of sets are finite sets, only the following part of his analogy holds: (not all onetoone functions are onetoone AND onto functions) which means that only all onetoone functions that are not onetoone AND onto functions, are used in case of v∪{v} < V, exactly because v∪{v} can't be but a finite set, the von Neumann's treatment of the natural numbers in terms of sets. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

30th September 2020, 05:20 PM  #575 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,964

On two previous occasions, I posted some cryptic hieroglyphics suggesting they may be useful sometime later. Now that the thread's star celeb is working on his monologue, representing past nonsense, I will close out my participation in this arc of the thread explaining those two posts for anyone who really cares.
First, a reminder. This latest "infinity bad" arc had at its start "proof" based in the cardinality of infinite sets. Since seemingly standard terms and phrases have been used in such novel ways in this thread, it was only reasonable to demand my interlocutor define what he meant by cardinality. This proved impossible, but did show the need to build the desired conclusion on cardinality into the definition of cardinality, creating a natural loop. Ok, set theory has the Axiom of Infinity. It is necessary in an axiomatic set theory; otherwise you cannot construct an infinite set. Here is the axiom expressed in first order predicate calculus: ∃I (Ø∈I ∧ ∀x (x∈I ⇒ x ⋃ {x} ∈ I))Looks ugly, but it expresses a simple idea: There exists a set we will call I (∃I) which contains the empty set as a member (Ø∈I) and (∧) for any set x (∀x) if x is a member of I (x∈I) then (⇒) the "successor" of x is also a member of I (x ⋃ {x} ∈ I). The Axiom of Infinity guarantees some set, I, exists that has two properties: Ø ∈ IWe can even give it a name. Any set that has these two properties is an "inductive set." Notice, by the way, that the two properties tell us somethings about what must be in the set, but say nothing about what cannot be in the set. The Axiom of Infinity guarantees one such set, but there could be many. One way to look at inductive sets is that they all must contain Ø and they must contain an infinite sequence of successors arising from Ø as the starting point. Such a set could also contain other starting points, other than Ø, and the infinite sequence of successors arising from those other starting points. So many, many inductive sets could exist in set theory, the Axiom of Infinity guarantees there is at least one, but is there a "minimum" such set, one that has only Ø and its sequence of successors and not others? Formally, is there a set which I will call N with this property: ∀a (a∈N ⇒ (a = Ø ∨ ∃b (b∈N ∧ (a = b ⋃ {b}))))What these chickenscratches express is that every member of N is either the empty set or the successor of some other member of N. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader to decipher. So, how can we show that such a set must exist? Well, more chickenscratches: N = {x∈I : ∀y ((Ø∈y ∧ ∀z ((z∈y ⇒ z ⋃ {z} ∈ y))) ⇒ x∈y)}It certainly doesn't look like it, but all this is stating is that N (my minimal set) is the intersection of all the inductive sets. Obvious, now, right? Well, the intersection of two sets, A ∩ B, is simply all the members that are common to both sets. More formally, A ∩ B = {x∈A : x∈B}The gibberish, N = {x∈I : ∀y ((Ø∈y ∧ ∀z ((z∈y ⇒ z ⋃ {z} ∈ y))) ⇒ x∈y)}, is just a generalized version of that. The ∀y ((Ø∈y ∧ ∀z ((z∈y ⇒ z ⋃ {z} ∈ y))) part is simply identifying all the inductive sets and intersecting them with the set I. For completeness, we'd need to prove this set N has that additional property. I won't bore you further, but I will outline the proof: N is the intersection of all inductive sets. If N doesn't satisfy the additional property, then there must be some member besides the empty set in N that isn't the successor of some other member. We can then define a set N' that is N without that other member. N' must be an inductive set, and N ∩ N' = N'. Since N ≠ N', we have a contradiction of N being the intersection of all inductive sets, so N must satisfy the additional property. Whew. 
__________________
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 

2nd October 2020, 01:51 PM  #576 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,265

You close your participation in this arc by a monologue that does not satisfy fundamental things for anyone who really cares:
1) You have proved that N exists, such that Ø is its one and only one member that is not a successor of the rest of N members, where all the members of set N are themselves sets, such that for all x (where x is any arbitrary member of N), x⋃{x} is also a member of N. 2) All along the way you ignored the existence of all the finite sets that are definitely members of N. 3) Whether you like it or not, all these finite sets that are members of set N, satisfying the requirements of the Axiom of Infinity. 4) If you disagree with (3), you actually disagree with the existence of all the natural numbers in terms of sets (as defined by the von Neumann's treatment of the natural numbers, where their initial set is Ø, as written in (1)). 5) By not ignoring all the finite sets of N, one can easily understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=567, which very simply addresses the fact that no x⋃{x} has the cardinality of N. 6) Your entire framework is based on injective function (≤), which according to it x⋃{x} (which is a finite member of N, if N is indeed the minimal set that satisfying the requirements of the Axiom of Infinity) has the cardinality of N, but http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=572 very simply shows why x⋃{x} = N is not established. 7) You take injection as some generalization, which somehow enables bijection to sneak in order to establish x⋃{x} = N, but http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=574 shows why this generalization has no basis. 8) No wonder that you ignores "weak limit cardinal" as seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=451.
Quote:
==================================== Is there any alternative to jsfisher's framework? The answer is yes, as can be seen, for example, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_set_theory. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

14th October 2020, 07:35 AM  #577 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,265

A ≤ B is identical to (A < B) OR (A = B).
p="A < B" q="A = B" Code:
p OR q  F F > F T F > T F T > T T T > T Logically < can be replaced by ≤, but ≤ can't be replaced by <. Some example: 1) 1<2 and 1≤2 are both true (T OR F > T of the truth table above). 2) 1≤1 is true, but it's not true that 1<1 (F OR T > T of the truth table above).  3) T OR T > T is possible only if A is a variable for values that are < or = B.  Since all the members of the von Neumann's treatment of the natural numbers in terms of sets, satisfying the requirements of the Axiom of Infinity, they can't be ignored by any one that works under ZF(C). Option (3) above is impossible, since given any arbitrary x (where x is some set by the von Neumann's treatment of the natural numbers in terms of sets) x⋃{x} can't be but < N (T OR F > T of the truth table above) if N is claimed to be a set with infinitely many members.  One claims: "You can't pick parts from a truth table in order to support your argument, since the whole truth table must be taken". Well, in this case how, for example, 1<2 and 1≤2 are both true by the whole OR truth table?  Maybe I am mixing things up, so please correct my mistakes. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

25th October 2020, 03:51 AM  #578 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,265

By ZFC, the minimal set satisfying the requirements of the axiom of infinity, is the intersection of all inductive sets.
In case that the axiom of infinity is expressed as ∃I (Ø ∈ I ∧ ∀x (x ∈ I ⇒ x ⋃ {x} ∈ I)) the intersection of all inductive sets (let's call it K) is defined as set K = {x∈I : ∀y ((Ø ∈ y ∧ ∀z ((z ∈ y ⇒ z ⋃ {z} ∈ y))) ⇒ x ∈ y)}. The members of set K can be defined by von Neumann's construction of the natural numbers in terms of sets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natura..._on_set_theory). So K satisfying the requirements of the axiom of infinity, where all of its members are finite sets, such that only Ø is not a successor of the rest of K's members. In that case ∀k ∈ K (k ∪ {k} ∈ K), where k ∪ {k} can't be but < K, if K = λ = weak limit cardinal (such that λ is neither a successor cardinal nor zero). In that case how λ is formally defined as the cardinality of all k in K ? 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

Bookmarks 
Thread Tools  

