ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


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.
Reply
Old 12th December 2014, 08:53 AM   #281
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
 
doronshadmi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,646
The beginning of my neutral monist view thread can be seen in http://www.sciencechatforum.com/view...p?f=51&t=27823 .
__________________
As long as Comparison is impossible because of the imbalance of one's mind, new glasses will not help.
----
If a tree falls in the forest, and no oneís there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )
doronshadmi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2014, 09:01 AM   #282
RickM
Thinker
 
RickM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by doronshadmi View Post
Dear Apathia,

Lately I have found how to use cardinality in order to support OM's view of the linkage among Unity and multiplicity, where this linkage is the head and heart of the mathematician's work.

Is that what this is all about? And I thought it to be more a tale of romance that seemed to be working.

doron….don’t give up now; Cupid’s arrow is within earshot.
__________________
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

Last edited by RickM; 12th December 2014 at 09:04 AM.
RickM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2014, 09:34 AM   #283
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
 
doronshadmi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,646
Originally Posted by RickM View Post
Is that what this is all about? And I thought it to be more a tale of romance that seemed to be working.

doron….don’t give up now; Cupid’s arrow is within earshot.
It is head AND heart, in case that you have missed it.

Please reply also to the first part of http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=280 (including its links).

Also please reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=277 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=281.

Thank you, RickM.
__________________
As long as Comparison is impossible because of the imbalance of one's mind, new glasses will not help.
----
If a tree falls in the forest, and no oneís there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )

Last edited by doronshadmi; 12th December 2014 at 09:50 AM.
doronshadmi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2014, 10:56 AM   #284
RickM
Thinker
 
RickM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by doronshadmi View Post
Please reply also to the first part of http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=280 (including its links).

Also please reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=277 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=281.

Thank you, RickM.

Hi Doron,

Thanks for the offer, but Iím afraid my mathematical achievements if life are limited to two semesters of calculus and two semesters of math department statistics, so I think Iíll leave this one to the experts.

I must admit, though, Iíve been following this thread for a few weeks now with some amusement, but is the storyline ever going to lead to some bedroom activity?
__________________
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
RickM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2014, 01:11 PM   #285
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
 
doronshadmi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,646
Originally Posted by RickM View Post
I must admit, though, I’ve been following this thread for a few weeks now with some amusement,
Maybe it is the time to reform your amusement by being an active participator and not just passive observer?
__________________
As long as Comparison is impossible because of the imbalance of one's mind, new glasses will not help.
----
If a tree falls in the forest, and no oneís there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )
doronshadmi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 09:57 AM   #286
realpaladin
Master Poster
 
realpaladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,585
Originally Posted by RickM View Post
Hi Doron,

Thanks for the offer, but Iím afraid my mathematical achievements if life are limited to two semesters of calculus and two semesters of math department statistics, so I think Iíll leave this one to the experts.

I must admit, though, Iíve been following this thread for a few weeks now with some amusement, but is the storyline ever going to lead to some bedroom activity?
No, this is a story about an eternally frigid virgin; too afraid to commit and trying to keep the attention away from that fact by discussing bedsheet weaves instead.
__________________
"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
---
realpaladin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 02:43 PM   #287
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,305
Originally Posted by doronshadmi View Post
We know that there are infinitely many levels of infinity
You are seriously out of your depths, here.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2014, 04:33 AM   #288
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
 
doronshadmi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,646
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
You are seriously out of your depths, here.
What do you mean, exactly?
__________________
As long as Comparison is impossible because of the imbalance of one's mind, new glasses will not help.
----
If a tree falls in the forest, and no oneís there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )
doronshadmi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2014, 01:23 PM   #289
realpaladin
Master Poster
 
realpaladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,585
"So this is Christmas, and what have you done? Another year over, a new one just begun..."

Doron, reflect on the fact that you have not managed to keep *any* new poster for more than a few days...
__________________
"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
---
realpaladin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2014, 08:02 AM   #290
realpaladin
Master Poster
 
realpaladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,585
Awww snap! Doron, seems like you have dawdled too long...

http://www.wired.com/2014/12/mathema...prime-numbers/

Not only a new major discovery on primes, but also some words like 'infinity'.

You were just too slow, Mr. Shadmi.
__________________
"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
---
realpaladin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2015, 12:22 AM   #291
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
 
doronshadmi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,646
If we use order and cardinality as significant factors of the mathematical concept of limit, then:

Given two numbers a and b such that a < b and given ordered sets S and K of numbers from a to b (where b is the limit):

1) If |S|=0, then S members can't close the gap between a and b.

2) If |S|>0, then S members can close the gap between a and b, but if K is a proper subset of S such that |K|<|S| AND k1=s1=a, then K members can't close the gap between a and b.

According to the definition (2), no amount of K members completely covers S.
__________________
As long as Comparison is impossible because of the imbalance of one's mind, new glasses will not help.
----
If a tree falls in the forest, and no oneís there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )

Last edited by doronshadmi; 22nd April 2015 at 02:09 AM.
doronshadmi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2015, 04:12 AM   #292
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,856
Originally Posted by doronshadmi View Post
If we use order and cardinality as significant factors of the mathematical concept of limit, then...

Let's not. Let's just leave the well-defined meaning of 'limit' alone.

If you feel compelled to introduce something new and different, start with a new and different definition for it and some new and different name. Then we can see what new and different utility your new and different concept might have.
__________________
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
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2015, 10:44 PM   #293
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
 
doronshadmi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,646
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Let's not. Let's just leave the well-defined meaning of 'limit' alone.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=291 deals exactly with the failure of the attempt to define a mathematical concept like limit, by simply ignore the linkage among order and cardinality.

There is no need for new definitions here since cardinality and order are well-defined in this case.

So if you have some detailed reply about http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post10613587 content, then please air your view.

Moreover let's be more accurate about (2):

2) If |S|>0, then S members can close the gap between a and b, but if K is a proper subset of S such that |K|<|S| AND k1=s1=a AND K and S members are the same from a forward, then K members can't close the gap between a and b.

According to the definition (2), no member of K is b, so no amount of K members completely covers S.
__________________
As long as Comparison is impossible because of the imbalance of one's mind, new glasses will not help.
----
If a tree falls in the forest, and no oneís there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )

Last edited by doronshadmi; 24th April 2015 at 11:27 PM.
doronshadmi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2015, 05:35 AM   #294
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,856
Originally Posted by doronshadmi View Post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=291 deals exactly with the failure of the attempt to define a mathematical concept like limit
There is no "failure of the attempt to define a mathematical concept like limit." Limit is, in fact, defined very precisely and very completely.

Quote:
...by simply ignore the linkage among order and cardinality.
The meaning of limit does not depend on any alleged linkage among order and cardinality.

Moreover, whatever linkage you allege to exist you haven't shown. First things first: You would need to define with some mathematical detail what exactly you mean by this linkage to which you refer. History suggests that will never happen.

Meanwhile, the meaning of limit remains unscathed by your onslaught.
__________________
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
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2015, 02:01 PM   #295
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
 
doronshadmi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,646
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
First things first: You would need to define with some mathematical detail what exactly you mean by this linkage to which you refer.
EDIT:

Here it is:

Given two numbers a and b such that a < b AND given sets S and K of convergent numbers to b, if K is a proper subset of S such that |K|<|S|, then the sum of K members < b.
__________________
As long as Comparison is impossible because of the imbalance of one's mind, new glasses will not help.
----
If a tree falls in the forest, and no oneís there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )

Last edited by doronshadmi; 25th April 2015 at 02:14 PM.
doronshadmi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2015, 02:07 PM   #296
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,856
Originally Posted by doronshadmi View Post
Here it is...
You seemed to have left out something. Where is 'limit' anywhere in this?

Remember, you started this current arc with "If we use order and cardinality as significant factors of the mathematical concept of limit..."

You haven't shown at all what that means. Instead, you are just asserting conclusions.
__________________
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
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2015, 02:08 PM   #297
Little 10 Toes
Graduate Poster
 
Little 10 Toes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,820
Originally Posted by doronshadmi View Post
Here it is:

Given two numbers a and b such that a < b AND given ordered sets S and K of convergent numbers to b, if K is a proper subset of S such that |K|<|S| AND k1=s1=a, then the sum of K members < b.
Define convergent numbers please.
Little 10 Toes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2015, 02:16 PM   #298
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
 
doronshadmi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,646
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
You seemed to have left out something. Where is 'limit' anywhere in this?

Remember, you started this current arc with "If we use order and cardinality as significant factors of the mathematical concept of limit..."

You haven't shown at all what that means. Instead, you are just asserting conclusions.
b is the limit in the following definition:

Given two numbers a and b such that a < b AND given sets S and K that their members are used as convergent series to b, if K is a proper subset of S such that |K|<|S|, then the sum of K members < b.
__________________
As long as Comparison is impossible because of the imbalance of one's mind, new glasses will not help.
----
If a tree falls in the forest, and no oneís there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )

Last edited by doronshadmi; 25th April 2015 at 02:37 PM.
doronshadmi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2015, 02:39 PM   #299
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
 
doronshadmi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,646
Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes View Post
Define convergent numbers please.
Please see http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=298.
__________________
As long as Comparison is impossible because of the imbalance of one's mind, new glasses will not help.
----
If a tree falls in the forest, and no oneís there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )
doronshadmi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2015, 02:54 PM   #300
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,856
Originally Posted by doronshadmi View Post
b is the limit in the following
Is it now? You defined b to be a number and stipulated it to be greater than another number, a. So, it is to be a limit as well....

The limit of what?

You understand, too, don't you, that having b as the limit of something isn't in any way dealing with the definition of 'limit' and its ties (imaginary or otherwise) to order and cardinality.

Quote:
...definition:

Given two numbers a and b such that a < b AND given sets S and K that their members are used as convergent series to b, if K is a proper subset of S such that |K|<|S|, then the sum of K members < b.
See that part I rendered in bold type? That's a conclusion. You cannot define conclusions; you have to prove them.

But, even it you did, that would get you no where near tying limit to order and cardinality.
__________________
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
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2015, 02:56 PM   #301
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,856
Originally Posted by doronshadmi View Post
Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes View Post
Define convergent numbers please.
Please see http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=298.

I think Little 10 Toes already had a good idea of where you used the term. He was hoping you might actually define it.
__________________
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
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2015, 03:05 PM   #302
Little 10 Toes
Graduate Poster
 
Little 10 Toes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,820
Originally Posted by doronshadmi View Post
b is the limit in the following definition:

Given two numbers a and b such that a < b AND given sets S and K that their members are used as convergent series to b, if K is a proper subset of S such that |K|<|S|, then the sum of K members < b.
So let's see if you can respond without going back and editing your original post.

Define convergent series. Define limit.
Little 10 Toes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2015, 11:42 PM   #303
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
 
doronshadmi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,646
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
See that part I rendered in bold type? That's a conclusion. You cannot define conclusions; you have to prove them.
Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes View Post
Define convergent series. Define limit.
Already done in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=277.
__________________
As long as Comparison is impossible because of the imbalance of one's mind, new glasses will not help.
----
If a tree falls in the forest, and no oneís there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )

Last edited by doronshadmi; 25th April 2015 at 11:44 PM.
doronshadmi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 04:47 AM   #304
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,856
Originally Posted by doronshadmi View Post
Really? Well, since it isn't apparent you defined any terms or proved anything in that post from December, perhaps as a courtesy to the readers of today you would be so kind as to make a new post in which you define 'convergent series' and define 'limit' as you are using the terms.

Nothing else; just the definitions. That way we won't miss them buried among other clutter.

You see, one of the problems is that given the meaning of 'convergent series' in Mathematics, having sets where "their members are used as convergent series" is gibberish. So, perhaps you could tell us what you really meant, then we can help translate it to something that isn't gibberish.

(Just so you know, I'm expecting 'sequence' will be an important addition in untangling your word salad.)
__________________
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
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 06:56 AM   #305
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
 
doronshadmi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,646
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
You see, one of the problems is that given the meaning of 'convergent series' in Mathematics, having sets where "their members are used as convergent series" is gibberish.
Well, there is no problem to understand that there is a set that its members are used as the numbers of a given sequence, for example:

The members of set {0.09,0.009,0.9,0.0009...} (where order does not matter) are used as the numbers of sequence (0.9,0.09,0.009,0.0009,...) (where order matters) that its sum (also known as convergent series) approaches a given number, called the limit of that sequence.

In case that S={0.09,0.009,0.9,0.0009...} and K is a proper subset of S such that |K|<|S|, that convergent series (which is based on the added K members) < the limit of the sequence that its numbers are S members.

|K|<|S| is clearly shown in terms of the tower of power as given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=277.

So according to what is written above, there is no problem to understand the following:

b is the limit in the following definition:

Given two numbers a and b such that a < b AND given sets S and K that their members are used as convergent series to b, if K is a proper subset of S such that |K|<|S|, then the sum of K members < b.

------------

If we need |N|+1=|N| trick in order to conclude that 0.910+0.0910+0.00910+...=1 (as clearly shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=277) then it is obvious that the sum of K members < b.
__________________
As long as Comparison is impossible because of the imbalance of one's mind, new glasses will not help.
----
If a tree falls in the forest, and no oneís there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )

Last edited by doronshadmi; 26th April 2015 at 08:11 AM.
doronshadmi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 07:52 AM   #306
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,856
Originally Posted by doronshadmi View Post
Well, there is no problem to understand that there is a set that its members are used as the numbers of a given sequence
Ah! So after my hint and some quality time with Google, you are beginning to understand that 'sequence' may have been the term you wanted.

Quote:
for example:

The members of set {0.09,0.009,0.9,0.0009...} (where order does not matter) are used as the numbers of sequence (0.9,0.09,0.009,0.0009,...) (where order matters)
So, why not just start with a sequence of numbers? Unordered then ordered sets do not enhance the discussion, only confuse it in how you use and misuse the terms.

For that matter, your whole set diversion suffers in that sequence elements need not be unique within the sequence.

Quote:
...that its sum (also known as convergent series) approaches a given number, called the limit of that sequence.
Most sequences are divergent, but what of that. As for the rest, the convergent series does not "approach" a given number. The series is the sum (or, more correctly, the limit of the sequence of partial sums) of the sequence.

For a convergent series, the series is a single value.

Quote:
In case that S={0.09,0.009,0.9,0.0009...} and K is a proper subset of S such that |K|<|S|, that convergent series (which is based on the added K members) < the limit of the sequence that its numbers are S members.
Since S does not uniquely determine a sequence, you example is of no value.

If you want a sequence at the base of all this, then make S a sequence. And make K a sub-sequence of S if you must.

Also, you'll need to make sense of "the limit of the sequence that its numbers are S members."

And then, when all that is resolved, you'll need to construct a proof for your conclusion. Proof, not mere assertion as you are wont to do.

Finally, you'll need to show why the result (assuming you can establish the result) is at all interesting. It doesn't look like it will be interesting.
__________________
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
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 08:55 AM   #307
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
 
doronshadmi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,646
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
If you want a sequence at the base of all this, then make S a sequence. And make K a sub-sequence of S if you must.
Thank you for your advice.

Since order does not matter, let S and K be mutlisets.

Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Also, you'll need to make sense of "the limit of the sequence that its numbers are S members."
The discussed elements are numbers.

Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
And then, when all that is resolved, you'll need to construct a proof for your conclusion. Proof, not mere assertion as you are wont to do.
If the |N|+1=|N| trick is understood, then you immediately understand that this is a definition.

Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Finally, you'll need to show why the result (assuming you can establish the result) is at all interesting. It doesn't look like it will be interesting.
It is not interesting if the non-composed aspect of the tower of power line is excluded.

If it is not excluded then one immediately understands the non-entropic nature of the discussed framework, which is essential for further development of living creatures like us.
__________________
As long as Comparison is impossible because of the imbalance of one's mind, new glasses will not help.
----
If a tree falls in the forest, and no oneís there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )
doronshadmi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 09:07 AM   #308
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,856
Originally Posted by doronshadmi View Post
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
If you want a sequence at the base of all this, then make S a sequence. And make K a sub-sequence of S if you must.
Thank you for your advice.

Since order does not matter, let S and K be mutlisets.
You are just digging a hole. Put the shovel down. Your now multi-sets still do not determine the sequence. Take the short cut: Make S and K sequences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Also, you'll need to make sense of "the limit of the sequence that its numbers are S members."
The discussed elements are numbers.
No, the limit of a sequence is just one number, the limit. And at least for your favorite example, that limit of sequence you are trying so desperately to represent by S is 0.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
And then, when all that is resolved, you'll need to construct a proof for your conclusion. Proof, not mere assertion as you are wont to do.
If the |N|+1=|N| trick is understood, then you immediately understand that this is a definition.
Trick? It is no trick. But if the connection is so obvious, you will have no difficulty pointing it out at the proper time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Finally, you'll need to show why the result (assuming you can establish the result) is at all interesting. It doesn't look like it will be interesting.
It is not interesting if the non-composed aspect of the tower of power line is excluded.

If it is not excluded then one immediately understands the non-entropic nature of the discussed framework, which is essential for further development of living creatures like us.
I will make no attempt to decode that gibberish.
__________________
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

Last edited by jsfisher; 26th April 2015 at 09:59 AM.
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 09:27 AM   #309
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
 
doronshadmi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,646
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
You are just digging a whole. Put the shovel down. Your now multi-sets still do not determine the sequence. Take the short cut: Make S and K sequences.
If I wish to use also cardinality as a factor of the discussed subject, I can't avoid mutisets, unless length can equivalently be used here, what do you think?


Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
No, the limit of a sequence is just one number, the limit. And at least for your favorite example, that limit of sequence you are trying so desperately to represent by S is 0.
"the limit of the sequence that its numbers are S members" is b and the added members of S (which are all numbers) are sum=b, and as a result gibberish is the best you can get.


Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Trick? It is no trick. But if the connection is so obvious, you will have no difficulty pointing it out at the proper time.
Already done very simply by using your "Y = X union {[1,1]}" as seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=277.


Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
I will make no attempt to decode that gibberish.
Of course you will not do it, after all your framework arbitrarily excludes the non-composed aspect of the tower of power line.
__________________
As long as Comparison is impossible because of the imbalance of one's mind, new glasses will not help.
----
If a tree falls in the forest, and no oneís there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )

Last edited by doronshadmi; 26th April 2015 at 09:35 AM.
doronshadmi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 10:14 AM   #310
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,856
Originally Posted by doronshadmi View Post
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
You are just digging a whole. Put the shovel down. Your now multi-sets still do not determine the sequence. Take the short cut: Make S and K sequences.
If I wish to use also cardinality as a factor of the discussed subject, I can't avoid mutisets, unless length can equivalently be used here, what do you think?
I think you need to keep in mind that you are focusing on sequences. You keep trying to force sets as a vehicle towards that aim, but they are unnecessary and inappropriate. If the properties you seem to demand cannot be expressed directly for sequences, then perhaps you should not be including sequences at all.

One thing you are not allowed to side-step, too, is that a sequence is equivalent to a function over a totally ordered, countable domain. Keep that in mind as you wave your hands at cardinality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
No, the limit of a sequence is just one number, the limit. And at least for your favorite example, that limit of sequence you are trying so desperately to represent by S is 0.
"the limit of the sequence that its numbers are S members" is b and the added members of S (which are all numbers) are sum=b, and as a result gibberish is the best you can get.
Yes. See, that's the trouble with gibberish: It fails to have meaning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Trick? It is no trick. But if the connection is so obvious, you will have no difficulty pointing it out at the proper time.
Already done very simply by using your "Y = X union {[1,1]}" as seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=277.
That in no way proves anything about "that convergent series (which is based on the added K members) < the limit of the sequence that its numbers are S members." In fact, it would be rather difficult to prove anything of the sort since your usage of terms and relationships between sets and sequences is still all muddled.

Once you can finalize all the stuff that leads up to your conclusion, only then can we begin to consider its proof.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
I will make no attempt to decode that gibberish.
Of course you will not do it, after all your framework arbitrarily excludes the non-composed aspect of the tower of power line.
Additional word salad does not assist in decoding the original gibberish.
__________________
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

Last edited by jsfisher; 26th April 2015 at 10:17 AM.
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 10:32 PM   #311
Little 10 Toes
Graduate Poster
 
Little 10 Toes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,820
Originally Posted by doronshadmi View Post
No it wasn't. The word limit was used in a sentence. Once. There is no listing of the phrase "convergent series". If you are going to take the time to dig up a source, make sure it supports you.

Try again.

Define convergent series. Define limit.
Little 10 Toes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 10:49 PM   #312
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
 
doronshadmi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,646
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
I think you need to keep in mind that you are focusing on sequences. You keep trying to force sets as a vehicle towards that aim, but they are unnecessary and inappropriate.
Some important corrections (which correct also http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ostcount=277):

1) The order of the added numbers (where all numbers are positive) does not matter.

2) Number 0 does not contribute anything to the sum of the added numbers, and so is the case of multiple added numbers of the same value, the fact that they have the same value also does not contribute any important thing to the sum of the added numbers.

3) According to (1) and (2) the added numbers into a given series are actually reduced into unique members of non-empty sets.

So we can omit the usage of sequences, and use only the unique members of sets that are all positive numbers.

By simplifying the framework into the sum of added positive unique numbers, I discovered that K (where |K|<|S|) is not a proper subset of S because K has at least one member which is not a member of S.

Here is an example:

{0.910, 0.0910, 0.00910, 0.00110} is some set with cardinality |4| that its added members provide 1 by one-step, and it is obvious that 0.00110 is not a member of {0.910, 0.0910, 0.00910, ...} with cardinality |N| that its added members provide 1 by one-step.

So |K|<|S| and K is not a proper subset of S, yet it does not change the validity of my argument, which is as follow:

K or S must have smallest numbers > 0, such that the smallest number of S < the smallest number of K (such that the number of places of the smallest number of K < the number of places of the smallest number of S) and without those smallest numbers > 0, the sum of S or K members < the given limit.

If |K| is finite cardinality, the number of places of the smallest number of K is finite, otherwise it is infinite according to the cardinality of the set.

So we actually do not need the comparison between K and S in terms of set and proper subset, yet for all cardinality, there is the smallest number > 0 that the number of its places = the cardinality of its set.

The invariant existence of such smallest number > 0, proves the inability to define the smallest number > 0 for all sets, and we can conclude that no collection of added numbers has the non-composed property of 1-dimensional space because this property is stronger than the cardinality of all sets that their members are added along it from number a up to b, where a<b.
__________________
As long as Comparison is impossible because of the imbalance of one's mind, new glasses will not help.
----
If a tree falls in the forest, and no oneís there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )

Last edited by doronshadmi; 27th April 2015 at 12:24 AM.
doronshadmi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 01:27 AM   #313
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
 
doronshadmi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,646
Some corrections to my previous post:

Instead of


"So we actually do not need the comparison between K and S in terms of set and proper subset, yet for all cardinality, there is the smallest number > 0 that the number of its places = the cardinality of its set."

it has to be

"So we actually do not need the comparison between K and S in terms of set and proper subset, yet for all cardinality, there is the smallest number > 0 that the number of its places at the right side of the dismal point is finite or infinite (and in case that it is infinite, the number of places is according to the cardinality of its set)."

For example:

Exactly as 0.00110 has finite places at the right side of the dismal point in case of {0.00110, 0.910, 0.0910, 0.00910}, so is the case about 0.000...110 in case of {0.000...110, 0.910, 0.0910, 0.00910, ...}.

If one has no problem to understand that b is the result of infinitely many added numbers, one also does not have problems to understand that there is a number of the form 0.000...110 that has infinity many places at the right side of the dismal point that is > 0, that actually enables the members of {0.000...110, 0.910, 0.0910, 0.00910, ...} to be added up to b (even if 0 is a member of some set, it is obvious that it does not contribute anything to get result b).

So, without of numbers of the form 0.000...110 the result of the added members of sets with cardinality |N| actually < b.

The same principle holds with sets that their cardinality > |N|, but in this case we can't symbolize their members, because any string of symbols is limited to cardinality |N|.


------------------------------

Instead of

"The invariant existence of such smallest number > 0, proves the inability to define the smallest number > 0 for all sets,


it has to be

"The invariant existence of such smallest number > 0 for each set, proves the inability to define the smallest number > 0 of all sets that their members are added up to b from a to b, where a<b,"
__________________
As long as Comparison is impossible because of the imbalance of one's mind, new glasses will not help.
----
If a tree falls in the forest, and no oneís there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )

Last edited by doronshadmi; 27th April 2015 at 02:59 AM.
doronshadmi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 04:24 AM   #314
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
 
doronshadmi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,646
The ".000..." is used as a |N| size place value keeper that is inaccessible to "...1" that is at |R| size.

The same principle holds among |R|<|P(R)|<|P(P(R))|< ... ad infinitum, where no number of added values is accessible to the non-composed property of the line in itself, which is beyond collections.

Also in the case of sets that their members converge to a given number, known as the limit, these members can't be symbolized beyond cardinality |N|.

Here is the standard definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequenc..._convergence):

Quote:
Let (an) be a sequence. In words, the sequence (an) is said to converge if there exists a number L such that no matter how close we want the an to be to L (say ε-close where ε > 0), we can find a natural number N such that all terms (aN+1, aN+2, ...) are further closer to L (within ε of L). [1] This is often written more compactly using symbols. For instance,

for all ε > 0, there exists a natural number N such that L−ε < an < L+ε for all n ≥ N.

In even more compact notation

The last one can be written as follows:

for all ε > 0, there exists a natural number N in N such that for all n ≥ N, |an - L| < ε.

So |an - L| must be = 0 in order to conclude that the sum over an = L.

For example, where is the rigorous proof that the sum over (0.910, 0.0910, 0.00910,...) = L = 1?
__________________
As long as Comparison is impossible because of the imbalance of one's mind, new glasses will not help.
----
If a tree falls in the forest, and no oneís there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )

Last edited by doronshadmi; 27th April 2015 at 06:24 AM.
doronshadmi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 06:30 AM   #315
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,856
Originally Posted by doronshadmi View Post
Some important corrections (which correct also http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ostcount=277):.
Post #277 is from four months ago. We've all moved on since then, including you. You introduced something new with its own set of misused terminology and obtuse word constructions. Are you abandoning that new, or just saving it for a link four months from now?

That sequence of posts from four months ago got you nowhere you wanted to go. You cannot pretend now it did, nor can you expect anyone here to re-experience the failure from that far back so you can get nowhere with it once again.

If you'd like to start anew, well, then you need to start anew. No silly links to different flavors of word salad.
__________________
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
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 06:47 AM   #316
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
 
doronshadmi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,646
The solution to this question is by constructing a new kind of number that is based on the mathematical fact that |R|>|N|.

In the case of (0.910, 0.0910, 0.00910, ...) the complement of 0.999...10 to 1 is the number 0.000...110, where the ".000..." part is used as a |N| size place value keeper that is inaccessible to "...1" that is at |R| size.

"...1" at |R| size actually closes the gap between 0.999...10 and 1, and without it 0.999...10 = 1 is no more than an assertion.
__________________
As long as Comparison is impossible because of the imbalance of one's mind, new glasses will not help.
----
If a tree falls in the forest, and no oneís there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )

Last edited by doronshadmi; 27th April 2015 at 07:07 AM.
doronshadmi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 06:58 AM   #317
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,856
Originally Posted by doronshadmi View Post
The solution to this question is by constructing a new kind of number that is based on the mathematical fact that |R|>|N|.

In the case of
Have you considered composing your posts in a text editor first? Proofread and edit them there, and only when you are finally happy with the result, copy it to a post here.
__________________
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
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 07:10 AM   #318
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
 
doronshadmi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,646
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Have you considered composing your posts in a text editor first? Proofread and edit them there, and only when you are finally happy with the result, copy it to a post here.
Please follow it from http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=314.
__________________
As long as Comparison is impossible because of the imbalance of one's mind, new glasses will not help.
----
If a tree falls in the forest, and no oneís there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )
doronshadmi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 07:13 AM   #319
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
 
doronshadmi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,646
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Are you abandoning that new,
No, I improve it by omitting the "|N|+1=|N|" stuff and its wrong related conclusion, which according to it 0.999...10 = 1 without using 0.000...110.

But now I have realized that it can't be done without adding 0.000...110 to 0.999...10
__________________
As long as Comparison is impossible because of the imbalance of one's mind, new glasses will not help.
----
If a tree falls in the forest, and no oneís there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )

Last edited by doronshadmi; 27th April 2015 at 07:26 AM.
doronshadmi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 07:43 AM   #320
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,856
Originally Posted by doronshadmi View Post
The solution to this question
What question?

Quote:
...is by constructing a new kind of number that is based on the mathematical fact that |R|>|N|.
Great. After you tell us the question, please show us this construction. Don't start jumping to conclusions just yet. Let's see the construction itself.
__________________
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
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:05 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.