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.
 19th January 2019, 02:22 PM #3281 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Wholeness is not necessarily Comleteness Wholeness is not necessarily Completeness, as seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2798 exactly because infinitely many things are infinitely weaker that actual infinity (as seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3095). In order to deal with such notions, philosophy and mathematics are inseparable of each other (http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3280). __________________ 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 19th January 2019 at 02:46 PM.
 29th January 2019, 04:36 AM #3282 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Please look at the following diagram: It was known as "2X=X√2 paradox" (This is an old "problem" that was known at least to Leibniz and probably to the Greeks). Actually, this is not a paradox at all since no integer is an irrational number, and a straightforward way to show it, is by X=1, that is, 2>√2. By observing the top of the attached diagram, one finds the convergent series a+b+c+d+... 1) Please pay attention that this series is rigorously defined by the intersections of the black straight lines (which go through the peaks of the zig-zag (black, red, green, magenta, blue, cyan) lines with constant length 2X) with each side of the square. 2) It means that the mathematical fact that 2X>X√2, is inseparable of the mathematical fact that 2X>2(a+b+c+d+...). Let X (one side of the square) = 1 In that case (a+b+c+d+...) is actually (1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16...). By (2) 2(1)>2(1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16...), which can be reduced into 1>1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16... It has to be stressed that no partial sums like a, a+b, a+b+c, ... are involved in this argument, but not less than the series a+b+c+d+... If one does not agree with the argument above, one has to prove (according to the considered diagram) that series a+b+c+d+... is not defined by the zig-zag lines (where, again, no partial sums like a, a+b, a+b+c, ... are involved in such proof). Moreover, if one proves it, one also demonstrates why visualization is insufficient for rigorous mathematical results. I am fully aware that what is called "not a summation in the usual sense" means a+b+c+d+... ≤ X, where the semantics (meaning) of ≤ (in the considered case) is "not greater than" X, or "at most" X. Since series a+b+c+d+... is strictly defined by all the zig-zag lines such that 2X is strictly > X√2, series a+b+c+d+... can't be but strictly < X. So I still do not see how ≤ is relevant to the diagram above. __________________ 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 29th January 2019 at 06:23 AM.
 29th January 2019, 07:21 AM #3283 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 I wish to stress that, for example: S = 1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16... 2S = 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16... 2S - S = 1 - S is not a proof of the considered case because: 1) By omitting S from 2S there is no guarantee that the omitted value (= 1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16...) is equal to the non-omitted value (= 1). 2) The separability between 2>√2 and 1>1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16... has not been proven. __________________ 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 29th January 2019 at 07:44 AM.
 29th January 2019, 07:30 PM #3284 Little 10 Toes Master Poster     Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,017 error __________________ 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.
 31st January 2019, 08:30 AM #3285 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 The standard notion of set (according to Prof. Melvin Randall Holmes): Quote: A set is a collection determined by its elements. Finite sets are often written {a, b, c} (for example), by listing their elements. Order does not matter and repeated items do not change the intended meaning. The elements of the sets are not parts of the set. The set is not made by conglomerating its elements together. This is a common misunderstanding. To see this it is enough to play with the notation. {x} is not the same object as x: if a set were made up of its elements as parts, this would not make sense. If you don’t believe this, look at {{2, 3}}: this is a set with one element, while its sole element is a set with two elements, so they are different. Another way of seeing it is to notice that a relation of part to whole should be transitive. If a is part of b and b is part of c, then a is part of c. But notice that 2 ∈ {2, 3} and {2, 3} ∈ {{2, 3}}, but 2 is not a member of {{2, 3}} By logically going beyond the notion of collection |{}| is tautology and {||} is contradiction, such that any given collection is ~contradiction AND ~tautology. As about cardinality: {||} = 0 |{}| = ∞ = the cardinality of actual infinity {|...|} = any cardinality > 0 AND < ∞ Some examples: {|{}|} = 1 |{{}}| = ∞ {{||}} = 0 {|{1,2}|} = 1 {{|1,2|}} = 2 {|1,2|} = 2 {{1,{||},2}} = 0 |{{1,{},2}}| = ∞ Nested cardinality examples: |{|{|1,{||},2|}|}| = (((0)3)1)∞ |{|{|1|,{||},2}|}| = (((0)1)1)∞ |{|{|1|,{||},|2|}|}| = (((0)1,1)1)∞ |{|{|1|,|{||}|,|2|}|}| = (((0)1,1,1)1)∞ |{||}| = (0)∞ etc. ... ------------------- As can be seen, the standard notion of collection is a very limited mathematical framework. __________________ 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 31st January 2019 at 08:50 AM.
 2nd February 2019, 11:52 PM #3286 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 By going beyond the notion of collection (which is a composed thing) the non-composed is defined by non-composed opposite extremes, which are NOthing and YESthing, where the cardinalities (the magnitudes) of them are |{||}| = (0)∞ So the cardinality of any give collection is > 0 AND < ∞, which means that no collection is accessible to that has cardinality 0 (NOthing) or cardinality ∞ (YESthing). By being aware of the composed and the non-composed, one enables to understand why a collection with endless members is not actual infinity, simply because it is inaccessible to YESthing (that has cardinality ∞). __________________ 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 3rd February 2019 at 12:11 AM.
 20th March 2019, 07:08 PM #3287 sackett Philosopher   Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Detroit Posts: 5,664 Doronshadmi, look into palindromic numbers and their sums. The key lies there. Trust me. __________________ Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
 22nd March 2019, 03:10 PM #3288 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by sackett Doronshadmi, look into palindromic numbers and their sums. The key lies there. Trust me. Please explain it by using your visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning. __________________ 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.
 22nd March 2019, 04:02 PM #3289 Nay_Sayer I say nay!     Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Long Island Posts: 3,736 Originally Posted by doronshadmi Please explain it by using your visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning. You really do love this little diddy you've coined. __________________ I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds. If you see a Nazi. Egg them
 23rd March 2019, 08:43 AM #3290 sackett Philosopher   Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Detroit Posts: 5,664 I capitalize but not symbolic Originally Posted by doronshadmi Please explain it by using your visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning. Private message me. These are things we cannot share. __________________ Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
 23rd March 2019, 02:39 PM #3291 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by sackett Private message me. These are things we cannot share. If you can't share I am not interested. __________________ 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 23rd March 2019 at 02:42 PM.
 27th March 2019, 07:26 AM #3292 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by Apathia Yes. To put it in other words: Actual Infinity is Being. It's not a subject, object, or existing thing. Your Thing is Being, Awareness without an object. As I said, the words get in the way. If we talk about Being we make an object of it and immediately lose it to existence. You can only Be it. I want to communicate to others reading this what UNITY awareness feels like. My best example is interpersonal, and I'm afraid that a number of readers still won't see the direction its pointing. But there are times, sometimes with meditation and others just suddenly, that I feel in Love, but my Love has no object or objects. There's no person or group who is the Loved. Yet Love seamlessly reaches all. No one is singled out as the object of that Love, and yet there is no one who is not in that Love. But this is a poor way of putting it, because you have to understand the Love is not some kind of light that shines from me. There's no subject either. There is the shining of Being. I just Love. I'm just Loving. For the individuals I meet, they feel Love from me. They don't feel they are an object of some romantic agenda or confidence game. (At least many don't. I've met people who are suspiciously sure that that charisma is a ploy. I've also met those whose hearts resonated to that seamless compassion and were frightened that the UNITY was dissolving their ego identities. Such defensive people then accuse me of being "needy," or having poor personal boundaries. I give them their desired distance.) I Love the person before me, not as the object of love, but as a participant in Being and UNITY. If we speak of others, though we are all of each other, it seems the light does not shine from me but from the other. Whoever is before me at that moment is the front and center of all. I would like to see everyone cultivating this UNITY awareness. It's the only real anecdote to our contemporary society where individuals are objects and commodities of marketing and xenophobic fear of others and outsiders has become the chief political motivation. Apathia this is a beautiful essential sharing. __________________ 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.
 27th March 2019, 05:55 PM #3293 Little 10 Toes Master Poster     Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,017 Doron, why are you replying to a post that was made over 6 months ago? Why are you not replying to my question? __________________ 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.
 27th March 2019, 07:43 PM #3294 sackett Philosopher   Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Detroit Posts: 5,664 Doron, you are clearly afraid of the implications of palindromic number summation. You do not surprise me in this. But if you can overcome your timidity and resume silence, much can still be achieved. __________________ Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
29th March 2019, 06:51 PM   #3295
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator

Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,458
 doronshadmi, If you want to have a discussion with someone here, make sure that that someone is here to participate in the discussion. Comments made elsewhere, such as in response to a Youtube video, should be discussed at that elsewhere. You may not import statements from that elsewhere in the guise of continuing a discussion here, especially when it is clear your intent is simply to reintroduce an argument from the past. Thirty-four posts have been shuffled off to AAH. Posted By:jsfisher
__________________
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; 29th March 2019 at 07:07 PM.

 29th March 2019, 09:49 PM #3296 Apathia Philosopher     Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Mesa, AZ Posts: 5,352 Originally Posted by doronshadmi Apathia this is a beautiful essential sharing. Thank you! __________________ "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
 30th March 2019, 01:59 AM #3297 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Please very carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's YT video on vectors https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFkZGpN4wmM . The essence of his notion is given from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video, where he introduces the idea which I call "Math Over Matrix", which is actually our ability to deduce also beyond the notion of collections (the mug is not a collection of its projections). I find that his idea of the difference between "the thing in itself" and its representations (he is an expert in Representation Theory) mathematically airs its view by the following two axioms: (1) The Axiom Of Non-Complexity: There exists, at least, object _ (1-dim object), such that it is not a collection of shorter or shortest objects. (a shortest object is at least . (0-dim object)). (2) The Axiom Of Markers: Given a collection of shorter or shortest objects, they define values with respect to, at least, object _ Without (1) there is no, at least, object _ , and without (2) no value can be defined with respect to, at least, object _ So a useful mathematical framework, in this case, is based on, at least, (1) AND (2). Please pay attention that (1) and (2) are deduced by using both visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning, which actually enables to distinguish between "the thing in itself" (the non-composed existence, given by visual_spatial) and a collection (the composed, given by verbal_symbolic reasoning) of representations that are related to it but they are not the same as the "the thing in itself" (the mug ("the thing in itself") is not a collection of its projections (it is not its representations)). Please pay attention that _ or . is non-composed, where this common property actually enables _ . deduction by the same framework. But in order to do useful deduction, _ or . are also distinguishable of each other such that at least _ (1-dim object) is irreducible into at least . (0-dim object) AND at least . (0-dim object) is not expansible into at least _ (1-dim object). Now let's deduce spatially AND symbolically according to (1) and (2) by using what is known as positional numeral system (if only verbal_symbolic reasoning is used). Since the considered mathematical framework is based on at least visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning, one actually uses positional number system. Let's observe, for example 0.111...[base 2] and 0.222...[base 3] (which are numbers of their own that are not equal to 1, if visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning is used), by the following visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic diagram: Since at least _ (1-dim object) is irreducible into at least . (0-dim object), for example, 0.222...[base 3] < 1 by at least 0.000...1[base 3], then the ...1 in 0.000...1[base 3] is exactly the irreducibly of at least _ (1-dim object) into at least . (0-dim object). By using visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning, the notion of invariant proportion is used among potential infinitely many scales (where potential infinity is simply the result of at least _ (1-dim object) that is irreducible into at least . (0-dim object)) as follows: 0.222...[base 3] < 1 by at least 0.000...1[base 3], but this is only the least case under [base 3]. Now, please (by using visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning) very carefully pay attention to the potential infinitely many stairs in 0.222...[base 3] along the diagram above. By doing so we get the following: 0.222...[base 3] < 1 by at least 0.000...1[base 3] but 0.22...[base 3] < 1 by at least 0.000...2[base 3] where the invariant proportion among 0.000...2[base 3] (___) and 0.000...1[base 3] (_) is kept along the diagram, exactly because _ or ___ (1-dim form) are irreducible into . (0-dim form). ___ is 3 times longer than _ by the invariant proportion along the potential infinitely many scales of the [base 3] positional number system (of the example above). [base 3] positional number system is used here for any [base > 1] positional number system, without loss of generality ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withou..._of_generality ). __________________ 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 30th March 2019 at 02:08 AM.
 30th March 2019, 09:25 AM #3298 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 In the previous post I wrote: Originally Posted by doronshadmi By doing so we get the following: 0.222...[base 3] < 1 by at least 0.000...1[base 3] but 0.22...[base 3] < 1 by at least 0.000...2[base 3] where the invariant proportion among 0.000...2[base 3] (___) and 0.000...1[base 3] (_) is kept along the diagram, exactly because _ or ___ (1-dim forms) are irreducible into . (0-dim form). ___ is 3 times longer than _ by the invariant proportion along the potential infinitely many scales of the [base 3] positional number system (of the example above). By more careful observation, I have realized that ...x[base y] form has to be involved with the power value of some base value along the potential infinitely many scales of a given positional number system (without being confused with the basepower at the left side of the radix point), so the right representation of ...n[base y] form (as done above) has to be as follows: Let b be the base value, which is represented by any natural number > 1 Let p be the power value of b, which is represented by any natural number ≥ 0 The general form is ...bp If (for example) b = 3, then a better representation of an invariant proportion along potential infinitely many scales (of this case) is done as follows: 0.000...1[base 3] is actually ...30 0.000...2[base 3] is actually ...31 etc. (I knew that I used 3 as a part of [base 3], but it is done as a "short cut" in order to air my view more simply at first glance) Now let's rewrite the quote by using the new symbolic representation (including some highlighted corrections): Originally Posted by doronshadmi By doing so we get the following: If 0.222...3 < 1 by at least 0.000...30 then 0.22...3 < 1 by at least 0.000...31 where the invariant proportion among 0.000...31 (___) and 0.000...30 (_) is kept along the diagram, exactly because _ or ___ (1-dim forms) are irreducible into . (0-dim form). ___ is 3 times longer than _ by the invariant proportion along the potential infinitely many scales of the [base 3] positional number system (of the example above). __________________ 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 30th March 2019 at 10:00 AM.
 31st March 2019, 10:53 AM #3299 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 I wish to correct the following part: Originally Posted by doronshadmi I find that his idea of the difference between "the thing in itself" and its representations (he is an expert in Representation Theory) mathematically airs its view by the following two axioms: (1) The Axiom Of Non-Complexity: There exists, at least, object _ (1-dim object), such that it is not a collection of shorter or shortest objects. (a shortest object is at least . (0-dim object)). (2) The Axiom Of Markers: Given a collection of shorter or shortest objects, they define values with respect to, at least, object _ Without (1) there is no, at least, object _ , and without (2) no value can be defined with respect to, at least, object _ So a useful mathematical framework, in this case, is based on, at least, (1) AND (2). In order to not be closed under object|subject duality it has to be: Originally Posted by doronshadmi I find that his idea of the difference between "the thing in itself" and its representations (he is an expert in Representation Theory) mathematically airs its view by the following two axioms: (1) The Axiom Of Non-Complexity: There exists, at least, _ (1-dim thing), such that it is not a collection of shorter or shortest things. (a shortest thing is at least . (0-dim thing)). (2) The Axiom Of Markers: Given a collection of shorter or shortest things, they define values with respect to, at least _ thing. Without (1) there is no, at least, _ thing , and without (2) no value can be defined with respect to, at least, _ thing. So a useful mathematical framework, in this case, is based on, at least, (1) AND (2). __________________ 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 31st March 2019 at 10:55 AM.
 31st March 2019, 11:45 AM #3300 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Invariant proportion As for the notion of invariant proportion, it is easily understood by pi (if defined by circle's circumference\diameter ratio), which is irreducible into . AND not extensible into straight _ This invariant proportion is found among a collection of many circles, but since a collection is a composed thing, it has at most potential infinitely many circles, exactly because actual infinity is the non-composed property of at least 1-dim thing. By ACTUALLY USING visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning, one gets the following hierarchy of existence: 1) Actual infinity (al least the non-composed _______ thing) 2) Finite (the finitely composed that is finitely weaker than the non-composed _______ thing and therefore can be added up to a given value (for example 1, that is defined at the edge of 0______1) 3)Potential infinity (the infinitely composed that is infinitely weaker than the non-composed _______ thing and therefore can't be added up to a given value (for example 1, that is defined at the edge of 0______1) __________________ 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 31st March 2019 at 01:20 PM.
 31st March 2019, 12:59 PM #3301 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by Apathia Thank you! Dear Apathia please be aware that my framework is not only over matrix, as observed in the posts following your "Thank you!" post. If you carefully observe them, you may find how I am doing my best in order to define non-fixed numbers in therms of invariant proportion, which is a matrix fantasy that is not used by traditional mathematicians. By this matrix fantasy positional numeral system is defined as positional number system that enables deduction about non-fixed numbers, which are currently not accepted by traditional mathematicians, exactly because they define actual infinity in terms of the composed (in terms of collections). As you know, more details are already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3095 , but now (in order to not be closed under subject|object duality) I suggested to exchange "object" by "thing". More details are also given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3285 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3286 (in this post the term "thing" is used ( NOthing can also be visually represented by . and YESthing can also be visually represented by __ , in addition to the symbolic representation {}, where the outest "{" and "}" are the same as __ and the void between {} is the same as . )). __________________ 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 31st March 2019 at 01:45 PM.
 3rd April 2019, 03:55 AM #3302 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Here is a quote taken from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cusanus/#MetOnt about Nicolas of Cusa: Quote: Nicholas then proposes some geometrical “exercises” to provide his readers some object lessons designed to teach how we might reach for the unlimited even while we are aware that we cannot grasp what the infinite God may be. For instance, we are to imagine a circle and a straight line or tangent that meets the circle. From a certain perspective, as the diameter or circumference of the circle increases, its circumference approaches the straight line and appears less and less curved. If we then imagine and extrapolate the circumference to the infinite, we can almost “see” that both straight tangent and curved circumference should coincide—a kind of “coincidence of opposites” that is a figure of how we may think beyond limited things toward the transcendent One. Let's omit the "God stuff" and use the notion of the non-composed as follows: The non-composed in our awareness exercise is defined as an endless non-composed straight 1-dimensional thing (...____...) and as a point (0-dimensional thing (.) . By length observation ...____... is the biggest length and . is the smallest length. By curvature observation ...____... is the smallest curvature and . is the biggest curvature. ----------------- The most symmetrical thing which not ...____... AND not . , is called a circle. There are endlessly many circles that share a common property known as PI, which is the invariant proportion between circle's circumference and circle's diameter. So by this awareness exercise (which is done both visually AND verbally) no circle is ...____... or . (where ...____... or . are the extreme states that share the non-composed as their common property), whether it is observed in terms of length or in terms of curvature. Yet ...____... and . are reachable from a given circle or a collection of given circles, by finitely many steps. So finite collections (which are finitely composed things) are strong enough in order to actually reach ...____... or . non-composed extremes. Therefore finite collections are defined as finitely weaker than the non-composed (which is the common property of ...____... and .). On the contrary, infinite collections (which are infinitely composed things) are not strong enough in order to actually reach ...____... or . non-composed extremes. Therefore infinite collections are defined as infinitely weaker than the non-composed (which is the common property of ...____... and .). Generally, more you composed less you accessible to the non-composed (this observation is logically supported by visual_spatial AND verbal symbolic deduction, as given by https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3h...ew?usp=sharing which rigorously demonstrates how endless upwards growth of the bivalent tree (which is the most basic logical structure) is developed in the opposite direction w.r.t the non-composed (called Unity in this diagram)). ------------------ By generalization of the awareness exercise the non-composed (which is the common property of ...____... and .) is defined as actual infinity, where the composed is finitely weaker OR infinitely weaker than actual infinity. The infinitely weaker than actual infinity is defined as potential infinity. By this generalization, actual infinity (which is the non-composed) can't be measured or be used as a measurement of the composed, whether it is finitely OR infinitely composed. So no collection (which is a composed thing ( circles' multiplicity is the result of not being ...____... AND not being . )) is mensurable in terms of actual infinity (which is the non-composed that is the common property of ...____... and .). -------------------------- Another aspect of this awareness exercise, is the ability to observe circles "objectively" (from the outside) from ...____... to the collection of circles, or "subjectively" (from the inside) from . to the collection of circles. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What is given above can't be known by using verbal_symbolic-only observation, and unfortunately the treatment of modern mathematics (which is also known as traditional mathematics) of infinity, is done only in the domain of the composed, and because of this reason actual infinity is understood and defined in terms of the composed (in terms of collections). --------------------------------------------------- This Fundamental Conceptual Mistake simply prevents one of being aware of actual infinity (which is essentially non-composed). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By being aware of the non-composed without being lost within its finite or infinitely many expressions, life phenomena is actually fulfilled. __________________ 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 3rd April 2019 at 05:48 AM.
 4th April 2019, 01:17 AM #3303 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 By http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3302 it is concluded that the whole (the non-composed) is not the sum of its expressions, which means that the non-composed is THE EXISTENCE (also called BEING, BRAHMAN, EIN-SOF, etc.) that is not limited by its collection of (finite or potentially infinite) expressions. Life phenomenon that is aware of THE EXISTENCE during its collection of (finite or potentially infinite) expressions, has TRUE free will known also as Samādhi (also called Unity Consciousness). But as you notice, no representation (visual_spatial, verbal_symbolic etc. or their associations) is THE EXISTENCE (The thing in itself). __________________ 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 4th April 2019 at 01:35 AM.
 14th April 2019, 07:17 AM #3304 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Zeno's Achilles\Tortoise Race First, one has to define what are the minimal conditions that enable a race, in the first place. Both in Mathematics and Physics there are primitive notions which are themselves undefined, and they are used as the building blocks of deduction or induction in order to avoid endless regression (An endless regression prevents a strict solution of some problem). In that case we may ask: Is a solution is always a strict solution, or there are also solutions that are not strict (which means that endless regression (or endless progression) is also a possible solution)? In order to demonstrate these notions, let's carefully observe, for example, point and line as primitive notions under Hilbert's axiom system of Euclidean Geometry: "1. For every two points A and B there exists a line a that goes through A and goes through B ." If we understand primitive notions in terms of atoms, then atoms are actually non-composed things (they are not defined by other building blocks since they are themselves building blocks). In that case a line is not a collection of points (it is a non-composed thing exactly as a point is a non-composed thing) which means that the term "goes through" does not define a point as a building block of a line, and no collection of points is a line. Now, by using these observations, let's carefully observe the minimal conditions that enable a race, in the first place. If only a line is considered, we can't define points along the line that define at least two competitors. If only a point is considered, then nor competitors neither a race path are definable. So, the minimal conditions that enable a race is a line and at least two points along it, such that a point and a line are non-composed (they are not building blocks of each other and yet they can associate through their common property of being non-composed). The existence of a line as a non-composed thing (as a building-block) is stronger then any collection of distinct points along it. As a result, in order to actually reach a given point from another given point, it is done by a single non-composed line segment, which simultaneously connects the given pair of distinct points with each other. Such connections, are always done by finitely many steps. Therefore, a finite collection of points is defined as finitely weaker than the existence of a line (which is a non-composed thing). Moreover, by this observation, the existence of a line as a non-composed thing, defines it as actual infinity, which is reachable by a collection of finitely many steps (a finite collection is finitely weaker than actual infinity). In that case a collection of infinitely many points along a given non-composed line is defined as infinitely weaker than actual infinity, and therefore its cardinality can't be defined by strict value (as done in case of finite cardinality), which means that infinite collections are no more than potential infinity that can't reach a given point by infinitely many steps. Let's use the observation of clapping hands. By this observation, one of your hands actually reaching your other hand only by finitely many steps, since finitely many steps are finitely weaker than actual infinity (which is the non-composed gap between your hands). Since potential infinity is infinitely weaker than the non-composed gap between your hands, no infinitely many steps of your hand actually reaching your other hand (since potential infinity is inaccessible to actual infinity, by definition). ---------------------------------------- Zeno's Achilles\Tortoise Race It is argued that Zeno's Achilles\Tortoise Race is not a paradox in real life because we can summarize non-finite values (where each value > 0) that are added to some initial value. By doing that we are able to get an accurate value, which is different from the initial value. For example: 1 is the initial value and 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+…= 2, where 2 is an accurate value that is different from the initial value 1. Actually the whole idea of Limits is somehow motivated by the desire to solve Zeno's Paradox. Let us investigate two different cases of Achilles\Tortoise Race: Case A: Achilles wins against the Tortoise OR Achilles and the Tortoise are on the same position, and the Race stops. Case B: Achilles does not win against the Tortoise, and the Race continues (actually forever). Case A: Distance = Speed * Time The next position of Achilles and the Tortoise along the Race = previous position + Distance. Case A exists only if neither Speed nor Time are changed during the Race. Let us show it by using an algorithm (no particular programming language is used here): Position X1 = 0 Position X2 = 10 Achilles Speed = Aspeed = 10 Tortoise Speed = Tspeed = 1 Time = 1 Do Loop K from 1 to forever Achilles position = position X1 + distance ( = Aspeed * Time) Tortoise position = position X2 + distance (= Tspeed * Time) Position X1 = Achilles position Position X2 = Tortoise position If X1 ≥ X2 then STOP Next Loop K Loop K=1: Achilles position = 0 + (10 * 1) = 10 Tortoise position = 10 + (1 * 1) = 11 Position X1 = Achilles position = 10 Position X2 = Tortoise position = 11 If X1 ≥ X2 then STOP (The Race continues after Loop K=1, since Tortoise position > Achilles position) Next Loop K=1 Loop K=2: Achilles position = 10 + (10 * 1) = 20 Tortoise position = 11 + (1 * 1) = 12 Position X1 = Achilles position = 20 Position X2 = Tortoise position = 12 If X1 ≥ X2 then STOP (The Race stops after Loop K=2, since Tortoise position < Achilles position) Next Loop K=2 Case A is finitely weaker than actual infinitely. -------------- Case B: Distance = Speed * Time In case B , Time is changed during the Race. Let us show it by using an algorithm (no particular programming language is used here): Position X1 = 0 Position X2 = 10 Achilles Speed = Aspeed = 10 Tortoise Speed = Tspeed = 1 Time = 1 Do Loop K from 1 to forever Achilles position = position X1 + distance ( = Aspeed * Time) Tortoise position = position X2 + distance (= Tspeed * Time) Position X1 = Achilles position Position X2 = Tortoise position If X1 ≥ X2 then STOP Time = Time / Aspeed (Achilles Speed = Aspeed = 10) Next Loop K Loop K=1: Achilles position = 0 + (10 * 1) = 10 Tortoise position = 10 + (1 * 1) = 11 Position X1 = Achilles position = 10 Position X2 = Tortoise position = 11 If X1 ≥ X2 then STOP Time = Time / Aspeed (Achilles Speed = Aspeed = 10) = 0.1 (The Race continues after Loop K=1) Next Loop K=1 Loop K=2: Achilles position = 10 + (10 * 0.1) = 11 Tortoise position = 11 + (1 * 0.1) = 11.1 Position X1 = Achilles position = 11 Position X2 = Tortoise position = 11.1 If X1 ≥ X2 then STOP Time = Time / Aspeed (Achilles Speed = Aspeed = 10) = 0.01 (The Race continues after Loop K=2) Next Loop K=2 Loop K=3: Achilles position = 11 + (10 * 0.01) = 11.1 Tortoise position = 11.1 + (1 * 0.01) = 11.11 Position X1 = Achilles position = 11.1 Position X2 = Tortoise position = 11.11 If X1 ≥ X2 then STOP Time = Time / Aspeed (Achilles Speed = Aspeed = 10) = 0.001 (The Race continues after Loop K=3) Next Loop K=3 ... Loop K n+1 The Race continues forever because any given position of Achilles and the Tortoise that comes next is the result of previous positions + Distances values, where each Distance value > 0 (Achilles position < Tortoise position is an invariant state). Case B is infinitely weaker than actual infinitely. For more details, please observe http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3302 . ------------------- Traditional mathematicians take such loops as a sequence of partial sums. For example, they are claim that 0.999... is not a term of the following sequence of partial sums: (0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...) Let's check this claim. The result of Code: ``` 1 ↓ 2 0.9 = 0.9 ↓ 3 0.99 = 0.9 ( + 0.09) ↓ 0.999 = 0.9+0.09 ( + 0.009) ...``` Is actually the same as Code: ``` 1 2 3 ... ↓ ↓ ↓ 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ...``` or in other words, 0.999... is embedded in (0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...) even if it is not one of its exposed terms. What we care is about the result of the series of infinitely many 0.9+0.09+0.009+... added finite numbers (where every one of them > 0) which are embedded in the infinitely many terms of the sequence (0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...). -------------------- Also we are aware that any infinite collection is infinitely weaker than actual infinity (which is non-composed, as observed in this 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 14th April 2019 at 08:41 AM.
 21st April 2019, 08:51 AM #3305 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Logic, numbers and fractals by visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning More you composed less you accessible to the non-composed (this observation is logically supported by visual_spatial AND verbal symbolic deduction, as given by the following diagram, which rigorously defines how endless upwards growth of the bivalent tree (which is the most basic logical structure) is developed in the opposite direction w.r.t the non-composed): Moreover, this diagram rigorously defines that actual infinity is reachable by finitely many steps (it is finitely weaker than actual infinity), where potential infinity is infinitely weaker than actual infinity exactly because it is developed in the opposite direction w.r.t actual infinity. The bivalent tree is also the simplest form of an endless fractal. Being an endless fractal is exactly the result of a non-composed domain of at least __ (1-dimensional thing) between any pair of non-composed . . (0-dimensional things) that are notated by "0" or "1" symbols along the endless fractal. Exactly the same form ( given in ) is used at the right side of the radix point, by the base 2 positional number system, where the "...1" part of the verbal_symbolic expression "0.000...1", defines a non-composed domain of at least __ (1-dimensional thing), which endlessly prevents 0.111...[base 2] from being equal to 1.000... (where no partial sums are involved along the endless fractal. The verbal_symbolic-only mathematics simply omits the non-composed domain along the endless fractal, and as a result, there is no wonder that by such framework 0.111...[base 2] = 1.000... etc.﻿ __________________ 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 21st April 2019 at 10:49 AM.
 21st April 2019, 12:08 PM #3306 sackett Philosopher   Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Detroit Posts: 5,664 Crank it up! Loop K=2: Whaat???? Position X1 = Achilles position = 11 ---- Palyndromic Number # 2 = 2! : 3113, 414, summed accretion = simoleon’s constant, here \$Position X2 = Tortoise position = 11.1 If X1 \$ X2 then STOP THAT! IT JUST HURTS! Achilles’ position = 10 + (10 * 0.1) = 11 See? All palindromic all over the place. Tortoise poison = 11 + pi or fake infinity. None of your actual infinity, please. \$ : Being unaware of the composted infinitely many expressions, life phenomena is a plural singular. Time = Time / Airspeed (Achilles Speed = As peed = ) means diddly (The Race continues after Poop K=2.) . Next doop K=2 Whut? __________________ Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
 3rd August 2019, 05:40 AM #3307 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Do Godel's Incompleteness Theorems imply the inconsistency of ZFC+Axiom Of Infinity? Maybe I mix up things, so in order to understand it properly I ask the following question: According to Modern Mathematics (where the majority of mathematicians agree about the notion of actual infinite sets, as established mostly by George Cantor) an inductive set (as given by ZF(C) Axiom Of Infinity) has an accurate cardinality, which implies that it is complete (no one of its members is missing). In other words, by ZF(C) Axiom Of Infinity there exists at least one infinite AND complete set (if we agree with the notion of actual infinity, as mostly established by Cantor). Now, assume a complete set of infinite axioms (according to the reasoning of actual infinity, as established mostly by Cantor and agreed by the majority of modern mathematicians). But by Godel's Incompleteness Theorems such set of axioms must be inconsistent. In this case, isn't ZF(C) Axiom Of Infinity is some kind of a "Trojan horse" that prevents the consistency of ZF(C)? ---------------------------------------------------- A similar (but not identical) question can be found in https://math.stackexchange.com/quest...mber-of-axioms (as much as I understand, it is only similar since it does not deal specifically with actual infinity). __________________ 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 3rd August 2019 at 06:21 AM.
 3rd August 2019, 12:50 PM #3308 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Also here is a quote taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B...eness_theorems "The incompleteness theorems apply only to formal systems which are able to prove a sufficient collection of facts about the natural numbers. One sufficient collection is the set of theorems of Robinson arithmetic Q. Some systems, such as Peano arithmetic, can directly express statements about natural numbers. Others, such as ZFC set theory, are able to interpret statements about natural numbers into their language. Either of these options is appropriate for the incompleteness theorems." Also please look how Completeness and Consistency are defined in the following links: 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B...s#Completeness 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B...ms#Consistency Please read the answer in the given link in my previous post, about axiom schema. As for ZF(C) Axiom Of Infinity, all I care is that an inductive set is defined in terms of actual infinity (which means that a set of infinitely many members is taken as completed whole (no one of its members is missing, for example: the set of all natural numbers) as done by accepting the independent existence of infinite sets (from us, the human beings) in a Platonic realm). __________________ 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.
 3rd August 2019, 06:15 PM #3309 jsfisher ETcorngods survivorModerator     Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 22,458 Against my better judgement, I am going to assume you are sincere in your last two posts and that this isn't just another opportunity for you tell us about your elite cognition skills that let you know things to be true by simple assumption. First off, you seem to be conflating two uses of "complete", Cantor's and Godel's. Don't do that. Second, you posts spent more time with meaningless asides than actually getting to your point. What Cantor established and what most mathematicians agree are all relevant. ZF and ZFC Set Theories have the Axiom of Infinity (as do many set theories). Period. But even the Axiom of Infinity isn't all that important other than Godel's Incompleteness Theorem has as its basis a set theory that includes infinite sets. Pushing aside all the irrelevant baggage from your posts leaves very little to go on, but I think you are trying to express the following: Godel's Incompleteness Theorems (GIT) apply to ZF and ZFC. Let A1 be the set of axioms that define ZFC. (We only need one for the exercise. I pick ZFC.) Assume ZFC is consistent (otherwise it wouldn't be all that useful). It must therefore be incomplete according to GIT. (Notice the setup for a proof by contradiction.) GIT can be used to construct a statement, G, in ZFC that cannot be proven in ZFC nor can its negation be proven. Let A2 be all of A1 plus G. That is, we are constructing a new version of ZFC in which G is an additional axiom. This new version of ZFC still must be incomplete. GIT can be used to construct a statement, G, in this extended ZFC that cannot be proven in the extended ZFC nor can its negation be proven. Let A3 be all of A2 plus G. That is, we are constructing a new version of the extended ZFC in which G is an additional axiom Lather, rinse, repeat. Ok so far? At some point, or so the argument goes, the axiom set A grows to an infinite size. Wouldn't that set then be complete (in the Cantor sense) and therefore complete (in the Godel sense) since all unprovable statements would have been added to the axiom set? And therefore wouldn't it be inconsistent (as required by Godel)? No. And the problem with the reasoning isn't easy to explain, but it rests mostly on difference between cardinal numbers and ordinal numbers. The subscript on the A is an ordinal. There is no last ordinal in the progression. When the axiom set "gets" to infinite size (cardinality), it still is incomplete in the Godel sense, and there is yet another G to be added to move the axiom set to the next ordinal. __________________ 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
 3rd August 2019, 09:14 PM #3310 caveman1917 Philosopher   Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 6,738 Originally Posted by jsfisher And the problem with the reasoning isn't easy to explain, but it rests mostly on difference between cardinal numbers and ordinal numbers. The subscript on the A is an ordinal. There is no last ordinal in the progression. When the axiom set "gets" to infinite size (cardinality), it still is incomplete in the Godel sense, and there is yet another G to be added to move the axiom set to the next ordinal. This implies that there does not exist a way to determine, when given a sentence s and an axiom set A, that s is a Godel sentence with respect to A? Is this related to the Halting Problem? __________________ "Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos "We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons "Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
 4th August 2019, 01:50 AM #3311 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by jsfisher At some point, or so the argument goes, the axiom set A grows to an infinite size. Wouldn't that set then be complete (in the Cantor sense) and therefore complete (in the Godel sense) since all unprovable statements would have been added to the axiom set? And therefore wouldn't it be inconsistent (as required by Godel)? No. And the problem with the reasoning isn't easy to explain, but it rests mostly on difference between cardinal numbers and ordinal numbers. The subscript on the A is an ordinal. There is no last ordinal in the progression. When the axiom set "gets" to infinite size (cardinality), it still is incomplete in the Godel sense, and there is yet another G to be added to move the axiom set to the next ordinal. Do you mean that Godel numbers are not restricted only to 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 4th August 2019 at 03:01 AM.
 4th August 2019, 05:36 AM #3312 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by jsfisher And the problem with the reasoning isn't easy to explain, but it rests mostly on difference between cardinal numbers and ordinal numbers. I will rephrase my question: Are the natural numbers sufficient enough in order to define Godel numbering in order to logically establish Godel's first incompleteness theorem, or also infinite ordinals (for example, ω, ω+1, ω+2, ... etc.) must be used ? __________________ 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 4th August 2019 at 05:42 AM.
 4th August 2019, 05:47 AM #3313 caveman1917 Philosopher   Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 6,738 Originally Posted by doronshadmi Do you mean that Godel numbers are not restricted only to natural numbers? Start by enumerating the odd natural numbers: 1, 3, 5, ... By the "end" you got yourself an infinite set yet you still have natural numbers to add (all the even ones). Similarly, using GIT you can add G_1, G_2, G_3, ... to your axiom set A. By the "end" you got yourself an infinite axiom set yet you still have G's to add. Now suppose rather than using GIT to "spew out" one G at a time, you have a function IS_GODEL(s, A) which, given a sentence s and an axiom set A, tells you if s is a Godel sentence with respect to A (ie s is un(dis)provable from A). Then you can go through all G's in a different way, go through all possible sentences (finite strings in a finite alphabet, trivially enumerable) and for each one check IS_GODEL(s, A) and, if so, add s to A. When you get to the "end" that way you have added every G (you've gone through every possible sentence, including every possible G). The set A would now be consistent and complete. So we conclude that IS_GODEL does not exist. An example of IS_GODEL could be constructed as follows. Let PROOF_VER(p, s, A) be a proof verification function, returning true iff p is a sound proof of s or ~s from axiom set A. Let PROOF_GEN(s, A) be the following function: { for each finite string p: if PROOF_VER(p, s, A) then Halt } Then let IS_GODEL(s, A) be the following function: { return false iff PROOF_GEN(s, A) halts } And since IS_GODEL does not exist, therefor it is undecidable whether PROOF_GEN halts. Which is why I asked whether this was related to the Halting problem. __________________ "Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos "We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons "Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin Last edited by caveman1917; 4th August 2019 at 07:18 AM.
 4th August 2019, 07:06 AM #3314 caveman1917 Philosopher   Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 6,738 Originally Posted by caveman1917 Which is why I asked whether this was related to the Halting problem. Turns out that it is. Though that one goes in the other direction: Halting problem -> GIT, rather than GIT -> Halting problem. __________________ "Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos "We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons "Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin Last edited by caveman1917; 4th August 2019 at 07:15 AM.
 4th August 2019, 07:25 AM #3315 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by caveman1917 Start by enumerating the odd natural numbers: 1, 3, 5, ... By the "end" you got yourself an infinite set yet you still have natural numbers to add (all the even ones). Similarly, using GIT you can add G_1, G_2, G_3, ... to your axiom set A This is not the case with ZF(C) Axiom Of Infinity as the basis of infinite axiom set A, since no member is missing by this axiom (or more precisely, no Godel number which is used to encode G, is missing). Since nothing is missing, then infinite axiom set A is complete and therefore inconsistent by Godel's first incompleteness theorem. jsfisher tries to eliminate my question by using the difference between cardinals (related only to collection's size) and ordinals (related to collection's order), but since ZF(C) Axiom Of Infinity is the basis of infinite axiom set A (and also the basis of Godel's numbers (i.e. the natural numbers) which are used to encode G), no G can be added to A. In other words, A is complete and therefore inconstant, exactly because A and Godel's numbers are established by the same axiom, ZF(C) Axiom Of Infinity. So, by accepting the set of natural numbers in terms of actual infinity (which means that there exists a complete set of infinitely many natural numbers) as established by ZF(C) Axiom Of Infinity, and by using all of them in order to encode G's, No extension of A is logically possible, so A is complete and therefore inconsistent. This kind of reply Originally Posted by jsfisher No. And the problem with the reasoning isn't easy to explain, but it rests mostly on difference between cardinal numbers and ordinal numbers. The subscript on the A is an ordinal. There is no last ordinal in the progression. When the axiom set "gets" to infinite size (cardinality), it still is incomplete in the Godel sense, and there is yet another G to be added to move the axiom set to the next ordinal. Does not provide any answer to my question. __________________ 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 4th August 2019 at 07:34 AM.
 4th August 2019, 07:28 AM #3316 caveman1917 Philosopher   Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 6,738 Originally Posted by doronshadmi jsfisher tries to eliminate my question by using the difference between cardinals (related only to collection's size) and ordinals (related to collection's order) Correctly so. The sets 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... and 1, 3, 5, ..., 2, 4, 6, ... have the same cardinal number but different ordinal numbers. I tried to find a way around it by using a specific enumeration such that nothing is "skipped" by the time the set becomes infinite, but ended up with the halting problem. Either way, I have no interest in further discussing this with you, you should discuss it with jsfisher instead. I simply stumbled upon the halting problem when trying to get around his argument as I read the paragraph I quoted, so I asked him about it. Quote: So, by accepting the set of natural numbers in terms of actual infinity (which means that there exists a complete set of infinitely many natural numbers) as established by ZF(C) Axiom Of Infinity, and by using all of them in order to encode G's, No extension of A is logically possible, so A is complete and therefore inconsistent. Of course the set of all possible sentences is inconsistent. Both "1 + 1 = 2" and "1 + 1 = 3" would be in that set. __________________ "Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos "We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons "Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin Last edited by caveman1917; 4th August 2019 at 07:37 AM.
 4th August 2019, 07:40 AM #3317 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by caveman1917 Of course the set of all possible sentences is inconsistent. Both "1 + 1 = 2" and "1 + 1 = 3" would be in that set. In that case, do you agree that anything that is established by ZF(C) Axiom Of Infinity in terms of actual infinity, is logically inconsistent (whether is the infinite set of all natural numbers, or the infinite axiom set A)? __________________ 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.
 4th August 2019, 07:48 AM #3318 caveman1917 Philosopher   Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 6,738 Originally Posted by doronshadmi In that case, do you agree that anything that is established by ZF(C) Axiom Of Infinity in terms of actual infinity, is logically inconsistent (whether is the infinite set of all natural numbers, or the infinite axiom set A)? Of course not, don't be silly. Fundamentally your problem is that you are too attached to your ideas, you can not accept that your claim has been proven wrong. Your aversion to cognitive dissonance is ultimately a psychological problem and not a mathematical one, so I can't help you with that. Learn to enjoy disproving your own ideas, it is the only way to learn, if it can be destroyed by proof then it should be - also, see the last quote in my signature. __________________ "Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos "We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons "Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
 4th August 2019, 08:01 AM #3319 doronshadmi Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 12,943 Originally Posted by caveman1917 Correctly so. The sets 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... and 1, 3, 5, ..., 2, 4, 6, ... have the same cardinal number but different ordinal numbers. It does not matter, since all we care (if we accept actual infinity) is that all Godel's numbers (no matter how they are ordered) are already used to encode all G's, and therefore no G is added to A, which means that A is complete and therefore inconsistent. Since ZF(C) Axiom Of Infinity is taken in terms of Cantorean actual infinity, don't you think that, by using Godel first incompleteness theorem, such that The Axiom Of Infinity "works" as an expansion mechanism on ZF(C), we logically get complete and therefore inconsistent axiomatic system? __________________ 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. Last edited by doronshadmi; 4th August 2019 at 08:02 AM.
 4th August 2019, 08:20 AM #3320 caveman1917 Philosopher   Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 6,738 Originally Posted by doronshadmi Since ZF(C) Axiom Of Infinity is taken in terms of Cantorean actual infinity, don't you think that, by using Godel first incompleteness theorem, such that The Axiom Of Infinity "works" as an expansion mechanism on ZF(C), we logically get complete and therefore inconsistent axiomatic system? Yes, of course the set of all possible sentences is complete and inconsistent. GOTO 3316 and don't come out of the loop until you understand that. __________________ "Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos "We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons "Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin Last edited by caveman1917; 4th August 2019 at 09:26 AM.

International Skeptics Forum