• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
jsfisher said:
Your response, coupled with a link to an irrelevant post, ...
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10112631&postcount=4147 is absolutely relevant and perfectly demonstrates your hands waving communication style, which does exactly nothing in order to get posts like http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10100311&postcount=4128.

jsfisher said:
There is no such notion within ZFC according to its axiomatic foundation.
Click to expand...
According to the current agreement about ZFC, which is totally depends on the current subjective level of thoughts among traditional mathematicians like you, the notion of set is not a tautological existence within ZFC, so?

Also the notion of term is not a tautological existence within WFF, according to the current agreement about WFF among traditional mathematicians like you, so?

You are simply doing exactly nothing in order deal with ∃x, where x is a placeholder for set, term etc. and ∃ is used for tautological existence, no matter what domain of discourse is used.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10112631&postcount=4147 is absolutely relevant
Click to expand...

That might be true if you were to completely ignore what I posted and all of its surrounding context. I prefer to work from what was actually written.

[And now, for something completely different...]
According to the current agreement about ZFC
Click to expand...

It is not an agreement. It is an axiomatic system.

With such an error at the start, there is no point examining the rest. Conclusions drawn from false premises are invalid.
 
jsfisher said:
It is not an agreement. It is an axiomatic system.
Click to expand...
It is a good example of how your subjective level of thoughts can't comprehend that the current ZFC axiomatic system is derived from your subjective level of thoughts.

In other words, you are doing exactly nothing to get new notions about ZFC axiomatic system.

You are completely ignore what I posted and all of its surrounding context, exactly as you are doing right now about the following:

You are simply doing exactly nothing in order deal with ∃x, where x is a placeholder for set, term etc. and ∃ is used for tautological existence, no matter what domain of discourse is used.

In case of set, Traditional Mathematics does not deal with tautological existence, and as a result ∃x (where in the case of ZFC axiomatic system, x is the notion of set) is not a valid expression of its domain of discourse.
 
Last edited:
Sigh...yet again another failure by Doron to step up to the plate and provide what he promised me dozens of pages ago in this thread. A simple, no-nonsense, no excuses, no buzzword, easy-to-understand summary paragraph using laymans terms that explains why his method works.

Howl in the wind all you want, Doron. I'll be over there -->
 
jsfisher said:
You have yet to show that. All well-formed formulae, by their very definition, can be constructed from a small set of rules. ∃x cannot be constructed from those rules, and so ∃x is not a well-formed formula.
Click to expand...
So you are using the notion of set in order to define the rules of WFF, which are used to define sets.

In other words, circular reasoning.

"Great" agreement among traditional mathematicians, isn't it jsfisher?

Let me help you, the small set of rules is a set of terms, where each term stands at the basis of WFF set of rules.

So no matter how it is called, in both WFF or ZFC systems you are simply doing exactly nothing in order deal with ∃x, where x is a placeholder for notions like set, term etc., where ∃ is used for tautological existence, no matter what domain of discourse is used.

Tautological existence is excluded from any domain of discourse according to the current agreement among traditional mathematicians like jsfisher.

As a result of this current agreement ∃x is not a valid mathematical expression in any domain of discourse among traditional mathematicians like jsfisher.

jsfisher said:
Yes. You seem to be beginning to understand.
Click to expand...

Moreover, where their agreements are challenged, they simply ignore it, whether this ignoring style is called 100% discount or any other fancy name.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
So you are using the notion of set in order to define the rules of WFF, which are used to define sets.
Click to expand...

No, I'm using colloquial language to express an idea.

Are you really so starved for attention you are dredging up all these old posts? Shouldn't you be off opening a TM clinic to save the Middle East from mass destruction?
 
jsfisher said:
No, I'm using colloquial language to express an idea.
Click to expand...

You wrote "by their very definition" so your colloquial language maneuvers are not impressive.

jsfisher said:
Are you really so starved for attention you are dredging up all these old posts?
Click to expand...
Time does not change the fact that your colloquial language maneuvers are not impressive.

jsfisher said:
Shouldn't you be off opening a TM clinic to save the Middle East from mass destruction?
Click to expand...
Shouldn't you be aware of the fact that 100% discount of X is no more than a colloquial language that is equivalent to ignoring X?

jsfisher said:
It is not an agreement. It is an axiomatic system.
Click to expand...

Also shouldn't you be aware of the fact that any given axiomatic system is based on an agreement among people about unproved expressions that are hopefully consistent with each other?

Or maybe your "It is not an agreement. It is an axiomatic system." is another demonstration of your colloquial language skills, who knows.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Time does not change the fact that your colloquial language maneuvers are not impressive.
Click to expand...

Doron please don't take offense but after 10,000+ posts it appears that you have failed to impress the great majority of posters on this board.

There is a recurring pattern. Someone will throw up an objection or a question or a concern, and after a few posts you'll give up and say they simply can't "get it", for whatever reason.

The majority of people on this forum seem to be reasonable individuals who are genuinely interested in being educated. Hence the "E" in JREF.

If after 10000+ posts you have failed to impress the majority of posters here with your theory / theories, it's not really our fault. It's your fault. I've been a teacher before, and while I've had the occasional student who just couldn't handle organic chemistry, most of my students "got it" after significantly less than 10,000+ interactions.

It's a sign that you're a poor teacher and a poor communicator of your ideas, because people are rejecting understanding them. Either that, or your ideas are simply wrong, and people are rejecting them for that reason.

But it's not the students fault if the teacher has ample lecture time and the earnest student still can't "get it". It's the teacher's fault. Either his ideas are wrong and the students rebel against that, or the concepts are so inefficiently communicated that students become hopelessly mired in terminology and conflicting concepts.

It's possible to become a better teacher. PM me if you like, and I can give you some tips on communication skills that I've learned during my career. Everyone has to learn these things, you're not born with them. You also need to consider that your ideas could be, well, wrong. They might need revising.

It could be a combination of the two. But you're not getting anywhere currently, so unless you want to continue blaming others for what are ultimately your problems, change. Learn about education, and revise your ideas to address serious concerns that others point out to you.

Otherwise, why should anyone listen to anything you have to say? You've had close to a decade and thousands of chances to explain your theory, and it hasn't worked, my man.
 
PiedPiper said:
Doron please don't take offense but after 10,000+ posts it appears that you have failed to impress the great majority of posters on this board.
Click to expand...
Let's use baby steps in order to rebuild the communication between us.

I say: "Wars start and end in people's minds, so the solution is profoundly related to people's minds".

Do you agree/disagree about that?
 
doronshadmi said:
Let's use baby steps in order to rebuild the communication between us.

I say: "Wars start and end in people's minds, so the solution is profoundly related to people's minds".

Do you agree/disagree about that?
Click to expand...


Off-topic BS. Please prove your claims.
 
doronshadmi said:
I take it as an axiom (where axioms do not need proves).

If you disagree that "Wars start and end in people's minds" then air your detailed view about it.
Click to expand...

Just one reason is needed here: "Hunger/food".

Unless you were imprecise and meant "Wars in the current times." (well, you could call the Boko Haram activities "hunger, but disguised as religion").

But then we still have:

"Disasters", "Ethnicity", "Religion" and I'll save a couple of others since I already know you by heart.

Whilst the latter two could be combined as "Culture", they are not in people's minds. Only misinformed people would say something like that.

Culture is the pattern and personal security in which you grow up. Changing that is not changing people's minds, but changing their environment.

And I would love to see you smooth out the culture of the Inuit with that of the Aboriginals.

But AdMan is right. This is another tangent you created so you do not need to answer the questions.
 
Let's assume that [0,1] is completely covered by R members.

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

So here the draft of my idea:

[0,1] is a non-empty closed interval that includes all the real numbers between 0 and 1 (including 0 and 1).

Let X be the set of closed intervals of R members that are included in [0,1], as follows:

X={[0,x1],[x1,x2],[x2,x3],[x3,x4],[x4,x5],…}, where |X|=|X={[0,x1],[x1,x2],[x2,x3],[x3,x4],[x4,x5],…}|

Each member of set X includes |R| amount of (almost only) unique R members along [0,1] (it is “almost only unique ...” because one or two R members in any given X member, overlapping one or two R members in one or two some other X member(s)).

If X has a finite cardinality, then there is no problem to completely cover [0,1] for example:

X={[0,1]}

X={[0,x1],[x1,1]}={[x1,1],[0,x1]} (the order of the members is insignificant, whether |X| is some finite cardinality, or even if |X|=|N| (in case that X is an infinite set)).

X={[0,x1],[x1,x2],[x2,x3],...,[xn,1]} etc. … (again, the order of the members is insignificant, whether |X| is some finite cardinality, or even if |X|=|N| (in case that X is an infinite set)).

But what if |X|=|N|?

In that case the closed interval of the form [x|N|,1] can’t be in the range of set X (|N| can’t be used as an index within set X, because |X|=|N|) and we can conclude that X={[0,x1],[x1,x2],[x2,x3],[x3,x4],[x4,x5],…}, where no X member can reach number 1 of the interval [0,1].

The closed interval of the form [x|N|,1] is equivalent to the mathematical expression |N|<|R|.

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

Ok, I'll be thankful for your remakes, corrections, questions, ideas.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
...
So here the draft of my idea:

[0,1] is a non-empty closed interval that includes all the real numbers between 0 and 1 (including 0 and 1).
Click to expand...

That's a matter of definition. No need to restate it.

Let X be the set of closed intervals of R members that are included in [0,1], as follows:

X={[0,x1],[x1,x2],[x2,x3],[x3,x4],[x4,x5],…}, where |X|=|X={[0,x1],[x1,x2],[x2,x3],[x3,x4],[x4,x5],…}|
Click to expand...

This lacks clarity. Based on how the rest of your post goes, I assume you mean something more like:
Let P be the ordered sequence 0 < a < b < c < d < ... < z < 1 and X = { [0,a], [a,b], [b,c], [c,d], ..., [z,1] }.​
This works fine for finite sequences, but if you intend to extend P to be an infinite sequence, it doesn't work so well. There is no last element, z, you can reference by its index.

So that's one problem you will need to resolve. Another is that an infinite sequence could have the same cardinality as R. Later in your post you assumed it to be limited to |N|.

...
The closed interval of the form [x|N|,1] is equivalent to the mathematical expression |N|<|R|.
Click to expand...

This does not follow from anything you posted. Moreover, it is unlikely you will be able to show equivalence of any interval to an order relationship.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom