• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nonpareil said:
Or actual answers to any questions of any kind, it seems.

How does a set being defined by the successor relationship necessitate that it is "permanently under construction", doron? What does "permanently under construction" even mean?

Throwing a tantrum in response to simple questions is not a good way to convince people of your new mathematical system's validity.
Click to expand...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11265933&postcount=1272 provides all is needed, including your view about definitions.
 
doronshadmi said:
url]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11265933&postcount=1272[/url] provides all is needed, including your view about definitions.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. It doesn't answer a single one of my questions.

What does "permanently under construction" mean, doronshadmi?

jsfisher said:
We are now getting into the side-shuffle phase. Doron will explain his undefined concepts by substituting in new meaningless terms.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes. I know his game. But, at this point in the thread, it is more than clear that nothing said will ever convince him of the failure of even a single point of his nonsense system. Once things devolve into the point of infinite repetition, where his posts consist of nothing but walls of links to posts that don't even begin to answer the points raised against him, it gets boring.

I prefer to kick the can down the road a little bit, just to see what sort of nonsense will be forthcoming next. It's more entertaining that way.
 
Nonpareil said:
What does "permanently under construction" mean, doronshadmi?
Click to expand...
The meaning is already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11271084&postcount=1374 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11271494&postcount=1388 and logically (by using OR connective between two true options) supported by:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11272022&postcount=1395

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11272467&postcount=1400

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11270979&postcount=1367

And once again, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11272488&postcount=1402 is not informative. if you wish to say something please do it by reply, in details, according to what is written in my posts.

If your next reply will be non-informative, you once again earn your place in my ignore list.

I will continue to look at your replies, and I will reply to any informative post of yours.

Both options are true:

(If your reply is informative, then I will reply to it) OR (If your reply is ~informative, then I will ~reply to it)
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The meaning is already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11271084&postcount=1374 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11271494&postcount=1388 and logically (by using OR connective between two true options) supported by:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11272022&postcount=1395

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11272467&postcount=1400

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11270979&postcount=1367

And once again, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11272488&postcount=1402 is not informative. if you wish to say something please do it by reply, in details, according to what is written in my posts.

If your next reply will be non-informative, you once again earn your place in my ignore list.

I will continue to look at your replies, and I will reply to any informative post of yours.

Both options are true:

(If your reply is informative, then I will reply to it) OR (If your reply is ~informative, then I will ~reply to it)
Click to expand...

None of the posts listed above that are yours have the word construction.

Edit: or even the word under.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher said:
Doron has told us that
IsComplete X <=> {X} IsSuccessorOf X, and
Y IsSuccessorOf Z <=> Y = {Z}​
Click to expand...
Well, this is what you tell only to yourself, and as a result you are going nowhere.
Click to expand...

No, it is what you told us. In a previous post I provided the links to your posts where you first confirmed each. You have since reconfirmed the first, and you have been invited to reconfirm or correct the second.

I invite you yet again: Is the logic statement, J IsSuccessorOf K, equivalent to the statement, J = {K}. If not, then what?
 
doronshadmi said:
The meaning is already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11271084&postcount=1374 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11271494&postcount=1388
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.

What does "permanently under construction" mean? What properties does a set that is permanently under construction have that differ from those of one that is not?

doronshadmi said:
If your next reply will be non-informative, you once again earn your place in my ignore list.
Click to expand...

I'm crushed. This makes such a change from the usual discussion with you.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Leaving in the past as if it is the present, get you to nowhere.
Click to expand...

Mathematics doesn't change on a whim, Doron. Not even on your whim.

You provided definitions. They stand as is. You can provide corrections if need be, but it still needs to be in the form of an equivalence relationship. A IsSuccessorOf B is equivalent to what, precisely?

Here's the incumbent:
A IsSuccessorOf B <=> A = {B}​
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Complete OR Incomplete are properties.

A set that is permanently under construction is Incomplete.

A set that is not permanently under construction is Complete.
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer my question. Mechanically, mathematically if you will, how does a set that is permanently under construction behave differently from one that is not?

doronshadmi said:
The details are found in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11272627&postcount=1405.
Click to expand...

No, they aren't. The only things found in that post are links to more posts that fail to address the question.
 
Nonpareil said:
The only things found in that post are links to more posts that fail to address the question.
Click to expand...
Since you continue with your non-informative style, by avoiding any detailed replies to these links, you are going to my ignore list.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Mathematics doesn't change on a whim, Doron. Not even on your whim.

You provided definitions. They stand as is. You can provide corrections if need be, but it still needs to be in the form of an equivalence relationship. A IsSuccessorOf B is equivalent to what, precisely?

Here's the incumbent:
A IsSuccessorOf B <=> A = {B}​
Click to expand...

There is no whim in A IsSuccessorOf OR ~IsSuccessorOf B, as clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11272022&postcount=1395.

The details are in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11272566&postcount=1403.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
you are forcing something to be an operator, where it is actually a property.
Click to expand...

I am asking you to define something, but you seem more interested in changing what you call it, instead.

If <something> is a property of a set, then Is<something> is a perfectly reasonable predicate for a set.

You claim <something> is a property of a set. If so, then you should be able to define the behavior of Is<something> as a set predicate.

But you can't, can you? Prove me wrong:
IsComplete A <=> ...?
A IsSuccessorOf B <=> ...?​
 
doronshadmi said:
Since you continue with your non-informative style, by avoiding any detailed replies to these links, you are going to my ignore list.
Click to expand...

There is nothing to reply to. Your links do not answer the question raised.

And I am absolutely crushed at being added to ignore. How will I ever cope with this sudden lack of answers to my questions?

...Oh.

Wait.
 
jsfisher said:
I am asking you to define something, but you seem more interested in changing what you call it, instead.

If <something> is a property of a set, then Is<something> is a perfectly reasonable predicate for a set.

You claim <something> is a property of a set. If so, then you should be able to define the behavior of Is<something> as a set predicate.

But you can't, can you? Prove me wrong:
IsComplete A <=> ...?
A IsSuccessorOf B <=> ...?​
Click to expand...

A IsSuccessorOf OR ~IsSuccessorOf B.

If operator IsSuccessorOf is used between A and B, we write A IsSuccessorOf B.

If operator IsSuccessorOf is not used between A and B, we write A ~IsSuccessorOf B.


(If A IsSuccessorOf B, then B is incomplete, where incomplete is B's property) OR (If A ~IsSuccessorOf B, then B is complete, where complete is B's property).

Once again, Complete OR Incomplete are optional properties of B.

The details are http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11272566&postcount=1403.

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

IsComplete is your attempt to define a property is terms of an operator.

Moreover, the considered property is related to B, where your forced operator is related to A ("IsComplete A <=> ...?").

In other words, by such "reasoning" you are getting nowhere.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom