Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

[Little 10 Toes]

And you ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11282274&postcount=1507.

I am not ignoring it, I am dismissing it. It does not define successor. You try to define the set X and/or the element {X}. Didn't ask for those. Still waiting to have you define successor. You have been spending too much time avoiding the simple question, what is the definition of successor?

 

[doronshadmi]

Right, so. Doronshadmi has effectively admitted that he cannot define "successor".

Wrong, you not effectively forcing {X} to be a successor, even if being a successor is not essential for {X}, as very simply shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11283539&postcount=1519.

Can we end the thread now?

No one forces you to reply to this thread.

 

[doronshadmi]

You have been spending too much time avoiding the simple question

You have been spending too much time avoiding the simple answer, as very simply explained in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11283539&postcount=1519.

 

[jsfisher]

And this ball is still red if it is colored as such. This ball is red OR this ball is not red.

Can you tell me the color of this ball?

 

[doronshadmi]

And this ball is still red if it is colored as such. This ball is red OR this ball is not red.

Can you tell me the color of this ball?

Since you are using an analogy by color, then the ball has Structural coloration ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_coloration ) that is changed by different points of view (no pigments are involved in our case).

 

[Little 10 Toes]

You have been spending too much time avoiding the simple answer, as very simply explained in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11283539&postcount=1519.

There is no definition of successor given in that post. Please try again.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Since you are using an analogy by color, then the ball has Structural coloration ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_coloration ) that is changed by different points of view (no pigments are involved in our case).

Once again you complicate things that are simple.

 

[jsfisher]

Once again you complicate things that are simple.

Obfuscate would be a better word.

 

[doronshadmi]

Once again you complicate things that are simple.

A specific color is not essential for our ball, exactly as being a successor is not essential for {X}.

It is a very simple, clear and profound notion that can be used in order to do an interesting mathematics.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Then if it is a "simple, clear, and profound notion", it won't be hard to define it.

Why can't you define successor?

 

[doronshadmi]

Why can't you define successor?

A specific color is not essential for our ball, exactly as being a successor is not essential for {X}, which means that "{X}$X OR {X}~$X" is the right wff in this case, and unlike "{} = {}", it is used to do an interesting mathematics, as can be seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11280119&postcount=1489.

 

[jsfisher]

A specific color is not essential for our ball, exactly as being a successor is not essential for {X}, which means that "{X}$X OR {X}~$X" is the right wff in this case, and unlike "{} = {}", it is used to do an interesting mathematics

And yet you cannot cite a single instantiation where the result of your OR-expression differs from {}={} in any way.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

A specific color is not essential for our ball, exactly as being a successor is not essential for {X}, which means that "{X}$X OR {X}~$X" is the right wff in this case, and unlike "{} = {}", it is used to do an interesting mathematics, as can be seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11280119&postcount=1489.

That post does not have the word successor, definition, or define.

I guess you can't define the word successor.

 

[doronshadmi]

That post does not have the word successor, definition, or define.

These words are found in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11278652&postcount=1460, but since you have the habit to ignore the links of given posts, you can't find them by looking only at post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11280119&postcount=1489.

 

[doronshadmi]

And yet you cannot cite a single instantiation where the result of your OR-expression differs from {}={} in any way.

Wrong, it is already done in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11280263&postcount=1491 and also discussed in:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11280605&postcount=1494

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11281413&postcount=1497

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11283539&postcount=1519

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11285574&postcount=1531

In other words, your claim has no basis, whatsoever.

 

[jsfisher]

Wrong, it is already done in...

None of those links include an instantiation.

 

[doronshadmi]

None of those links include an instantiation.

Please be more informative.

What do you mean by "instantiation"?

 

[jsfisher]

Please be more informative.

What do you mean by "instantiation"?

Without understanding the meaning of the term, you boldly provided links to multiple posts wherein you claimed instantiations were provided? Is this your preferred method of building credibility? It is not working.

By the way, instantiation is a common enough term in Mathematics. You asked about it once before, and I told you what it meant once before.

 

[doronshadmi]

Without understanding the meaning of the term, you boldly provided links to multiple posts wherein you claimed instantiations were provided? Is this your preferred method of building credibility? It is not working.

What you are doing is this:

"{} = {}" is a tautology.

"{X}$X OR {X}$X" is a tautology.

Since tautology = tautology, "{} = {}" is indistinguishable of "{X}$X OR {X}$X".

This is a trivial way of reasoning.

A non-trivial way of reasoning enables to distinguish between "{} = {}" and "{X}$X OR {X}$X" as follows:

"{} = {}" can't be used in order to define optional (non-essential) properties of mathematical objects, according to their relations with each other.

"{X}$X OR {X}$X" can be used in order to define optional (non-essential) properties of mathematical objects according to their relations with each other, where http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11285851&postcount=1535 is a concrete example of such non-trivial reasoning.

What you call instantiation is simply another name to force {X} to be a successor of X by using the wff "Y$Z <=> Y = {Z}", as if being a successor is an essential (non-optional) property of {X}.

By the way, instantiation is a common enough term in Mathematics. You asked about it once before, and I told you what it meant once before.

Yes teacher, I'm a naughty naughty boy.

 

[jsfisher]

By the way, instantiation is a common enough term in Mathematics. You asked about it once before, and I told you what it meant once before.

Yes teacher, I'm a naughty naughty boy.

More than that. It means you do not understand Mathematics, yet you are so willing to complain about it. It also means you make up terms without knowing what that mean either.

Everything in Doronetics is nonsense because (1) you don't understand what you are objecting to and (2) you don't understand what you fabricate that corrects the flaws you imagine to exist.