• 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.
Yeah, ok, whatever.

Let me know when you can define what you mean by product over a set. If what you want to talk about isn't defined, then there isn't much point talking about it, now is there?
Yeah, ok, whatever.

Traditional Mathematics' framework does not distinguish between the finite and the infinite, as actually essentially needed in case of http://math.stackexchange.com/quest...f-set-s-for-which-there-is-a-bijection-with-s , or distinguishes between the finite and the infinite, as actually essentially is not needed in case of http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2105990/infinite-multiplicity.

Please let me know when Traditional Mathematics' framework overcomes its artificial and twisted approach about these considered cases.
 
Last edited:
I wish to share with you some model (some analogy) that demonstrates the linkage between Logic and Physics.

The attached schema ( https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3929/15309487328_d8023ed9f0_b.jpg ) illustrates the possible associations between Bose-Einstein statistics (even function) and Fermi-Dirac statistics (odd function) and the mathematical concepts of contradiction (expressed as sine-like wave) and tautology (expressed as cosine-like wave).

By this model contradiction is the separator among universes, where each universe has its own tautology (its own natural constants and, so called, the laws of nature).

The simplest form in this model is illustrated by non-composed endless straight line, which is essentially not the sum of its vibrations simply because being non-composed endless straight line is independent of its sine-like/cosine-like vibrations, yet they are depend on it.

This asymmetry of dependency defines an anti-entropic realm since no amount of vibrations is the non-composed line in itself.

Being aware of the non-composed line during its vibrations, is actually Unity consciousness that is, in my opinion, the ultimate goal of life phenomena, that has no limits to its developed expressions, exactly because no amount of vibrations is the non-composed line in itself.

By not being limited by contradiction and tautology, life phenomena is beyond AND among the expressed universes, such that they become harmonious organs of a one organism, which is ever developed exactly because no organ harms the developments of the other organs, since the development is naturally derived from cross-universes' source, which is their cause.

From this notion, Mathematics is a fulfilled tool only if it supports the development of Unity consciousness among the expressed universes, such that they become ever developed organs of one harmonious self aware realm.

As I see it, Contemporary Mathematics that defines collections of infinitely many members by using fixed sizes like |N|, |R|, or defines the sum of infinitely many numbers, or multiplication of infinitely many (0,1] members by a single finite result, blocks the ever developed nature of multiplicity and the direct awareness of Unity as the cause of multiplicity, which can't express the full potential of Unity, since, unlike Unity, multiplicity is limited by contradiction and tautology.

As I see it, Mathematics is actually fulfilled in case that it also goes beyond contradiction and tautology, and enables one to directly be aware of Unity as their cause (or in terms of Physics, it enables one to directly be aware of Unity as the cause of Bose-Einstein statistics (even function) and Fermi-Dirac statistics (odd function)).

Direct awareness of Unity is not achieved at the realm of thoughts process, which is closed under multiplicity.

As I get it, one enables to transcend multiplicity by being aware of finer vibrations' levels of thoughts' process without being restricted to their semantics (they are taken only in terms of different levels of vibrations)) which enables quantum leap to the non-composed source of multiplicity and quantum leap back to multiplicity.

More such bidirectional quantum leaps are exercised in one's brain, more one's brain enables the awareness of Unity as the source of multiplicity during daily life.

In my opinion, Mathematical science has to deeply be involved in such exercises in order to really be fulfilled, where reasoning at the level of thoughts (which is restricted by contradiction and tautology, like any multiple phenomena) as currently done by Contemporary Mathematics, can't fulfill the actual abilities of this science among human beings.
 
Last edited:
In http://math.stackexchange.com/quest...nation-about-a-convergent-series-is-requested it is clearly shown how traditional mathematicians claim that one has to separate between a+b+c+d+... and 2X>X√2, without providing any logical basis for this claim.

Actually the two following diagrams visually AND symbolically prove that there there is no logical basis for such claim:


Mathematical fact 1: 2X>X√2 AND X>a+b+c+d+... (or if you will 2X>2(a+b+c+d+...)) are inseparable.

28314892783_93fe8f577f_z.jpg



Mathematical fact 2: X>0 AND X>2(a+b+c+d+...) are inseparable.

4430320710_686e9e991b.jpg


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

The current traditional mathematicians did not provide any logical basis to separate between 2X>X√2 AND X>a+b+c+d+... (or if you will 2X>2(a+b+c+d+...)) or between X>0 AND X>2(a+b+c+d+...).

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

As long as Mathematics does not fulfill one's visual AND symbolic brain skills, it is not used as a tool that enables to achieve Unity consciousness among those who practice it, as briefly discussed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11700724&postcount=2342.
 
Last edited:
Evidence?

@doromshadmi, there are two unrelated issues involved here and it clarifies the situation to separate them. One is the issue of the staircase line apparently converging to the diagonal without its length converging to the length of the diagonal, and the other is the issue of all partial sums falling short of the limit of the series. It is difficult to reach clarity in the matter until you agree to separate the two issues. – Mikhail Katz Aug 25 '16 at 12:42
http://math.stackexchange.com/quest...nation-about-a-convergent-series-is-requested

Next time please read the provided link before you reply.

More about Prof. Mikhail Katz can be seen in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Katz.
 
Last edited:

Your link is no good.

Next time please read the provided link before you reply.

Good advice. You should take it.


By the way, doronshadmi, please keep in mind a couple of things: (1) One person's off-hand, out of context comment does not constitute evidence for the general "traditional mathematicians" claim you made. (2) You may want to reconsider importing your stackexchange postings to here.

And for the absence of doubt, I make these statements not as a moderator.
 
Your link is no good.
Good advice. You should take it.
Yeh. That's is why you did not reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11680343&postcount=2341 , because "is no good" AND "Good advice." [to read it] and I "should take it", isn't it jsfisher? (shell we add also Hans Hüttel (http://vbn.aau.dk/en/persons/hans-huttel(374c283d-9961-4b1a-9fbd-77b4fa0dc30d).html) to your "One person's off-hand, out of context comment" list of traditional mathematicians?)

Is this how your logic works?

By the way, doronshadmi, please keep in mind a couple of things: (1) One person's off-hand, out of context comment does not constitute evidence for the general "traditional mathematicians" claim you made.
Prof. Mikhail Katz's comment is not "One person's off-hand, out of context comment". Actually now you ignore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Katz.

(2) You may want to reconsider importing your stackexchange postings to here.
It is not allowed by this forum (please ask Locknar about rule 4).

And for the absence of doubt, I make these statements not as a moderator.

And for the absence of doubt, your statements are useless
Edited by Agatha: 
Removed breach of rule 12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You are invited to support your claim that 2X > X√2 is incorrect
...
Please use, for example, X=1.

Why would I want to restrict myself to the case X = 1?

X = 0 is sufficient to disprove the claim, but any non-positive number would do.

Now, if you choose to introduce the constraint that when X is positive, then 2X > X√2, your claim would become trivially true and not at all interesting.

Was there some point you were trying to make with your claim that 2X > X√2? So far, it appears your claim was either flatly wrong or incompletely stated but trivial.
 
Why would I want to restrict myself to the case X = 1?
You don't have to, X is any positive value.

X = 0 is sufficient to disprove the claim, but any non-positive number would do.
Complete nonsense that has nothing to do with
28314892783_93fe8f577f_z.jpg


Now, if you choose to introduce the constraint that when X is positive, then 2X > X√2, your claim would become trivially true and not at all interesting.
It is mostly interesting since (by the considered diagram) 2X > X√2 AND 2X>2(a+b+c+d+...) are inseparable.

Was there some point you were trying to make with your claim that 2X > X√2? So far, it appears your claim was either flatly wrong or incompletely stated but trivial.
Thank you for supporting my claim about the inability of traditional mathematicians to deal with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11702679&postcount=2343, exactly because traditional mathematicians do not use their visual AND symbolic brain skills, as you clearly demonstrate here by define X=0 OR X<0, which has nothing to do with the considered diagrams.

The twisted maneuvers of traditional mathematicians about the issue at hand are trivially seen.
 
Last edited:
A correction: In your figure, a+b+c+d+...clearly add up to X, so 2X=2(a+b+c+d+...). A good illustration of the solutions to Zeno's and similar paradoxes.
Hi Hevneren, welcome.

Like jsfisher, you are using symbolic-only reasoning.

In my figure a+b+c+d+...clearly does not add up to X, exactly because of the fact that in this figure (by using visual AND symbolic reasoning) 2X>X√2 AND X>a+b+c+d+... are inseparable.

More details are given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11702679&postcount=2343.

Also please look at https://scholar.google.co.il/schola...symbolic+reasoning"&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1.
 
Last edited:
Thank you.

Doron, it appears that you are the one using symbolic-only reasoning. You seem to claim that since you can never write down all the a, b, c, d etc. symbols because there are infinitely many of them, the horizontal arrow in your illustration can never reach the right edge of the large square. But if you use visual reasoning, you see that it in fact does.

The terms a, b, c, d.. form an infinite geometric series, the sum of which is well known. It's X in this case.

So, using both visual AND symbolic reasoning we find that X=a+b+c+d+...
 
Thank you.

Doron, it appears that you are the one using symbolic-only reasoning. You seem to claim that since you can never write down all the a, b, c, d etc. symbols because there are infinitely many of them, the horizontal arrow in your illustration can never reach the right edge of the large square.
I do not claim anything of what you wrote above.

By using visual AND symbolic reasoning it is easily understood that since 2X>X√2, X must be > a+b+c+d+...

They are inseparable of each other if one actually uses visual AND symbolic reasoning in order to understand the following diagram:

28314892783_93fe8f577f_z.jpg


You are missing this inseparability exactly because you are using symbolic-only reasoning.

Moreover, your claim about my claim clearly demonstrates that you understand my claim by using symbolic-only reasoning.

The terms a, b, c, d.. form an infinite geometric series, the sum of which is well known.
It is "well known" any one that uses symbolic-only reasoning.

Please read all of what is written also in the link at the beginning of post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11702679&postcount=2343 if you really wish to understand my argument about traditional mathematicians about the issue at hand.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You don't have to, X is any positive value.
Not according to anything you wrote.

As I say, your reasoning is based only on strings of symbols, so there is no wonder that you define X=0 or X<0 -which is a complete nonsense- for the following diagram:
28314892783_93fe8f577f_z.jpg


Thank you for proving once again my argument about traditional mathematicians, which their reasoning is symbolic-only, and as a result they must separate between 2X>X√2 AND X>a+b+c+d+..., as clearly demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11703086&postcount=2345.

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

Traditional mathematics' symbolic-only reasoning training causing significant damage to the logical abilities of the human brain to deal with important challenges, which actually related to our own survival (more about this issue is briefly given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11700724&postcount=2342).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

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