Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

[jsfisher]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11706823&postcount=2429.

I asked for evidence, not just more of your assertions.

 

[doronshadmi]

I asked for evidence, not just more of your assertions.

Also please (in addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11706823&postcount=2429) look at the rhetoric question and answer of Hevneren at the end of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11706724&postcount=2422.

As much as I know, you are also such teacher.

If you wish first hand evidence, then please reply in details to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11706920&postcount=2438.

 

[jsfisher]

Also please (in addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11706823&postcount=2429) look at the rhetoric question and answer of Hevneren at the end of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11706724&postcount=2422.

As much as I know, you are also such teacher.

If you wish first hand evidence, then please reply in details to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11706920&postcount=2438.

No evidence to be found there, just more assertions.

 

[doronshadmi]

No evidence to be found there, just more assertions.

One more symbolic-only assertion.

No detailed reply, just hand-waving.

Please try again.

 

[jsfisher]

One more symbolic-only assertion.

No detailed reply, just hand-waving.

Please try again.

I asked for evidence. You continued to provide your bare assertions. Nothing there to even hand-wave at.

In case you have forgotten, this was your statement:

The artificial separation of symbolic-only | visual-only brain skills of traditional school of mathematics continues to cause severe damage to the natural visual AND symbolic brain skills of many students around the globe, every moment.

Got any evidence to support this?

 

[doronshadmi]

If you mean that all the horizontal components of the steps will add up to X, and all the vertical components of the steps will add up to X, no matter how small you make the steps, then yes. X + X = 2X, and 2X > X√2. That never changes.

Since no infinitely many staircase lines with constant length 2X are = X√2 (which means that 2X>X√2) and since a+b+c+d+... (infinitely many added positive values) are inseparable parts of the infinitely many staircase lines, there is no end to the positive values that have to be added, which means that "mission can't be accomplished" or in other words 2X>2(a+b+c+d+...), exactly as written (by using our symbolic brain skills) and seen (by our visual brain skills) and very naturally combined into visual AND symbolic reasoning in the following diagram:

The treatment of traditional mathematics about a+b+c+d+... in this diagram is done by define a+b+c+d+... by using one's symbolic-only brain skills, and as a result, those who are using symbolic-only brain skills wrongly argue that infinitely many positive values are defined by some fixed result (they write it as 2X=2(a+b+c+d+...), which is immediately understood as wrong symbolic expression by any one that uses his\her visual AND symbolic brain skills, in order to really understand the given diagram above).

 

[Hevneren]

Since no infinitely many staircase lines with constant length 2X are = X√2 (which means that 2X>X√2) and since a+b+c+d+... (infinitely many added positive values) are inseparable parts of the infinitely many staircase lines, there is no end to the positive values that have to be added, which means that "mission can't be accomplished" or in other words 2X>2(a+b+c+d+...), exactly as written (by using our symbolic brain skills) and seen (by our visual brain skills) and very naturally combined into visual AND symbolic reasoning in the following diagram <snip>

Thanks for your explanation, Doron, that was exactly what I asked for. I now understand what you were trying to say.

 

[MetalPig]

Okay, so 2 is greater than the square root of 2, and adding a picture somehow makes it more true? Is that what's going on?

 

[Hevneren]

Okay, so 2 is greater than the square root of 2, and adding a picture somehow makes it more true? Is that what's going on?

Yes.

 

[Hevneren]

Summary:

1. You could create "staircases" with any number of steps along the diagonal.
2. If the number of steps is a power of 2, the steps somehow correspond to the sections a, b, c, d, ... (I think this is the inseparability Doron mentions)
3. (a + b + c + d +...) < X
4. Therefore, 2 > √2

1 is true, 2 is strange, 3 is false, 4 is true
2.5 out of 4 isn't too bad, and at least the conclusion is right.

 

[doronshadmi]

Thanks for your explanation, Doron, that was exactly what I asked for. I now understand what you were trying to say.

Let's see ...

Summary:

1. You could create "staircases" with any number of steps along the diagonal.
2. If the number of steps is a power of 2, the steps somehow correspond to the sections a, b, c, d, ... (I think this is the inseparability Doron mentions)
3. (a + b + c + d +...) < X
4. Therefore, 2 > √2

1 is true, 2 is strange, 3 is false, 4 is true
2.5 out of 4 isn't too bad, and at least the conclusion is right.

No, you don't understand it, exactly because (by using symbolic-only reasoning) you artificially separate between 3 and 4.

Moreover, if we are talking about case 2>√2 (the case where X=1), then its inseparable case is 1>(a+b+c+d+...), and not X>(a+b+c+d+...) (as you wrote in 3).

Furthermore, 3 and 4 actually have to be written as follows (in case that X=1 in the considered diagram in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11708172&postcount=2446):

1. ...
2. ...
3. 2 > √2
4. Therefore (a + b + c + d +...) < 1

Here is another example that you (yet) do not understand, which is similar to the staircases diagram:

X>0 AND X>2(a+b+c+d+...) are inseparable in the following diagram (where X is the constant positive value of the infinitely many orange figures in that diagram, whether they are straight (the first orange figure) or bent (the rest infinitely many orange figures, which their endpoints are projected upon the straight orange figure, and define 2(a+b+c+d+...) as an endless collection of added positive values that are < X, exactly because no infinitely many orange figures with constant value X>0 can have value 0)):

Summary:

No, you don't have (yet) any Summary about the issue at hand.

 

[doronshadmi]

Okay, so 2 is greater than the square root of 2, and adding a picture somehow makes it more true? Is that what's going on?

No.

 

[Hevneren]

Let's see ...

1. ...
2. ...
3. 2 > √2
4. Therefore (a + b + c + d +...) < 1

Fair enough, this is consistent with what you said in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11708172#post11708172

But it's still wrong. a, b, c, d etc do add up to X. Please consider the following:

Me: I'll walk to the fridge and get a Coke.
You: No, you can't. You have to walk half the distance first, then half the remaining distance, then half of that and so on. You will never get to the fridge.
Me: Damn.

In real life I will get to the fridge without any problem. I just walk there and grab a Coke.

Now, consider the horizontal arrow in your diagram. I am at the left end while the fridge is at the right end. The segments a, b, c, d are the half, quarter, eighth etc. distances you talked about. But that was just some word game. The distance X=X, no matter how many subdivisions you imagine it has. And it's easy to mathematically prove that the segments add up to X. Proofs for this are all over the internet and are easily found in math literature, and there's nothing wrong with them. For some reason you won't accept this, instead you cling to your intuitive understanding that one can never get there.

There's a lot of fun math to learn out there if you're willing to accept that some of your notions may be wrong, and that other people's reasoning isn't as misguided as you seem to believe.

Greetings from a "brain damaged" visual-only AND symbolic-only dopamine junkie

 

[kmortis]

Please do no keep posting the same image over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. To do so violates Rule 6's prohibition against spamming the forum. If you want to refer to the same image, post a link to the previous post.
Thank you for your expected compliance.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[Worm]

While this is occasionally fun to watch from the sidelines, I have to warn Hevneren - you are not going to get anywhere.

doronshadmi has long ago decided on a 'deeper truth' that nobody else understands, and is actually not interested whether you understand it or not, only in feeling superior.

You will go round, and round, and round, and round, never making any progress, never gaining ground, no matter how hard to you try to break things down into easy steps. It is a Sisyphean task, and honestly not worth wasting your time on. doronshadmi is not interested in learning, only in screaming at the wind.

(all IMO of course)

 

[Hevneren]

While this is occasionally fun to watch from the sidelines, I have to warn Hevneren - you are not going to get anywhere.

doronshadmi has long ago decided on a 'deeper truth' that nobody else understands, and is actually not interested whether you understand it or not, only in feeling superior.

You will go round, and round, and round, and round, never making any progress, never gaining ground, no matter how hard to you try to break things down into easy steps. It is a Sisyphean task, and honestly not worth wasting your time on. doronshadmi is not interested in learning, only in screaming at the wind.

(all IMO of course)

Thank you for the warning, Worm. I'm fully aware that I'll never get anywhere with Doron. I'm a long time lurker in this thread, and I've had my share of occasional fun as a spectator. I just wanted to stir the pot a bit myself, while at the same time brushing up my English writing.

 

[doronshadmi]

The distance X=X, no matter how many subdivisions you imagine it has.

Wrong, by using visual AND symbolic reasoning, only finite amount of subdivisions (segments) really add up to X.

And it's easy to mathematically prove that the segments add up to X. Proofs for this are all over the internet and are easily found in math literature, and there's nothing wrong with them.

These "proofs" are the illusory result of using symbolic-only brain skills, which prevent the distinction between the finite and the infinite in the considered diagrams.

For some reason

It is called visual AND symbolic reasoning, which is exactly the reasoning that one gets by simultaneously using his\her visual AND symbolic brain skills.

you won't accept this, instead you cling to your intuitive understanding that one can never get there.

I do not accept reasoning and its results, which are derived from separately using one's visual brain skills | symbolic brain skills, exactly as you do at this very moment, and as a result you do not distinguish between adding finite positive segments that are indeed add up into a fixed value like X, and infinite positive segments that are not add up into a fixed value like X.

And not surprisingly, you ignored the second diagram because (as you say):

I just wanted to stir the pot a bit myself, while at the same time brushing up my English writing.

 

[Hevneren]

I do not accept reasoning and its results, ...

You're doing progress! It's a great step forward that you admit this, although it's been obvious to the followers of this thread for years.

 

[doronshadmi]

While this is occasionally fun to watch from the sidelines, I have to warn Hevneren - you are not going to get anywhere.

I agree with you, as long as Hevneren separately using visual brain skills | symbolic brain skills - he\she is not going to get anywhere.

doronshadmi has long ago decided on a 'deeper truth' that nobody else understands, and is actually not interested whether you understand it or not, only in feeling superior.

Wong Worm, I simply suggest to combine our visual AND symbolic brain skills during mathematical work, exactly because this combination is the natural state of mind of any human being.

You will go round, and round, and round, and round, never making any progress, never gaining ground, no matter how hard to you try to break things down into easy steps. It is a Sisyphean task, and honestly not worth wasting your time on.

Indeed one wastes his\her time by separately using his\her visual brain skills | symbolic brain skills during mathematical work.

doronshadmi is not interested in learning, only in screaming at the wind.

Worm, you know, it is elementary, just use your natural ability in order to combine your visual brain skills with your symbolic brain skills during mathematical work.

 

[doronshadmi]

You're doing progress! It's a great step forward that you admit this, although it's been obvious to the followers of this thread for years.

Now you show another talent of yours by taking a part of what I said out of its context, in order to fit it to your symbolic-only | visual-only brain skills, as you do along the "dialog" between us.

And once again you ignored the diagram in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11708547&postcount=2451.