Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

[doronshadmi]

As I said, I'll go back to lurking for a few more years.

If you will go back to lurking for a few more years, without training your brain to overbore things both visually AND symbolically, you will find your self stacked at your current position.

I read your paper from that pay-to-play journal.

You can read it as many times as you like, your current symbolic-only | visual-only dichotomous brain activity does no provide the needed validity for your CriticalThanking, as clearly seen by your [SNIP] about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11730504&postcount=2575 and your ignoring of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11728204&postcount=2564.

 

[doronshadmi]

Maybe I'm beginning to understand what you're trying to say now. Do you mean that we have ONE set of skills, that are both symbolic and visual at the same time? Is that what "both symbolic AND non-symbolic (visual) brain skills" means? I've always thought you meant that we have two kinds of skills, and that we have to use both.

X AND Y is true only if they are simultaneously satisfied as one common mechanism of our brain during mathematical work.

You may call X visual (at once (or parallel) knowledge) and Y symbolic (step-by-step knowledge), yet they are two aspects of the same mechanism.

Traditional Mathematics is done almost only by Y, and I reject this artificial limitation of brain skills' usage and its educational training methods that reinforce this artificial limitation among human beings for, at least, the past 2000 years.

More details are already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11706920&postcount=2438 (including the links there).

 

[CriticalThanking]

[DELURK]

If you will go back to lurking for a few more years, without training your brain to overbore things both visually AND symbolically, you will find your self stacked at your current position.

On the contrary, your many critics have taught me much about evaluating journals and papers, and some areas of mathematics I had not studied before. For that I am grateful. You have taught me some things as well,though I doubt they were were what you intended. For that I am grateful.

If you keep posting without training your brain to understand the criticisms they have posted, you will find your self stacked at your current position.

[/DELURK]

 

[doronshadmi]

[DELURK]


On the contrary, your many critics have taught me much about evaluating journals and papers, and some areas of mathematics I had not studied before. For that I am grateful. You have taught me some things as well,though I doubt they were were what you intended. For that I am grateful.

If you keep posting without training your brain to understand the criticisms they have posted, you will find your self stacked at your current position.

[/DELURK]

Please support your "you keep posting without training your brain to understand the criticisms they have posted" argument , in details.

Without it, CriticalThanking is no more than an empty nickname.

If you wish, you can start from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11730792&postcount=2582.

I am waiting.

 

[CriticalThanking]

Please support your "you keep posting without training your brain to understand the criticisms they have posted" argument , in details.

Please support your "If you will go back to lurking for a few more years, without training your brain to overbore [SIC] things both visually AND symbolically" argument , in details, in a manner us lesser folk who don't currently think visually/symbolically/navelly can understand.

Without it, CriticalThanking is no more than an empty nickname.

Your visual thinking appears defective. Please read my nickname more carefully, focusing more on the second half. Without it, doronshadmi is no more than an empty nickname.

I am waiting.

 

[zooterkin]

CriticalThanking, are you aware of the fact that according to scientific human brain researches, the concept of number is known by using both visual AND symbolic brain skills (please observe, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11713929&postcount=2466 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11716498&postcount=2467)?

As for your first question, because the substance of numbers is non-composed, from one hand they are logically limited by contradiction and tautology (where this limitation can't be put on the non-composed substance, since it is the cause of contradiction and tautology but not vise versa) and on the other hand they are rooted in the non-composed as their substance. The Axiom Of Mathematics (that is known both visually (at once) AND symbolically (step-by-step)) is:

Given X (the non-composed substance), no sub-X (its composed expressions (including contradiction and tautology which are the limit aspect of numbers)), is X (the non-composed substance).

Some concrete example:

The endless-larger number 0.999...₁₀ < fixed number 1 by the endless-smaller number 0.000...1₁₀, where the ...1 part defines the inability of infinitely many sub-X (the composed) to completely cover X (the non-composed).

Currently http://www.ijpam.eu/contents/2008-49-3/5/5.pdf is the one and only one article that appears in a mathematical journal, and it does not contain further developments that were done by me since 2008.

1 / 3 * 3 = ?

 

[doronshadmi]

Your visual thinking appears defective. Please read my nickname more carefully, focusing more on the second half. Without it, doronshadmi is no more than an empty nickname.

I am waiting.

Confessing that you are critic (CriticalThanking) says nothing if you can't support your arguments about my mathematical work, in details.

Please start from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11730792&postcount=2582 (and if you really reply to it in details, it will be a significant step in order to actually deal with the first part of your previous post).

I am waiting.

 

[doronshadmi]

1 / 3 * 3 = ?

By using visual AND symbolic brain skills the composed a__b__c__d is not identical to the non-composed _________ , yet a__b__c__d can cover _________ (expressed as 1/3*3 = 1).

On the contrary, no amount of infinitely many sub-_________ , cover _________

Traditional Mathematics can't distinguish (logically and numerically) between sub-X and X exactly because it is based on symbolic-only brain-skills.

zooterkin, once more your reply is limited to your symbolic-only brain-skills, and you do exactly nothing in order to deal with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11706920&postcount=2438.

 

[CriticalThanking]

Confessing that you are critic (CriticalThanking) says nothing if you can't support your arguments about my mathematical work, in details.

Your visual/symbolic thinking continues to fail. My nickname does not say I am "a critic". I was not thanking you. You therefore have no way to judge how critically I might thank you.

Please start from here and here to honestly deal with every criticism ably posted by others since then.

I am waiting.

 

[doronshadmi]

I was not thanking you. You therefore have no way to judge how critically I might thank you.

CriticalThanking, for the last time, please air your arguments about my mathematical work in details.

If you can't do that, then just say it.

If you don't do it AND don't say it you are going right to my ignore list, as long as you do not support your arguments in details.

 

[CriticalThanking]

CriticalThanking, for the last time, please air your arguments about my mathematical work in details.

If you can't do that, then just say it.

If you don't do it AND don't say it you are going right to my ignore list, as long as you do not support your arguments in details.

As I have posted repeatedly, others have made reasoned critiques that you have not taken on board. I pointed you to a link where to start. Sorry you are unwilling and/or unable to do that.

You have agreed that there is no one else in the world that has understood and agreed with your postings. You have posted that all criticisms are from those unable to think visually/symbolically. I posted with a couple specific questions. You "answered". Scare quotes intentional.

From that point you began bizarre commentary about me and my forum name. All I have done since then is use your words back to you. Your apparent frustration is interesting. Simply claiming your critics don't understand because they can't think the right way is a very convenient way to handwave away all criticism. Convenient for you, but unhelpful for understanding.

Add me to your ignore list or not as you will. It would not be as sig-worthy as being party to an ex-member's lawsuit, but I would still count it a badge of honor. As I said - I intended to go back to lurking. I will only respond to you if directly addressed.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Some concrete example:

The endless-larger number 0.999...₁₀ < fixed number 1 by the endless-smaller number 0.000...1₁₀, where the ...1 part defines the inability of infinitely many sub-X (the composed) to completely cover X (the non-composed) .

This "concrete example" of yours has been proven wrong.

 

[doronshadmi]

As I have posted repeatedly, others have made reasoned critiques that you have not taken on board. I pointed you to a link where to start. Sorry you are unwilling and/or unable to do that.

I am really moved by your sorrow about me.

But still a very simple move was not done yet, which is your detailed reply about some part of my mathematical work.

As long as this move is not taken remaining hidden is all you (yet) get.

 

[doronshadmi]

This "concrete example" of yours has been proven wrong.

Please show this proof by not using The Archimedean property.

You can start from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...#Infinitesimals.

 

[Hevneren]

Please show this proof by not using The Archimedean property.

If you're saying that the reals don't have the Archimedean property, you have to prove that, as well as explain why the established proofs are wrong. And it won't be sufficient to talk about visual/symbolic reasoning. That proves nothing.

 

[jsfisher]

Please show this proof by not using The Archimedean property.

Why? What's wrong with the Archimedean Property?

You can start from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...#Infinitesimals.

The reals is what was under consideration, not the hyperreals and kin.

 

[CriticalThanking]

I am really moved by your sorrow about me.

But still a very simple move was not done yet, which is your detailed reply about some part of my mathematical work.

As long as this move is not taken remaining hidden is all you (yet) get.

I am moved by your movement... wait... ewwww... strike that.

I posted no mathematical objection to your work. I posted a questions about publication and results. You answered.

As long as you failure to honestly take on criticisms posted by others in this thread, remaining hidden is all you (yet) get.

 

[doronshadmi]

That proves nothing.

If you ignore, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11706920&postcount=2438.

 

[doronshadmi]

Why? What's wrong with the Archimedean Property?

It artificially ignores the endless larger and the endless smaller.

 

[doronshadmi]

I am moved by your movement... wait... ewwww... strike that.

I posted no mathematical objection to your work. I posted a questions about publication and results. You answered.

As long as you failure to honestly take on criticisms posted by others in this thread, remaining hidden is all you (yet) get.

Objection by using criticisms posted by others, is exactly remaining hidden.