Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kid Eager said:
What disadvantage is the human race suffering?
Click to expand...
The understanding that the notion of collection is an ever changing organic logical structure, exactly because it is logically inaccessible to contradiction and tautology as the absolute borders of Mathematics.
 
doronshadmi said:
Please support your argument, which according to it I suggest not to dig in the right place.
Click to expand...

Simple probability. What proportion of all the possible places one might be admonished to dig is the right place?

n = all possible places one might be admonished to dig

x = the correct place to dig

p = probability that one is being admonished to dig in the correct place

p = x/n

 
Toontown said:
Simple probability. What proportion of all the possible places one might be admonished to dig is the right place?

n = all possible places one might be admonished to dig

x = the correct place to dig

p = probability that one is being admonished to dig in the correct place

p = x/n
Click to expand...
How exactly your simple probability demonstrates that I suggest not to dig in the right place?
 
doronshadmi said:
Already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12240674&postcount=2965 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12244994&postcount=2968
Click to expand...

Wrong wrong wrongity wrong. Neither post answers the question asked: the first is an irrelevant digression into fuzzy logic and the second is your belief statement of what you think you are showing.

Again: so what? What are we missing out on due to this alleged mathematical mischief? What disadvantage is the human race suffering?
 
Kid Eager said:
the first is an irrelevant digression into fuzzy logic
Click to expand...
It is the second one and you did not provide any proof that is irrelevant to the discussed subject.

Kid Eager said:
and the second is your belief statement of what you think you are showing.
Click to expand...
It is the first one, and it is not based of beliefs but on very simple symmetric logical relative inaccessibility of the notion of collection to contradiction and tautology, as the absolute logical borders of Mathematics.

I also show the basis of logic itself, which is not restricted by its logical expressions, whether they are relative (the domain of collections) or absolute (contradiction or tautology).

Kid Eager said:
Again: so what? What are we missing out on due to this alleged mathematical mischief? What disadvantage is the human race suffering?
Click to expand...
You have missed my answer to zooterkin in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12329199&postcount=2984, so please this time read it more carefully, before you reply.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Please provide your proof that n is large and x is small, in my case.
Click to expand...

From my perspective, you are no different from all the other internet interlocutors who have urged me to dig in various places.

From my perspective (the only perspective that matters when I am estimating my chances of hitting paydirt) you're just another face in the crowd.
 
Last edited:
Toontown said:
From my perspective, you are no different from all the other internet interlocutors who have urged me to dig in various places.

From my perspective (the only perspective that matters when I am estimating my chances of hitting paydirt) you're just another face in the crowd.
Click to expand...
Great, so you actually understand my argument, which according to it, any person has to dig within itself, in order to be aware of the common source that enables the expression of any personality, exactly because it is not limited by its expressions (whether they are personalities, or other things).
 
zooterkin said:
Nothing there, Doron. What results can you show?
Click to expand...

Please carefully observe the following unbounded (endlessly growing) 2-valued logical tree.

It is easy to encode its branches in order to represent the set of natural numbers.

Now, zooterkin, please prove that this unbounded (endlessly growing) 2-valued logical tree can be defined by fixed values (as done by traditional mathematics according to the notion of transfinite cardinality).

Before you reply, please be aware that the fixed cardinal 2ℵ0 (known as a fixed measurement value of an uncountable set) can't be defined, if you can't logically prove that ℵ0 (the cardinal of the set of natural numbers, according to traditional mathematics) is a fixed value.

Also please be aware that an equation like ℵ0+1=ℵ0 contradicts the fact that we are dealing with an unbounded (endlessly growing) 2-valued logical tree (the notion of weak limit cardinal is arbitrarily defined, since it is not supported by the fact that the 2-valued logical tree is an unbounded (endlessly growing) mathematical structure).

In other words, if ℵ0 is defined as a fixed value, it logically can't be used as a measurement of an unbounded (endlessly growing) mathematical structure like 2-valued logical tree.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Please carefully observe the following unbounded (endlessly growing) 2-valued logical tree.

It is easy to encode its branches in order to represent the set of natural numbers.

Now, zooterkin, please prove that this unbounded (endlessly growing) 2-valued logical tree can be defined by fixed values (as done by traditional mathematics according to the notion of transfinite cardinality).

Before you reply, please be aware that the fixed cardinal 2ℵ0 (known as a fixed measurement value of an uncountable set) can't be defined, if you can't logically prove that ℵ0 (the cardinal of the set of natural numbers, according to traditional mathematics) is a fixed value.

Also please be aware that an equation like ℵ0+1=ℵ0 contradicts the fact that we are dealing with an unbounded (endlessly growing) 2-valued logical tree (the notion of weak limit cardinal is arbitrarily defined, since it is not supported by the fact that the 2-valued logical tree is an unbounded (endlessly growing) mathematical structure).

In other words, if ℵ0 is defined as a fixed value, it logically can't be used as a measurement of an unbounded (endlessly growing) mathematical structure like 2-valued logical tree.
Click to expand...

Assuming for a moment this is true, so what? Still waiting for an answer...
 
Kid Eager said:
Assuming for a moment this is true, so what? Still waiting for an answer...
Click to expand...

Kid Eager said:
Again: so what? What are we missing out on due to this alleged mathematical mischief? What disadvantage is the human race suffering?
Click to expand...


The traditional mathematicians (the current main stream) suffering from misunderstanding of the openness (the non-entropic property) of the concept of collection, by measures it with fixed values (as used by traditional mathematics' transfinite cardinality).

Because of this misunderstanding, the human race is unaware of the logical fact that actual infinity is inaccessible to the domain of collections (which is naturally open by this logical fact).
 
Last edited:
Toontown said:
Simple probability. What proportion of all the possible places one might be admonished to dig is the right place?

n = all possible places one might be admonished to dig

x = the correct place to dig

p = probability that one is being admonished to dig in the correct place

p = x/n

Click to expand...

If there's only one correct place to dig, then p =1/n. Of course, the structure of Doron's posting history is a tad complex, so there may well be several "valid" entry points. In that case, x denotes the number of correct places to dig, not the places themselves. :)
 
Hevneren said:
Of course, the structure of Doron's posting history is a tad complex
Click to expand...
Wrong, if one really digging, one actually realizes that my notion is the same "string" that gathers the infinitely many "beads" along it, into one organic whole, which is both simple (the "string") AND complex (the possible harmonic arrangements of the "beads" along the "string").
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The traditional mathematicians (the current main stream) suffering from misunderstanding of the openness (the non-entropic property) of the concept of collection, by measures it with fixed values (as used by traditional mathematics' transfinite cardinality).

Because of this misunderstanding, the human race is unaware of the logical fact that actual infinity is inaccessible to the domain of collections (which is naturally open by this logical fact).
Click to expand...

Nope, you still don't get it. SO. WHAT? In what way does this alleged lack of awareness cause detriment to anything? What is the disadvantage?
 
doronshadmi said:
Please carefully observe the following unbounded (endlessly growing) 2-valued logical tree.

It is easy to encode its branches in order to represent the set of natural numbers.

Now, zooterkin, please prove that this unbounded (endlessly growing) 2-valued logical tree can be defined by fixed values (as done by traditional mathematics according to the notion of transfinite cardinality).

Before you reply, please be aware that the fixed cardinal 2ℵ0 (known as a fixed measurement value of an uncountable set) can't be defined, if you can't logically prove that ℵ0 (the cardinal of the set of natural numbers, according to traditional mathematics) is a fixed value.

Also please be aware that an equation like ℵ0+1=ℵ0 contradicts the fact that we are dealing with an unbounded (endlessly growing) 2-valued logical tree (the notion of weak limit cardinal is arbitrarily defined, since it is not supported by the fact that the 2-valued logical tree is an unbounded (endlessly growing) mathematical structure).

In other words, if ℵ0 is defined as a fixed value, it logically can't be used as a measurement of an unbounded (endlessly growing) mathematical structure like 2-valued logical tree.
Click to expand...

Are we back to your inability to deal with a set without enumerating every member of it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom