Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

[doronshadmi]

1) Define non-composed
2) Define actual infinity
3) Define accurate value

Please define exactly what you mean by asking someone to define something.

 

[doronshadmi]

That's nice, but you didn't answer the question. You were supposed to tell us what this thing you call visual_spatial reasoning (and the other one) actually is. Instead, you tell us what you think it gives you for a certain result.

Once again, you except me to tell you what this thing I call visual_spatial reasoning.

By doing so you ask me to define visual_spatial reasoning in terms of verbal_symbolic reasoning.

But visual_spatial reasoning is a deduction done by diagrams or interpretation of symbols in terms of diagrams.

My deductive framework is not less than visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning, where by using visual_spatial reasoning, actual infinity is defined as the non-composed property of (at least) 1-dim object, where by using verbal_symbolic reasoning, potential infinity is defined in terms of collection infinitely many objects on the (at least) non-composed 1-dim object.

Again and again you try to understand deduction that is done done by diagrams or interpretation of symbols in terms of diagrams, by insisting to tell you what this thing I call visual_spatial reasoning (you insist to define visual_spatial reasoning only in terms of verbal_symbolic reasoning.

jsfisher, your request can't be done in terms of verbal_symbolic-only reaoning, and you still unaware of the built-in failure of your question.

 

[Kid Eager]

Once again, you except me to tell you what this thing I call visual_spatial reasoning.

By doing so you ask me to define visual_spatial reasoning in terms of verbal_symbolic reasoning.

But visual_spatial reasoning is a deduction done by diagrams or interpretation of symbols in terms of diagrams.

My deductive framework is not less than visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning, where by using visual_spatial reasoning, actual infinity is defined as the non-composed property of (at least) 1-dim object, where by using verbal_symbolic reasoning, potential infinity is defined in terms of collection infinitely many objects on the (at least) non-composed 1-dim object.

Again and again you try to understand deduction that is done done by diagrams or interpretation of symbols in terms of diagrams, by insisting to tell you what this thing I call visual_spatial reasoning (you insist to define visual_spatial reasoning only in terms of verbal_symbolic reasoning.

jsfisher, your request can't be done in terms of verbal_symbolic-only reaoning, and you still unaware of the built-in failure of your question.

Hahahahaha! Oh stop it! What a brilliant self-parody!

 

[jsfisher]

Once again, you except me to tell you what this thing I call visual_spatial reasoning...

Still cannot do it. Fail #1, the third.

Sometime back, you tried to pass this nonsense off as "direct perception", wherein you simply knew something to be true by looking at it. And of course, just like now, we were all expected to simply accept you perceived truth as fact. Well, at least you now use a more sciency name for you fantasy.

SSDD.

 

[doronshadmi]

Still cannot do it. Fail #1, the third.

Indeed you still cannot do a very simple thing, which is, to define non-composed 1-DIM object as actual infinity, which is inaccessible to potential infinity that is defined by collection of infinitely many objects on it (the term "on" is used in order to indicate that an object that is defined as non-composed, can't be defined as a collection).

Sometime back, you tried to pass this nonsense off as "direct perception", wherein you simply knew something to be true by looking at it. And of course, just like now, we were all expected to simply accept you perceived truth as fact.

jsfisher, visual_spatial reasoning can't be known by using verbal_symbolic reasoning, and since verbal_symbolic reasoning is all you do, no answer (for example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12409208&postcount=3078) which is involved with visual_spatial reasoning (AND verbal_symbolic reasoning) can be accepted by you, no matter what names (where names are forms of verbal_symbolic reasoning) are involved.

The inability to get _______ as a non-composed object, stands at the basis of any misunderstanding of visual_spatial reasoning, or more precisely visual_spatial reasoning AND verbal_symbolic reasoning, which is exactly the reasoning that is used in my framework, as addressed, for example, in www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12408169&postcount=3068.

SSDD.

You can overcome SSDD at any moment. It is entirely up to you.

 

[jsfisher]

Indeed you still cannot do a very simple thing, which is, to define non-composed 1-DIM object as actual infinity

The obligation to define your nonsense falls to you, not me.

By the way, since that is entirely a verbal-symbolic construct, you should be able to define it in words and symbols. Yet, you can't do that. You have never been able to do that.

Kind of odd, don't you think for someone so adept at verbal-symbolic reasoning such as you. It is almost as if you have little or no verbal-symbolic skills, reasoning or otherwise.

jsfisher, visual_spatial reasoning can't be known by using verbal_symbolic reasoning, and since verbal_symbolic reasoning is all you do....

We'll count that as another Fail #5.

And why can't visual things be expressed in words and words expressed in a visual form? It is almost like you are not skilled in either and only pretend to be skilled in both. Almost exactly like that.

You can overcome SSDD at any moment. It is entirely up to you.

That's cute. Didn't catch the reference I see.

 

[doronshadmi]

By the way, since that is entirely a verbal-symbolic construct, you should be able to define it in words and symbols.

_______ is a visual_spatial form where "non-composed 1-DIM object" is a verbal_symbolic form, where both of them are used together in order to define actual infinity, which goes beyond the notion of collections, which are entirely a verbal-symbolic construct, that is defined at most as potential infinity with respect to the non-composed property of ________ "1-DIM object" as actual infinity (the details are given in www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12408169&postcount=3068).

 

[doronshadmi]

Unfortunately, your reply in www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12408255&postcount=3069
to my post in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12408169&postcount=3068 very simply demonstrates how you avoid real discussion about the considered subjects.

Moreover, replies like SSDD simply expose your aggressive attitude, which prevents any real discussion from your side about the considered subjects.

Furthermore, is this the atmosphere in this forum, where moderators are allowed to be rude to posters instead of actually writing about the subjects and not about the posters?

If this is the case then this forum becomes an inappropriate environment for real discussions.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Perhaps I need to see where this thread originates but, Why isn't this in the mathematics section?

 

[jsfisher]

Perhaps I need to see where this thread originates but, Why isn't this in the mathematics section?

It was at one time, but it became overly obvious there was no real mathematical content. More of a philosophical denial of established Mathematics, and even that has universally lacked any depth and clarity.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

It was at one time, but it became overly obvious there was no real mathematical content. More of a philosophical denial of established Mathematics, and even that has universally lacked any depth and clarity.

Makes sense. Thanks.

If anything Doron has come up with something more inane than common core math, So there's that.

 

[Crawtator]

You are missing my argument in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12404383&postcount=3030.

For example, Let X=1 (it can be any finite value > 0, but I use X=1 for the simplification of the discussion).

The fact that infinitely many staircases do not converge to the diagonal is given by 2>√2 that is inseparable of the fact that 2>2(a+b+c+d+...), where (a+b+c+d+...) is definitely converges.

This inseparability is known only by actually using visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning.

And here we go with this nonsense again. Until you learn to define your terms in a way in which any audience can reasonably understand them, your argument is gobbledygook. Period. And the highlighted words mean nothing in the context in which you use them.

 

[Kid Eager]

And here we go with this nonsense again. Until you learn to define your terms in a way in which any audience can reasonably understand them, your argument is gobbledygook. Period. And the highlighted words mean nothing in the context in which you use them.

It is, in effect, a get out of jail free card. As long as it remains undefined and exclusively within Doron's understanding, he can claim immunity from logic and scrutiny - which is exactly what's been going on in this thread since forever.

 

[phiwum]

Makes sense. Thanks.

If anything Doron has come up with something more inane than common core math, So there's that.

Sorry? How is common core math inane? What do you mean by common core?

 

[doronshadmi]

Baby steps

My philosophical argument is that the most affective mathematical frameworks are the result of using visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning.

One of the most interesting notions of Mathematic is Infinity.

This notion is understood as Actual infinity or Potential infinity.

Here are the interpretations of these notions, according to verbal_symbolic-only reasoning, which is based on the notion of collection of objects (whether they are members of a set, terms of a sequence, etc.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity :

In the philosophy of mathematics, the abstraction of actual infinity involves the acceptance (if the axiom of infinity is included) of infinite entities, such as the set of all natural numbers or an infinite sequence of rational numbers, as given, actual, completed objects. This is contrasted with potential infinity, in which a non-terminating process (such as "add 1 to the previous number") produces a sequence with no last element, and each individual result is finite and is achieved in a finite number of steps.

Here is an example of a framework that is based on visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning, which is related to the subject at hand.

Let's do it by using, so called, "baby steps", in order to get the notions without being lost among tons of technical expressions.

(1) The Axiom Of Non-Complexity: There exists, at least, object ______ (1-dim object), such that it is not a collection of shorter or shortest objects.

(2) The Axiom Of Markers: Given a collection of shorter or shortest objects, they define values with respect to, at least, object _______

Without (1) there is no, at least, object ______ , and without (2) no value can be defined with respect to, at least, object ______

So a useful mathematical framework, in this case, is based on, at least, (1) and (2).

Let's demonstrate how to use this framework by giving some concrete examples:

a) We wish to provide some value to _____ , and we are doing it by marking its edges by two shortest objects . (2 0-dim objects).

b) The left edge is marked as value 0 and the right edge is marked as value 1, and we get 0______1 , which is the result of using visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning skills.

c) In the same way, for example, the middle of 0______1 is marked as 1/2 (as described by (d)).

d) By using visual_spatial reasoning skills we get .___.___. and by using also verbal_symbolic reasoning skills we get 0__1/2__1

e) By continue to use visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning skills, we get, for example, 0_1/4_1/2__1, 0_1/8_1/4__1/2____1, 0_1/16_1/8__1/4____1/2________1 etc.

d) Addition operation among finitely many shorter __ objects that are marked by . along 0_____1, can be added up to value 1, since the complement of any finitely many accurate values of shorter __ , is itself a shorter ___ object with an accurate value.

e) Addition operation among infinitely many shorter __ objects that are marked by . along 0_____1, can't be added up to value 1, since the complement of any infinitely many accurate values of shorter __ , is itself a shorter ___ object without an accurate value (it is an endlessly more and more shorter __ object that its accurate value (that can be used in order to reach value 1) is undefined, exactly because (by (1)) ______ existence is not defined as a collection of shorter or shortest objects.

Case (d) is called finitely weaker than the non-composed existence of _______ , and by this case shorter objects __ can be added up to some accurate value that has been given to some _____ object.

Case (e) is called infinitely weaker than the non-composed existence of _______ , and by this case shorter objects __ can't be added up to some accurate value that has been given to _____ object.

Case (e) is defined as potential infinity (infinity that is based on the notion of collections, with respect to actual infinity (infinity that is based on the non-composed existence of, at least, ____ (1-dim object).

By verbal_symbolic-only reasoning, potential infinity, is "a non-terminating process (such as "add 1 to the previous number") produces a sequence with no last element, and each individual result is finite and is achieved in a finite number of steps."

By visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning potential infinity is a collection of infinitely many objects that can't define the existence of, at least, _____ (as given by The Axiom Of Non-Complexity), where (e) is the result of this inability.

Classical Mathematics, is a framework that tries to define actual infinity in terms of sets (which are a particular case of the notion of collection).

My framework defines actual infinity beyond the notion of collection, by defining the existence of, at least, non-composed _____ (1-dim object), as given by (1).

More details can be found in www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12408169&postcount=3068

 

[jsfisher]

My philosophical argument is that the most affective mathematical frameworks are the result of using visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning.

That's your assertion. We have yet to see anything that approaches an argument. You are still stuck behind those five basic issues you need to address.

 

[Apathia]

Doron said "Baby Steps," opening the door for this baby to crawl into the thread again. I'm not here to correct Doron. I'm just motivated to put his unique perspective in my own and possibly more understandable words, But I'm not a Mathematician. So I leave it to the Math mavens here to take issue with his methodology.

In Doron's presentation Finite and Infinite are polar opposites. Absolute Infinity is represented above as _____ and marked finite quantities as .
The thing to note the most is that the ______ of Absolute Infinity is itself a whole not made of marked fragments. And that no number of fragments marked out from the absolute Infinite Whole can ever add up to it.

Fragments can add up to finite fragments, but never to Absolute Infinity.

Now you can fragment a fragment with marked quantities, such as 1 and 1/2, and with that fragment you can continue to indefinitely generate numerical fragments, This is a potential infinity. You can add up fragments to fragments to get fragments, but they won't come to a whole between 1 and 1/2. You have already determined that that's a fragment or you can only speak in terms of a potentiality.

Absolute Infinity cannot be contained. This is the main point of Dorn's "Direct Perception." It ought to be clear to everyone that Infinity is absolute and cannot be contained within finite quantity markers.

Numerous mathematicians of the Intuitionist school have asserted this and worked out work arounds for the dependence of Calculus on infinitesimals. We await Doron's work around.

What mainstream Mathematics does is introduce a third way of speaking of infinity. Not the absolute, not the potential, but a symbolic infinity that can be manipulated as a composed whole. Doron objects to this as a kind of bastardization.

He prefers leaving Infinity an absolute of itself, as a polar opposite of Finite. The he proceeds to build a structure from the contrasting and comparing interactions of these two polar concepts.

I realize that due to language limitations, and that I'm being verbal about it, Doron may not recognize his approach in what I've said above. But I'm confident that I've restated his key positions in less technical confusing words. Though I'm obtuse as well!

 

[Kid Eager]

Doron said "Baby Steps," opening the door for this baby to crawl into the thread again. I'm not here to correct Doron. I'm just motivated to put his unique perspective in my own and possibly more understandable words, But I'm not a Mathematician. So I leave it to the Math mavens here to take issue with his methodology.

In Doron's presentation Finite and Infinite are polar opposites. Absolute Infinity is represented above as _____ and marked finite quantities as .
The thing to note the most is that the ______ of Absolute Infinity is itself a whole not made of marked fragments. And that no number of fragments marked out from the absolute Infinite Whole can ever add up to it.

Fragments can add up to finite fragments, but never to Absolute Infinity.

Now you can fragment a fragment with marked quantities, such as 1 and 1/2, and with that fragment you can continue to indefinitely generate numerical fragments, This is a potential infinity. You can add up fragments to fragments to get fragments, but they won't come to a whole between 1 and 1/2. You have already determined that that's a fragment or you can only speak in terms of a potentiality.

Absolute Infinity cannot be contained. This is the main point of Dorn's "Direct Perception." It ought to be clear to everyone that Infinity is absolute and cannot be contained within finite quantity markers.

Numerous mathematicians of the Intuitionist school have asserted this and worked out work arounds for the dependence of Calculus on infinitesimals. We await Doron's work around.

What mainstream Mathematics does is introduce a third way of speaking of infinity. Not the absolute, not the potential, but a symbolic infinity that can be manipulated as a composed whole. Doron objects to this as a kind of bastardization.

He prefers leaving Infinity an absolute of itself, as a polar opposite of Finite. The he proceeds to build a structure from the contrasting and comparing interactions of these two polar concepts.

I realize that due to language limitations, and that I'm being verbal about it, Doron may not recognize his approach in what I've said above. But I'm confident that I've restated his key positions in less technical confusing words. Though I'm obtuse as well!

If what you say is accurate, I will nominate you for a Nobel Prize in interpretation, if such a thing exists.

Good work! (and my stolen cat agrees, too...)

 

[Apathia]

If what you say is accurate, I will nominate you for a Nobel Prize in interpretation, if such a thing exists.

Good work! (and my stolen cat agrees, too...)
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_445655b89cdac0bc0d.jpg[/qimg]

I would hate to disappoint your cat!

 

[jsfisher]

Doron said "Baby Steps," opening the door for this baby to crawl into the thread again. I'm not here to correct Doron. I'm just motivated to put his unique perspective in my own and possibly more understandable words, But I'm not a Mathematician. So I leave it to the Math mavens here to take issue with his methodology.

The perspective on if-and-which-infinity is really a matter of philosophy, not mathematics. I suspect your qualifications on that front far exceed mine. The problem is that Doronshadmi takes his (philosophic) view on infinity as a basis to (selectively) reject basic mathematics.

In Doron's presentation Finite and Infinite are polar opposites. Absolute Infinity is represented above as _____ and marked finite quantities as .
The thing to note the most is that the ______ of Absolute Infinity is itself a whole not made of marked fragments. And that no number of fragments marked out from the absolute Infinite Whole can ever add up to it.

You give Doron more credit than I. His fundamental point is that points cannot gather in sufficient quantities to every become a line segment. It was a fair observation at one time in mathematics history, but we are for the most part beyond that now. Philosophy may do with it what it will, and I have no objection there.

Doron, on the other hand, wants it damn much of mathematics. He seems to be hung on "process": add a point, still not enough; add another.... This was confirmed with his misinterpretation of the Axiom of Infinity. The axiom asserts the existence of a particular infinity set (absolute infinity, by the way), but Doron insists it asserts a process for constructing a set ever increasing in size (more at potential infinity).

As for his "represented as", Doron's views can be perfectly explained with words, as I think you have done reasonably well. Doron, however, needs more because he has lashed out from his philosophic fixation into established math. He has invented a shield he thinks protects him from all criticism via this visual-spatial vs. verbal-symbol reasoning ruse. The graphic of six underbars he included -- serving no purpose other than to "name" his object -- was a device to slip in an unnecessary visual element he could later exploit in his "you can't get it" mantra.

By the way. I am amused that ______ when rendered using Lucinda Sans Unicode for the font, ______, it clearly shows as six separable elements. Not quite the visual-spatial reasoning conclusion Doron wanted, but nonetheless valid.

Fragments can add up to finite fragments, but never to Absolute Infinity.

Absolutely!!!