Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

So now you’re saying the claims you made before were not the claims you made before because you are now making some other claim about disproving “the interval of all non-finite elements” which no one has claimed anything about except you.

You mix between two different answers of mine.

One was about the solution of OM, which clearly shows that there is no immediate local predecessor to Y (Here I use Fullness as the actual infinity).

The other is about the inability of Standard Math to explicitly define or disprove the existence of the immediate predecessor of Y, because it uses a finite case of collection in order to conclude something on a non-finite case of collection.

In other words, OM uses a viewpoint that is more comprehensive than the researched thing (an interval with non-finite elements, in this case) , and therefore my argument holds.

On the contrary, Standard Math forces a viewpoint based on the Finite in order to conclude something about the Non-finite, and therefore this argument does not hold.

Please show where that claim is made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_(mathematics)

In mathematics, a (real) interval is a set of real numbers with the property that any number that lies between two numbers in the set is also included in the set. For example, the set of all numbers x satisfying 0 ≤ x ≤ 1 is an interval which contains 0 and 1, as well as all numbers between them.

Again, Doron you are only showing that you make claims about standard math without understanding the claims you make or that standard math.

Again, The Man you are only showing that you make claims about standard math without understanding the claims you make or that standard math.

 

[doronshadmi]

How would you know? Your analogy has not been discussed at all except for a side reference you completely failed to understand. So, the only evidence available so far is that you are the only one lacking some understanding of the red photon analogy.

The red photon is equivalent to a finite case that is used in order to conclude something about a non-finite case.

It is obvious that we can't used notions taken from a finite collection and use them in order to conclude something about a non-finite collection.

Standard Math fails exactly because of this reason, as follows:

By this assumption we get Z as the largest element of the set.

In this case you are based on the finite case of the comparison between distinct X and distinct Z, which are the two (where two is a finite cardinal) extreme cases of [X,Z] interval, such that X < Z < Y.

It has to be noticed that Z is the smallest element of the interval [Z,Y), so we are still under a,b construction , where in this case Z is the smallest distinct element and Y is the largest distinct element.

Also in this case we deal with the finite case of two (where two is a finite cardinal) distinct values, that can't be used in order to conclude anything about the non-finite collection of all elements of [Z,Y) interval.

In other words, no matter what you do, you are closed under the finite case of a,b construction, and cannot use it in order to conclude anything about the non-finite case of a,b construction (whether it is (X,Y) , (X,Y] , [X,Y) or [X,Y], it does not matter).

It means that you are stacked at the first row of your "proof" (under the finite case of a,b construction) and never reach to the second row of your "proof".

As a result, there is no proof, and there is no conclusion that is derived from this proof.

It doesn't "die" at all.

You are right about this. Your "proof" is not even born.

 

[jsfisher]

It is obvious that we can't used notions taken from a finite collection and use them in order to conclude something about a non-finite collection.

It is neither obvious nor true. This is just another baseless allegation offered without evidence. It is a fantasy of doronetics, formed out of ignorance, inconsistency, and contradiction.

Doron, you really need to stop just making stuff up.

 

[doronshadmi]

It is neither obvious nor true. This is just another baseless allegation offered without evidence. It is a fantasy of doronetics, formed out of ignorance, inconsistency, and contradiction.

Doron, you really need to stop just making stuff up.

It is a "solid rock" true, whether you accept is or not.

 

[jsfisher]

In this case you are based on the finite case of the comparison between distinct X and distinct Z, which are the two (where two is a finite cardinal) extreme cases of [X,Z] interval, such that X < Z < Y....

I see your reading comprehension issues continue. You don't understand what I wrote, so you misrepresent and misinterpret it.

No wonder you don't get it. Instead you just invent fiction of contradiction, inconsistency, and ignorance.

 

[jsfisher]

It is a "solid rock" true, whether you accept is or not.

It is a bare allegation from you. You allege many, many things, things you cannot explain or proof. This is just another in a long history.

...and like most of these things you allege, they are just your fantasy.

 

[doronshadmi]

I see your reading comprehension issues continue. You don't understand what I wrote, so you misrepresent and misinterpret it.

No wonder you don't get it. Instead you just invent fiction of contradiction, inconsistency, and ignorance.

I understand exactly what you wrote.

Again:

We are in the same state of Godel's incompleteness theorems, where things must be true but cannot be proved or disproved within the deductive framework that deals with the non-finite.

 

[doronshadmi]

It is a bare allegation from you. You allege many, many things, things you cannot explain or proof. This is just another in a long history.

...and like most of these things you allege, they are just your fantasy.

jsfisher, you have nothing more to say about this case, so you attack me personally, is't it?

 

[jsfisher]

I understand exactly what you wrote.

The evidence you provide contradicts you. You have misrepresented what I wrote every time you tried. You have accused me of writing things I didn't write, "forcing" things I didn't force, and concluding things I didn't conclude.

In the past you have demonstrated your inability to hold a thought for more than about two steps, then start filling in gaps with your own fantasy. This is no exception.

Again:

We are in the same state of Godel's incompleteness theorems, where things must be true but cannot be proved or disproved within the deductive framework that deals with the non-finite.

No one in this thread (other than you) seriously believes you have even a shallow understanding of Gödel's work, so your statement has no credibility. Moreover, it contradicts your most recent pet allegation.

 

[doronshadmi]

The evidence you provide contradicts you.

Really?

So by using what I wrote, please show explicitly where I fail, exactly as I did to your stuff.

There are no shortcuts here, and no only-personal-attack can help here.


Here it is http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4746186&postcount=3102 , so please do your best.

 

[jsfisher]

It is a bare allegation from you. You allege many, many things, things you cannot explain or proof. This is just another in a long history.

...and like most of these things you allege, they are just your fantasy.

jsfisher, you have nothing more to say about this case, so you attack me personally, is't it?

The facts are what they are.

You do make many, many fantastical allegations. You do not often provide any evidence to support your allegations. You do have a long history (here, in these fora and elsewhere) of this behavior.

 

[doronshadmi]

The facts are what they are.

You do make many, many fantastical allegations. You do not often provide any evidence to support your allegations. You do have a long history (here, in these fora and elsewhere) of this behavior.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4746319&postcount=3110

 

[jsfisher]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4746319&postcount=3110

If and when you are able to compose something that can actually stays with the proof, we can talk about that. However, I have invested too much already with your tangents off on to things nowhere in the proof.

 

[The Man]

You mix between two different answers of mine.

One was about the solution of OM, which clearly shows that there is no immediate local predecessor to Y (Here I use Fullness as the actual infinity).

The other is about the inability of Standard Math to explicitly define or disprove the existence of the immediate predecessor of Y, because it uses a finite case of collection in order to conclude something on a non-finite case of collection.

Well the latter is what we were talking about, that you chose to respond with what you now claim is basically some other answer, is simply your problem.

In other words, OM uses a viewpoint that is more comprehensive than the researched thing (an interval with non-finite elements, in this case) , and therefore my argument holds.

Which Argument would that be the one we were talking about where you claimed to be “using infinitely many finite cases” then asserted your ‘conclusion’ “because no finite case alone has the quality of a non-finite collection” or your augment now that your other answer was about something else?

On the contrary, Standard Math forces a viewpoint based on the Finite in order to conclude something about the Non-finite, and therefore this argument does not hold.

No Doron that is just your viewpoint, again please show us where ‘Standard Math’ makes any claim referring to “the interval of all non-finite elements”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_(mathematics)

In mathematics, a (real) interval is a set of real numbers with the property that any number that lies between two numbers in the set is also included in the set. For example, the set of all numbers x satisfying 0 ≤ x ≤ 1 is an interval which contains 0 and 1, as well as all numbers between them.

Again, The Man you are only showing that you make claims about standard math without understanding the claims you make or that standard math.

Well you highlighted ‘all’ but no reference to an “interval of all non-finite elements” appears in the quotation you provided. Is ‘all’ somehow synonymous with your “interval of all non-finite elements” in your ‘notion’? Which would be kind of redundant and nonsensical since your statement cantinas the word ‘all’ so apparently you do not associate ‘all’ directly and only with your “interval of all non-finite elements” assertion. Again Doron you just demonstrate that instead of reading what is written you simply insert whatever meaning suits your whim.

Just for your edification the interval [0,1] of the real numbers has a infinite number of elements but each of those elements are finite and the interval itself is finite as it spans a finite rage meaning the difference between the boundaries is a finite value (1 in this example). It is in fact your “infinitely many finite cases”.

 

[The Man]

How would you know? Your analogy has not been discussed at all except for a side reference you completely failed to understand. So, the only evidence available so far is that you are the only one lacking some understanding of the red photon analogy.

Well in this regard ‘red photons’ do have the energy required to produce the photoelectric effect depending on the material being bombarded, as you note with cesium. In fact most remote controls (those not using radio frequencies) operate by infa-red or photons with energy lower (longer wavelength) then visible ‘red’ light causing the photoelectric effect. Since we can turn on our TVs Doron’s analogy just doesn’t work as usual. Again Doron’s analogies only serve to demonstrate that his understanding of physics, technology and even philosophy are as abysmal as his understanding of math and language.

 

[The Man]

In other words, OM uses a viewpoint that is more comprehensive than the researched thing (an interval with non-finite elements, in this case) , and therefore my argument holds.

Here we have an admission by Doron that his OM uses a ‘viewpoint’ that is not directly related to “the researched thing” or as he puts it is “more comprehensive” meaning that it encompasses additional aspects not part of his “researched thing”. As such those additional aspects are independent and not related to his “researched thing”, thus just a consequence of his ‘OM viewpoint’. So Doron’s notion of research is not about some or limited to “the researched thing” but simply an expression of aspects of his ‘OM viewpoint’ that by his own assertion exceed the scope of whatever he claims he is ‘researching’. In the case of when he is ‘researching’ his ‘OM viewpoint’ (which apparently he never really does) must mean that his ‘OM viewpoint’ is "more comprehensive than", well, his ‘OM viewpoint’

 

[doronshadmi]

If and when you are able to compose something that can actually stays with the proof, we can talk about that. However, I have invested too much already with your tangents off on to things nowhere in the proof.

There is no proof, jsfisher.

You invested too much with something that does not hold.

 

[doronshadmi]

In the case of when he is ‘researching’ his ‘OM viewpoint’ (which apparently he never really does) must mean that his ‘OM viewpoint’ is "more comprehensive than", well, his ‘OM viewpoint’

So once again you demonstrate your inability to get self-reference results ( as clearly explained in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf pages 15 - 17).

Ride on The Man on your Weak Emergence horse, and keep your ignorance as long as you can along your dragged point path.

After this dialog with you and your friends, it is clear that you are nothing but a fanatic community of people like any religious sect, no more no less.

Here is a concrete example of your inability to get new notions: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4736064&postcount=2973 .

 

[jsfisher]

So, Doron, when can we expect your proof that real numbers must have immediate successors and/or immediate predecessors?

 

[Little 10 Toes]

There is no proof, jsfisher.

You invested too much with something that does not hold.

Thank you for agreeing that your tangents do not hold.