Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
You are right, any arbitrary number > 3 and < 5, so?
Click to expand...

The "so" part is that you say things that are completely wrong without much thought on your part. And even with your attempt at a correction, here, you are still wrong. The number 4 is greater than 3 and less than 5. Are you now claiming 4 is the next number after [3, 5)?

In an earlier post today, I described a natural extension of the common ordering for the reals to include intervals. It appears to be the partial ordering everyone in this thread is assuming, except may be you. By the ordering, 5 is an immediate successor to the interval [3, 5).

Don't like it? Then tell us what ordering you'd prefer.
 
jsfisher said:
The "so" part is that you say things that are completely wrong without much thought on your part. And even with your attempt at a correction, here, you are still wrong. The number 4 is greater than 3 and less than 5. Are you now claiming 4 is the next number after [3, 5)?

In an earlier post today, I described a natural extension of the common ordering for the reals to include intervals. It appears to be the partial ordering everyone in this thread is assuming, except may be you. By the ordering, 5 is an immediate successor to the interval [3, 5).

Don't like it? Then tell us what ordering you'd prefer.
Click to expand...
this post is irrelevant, because mu corrected answer is:

Any number > 5 (I simply made a typo mistake at the first post, and then wrongly replied about it, but now it is fixed.
 
zooterkin said:
5 may be present in the expression [3, 5), but the number 5 does not occur in the interval specified by the expression. Get it?
Click to expand...

In that case 5 is not the immadiate successor of [3,5), because given any value of that interval called Z, there is another value called h, shuch that Z<h<5, which (as jsfisher says) always prevents form 5 to be an immediade successor of [3,5).
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Reading comprehension difficulties, again, I see, doron.
Click to expand...
Here os a concrete example of Reading comprehension difficulties:
jsfisher said:
Yes, really. The proof showed that the set {X : X < Y} has no largest member. There was no half-open finite interval [X, Y) anywhere in the proof.
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher,

Is Y is a mamber of set {X : X < Y}?

Please answer by yes or no.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
doronshadmi said:
this post is irrelevant, because mu corrected answer is:

Any number > 5 (I simply made a typo mistake at the first post, and then wrongly replied about it, but now it is fixed.
Click to expand...

No, the post was very relevant. It points out, again, that you post without much thought to what you are writing.

Had you typed "any number < 5" but meant "any number > 5" -- that would have been a typographic error. That isn't what you did, though. You were in an entirely different area of wrong.

In addition, even with this latest correction, you are still wrong. You misunderstand what "next" means in the context it has been presented in recent posts. You weren't asked for a number after [3, 5), but for the next number. Since you claim the next number isn't 5, it would need to be less than 5.

Even under your misunderstanding of "next", you are still wrong. Your greater-than would need to have been greater-than-or-equal-to.

So, yes, the post was relevant, and your response simply adds to the evidence.
 
jsfisher said:
No, the post was very relevant. It points out, again, that you post without much thought to what you are writing.

Had you typed "any number < 5" but meant "any number > 5" -- that would have been a typographic error. That isn't what you did, though. You were in an entirely different area of wrong.

In addition, even with this latest correction, you are still wrong. You misunderstand what "next" means in the context it has been presented in recent posts. You weren't asked for a number after [3, 5), but for the next number. Since you claim the next number isn't 5, it would need to be less than 5.

Even under your misunderstanding of "next", you are still wrong. Your greater-than would need to have been greater-than-or-equal-to.

So, yes, the post was relevant, and your response simply adds to the evidence.
Click to expand...

This is simply nonesense.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4789115&postcount=3486 shows what is really going on.
 
zooterkin said:
Ok. So, what is the next number after [3, 5)?
Click to expand...

If we are under the framwork of Standard Math and we are talking about real numbers, than then no real number has an immediate successor, and again the concept "immediated successor" is revelant only between two whole numbers (under Standard Math).
 
doronshadmi said:
In that case 5 is not the immadiate successor of [3,5), because given any value of that interval called Z, there is another value called h, shuch that Z<h<5, which (as jsfisher says) always prevents form 5 to be an immediade successor of [3,5).
Click to expand...


No. Your torturous phrasing aside, the only thing you can show by trying to apply my proof to the interval [3, 5) is that the interval has no largest element. Since no one is claiming the interval [3, 5) has a largest element, I am at a loss as to why you would even bring it up.

However, doron, if you'd like to show that 5 is not an immediate successor to [3, 5), all you need show is that some value must exist that's between the two.
 
doronshadmi said:
If we are under the framwork of Standard Math and we are talking about real numbers, than then no real number has an immediate successor, and again the concept "immediated successor" is revelant only between two whole numbers (under Standard Math).
Click to expand...


The question was not about immediate successors of a real number, though, now was it? The domain is that of the real numbers and real intervals combined with the common ordering function I described in an earlier post.
 
doronshadmi said:
If we are under the framwork of Standard Math and we are talking about real numbers, than then no real number has an immediate successor, and again the concept "immediated successor" is revelant only between two whole numbers (under Standard Math).
Click to expand...
We're not talking about a real number having a successor. We are talking about an interval having a successor.

That interval is defined as having 5 as its successor. If you really can't understand this, and are having such trouble with simple English words, I would suggest that you find another hobby.
 
jsfisher said:
The question was not about immediate successors of a real number, though, now was it? The domain is that of the real numbers and real intervals combined with the common ordering function I described in an earlier post.
Click to expand...
jsfisher, you are talking nonsense.

If [3,5) is a collection of infinitely many R members, and since no R member is an immediate successor of any other R member, then no one of the infinitely many R members of the interval [3,5) has 5 as its immediate successor
exactly as shown at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4789115&postcount=3486 .

Your notion that [3,5) is something that is totally disconnected from its elements, is nothing but an illusion, exactly as if you claim that your body is totally disconnected from its atoms.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom