Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
dlorde said:
But it was you who said (in 3537) that the ordering operator '<' is valid if it compares 'things of the same type', e.g. intervals, but not things of differing types:

Since jsfisher spiked your guns by substituting [Y,Y] for Y, so that [X,Y) < [Y,Y] is valid according to your own strange rules, and [Y,Y] is the immediate successor of [X,Y) by your own admission (above), you are now explicitly contradicting your previous assertion and saying that [3,5) < [5,5] is gibberish if you ignore their elements...

You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

You have missed http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4791958&postcount=3562 .
 
doronshadmi said:
You have missed http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4791958&postcount=3562 .
Click to expand...
That post contradicts your previous posts in exactly the same way.

There's no point trying to 'break' what you call 'Standard Math' by trying to change or 'invalidate' its definitions - doing that means it's no longer 'Standard Math' you're arguing about, and you end up just arguing about the definitions. If you have a new or different math, present it - explain how it comes about, where it differs from 'Standard Math', why there is a need for it, what advantages it gives. Demonstrate those advantages, present it with formal comparisons against 'Standard Math', showing what it can achieve...

This long-winded haphazard debate suggests that you can't - that you don't have anything coherent to present - just a few odd bees in your bonnet. Please show us what you've got in a formal and coherent way before we all die of old age and boredom.
 
dlorde said:
That post contradicts your previous posts in exactly the same way.

There's no point trying to 'break' what you call 'Standard Math' by trying to change or 'invalidate' its definitions - doing that means it's no longer 'Standard Math' you're arguing about, and you end up just arguing about the definitions. If you have a new or different math, present it - explain how it comes about, where it differs from 'Standard Math', why there is a need for it, what advantages it gives. Demonstrate those advantages, present it with formal comparisons against 'Standard Math', showing what it can achieve...

This long-winded haphazard debate suggests that you can't - that you don't have anything coherent to present - just a few odd bees in your bonnet. Please show us what you've got in a formal and coherent way before we all die of old age and boredom.
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4768770&postcount=3326
 
jsfisher said:
Yes, we all saw that post, too. Looks of misrepresentations, inconsistencies, contradictions, and misunderstandings there. What of it?
Click to expand...

This is the second time that you took these words about you right out of my mouth.

You are indeed a mind reader!
 
dlorde said:
That was supposed to be formal and coherent? :boggled:
Click to expand...

Yes:cool: but not to people that their reasoning is limited :boxedin: only on "How (by using only serial thinking (also known as analysis)) to define and\or use?" question.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
z and h are variables.

Why is it you seem to have such a problem understanding that a variable is variable and can take a range of values?
Click to expand...

You still have not provided a value or range of values which supports you conclusion that 2 is not the immediate predecessor of [1,2) as requested, so again.

The Man said:
Please identify the real number between the real number interval (or interval in the reals if you insist) [1,2) and the real number 2 or any real number in that interval that is not less then 2.
Click to expand...
 
The Man said:
You still have not provided a value or range of values which supports you conclusion that 2 is not the immediate predecessor of [1,2) as requested, so again.
Click to expand...

To avoid confusing Doron any more than he is, I think you mean successor.
 
doronshadmi said:
This is the second time that you took these words about you right out of my mouth.

You are indeed a mind reader!
Click to expand...


The only problem with your statement is that you allege things, but you never provided any real support for your allegations. On the other hand, your misuse of terminology, inconsistencies, misunderstandings, and contradictions are well documented.

Without any support for your claims, Doron, you will find no followers here.
 
doronshadmi said:
z and h are variables.

Why is it you seem to have such a problem understanding that a variable is variable and can take a range of values?
Click to expand...

That's not the source of the misunderstanding at all. The real problem is you, Doron, continue to ignore the meaning of immediate successor. Instead, you just substitute something you imagined to be true, even though it is not.
 
jsfisher said:
That's not the source of the misunderstanding at all. The real problem is you, Doron, continue to ignore the meaning of immediate successor. Instead, you just substitute something you imagined to be true, even though it is not.
Click to expand...

That's the source of the misunderstanding. jsfisher, continue to ignore the non-exictence of immediate successor. You just substitute something you imagined to be true, even though it is not.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
The only problem with your statement is that you allege things, but you never provided any real support for your allegations. On the other hand, your misuse of terminology, inconsistencies, misunderstandings, and contradictions are well documented.
Click to expand...
The only problem with your statement is that you allege things, but you never provided any real support for your allegations. All you did is to play with fancy notations without any notion behind it.
 
Doron’s new debating tactic seems to be “I’m rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you”. Must be something else he got from those kindergarten kids who gave him his ‘notions’.


We are still waiting for your relevant response to this request Doron.


The Man said:
Please identify the real number between the real number interval (or interval in the reals if you insist) [1,2) and the real number 2 or any real number in that interval that is not less then 2.
Click to expand...
 
doronshadmi said:
The only problem with your statement is that you allege things, but you never provided any real support for your allegations. All you did is to play with fancy notations without any notion behind it.
Click to expand...

Fancy notations? why don't you understand that this is the language of Math? you have been told many times that you have no understanding of this language. Your approach verifies that.

Using other people's wording and expression styles by copying, pasting and editing seems to be a habit of yours. It may be useful in learning English, but it is not in learning Maths.
 
Last edited:
sympathic said:
Fancy notations? why don't you understand that this is the language of Math? you have been told many times that you have no understanding of this language. Your approach verifies that.
Click to expand...

He sort of does. He seems to be able to read the simpler predicates that have been posted. Where he completely falls down is any form of synthesis of information.

In this whole interval successor discussion, he's finally accepted that intervals can have an order relation imposed on them. The only way he did that, though, was to translate it to the common order relation for numbers. The rest of us understand interval ordering to be based on numeric ordering; Doron has converted into numeric ordering.

That leaves him lost when faced with the concept of immediate successor; he hasn't synthesized the idea of interval ordering having its own existence, so he can't cope with immediate successors of intervals.

So, even when faced with a Mathematically precise definition for successor and for immediate successor, he cannot bridge from one to the other, even though he may understand the two separately.

You may have noticed, too, he's copy/pasted much of my Latex ad nauseum, but he is yet to post anything original. (Well, anything more intelligible than underscores with dots on them with no explanation of meaning.) I do not believe he can. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I will remain convinced Doron cannot express a complete thought with any rigor, either as a first-order predicate or even in reasonably plain English.
 
Last edited:
sympathic said:
Fancy notations? why don't you understand that this is the language of Math?
Click to expand...

Because any language (formal or not) is first of all based on notions, where notations are nothing but tools for notions' representations.

At the moment that some language plays with the tools (the notations) and ignores the notions, it gets off stage.
 
sympathic said:
Fancy notations? why don't you understand that this is the language of Math?
Click to expand...

Because any language (formal or not) is first of all based on notions, where notations are nothing but tools for notions' representations.

At the moment that some language plays with the tools (the notations) and ignores the notions, it gets off stage.


jsfisher said:
he hasn't synthesized the idea of interval ordering having its own existence
Click to expand...
No, jsfisher you totally failed to show interval ordering, because you can't show that the concept of order between intervals is disconnected form their content.

The reason is very simple, no interval exists independently of its contents, but the elements that are used as interval contents, do not need the interval for their existence.

There is here an hierarchy of dependency that cannot be ignored, and you and your community of expertise ignore it with your notationless game with fancy notations.

jsfisher said:
You may have noticed, too, he's copy/pasted much of my Latex ad nauseum, but he is yet to post anything original.
Click to expand...

Jsfisher nothing is original in your illusionary game with fancy notations , as clearly exposed in the following posts:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4792733&postcount=3587

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4792779&postcount=3588

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4792867&postcount=3590
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom