Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Man, as a :boxedin: thinker you have a lot to learn from those kindergarten kids.
 
doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nice attempt to side-step things. All that mathy stuff must be just plan wrong, because Doron's got notions.

No, formal languages are used exactly because the precisely and concisely express concepts. Your lack of understanding of those concepts doesn't invalidate their formal expression.

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.
Click to expand...

I never tried to.

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.
Click to expand...

So?

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.
Click to expand...

Well, then, why don't you take your hierarchy to its end-point? The reals, after all, are built on the notions of the rationals, and the rationals are built from the integers, and the integers are built from fundamental set theory.

By the logic you express, above, we should be reducing everything to set theoretic terms, right?

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
Click to expand...

Ok, lets consider just one of these for now. For the middle you you responded:

doronshadmi said:
C has no elements so A<C<B expression = A<B expression.

A<B expression totally depends on the comparison between the elements of A (called x) and the elements of B (called y).
Click to expand...

You incorrectly alleged C has no elements. Support your bogus statement.
 
jsfisher said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. Doron can not express Mathematical ideas in any reasonable way. This is because he simply does not understand the basic concepts. He never will either, because he has a fundamental problem in his learning abilities: he is incapable of accepting things as true although he does not fully understand them. His assumption is that if he does not understand something it must be wrong. When I first took set theory or calculus I did not understand things to their full extent right from the beginning - I guess I am not the only one. But unlike Doron, I moved on and later gained that understanding as I gathered more knowledge and experience. Later on these things I did not understand became trivial. Doron will not go through this process, which is how learning works with most people due to his stubbornness and arrogance. I presume this is a personality issue, and all our efforts to educate him in Math are in vain.
 
jsfisher said:
Well, then, why don't you take your hierarchy to its end-point? The reals, after all, are built on the notions of the rationals, and the rationals are built from the integers, and the integers are built from fundamental set theory
Click to expand...
This "hierarchy" is the "mother of all nonsense" of Standard Math.

According to Standard Math, there is one and only one set of elements, called real numbers, along the real-line, and there are two basic approaches about them.

One approach is to filter the location of these elements, according to some principle, and the other approach is to avoid any filter of the location.

We can use Ford Circle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_circle ) in order to rigorously demonstrate it:

FordC.jpg


The whole numbers are the result of a filter that ignores the existence of elements between some two given locations.

The rational numbers are the result of a filter that ignores the existence of elements that are not based on tangent circles, between some two given locations.

The irrational numbers are the result of any location between some two given locations.
 
Last edited:
sympathic said:
But unlike Doron, I moved on and later gained that understanding as I gathered more knowledge and experience. Later on these things I did not understand became trivial.
Click to expand...
No, later you where forced by the power of the community of the current mathematical scholars to follow the paradigm of that community, otherwise you will not get any degree from that community.

For degree, you must agree, sympathic.
 
doronshadmi said:
No, later you where forced by the power of the community of the current mathematical scholars to follow the paradigm of that community, otherwise you will not get any degree from that community.

For degree, you must agree, sympathic.
Click to expand...

Continue to fool yourself - it's your life. Just don't bother anyone else with your nonsense.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
By OM, the base\value form is a kosher number exactly as 1 is a kosher number.
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
"kosher" = "valid"
Click to expand...

So after 10 days you define kosher. Your quote still doesn't make sense.
"By OM, the base\value form is a kosher valid number exactly as 1 is a kosher valid number."

Please define "valid number".
 
Let us take this insightful part from cut-the-knot (http://www.cut-the-knot.org/proofs/fords.shtml ):

"Still Mathematics went its own way and nowadays Algebra and Geometry are considered completely independent sciences. But links between the two pop up now and then and many are quite unexpected in their simplicity. [Conway and Guy, p. 153]"

These "unexpected" links are a direct result of the illusionary dichotomy between Algebra and Geometry that began only in the sixteenth century.

OM rigorously repairs this illusion exactly by using methods that are based on abstraction of visual methods, that enable to get things at once (in parallel) in addition to the standard step-by-step serilal thinking style (which is the only thinking style of the current community of mathematicians, which by mistake believe that any research that is not based on a step-by-step serial thinking, is not a mathematical reseach).
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
So after 10 days you define kosher. Your quote still doesn't make sense.
"By OM, the base\value form is a kosher valid number exactly as 1 is a kosher valid number."

Please define "valid number".
Click to expand...

Little 10, you waste your time on energy on nonsense. I am not with you in this dance.
 
doronshadmi said:
The Man, as a :boxedin: thinker you have a lot to learn from those kindergarten kids.
Click to expand...

No, I actually learned in kindergarten and have continued to learn since then. Since you have chosen to go back to the beginning in your education, we are still waiting for you to catch up.
 
doronshadmi said:
Let us take this insightful part from cut-the-knot (http://www.cut-the-knot.org/proofs/fords.shtml ):

"Still Mathematics went its own way and nowadays Algebra and Geometry are considered completely independent sciences. But links between the two pop up now and then and many are quite unexpected in their simplicity. [Conway and Guy, p. 153]"

These "unexpected" links are a direct result of the illusionary dichotomy between Algebra and Geometry that began only in the sixteenth century.
Click to expand...

Such a short quotation and you still managed to misunderstand and misrepresent it.
 
The Man said:
No, I actually learned in kindergarten and have continued to learn since then. Since you have chosen to go back to the beginning in your education, we are still waiting for you to catch up.
Click to expand...
There is nothing to catch up in your case, because you are still in your head\hammer age.
 
doronshadmi said:
There is nothing to catch up in your case, because you are still in your head\hammer age.
Click to expand...


So you proceeded through some “head\hammer age” ? If you recall it was an ‘interaction’ I specifically recommended not being attempted. If your subsequent mental, learning and reasoning abilities are the result of you indeed passing through an ‘age’ of such ‘interactions’, then the reasons for my not recommending it become quite apparent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom