Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
zooterkin said:
Again, please give a real example of what OM can do that conventional maths cannot.
Click to expand...

conventional maths cannot make the real-time connections between ethical and logical skills of the reseacher.
 
Okay, just because I had nothing better to do but wait for ABR to call me and demonstrate his telepathy, and finalmessenger has not put in his novel of 12k words for me yet, *and* because I think Doron Shadmi is in India, *and* I am in Kolkata anyway, I decided to do this:

Error number 1:

Any dimension is measured in units. No matter how small. And unless the units of Doron are indivisable, which means they are the smallest number in his numbering system, they can not consist of an infinite number of .

If I can divide the units however, then it also consists of an infinite number of ___ elements.

This follows because the distance (1-dim) between any two . is at least a dimension, therefore there exists a ___ between any two .

That this is so can be directly perceived.

Error number 2:

The 'branching and single element' paradigm is an alias for 'fractal'.

That is nicely demonstrated by the Ford circles.

The Ford circles and the tangential approach to filling the distance between any two . on the ___ is nothing but an increasingly more accurate approximation of Real Numbers.

Nowhere in the article is given a proof that these 2-dimensional objects will ultimately fill the complete distance.

In fact, the demonstration is a proof of what I stated in Error 1.


Now Pucker up Doron! You are going to kiss it! I promise I won't wash it until you are here!
 
doronshadmi said:
Since you do not get (yet) that direct perception is not a thought, you are using here wrong analogies that are based on the level of different thoughts.

There is no skepticism at direct perception because skepticism works only on the level of thoughts.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4877172&postcount=4486 is exactly organized thoughts by direct perception, that delete your "dragged point" virus.
Click to expand...


Do you “directly perceive” your self-replicating nonsense remaining infectious when confronted with such "intelligence, education and skepticism”? This entire thread clearly demonstrates otherwise.
 
realpaladin said:
Okay, just because I had nothing better to do but wait for ABR to call me and demonstrate his telepathy, and finalmessenger has not put in his novel of 12k words for me yet, *and* because I think Doron Shadmi is in India, *and* I am in Kolkata anyway, I decided to do this:

Error number 1:

Any dimension is measured in units. No matter how small. And unless the units of Doron are indivisable, which means they are the smallest number in his numbering system, they can not consist of an infinite number of .

If I can divide the units however, then it also consists of an infinite number of ___ elements.

This follows because the distance (1-dim) between any two . is at least a dimension, therefore there exists a ___ between any two .

That this is so can be directly perceived.
Click to expand...
Thank you for using direct perception.

Just know you showed that you support the notion that ___ and . are essentially two different building-blocks, and no amount of 0-dim elements can fully cover a 1-dim element.

realpaladin said:
Error number 2:

The 'branching and single element' paradigm is an alias for 'fractal'.

That is nicely demonstrated by the Ford circles.

The Ford circles and the tangential approach to filling the distance between any two . on the ___ is nothing but an increasingly more accurate approximation of Real Numbers.

Nowhere in the article is given a proof that these 2-dimensional objects will ultimately fill the complete distance.

In fact, the demonstration is a proof of what I stated in Error 1.


Now Pucker up Doron! You are going to kiss it! I promise I won't wash it until you are here!
Click to expand...

Ford circle are used in my article as a tool to define whole, rational and irrational numbers, and you have totally missed it.

In other words, you support OM and you unaware of that, this is a good strat.

All you have to do now is to realize that you are actually an OM supporter.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Do you “directly perceive” your self-replicating nonsense remaining infectious when confronted with such "intelligence, education and skepticism”? This entire thread clearly demonstrates otherwise.
Click to expand...
Your "dragged point" virus was deleted.
 
doronshadmi said:
Thank you for using direct perception.

Just know you showed that you support the notion that ___ and . are essentially two different building-blocks, and no amount of 0-dim elements can fully cover a 1-dim element.



Ford circle are used in my article as a tool to define whole, rational and irrational numbers, and you have totally missed it.

In other words, you support OM and you unaware of that, this is a good strat.

All you have to do now is to realize that you are actually an OM supporter.
Click to expand...

Mods, pleeeeeeeeease try forgive me, but this can not warrant anything but a:

**** me!

He just made me one of his and I still see Error number 1. :eye-poppi
 
doronshadmi said:
Thank you for using direct perception.

Just know you showed that you support the notion that ___ and . are essentially two different building-blocks, and no amount of 0-dim elements can fully cover a 1-dim element.
Click to expand...
Now, please explain who is claiming that lines are constructed by sticking a lot of points together.
 
doronshadmi said:
Thank you for using direct perception.

Just know you showed that you support the notion that ___ and . are essentially two different building-blocks, and no amount of 0-dim elements can fully cover a 1-dim element.

Ford circle are used in my article as a tool to define whole, rational and irrational numbers, and you have totally missed it.

In other words, you support OM and you unaware of that, this is a good strat.

All you have to do now is to realize that you are actually an OM supporter.
Click to expand...
Doron, thanks for that post. Seriously - I haven't laughed so much in weeks.

realpaladin, trust in the power of the auto-censor ;)
 
doronshadmi said:
Ford circle are used in my article as a tool to define whole, rational and irrational numbers, and you have totally missed it.
Click to expand...


Ford Circles, defined by the rational numbers, get used to define the rational numbers. Will the circle ever be broken?
 
doronshadmi said:
It has a fixed amout of elements, someting that a non-finite set does not have.
Click to expand...

This is what you said! In response to my question "how does it differ from an infinite set"

And I demonstrated, and you applauded me for it, that it does NOT have a fixed amount of 1-dim elements, it has an infinite amount of 1-dim elements. So it is not different from an infinite set.

You simply describe points and lines in made-up terminology!

So you are contradicting yourself. And you still need to get your behind over here to kiss mine.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
Now, please explain who is claiming that lines are constructed by sticking a lot of points together.
Click to expand...
Anyone that ignores the fact that a line is not a non-local building-block (which is a property that no point has).
 
realpaladin said:
This is what you said! In response to my question "how does it differ from an infinite set"

And I demonstrated, and you applauded me for it, that it does NOT have a fixed amount of 1-dim elements, it has an infinite amount of 1-dim elements. So it is not different from an infinite set.

You simply describe points and lines in made-up terminology!

So you are contradicting yourself. And you still need to get your behind over here to kiss mine.
Click to expand...

Don't you amaze yourself from time to time by your inability to get what you read?

Any finite amount is a fixed amount, no matter how many different fixed amounts you check.

This is not that case with a non-finite amount, it is not a fixed amount (its exact cardinality does not exist, as it exists in the case of the cardinality of a finite amount).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom