Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
As long as you or jsfisher avoiding detailed criticism of http://www.scribd.com/doc/17504323/WZATRP8 your replies do not hold water.

If this is all you have to say, than there is nothing to discuss here anymore.

You have lost your abilities for real criticism.

It is boring.
Click to expand...


You didn't like it when we were specific and detailed: You got the wrong answer. We are still trying to figure out why you are so proud of that.

Be that as it may, the real problem with your treatise is that you first misrepresent standard mathematics (no surprise), then make an illogical argument against it (no surprise). Finally, you simply state via word salad (no surprise), but without proof (no surprise), your own position.

It doesn't leave much for what you'd consider real criticism, because you have no valid argument. If you'd eliminate all the straw men, and just focus on your own ideas, may be there'd be something to discuss.
 
Perhaps this will help.

A paradox is a line of reasoning that results in a what seems to be a contradiction. Here is a modest example you may have encountered in primary school:
Three men arrive at a hotel. The hotel has but one room available, and the manager offers the room for all three to share for $30. The three agree, each chip in their $10, and head off to the room for the night.

Later, the manager realizes he has overcharged the three men by $5. He hands $5 to the bell hop with instructions to take it up to their room. The bell hop, however, is not as honest as the hotel manager. He returns only $1 to each man and keeps the remaining $2 for himself.

So, after the $1 refund, each man contributed $9. Three times $9 is $27, plus the $2 from the bell hop is $29. Where's the missing dollar?​

We started with $30. We can only account for $29. Thus, the paradox.

The paradox is easy to resolve; you just need to identify the fault in the reasoning. It cannot be resolved by introducing a "new mathematics" and simply declaring the missing dollar off to some non-local bank. The original contradiction would still remain, despite the vigorous hand-waving.

In Zeno's paradox, even though Achilles is running much faster than the tortoise and therefore would soon run right on by, the argument that as presented shows Achilles never quite able to catch up to (let alone pass) the tortoise. Thus, the paradox.

Just like the paradox with the hotel guests, this paradox is easily resolved by exposing the fault in the reasoning. Introducing a "new mathematics" and simply declaring the race unending doesn't cut it. The original contradiction still remains, despite the vigorous hand-waving.
 
jsfisher said:
Perhaps this will help.

A paradox is a line of reasoning that results in a what seems to be a contradiction. Here is a modest example you may have encountered in primary school:
Three men arrive at a hotel. The hotel has but one room available, and the manager offers the room for all three to share for $30. The three agree, each chip in their $10, and head off to the room for the night.

Later, the manager realizes he has overcharged the three men by $5. He hands $5 to the bell hop with instructions to take it up to their room. The bell hop, however, is not as honest as the hotel manager. He returns only $1 to each man and keeps the remaining $2 for himself.

So, after the $1 refund, each man contributed $9. Three times $9 is $27, plus the $2 from the bell hop is $29. Where's the missing dollar?​

We started with $30. We can only account for $29. Thus, the paradox.

The paradox is easy to resolve; you just need to identify the fault in the reasoning. It cannot be resolved by introducing a "new mathematics" and simply declaring the missing dollar off to some non-local bank. The original contradiction would still remain, despite the vigorous hand-waving.

In Zeno's paradox, even though Achilles is running much faster than the tortoise and therefore would soon run right on by, the argument that as presented shows Achilles never quite able to catch up to (let alone pass) the tortoise. Thus, the paradox.

Just like the paradox with the hotel guests, this paradox is easily resolved by exposing the fault in the reasoning. Introducing a "new mathematics" and simply declaring the race unending doesn't cut it. The original contradiction still remains, despite the vigorous hand-waving.
Click to expand...

jsfisher said:
paradox is easily resolved by exposing the fault in the reasoning.
Click to expand...
One of the options is to show that there is no paradox, in the first place, and this is exactly what I show in A\T Race case.

Moreover, fault in the reasoning may have many faces, but first we have to carefully find if there is a fault in the reasoning (which can be the basis to some paradox) in the first place.

------------------

The 3 men paid 10*3=30

Since the right price is 25, than each person had to pay only 25/3 = 8+1/3

The hotel manager took 5 out of the 30 (30 - 5 = 25) gave it to the bell hop and the bell hop was suppose to return 10-(8+1/3)=1+2/3 to each person. But actually he returned only 1 to each parson and took 2/3*3=2 stolen money to his pocket.

But now each person actually pays 9.

(10 first price - 9 new price + 2/3 stolen money)*3 men = 5

This problem has nothing to do with the non-finite, and the non-finite is essential in Zeno's A\T Paradox.

In other words jsfisher, you are using straw man ones again.

Your community does exactly this mistake, it forces X (the finite) in order to solve Y (the non-finite), and by doing that it fails to understand the non-finite.

The failure goes like that:

Your community assumes that infinitely many different values can be summed up to some accurate value called Limit.

By using this wrong assumption it claims that non-finite different positions along the Race path can be summed up by a finite amount of time, which is equivalent to the claim that 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+...= exactly 2 (and here Limit shows its ugly face).

My paper does two important steps:

Step 1:

A\T Race is not a paradox in the first place, because A wins T case has nothing to do with A does not win T ( the state (A wins T) AND (A does not win T) simply does not exist).

Step 2:

A novel analysis of (A does not win T) is given.


All you have to do is to open your mind to http://www.scribd.com/doc/17504323/WZATRP8 .

So this time please try to open some window to OM.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
This problem has nothing to do with the non-finite, and the non-finite is essential in Zeno's A\T Paradox.
Click to expand...

I never said it did. I said it was a simple example of a paradox, primary school level.

In other words jsfisher, you are using straw man ones again.
Click to expand...

Again, you show no understanding of the term, straw man, whatsoever.
 
jsfisher said:
I never said it did.
Click to expand...

So your example is irrelevant (actually it is relevent to a community that calims that the non-finite is reducible to the finite, which is a Straw Man).

jsfisher said:
Again, you show no understanding of the term, straw man, whatsoever.
Click to expand...
The straw man does not know that he is the straw man in your case, jsfisher.

Your community reduces (weakness) the non-finite to the finite by using Limits, and then claims that it solves A\T Race paradox. This kind of "Logics" is called Straw Man, and since you are a member of your community, you are one on the Straw Men.

Ones again you show that you have no clue with what you deal here.

Edit:

The existence of the path that enables some race, has nothing to do with the existence of the competitors on it.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
I think this statement speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

Doron takes "straw man" literally, the ones you can find in the fields and symbolizes something that as is perceived as an actual being but is not.

He is not familiar with the term "straw man argument", which is something completely different. Must be his "direct perception" misleading him again.
 
jsfisher said:
I think this statement speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
You are right, you are realy speak for youeself, but you are not aware of it, like any normal straw man.

You avoided a detailed reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4935873&postcount=5409 , which clearly exposes your community and you as Straw Men.


Weakening the non-finite to the finite, in order to be fitted to your Limit notion, that’s how your community works, and that's how you totally miss the real beauty of Incompleteness, Uncertainty, Redundancy and Randomness as the living and ever creative dance of OM Non-locality\Locality Linkage, born from Direct Perception.

In order to start to get OM, I suggest to you to watch BBC-Dangerous Knowledge:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=6EE4707D6ADE3857&search_query=BBC-Dangerous+Knowledge

One of the reasons that Cantor or Gödel became mentally ill, is that they did not have Direct Perception of the real nature of the non-finite, exactly because they tried to get it on the level of thoughts that are expressed as verbal symbolic infinitely many localities that cannot be Non-locality.

Non-locality is exactly not infinitely many localities, and this beautiful Direct Perception fact really lets the Mathematical science the ability to be used as the most accurate language among any possible (abstract or not) phenomena.
 
Last edited:
sympathic said:
Doron takes "straw man" literally, the ones you can find in the fields and symbolizes something that as is perceived as an actual being but is not.

He is not familiar with the term "straw man argument", which is something completely different. Must be his "direct perception" misleading him again.
Click to expand...


Curiously, he provided a link to an explanation of the straw man argument. It has also been explained to him in very simple terms. None of that matters, though, because Doron doesn't care about what things actually mean, only what he thinks they should mean.
 
sympathic said:
No I am not. If you do not know (and you have been hinted regarding this many times) just look up "straw man argument". This entire straw man thing is a example of your misinterpreting things and inventing your own meanings to well defined terms. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously?
Click to expand...

Yes you are worng, and you don't understand what Straw Man is.

Straw Man has several variations but the common principle is:

Using a viewpoint of X that easily enables to defeat it by some argument.

We do not need a discussion between two sides, it can be done by a one side that artificially weakness the investigated subject in order to easily solve it (artificially reduce its problematic non-triviality into some non-problematic triviality, and then easily "defeat" the problem).

This is exactly what the current mainstream of the mathematical community (that does not reject the non-finite) does to the concept of the non-finite.

Instead of directly deal with it, it first weakness it by define it in terms of the finite, and then it claims that it solved (defeated) it.

You, jsfisher and The Man have no guts to deal (in details) with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4936250&postcount=5414 and with http://www.scribd.com/doc/17504323/WZATRP8 .
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Yes you are worng, and you don't understand what Straw Man is.

Straw Man has several variations but the common principle is:

Using a viewpoint of X that easily enables to defeat it by some assertion.

We do not need an argument between two sides, it can be done by a one side that artificially weakness the investigated subject in order to easily solve it (artificially reduce its problematic non-triviality into some non-problematic triviality, and than easily defeat the problem).

This is exactly what the current mainstream of the mathematical community (that does not reject the non-finite) does to the concept of the non-finite.

Instead of directly dealing with it, it first weakness it by define it in terms of the finite, and then it claims that it solve it.
Click to expand...


Have you considered starting a business making pretzels? You are extraordinary at twisting things. Then again, since your product would be unrecognizable, it may be best if you don't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom