The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
You have only "proven" that you are "off-topic of the foundations of the mathematical science sice" Doron's time.
Deeper than primes
- Thread starter doronshadmi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- deeper than primes
- Status
You have only "proven" that you are "off-topic of the foundations of the mathematical science sice" Doron's time.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
You can't deal in details with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4972511&postcount=5578 , isn't it The Man?
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
The only “details” in that post, Doron, simply detail your fantasies and they demonstrate that you are "off-topic of the foundations of the mathematical science”.
Say weren’t you putting on your hat before and saying…
Jsfisher,
It is ok with me, think whatever you like.
The discussion on this subject with you is done.
Thank you very muchyou helped me a lot to refine it.
(By the way the English editing of http://www.scribd.com/doc/17504323/WZATRP8 is done).
Are you taking it off and throwing it in the ring again because you just enjoy being handed your hat?
Please show where jsfisher ever agreed with you that “that Cardinality is first of all a measurement unit of the existence of things”. Otherwise stop purporting your fantasies as facts.
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
You're asking for a fundamental lifestyle change.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Indeed an intervention and some rehab might be required for that particular addiction.
Little 10 Toes
Master Poster
You can't deal in details with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4972511&postcount=5579 , isn't it doronshadmi?
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
(My bolded)jsfisher said:
Do you really think that the existence of X (or is absence) is not fundamental for any measurement of it?
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
There are no details in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4972650&postcount=5579.
On the contrary http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4972511&postcount=5578 has details that are ignored by The Man, jsfisher and you, so?
Last edited:
Oh, look, he's edited it, with no apology.
I think I've sussed it.
If you manually look for postcount=5579 it's jsfisher's post (as linked to by Doron ), not the post you get to if you actually click Little 10 Toes' link.
This puts an entirely different complexion on the last hundred or so pages
Yes, the URL contains a link to the post (the p= part), and the postcount= is just something which is displayed, no checking is done to validate the value.
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
The cherry-picked quote doesn't support your contention. In fact, it contradicts your contention.
I guess you don't know that existence and absence are not antonyms.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Do you really think “that Cardinality is first of all a measurement unit of the existence of things”?
Let’s try that, for set X of all possible values of the variable Y we have {Y1, Y2, Y3… YZ}. The cardinality of set X then = Z.
If Y can take no value, say as the value of any irrational number in the set of positive integers, then set X is the empty set and Z=0. If Y can only take one value in one instance as 0, say as the number of irrational numbers in the set of positive integers then set X is {0} and Z=1. If Y can also only take the value 0 in multiple instances as the number of irrational numbers in the set of positive integers between any two positive integers “I” such as YN as the number of irrational number in the set of positive integers in the interval [IN, IN+1) Thus Y1 = 0, Y2 = 0, Y3 = 0 …..YN = 0, then Z = N = ¥.
In all cases the variably Y exists as part of the definition of set X. Set X exists whether or not variable Y can take only one value in one instance, always takes the same value or different values in multiple instances, or can take no value, as does the cardinality of set X as Z. Also in all cases the variable Y goes to the lack of existence of irrational numbers in the set of positive integers. So exactly what “things” is the value Z “a measurement unit of the existence of” other then simply the cardinality or size of set X depending on how the variable Y is used to demonstrate the lack of existence of irrational numbers in the set of positive integers?
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes
Master Poster
!!! All right then. 
So my post shows what happens when you stay up late and post on a work night. Let this be a lesson and public example to the rest of you!
I was trying to point out that jsfisher did respond in details about your post and you don't respond to any of it. Luckly you knew what I was refering to.
... then again, you show that you don't read things. jsfisher did respond in details. He confirms that you and he don't agree on the definition of "Cardinality", on how he uses "Cardinality" and how you claim "Cardinality" should be defined. Did you miss that when you read his post?
You're the one who confuses details. You claim
You acknowledge you don't share the same definition, but you already claimed that you do. Evidence, you may ask?
I asked you about if a set has a Cardinality of 2, does that set exists more than a set with Cardinality of 1, but exists less than a set of Cardinality of 3? I still don't know if you answered the question of "what do you mean by the existance of things", whether or not which of my three sets there are the "strongest", or which set exists the most?
Thank you for confirming that you make up words and definitions (opps, you're still working on a definition of stronger (and not providing examples) and using your own unique notions (i.e. "{""}").
Perhaps this is the reason you can't define "strong"?
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
In your example Y is an existing thing that measures the non-existence of things.
Y cannot be a member to some set (say X) if it does not exist, and the Cardinality of X (called Z) is the measurement unit of the existence of Y as a member of X.
If X has no members, then the existing X is an atom, where atom is an existing thing that has no sub-existing things.
For example:
{} is an atom (it is an existing thing that has no sub-existing things).
On the contrary {{}} is not an atom (it is a complex) and it is the result of the linkage between two different aspects of the atomic state (that are not derived from each other), which are:
The non-local atom (represented by the outer "{" "}" of complex "{{}}").
The local atom (represented by the internal "{}" as the member of the complex "{{}}", where "{}" it is not a sub-thing of the non-local atom).
From this novel view, the existing levels of sets are not ignored, and as a result Cardinality is the measurement unit of any possible existence of some set including the existence of levels under some Non-locality\Locality Linkage.
Set is an existing thing that can be an atom (in the case of {}, and in this case we do not distinguish between Non-local atom and Local atom), or it can be a complex (in the case of at least {{}}, and in this case we do distinguish between two atomic aspects (Non-local atom and Local atom) as the fundamental buildings blocks of the complex).
By not ignoring Complexity (as Standard Math does) Cardinality must be the measurement unit of any possible existence of some set including the existence of levels under some Complexity.
The non-finite levels between Non-locality and Locality are represented as:
{…{{{…{}…}}}…}, where the outer "{" "}" represents the non-local aspect of the complex, and the inner "{}" represents the local aspect of the complex.
The cardinality of {…{{{…{}…}}}…} = |{…{{{…{}…}}}…}| = 0+1+1+1+…< ∞
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Nice try, he didn't.
No he didn't. What he wrote is irrelevant because Cardinality is the unit measurement of the existence of things, whether he likes it or not.
Cardinality 0 < Cardinality 1 < Cardinality 2 < Cardinality 0 < Cardinality ∞
Examples are clearly given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4972511&postcount=5578 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4983714&postcount=5596 .
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Doron,
How about you stop with what you think are cleaver semantic games with the English language and with Mathematics terminology. Your games are cleaver nor to you understand English nor Mathematics well enough to play them well.
How about instead of that, you just leave established meanings where they be. Need something new? Well, fine, then make up something new. Just leave the existing stuff alone.
How about you stop with what you think are cleaver semantic games with the English language and with Mathematics terminology. Your games are cleaver nor to you understand English nor Mathematics well enough to play them well.
How about instead of that, you just leave established meanings where they be. Need something new? Well, fine, then make up something new. Just leave the existing stuff alone.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Well that was the whole point. How does your “cardinality” measure the existence of “things” if it applies equally as well to measuring the non-existence of “things”? Again cardinality is just the measure of the size of a set whether it is the set of all irrational numbers or all irrational numbers that are not members of the set of all positive integers. Just as it is the measure of the size of the set of all even positive integers that are not members of the set of all positive integers that are whole multiples of 3.
Again cardinality is the measure of a set’s size. Are you claiming “0” does not “exist” as a member of X in the second example that results in Z=1?
If X has no members then it is simple the empty set, cardinality would be 0. Which you claim “is an existing thing that has no sub-existing things” so your "cardinality" perhaps measures the existence of those “no sub-existing things”?
Your kidding right, “not derived from each other“? You are using your inner brackets (your “local atom”) to derive what are the outer brackets (your “non-local atom”) and the outer brackets to derive what are the inner brackets. Your whole inner/outer “complex” system is dependent on them being derived from each other.
Now here we have “{{}}” which would have a cardinality of 1 yet you are claiming that “"{}" it is not a sub-thing of the non-local atom” or set so your cardinality does not represent or measure of the existence of the “sub-thing” in that set. So the question still remains what "things" is what you call your “cardinality” a measure of the existence of?
So now back to the specific lack of distinction in your notions you claimed were primarily about distinction. It seem now you have completely embraced your notions dependence on simply ignoring your own distinctions.
Doron your view is not “novel” it is simply self inconsistent and such self-inconsistent “views” or not “novel” on this forum. So the question still stands Doron.
From your above post your “cardinality” can easily represent non-existence. Also you claim a cardinality of 0 for the empty set represents an “existing thing that has no sub-existing things”. You further go on to stipulate that the set represented by “{{}}” also is an “existing thing that has no sub-existing things” even though that set would have an actual cardinality of 1. So it seems you simply want to claim your “cardinality” as ‘a measure of the existence of things’ without any “sub-existing things” to, well, measure. Your focus seems to simplly by on the brackets “{, }” used to note a set and not on the actual notions or application of set theory. It is in fact you who is fixated on notations (specifically { & }) your own vague, non-existent and self contradictory definitions and applications as opposed to the actual notions and theories involved.
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
I'm all for that, but the problem is Doron needs to find (imagine would be a more appropriate term) something wrong with current “established meanings” in order to give himself something that he thinks needs fixing.
- Status