Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
Jsfisher argued that 1 is not a member of the non-finite set {0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999, …} because each member is a finite case.

On the contrary jsfisher argued that 0.999… = 1 exactly because 0.999… is an infinite case, and this case is not a member of the set of infinitely many finite cases shown above.
Click to expand...

For someone as quick as you to point out how everyone else "doesn't get it", I am continually amused by your own failure in that regard.

No, I argued something different.

But there is no problem to show that 0.999… is the result of a long addition, where each value of this long addition is finite, for example:

0.999… = 0.9+0.09+0.009+…

So there is no problem to define a 1-1 mapping as follows:

0.9 <--> 0.9
0.09 <--> 0.99
0.009 <--> 0.999

….

And we can see that there is no difference between {0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999. …} and 0.999… = 0.9+0.09+0.009+… . Both of them have nothing to do with 1.
Click to expand...

Who is this "we" of which you speak? Most of us can see a big difference between the infinite set and the infinite sum. For example, your very construction makes it painfully obvious that 0.999... must be strictly greater than any element of the set {0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...}.

...further nonsense mercifully snipped...
Click to expand...
 
It is also worth remembering that
[latex]$$$\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} 9 \times 10^{-i}$$$[/latex]​
is really just shorthand for
[latex]$$$\displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \sum_{i=1}^n 9 \times 10^{-i}$$$[/latex]​

There would be no way to evaluate the summation otherwise.
 
Originally Posted by Apathia
Then you are able to take the spectacles off from time to time and see The Source.
Sometimes it's too bright for our eyes that have grown accustomed to our dimly lit "Researchability." So our eyes, hurt with the squinting and we quickly put our rational shades back on.
But it's good the Light is so bright.
It can shine through lots of different kinds of intellectual spectacles and remind us that we can be free.
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
By OM we are living is an open system that is non-etropic by nature exactly because no collection of localities is non-locality. . .
Click to expand...

:wackyhuh:

An extraordinary response, but of a quality not unexpected.

:wackycool:

The Zeno thing again. I still haven't done my homework on that.
Catch you later.
 
Last edited:
... we can see that there is no difference between {0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999. …} and 0.999… = 0.9+0.09+0.009+…
Click to expand...

Mathematical cranks are invariably mathematically ignorant -- but seldom this ignorant.
 
Last edited:
By OM we are living is an open system that is non-etropic by nature exactly because...
Click to expand...

...it's just meaningless stuff I make up as I go along, so naturally it is an "open system".
 
jsfisher said:
Who is this "we" of which you speak? Most of us can see a big difference between the infinite set and the infinite sum. For example, your very construction makes it painfully obvious that 0.999... must be strictly greater than any element of the set {0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...}.
Click to expand...

It is painfully obvious that:

0.9 <--> 0.9
0.09 <--> 0.99
0.009 <--> 0.999

….

and this is all that matters (you do not understand ... and therefore you do not understand what a non-finite collection is).
 
Last edited:
Okay, so we can add "infinite series" to the growing list of mathematical concepts Doron hasn't a clue about.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
It is also worth remembering that
[latex]$$$\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} 9 \times 10^{-i}$$$[/latex]​
is really just shorthand for
[latex]$$$\displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \sum_{i=1}^n 9 \times 10^{-i}$$$[/latex]​

There would be no way to evaluate the summation otherwise.
Click to expand...
This is nothing but a pile of notations with no real notion behind it, so?
 
doronshadmi said:
This is nothing but a pile of notations with no real notion behind it, so?
Click to expand...

That's rather hypocritical of you, doron, seeing how much you hide behind lines, dots, and squiggles. However, unlike your lines, dots, and squiggles, the mathematical notation I use has rather precise meaning behind it and is based on well established, consistent notions.

This is obvious to anyone with even just a modest understanding of Mathematics.
 
jsfisher said:
That's rather hypocritical of you, doron, seeing how much you hide behind lines, dots
Click to expand...
Nothing is precise by your pile of notations.

And no, I am talking about Non-locality and Locality, where line and point are nothing but some representations of them, so?

For exampole: + is Non-locality and 0.09 is Locality in the expression 0.9+0.09+0.009+...

Do you see any line or point here?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Nothing is precise by your pile of notations.

And no, I am talking about Non-locality and Locality, where line and point are nothing but some representations of them, so?

For exampole: + is Non-locality and 0.09 is Locality in the expression 0.9+0.09+0.009+...

Do you see any line or point here?
Click to expand...

Well, no point. That's for sure.
 
doronshadmi said:
No, you do not get Non-locality and as a result you do not get that your pile of notations is nothing but a pile of notations.
Click to expand...


Just as you say. I will continue to await with great expectation your revelation of even one practical thing your private mathematics does. Meanwhile, I will take solace in observing my math still works.
 
doronshadmi said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5008114&postcount=5726
Click to expand...

No, see, that's that reading comprehension thing again, isn't it? I didn't ask for where you offered a baseless nonsensical assertion, like what you did in the post you cite. I asked for something real. Got anything like that? Moshe at least thought he had a marketable toy idea. (Although that's likely to be more of a demonstration of beads on a string than any sort of practical application. But at least he was thinking.)
 
jsfisher said:
Just as you say. I will continue to await with great expectation your revelation of even one practical thing your private mathematics does..
Click to expand...

Like, how much more ethical your OM is than "standard mathematics" and how it helps to create, instead of bombs, the most beautiful and useful ploughshares. Something like that?
 
jsfisher said:
I asked for something real.
Click to expand...
This is for real jsfisher.

Your limited game is not for real because it is trivial and we are in a crucial turning point of mankind's history, which forces us to find the balance between our ethical and formal logical skills, in order to survive the power of our current and future technologies.

The real thing that is needed right now is to take the Mathematical Science out of the hands of closed minds like The Man and you, which strangle this science to death by their arbitrary limitations, right at its foundations.

As a result this science becomes a blind force used by blind people, and the results of this blind force can be seen in any laboratory that uses this science in order to develop more and more "efficient" biological, chemical of atomic weapons, that have one and only one purpose, which is: Destroying Complexity.

Destroying Complexity is your expertise jsfisher, and you demonstrate it right from the foundations of your framework,
where |{{a,b,c,…}}|=|{{}}|=|{{{}}}|=|{{{{}}}}|= …= 1 .

Any catastrophic bogus starts by couple of trivial drops, and this bogus became a self-made flood at the beginning of the 21st century, that we are all going to be drown within it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom