Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
No, there is some line that you do not understand.
Click to expand...

Ok, understood. You can't comment on it; it's over your head. You were hoping we'd explain the short communication to you because you didn't get it. It's ok. Go ahead and ask your questions about it.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Are you saying a line segment is covered completely by points?[/B]
Click to expand...
Again you have missed the symmetry between infinite extrapolation (where no collection of segements can be an endless line) and infinite interpolation (where no collection of segements can be a point).
 
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher said:
Are you saying a line segment is covered completely by points?[/B]
Click to expand...
Again you have missed the symmetry between infinite extrapolation (where no collection of segements can be an endless line) and infinite interpolation (where no collection of segements can be a point).
Click to expand...


I'm sorry. I had thought my question was a simple yes/no sort of thing. What part of it confused you? Clearly it must have confused you, because your response is off on some bizarre tangent.
 
jsfisher said:
Ok, understood. You can't comment on it; it's over your head. You were hoping we'd explain the short communication to you because you didn't get it. It's ok. Go ahead and ask your questions about it.
Click to expand...
No you do not, just read the article that its title is "Warning Signs of a Possible Collapse of Contemporary Mathematics"
 
jsfisher said:
I'm sorry. I had thought my question was a simple yes/no sort of thing. What part of it confused you? Clearly it must have confused you, because your response is off on some bizarre tangent.
Click to expand...

The answer is no, and I gave the reason.

You on the contrary have nothing but a pile of notations without any notion, so?
 
jsfisher said:
The responsibility falls to you to show a line isn't covered completely by points.
Click to expand...
By using Standard Math please prove that a collection of points completely covers an endless line.
 
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher simply can't read anything that does not fit its dogma.
Click to expand...

Again, you continue to assume something with no basis. Moreover, your assumption is false. Since you have already been informed it was a false assumption, you are now lying.

Why do you lie so liberally?

There is nothing to add.
Click to expand...

If you have nothing to say about the article, why did you bring it up?
 
jsfisher said:
Please, re-read http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=6600. You failed to consider any of its points.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5268657&postcount=6600 that supports your claim that an endless line is completly covered by points, please try again.

Plrase read http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5268657&postcount=6600. You failed to consider an endless line.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
doronshadmi said:
Zooterkin,

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, because they can't get incompleteness, randomness, redundancy and uncertainty as legitimate properties in addition to certainty.
Click to expand...
Quite
Click to expand...
In that case, why do you support jsfisher, which its model rejects incompleteness and based only the assertion that an endless line is completely covered by points?

My reasoning has certainty also about incompleteness (there is a symmetry between infinite extrapolation and infinite interpolation, which is non-entropic by nature).

Jsfisher has certainty only about certainty, which is a circular and closed formalin stuffed reasoning (which is entropic by nature).
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
what makes something n-dimensional?
Click to expand...
Its atomic property.

It is beyond your mind, isn't it jsfisher?

In particular you can't get an endless line as the minimal form of actual infinity, and a point as the minimal form of actually finite, where both of them are atoms.

As a result you are unable to get a segment as a complex result, which is not actual infinity AND not actually finite.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Ok, understood. You can't comment on it; it's over your head. You were hoping we'd explain the short communication to you because you didn't get it. It's ok. Go ahead and ask your questions about it.
Click to expand...

Be fair, that was quite a witty response from Doron, almost worth a nomination.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom