Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

That one, not so good.

You are right, it is not so good for Contemporary Mathematics from jsfisher's view.

Please reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5270602&postcount=6615 .

 

[jsfisher]

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.

Coincidentally, it never claimed to support any such claim. Were you actually able to comprehend what was written therein, you'd understand it is your responsibility to support your bogus claim.

Plrase read http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5268657&postcount=6600.

Coincidentally, that is precisely my advice to you, but without all the spelling errors. Please read http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5268657&postcount=6600, only this time, try for some comprehension.

You failed to consider an endless line.

You keep saying that, but you failed to distinguish "endless line" from "line". Why is that?


And lest we forget, what makes something n-dimensional?

 

[jsfisher]

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?

That's not my position at all. Try again.

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

Gibberish.

Jsfisher has certainty only about certainty, which is a circular and closed formalin stuffed reasoning (which is entropic by nature).

That's also not my position at all. Try again.

 

[jsfisher]

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.

So much gibberish and so little thought. Well done, Doron.

Now, go read the rest of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5268657&postcount=6600, particularly this part:

You are still evading the question. What property does a circle have that makes it 1-dimensional? What property does a sphere have that makes it 2-dimensional? For what k is a torus k-dimensional? Or, more generally...​

What makes something n-dimensional?

 

[jsfisher]

There are 3 Warning Signs in http://www.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/warn.pdf, please air your view about each one of them, and your conclusion about the relation between them.

You bought the article up for discussion. You should take the lead.

 

[jsfisher]

Be fair, that was quite a witty response from Doron, almost worth a nomination.

Yeah, it was. I wondered if it was intentional, though. Probably was.

 

[doronshadmi]

EDIT:

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.

Coincidentally, it never claimed to support any such claim.

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?

That's not my position at all. Try again.

In that case please explain the meaning of:

The correct statement is that you can't comprehend that points can completely cover a line. (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5265260&postcount=6560)

You made the claim in contradiction to standard Mathematics. The responsibility falls to you to show a line isn't covered completely by points.

Since I claim that a line isn't covered completely by points, and since you support standard Mathematics, which claims the opposite, then you claim that an endless line (= line , according to you) is completly covered by points. Please try again and provide standard Mathematics' proof about that subject.

 

[doronshadmi]

So much gibberish and so little thought. Well done, Doron.

No ability, nothing done, jsfisher.

Try again.

 

[doronshadmi]

You are still evading the question.

You are still do not get the answer.

Try again.

 

[doronshadmi]

What makes something n-dimensional?

Its atomic property.

Now jsfisher please prodive your answer.

 

[doronshadmi]

You bought the article up for discussion. You should take the lead.

Done at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5270613&postcount=6617.

Please provide your answers.

 

[doronshadmi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension

In mathematics and physics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it.

As clearly seen, Standard Mathematics uses a local-only view of Dimension.

 

[jsfisher]

Done at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5270613&postcount=6617.

Please provide your answers.

Yes, I agree completely. The author suggests there are three warning signs. Now, is there a point you'd like to make?

 

[laca]

Its atomic property.

Wrong. It's the fotonic property.

 

[jsfisher]

Since I claim that a line isn't covered completely by points....

Yes, that is your claim. I'm glad we all agree on that.

...and since you support standard Mathematics, which claims the opposite

Yes, with the opposite being that a line (or a line segment, doesn't matter) is completely covered by points.

...then you claim that an endless line (= line , according to you) is completly covered by points.

Um, yeah, you already said that. Why are you repeating yourself. Well, that "endless" is an addition, but the rest is redundant with the prior clause.

Please try again and provide standard Mathematics' proof about that subject.

You've made the extraordinary claim. The duty to support it falls to you. Besides, you already told us there's an "uncovered ray." All you need do now is show us specifically where it can be found.

 

[jsfisher]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension


As clearly seen, Standard Mathematics uses a local-only view of Dimension.

Well, there is nothing at all clear about it. "Local-only view" is a phrase completely of your invention. And since you will not, can not define it in any intelligent way, you statement is gibberish.

 

[jsfisher]

Its atomic property.

Now jsfisher please prodive your answer.

In the same vain, my answer is that it is not an atomic property. Just as insightful, just as non-constructive as yours.

Since you cannot give an appropriate answer to the general question, perhaps you can deal with specifics:

• What is the dimensionality of a circle? How did you determine that?
• What is the dimensionality of a torus? How did you determine that?
• What is the dimensionality of a helix? How did you determine that?

After dealing with those, maybe you would reconsider the original question: What makes something n-dimensional?

 

[zooterkin]

You keep saying that, but you failed to distinguish "endless line" from "line". Why is that?

It's a marginal improvement on "edgeless line"...

 

[jsfisher]

It's a marginal improvement on "edgeless line"...

My guess is he confused himself at one point and substituted endless for edgeless. After that, the die was cast so he's maintained the meaningless qualifier to cover the mistake.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Let's review some of doronshadmi's unique way of thinking:

1. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5254574&postcount=6395

   I really started to develop OM only 7 years ago

   Really? You've said that you've done this for 30 years. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5008114&postcount=5726

   For the past 30 years I am trying to develop such a framework, and this goal is definitely beyond the abilities of a single person.

2. 
   http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5251775&postcount=6384

   All along this thread ( right from post #1 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125220 ) I try to open your minds to the important connection between Entropy and Complexity, but you, the posters of this thread, simply refuse to get anything that is beyond the edge of your nose.

   Still haven't defined Entropy and Complexity
3. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4699912&postcount=2761

   This is the last time that I reply to any post of The Man.

   Looks like that fell through over 2900 posts ago
4. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5249019&postcount=6354

   In other words, all of you simply are not able to get the notion of an edgeless line as the minimal form of non-local atom, or a point as the minimal form of local atom. Since this is the case there is no use to discuss with you anymore on this subject.

   Yet you're still here, responding to both The Man's posts and others.
5. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5224306&postcount=6174

   OM deals with the difference and linkage between actual infinity (non-locality) and potential infinity of collections of localities that can’t be non-locality.

   http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5008114&postcount=5726

   In my opinion one of the ways to reduce the chance of self-made destruction is to define a universal framework that may be used as a common base ground for both Ethics and Logical reasoning. For the past 30 years I am trying to develop such a framework, and this goal is definitely beyond the abilities of a single person. Anyway, I wish to share with you some of my last results (and please forgive me about my English (my language is Hebrew)) which draw some sketches of this universal framework. I call this framework Organic Mathematics, or OM.

   Or my favorite http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4871865#post4871865

   Each living creature (man or not) is in one hand a special phenomenon and on the other hand shares a common environment with other living creatures. OM's aim is to find the simplest principle that enables living creatures to communicate with each other in such ways that reduce as much as possible destructive results of possible interactions.

   So what exactly is OM?
6. You have problems understanding definitions and mathematical terms. Most people here agree that the wikipedia definition of Cardinality basically means how many elements are in a set. You however, get upset because Cardinality doesn't see if the elements in a set are sets themselves and count the set's elements too. Here's two of your definitions: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4983871&postcount=5597

   What he wrote is irrelevant because Cardinality is the unit measurement of the existence of things, whether he likes it or not.

   http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4983714&postcount=5596

   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.

7. Set is another term you have problems with. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4360804&postcount=1611

   Can a set be a member of itself? The set of all ideas is x. But since x is itself an idea then the set of all ideas is {x}. [snip] In other words the set of all ideas is an endless idea, or in other words, the set of all ideas does not exist, and so is the set of all natural numbers. In general, the set of all <what ever you wish> does not exist, or more precisely, the common property of a given set is non-local w.r.t its members and no amount of such members can satisfy this property.

   The set of all ideas is a set.
8. The Sieve_of_Eratosthenes^WP is a simple way to find prime numbers, not, as you claim http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4083359&postcount=1

   a whole\part framework, than number 0 is the most dense part of it, and the set of primes is the least dense part of it.