Deeper than primes

[jsfisher]

What you say is wrong, because if X is strong enough to include arithmetic and X is consistent, then X must be also incomplete.

Echoing a previous stupid statement doesn't make the person repeating it appear very smart.

You have no basis to assume arithmetic is consistent.

 

[The Man]

Good. In the case of Independent Membership, the member is the shared property of the considered elements, and in the case of atoms’ Membership, the shared property is the absence of building-blocks.

Your inability to get your own words, in this case, is clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5299295&postcount=6742.

Doron you were the one claiming I did not get it, looks like you have changed your mind now.

Yes, the case that one claims that y is an axiom.

Are you making that claim? If not then this is a very poor guess at

‘Where your notions fit among the axiomatic circumstances where “Gödel’s incompleteness theorems have no case”’.

 

[jsfisher]

Gödel had to choose between Completeness and Consistency of strong systems....

Gödel did not choose.

...snip of gibberish based on false premise...

Gödel had to choose between Consistency and Completeness under the standard notion.

Gödel did not choose.

...snip of gibberish based on false premise...

I noticed, too, you completely failed to address Gödel's rejection of all your work as inconsistent.

 

[The Man]

(Sigh)

Like many people, Doron, when first encountering higher mathematics, got confused and did not understand certain concepts (such as that of a set, or a limit).

Most people either eventually understand after putting effort into it, or give up and decide math is not for them (a pity, but never mind.)

No so Doron. Like most cranks, he jumped to the conclusion that since he didn't understand something taught in first-year math courses, the only possible reason is that everybody else is wrong, that all of modern mathematics is based on flawed premises, and that everybody who disagrees is part of a giant conspiracy of mathematicians to hide the truth.

Indeed Skeptic, a situation he could easily correct by actual learning the concepts he is trying to base his notions upon and the value of consistency.

 

[The Man]

Echoing a previous stupid statement doesn't make the person repeating it appear very smart.

You have no basis to assume arithmetic is consistent.

While OM is continually demonstrated to be inconsistent even just within itself.

 

[The Man]

Gödel did not choose.



Gödel did not choose.




I noticed, too, you completely failed to address Gödel's rejection of all your work as inconsistent.

Must be Doron’s not so “novel” approach. If one can not have consistency and completeness Doron’s approach is apparently to simply abandon consistency.

 

[The Man]

Do you understand that (1-D AND 0-D), which is a complex, cannot be only 1-D (which is an atom or building-block), or only 0-D (which is an atom or building-block)?

Do you understand that since you consider your “atoms” as “building-block” your "atoms" must be comprised of and/or comprise at least one “building-block”?

Which would contradict your previous assertions.

No, Independent Membership is a novel notion that holds between atoms, where atoms are existing AND empty things.

So which is it Doron, your atoms are empty and thus have zero “building-block”s or your atoms are “building-block”s and must be comprised of and/or comprise at least one “building-block”? If your atoms are empty they can not be comprised of or comprise even just one “building block”. If your atoms are themselves just a singular building-block then they are not empty as they are comprised of or comprise at least one “building block”

Certainly you claim your “complex” is comprised of more then one “building-block” since you assert it can not be any one of its “building block”s.


So we have “complex” = 2 “bulding-block”s

Doron Reference = Number of “building-block”s

“Complex” = 2

“Atom” A = 1

“Atom” B = 1

“Complex” = "Atom”A + “Atom” B = 2

Ok that works for your “complex”, but in that case the “Atoms” are not empty as they have (or are comprised of) 1 “building-block” each.


Doron Reference = Number of “building-block”s

“Atom” A = 0

“Atom” B = 0

“Complex” = "Atom”A + “Atom” B = 0


Well that works for your “empty” “atoms” as they are not comprised of any “building-block”s, but you do not get a “complex” comprised of “building-block”s as you want to assert.

So as usual you need to make up your mind Doron as to exactly what you want to claim with your notions and that Doron requires consistency.

 

[doronshadmi]

Do you understand that since you consider your “atoms” as “building-block” your "atoms" must be comprised of and/or comprise at least one “building-block”?

Which would contradict your previous assertions.



So which is it Doron, your atoms are empty and thus have zero “building-block”s or your atoms are “building-block”s and must be comprised of and/or comprise at least one “building-block”? If your atoms are empty they can not be comprised of or comprise even just one “building block”. If your atoms are themselves just a singular building-block then they are not empty as they are comprised of or comprise at least one “building block”

Certainly you claim your “complex” is comprised of more then one “building-block” since you assert it can not be any one of its “building block”s.


So we have “complex” = 2 “bulding-block”s

Doron Reference = Number of “building-block”s

“Complex” = 2

“Atom” A = 1

“Atom” B = 1

“Complex” = "Atom”A + “Atom” B = 2

Ok that works for your “complex”, but in that case the “Atoms” are not empty as they have (or are comprised of) 1 “building-block” each.


Doron Reference = Number of “building-block”s

“Atom” A = 0

“Atom” B = 0

“Complex” = "Atom”A + “Atom” B = 0


Well that works for your “empty” “atoms” as they are not comprised of any “building-block”s, but you do not get a “complex” comprised of “building-block”s as you want to assert.

So as usual you need to make up your mind Doron as to exactly what you want to claim with your notions and that Doron requires consistency.

The Man,

You still do not get Atom, which is exactly an (existing thing) AND (lacks of building-blocks).

Please see {}, it is exactly an (existing) AND (lacks of building-blocks) thing.

You wrote:

Doron Reference = Number of “building-block”s

“Atom” A = 0

“Atom” B = 0

“Complex” = "Atom”A + “Atom” B = 0


Well that works for your “empty” “atoms” as they are not comprised of any “building-block”s, but you do not get a “complex” comprised of “building-block”s as you want to assert.

This is wrong because an atom is an existing thing, and an existing thing is not less than a 1 building-block of some complex, for example: {{}} is a complex, based on a one existing building-block (from the local-only point of view) and the cardinality of this complex is 0+1=1, even if the cardinality of {} is 0 (if only the existence of members is considered, as the value of some cardinality, as it is done by Standard Math).

From OM's point of view {{}} is (n-dim AND k-dim) such that the outer "{" "}" is n-dim and the inner "{" "}" is k-dim (from a geometrical point of view, we deal here with a ray).

 

[doronshadmi]

(Sigh)

Like many people, Doron, when first encountering higher mathematics, got confused and did not understand certain concepts (such as that of a set, or a limit).

Most people either eventually understand after putting effort into it, or give up and decide math is not for them (a pity, but never mind.)

No so Doron. Like most cranks, he jumped to the conclusion that since he didn't understand something taught in first-year math courses, the only possible reason is that everybody else is wrong, that all of modern mathematics is based on flawed premises, and that everybody who disagrees is part of a giant conspiracy of mathematicians to hide the truth.

Again, a cheap psychology of a person that can't get things out of the box.

 

[doronshadmi]

Again simply a result of your loco-only reasoning.



You simply can not understand that if your “membership is the common properly of being atoms” then your atoms are dependent on that “common properly” for that “membership”.




So you do claim they share that independence exactly as I said. “Mutually Independent” is dependent on that independence being, well, mutual. “Independent Membership” infers that their membership is independent and thus not dependent on the other one being also a member or that membership not being mutual.

The Man,

Axioms are independent of each other (they are not derived from each other), yet they share the same framework by (hopefully) without derived to contradictions.

So "share" = "mutually" and "not derived from each other" = "independent", and we get exactly a Mutually Independent system.

 

[doronshadmi]

Echoing a previous stupid statement doesn't make the person repeating it appear very smart.

You have no basis to assume arithmetic is consistent.

You have missed the "if" part.

 

[doronshadmi]

Are you making that claim?

No, you are making that wrong claim.

 

[doronshadmi]

Gödel did not choose.



Gödel did not choose.




I noticed, too, you completely failed to address Gödel's rejection of all your work as inconsistent.

Maybe not personally, but any one that understands Gödel's work on this subject, has to choose between Completeness and Consistency (exactly because of the use of "for all" quantifier in strong axiomatic systems).

I noticed,...

You have noticed nothing. You are a local-only thinker, remember?

 

[doronshadmi]

While OM is continually demonstrated to be inconsistent even just within itself.

Must be Doron’s not so “novel” approach. If one can not have consistency and completeness Doron’s approach is apparently to simply abandon consistency.

Through the eyes of a local-only thinker, this is exactly what you get.

 

[doronshadmi]

Also all of you ignored http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5299131&postcount=6739.

I wonder why

 

[zooterkin]

Also all of you ignored http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5299131&postcount=6739.

I wonder why

Mostly because it's gibberish, I would hazard.

 

[laca]

Also all of you ignored http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5299131&postcount=6739.

I wonder why

In my opinion we all should ignore you. You are clearly deluded, have no knowledge of basic mathematics and so on. We should not feed your ego by trying to educate you.

Concerning your post, you do not have a professional relationship with those "scholars closely related to OM". I wonder why... Have you contacted them? If yes, what did they say about your OM? If not, why on earth not?

 

[jsfisher]

Maybe not personally, but any one that understands Gödel's work on this subject, has to choose between Completeness and Consistency (exactly because of the use of "for all" quantifier in strong axiomatic systems).

No, mathematicians do not have the option to choose whether arithmetic (or similar other formal system) is consistent or not. Please stop repeating this stupid notion.

 

[The Man]

The Man,

You still do not get Atom, which is exactly an (existing thing) AND (lacks of building-blocks).

Then your atoms are not “building-blocks” since they lack “building-blocks”, even just one.

Please see {}, it is exactly an (existing) AND (lacks of building-blocks) thing.

If you are referring to the empty set, it simply lacks members (not “building-blocks”), but it is still a set (not a “building-block” ). Your “atoms” are not sets, sets can have multiple members, your “atoms” can not. A set can also be a member of another set while your “atoms” can not be a “building-block” of another of your “atoms”.

You wrote:


This is wrong because an atom is an existing thing, and an existing thing is not less than a 1 building-block of some complex, for example:

So now your atoms have or are one “building-block” thus not empty, make up your mind Doron.

{{}} is a complex,

No, just a set containing the empty set. Since your “atoms” or “building blocks” are not sets your “complex” involves no sets even just the empty set.

based on a one existing building-block (from the local-only point of view) and the cardinality of this complex is 0+1=1, even if the cardinality of {} is 0 (if only the existence of members is considered, as the value of some cardinality, as it is done by Standard Math).

Again your “Atoms” are not sets so cardinality does not apply nor do your references involving set notation.

From OM's point of view {{}} is (n-dim AND k-dim) such that the outer "{" "}" is n-dim and the inner "{" "}" is k-dim (from a geometrical point of view, we deal here with a ray).

Obviously you still do not know what dimension means and as you clearly show again above OM has no consistent “point of view”.

 

[The Man]

No, you are making that wrong claim.

Nope, just because your "y" can be an axiom does not mean that it is an axiom.

Again

There are axiomatic circumstances where “Gödel’s incompleteness theorems have no case”.

Would you like to guess where your notions fit among them?