Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
What you say is wrong, because if X is strong enough to include arithmetic and X is consistent, then X must be also incomplete.
Click to expand...

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

You have no basis to assume arithmetic is consistent.
 
doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

doronshadmi said:
Yes, the case that one claims that y is an axiom.
Click to expand...

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”’.
 
doronshadmi said:
Gödel had to choose between Completeness and Consistency of strong systems....
Click to expand...

Gödel did not choose.

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

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

Gödel did not choose.

...snip of gibberish based on false premise...
Click to expand...


I noticed, too, you completely failed to address Gödel's rejection of all your work as inconsistent.
 
Skeptic said:
(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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jsfisher said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
doronshadmi said:
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)?
Click to expand...

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.

doronshadmi said:
No, Independent Membership is a novel notion that holds between atoms, where atoms are existing AND empty things.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
The Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
(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.
Click to expand...
Again, a cheap psychology of a person that can't get things out of the box.
 
The Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jsfisher said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
jsfisher said:
I noticed,...
Click to expand...
You have noticed nothing. You are a local-only thinker, remember?
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
While OM is continually demonstrated to be inconsistent even just within itself.
Click to expand...
The Man said:
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.
Click to expand...
Through the eyes of a local-only thinker, this is exactly what you get.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Also all of you ignored http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5299131&postcount=6739.

I wonder why :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

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?
 
doronshadmi said:
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).
Click to expand...


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.
 
doronshadmi said:
The Man,

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

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

doronshadmi said:
Please see {}, it is exactly an (existing) AND (lacks of building-blocks) thing.
Click to expand...

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”.

doronshadmi said:
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:
Click to expand...

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



doronshadmi said:
{{}} is a complex,
Click to expand...

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.


doronshadmi said:
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).
Click to expand...

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


doronshadmi said:
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).
Click to expand...

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

Back
Top Bottom