Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

You mean the three lines which make up the triangle, in two dimensions?

No, I mean a one closed 1-dim element.

 

[dafydd]

Follow the line.

Lol,you call yourself a mathematician,yet you don't know the difference between one and two dimensions? Please tell me that this has all been an elaborate joke.

 

[dafydd]

No, I mean a one closed 1-dim element.

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till I tell you. I meant, 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."

 

[doronshadmi]

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till I tell you. I meant, 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."

Lol,you call yourself a mathematician,yet you don't know the difference between one and two dimensions? Please tell me that this has all been an elaborate joke.

So you have a problem to understend a closed 1-dim element, where only length is considered.

How boring.

 

[The Man]

This is a corrected version of post (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5694975&postcount=8932)



No The Man, by using the old knowledge that is found in Wkipedia on this interesting subject, you simply block your mind to novel notions of the discussed subject.

Doron your self –inconsistent, self serving and morbid fantasy of saving our civilization from self-destruction by you deliberately misinterpreting and misrepresenting what you call “standard math” does not constitute “novel notions of the discussed subject” much that you might require it to be so (we see it all the time on this forum).

In order to see how your mind is blocked to novel notions, let us use again Koch’s fractal.

We start by a 1-dim element that has a triangle shape of length 1 with 3 equal angles.

Now we bend in the outside direction each side of the triangle in its 1/3 middle length, by keeping the same proportion of the initial triangle.

As a result, length 1 of the 1-dim element is not changed, but the closest circumference, which is around that bended 1-dim, becomes smaller.

If “length 1 of the 1-dim element is not changed” then it’s circumference doesn’t become “smaller”. Again being self-inconsistent is not a ‘novel notion’ (at least not on this forum).

Infinitely many bended levels do to change the fact that the 1-dim has length 1, or in other words, the shrinked circumference can’t be a point, because if it becomes a point, we have lost our 1-dim element of length 1.

So now your ““length 1 of the 1-dim element is” “changed” and your circomfrance ‘shrinks’.

If we insist that the circumference is a point (which is the limit point in the middle of the area that is closed by the bended 1-dim element) and the bended 1-dim is still found, then we actually say that 1=0.

We do not “insist” or “say” any of that nonsense nor do we need to, but you do. Unnecessary and self serving nonsense is also not a ‘novel notion’ (at least not on this forum).

The only solution that keeps length 1 of the bended 1-dim element, and also deals with infinitely many bended levels, is the solution where the circumference around the bended 1-dim element of length 1, can’t reach the limit , which is actually an 0-dim.

Nope again an infinite convergent series having a finite sum was proven some 2,300 years ago and you thinking that simply your self –inconsistent, self serving and morbid fantasy refutes some proof is also not a ‘novel notion’ (at least not on this forum).

By using this novel notion of the infinite collection, we understand better why, for example, the mass of a shrinked star increases, but it does not become a point even if it is compressed by infinitely many scale levels.

Are you claiming you have a version of general relativity that does not result in a singularity for catastrophic gravitational collapse? If that is the case you will have to prove that and not just fantasies about it. Again thinking you can change established theories and formulism with just your fantasies is not a ‘novel notion’ (at least not on this forum).

I do not think that this novel view is achieved if we insist to keep the old notions of Limit AND infinite (and complete) collection of bended levels.

Doron again your self –inconsistent, self serving and morbid fantasy of saving our civilization from self-destruction by you deliberately misinterpreting and misrepresenting what you call “standard math” does not constitute a “novel view” of anything and the only one who needs it is you.

 

[dafydd]

So you have a problem to understend a closed 1-dim element, where only length is considered.

How boring.

You are the one who lacks any understanding of mathematics,you are not boring though,I find your made-up-on-the-spot ramblings very amusing.

 

[doronshadmi]

If “length 1 of the 1-dim element is not changed” then it’s circumference doesn’t become “smaller”.

EDIT:

Yes it does.

Take a closed and non-searched string, give it a triangle shape with 3 equal angles, and than start to band each given side, according to the shape of Koch’s fractal.

If you do that you will find that the length of the closest circumference of the circle around that bended closed string, becomes smaller if more bended levels are added, yet the length of the bended string is not changed.

You are invited to do this experiment, and realize by yourself that I am right.

This is by the way how, for example, our DNA is packed in a very small space, even if its length is much bigger than the closest circumference of the circle, which is equal to the geodetic line around this space.

Again we see how standard Math does not have the tools to deal with real complexity.

 

[sympathic]

Again we see how standard Math does not have the tools to deal with real complexity.

All we see is that you do not have the tools to deal even with simple concepts in math.

 

[doronshadmi]

All we see is that you do not have the tools to deal even with simple concepts in math.

EDIT:

Really? please use your standard tools in order to explain how the length of a given Koch fractal (that is based on non-stretched 1-dim element) which is bended upon infinitely many levels, saves its length, where the circumference of the smallest circle around it, becomes smaller but > than 0 (otherwise the Koch's fractal length is changed to 0, and we do not find infinitely many bended levels that are based on the invariant length of the non-starched 1-dim closed element).

 

[dafydd]

Really, please use your standard tools in order to explain how the length of a given Koch fractal (that is based on non-stretched 1-dim element) which is bended upon infinitely many levels, saves its length, where circumference of the smallest circle around it, becomes smaller but > then 0 (otherwise the Koch's fractal length is changed to 0, and we do not find infinitely many bended levels that are based on the invariant length of the non-starched 1-dim closed element).

Humpty Dumpty words again.

 

[doronshadmi]

The Man,

Here are the results of the experiment:

Each Koch's fractal has the same length as the triangle above, yet we have an infinite convergent series of circles, where within each one of them there is the invariant length of Koch's fractal, which is > 0.

If this convergent series has the value of the limit point, then the Koch's fractal has 0 length, which is impossible.

Conclusion: Since the length of Koch's fractal > 0 and it is invariant upon infinitely many bended levels, then the convergent series of circles must be incomplete because it can't have the value of the limit, which is 0.

 

[jsfisher]

By the axiom of infinity if n is a member of N then n+1 is a member of N, and as a result N is inherently an incomplete collection of distinct things.

The Axiom of Infinity is far more elegant and precise than that. In perhaps its most general formulation, it looks like this:

[latex]$$$ \exists x \ (\{ \} \in x \wedge \forall y \in x \ (S \in x)) $$$ [/latex]​

where S is the successor function for the domain under consideration.

The direct consequence of the Axiom of Infinity, though, a consequence you seem to ignore, is there exists a set of all the integers.

 

[jsfisher]

The Man,

Here are the results of the experiment:

[qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4070/4417179545_d4e9c86236_o.jpg[/qimg]

Each Koch's fractal...

Ahem. None of those are fractals.

...has the same length as the triangle above, yet we have an infinite convergent series of circles, where within each one of them there is the invariant length of Koch's fractal, which is > 0.

Again, those are not fractals. The only fractal would be at the limit of the construction, where such a limit to exist. The construction would be far more interesting without the extra constraint on circumference length, though.

If this convergent series has the value of the limit point, then the Koch's fractal has 0 length, which is impossible.

Proof by crude drawing? Care to add any rigor to this hand-waving? Be that as it may, do you have any understanding whatsoever of the impact fractals have had on the meaning of length and dimension?

Conclusion: Since the length of Koch's fractal > 0 and it is invariant upon infinitely many bended levels, then the convergent series of circles must be incomplete because it can't have the value of the limit, which is 0.

Conclusion: Doron doesn't understand. You just throw in unnecessary muddle (like the Koch Curve in this case) to obscure the fact you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

You still cannot distinguish between the terms incomplete and infinite, can you? That alone makes your whole presentation trivial and trite.

 

[doronshadmi]

The Axiom of Infinity is far more elegant and precise than that. In perhaps its most general formulation, it looks like this:

[latex]$$$ \exists x \ (\{ \} \in x \wedge \forall y \in x \ (S \in x)) $$$ [/latex]​

where S is the successor function for the domain under consideration.

The direct consequence of the Axiom of Infinity, though, a consequence you seem to ignore, is there exists a set of all the integers.

No jsfisher.

the axiom of infinity is precise and interesting exactly because "if n is a member of N, then n+1 is a member of N" rigorously express the notion of inherent openness (and therefore incomplete nature) of any infinite collection.

Again, you have a non-interesting notion of infinite collection exactly because your notion is closed under completeness that is based on classes, instead of the real completeness that naturally derived from the non-local and local atomic aspects of any given collection (finite or not).

 

[doronshadmi]

Ahem. None of those are fractals.



Again, those are not fractals. The only fractal would be at the limit of the construction, where such a limit to exist. The construction would be far more interesting without the extra constraint on circumference length, though.



Proof by crude drawing? Care to add any rigor to this hand-waving? Be that as it may, do you have any understanding whatsoever of the impact fractals have had on the meaning of length and dimension?



Conclusion: Doron doesn't understand. You just throw in unnecessary muddle (like the Koch Curve in this case) to obscure the fact you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

You still cannot distinguish between the terms incomplete and infinite, can you? That alone makes your whole presentation trivial and trite.

Thank you jsfisher for providing once again the needed proof of why your school of thought has the exact properties of a dogmatic sect.

You are doing the job for me, in order to expose your limited notions infront of the public.

Ahem. None of those are fractals.

Ahem. Yes they are fractals (from the second form).

Be that as it may, do you have any understanding whatsoever of the impact fractals have had on the meaning of length and dimension?

Yes.

The self similarity over scales like 0.111..[base 2] < 1 is a perfect example of a fractal (or more precisely, a single path along the scales of a given fractal):

Your Limit approach is exactly the way of how not to understand fractals.

Proof by crude drawing?

It is a rigorous drawing that is used as a proof without words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_without_words) (it is generalized to any self similarity over scales).

 

[zooterkin]

Proof by crude drawing? Care to add any rigor to this hand-waving? Be that as it may, do you have any understanding whatsoever of the impact fractals have had on the meaning of length and dimension?

Well, dimension is one of the terms Doron clearly does not understand.

a 1-dim element that has a triangle shape of length 1 with 3 equal angles.

Expecting him to understand the implications of something more advanced when he can't manage the basics seems a little unfair.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well, dimension is one of the terms Doron clearly does not understand.
Expecting him to understand the implications of something more advanced when he can't manage the basics seems a little unfair.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5696182&postcount=8949 , http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5696845&postcount=8951 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5699060&postcount=8955 are beyond you, isn't it up-to zooterkin?

 

[sympathic]

Thank you jsfisher for providing once again the needed proof of why your school of thought has the exact properties of a dogmatic sect.

You are doing the job for me, in order to expose your limited notions infront of the public.

This is the wrong crowd for such observations. Actually I think there is no crowd for this or for your ideas altogether. People who do not know enough math don't really know what you are talking and I guess don't really care... people who do know math understand right away that you don't really know what you are talking about and don't really care. The remaining are probably posting on this thread, but you don't really care...

 

[doronshadmi]

This is the wrong crowd for such observations. Actually I think there is no crowd for this or for your ideas altogether. People who do not know enough math don't really know what you are talking and I guess don't really care... people who do know math understand right away that you don't really know what you are talking about and don't really care. The remaining are probably posting on this thread, but you don't really care...

So you don't have any meaninful thing to say about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5696182&postcount=8949 , http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5696845&postcount=8951 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5699060&postcount=8955 .

People who do not know enough math

Your obsolete knowledge of this subject is the exact reason behind your inability to get any of my 3 posts above.

 

[sympathic]

So you don't have any meaninful thing to say about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5696182&postcount=8949 , http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5696845&postcount=8951 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5699060&postcount=8955 .


Your obsolete knowledge of this subject is the exact reason behind your inability to get any of my 3 posts above.

My obsolete knowledge of this subject has enabled me to successfully obtain a math degree, a decent job and the proper approach to be successful at it.

The obsolete knowledge of others enables you to post 224 pages of gibberish on this forum using the Internet and your computer.