Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

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.

At the limit of the construction we have 0 lengths, or in other words, no construction.

We do not need the circle in order to show how the construction of an invariant length > 0 of a 1-dim element (which is bended over infinity many scales) is found as long as it does not have the value of the limit (which is 0).

In other words, your Limit notion is the exact non-interesting knowledge of the considered infinite complexity.

 

[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 .

By the way - your reading comprehension issues show again. By people who do not know enough math, I was referring to people who did not study math formally. Lucky for me I did.

 

[doronshadmi]

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.

Which is irrelevant to the understanding of novel knowledge of this subject.

 

[doronshadmi]

By the way - your reading comprehension issues show again. By people who do not know enough math, I was referring to people who did not study math formally. Lucky for me I did.

Sympathic, the main reason behind your inability to get the novel knowledge of this subject, is exactly your obsolete formal knowledge of this subject.

Not lucky for you, in this case.

People who do not know enough obsolete formal knowledge of this subject, have better chances to get the novel knowledge of this subject.

 

[sympathic]

Sympathic, the main reason behind your inability to get the novel knowledge of this subject, is exactly your obsolete formal knowledge of this subject.

Not lucky for you, in this case.

Man, do you have to hijack everything and twist it back to your endless ramblings? I was making a side comment - leave it alone.

 

[sympathic]

Which is irrelevant to the understanding of novel knowledge of this subject.

Novel!? you just can't help parading yourself can you? writing mountains of word salads based on impressive misunderstandings is hardly something to be content about. Let alone your inability to follow through a single topic, blind stubbornness and inferiority issues.

 

[doronshadmi]

Novel!?

Yes, and your formal training can't help you to deal, for example, with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5696845&postcount=8951.

you just can't help parading yourself can you?

Since you can't use your formal training in order to get, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5696845&postcount=8951 you choose to deal with the person instead of the subject.

writing mountains of word salads based on impressive misunderstandings is hardly something to be content about. Let alone your inability to follow through a single topic, blind stubbornness and inferiority issues.

An excellent self attack. How sad.

 

[sympathic]

Yes, and your formal training can't help you to deal, for example, with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5696845&postcount=8951.



Since you can't use your formal training in order to get, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5696845&postcount=8951 you choose to deal with the person instead of the subject.


An excellent self attack. How sad.

yes, definitely inferiority issues.

 

[dafydd]

yes, definitely inferiority issues.

And compensating for it with rampant megalomania.

 

[sympathic]

And compensating for it with rampant megalomania.

yes, maybe a good practical use for OM is to explain how the two coexist. An organic inferiority/megalomania interaction.

 

[sympathic]

People who do not know enough obsolete formal knowledge of this subject, have better chances to get the novel knowledge of this subject.

how would you know? as I remember the cardinality of the set containing people involved in OM is 1.

 

[dafydd]

Sympathic, the main reason behind your inability to get the novel knowledge of this subject, is exactly your obsolete formal knowledge of this subject.

Not lucky for you, in this case.

People who do not know enough obsolete formal knowledge of this subject, have better chances to get the novel knowledge of this subject.

So the less knowledge you have about a subject,the better you are qualified to speak about it? That says a lot about you.

 

[The Man]

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.

Sure length of the string does not change but the circumference of a circle that inscribes that sting can. You do not mention an inscribing circle before.

Remember a circle is one dimensional because of the consistency of its radius, thus only one ordinate (rotational angle) is need to specify any location along that circumference. None of the circle's length is along its radius, it is all along its circumference. Your “string” has no such restriction and so portions of it can be closer to the center (but not further) than the radius of the circle. It requires at least two coordinates to identify any location along your “string” thus it is two dimensional. That the “string” can have some of its length in a dimension (along the radius of the inscribing circle) that the inscribing circle can not (because it is a circle) should be apparent to almost everyone. So did you simply miss that fact or are you deliberately ignoring it?

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

You are invited to be more clear and concise about what you are referring g to, the length of your “string” or the circumference of a circle inscribing your “string”.

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.

I can put a 500 foot long rope in a barrel with an opening circumference of 2 feet (as long as the barrel is deep enough), so what? Geometry certainly isn’t your forte; you are still having demonstrative problems with the concept of dimensions

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

Again we see that you simply do not understand, how you misinterpret and misrepresent what you call “standard math”.

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 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.

As already pointed out to you by jsfisher, none of those are fractals. Also as already pointed out to you before a set (even a finite one) need not include its limit as a member. Also you still seem to be confusing the terms of a series (the circumferences of your inscribing circles) with the sum of an addition of those terms (again I think you do this deliberately). Thus once again you simply are not talking about the sum of an infinite convergent series. Instead you are simply talking about the terms of the series and confusing (again I think deliberately) that with the sum of those terms. Again as already explained to you before, just because the set of terms in the series may not include its limit as a member of that set does not infer that the set of sums for that series can not include its limit as a member of that set and again the fact that an infinite convergent series has a finite sum was proven over 2,300 years ago.

 

[jsfisher]

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"

Too bad that isn't a complete statement of the axiom.

...rigorously express the notion of inherent openness (and therefore incomplete nature) of any infinite collection.

Openness? You've switched adjectives. Why is that?

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).

All these things you invent but cannot define, explain, characterize, or distinguish. They have no value as a result.

 

[jsfisher]

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.

And what proof is that? You wave your hands and say, "See!" and get challenged. Since you cannot support your wild hand-waving, you just blame others.

Can you back-up your statements or not? (The proof is rather trivial. Is it really beyond your capabilities?)

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

No, sorry. The definition of fractal hasn't changed to accommodate your lack of understanding. None of the generations of Koch's snowflake you provide are fractals.

...gibberish...

 

[jsfisher]

At the limit of the construction we have 0 lengths, or in other words, no construction.

"Zero" isn't a synonym for "no". Be that as it may, I asked before if you could prove that what your crude drawing implies is actually true (i.e. that the circumscribing circles actually nest inside a triangle as show, similar to the lute of Pythagoras.) It's rather trivial to do. Can you do it?

We do not need the circle in order to show how the construction of an invariant length > 0 of a 1-dim element (which is bended over infinity many scales) is found as long as it does not have the value of the limit (which is 0).

Ok, so why did you include the circle? Just more noise to confuse the issue? That seems to be your hallmark trait. Scramble as much together as possible so you can bounce from the absurd to the inane without missing a beat, and always have enough remaining outlets so gibberish can save you from any criticism.

In other words, your Limit notion is the exact non-interesting knowledge of the considered infinite complexity.

No, the limit is very interesting. I am very sorry for you that you are unable to appreciate its qualities.

 

[Manopolus]

People who do not know enough obsolete formal knowledge of this subject, have better chances to get the novel knowledge of this subject.

I can prove this to be untrue. My formal training in math is limited to nothing beyond college algebra.

And I still have no clue what you are talking about.

I do find it interesting in a bizarre sort of way, however.

 

[The Man]

Too bad that isn't a complete statement of the axiom.

Well since it is his statement of the axiom of infinity, I guess by OM that statement must be incomplete (so he had to leave something out or it would be complete).

 

[The Man]

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.

You do understand that your “notion of inherent openness” is closed under an operation of succession on “n”, by your assertion above, don’t you? Please tell us what “n” is missing from your “N” to give it an “incomplete nature”? Still deliberately confusing a list with a set, are you? Again remember, as jsfisher has alluded to several times, if you simply make “incomplete” synonymous with “infinite” then your assertion of an infinite set being “incomplete” is precisely you stating that an infinite set is just infinite (hardly, well, new or novel knowledge).

 

[The Man]

I can prove this to be untrue. My formal training in math is limited to nothing beyond college algebra.

And I still have no clue what you are talking about.

I do find it interesting in a bizarre sort of way, however.

Sorry Manopolus, but still far too much of that “obsolete formal knowledge of this subject”. By Doron’s own assertions “the novel knowledge” of his OM is based specifically upon a kindergarten understanding of math.