Deeper than primes

[The Man]

Please show where exactly X is not and accurate value, according to my post.

That is not a accurate quote. If you want to ask me question about so quote of what I have said then you will have to quote what I said. Not just truncate any statement as you see fit.

Exactly The Man.

In the case of Y=(2a+2b+2c+2d+...), Y is an inaccurate value, as long as Y is an infinite convergent series.

Once again exactly wrong, Y is a variable not a value. It represents a range of values and you have asserted that …

Again, rounded values are accurate values and also ranges of values that (by your own words) have sums, can’t be but accurate values.

ranges of values that have sums “can’t be but accurate values”. A convergent series is a range of values that has a sum. So by your own assertions it “can’t be but accurate values”. Again you claims are simply based on your assumption that an infinite convergent series has no sum, which was proven wrong some 2,300 years ago.

 

[The Man]

Here is a special longer version for you The Man, since you simply do not get the shroter version:

Fact 1) Constant accurate bended X size (the orange bended element) and convergent accurate Y sizes (the green elements) have common edges upon infinitely many scale levels.

Fact 2) Each accurate Y size is the complement of each accurate size of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…), to the accurate constant X size.

Fact 3) (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X only if Y=0, but if Y=0 then also X=0 because of fact (1).

Fact 4) If (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X, then X > AND = 0, because of fact (3).

Conclusion:

a) OM's claim ((2a+2b+2c+2d+…) < X) is right (X or Y are only > 0).

b) Standard Math's claim ((2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X) is wrong ((X or Y are both > AND = 0).

Longer and wrong does not make it any less wrong, it just makes it longer. Once again the assertion that your “X” and “Y” have the same size in your now statement “3” (since it isn’t really even a conclusion) just because they have the same edges (or end points) by your statement “1” is proven to be wrong with the very first iteration of your series.

 

[doronshadmi]

A convergent series is a range of values that has a sum.

Only if it has finitely many values.

 

[doronshadmi]

Longer and wrong does not make it any less wrong, it just makes it longer. Once again the assertion that your “X” and “Y” have the same size in your now statement “3” (since it isn’t really even a conclusion) just because they have the same edges (or end points) by your statement “1” is proven to be wrong with the very first iteration of your series.

Are you kidding?

By following the longer version, it is clearly understood that X and Y do not have the same size upon infinitely many scale levels, where both X AND Y > 0.

X and Y have the same size only if we follow the worng notion of Standard Math, which claims that (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X.

 

[The Man]

Only if it has finitely many values.

Again your assertion is just as wrong today as it was some 2,300 years ago.

 

[zooterkin]

jsfisher, your last post is not different than any chip propaganda of some dogmatic religious sect.

Chip propaganda? I'm guessing you must be referring to one of the orders of Friars...

 

[doronshadmi]

Again your assertion is just as wrong today as it was some 2,300 years ago.

No The Man, you simply can't rid of a wrong reasoning that were made 2,300 years ago, and the the new and right reasoning, about this subject, as clearly shown as follows:

Because by your idiotic reasoning the bended constant X > 0 must be also = 0 in order enable (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) to be X.

You repeat this idiotic claim, yet you cannot demonstrate it. Why is that?

Let us carefully research who's claim is right, on this case.

Here is the considered diagram:

By understanding this diagram, the following facts are shown (EDITED):

Fact 1) Constant accurate bended X size (the orange bended element) and convergent accurate Y sizes (the green elements) have common edges upon infinitely many scale levels.

Fact 2) Each accurate Y size is the complement of each accurate size of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…), to the accurate constant X size.

Fact 3) (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X only if Y=0, but if Y=0 then also X=0 because of fact (1).

Fact 4) If (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X, then X > AND = 0, because of fact (3).

Conclusion:

a) OM's claim ((2a+2b+2c+2d+…) < X) is right (X or Y are only > 0).

b) Standard Math's claim ((2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X) is wrong (X or Y are both > AND = 0).

 

[doronshadmi]

Chip propaganda?

Thank you, my mistake.

The right one is "Cheap propaganda".

 

[The Man]

Are you kidding?

By following the longer version, it is clearly understood that X and Y do not have the same size.

X and Y have the same size only if we follow the wrong notion of Standard Math, which claims that (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X.

By following your series it is clearly demonstrated (whether you understand it or not) that your “Constant accurate bended X size (the orange bended element)” it not the same “size” as your shrinking “Y sizes (the green elements)” at the very first iteration. Now if you want to claim that your “Y sizes (the green elements)” plus your 2 “a” elements (not given any particular color by you) in your first iteration equals your “X size” that would be correct. However it still does not make your “(the orange bended element)” the same “size” as your “(the green elements)” just because they have the same edges or end points.

 

[The Man]

No The Man, you simply can't rid of a wrong reasoning that were made 2,300 years ago, and the the new and right reasoning, about this subject, as clearly shown as follows:



Let us carefully research who's claim is right, on this case.

Here is the considered diagram:

[qimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2794/4464201033_30e7dbd8d4_o.jpg[/qimg]

By understanding this diagram, the following facts are shown (EDITED):

Fact 1) Constant accurate bended X size (the orange bended element) and convergent accurate Y sizes (the green elements) have common edges upon infinitely many scale levels.

Fact 2) Each accurate Y size is the complement of each accurate size of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…), to the accurate constant X size.

Fact 3) (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X only if Y=0, but if Y=0 then also X=0 because of fact (1).

Fact 4) If (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X, then X > AND = 0, because of fact (3).

Conclusion:

a) OM's claim ((2a+2b+2c+2d+…) < X) is right (X or Y are only > 0).

b) Standard Math's claim ((2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X) is wrong ((X or Y are both > AND = 0).

Doron you can not make that right by simply ignoring how easily a demonstrably wrong it is even with just the first iteration.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron you can not make that right by simply ignoring how easily a demonstrably wrong it is even with just the first iteration.

EDIT:

Please show how fact 1 is wrong, if by fact 2 it is clearly understood that X > any complement Y of the series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…)
and both X AND Y > 0 upon infinitely many scale levels?

 

[doronshadmi]

EDIT:

However it still does not make your “(the orange bended element)” the same “size” as your “(the green elements)” just because they have the same edges or end points.

The Man, why do you ignore the real content of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5757425&postcount=9204 ?

 

[The Man]

EDIT:

Please show how fact 1 is wrong, if by fact 2 it is clearly understood that X > any complement Y of the series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…)
and both X AND Y > 0 upon infinitely many scale levels?

First Doron they are simply statements not facts. Second I have never claimed that your statement “1” is wrong as it merely asserts that your “green” line (designated by you as “Y”) and “orange” group of segments (designated by you as “X”) have the same “edges” or end points. Your statement “2” clearly conflicts with your statement “1” even at the first iteration as your “green” line (designated by you as “Y”) is not the sum of your 2 “a” segments that you have not identified with any color. Your statement “3” (which was your statement “2” before) is also disproved by the first iteration as your “green” line (designated by you as “Y”) is not the same “size” as your “orange” group of segments (designated by you as “X”). Adding another clearly wrong statement to your “facts” does not make them facts or any less simply wrong.

 

[The Man]

EDIT:





The Man, why do you ignore the real content of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5757425&postcount=9204 ?

Doron you ignore that adding another wrong statement still makes you wrong, the real content of your post

 

[doronshadmi]

By following your series it is clearly demonstrated (whether you understand it or not) that your “Constant accurate bended X size (the orange bended element)” it not the same “size” as your shrinking “Y sizes (the green elements)” at the very first iteration. Now if you want to claim that your “Y sizes (the green elements)” plus your 2 “a” elements (not given any particular color by you) in your first iteration equals your “X size” that would be correct.

Here The Man simply missing the fact that according to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5757465&postcount=9207 X > any one of the infinitely many Y's (where any given particular Y is a complement of some particular finite sum of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…), to constant X value, where X > any given Y upon infinitely many scale levels, and both X AND Y > 0 upon infinitely many scale levels.

However it still does not make your “(the orange bended element)” the same “size” as your “(the green elements)” just because they have the same edges or end points.

Here The Man can't understand that X=Y only by Standard Math, and this is exactly why Standard Math is wrong, in this case.

Your statement “2” clearly conflicts with your statement “1” even at the first iteration as your “green” line (designated by you as “Y”) is not the sum of your 2 “a” segments that you have not identified with any color.

The Man,

Again, each "green" line is a complement of some particular finite sum of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…), to constant X value, where X > any given Y upon infinitely many scale levels, and both X AND Y > 0 upon infinitely many scale levels.

 

[doronshadmi]

Here is a clearer version of my argument (fact 2 has been changed).

Let us carefully research who's claim is right, on this case.

Here is the considered diagram:

By understanding this diagram, the following facts are shown (EDITED):

Fact 1) Constant accurate bended X size (the orange bended element) and convergent accurate Y sizes (the green elements) have common edges upon infinitely many scale levels.

Fact 2) Any given particular Y is a complement of some particular finite sum of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…), to constant X value, , where X > any given Y upon infinitely many scale levels, and both X AND Y > 0 upon infinitely many scale levels.

Fact 3) (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X only if Y=0, but if Y=0 then also X=0 because of fact (1).

Fact 4) If (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X, then X > AND = 0, because of fact (3).

Conclusion:

a) OM's claim ((2a+2b+2c+2d+…) < X) is right (X or Y are only > 0).

b) Standard Math's claim ((2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X) is wrong (X or Y are both > AND = 0).

 

[jsfisher]

Let us carefully research who's claim is right, on this case.

Here is the considered diagram:

[qimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2794/4464201033_30e7dbd8d4_o.jpg[/qimg]

By understanding this diagram, the following facts are shown (EDITED):

Fact 1) Constant accurate bended X size (the orange bended element) and convergent accurate Y sizes (the green elements) have common edges upon infinitely many scale levels.

You can't just use simple terms like the length and width of each generation of Koch curve?

Yes, the length of each generation is a constant X > 0. The width is ever decreasing. In fact, the width has a limit (as the generation number approaches infinity) of 0.

Fact 2) Each accurate Y size is the complement of each accurate size of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…), to the accurate constant X size.

No. This is nonsense on your part, doron. The width of each generation is the difference of X and the finite sum (2a+2b+...+2n) (being the amount of width reduced by each preceding generation).

Fact 3) (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X only if Y=0, but if Y=0 then also X=0 because of fact (1).

In the limit, the width is 0. However, the conclusion that X must therefore be 0 is baseless.

Major logic fail by doron.

Fact 4) If (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X, then X > AND = 0, because of fact (3).

This is a restatement of bogus fact 3. It is therefore equally bogus.

Conclusion:

a) OM's claim ((2a+2b+2c+2d+…) < X) is right (X or Y are only > 0).

b) Standard Math's claim ((2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X) is wrong ((X or Y are both > AND = 0).

Fact:

Doron can't get his facts right.

 

[sympathic]

Again this impropriate word ("believe") about this fine and important subject (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5735963&postcount=9170)?

Sympathic, this subject has nothing to do with beliefs.

This subject is based on direct perception of the re-reached subject, which enables one to under-sand its fundamentals.

What you call Limit is simply a reflection the natural ability of our mind to look beyond some considered subject.

By looking beyond the considered subject (and in this case the considered subject can be infinite convergent series like 0+1/2+1/4+1/8+…, or a divergent series like 1+1+1+…) one must not ignore the fundamental fact that the used viewpoint of the considered subject is exactly beyond (greater or smaller than) the considered subject.

When this fundamental notion is used, one immediately understands that the considered subject can't have any value, which is beyond it.

This is exactly the case with an infinite divergent series like 1+1+1+…, it does not reach the value of the limit, known as aleph0.

Also, this is exactly the case with an infinite divergent series like 0+1/2+1/4+1/8+…, it does not reach the value of the limit, known as 1.

Doron, I'll give it one more shot. Please try to accept this with an open mind:

Your understanding of the mathematical concepts of set and limit are flawed. You try to ascribe process to both, this is wrong, neither require a process, just a definition. A set is a collection of distinct elements. The collection may be arbitrary or follow some rule (for example the set of all even numbers). The set does not need any process or enumeration in order to contain its elements - this is taken care by the definition. The fact that the elements of N can not be enumerated in a finite amount of time, does not mean it is as you refer to it as "incomplete" it just means that it is infinite. Again, if this is hard for you to grasp, then turn it the other way around and think of N as a magic black box. Every natural number you can think of will be found in that box - how? magic! (and more seriously: because of its definition). We don't need to "load" sets with content, and we don't need to wait forever until the set is "fully loaded" or as you call it "complete", again they are "fully loaded" by their definition. This is abstract thinking doron - not your drawings.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron, I'll give it one more shot. Please try to accept this with an open mind:

Your understanding of the mathematical concepts of set and limit are flawed. You try to ascribe process to both, this is wrong, neither require a process, just a definition. A set is a collection of distinct elements. The collection may be arbitrary or follow some rule (for example the set of all even numbers). The set does not need any process or enumeration in order to contain its elements - this is taken care by the definition. The fact that the elements of N can not be enumerated in a finite amount of time, does not mean it is as you refer to it as "incomplete" it just means that it is infinite. Again, if this is hard for you to grasp, then turn it the other way around and think of N as a magic black box. Every natural number you can think of will be found in that box - how? magic! (and more seriously: because of its definition). We don't need to "load" sets with content, and we don't need to wait forever until the set is "fully loaded" or as you call it "complete", again they are "fully loaded" by their definition. This is abstract thinking doron - not your drawings.

sympathic, Please try to accept this with an open mind:

There is no process here of any kind.

Any given infinite collection is simply an incomplete mathematical element, and this incompleteness is essential to any infinite complex, because of a very simply reason:

No complex can be atomic, were the atomic has two opposite qualitative aspects which are: Locality (total finite) and Non-locality (total infinity).

The linkage between these qualitative aspects is resulted by what is called Quantity.

There is a finite quantity, which is accurate and has a sum.

There is an infinite quantity, which is inaccurate and does not have a sum (it is called a fog under OM (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5734631&postcount=9165)).

Since Standard Math does not understand the qualitative foundations of Complexity and Quantity, its reasoning is limited only the accurate aspect of Complexity.

OM is a reasoning that enables to deal with both inaccuracy and accuracy under a one comprehensive framework, which simply can't be comprehended from Standard Math Accuracy-only reasoning.

In other words sympathic, what you call process is a direct result of the limited understanding of Standard Math of the concept of Quantity and the concept of Complexity.

About your "fully loaded magic black box"; this time please to not ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5735873&postcount=9169 .

Again, the set of oranges is not itself an orange (it is not similar to the property of its members).

The series of accurate values (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) does not itself have an accurate value.

This resoning is beyond the limited reasoning, which deals only with accurate values.

 

[doronshadmi]

No. This is nonsense on your part, doron.

jsfisher, you have missed http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5757786&postcount=9216(see fact 2 there).

Please try again.

EDIT:

In the limit, the width is 0. However, the conclusion that X must therefore be 0 is baseless.

Major logic fail by doron.

Since X and Y sizes are inseparable accurate values (they share common edges) then, if Y=0 then also X=0.

Therefore in the limit both X AND Y = 0.

Jsfisher's forcing reasoning to save X>0 also if Y=0, is resulted by logical contradiction where X > AND = 0, also if Y=0.