Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

One more thing sympathic.

If http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5723186&postcount=9133 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5723187&postcount=9134 is your best, then please do not bother to reply to
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5760123&postcount=9219 .

 

[jsfisher]

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

Please try again.

Nope, I didn't miss it. You edited something you had written that was wrong. It was still wrong when you'd finished editing.

EDIT:

Oh, look! Doron is about to do it again:

Since X and Y sizes are inseparable accurate values (they share common edges)

Well, doron doesn't disappoint. The values are not "inseparable". X is constant for all generations. Y is monotonically decreasing with each subsequent generation. Clearly, Y varies independently of X.

They also share no common edges. They are values, like 56 or 2.34345. Doron has confused and conflated measurement with the thing being measured.

...then, if Y=0 then also X=0.

And here he again shows no understanding of limits. The width of any of Doron's Koch curve generations is never 0. Never. Y is never 0. The fact the limit of Y is 0 is a different matter, but doron is to busy missing the point to, well, get the point.

Therefore in the limit both X AND Y = 0.

Bogus conclusion drawn from a bogus premise.

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.

This is also a bogus claim, also based on a bogus premise.

 

[doronshadmi]

They are values, like 56 or 2.34345

They are two different values that have common edges AND different number of segments along them, where the size of a given segment is the same in both values (upon infinitely many scale levels) such that 3/4 is their invariant ratio upon infinitely many scale levels.

If Y (which is based on the invariant value 3 of 3/4) = 0, then X (which is based on the invariant value 4 of 3/4) = 0.

So, whether Standard Math likes it or not, there is an inseparable linkage between Y and X (defined as the invariant ratio 3/4 upon infinitely many scale levels) which prevents the independency of Y (green elements) from X (the organge bended elements) and vice versa, in the following case:

The width of any of Doron's Koch curve generations is never 0. Never. Y is never 0. The fact the limit of Y is 0 is a different matter,

There is no different matter here. jsfisher's reasoning simply can't get the difference between 0/4 and 3/4, because it claims that 3 or 4 of the invariant ratio 3/4 upon infinitely many scale levels in the diagram above, are independent values, which is simply false claim, in this case.

Again, 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.

 

[jsfisher]

They are two different values that have common edges AND different number of segments along them

No. You have repeated referred to X and Y as being numerical values. Numerical values do not have edges nor segments. Stop conflating things.

...where the size of a given segment is the same in both values (upon infinitely many scale levels) such that 3/4 is their invariant ratio upon infinitely many scale levels.

No, X is a constant value for all generations. Y is monotonically decreasing (by 25% each generation). The ratio between Y and X (i.e. Y/X) is also monotonically decreasing, trivial fact to deduce from the preceding.

If Y (which is based on the invariant value 3 of 3/4) = 0

...which it isn't, ever, on both counts.

...then X (which is based on the invariant value 4 of 3/4) = 0.

...which it isn't, ever, either, on both counts.

By the way, the invariant value of 4 is, well, 4, and it doesn't matter where it appears. It's 4 in 3/4 and it is 4 in 4x35.

So, whether Standard Math likes it or not, there is an inseparable linkage between Y and X (defined as the invariant ratio 3/4 upon infinitely many scale levels) which prevents the independency of Y (green elements) from X (the organge bended elements) and vice versa

You failed to show this. Instead, you just made errors in your presentation.

...Again, 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.

You keep saying that, yet you can't actually demonstrate it.

For instance, when is Y ever 0? [Hint: Never.]

 

[doronshadmi]

Again:

The width of any of Doron's Koch curve generations is never 0. Never. Y is never 0. The fact the limit of Y is 0 is a different matter,

There is no different matter here. jsfisher's reasoning simply can't get the difference between 0/4 and 3/4, because it claims that 3 or 4 of the invariant ratio 3/4 upon infinitely many scale levels in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5761283&postcount=9223 diagram, are independent values, which is simply a false claim, in this case.

Again, 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.

 

[doronshadmi]

By the way, the invariant value of 4 is, well, 4, and it doesn't matter where it appears. It's 4 in 3/4 and it is 4 in 4x35.

It is irrelevant to the discussed case.

 

[doronshadmi]

No, X is a constant value for all generations. Y is monotonically decreasing (by 25% each generation). The ratio between Y and X (i.e. Y/X) is also monotonically decreasing, trivial fact to deduce from the preceding.

This "trivial" fact (where 3/4 is an invariant ratio upon infinitely many scale levels)
is exactly the reason of why the infinite series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) < X.

The ratio between Y and X (i.e. Y/X) is also monotonically decreasing,

No, jsfisher 3/4 is invariant (exactly as X is invariant) upon infinitely many scale levels. Because of this fact the ratio between Y and X (i.e. Y/X) is monotonically decreasing upon infinitely many sacale levels, that do not reach 0 (again your ability to deal only with accurate values rises its limited head).

 

[jsfisher]

...[nonsense snipped]...

So where is Y ever equal to 0, doron? Why do you continue to evade this question?

 

[doronshadmi]

So where is Y ever equal to 0, doron? Why do you continue to evade this question?

Again:

The ratio between Y and X (i.e. Y/X) is also monotonically decreasing,

jsfisher 3/4 is invariant (exactly as X is invariant) upon infinitely many scale levels. Because of this fact the ratio between Y and X (i.e. Y/X) is monotonically decreasing upon infinitely many sacale levels, that do not reach 0 (again your ability to deal only with accurate values rises its limited head).

You simply can't understand the simple fact that (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X exactly because Y or X can't be 0.

The fact the limit of Y is 0 is a different matter,

Simply nonsense, as long as we deal with an infinite convergent series, which can't have the accurate value of the limit as long as it is infinite.

Why do you continue to evade this fact?

 

[doronshadmi]

So where is Y ever equal to 0, doron?

So where (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) is ever equal to X, jsfisher?

 

[jsfisher]

So where is Y ever equal to 0, doron?

So where (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) is ever equal to X, jsfisher?

Evasion noted. Is it simply that you don't want to admit that your whole house of cards is based on the bogus precept of Y being equal to 0? Y is never 0. Admit it; let's move on.

As for (2a+2b+2c+2d+...), well, that is an infinite series. As such, it either has a value (if the series converges), or it doesn't. This series converges. It is silly to ask, as you have done, "where" (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) is equal to X. The series has one and only one value; it doesn't take on different values at different places or times or generations. It is X; it is always X.

 

[jsfisher]

So where is Y ever equal to 0, doron? Why do you continue to evade this question?

Again:

Again, you have evaded the question. It is a simple question. Why not just answer it?

The ratio between Y and X (i.e. Y/X) is also monotonically decreasing,

jsfisher 3/4 is invariant (exactly as X is invariant) upon infinitely many scale levels.

Pi is also invariant. So what?

Because of this fact the ratio between Y and X (i.e. Y/X) is monotonically decreasing upon infinitely many sacale levels, that do not reach 0 (again your ability to deal only with accurate values rises its limited head).

The only one making claims about something reaching 0 is you, doron.

You simply can't understand the simple fact that (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X exactly because Y or X can't be 0.

That is not a fact. The infinite series (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) does equal X, exactly. Any finite series leading up to it, does not. And that is something you simply can't understand.

The fact the limit of Y is 0 is a different matter,

Simply nonsense, as long as we deal with an infinite convergent series, which can't have the accurate value of the limit as long as it is infinite.

Why do you continue to evade this fact?

I don't evade it, and it isn't a fact. This "can't have" is your baseless invention. You repeat it often, but you cannot support it with anything but repetition of your empty claim. Parrots have been trained in the very same style of argument.


You started this latest tangent with a claim "By standard mathematics...". You were called on your bogus statement, and all you have been able to show so far is "By Doron's gross misunderstanding of everything Mathematic...".

You continue to reinforce what you have already show. How very conscientious of you.

 

[doronshadmi]

The infinite series (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) does equal X, exactly.

No, (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X and in order to understand this let us understand the following diagram:

The added accurate values of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) are a direct result of the existence of accurate and constant X value upon infinitely many bended scale levels as follows:

Each bended level has finitely many bends and any bended X has two different edges that actually enable the existence of each added accurate value of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+...).

(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) = X only if 2*0 is one of the added accurate values of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+...), but if 2*0 is one of the added values of (2a+2b+2c+2d+...), then it is obvious that the two different edges of the bended accurate and constant X value are not found, or in other words, X must be 0 (it has 0 size) if 2*0 is one of the elements of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+...).

In that case X > AND = 0 in order to enable 2*0 to be one of the accurate elements of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+...).

Since X > AND = 0 is false, then (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) = X is false, and the true result in this case can’t be but (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X, where (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) is incomplete by the right reasoning (a,b,c,d ... of the added values of the infinite convergent series
(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) are > 0 , exactly because X is a constant and accurate value > 0, upon infinitely many bended scale levels).

So where (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) is ever equal to X, jsfisher?

 

[sympathic]

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.

Doron, your reply is a non sequitur. Instead of replying directly to my post, you choose to tangent to your interpretation of mathematical concepts (which is wrong). Please try to address the core of my post without tangents: N is not incomplete, it is infinite. The definition of N or any other infinite series is they key. You seem to be mixing up between the concept of a set and a given set. A set is a pre-defined collection of elements. Once it is defined it "contains" all its elements.

 

[doronshadmi]

A set is a pre-defined collection of elements. Once it is defined it "contains" all its elements.

Not if it is an infinite collection (the term "all" is false, in this case).

sympathic, you are still using a non sequitur interpretation of an infinite collection.

 

[sympathic]

Not if it is an infinite collection (the term "all" is false, in this case).

sympathic, you are still using a non sequitur interpretation of an infinite collection.

Doron - the sad fact is that you are banging your head against a wall. A set is "complete" by its definition regardless of whether it is finite or infinite. You simply do not understand what a mathematical definition is.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron - the sad fact is that you are banging your head against a wall. A set is "complete" by its definition regardless of whether it is finite or infinite. You simply do not understand what a mathematical definition is.

sympathic - the sad fact is that you do not understand the foundations of the reasoning that enable consistent mathematical definitions.

This lack of understanding makes you no more than a mechanic technician without any reasoning at the basis of his mathematical activity.

You are even not banging your head against a wall, because your mechanic activity has no head nor tail.

EDIT:

Again, Standard Math does not understand the qualitative atomic foundations of Complexity and Quantity.

 

[doronshadmi]

An actual example:

Look how Standard Math does not give you (jsfisher, sympathic, The Man) the ability to understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5762557&postcount=9233 .

 

[jsfisher]

The infinite series (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) does equal X, exactly.

No, (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X and in order to understand this let us understand the following diagram:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg

Your reliance on proof-by-AutoCAD is commendable, but misguided.

The added accurate values of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) are a direct result of the existence of accurate and constant X value upon infinitely many bended scale levels

Those are all words you used just there, and individually they each mean something, but in that arrangement they unite to become gibberish.

...as follows:

Each bended level has finitely many bends and any bended X has two different edges that actually enable the existence of each added accurate value of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+...).

The word you want is bent. Please try to get at least one thing right. I see you are conflating X, the length of the Koch curve generation with the curve itself. You also are conflating an infinite series with a sequence of related finite series. No wonder you have such trouble with Mathematics. You confuse everything with everything else.

(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) = X only if 2*0 is one of the added accurate values of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+...)

Nope, not true. This is just something you made up because, as you so accurately demonstrated in the same post, you confuse everything.

...but if 2*0 is one of the added values of (2a+2b+2c+2d+...)

...and it isn't

...then it is obvious that the two different edges of the bended accurate and constant X value are not found, or in other words, X must be 0 (it has 0 size) if 2*0 is one of the elements of the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+...).

I see we are back to lost-and-found. Doesn't matter, though, since the premise is false, no conclusion can be drawn.

...[more doron conflation/confusion/contortion snipped]...

So where (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) is ever equal to X, jsfisher?[/QUOTE]

Your goofy reasoning notwithstanding, my answer is unchanged from before.

Are you ever going to answer my question, or just continue to evade and spam this forum with your AutoCAD drawing?

 

[zooterkin]

An actual example:

Look how Standard Math does not give you (jsfisher, sympathic, The Man) the ability to understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5762557&postcount=9233 .

Why should mathematics be any aid to understanding gibberish?