Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

The word you want is bent. Please try to get at least one thing right.

Bend it is ( http://morfix.mako.co.il/default.aspx?q=bend ).

You also are conflating an infinite series with a sequence of related finite series.

Wrong, for example:

Each added value of the infinite convergent series (of base 10) 0.9+0.09+0.009+0.0009+… is finite and accurate. Yet that series has no sum if it is infinite.

since the premise is false, no conclusion can be drawn.

Indeed your premise (an infinite convergent series is resulted by an accurate value) is false, and it is clearly and simply demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5762557&postcount=9233 .

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

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

Jsfisher after your last post I am sure that you have an irrational and dogmatic behavior (and I am polite here) about this fine and beautiful subject.

 

[jsfisher]

The word you want is bent. Please try to get at least one thing right.

Bend it is ( http://morfix.mako.co.il/default.aspx?q=bend ).

Still wrong.

You also are conflating an infinite series with a sequence of related finite series.

Wrong, for example:

Each added value of the infinite convergent series (of base 10) 0.9+0.09+0.009+0.0009+… is finite and accurate. Yet that series has no sum if it is infinite.

Your statement is unrelated to mine. Your statement is also wrong.

since the premise is false, no conclusion can be drawn.

Indeed your premise (an infinite convergent series is resulted by an accurate value) is false, and it is clearly and simply demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5762557&postcount=9233 .

You're so cute when you pretend to be Peewee Herman.

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

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

Jsfisher after your last post I am sure that you have an irrational and dogmatic behavior (and I am polite here) about this fine and beautiful subject.

Have an irrational and dogmatic behavior about this fine and beautiful subject? What excellent gibberish you utter.


Be all that as it may, you continue to evade my question, doron. When is Y = 0?

 

[doronshadmi]

Still wrong.

Unless bend is understood as a noun.

This is also a typical example of your dogmatic and hard attitude of any given discussed subject, whether it is Math or not.

Be all that as it may, you continue to evade my question, doron. When is Y = 0?

Do you see any Y in my last post? (some delay problems in you understanding abilities, probably).

You continue to evade my answer, and here is more precise version of it:

(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>0 value upon infinitely many bended scale levels as follows:

Each bended level has finitely many bends and any bended constant X>0 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>0 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 added 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).

 

[dafydd]

This is also a typical example of your dogmatic and hard attitude of any given discussed subject, whether it is Math or not.

There are not enough laughing dogs or irony meters in the world for that one.

 

[jsfisher]

Be all that as it may, you continue to evade my question, doron. When is Y = 0?

Do you see any Y in my last post? (some delay problems in you understanding abilities, probably).

That would be part of your continued evasion. So, when is Y = 0, as you claimed it?

 

[zooterkin]

Do you see any Y in my last post?

Is this like Where's Wally/Waldo? I can play that:

Bend it is ( http://morfix.mako.co.il/default.aspx?q=bend ).




Wrong, for example:

Each added value of the infinite convergent series (of base 10) 0.9+0.09+0.009+0.0009+… is finite and accurate. Yet that series has no sum if it is infinite.


Indeed your premise (an infinite convergent series is resulted by an accurate value) is false, and it is clearly and simply demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5762557&postcount=9233 .




Jsfisher after your last post I am sure that you have an irrational and dogmatic behavior (and I am polite here) about this fine and beautiful subject.

 

[doronshadmi]

That would be part of your continued evasion. So, when is Y = 0, as you claimed it?

Figure out by yourself.

It can be a good exercise for your reasoning's development.

 

[jsfisher]

Figure out by yourself.

It can be a good exercise for your reasoning's development.

Once again, doron makes a bogus claim, then runs away from it when exposed for the fraud he is.

 

[doronshadmi]

Once again, doron makes a bogus claim, then runs away from it when exposed for the fraud he is.

Bye, jsfisher The black knight ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4 ).

 

[jsfisher]

Bye, jsfisher The black knight ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4 ).

As has been continually the case, you do analogies very badly, doron.

The fact remains, you said that by "standard mathematics" X must be 0 and greater than 0 because Y = 0. When challenged on this ridiculous claim, you ran away.

And still through all that, all my limbs remain intact.

 

[sympathic]

Bye, jsfisher The black knight ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4 ).

Glad to see you still have your sense of humor. This one is for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loyjm4SOa0

 

[doronshadmi]

As has been continually the case, you do analogies very badly, doron.

The fact remains, you said that by "standard mathematics" X must be 0 and greater than 0 because Y = 0. When challenged on this ridiculous claim, you ran away.

And still through all that, all my limbs remain intact.

I did better than that.

In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5766097&postcount=9243 I show how X > AND = 0 by Standard Math without using Y=0.

But as usual, you can't follow the developments of my arguments.

I wish you a pleasant time by struggling with irrelevancy.

You will not find me there, jsfisher The Black Knight ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Knight_(Monty_Python) ).

Here are 2 longer vesions specially for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CLwxObfaNE&feature=related

 

[The Man]

I did better than that.

In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5766097&postcount=9243 I show how X > AND = 0 by Standard Math without using Y=0.

But as usual, you can't follow the developments of my arguments.

I wish you a pleasant time by struggling with irrelevancy.

You will not find me there, jsfisher The Black Knight ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Knight_(Monty_Python) ).

Here are 2 longer vesions specially for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CLwxObfaNE&feature=related

Once again since your augments about what you would simply like “Standard Math” to assert do not actually involve what you like to call “Standard Math”, the “irrelevancy” and “struggling” remains simply yours. What you like to call “Standard Math” does not assert and can not assert that “X > AND = 0” if that is a conclusion that you get, then you have done so specifically by not employing what you like to call “Standard Math”.

 

[sympathic]

Once again since your augments about what you would simply like “Standard Math” to assert do not actually involve what you like to call “Standard Math”, the “irrelevancy” and “struggling” remains simply yours. What you like to call “Standard Math” does not assert and can not assert that “X > AND = 0” if that is a conclusion that you get, then you have done so specifically by not employing what you like to call “Standard Math”.

Standard math is what doron likes it to be. Exactly like everything else with him. What matters in the end is what he thinks. You can not change that. I doudbt this will ever be any different with him. Too bad for him things are different in the real world.

 

[jsfisher]

I did better than that.

You did better than run away from a question?

In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5766097&postcount=9243 I show how X > AND = 0 by Standard Math without using Y=0.

Really? So, where exactly is Y ever 0? Simple question, but you keeping running away from it (or maybe did something better, we're not sure).

But as usual, you can't follow the developments of my arguments.

That's something of a universal. Your arguments are nonsense.

 

[doronshadmi]

Once again since your augments about what you would simply like “Standard Math” to assert do not actually involve what you like to call “Standard Math”, the “irrelevancy” and “struggling” remains simply yours. What you like to call “Standard Math” does not assert and can not assert that “X > AND = 0” if that is a conclusion that you get, then you have done so specifically by not employing what you like to call “Standard Math”.

In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5766097&postcount=9243 its is rigorously proved that if the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X, then 2*0 is one of the added accurate values of that series.

“Standard Math” does not assert and can not assert that “X > AND = 0”

Since Standard Math insists that 2*0 is one of the values of the convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) AND since Standard Math insists that (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) is also an infinite series, AND since each one of its added accurate values is derived from X, then if the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X , then X can't be but > AND = 0.

The Man, your twisted maneuvers with words can't erase the facts of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5766097&postcount=9243 , whether you like it or not.

 

[jsfisher]

In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5766097&postcount=9243 its is rigorously proved that if the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X, then 2*0 is one of the added accurate values of that series.

See, here's where that dictionary you didn't get for Chanukah might have helped. There is nothing rigorous about your AutoCAD drawing. In point of fact, simple drawings never constitute rigorous proof.

You drawing is at best suggestive that the infinite series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) converges to X. And in actual fact it can be proven (rigorously) that the series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) converges to X. That much I'll grand you.

However, that is no proof, not even a suggestion that 2*0 is one of the added terms. This again shows your deep misunderstanding of anything Mathematics.


By the way, you still evade the simple question: Where is Y = 0?

 

[doronshadmi]

Standard math is what doron likes it to be. Exactly like everything else with him. What matters in the end is what he thinks. You can not change that. I doudbt this will ever be any different with him. Too bad for him things are different in the real world.

Too bad for you sympathic, in the real word if (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X, then this series has finitely many accurate values that are derived from the accurate constant X>0 value, where 2*0 is the final accurate value of the finite convergent series, which is not derived from the accurate constant X>0 value.

 

[doronshadmi]

In point of fact, simple drawings never constitute rigorous proof.

Ho yes they are ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_without_words ).

You drawing is at best suggestive that the infinite series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) converges to X. And in actual fact it can be proven (rigorously) that the series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) converges to X.

Converges to X yes, reaches X no.

However, that is no proof, not even a suggestion that 2*0 is one of the added terms. This again shows your deep misunderstanding of anything Mathematics.

This is not a suggestion jsfisher, 2*0 is one of the added values if (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X, but then (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) is a finite series that has a sum (= X).

 

[The Man]

In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5766097&postcount=9243 its is rigorously proved that if the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X, then 2*0 is one of the added accurate values of that series.

Once again Doron if 0 (or 2*0) is one of your “added accurate values” then the sum of your “series” must have already been “X” before you added zero to it. Once again Doron, in case you still do not understand, adding 0 does not change a value. So if it is equal to “X” after you add 0 then it must have been equal to “X” before you added 0.

Since Standard Math insists that 2*0 is one of the values of the convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) AND since Standard Math insists that (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) is also an infinite series, AND since each one of its added accurate values is derived from X, then if the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) = X , then X can't be but > AND = 0.

Once again Doron you’re the only one insisting “2*0 is one of the values of the convergent series”. So once again your erroneous conclusion that “X can't be but > AND = 0” is still simply yours.

The Man, your twisted maneuvers with words can't erase the facts of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5766097&postcount=9243 , whether you like it or not.

Doron your “twisted maneuvers with” gibberish and drawings still do not constitute facts, “whether you like it or not”.