• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
zooterkin said:
Fog off:

1 / 3 = 0.333...

0.333... * 3 = 1.
Click to expand...

Only by fixed-valued reasoning that can't comprehend fogs ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5734631&postcount=9165 ), so?

For example fixed-valued reasoning (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5735873&postcount=9169) can't comprehend the following:

doronshadmi said:
The Man said:
No Doron “S” is just a sum (in this case the sum of a convergent infinite series) and has nothing to do with your “inaccurate” fantasies.
Click to expand...

No The Man “S” is just a fog (in this case the fog of a convergent infinite series) and has nothing to do with your “accurate” fantasies.

Look at this:

S=(0.9+0.09+0.09+0.009+...[base 10]) and it is a fog < 1 by fog 0.000...1[base 10]

As you see, all infinitely many added sums of the form above are not resulted by a sum, but they are resulted by a fog.

Exactly the same result is truth for all infinitely many finite bended Koch’s fractal forms that have constant sum X AND different endpoints, where S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) is exactly the projection of all these different endpoints upon the non-bended constant sum X.

Since all projections are the result of all bended Koch’s fractal forms that have constant sum X AND different endpoints, then the two different points are an invariant property of this projection, exactly because they belong to all infinitely many finite bended Koch’s fractal forms that have constant sum X, that can’t be reduced to sum 0.

As a result the fog of S < the constant sum X.

This result is clearly seen by this proof without words:

4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
EDIT:

"...1" of "0.000...1" represents (for example) the non-local unclosed gap between the infinite convergent series 0.9+0.09+0.009+...[base 10] and the natural number 1.

You can't get that because you can't comprehend the non-local atomic aspect, that can't be reduced to 0 (the local atomic aspect) by an infinite convergent series like 0.9+0.09+0.009+...[base 10], for example.

0.000...1 is a non-local number, also known as fog.
Click to expand...

I think you are being stubborn on purpose. "0.000....1" is not a non-local number, it is not even an imaginary number. It can not exist because it is based on a contradiction. Once again "...." means infinite repetition, if you "break" this repetition it is no longer infinite, and the number becomes a constant. for example "0.0000000001" or "0.0000000000000000000001" depending on how many "0" you want before the 1. You can not have an infinite number of "0" before the "1". Is that so hard to understand? If you still disagree, then prove us all wrong by typing this number in whole (it should keep you busy for a while though).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I use Difference relationship between sums.
Click to expand...

Now novel of you. Why risk intelligent communication when it is so easy to protect against it by casual misuse of simple terms.

I use Complement relationship between fogs ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5734631&postcount=9165).
Click to expand...

...or by the introduction of meaningless ones.

EDIT:

Some correction of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5795158&postcount=9314.

Instead of “As a result the sum of S < the constant sum X” it has to be “As a result the fog of S < the constant sum X”.
Click to expand...

Thank you for making your intentions so very, very clear. Your statements have long lost any semblance of sanity. You must be putting on an act solely for your own amusement. There is no intellectual content in your posts, just the mindless repetition of the irrelevant, the inconsistent, and the just plain wrong.
 
jsfisher said:
Now novel of you. Why risk intelligent communication when it is so easy to protect against it by casual misuse of simple terms.



...or by the introduction of meaningless ones.



Thank you for making your intentions so very, very clear. Your statements have long lost any semblance of sanity. You must be putting on an act solely for your own amusement. There is no intellectual content in your posts, just the mindless repetition of the irrelevant, the inconsistent, and the just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

Well, communication with Doron is not all in vain; at least you got a good quote from him for your signature on this forum.
 
sympathic said:
I think you are being stubborn on purpose. "0.000....1" is not a non-local number, it is not even an imaginary number. It can not exist because it is based on a contradiction. Once again "...." means infinite repetition, if you "break" this repetition it is no longer infinite, and the number becomes a constant. for example "0.0000000001" or "0.0000000000000000000001" depending on how many "0" you want before the 1. You can not have an infinite number of "0" before the "1". Is that so hard to understand? If you still disagree, then prove us all wrong by typing this number in whole (it should keep you busy for a while though).
Click to expand...
A typical local-only view of this fine subject.

No infinitely many points or infinitely many segments can reduce ...1 (which is the non-local part of 0.000...1) to 0.

Actually this irreducibility is exactly the reason of why there are infinitely many things, in the first place.

You simply don't have the needed knowledge in order to comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5795672&postcount=9323.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
A typical local-only view of this fine subject.

No infinitely many points or infinitely many segments can reduce ...1 (which is the non-local part of 0.000...1) to 0.

Actually this irreducibility is exactly the reason of why there are infinitely many things, in the first place.

You simply don't have the needed knowledge in order to comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5795672&postcount=9323.
Click to expand...

Gibberish aside, care to fully write the number down?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No The Man “S” is just a fog (in this case the fog of a convergent infinite series) and has nothing to do with your “accurate” fantasies.

Look at this:

S=(0.9+0.09+0.09+0.009+...[base 10]) and it is a fog < 1 by fog 0.000...1[base 10]

As you see, all infinitely many added sums of the form above are not resulted by a sum, but they are resulted by a fog.

Exactly the same result it true for all infinitely many finite bended Koch’s fractal forms that have constant sum X AND different endpoints, where
S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) is exactly the projection of all these different endpoints upon the non-bended constant sum X.

Since all projections are the result of all bended Koch’s fractal forms that have constant sum X AND different endpoints, then the two different points are an invariant property of this projection, exactly because they belong to all infinitely many finite bended Koch’s fractal forms that have constant sum X, that can’t be reduced to sum 0.

As a result the sum of S < the constant sum X.

This result is clearly seen by this proof without words:

[qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...


Well once again Doron you simply demonstrate the contradictory “fog” that are your notions “exactly because they belong to all infinitely many finite bended Koch’s fractal forms that have constant sum X”. You’re the only one trying to claim that sum is “0”. Actually you are erroneous trying to claim that others would claim (by what you like to call “standard math”) that sum is zero. What you apparently fail to realize, even though you have essentially claimed it above, is that your “constant sum X” remains constant even with an “infinitely” “bended Koch’s fractal”. So you are in fact asserting that an infinite set can have a finite sum. Otherwise your “constant sum X” is not, well, constant. So which is it Doron your “constant sum X” remains constant even with a “infinitely” “bended Koch’s fractal” or your “constant sum X” is not, well, constant? The choice is up to you since these are suppose to be your notions.






doronshadmi said:
Anything that has a sum (range or not) is a finite (fixed) mathematical object.
Click to expand...

No, Doron the sum is finite and “fixed”, the common ratio of the series is finite and “fixed” (for that particularly series) but the thing that has both that sum and that common ratio, the particular infinite convergent series in question, is not itself finite or “fixed”, specifically in the number of elements being added.


doronshadmi said:
Anything that has a fog (range or not) is an infinite (non-fixed) mathematical object.
Click to expand...

You certainly seem to have a “fog” about quite a number of things including what you like to call “Standard Math”.

doronshadmi said:
The Man you simply unable to comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5735873&postcount=9169 because of your "fixed-only" reasoning.
Click to expand...

Once again the failure in comprehending that paper you quoted is clearly yours and no doubt a result of you reading it in your “fog”.


doronshadmi said:
No, a convergent series is a range of values that has a fog.
Click to expand...

Nope, it is just you “that has a fog”.
 
The Man said:
What you apparently fail to realize, even though you have essentially claimed it above, is that your “constant sum X” remains constant even with an “infinitely” “bended Koch’s fractal”. So you are in fact asserting that an infinite set can have a finite sum. Otherwise your “constant sum X” is not, well, constant.
Click to expand...
The Man you apparently fail to realize that infinite series of added sums is not itself a sum, exactly as a collection of all oranges is not itself an orange.

Actually S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X exactly because the two different endpoints can’t be reduced into a single point, and this irreducibility is based on the fact that X>0 is a constant upon infinitely many bended levels, that are irreducible to 0.

The generalization here is the irreducibility of a non-local element (which its minimal representation is a 1-dim element) into a local element (which its minimal representation is a 0-dim element).

Please look at the non-local green elements of the following diagram:

4464201033_30e7dbd8d4_o.jpg


The Man said:
No, Doron the sum is finite and “fixed”, the common ratio of the series is finite and “fixed” (for that particularly series) but the thing that has both that sum and that common ratio, the particular infinite convergent series in question, is not itself finite or “fixed”, specifically in the number of elements being added.
Click to expand...

It is obvious that the collection of all infinitely many convergent triangles, where each one of them has a non-local green side, are not reducible into a single point.

By following this fact, it is immediately and unconditionally understood that S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X
 
Last edited:
sympathic said:
Gibberish aside, care to fully write the number down?
Click to expand...
Sympathic: “I have a nice job and a diploma, which enables me to define a sun that rises and shines in the middle of the night”

Doron: “Please wake me up when it happens”
 
doronshadmi said:
Sympathic: “I have a nice job and a diploma, which enables me to define a sun that rises and shines in the middle of the night”

Doron: “Please wake me up when it happens”
Click to expand...

non sequitur aside, care to fully write this number down? (you can use an autocad program if you prefer not doing it manually).
 
sympathic said:
non sequitur aside, care to fully write this number down? (you can use an autocad program if you prefer not doing it manually).
Click to expand...

sympathic, your reply is non sequitur because a fog is not a sum (fixed-value) (which is something that fixed-valued-only "care to fully write this number down?" reasoning can't get).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
sympathic, your reply is non sequitur because a fog is not a sum (fixed-value) (which is something that fixed-valued-only "care to fully write this number down?" reasoning can't get).
Click to expand...

Could you point to where you have actually defined 'fog'?
 
doronshadmi said:
sympathic, your reply is non sequitur because a fog is not a sum (fixed-value) (which is something that fixed-valued-only "care to fully write this number down?" reasoning can't get).
Click to expand...

who is talking about fogs, smogs or any other terms you invent for things you do not understand (I suggest "smoke monster" by the way for your next invented term). You were referring to the "number" 0.0000.....1 . This is not a number, there is no such number - it is just a string of characters. You don't even understand what "...." means. You have once again climbed a tree you are unable to climb down from.
 
The Man said:
None of your assumptions, misinterpretations, contrivances or drawings will change the fact that the difference between the series ½+1/4+1/8+1/16…. and the self similar two times series 1+½+1/4+1/8+1/16… is just 1 (an “accurate value” by your own assertions) which is itself the sum of the series ½+1/4+1/8+1/16…. by that same two times self similar relationship. That is all anyone needs to show that you are just completely and utterly wrong about the sum of a convergent infinite series even some 2,300 yea
Click to expand...
An obsolete and wrong reasoning that can’t comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5734631&postcount=9165 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5721761&postcount=9104 , so?
 
sympathic said:
who is talking about fogs, smogs or any other terms you invent for things you do not understand (I suggest "smoke monster" by the way for your next invented term). You were referring to the "number" 0.0000.....1 . This is not a number, there is no such number - it is just a string of characters. You don't even understand what "...." means. You have once again climbed a tree you are unable to climb down from.
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5796671&postcount=9329 just change the name there to sympathic.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom