Deeper than primes

[epix]

Originally Posted by doronshadmi
In general, this convergent series of 1/(the number of the bended sides) is resulted by 1/1+1/4+1/16+1/64+1/256+... , which has no limit exactly because length X is invariant upon infinitely many convergent scales of that series:

Really?

So the sum of a geometric series with a common ratio less than 1 does not have a limit?

...

Errata:

∞
∑ 2^-2i = 4/3
i=0

Doron had a hard day . . .

 

[doronshadmi]

Errata:

∞
∑ 2^-2i = 4/3
i=0

Doron had a hard day . . .

Not even an hard second if you get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6400287&postcount=11858 .

 

[jsfisher]

It is not my problem that the English language has limitations about this subject.

It is not a limitation of English. It is the pathetic ignorance of one Doron Shadmi.

In Hebrew, it is perfectly legal to say, for example: 5 Meter, 20 Mater, 70 Amma (an old measurement unit, that can be found in the Bible) etc...

5 meters is a perfectly acceptable form in English...but that isn't what you said. You alleged 5 units of meter was correct, and that's why all the 5 year-olds laugh at you.

jsfisher, you waste your energy on insignificant details.

Doron, you are the only one here who thinks effective communication is insignificant.

Moreover, this is all a diversion on your part to avoid admitting you were completely and utterly wrong declaring cardinality to be a unit of measure. The same holds for magnitude of existence. Where last you left it, you had "magnitude of existence means..." but then you followed it with gibberish.

Come on. Surely you can define something as simple and as basic to your reasoning as magnitude of existence, no?

 

[doronshadmi]

It is not a limitation of English. It is the pathetic ignorance of one Doron Shadmi.

I clearly demonstrated that 5 units of Meter (5 Meter) is perfectly legal in Hebrew.

Now we see that your reasoning abilities are limited to a particular case in English, such that you can't grasp the following sentence:

"1000 units of Meter are used to determine the "Length" of a given line."

Shame on you.

There is no wonder that you can't grasp, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6400287&postcount=11858 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6397061&postcount=11833.

 

[jsfisher]

In other words, you can't see anything in the following diagram, that has orange color:

What are you trying to say, here, Doron? Is orange now the universal notation for X?

The 5 year-olds aren't all laughing at this one, Doron, but they are giggling a bit.

 

[doronshadmi]

What are you trying to say, here, Doron? Is orange now the universal notation for X?

The 5 year-olds aren't all laughing at this one, Doron, but they are giggling a bit.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6400515&postcount=11864.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6400202&postcount=11855.

 

[jsfisher]

I clearly demonstrated that 5 units of Meter (5 Meter) is perfectly legal in Hebrew.

No you didn't. But even if you had and it is, it is irrelevant.

Now we see that your reasoning abilities are limited to English.

Don't blame me for your inability to communicate effectively. Don't blame me for your inability to express complete thoughts.


Again: Cardinality is not a unit of anything, and magnitude of existence remains an undefined term of doronetics.

 

[epix]

Not even an hard second if you get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6400287&postcount=11858 .

If I click, then this shows up . . .

Take a 1-dim element with finite size X.

Bend it and get 4 equal sides along it.

If you junk that "1-dim element with finite size X" crap and use "baseline s₀ = a" and proceed the way Koch did, then you take the line and cut it in 3 equidistant line segments:

_________|__________|___________


You see that 3 refers to the denominator of the limit of the sum. Then you turn the middle segment by 60 degrees up and add additional line segment to connect the form. Now you see 4 segments the number of which agrees with the numerator of the limit of the sum that you hold wrong. Since the combined length of the segments is greater than the original baseline s₀, you need to apply a reduction formula to keep Iteration 0 = Iteration 1. The reduction formula is

Length of the baseline for Iteration N = a*3^N/2^2N
Now the combined length of those 4-line segments of Iteration 1 equals the combined length of the 3-line segment of Iteration 0, which is the "non-bended" line.

Just take into account that your vaguely stated additional conditions can't alter the fact that the limit 4/3 of the sum is correct.

 

[doronshadmi]

No you didn't. But even if you had and it is, it is irrelevant.



Don't blame me for your inability to communicate effectively. Don't blame me for your inability to express complete thoughts.


Again: Cardinality is not a unit of anything, and magnitude of existence remains an undefined term of doronetics.

Cardinality is exactly a measurement unit of the size (or magnitude) of existence.

I really do not care about your inability to grasp http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6397061&postcount=11833.

 

[jsfisher]

What are you trying to say, here, Doron? Is orange now the universal notation for X?

The 5 year-olds aren't all laughing at this one, Doron, but they are giggling a bit.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6400515&postcount=11864.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6400202&postcount=11855.

More of your rewriting of previous posts after people have commented on them, I see.

Also more of your quote one thing than see something complete unrelated I see, too.

Is all of your thinking this scrambled?

 

[jsfisher]

Cardinality is exactly a measurement unit of the size (or magnitude) of existence.

I really do not care about your inability to grasp

Cardinality is no such thing. You simply made that up.

 

[The Man]

Well, you can always surprise me, unless there are no surprises in a Black\White reasoning, where anything is T or F and your best is F.

Ah, so as usual you were simply lying when you claimed

...I know.

 

[The Man]

It does not matter, it can be any constant and finite value > 0.

jsfisher or The Man may claim that there exists Koch's form with infinite constant value.

In that case there must be a form of constant size > 0, that is entirely defined by forms of 0 sizes, which is definably Reductio ad absurdum, because no amount of only 0 sizes defines a size (finite or not), which is > 0.

Once again Doron, two points define a line segment, the “Reductio ad absurdum” still remains entirely yours.

 

[doronshadmi]

If I click, then this shows up . . .

If you junk that "1-dim element with finite size X" crap and use "baseline s₀ = a" and proceed the way Koch did, then you take the line and cut it in 3 equidistant line segments:

_________|__________|___________


You see that 3 refers to the denominator of the limit of the sum. Then you turn the middle segment by 60 degrees up and add additional line segment to connect the form. Now you see 4 segments the number of which agrees with the numerator of the limit of the sum that you hold wrong. Since the combined length of the segment is greater than the original baseline s₀, you need to apply a reduction formula to keep Iteration 0 = Iteration 1. The reduction formula is

Length of the baseline for Iteration N = a*3^N/2^2N
Now the combined length of those 4-line segments of Iteration 1 equals the combined length of the 3-line segment of Iteration 0, which is the "non-bended" line.

Just take into account that your vaguely stated additional conditions can't alter the fact that the limit 4/3 of the above sum is correct.

Just take to account that that S = 2(a+b+c+d+...) does not have a sum.

 

[doronshadmi]

Cardinality is no such thing. You simply made that up.

jsfisher, I do not care about your limited agreement of the concept of Cardinality.

Kapish?!

 

[jsfisher]

jsfisher, I do not care about your limited agreement of the concept of Cardinality.

Kapish?!

Translation #1: Since Doron has no idea how real Mathematics works, he'll just make up stuff.

Translation #2: Using established terminology would facilitate effective communication. Doron forbids it.

 

[doronshadmi]

Once again Doron, two points define a line segment, the “Reductio ad absurdum” still remains entirely yours.

A line segment is not less than 1-dim element and 0-dim elements.

I am talking about the claim that there is a form > 0 which is defined only by 0-dim elements, and I see that you (and jsfisher) simply can't grasp the Reductio ad absurdum of such a claim.

 

[doronshadmi]

Translation #1: Since Doron has no idea how real Mathematics works, he'll just make up stuff.

Translation #2: Using established terminology would facilitate effective communication. Doron forbids it.

Translation #1: Since jsfisher has some filing about the influence on the mathematical science, if Cardinality is used to directly measure Emptiness and Fullness, he does his best in order to eliminate such an influence.

Translation #2: I really do not care about his limited and orthodox approach of the considered subjects.

 

[The Man]

A line segment is not less than 1-dim element and 0-dim elements.

Technically and more specifically it is a “1-dim element” defined by (at least) two “0-dim elements”.

I am talking about the claim that there is a form > 0 which is defined only by 0-dim elements, and I see that you (and jsfisher) simply can't grasp the Reductio ad absurdum of such a claim.

Again a line segment (a “1-dim element”) is defined by two points (“0-dim elements”), the absurdities are again and remain entirely yours.

 

[jsfisher]

I really do not care about his limited and orthodox approach of the considered subjects.

So your goal really is to frustrate clear and effective communication. At least you are honest about it.