Deeper than primes

[epix]

No it is not a process, because time is not considered.

The process of collecting data for creating the calibration curve is critical to the success of the calibration program.

http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/mpc/section3/mpc362.htm

Thus, the classical process of collecting data, building a model, and validating relative to the data, seems to be problematic in the social sciences since the range of both the data and the models is so vast.

http://www.rchoetzlein.com/theory/?p=55

Gee, there are so many professionals who mistakenly believe that collection is actually a process. Email them, correct them, explain yourself politely but be assertive if you meet resistance. Fulfill your destiny and doronize the world to its salvation.

 

[doronshadmi]

The irreducibility of 1() to 0() means that there can't be 1/2() or 1/3()... In other words there can't be no values between 1 and 0 that would lead to the reduction of 1 toward 0.

Not at all.

It means exactly that no amount of 0() is 1().

 

[doronshadmi]

Gee, there are so many professionals who mistakenly believe that collection is actually a process. Email them, correct them, explain yourself politely but be assertive if you meet resistance. Fulfill your destiny and doronize the world to its salvation.

Do you have a problem to distinguish between "collecting" (where time is involved) and "collection" (where time is not involved)?

 

[doronshadmi]

If you are in the Euclidean space, then be advised that


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_(geometry)

If your are not in Euclidean space, where are you then?

Once a 1-D object is defined continuous, then its definition assures that there is no point on the object that cannot be located. f(x) = 1/x or g(x) = Log(x) are not defined continuous in the domain -∞ < x < ∞. If this is what you mean by "not all points can cover 1()," then you just made a "far-reaching discovery."

I re-define spaces, such that no given space ( whether it is strict ( like 0.999[base 10]() or pi() ),
or non-strict ( like 0.999…[base 10]() or 3.14...[base 10]() ) ) is defined by other spaces.

All you have to do is to get the difference between (just for example) non-complex spaces like:

∞(
0(),0.999…[base 10](),1(),2(),3(), …
)

and complex results like:

∞(
... 3(2(1(0.999…[base 10](0())))) ...
)

If you can't grasp http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6425352&postcount=11946, you can't get OM.

 

[The Man]

No The Man it simply demonstrates that you can't comprehend that "≠" is the non-local property of 1() w.r.t 0().

You’re "non-local property” nonsense doesn't make "≠" a location on a line either Doron.

By using Traditional Math, please prove that variable x ( where x is any arbitrary distinct 0() of [0,1] ) is both ≤ 1 OR both ≥ 0.

How about you first learn what the symbols “≤” and “≥” mean?

 

[The Man]

( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_singularities ).

I’m quite familiar with mathematical singularities, thank you.

(
By understanding 1/0 as 1()/0() we actually discover the irreducibility of 1() to 0(), such that 1(0()) where, 1() is non-local w.r.t 0() and 0() is local w.r.t 1().

In other words, the "explosion" to ±∞ is actually the irreducibility of 1() to 0(), such that no amount of 0() is 1().

n=1 to ∞

k= 0 to n-1

None of your above nonsense is mentioned in that wiki article or any of those papers you cited.

The irreducibility of n() to k() stands at the basis of gravitational singularity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity ).

Nope.

Doron the “irreducibility of n() to k() stands” simply as result of you limiting your “k” to, well, “n-1”

Ok so you can’t actually show that you understand those papers you cited or that they have any relevance to your OM, as expected.

 

[zooterkin]

He assumed a sum of convergent series, but I show that this is a false assumption

Bollocks. He assumed no such thing, he was responding to what you wrote, and subsequently edited after he replied, as is your wont.

( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6400287&postcount=11858 ).

In what way does that sum not have a limit?

 

[epix]

How about you first learn what the symbols “≤” and “≥” mean?

I got a whiff of something hard to believe when Doron became unhappy with me limiting the range of x to the open interval a ≤ x ≤ b. Doron indicated that x couldn't equal a and at the same time equal b, or something to that extent.

 

[The Man]

I got a whiff of something hard to believe when Doron became unhappy with me limiting the range of x to the open interval a ≤ x ≤ b. Doron indicated that x couldn't equal a and at the same time equal b, or something to that extent.

Evidently now he is just asking anyone to show 'that x is "both" greater than OR equal to a OR "both" less then OR equal to b' whatever he thinks that means.

 

[epix]

Do you have a problem to distinguish between "collecting" (where time is involved) and "collection" (where time is not involved)?

No, I don't, coz the distinction that converts a verb to a noun doesn't exist -- only in your dreams and perhaps in the Torah.

They should collect all the food of these good years that are coming and store up the grain under the authority of Pharaoh, to be kept in the cities for food.
Genesis 41:35

How about hitting this for a change?

 

[epix]

Not at all.

It means exactly that no amount of 0() is 1().

You can locate any point on a defined continuous line when the line is defined by a function that involves coordinates where 'x' and 'y' actually live.

If 'x' belongs to a set of integers, then you won't find a point 'y' on the y-axis for x=1.5, for example, and the line is not continuous. If 'x' belongs to a set of real numbers, the situation is quite different. Your 0() and 1() musing doesn't have proper correspondence to see what is really being meant. You just repeat that same thing all over again that this and that can't be reduced, covered, and so on, and when things get tight, you hide behind some "non-locality."

 

[epix]

I don't like them mathematicians that much. I respect them, though, coz they seem to be smart guys, but they argue. That's okay -- wheat needs to be separated from chaff -- but the way they do it with all that name calling if they disagree is not nice.

A degenerate interval is any set consisting of a single real number. Some authors include the empty set in this definitions. An interval that is neither empty nor degenerate is said to be proper, and has infinitely many elements.

The primitive recursive functions are defined using primitive recursion and composition as central operations and are a strict subset of the total µ-recursive functions (µ-recursive functions are also called partial recursive). The term was coined by Rózsa Péter.

 

[doronshadmi]

You’re "non-local property” nonsense doesn't make "≠" a location on a line either Doron.

"≠" is exactly the non-local property of 1() w.r.t any 0(x),0, such that 1(0(x)≠0).

How about you first learn what the symbols “≤” and “≥” mean?

How about you first learn things beyond your 0() only reasoning?

 

[doronshadmi]

Ok so you can’t actually show that you understand those papers you cited or that they have any relevance to your OM, as expected.

Ok so you can’t actually get novell notions about those papers.

 

[doronshadmi]

and when things get tight, you hide behind some "non-locality."

1(0()) is exactly the irreducibility of 1() to any amount of 0(), and 1(0()) is strict as a "high noon sun".

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron indicated that x couldn't equal a and at the same time equal b, or something to that extent.

I indicated that x is equal a and at the same time equal b, only if x is non-local w.r.t a or b, for example:

1(0(a)≠0(b)), where x = ≠, and ≠ is the irreducibility of 1() to any amount of 0().

 

[epix]

I indicated that x is equal a and at the same time equal b, only if x is non-local w.r.t a or b...

When a stands for Aberdeen, x for a train, and b for Birmingham, for example, you don't have to indicate anything like that to anyone including the railroad station pigeon. Trains move and the reason why is that they can't be in two places at once. Of course, some trains never reach their destination due to the derailment, coz some lines/railroad tracks cannot be fully covered by points and are therefore not continuous. In the time-line arena, the year 2012 seems to be such a "blind point."

Have you ever noticed that some folks die sooner than the others?
If life is a timeline that cannot be fully covered by points called "days" for example, then the distribution of these non-covered points in the life timeline is the reason why.
Well, the development of the theory of immortality isn't easy, right?

 

[zooterkin]

"≠" is exactly the non-local property of 1() w.r.t any 0(x),0, such that 1(0(x)≠0).

Stop dodging the question and identify somewhere on a line where there is no point.

 

[doronshadmi]

Stop dodging the question and identify somewhere on a line where there is no point.

Stop ignoring the fact that ≠ is the pointless domain along 1() in 1(0(x)≠0) expression.

 

[zooterkin]

Stop ignoring the fact that ≠ is the pointless domain along 1() in 1(0(x)≠0) expression.

So you're saying that there is no place on the line where there is no point. Got it.