Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

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

So I say that ≠ of 1(0(x)≠0) expression, is pointless. Got it?

 

[doronshadmi]

Trains move and the reason why is that they can't be in two places at once.

But the railroad can, without moving.

 

[zooterkin]

So I say that ≠ of 1(0(x)≠0) expression, is pointless.

I agree completely. In fact, the whole "expression" is pointless.

 

[epix]

Originally Posted by epix
Trains move and the reason why is that they can't be in two places at once.

But the railroad can, without moving.

A train can be actually in two different places at once without moving as well. The engine is in Grand Central in New York and the caboose in Santa Fe Depot, New Mexico. The longer train, the more passengers aboard; the more passengers aboard; the bigger profit for the company that operates the train. Since the train is not moving, there are no expenditures for the fuel. See? And someone says that the Set theory is more or less useless to apply in practical life. Wrong, right?

 

[ddt]

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

What has knowledge about a certain old-fashioned operating system to do with this discussion?

 

[doronshadmi]

I agree completely. In fact, the whole "expression" is pointless.

Wrong.

1() is pointless.

In 1(0(x)≠0) only ≠ is pointless.

You can't get it because by your limited reasoning ( which is based only on 0() ) "pointless" means: "Meaningless".

 

[doronshadmi]

What has knowledge about a certain old-fashioned operating system to do with this discussion?

By correcting the typo mistake (and the obsolete local-only reasoning), we get a novel operating system.

 

[doronshadmi]

A train can be actually in two different places at once without moving as well.

In thet case you are no longer at the 1() (=railroad) \ 0() (=train) model, and all you have is 1().

 

[epix]

Wrong.

1() is pointless.

In 1(0(x)≠0) only ≠ is pointless.

If 1() is pointless, then there are no points in () and therefore 1(0(x)≠0) contradicts your statement, coz '≠' relates '0(x)' and '0' which are zero-dimensional points. 1() stands for a one-dimensional object and 0() for a zero-dimensional object -- remember?

That kind of reminds me God walking past Adam and Eve wondering what that nature can come up with and why is Adam deficient in the ribcage area.

 

[doronshadmi]

If 1() is pointless, then there are no points in () and therefore 1(0(x)≠0) contradicts your statement, coz '≠' relates '0(x)' and '0' which are zero-dimensional points. 1() stands for a one-dimensional object and 0() for a zero-dimensional object -- remember?

That kind of reminds me God walking past Adam and Eve wondering what that nature can come up with and why is Adam deficient in the ribcage area.

Wrong epix.

1() has no 0(), where 1(0(x)≠0) is a complex such that no amount of 0() is 1() exactly becaue 0(x)≠0 is an invariant fact upon infinitely many scales.

 

[epix]

Wrong epix.

1() has no 0(), where 1(0(x)≠0) is a complex such that no amount of 0() is 1() exactly becaue 0(x)≠0 is an invariant fact upon infinitely many scales.

The degree of your verbal and symbolic incoherency is approaching infinity . . .

Go and read up on the Hausedorff dimension scale, if you decided to use it.

You failed to notice that 1() is nothing but the set of real numbers. There is also a set of positive integers. If you prove that there is a gap between 5 and 7 for example, then you may stand a chance with the set of real numbers. Do you know about a number that is an element of the set of real numbers that doesn't exist?

 

[epix]

Wrong epix.

1() has no 0(), where 1(0(x)≠0) is a complex such that no amount of 0() is 1()exactly becaue 0(x)≠0 is an invariant fact upon infinitely many scales.

Are you under the impression that the number of points 0() has something to do with the length of a line segment 1()? "No amount of 0() is 1()" brings this question to the spotlight.

 

[zooterkin]

Are you under the impression that the number of points 0() has something to do with the length of a line segment 1()? "No amount of 0() is 1()" brings this question to the spotlight.

Yes, I think it's one of Doron's failings. He seems to think that to construct a line, you must enumerate every point on it. Since that's not possible, he sees that as proof that you can't define a line in terms of points. Similarly, when we have spoken of intervals before (e.g. (4,5]), he can't get his head around the idea that you don't need to be able to specify the point which immediately precedes '5' for it to be a workable definition.

 

[doronshadmi]

You failed to notice that 1() is nothing but the set of real numbers.

You failed to notice that 1() is not a collection.

 

[doronshadmi]

Are you under the impression that the number of points 0() has something to do with the length of a line segment 1()? "No amount of 0() is 1()" brings this question to the spotlight.

Are you under the impression that some amount of 0() completely covers 1() (in that case 1() is a collection of 0(), which does not exist if 0() does not exist)?

 

[doronshadmi]

Similarly, when we have spoken of intervals before (e.g. (4,5]), he can't get his head around the idea that you don't need to be able to specify the point which immediately precedes '5' for it to be a workable definition.

zooterkin can't get his head around the idea that we don't need to be able to specify the point which immediately precedes '5' for it to be a workable definition, exactly because given any pair of distinct 0(), there is always 1() beyond the location of each one of them (notated by ≠), such that 1(0(x)≠0).

 

[doronshadmi]

Do you know about a number that is an element of the set of real numbers that doesn't exist?

Do you know that any arbitrary R member is 0(), and no amount of 0() is 1()?

 

[zooterkin]

zooterkin can't get his head around the idea that we don't need to be able to specify the point which immediately precedes '5' for it to be a workable definition, exactly because given any pair of distinct 0(), there is always 1() beyond the location of each one of them (notated by ≠), such that 1(0(x)≠0).

What are you talking about?

 

[epix]

zooterkin can't get his head around the idea that we don't need to be able to specify the point which immediately precedes '5' for it to be a workable definition, exactly because given any pair of distinct 0(), there is always 1() beyond the location of each one of them (notated by ≠), such that 1(0(x)≠0).

So you decided to sodomize the "not equal to" symbol to symbolize the existence of things "beyond" certain location. It can work with "beyond comprehension" when tugged into your ideas, but otherwise the idea of using well-defined symbolism for other purposes completely unrelated to the function that ≠ has clearly signals sheer, unbounded ignorance.

 

[doronshadmi]

What are you talking about?

About the irreducibility of 1() to 0() and the non expansion of 0() to 1().