Deeper than primes

[The Man]

I don't think your writing on the subject has been crystal clear, otherwise The Man, whom I replied to, wouldn't write

Doron:

Actually epix I’ve just been reiterating that because Doron keeps trying to use circles (and their intersections) to cover his line (as opposed to just points) and bemuses himself that he can define a set of circles that don’t intersect just one point on his line. The point is not that Doron thinks a circle is a point but that he deliberately uses circles instead of points (and a very particular set of circles at that) to pretend a specific point on his line is not, well, a point on his line. Sorry for any confusion.

Oh and while I’m reiterating…

So by all means please explain to us the difference between changing and unchanging with “no past (before) and no future (after)”?

 

[epix]

Actually epix I’ve just been reiterating that because Doron keeps trying to use circles (and their intersections) to cover his line (as opposed to just points) and bemuses himself that he can define a set of circles that don’t intersect just one point on his line. The point is not that Doron thinks a circle is a point but that he deliberately uses circles instead of points (and a very particular set of circles at that) to pretend a specific point on his line is not, well, a point on his line. Sorry for any confusion.

No problem. Actually I couldn't suppress a certain kind of mischief and "misinterpreted" Doron's profound insight into the fact that the circumference of a circle cannot intersect its center point the way I did, which infuriated Doron to the... well, the point of total incoherency. Then he gathered himself and proudly announced another disappearance of pi, namely when "diameter = ∞."

I think he may try to extend and apply his "discovery" in every field of mathematics that he is aware of existing in order to destabilize its foundation, so he could launch the final assault and free the thinking world of "weak reasoning."

I'm curious if he pauses to take a look at the degenerate circle with radius zero. That circle's circumference equaling zero surely comes dangerously close to Doron's "virgin point." LOL.

 

[doronshadmi]

We can get to that, but all in good time. Why do you continue with the evasions?

Now is the good time.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7023228&postcount=14756 is the exact answer to your last post.

Why do you continue with the evasions?

 

[doronshadmi]

You simply hold infinity as a point on the real line, otherwise you wouldn't write "diameter = ∞".

Not at all.

EDIT:

∞ (in terms of diameter, which is not a collection of points) is exactly the measurement of the infinitely long straight line, such that no point exists along it.

 

[doronshadmi]

What on earth are you talking about this time?

On your inability to deal with the considered subject by your self.

You came up with yet more nonsense about lines uncovered by points;

Wrong, you continue to use the nonsense of the existence of two points, without the understanding that there are two arbitrary closer distinct points only if there is between them an arbitrary smaller uncovered line.

Take this uncovered line and the two arbitrary closer points are merged into exactly one point.

EDIT:

Like jsfisher or The Man, you still do not grasp the difference between "permanently closer" (two points exist) and "closest" (only one point exists).

 

[zooterkin]

Wrong, you continue to use the nonsense of the existence of two points, without the understanding that there are two distinct points only if there is between them an arbitrary smaller uncovered line.

Uncovered by what?

Take this uncovered line and the two arbitrary closer points are merged into exactly one point.

Nonsense. If the two points are at different locations, and have zero size, how can there not be a gap between them (which is also covered in points)?

 

[doronshadmi]

EDIT:

Uncovered by what?

By more than two "permanently closer" points.

Nonsense. If the two points are at different locations, and have zero size, how can there not be a gap between them (which is also covered in points)?

You still can't get the difference between "permanently closer" (at least two points exist) and "closest" (at most only one point exists).

 

[doronshadmi]

how can there not be a gap between them (which is also covered in points)?

EDIT:

What you call gap is exactly infinitely many uncovered lines, which enable the existence of infinitely many different points that exist between any arbitrary closer pair of points.

 

[zooterkin]

EDIT:


By more than two "permanently closer" points.

Which means what, in English?

You still can't get the difference between "permanently closer" (at least two points exist) and "closest" (at most only one point exists).

Pardon me for not being fluent in gibberish.

 

[doronshadmi]

Which means what, in English?


Pardon me for not being fluent in gibberish.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7026288&postcount=14768 .

 

[The Man]

Not at all.

∞ (in terms of diameter) is exactly the measurement of the infinitely long straight line, such that no point exists along it.

"the measurement"? Mesurement of what? Measured how and from where to where?

“straight line”? How do you define a line as being “straight” “such that no point exists along it”?

Please explain to us the difference between a straight and a curved line “such that no point exists along” either?


This is typical of your assertions Doron, you want to claim a line “such that no point exists along it”, yet make references like “the measurement”, “straight” and even “line” which are explicitly defined by, well, points.

 

[doronshadmi]

"the measurement"? Mesurement of what? Measured how and from where to where?

“straight line”? How do you define a line as being “straight” “such that no point exists along it”?

Please explain to us the difference between a straight and a curved line “such that no point exists along” either?


This is typical of your assertions Doron, you want to claim a line “such that no point exists along it”, yet make references like “the measurement”, “straight” and even “line” which are explicitly defined by, well, points.

What can be explained to a person that gets measurement only in terms of collection of objects (in this case the objects are points).

EDIT:

Furthermore, he does not comprehend the must have terms for the existence of Collection, as shown in:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7026189&postcount=14765

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7026288&postcount=14768

 

[doronshadmi]

A line is not defined by points.

A line and points define together a collection of distinct objects.

Remove the points, and you have only an infinitely long line, which is the minimal form of actual infinity (notated as ∞, so my previous use of ∞ has to be corrected, in this case, to ∞).

Remove the line, and you have only a single point, which is the minimal form of the actually finite (notated as 0).

 

[doronshadmi]

The Man,

Since a collection is the result of actual infinity (∞) AND actually finite (0), then:

0 < ∞ < ∞, where ∞ is the permanently larger measurement of the amount of the objects of a collection.

 

[The Man]

EDIT:


By more than two "permanently closer" points.

Which means what, in English?

You still can't get the difference between "permanently closer" (at least two points exist) and "closest" (at most only one point exists).

Pardon me for not being fluent in gibberish.

Perhaps we should be compiling an English to Doron gibberish dictionary?

Technically what he is referring to is not "closest" but ‘smallest’ and not “one point” but one line segment (a smallest line segment). Thus there can be no other line segment smaller which would require no other points between the two end points of his smallest line segment. However, as usual he doesn’t want to say exactly what he means or just simply doesn’t know exactly what he means. Again that there is always another point between any two points is what guarantees that there is no smallest line segment. This is what Doron means by "permanently closer". Pick any two points (defining some line segment) and there is always at least another point between them that is closer to both of those points (defining at least two smaller line segments that cover the larger line segment). Of course that is just what Doron refers to as standard mathematics which he claims to be supplanting. Thus he has to make up these other phrases to pretend that he is saying something else. Given his demonstrative and often apparently deliberate misunderstanding of a wide range of concepts I have no doubts that he truly believes he is saying something else. Fortunately with a little understanding of the basic concepts one can usually parse at least some of his gibberish into a translatable form.

As usual his "permanently closer" directly refutes his “uncovered” line or line segment. So Doron doesn’t know exactly what he wants or means. His uncovered line or line segment would make it his smallest yet his "permanently closer" means that it can in fact and must be covered by other line segments that are smaller still.

 

[The Man]

What can be explained to a person that gets measurement only in terms of collection of objects (in this case the objects are points).

EDIT:

Furthermore, he does not comprehend the must have terms for the existence of Collection, as shown in:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7026189&postcount=14765

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7026288&postcount=14768

“What can be explained to a person that gets” nothing by their own so called “must have terms”?

What exactly is it that you think you are measuring anyway?

A line is not defined by points.

A line and points define together a collection of distinct objects.

Remove the points, and you have only an infinitely long line, which is the minimal form of actual infinity (notated as ∞, so my previous use of ∞ has to be corrected, in this case, to ∞).

Remove the line, and you have only a single point, which is the minimal form of the actually finite (notated as 0).

Again…

"the measurement"? Mesurement of what? Measured how and from where to where?

“straight line”? How do you define a line as being “straight” “such that no point exists along it”?

Please explain to us the difference between a straight and a curved line “such that no point exists along” either?

The Man,

Since a collection is the result of actual infinity (∞) AND actually finite (0), then:

0 < ∞ < ∞, where ∞ is the permanently larger measurement of the amount of the objects of a collection.

“objects of a collection”? What “objects” of what “collection”? Remember…

A line is not defined by points.

So what “objects” of what “collection” define your line as being your “actual infinity (∞)”?

As always Doron your remain the staunchest opponent of just your own notions.

 

[doronshadmi]

Technically what he is referring to is not "closest" but ‘smallest’ and not “one point” but one line segment (a smallest line segment).

This is another demonstration of your weak reasoning, which translates anything into points.

As a result you simply can't comprehend the permanently smaller and uncovered line between any arbitrary closer pair of points.

 

[doronshadmi]

So what “objects” of what “collection” define your line as being your “actual infinity (∞)”?.

The Man, a line is one of the building-blocks (together with a point).

A building-block is not constructed by other building-block (otherwise it can't be considered as a building-block).

You still do not get 0 (actually finite building-block) < ∞ (infinite collection) < ∞ (actually infinite building-block) in terms of existence.

 

[epix]

Originally Posted by epix
You simply hold infinity as a point on the real line, otherwise you wouldn't write "diameter = ∞".

Not at all.

EDIT:

∞ (in terms of diameter, which is not a collection of points) is exactly the measurement of the infinitely long straight line, such that no point exists along it.

You didn't write "diameter=∞", but "diameter=∞".

What is that pointless infinite line that you describe with "∞" good for? You can't intersect it, there is no function that can draw it . . . what do you use it for? Obviously, your concentric circles argument cannot involve such a line (no circumference intersection possible) so that's why you used "diameter= ∞", right?
Wrong. You really regard infinity as a point on the line. That's why you said that pi doesn't exist when diameter is equal to infinity; you simply attempted to extract pi from the circumference/diameter formula and when faced with circumference/∞, you made your conclusion.

Your distorted view of infinity mirrors in your treatment of infinite sets.

 

[doronshadmi]

You didn't write "diameter=∞", but "diameter=∞".

What is that pointless infinite line that you describe with "∞" good for? You can't intersect it, there is no function that can draw it . . . what do you use it for? Obviously, your concentric circles argument cannot involve such a line (no circumference intersection possible) so that's why you used "diameter= ∞", right?
Wrong. You really regard infinity as a point on the line. That's why you said that pi doesn't exist when diameter is equal to infinity; you simply attempted to extract pi from the circumference/diameter formula and when faced with circumference/∞, you made your conclusion.

Your distorted view of infinity mirrors in your treatment of infinite sets.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7026401&postcount=14772 (including its links)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7026435&postcount=14773

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7026550&postcount=14777

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7026566&postcount=14778