• 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.
Talk all you want but what you have continually failed to do is to show any location(s) on a line that can’t be covered by (a) point(s).
The Man you are failing all along this thread to answer to the following question:

How the set of all points along an arbitrary line segment are different from each other?


Another subject about points that you do not get:

Please show me a point (at any dimensional space), which is located in more than one location.
 
Last edited:
Nothing useful comes out of his fantasies.
Real complexity "spreading its wings" and flying beyond the limitations of jesfisher's serial-only reasoning, which has no choice but to get the simultaneity of present continuous of ever smaller and ever closer states only in terms of process.

Parallel reasoning is not at the scope of jsfisher's serial-only step-by-step reasoning.
 
Last edited:
Real complexity "spreading it wings" and flying beyond the limitations of jesfisher's serial-only reasoning, which has no choice but to get the simultaneity of present continuous of ever smaller and ever closer states only in terms of process.

Parallel reasoning is not at the scope of jsfisher's serial-only step-by-step reasoning.

So, you rebut criticism of only being able to claim others are wrong while you have no result is to claim others are wrong while producing no result.

Well done.
 
So, the difference between 1.0 and 0.999... is the paradoxical 0.000...1.

0.000...1 is exactly the ever smaller element, which is irreducible into a point.

Without such ever smaller elements, no point is different from the rest of the points of a given set of points.

In other words, the existence of the collection of all different points is possible only if there are ever smaller elements between them, which are irreducible into points.

Without the elementary principle of the co-existence of points AND ever smaller elements, the existence of sets with more than one object, is impossible.
 
Last edited:
So, you rebut criticism of only being able to claim others are wrong while you have no result is to claim others are wrong while producing no result.

Well done.

Understanding Real Complexity is OM's fundamental result.

Your points-only reasoning can't comprehend it, because it is too weak in order to deal with the parallel reasoning of the ever smaller, which is irreducible into points.

For example, you can't comprehend 0.000...1 expression and its usefulness by the framework of Real Complexity.
 
Last edited:
0.000...1 is exactly the ever smaller element, which is irreducible into a point.

Without such ever smaller elements, no point is different from the rest of the points of a given set of points.

In other words, the existence of the collection of all different points is possible only if there are ever smaller elements between them, which are irreducible into points.

Without the elementary principle of the co-existence of points AND ever smaller elements, the existence of sets with more than one object, is impossible.
I wouldn't say it that way, but I agree with the contours of the idea, as far as certain math methods are concerned. The life of the derivative of a function, for example, depends on the existence of two points who approach one another but cannot ever meet and assume identical location.

I don't agree with the idea being applied to sets in a broad sense, coz it seems to dissolve with cases such as Fruit={apple,orange,banana}.
 
So identify a point on a line that can’t be coved by a point, otherwise geometry’s still got you and your line covered with, well, points.
That's a hard request to comply with, coz Doron lacks the computational skills to support his case; he has very likely never looked for a point and couldn't find it in terms of defining the point in a given space. Here is an example: There are two points [a,y1] and [b,y2] in the Euclidean space -- points that cannot be defined and therefore can be suspected not to exist at all.

ab = sin(x)/log(x) dx

In order to find the y-axis coordinates of both points [a,y1] and [b,y2], you need to solve the integral, which creates a problem, coz the solution doesn't exist. Since the y-axis is the set of x in R, both y-axis points in question cannot be "shown" to exist in there and the absence may create the Doronian space "0.000...z" between points on the line.
 
Sorry I’ve just noticed I missed out a “t” in my message to Zooterkin about the paradox.

Rather than stating that you can show that the points can cover the line, I meant to say that you can’t show it.

This has a similarity with Zeno’s arrow, in theory non (0) dimensional points cannot cover any dimensional space atall, they would always occupy an infinitely small portion of that space, even if in infinite quantity.

However if they had any size (dimension) such as the line segment, this “infinitely small portion of that space” would only ever be an infinitely small portion of it even if the line segment were infinitely short.

We have an infinite regress here, the points can neither cover or not cover a line segment, if the line segment is defined as being between two of the points.

Is this a paradox like Zeno’s arrow?

This reminds me of my question about energy in another thread, energy in itself does not have any dimensional presence, it acts between particles through space.
However on closer inspection it appears that those particles are also energy.

So we have an energy with no dimensional presence, no actual presence in space, acting across space between two points constituted from energies occupying no dimensional space. All happening some how in 3 dimensions, through the agency of time.

No.
 
The Man you are failing all along this thread to answer to the following question:

How the set of all points along an arbitrary line segment are different from each other?

Really? How many times have you asked me that “question”?

To repeat a geometric adaptation of an old storefront joke (that I’ve done before on this thread)

What are the three most important things about points?

Location, location and location!!!

And to repeat a question you still fail to answer…

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


Another subject about points that you do not get:

Please show me a point (at any dimensional space), which is located in more than one location.

Your apparent attempt to deliberately confuse a singular tense with what is explicitly multiple, not with standing (another subject about language that you don’t get). A point has one location while points are, well, “located in more than one location”.
 
That's a hard request to comply with, coz Doron lacks the computational skills to support his case; he has very likely never looked for a point and couldn't find it in terms of defining the point in a given space. Here is an example: There are two points [a,y1] and [b,y2] in the Euclidean space -- points that cannot be defined and therefore can be suspected not to exist at all.

ab = sin(x)/log(x) dx

In order to find the y-axis coordinates of both points [a,y1] and [b,y2], you need to solve the integral, which creates a problem, coz the solution doesn't exist. Since the y-axis is the set of x in R, both y-axis points in question cannot be "shown" to exist in there and the absence may create the Doronian space "0.000...z" between points on the line.

Well it would seem that his thinking is predominantly singular, and not just in that it is his thinking. He considers his “point” to be his ultimate “finite” interpretation and his “line” to be his ultimate “infinite” interpretation. By his own assertions they derive from what he calls “singularity”, attesting only to his own singular predilection. By combining them into what he refers to as a “complex” he comes to his ‘multiple’ (more than his point but less than his line). So yes he has looked for a point and a line and has found only one of each, but then just stopped looking. Which has restricted him to that rather bizarre “singularity” of his own thinking.
 
Well it would seem that his thinking is predominantly singular, and not just in that it is his thinking. He considers his “point” to be his ultimate “finite” interpretation and his “line” to be his ultimate “infinite” interpretation. By his own assertions they derive from what he calls “singularity”, attesting only to his own singular predilection. By combining them into what he refers to as a “complex” he comes to his ‘multiple’ (more than his point but less than his line). So yes he has looked for a point and a line and has found only one of each, but then just stopped looking. Which has restricted him to that rather bizarre “singularity” of his own thinking.
It's hard to clue Doron to spark up his vision generator funny, coz he is not fond of math of the college kind. That's why he misinterprets some descriptions, which may not be the best, but are used informally anyway, coz the listeners are familiar with the real deal. Take this "point coverage," for example. I'm positive that Doron never came across the concept of limits. Suppose that you have a line segment 6 units long and you divided the length by 3. The result is a line with 3 "sub-segments" each of them 2 units long. That's neat, but hardly enough to accommodate the needs of calculus, for example, where the x-axis is in R and needs to be divided into the smallest possible segments. To accomplish that, the domain line a is divided by n, such as n → ∞. The result is identical wherever limits are mentioned:

[lim n→ ∞] a/n = 0

Without knowing what is really going in there, a person suffering from math phobia may come to the conclusion that the domain line a has been divided into infinitely many line segments each of them having its length equal to zero and therefore a is "entirely covered by points." This is not so, otherwise it would be impossible to compute the area under any curve. But the term is used with no problems, coz the real meaning is pretty much understood by everyone hanging around math except by Doron. Even though he may accept the presence of "all points in the line," he insists on some space between them, as if his discovery was hotly contested by the views of the traditional math.

There is no way to learn to swim without getting into water, and that's exactly what Doron think is possible. He never poked the concept of infinity with his pencil, so he is not aware of certain realities that govern over the x-axis populated by points whose job is nothing else but to feed a function, and so fancy points need not apply there. Of course, there is only one set R, but Doron thinks that the angels will carry him to that set, so his fine Nike shoes wouldn't get dirty by stepping into the limits and other assorted tools of "mental exercise" used in Torture Chamber High.

Maybe he is not that good in the perpendicular reasoning, as opposed to his often-mentioned parallel reasoning. That's why he stays away from the Cartesian coordinates and all that high school math for commoners. Or maybe he doesn't want to get bothered by anything like that in his serene ascend to the Doronian metric space (formerly the ionosphere) of mathematical knowledge. :D
 
Last edited:
Really? How many times have you asked me that “question”?
You are the one that do not bother to ask yourself this important question.

Since you do not ask this question your mind did not deal with it.

Instead of your twisted maneuvers please simply try to answer to the following important question:

"How the set of all points along an arbitrary line segment are different from each other?"

A point has one location while points are, well, “located in more than one location”.
Yet, each point has its own exact location, because a point is the smallest possible existing element.

This is not the case about a line, which is an ever smaller element exactly because it can't be both a line AND the smallest existing element.

Your weak reasoning still do not get the must have co-existence of the ever smaller elements AND the smallest elements as the minimal building-blocks of any set of more than one distinct point.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't say it that way, but I agree with the contours of the idea, as far as certain math methods are concerned. The life of the derivative of a function, for example, depends on the existence of two points who approach one another but cannot ever meet and assume identical location.

I don't agree with the idea being applied to sets in a broad sense, coz it seems to dissolve with cases such as Fruit={apple,orange,banana}.
By using your example, "fruit" is equivalent to "line", where "apple" or "orange" or "banana" is equivalent to "distinct point".
 
Last edited:
coz Doron lacks the computational skills to support his case
On the contrary. Traditional Math lacks the computational skills to comprehend the following equation: 0.999...[base 10]+ 0.000...1[base 10]=1
 
So yes he has looked for a point and a line and has found only one of each, but then just stopped looking.

1) From a qualitative point of view all is needed is one line (an ever smaller element) and one point (the smallest element).

2) A set of more than one distinct point (which is a quantitative existence) exists as a result of the co-existence of the qualitative aspects.

3) The co-existence is possible because both qualities have a one source, known as Singularity, which is the absence of any difference, whether it is qualitative or quantitative.

The Man's reasoning gets only the quantitative aspect of collections of distinct locations, without any understanding of their qualitative foundations, and Singularity, which is the absence of any difference.
 
Last edited:
On the contrary. Traditional Math lacks the computational skills to comprehend the following equation: 0.999...[base 10]+ 0.000...1[base 10]=1

What's to understand? It's nonsense, or, to take a more charitable view, meaningless.

Since:
0.999...[base 10]=1
then
0.000...1[base 10]=0
 
There is no way to learn to swim without getting into water, and that's exactly what Doron think is possible.
Wrong epix. This is exactly what Traditional Math does. Its current used agreed reasoning gets only the quantitative aspect of collections of distinct locations, without any understanding of their qualitative foundations, and Singularity, which is the absence of any difference.
 
What's to understand? It's nonsense, or, to take a more charitable view, meaningless.

Since:
0.999...[base 10]=1
then
0.000...1[base 10]=0

Your reasoning is nonsense because 0.999...[base 10] < 1 by 0.000...1[base 10]
 
What's to understand? It's nonsense, or, to take a more charitable view, meaningless.

Since:
0.999...[base 10]=1
then
0.000...1[base 10]=0

I'm not a mathematician, but even I can see that this is wrong. Have you not heard of infinite regress?

Doron is simply pointing out how something finite can arise from a singularity.

A point in a singularity is infinitely small and infinitely numerous. In order to pull the points apart to form 3 dimensional space a gap or line must be placed between the point/s. This line has and consists of relative quality.
By quality I mean an attribute or quality which is different from singularity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom