• 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.
doronshadmi said:
So according to jsfisher if S = {A,B} then P(S) = {{},{A,B}}.
Click to expand...

No, it's according to you.
Edited by jhunter1163: 
Edited for civility.


doronshadmi said:
But it is just jsfisher's box-reasoning.
Click to expand...

No, it's your misrepresentation.

doronshadmi said:
The right reasoning is this:

S = {A,B}

P(S) = {{},{A},{B},{A.B}}

Cantor's constriction method of all the above P(S) members, works like this (without using any rounds, because it is constructed at once in parallel):

|
|
|-----------------------
|a ↔ {a} |
|b ↔ {b} | Provides {}
|-----------------------
|
|
|-----------------------
|a ↔ { } |
|b ↔ {b} | Provides {a}
|-----------------------
|
|
|-----------------------
|a ↔ {a} |
|b ↔ { } | Provides {b}
|-----------------------
|
|
|-----------------------
|a ↔ { } |
|b ↔ {a} | Provides {a,b}
|-----------------------

Then it is possible to define the following bijection, which is based on the fact that no P(S) member is missing:

{} ↔ a
{a} ↔ b
{b} ↔ c
{a,b} ↔ d
Click to expand...

:dl:

That would be a bijection, yes, but not between S and P(S). Notice that c and d are not members of S.

Edited by jhunter1163: 
Edited for civility.


doronshadmi said:
In other words, jsfisher's reasoning simply does not get the considered fine subject.
Click to expand...

Edited by jhunter1163: 
Edited for civility.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
doronshadmi said:
You still don't get it epix.

There is only one person that really can help you to understand this considered fine subject.

The name of this person is called epix, and the needed work to get this subject has to be done in his own mind.
Click to expand...

No, doron, if you want people to accept your nonsense, it's your job to provide sane and compelling argumentation. You can't, because it's junk. Don't try to blame your failures on others.
 
There are posters here (laca is such an example) that still think that my argument is to define a bijection between S and P(S).

But my argument is this:

If there is a way to construct a given set, without missing even a single member of that set, then it is possible to define a bijection between the members of that set and the members of Z={a,b,c,d,...}.

Here are the relevant posts of this fine subject:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7079697&postcount=15030

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7082926&postcount=15038

and posters like laca simply can't comprehend them.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You still don't get it epix.

There is only one person that really can help you to understand this considered fine subject.

The name of this person is called epix, and the needed work to get this subject has to be done in his own mind.
Click to expand...
But you need to extend your helping hand . . .

There are two electrical outlets in the kitchen.

outlet2prong.jpg


There are also four appliences there.

appliance_selections_kitchen_large.jpg


All I need to know is if you can plug in all apliences and make them all going without using this thing:

4-outlet-electric-ac-power-bar-strip-splitter-with-switch-250v-34672_1.jpg


Just answer if you can do it or not. Just aswer YES or NO. That would be a great help.
 
doronshadmi said:
There are posters here (laca is such an example) that still think that my argument is to define a bijection between S and P(S).
Click to expand...

You've claimed that the cardinality of any set (finite or infinite) is the same as that of its power set. You have been asked to show it for the simplest of case. You've provided nothing but fail ever since.

doronshadmi said:
But my argument is this:

If there is a way to construct a given set, without missing even a single member of that set, then it is possible to define a bijection between the members of that set and the members of Z={a,b,c,d,...}.
Click to expand...

Show that bijection between the set of natural numbers and its power set. You can't, because it doesn't exist. The cardinality is different.

doronshadmi said:
Here are the relevant posts of this fine subject:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7079697&postcount=15030

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7082926&postcount=15038

and posters like laca simply can't comprehend them.
Click to expand...

Fine subject indeed, for those that study deluded people. For mathematicians, not so much.
 
doronshadmi said:
Please provide more details, I still do not understand what you wish to express.
Click to expand...

As I see it an 0 dimensional point has no size or diameter, it is infinitely small. If in our attempt to define a point(A) on a line segment, we have an infinite regress into an ever smaller point. accompanied by an infinite regression of ever smaller line segments. We can have no defined length at any point on this line segment. If we do define a length(N), this length would be infinitely longer not only in relation the size of the point on it, but also against the length of an ever shorter line segment(S), as we proceed on our infinite regress.

Now if in our infinite regress towards the point, we were to turn around and attempt to define the length of N, we would then discover that it is infinitely longer than the line segment we were at when we turned around.

Hence you can never have a value for N because;

whatever value you give to N, it is infinitely longer than A and S
Also whatever value you give to S, it is infinitely shorter than N.

Between S and N is an infinite sliding scale of value.

So if you attempt to give a value to S(S1) it is infinitely larger than S and is equivalent to N.
If you attempt to give a value to N(N1) it is also infinitely larger than S and is equivalent to S1.

S and N are both potentially infinitely longer than S1 and N1

If N is infinitely long A could also be infinitely long and still remain infinitely short.

Point A is both infinitely short/small and infinitely long/large.
 
Last edited:
punshhh said:
As I see it an 0 dimensional point has no size or diameter, it is infinitely small. If in our attempt to define a point(A) on a line segment, we have an infinite regress into an ever smaller point. accompanied by an infinite regression of ever smaller line segments. We can have no defined length at any point on this line segment. If we do define a length(N), this length would be infinitely longer not only in relation the size of the point on it, but also against the length of an ever shorter line segment(S), as we proceed on our infinite regress.

Now if in our infinite regress towards the point, we were to turn around and attempt to define the length of N, we would then discover that it is infinitely longer than the line segment we were at when we turned around.

Hence you can never have a value for N because;

whatever value you give to N, it is infinitely longer than A and S
Also whatever value you give to S, it is infinitely shorter than N.

Between S and N is an infinite sliding scale of value.

So if you attempt to give a value to S(S1) it is infinitely larger than S and is equivalent to N.
If you attempt to give a value to N(N1) it is also infinitely larger than S and is equivalent to S1.

S and N are both potentially infinitely longer than S1 and N1

If N is infinitely long A could also be infinitely long and still remain infinitely short.

Point A is both infinitely short/small and infinitely long/large.
Click to expand...

No.
 
epix said:
But you need to extend your helping hand . . .

There are two electrical outlets in the kitchen.

http://www.electricianpdq.com/images/outlet2prong.jpg

There are also four appliences there.

http://www.tjbhomes.com/specmodels/...images/appliance_selections_kitchen_large.jpg

All I need to know is if you can plug in all apliences and make them all going without using this thing:

http://www.wholesaletip.com/image/3...r-strip-splitter-with-switch-250v-34672_1.jpg

Just answer if you can do it or not. Just aswer YES or NO. That would be a great help.
Click to expand...

You are taking the wrong way.

Please read very carefully http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7083010&postcount=15043 including its links, in order to understand my arguments.
 
punshhh said:
Point A is both infinitely short/small and infinitely long/large.
Click to expand...
According to my observation a point is the smallest element.

Any other n-dimensional element (where n>0) is greater than a point AND irreducible to a point.
 
pha-2-kostel-sv-ignace-04.jpg


Do you have it?

Not exactly what you've asked for, but it might be helpful.

Let me see.


punshhh: As I see it an 0 dimensional point has no size or diameter, it is infinitely small.

doronshadmi: According to my observation a point is the smallest element.

punshhh: How big is 0?

doronshadmi: Exactly 0.


Hmm. Give me a sec.

win_MitoRCRS.jpeg


No. Not in here.
 
epix said:
[qimg]http://www.praguecityline.com/wp-content/gallery/2-church-of-st-ignatius/pha-2-kostel-sv-ignace-04.jpg[/qimg]

Do you have it?

Not exactly what you've asked for, but it might be helpful.

Let me see.


punshhh: As I see it an 0 dimensional point has no size or diameter, it is infinitely small.

doronshadmi: According to my observation a point is the smallest element.

punshhh: How big is 0?

doronshadmi: Exactly 0.


Hmm. Give me a sec.

[qimg]http://www.genecodes.com/images/tutorials/mitochondrial_dna_typing/win_MitoRCRS.jpeg[/qimg]

No. Not in here.
Click to expand...

This place looks familiar where is it?
 
punshhh said:
Is this element on a line segment infinitely small?
Click to expand...
No. It is absolutely the smallest existing element. Actually is the totally finite existing element.
punshhh said:
Or how is it represented on the line segment?
Click to expand...
As a totally accurate location.

EDIT:

No smallest element exists at once in more than one location, which is a property that an ever smaller element has.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom