Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

There will be plenty of time afterwards to deal with your other bogus claims about construction methods and all that. First things first, though.

There is no before or after about my claim, which is one and only one, as seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7087456&postcount=15075 .

You make the simple complicated, avoid the complicated and the simple is naturally there as it is always there.

 

[doronshadmi]

I cannot believe that you are taking doronshami seriously.

Believing in X is the first indication of the lack of direct understanding of X.

 

[Tricky]

Believing in X is the first indication of the lack of direct understanding of X.

No, they are unrelated. You can believe in something with or without understanding of it. "With" is preferable, but not required.

 

[jsfisher]

There is no before or after about my claim, which is one and only one, as seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7087456&postcount=15075 .

You make the simple complicated, avoid the complicated and the simple is naturally there as it is always there.

Again, you attempt to divert and avoid the matter put to you. Let's try again:

You claimed |S| = |P(S)| for any set S, finite or infinite. You also claimed there to be a bijection between the elements of any set S and its power set.

Either retract these bogus claims, or perform the impossible by providing a bijection between the elements of the null set and its power set.

 

[doronshadmi]

A point is a position on a line which covers no part of the length of the line?

It only denotes a position on the line.

It is a located mark on an element which is non-local.

But the simple truth is that the dichotomy between the local and the non-local is an illusion exactly as the edge of a line segment (which is the local aspect) is actually inseparable of the line (which is the non-local aspect).

In other words, the truth is Unity, and Unity is manifested by at least the dichotomy between the local and the non-local.

This totally finite element is not present in the sense;

It has no length
no width
no height, ok?

It is bigger than an infinitely small point, but smaller than any other possible thing?

In terms of Length, smallest is exactly 0 length, where any other length is defined relatively to it.

It gives the illusion that a point is the fundamental element, where the other lengths are define by elements with 0 length.

But as written above, Unity is really the fundamental truth beyond any dichotomy.

Yes can an infinite number of points occupy the same precise position?

No, there is only a one point and by going beyond the illusion of the dichotomy between locality and non-locality, there is actually Unity, which is the one and only truth.

Yes, it would require an infinitely large number of ever smaller line segments to cover a line segment, which is impossible?

The inability of the local to completely cover the non-local provides the realm of infinite diversity, but the true realm is Unity.

This suggests that your point is of the order of scale of one unit on the Planck scale

No. Planck scale > 0.

So there is no infinitely small element in existence?

Under the illusion of dichotomy there is the smallest element, called a point, which has exactly 0 length.

Is there no infinitely large element?

Under the illusion of dichotomy. there is an endless line with infinite length.

Nothing is impossible, right?

Under the illusion of dichotomy, Unity is perceived as Nothing.

 

[epix]

The first stage of using "↔" is done by using |P(S)| mappings between S members and |S| amount of P(S) members, which produces the all P(S) members, without exceptional.

The reason why I ask specific questions is that your description of processes that you are using don't make a bit of sense -- there is no such thing as "|P(S)| mapping." Mapping takes place between two sets. If you demonstrate the mapping, you define both sets and the function that you use to map the members of the sets with. You don't do anything like that preferring non-standard version of describing the procedure with the usage of confusing, non-standard terms.

Anyway... If you read the definition of point, you might have noticed that the points are sometimes used to describe members of a set. That comes handy when you do mapping of larger domains and co-domains. I made a little reference for you...

Set A is the x-axis and set B is the y-axis and here are the three functions you map with.

1. SURJECTIVE from R to R

2. INJECTIVE from N to R

3. BIJECTIVE from R to R

Using various functions, meaning y=f(x), you can visualize a set and its power set also in R, and not just in N

 

[doronshadmi]

Again, you attempt to divert and avoid the matter put to you. Let's try again:

jsfisher, you don't get the simplicity of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7087456&postcount=15075 exactly because you are still stuck in the matter that you put in your mind.

So try again to get out of it, in order to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7087456&postcount=15075 .


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7080324&postcount=15031 is a good baby step to start with.

 

[doronshadmi]

there is no such thing as "|P(S)| mapping." Mapping takes place between two sets.

"|P(S)| mapping" means that there are |P(S)| elements that are mapped.

We are able to show a bijection between all the members of the form a,b,c,d,e,... and all the members of the form {x} (where P(S) members have this form), where x is a placehoder for Nothing or any proper subset of set Z={a,b,c,d,e,...}.

Please stop confusing yourself by unnecessary complications.

 

[epix]

"|P(S)| mapping" means that there are |P(S)| elements that are mapped.

There are no |P(S)| elements, just the elements of power set P(S).

We are able to show a bijection between all the members of the form a,b,c,d,e,... and all the members of the form {x}

There is nothing like "the members of the form a,b,c,d,e,... ," just the members of a given set.

Please stop confusing yourself by unnecessary complications.

Do you understand that at the moment someone succeeds in translating your ideas into a normal language math speaks with, your ideas are dead meat? I think you understand that very well. Hence the camouflage.

 

[jsfisher]

jsfisher, you don't get the simplicity of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7087456&postcount=15075 exactly because you are still stuck in the matter that you put in your mind.

The claimed simplicity of your post is irrelevant. It doesn't address the issue at hand:

You claimed |S| = |P(S)| for any set S, finite or infinite. You also claimed there to be a bijection between the elements of any set S and its power set.

Either retract these bogus claims, or perform the impossible by providing a bijection between the elements of the null set and its power set.​

Please stop with the transparent evasions.

 

[dafydd]

Believing in X is the first indication of the lack of direct understanding of X.

Sorry,I don't speak gibberish.

 

[dafydd]

It is a located mark on an element which is non-local.

But the simple truth is that the dichotomy between the local and the non-local is an illusion exactly as the edge of a line segment (which is the local aspect) is actually inseparable of the line (which is the non-local aspect).

In other words, the truth is Unity, and Unity is manifested by at least the dichotomy between the local and the non-local.


In terms of Length, smallest is exactly 0 length, where any other length is defined relatively to it.

It gives the illusion that a point is the fundamental element, where the other lengths are define by elements with 0 length.

But as written above, Unity is really the fundamental truth beyond any dichotomy.


No, there is only a one point and by going beyond the illusion of the dichotomy between locality and non-locality, there is actually Unity, which is the one and only truth.


The inability of the local to completely cover the non-local provides the realm of infinite diversity, but the true realm is Unity.


No. Planck scale > 0.


Under the illusion of dichotomy there is the smallest element, called a point, which has exactly 0 length.


Under the illusion of dichotomy. there is an endless line with infinite length.


Under the illusion of dichotomy, Unity is perceived as Nothing.

Reading doron and punshhh conversing is like being present at the birth of speech.

 

[epix]

It is a located mark on an element which is non-local.

Doron, I think it would be better for the sake of clarity if you used Hebrew to write down some of your definitions, even though I'm not familiar with Hebrew at all.

Btw: Your sentence -- the way you exactly wrote it -- means that an element is non-local ("... an element which is non-local") and not the mark you were referring to.

 

[laca]

Anyway... If you read the definition of point, you might have noticed that the points are sometimes used to describe members of a set. That comes handy when you do mapping of larger domains and co-domains. I made a little reference for you...

Set A is the x-axis and set B is the y-axis and here are the three functions you map with.

[qimg]http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/1538/functions1.png[/qimg]

1. SURJECTIVE from R to R

2. INJECTIVE from N to R

3. BIJECTIVE from R to R

Using various functions, meaning y=f(x), you can visualize a set and its power set also in R, and not just in N

You might want to rethink that.

 

[doronshadmi]

There are no |P(S)| elements, just the elements of power set P(S).

Which is a set with |P(S)| members.

There is nothing like "the members of the form a,b,c,d,e,... ," just the members of a given set.

Where the set whose members are of the form a,b,c,d,e,... have the same cardinality as the set whose members are of the form {},..., {a,b,c,d,e,...}

Do you understand that at the moment someone succeeds in translating your ideas into a normal language math speaks with, your ideas are dead meat? I think you understand that very well. Hence the camouflage.

Do you understand that my ideas a paradigm-shift of "normal" math, and therefore they can't be translated to "normal" math?

I do not think that you understand it, yet.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron, I think it would be better for the sake of clarity if you used Hebrew to write down some of your definitions, even though I'm not familiar with Hebrew at all.

Btw: Your sentence -- the way you exactly wrote it -- means that an element is non-local ("... an element which is non-local") and not the mark you were referring to.

I am talking exactly about a non-local element that is marked by finitely or infinitely locations on it.

 

[doronshadmi]

Sorry,I don't speak gibberish.

Which means that you don't distinguish between Believing in X and really knowing X.

 

[doronshadmi]

No, they are unrelated. You can believe in something with or without understanding of it. "With" is preferable, but not required.

Wrong.

If you really know X you do not believe in it anymore because it becomes an actual fact for you.

Belief hold as long X is not really known to you, and as a result the best you can is only believe in X.

 

[doronshadmi]

Reading doron and punshhh conversing is like being present at the birth of speech.

Which is the best opportunity to be aware of new ideas.

 

[doronshadmi]

The claimed simplicity of your post is irrelevant. It doesn't address the issue at hand:

You claimed |S| = |P(S)| for any set S, finite or infinite. You also claimed there to be a bijection between the elements of any set S and its power set.

Either retract these bogus claims, or perform the impossible by providing a bijection between the elements of the null set and its power set.​

Please stop with the transparent evasions.

Try to open the box, start by taking the baby steps as found in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7089263&postcount=15087 .