• 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:
The Man I am not a participator of your "running after my own tail" closed game.

A = “(that has no predecessor) AND (that has no successor)”

B = “(that has no successor) AND (that has no predecessor)"

Every reasonable person, but you, that sees a statement like:

“((A AND B) is different than (B AND A)) is ordered” immediately understands that this statement is about the ability to strictly distinguish between A and B inputs under different orders, where AND connective is used here as simultaneous existence of A;B strict inputs, which provides a strict result. The commutativity of AND connective has no impact on the fact that the result is strict because A;B inputs are strict.

Also every reasonable person, but you, that sees a statement like:

“((A AND B) is the same as (B AND A)) is unordered” immediately understands that this statement is about the inability to strictly distinguish between A and B inputs under different orders (because A;B values are in superposition, which prevent their strict ids), where AND connective is used here as simultaneous existence of A;B non-strict inputs, which provides a non-strict result. The commutativity of AND connective has no impact on the fact that the result is non-strict because A;B inputs are non-strict.
Click to expand...
No.
 
doronshadmi said:
Nop. Your poor reasoning can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7294686&postcount=15740 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7289466&postcount=15706 .
Click to expand...


The most convincing way to prove your gibberish has any value whatsoever would be to demonstrate a single, real result. Just one.

You can't, because there aren't any.

No one else is to blame; it is not due to any failed understanding on our part. It is all your doing. After 20+ years of contradiction and muddle, you still have nothing to show.
 
jsfisher said:
The most convincing way to prove your gibberish has any value whatsoever would be to demonstrate a single, real result. Just one.

You can't, because there aren't any.

No one else is to blame; it is not due to any failed understanding on our part. It is all your doing. After 20+ years of contradiction and muddle, you still have nothing to show.
Click to expand...

The results are there: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7294838&postcount=15744 in front of your blind mind, jsfisher.
 
jsfisher said:
A real result, Doron. Not just some nonsense you assume must be true, then declare it a result.
Click to expand...
They are real results, unlike your nonsense reasoning that can't comprehend them.

--------------------------

Some example:

A = True
B = False

AB AND AB has non-strict result because the input is non-strict.

AB AND A or A AND AB has non-strict result because the input is non-strict (the commutativity of AND connective has no impact on the non-strict result).

AB AND B or B AND AB has non-strict result because the input is non-strict (the commutativity of AND connective has no impact on the non-strict result).

A AND B or B AND A is strictly False (the commutativity of AND connective has no impact on the strict result).

--------------------------

You and The Man simply can't get that the commutativity of AND connective has no impact on these results.

--------------------------




--------------------------

Furthermore, the suggested framework has no entropy exactly because no collection of lower dimensional spaces has the magnitude of higher dimensional space. For example |R| < |1-dimensional space|, where in this case R members are 0-dimensional spaces (known as points).

The following diagram illustrates |R| < |1-dimensional space| as follows:

5736095487_99cb0b393a_b.jpg


As can be seen, the cardinality of the intersection points along the line segments with different lengths is the same, whether it is finite or infinite cardinality. So only the sets of points with the same cardinality can't provide the solution for the existence of 1-dim elements with different lengths.

This fundamental fact is exactly the incompleteness of R w.r.t 1-dimensional space, which preserves the openness of R and enables its endless further development.

The claim of Traditional Mathematics about 0-dimensional R members that completely cover a 1-dimensional space, is actually "death by entropy" of the considered framework.

--------------------------

Actually You and The Man simply can't provide a logical solution of the fact that line segments have different lengths even if the cardinality of the the set of points (where a point is the smallest existing element) along them is the same, where by your assertion this set of points (notated as R) completely covers these 1-dimensional elements.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
They are real results, unlike your nonsense reasoning that can't comprehend them.
Click to expand...


You are being intentionally obtuse, it would seem. You are still focused on your own assumptions and special meanings and claiming they're conclusions. We are looking for something that goes beyond your self-inconsistent assumptions.

That S(0) is 1 is not a "result" that can be credited to Peano. It is just a definition and part of Peano's foundation. Arithmetic, on the other hand, is derivable from the Peano axioms and rightly is a signficant result.

You, Doron, on the other hand, provide nothing constructive. You simply deny what you don't understand, and you imagine things that aren't real. None of it has foundation and none of it conforms to any valid line of reasoning.

You have been wallowing in nonsense for over 20 years, Doron. Time to move on.
 
jsfisher said:
You are being intentionally obtuse, it would seem. You are still focused on your own assumptions and special meanings and claiming they're conclusions. We are looking for something that goes beyond your self-inconsistent assumptions.

That S(0) is 1 is not a "result" that can be credited to Peano. It is just a definition and part of Peano's foundation. Arithmetic, on the other hand, is derivable from the Peano axioms and rightly is a signficant result.

You, Doron, on the other hand, provide nothing constructive. You simply deny what you don't understand, and you imagine things that aren't real. None of it has foundation and none of it conforms to any valid line of reasoning.

You have been wallowing in nonsense for over 20 years, Doron. Time to move on.
Click to expand...

Evasion of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7296289&postcount=15750 was noted.

Because of this evasion you can't get the result of the following expression: 1 - 0.999...[base 10] = 0.000...1[base 10] (where "...1" of 0.000...1 expression is the non-locality of the real-line that is simultaneously < AND = 1, which is a property that no point (locality) along the real-line has).

Please try again.

Start, for example, by providing a logical solution of the fact that line segments have different lengths even if the cardinality of the the set of points (where a point is the smallest existing element) along them is the same, where by your assertion this set of points (notated as R) completely covers these 1-dimensional elements.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
No evasion; there was no result.
Click to expand...
The result in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7296289&postcount=15750, was, for example, the conclusion that the commutativity of AND connective has no impact on the property of the output (which can be strict or non-strict).

Now evasion of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7297036&postcount=15755 was noted, by ignoring a result that is based on expressions with non-local numbers.

In order to get the validity of non-local numbers please this time start, for example, by providing a logical solution of the fact that line segments have different lengths even if the cardinality of the the set of points (where a point is the smallest existing element) along them is the same, where by your assertion this set of points (taken as R members) completely covers these 1-dimensional elements.

Furthermore by the following diagram, there are no proper subsets for R members exactly because they are results of common intersections, marked by the black lines:

5736095487_99cb0b393a_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The result in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7296289&postcount=15750, was, for example, the conclusion that the commutativity of AND connective has no impact on the property of the output (which can be strict or non-strict).
Click to expand...

That is not a result. That is just you pretending AND means something different than it really does.

Even if you were to invent a brand-new boolean operator unique to OM (which would be a perfectly ok thing to do, but it would require something so far proven to be beyond your capability, namely providing an actually definition for something), it would still not be a result since it would not follow from but instead would have been given to OM.
 
doronshadmi said:
Start, for example, by providing a logical solution of the fact that line segments have different lengths even if the cardinality of the the set of points (where a point is the smallest existing element) along them is the same, where by your assertion this set of points (notated as R) completely covers these 1-dimensional elements.
Click to expand...
Aleph0 and Aleph1 are not the same as A and B defined by particular quantities. Imagine points as sub-atomic particles. Some astrophysicists see the origin of Big Bang in something called "Big Crunch," which is a scenario where all the matter in the pre-existing universe collapses under heavy gravitational influences into one point called "singularity." That means all the particles in the pre-existing universe were squeezed into a mass the size of our sun, for example. Then the contraction continued and the size of the ancestor universe was the one of the earth. That went on and the size shrank to such dimensions that the scientists must be given various awards to elevate their social image, otherwise folks would call them nuts: How can you squeeze all the matter in the universe into something smaller than a tennis ball?

So you can see a similarity between the same number of particles and the dimension of the objects that contain them, be it a sphere or your line segment:

the sun: __________________________________________________

the earth: ___________

the tennis ball: __

Since points are zero-dimensional, the "squeezing" goes much better and it's much safer as well, coz a line segment whose length approaches zero never explodes to become a very long line segment U_________E
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom