Deeper than primes

[The Man]

So, do you still can't get that AB is a non-strict value?

What? That makes even less sense than you usually do.


Actually you can’t get that your “AB is a non-strict value” because you don’t know or just don’t want to know what your “non-strict value” represents. You call it a superposition of other variables or values yet claim no actual superposition is involved. So you just call it what you claim it is not which is simply, and characteristically for you, indicative of the fact that just want to deliberately contradict yourself as if that entirely deliberate befuddlement provided you some advantage.

 

[jsfisher]

Let us demonstrate your nonsense (whether you admit it or not) by using only local numbers...

No one here (except possibly you) is confused by (1 - 0.99). Please stop changing the subject. That is not the subject at hand.

If 0.000...1 and 0.000...10 represent different numbers as you have claimed and under the conditions you have claimed, then there must be a mistake in my proof they are not different.

Which step contains the mistake, or the first mistake if there is more than one?

 

[doronshadmi]

No one here (except possibly you) is confused by (1 - 0.99). Please stop changing the subject. That is not the subject at hand.

If 0.000...1 and 0.000...10 represent different numbers as you have claimed and under the conditions you have claimed, then there must be a mistake in my proof they are not different.

Which step contains the mistake, or the first mistake if there is more than one?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7374924&postcount=15957 was edited several times during and after your reply.

Let us take only the infinite interpolation case.

1 - 0.999... = 0.000...1

10*(1 - 0.999...) = 10 - 9.999... = 10*(0.000...1) = 0.000...10

(1a) 10 - 9.999... = (10*1) - (10*0.999...)
(1b) (10*1) - (10*0.999...) = 10 * (1 - 0.999...)
(1c) 10 * (1 - 0.999...) = 10 * (0.000...1)
(1d) 10 * (0.000...1) = 0.000...10

(2a) 10 - 9.999... = 10 - (9 + 0.999...)
(2b) 10 - (9 + 0.999...) = (10 - 9) - 0.999...
(2c) (10 - 9) - 0.999... = 1 - 0.999...
(2d) 1 - 0.999... = 0.000...1

(3) Therefore, 0.000...10 = 0.000...1

Your mistake starts at (2b), which eliminates the "shift to the left" of an infinite interpolation along [base 10] infinite fractal.

As a result you get 0.000...1 instead of 0.000...10 and your (3) does not hold.

 

[doronshadmi]

You call it a superposition of other variables or values yet claim no actual superposition is involved.

Wrong.

You simply ignore the actuality of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7318785&postcount=15807.

 

[jsfisher]

Your mistake starts at (2b), which eliminates the "shift to the left" of an infinite interpolation along [base 10] infinite fractal.

Doron accepts Step 2a, so we have no objection to 10 - 9.999... being equivalent to 10 - (9 + 0.999...). Doron's objection begins with the next stop:

(2b) 10 - (9 + 0.999...) = (10 - 9) - 0.999...

Seriously, Doron? You want to stand by that? In arithmetic, A - (B + C) is not the same as (A - B) - C? Seriously?

Doron, this is not quite as spectacular a fail as your classic 2 not being an element of {2}, but it is still amazing.

 

[The Man]

Wrong.

So are you now claiming that the principle of superposition is involved in your “superposition”?

You simply ignore the actuality of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7318785&postcount=15807.

No I didn't...

So why not just call it what you claim it to be, ‘indeterminate’, as opposed to continuing calling it what you specifically claim it is not, a superposition? Unless your intent is simply to try to deliberately deceive? Perhaps it is because, as already noted before, being indeterminate is exactly what makes a variable, well, variable and in order for you to pretend that you’ve come up with something new you have to pretend your ‘indeterminate’ is something even you claim it is not, a superposition.

So why do you just like to call your indeterminate value a “superposition” that you claim involves no superposition?

 

[doronshadmi]

So are you now claiming that the principle of superposition is involved in your “superposition”?




No I didn't...




So why do you just like to call your indeterminate value a “superposition” that you claim involves no superposition?

My superposition is not your linear superposition, but you are unable to get it ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7325618&postcount=15816 )

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron accepts Step 2a, so we have no objection to 10 - 9.999... being equivalent to 10 - (9 + 0.999...). Doron's objection begins with the next stop:

(2b) 10 - (9 + 0.999...) = (10 - 9) - 0.999...

Seriously, Doron? You want to stand by that? In arithmetic, A - (B + C) is not the same as (A - B) - C? Seriously?

If C is an infinite interpolation then A - (B + C) = (A - B) - C does not hold.

In your word there is no such a thing like non-local number (1=0.999...[base 10] in your word) so
you can't get that A - (B + C) is not the same as (A - B) - C (the associative property (ab)c = a(bc) does not hold).

but it is still amazing.

It is indeed amazing that you can't get 0.999...[base 10] as a non-local number, exactly as you can't get that no amount of points along a line segment completely covers it.

this is not quite as spectacular a fail as your classic 2 not being an element of {2}

Furthermore, you don't get that 2 and {2} is not the same expression.

 

[epix]

The same reasoning holds in the case of 10-9.999… = 0.000…10 (which is different than 1 - 0.999… = 0.000…1) as long as no nonsense (2b) trick is used on infinite interpolation.

Are you sure that (10 - 9.999...) ≠ (1 - 0.999...) ?

Since you often called upon the "local" numbers to vouch for the correctness of your thoughts, why not to repeat the same strategy and turn non-local 9.999... and 0.999... into their local cousins 9.999 and 0.999? Now, what do you think is the best device to handle non-local turned local?

Q: LOCAL________ ?

A: LOCAL(CULATOR)

Bill, start the engine . . .

10 - 9.999 = 0.001

1 - 0.999 = 0.001

According to the Microsoft, your yellow highlighted assertion is false, unless the local/non-local explanatory connection didn't work this time for some mysterious reason, or unless Gates oopsed.

I'm proud to be around to witness the epic battle between you and the best of the multi-proven evolution of species in this corner of the Milky Way.

We shall overcoooooome, we shall overc000000...10me, we sh all over, all over, rescue meeee...

Ahaha. I think you got them leaning against the Biege Ropes of Vehement Confusion. Locallyyyyyyyyy.

 

[jsfisher]

If C is an infinite interpolation then A - (B + C) = (A - B) - C does not hold.

Fantastic. Addition in Doronetics is non-associative. That makes it inconsistent and useless.

Tell us, is addition in Doronetics commutative, at least?

Then again, Doron, you are just making this up as you go along. That's been made obvious by your shifting-sands arguments all along. First, (10 - 9..999...) is 0.000...1, but since that lead to a contradiction, you suddenly changed it. From that point forward, (10 - 9.999...) would be 0.000...10 (as if this extension to a meaningless notation lent to its meaningfulness).

Nonetheless, your new definition for things leads to a contradiction, so first (1) you insisted multiplication had be used in evaluating (10 - 9.999...), but when that failed (2) you shifted focus to an irrelevant example, but when that failed (3) you claimed the problem was with the "shift to the left" lost getting to (9 + 0.999), and finally (4) you declared Arithmetic stops working when it gives inconvenient results.

As I said, you are just making it up on the fly. Whatever seems useful at the time is what you'll promote. Whenever it backfires, you'll just redefine things, or shift the focus to something else, or finally just claim special rules apply.

 

[epix]

If C is an infinite interpolation then A - (B + C) = (A - B) - C does not hold.

That's quite an observation. Given A=10, B=9, and C=9.999..., the expression 9.999... is an "infinite interpolation." That could mean there exist M and N, such as M<9.999...<N. Are these numbers responsible for cancelling the laws of grouping?

The traditional math regards interpolation as a method and not a single number, which can be a result of interpolation, but never is called interpolation by itself. OM definitions are known to be different though, so some further explanation is needed to understand the process that undo what the traditional math have done.

The infinite interpolation with respect to 9.999... can be explained in the spirit of OM this way: If a line segment cannot be fully covered by points, then the number 9.999... may not be fully covered by 9's. If not, then there are gaps between the 9's that have to be filled.

If I say "gaps" who you gonna call?

Interpol!

Clouseau, but not clouse enough. You call Interpolation to take care of 9.999999999 999 999999 99999 99...



Just give it a squeeze, forkristsake.

9.999999999 999 999999 99999 99 <------|

9.9999999999999999999999999 <------|

 

[doronshadmi]

Fantastic. Addition in Doronetics is non-associative. That makes it inconsistent and useless.

Wrong. It is useful if C is local , for example:

(1a) 10 - 9.9 = (10*1) - (10*0.99)
(1b) (10*1) - (10*0.99) = 10 * (1 - 0.99)
(1c) 10 * (1 - 0.99) = 10 * (0.01)
(1d) 10 * (0.01) = 0.10

(2a) 10 - 9.9 = 10 - (9 + 0.9)
(2b) 10 - (9 + 0.9) = (10 - 9) - 0.9
(2c) (10 - 9) - 0.9 = 1 - 0.9
(2d) 1 - 0.9 = 0.10

It is not useful if C is non-local, for example:

(1a) 10 - 9.999... = (10*1) - (10*0.999...)
(1b) (10*1) - (10*0.999...) = 10 * (1 - 0.999...)
(1c) 10 * (1 - 0.999...) = 10 * (0.000...1)
(1d) 10 * (0.000...1) = 0.000...10

(2a) 10 - 9.999... = 10 - (9 + 0.999...)
(2b) 10 - (9 + 0.999...) = (10 - 9) - 0.999...
(2c) (10 - 9) - 0.999... = 1 - 0.999...
(2d) 1 - 0.999... = 0.000...1

Then again, Doron, you are just making this up as you go along. That's been made obvious by your shifting-sands arguments all along. First, (10 - 9..999...) is 0.000...1, but since that lead to a contradiction, you suddenly changed it. From that point forward, (10 - 9.999...) would be 0.000...10 (as if this extension to a meaningless notation lent to its meaningfulness).

jsfisher, your arithmetic is useless if non-local numbers are involved, as can be seen above.

... or finally just claim special rules apply.

Your associative property (ab)c = a(bc) is not a general rule, but you can't get it, jsfisher, because there is no such a thing like non-local numbers in your word (for example: 1=0.999...[base 10] in your word) so you can't get that A - (B + C) is not the same as (A - B) - C (the associative property (ab)c = a(bc) is not a general rule).

The non-associative property enables to refine arithmetic in order to deal with non-locality, which is something that your associative-only property can't do.

Furthermore, it is clearer now why you can't get non-locality (your arithmetic is associative-only, which is a direct result of your context-dependent only reasoning).

Your associative-only arithmetic is indeed "death by entropy" framework (you can't get that associative property is not a general rule, exactly as the second law of Thermodynamic is not a general law (it does not work among open systems).

 

[jsfisher]

Your associative property (ab)c = a(bc) is not a general role

Give it up, Doron. This is something you just made it up to insulate your mathematical baffoonery from the truth. There is no reason whatsoever addition isn't associative in Doronetics, except it contradicts one of Doron's idiotic misunderstandings of Mathematics.

And it doesn't matter because you have already accepted that 9.999... = 10*0.999..., and that is sufficient to prove 1 - 0.999... = 0 without violating your made-up on the fly special rule.

 

[doronshadmi]

Give it up, Doron. This is something you just made it up to insulate your mathematical baffoonery from the truth.

Your associative-only arithmetic is not "the truth".

It simply useful only among local numbers, where no infinite interpolation is involved.

Give it up jsfisher by get out of your context-dependent-only reasoning box, which is, as we see now, indeed a "death by entropy" framework (your reasoning can't deal with Hilbert's open-space model ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7205990&postcount=15478 ).

And it doesn't matter because you have already accepted that 9.999... = 10*0.999..., and that is sufficient to prove 1 - 0.999... = 0 without violating your made-up on the fly special rule.

Please demonstrate your claim in details.

 

[jsfisher]

Please demonstrate your claim in details.

First you need to tell us about all the special rules you have. No fair redefining things again after you have been shown what nonsense you spout.

 

[doronshadmi]

First you need to tell us about all the special rules you have.

And it doesn't matter because you have already accepted that 9.999... = 10*0.999..., and that is sufficient to prove 1 - 0.999... = 0 without violating your made-up on the fly special rule.

You claim that "it doesn't matter" whether "I tell" you "about all the special rules I have" (or not) in order to show that I "have already accepted that 9.999... = 10*0.999..., and that is sufficient to prove 1 - 0.999... = 0 without violating" my "made-up on the fly special rule."

So, please be consistent with your replies and demonstrate your claim in details.

 

[doronshadmi]

Then again, Doron, you are just making this up as you go along.

So what, it is consistent with my fundamental notion of cross-contexts\context-dependent reasoning.

By the way, non-associativity is not a rare property in mathematics, as can bee seen, for example in http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=non-associative+property&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 .

 

[doronshadmi]

Addition in Doronetics is non-associative. That makes it inconsistent and useless.

Wrong.

Non-associative Addition is not useless ( http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q="non-associative+addition"&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 ).

 

[jsfisher]

You claim that "it doesn't matter" whether "I tell" you "about all the special rules I have" (or not) in order to show that I "have already accepted that 9.999... = 10*0.999..., and that is sufficient to prove 1 - 0.999... = 0 without violating" my "made-up on the fly special rule."

So, please be consistent with your replies and demonstrate your claim in details.

You still need to work on you reading comprehension skills. Your special unjustified exemption from the associative property for standard addition is the part that doesn't matter.

Since you have proven yourself to be perfectly willing to redefine things as needed and on a moments notice, it is only fair you announce the rules before we start playing.

 

[jsfisher]

Wrong.

Non-associative Addition is not useless ( http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q="non-associative+addition"&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 ).

You really, really need to work on you reading comprehension skills.