jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Give it up, Doron. Incessantly reposting links to your failed attempts to explain things exposes your laziness, not ours. Repetition doesn't improve your gibberish.
Deeper than primes
- Thread starter doronshadmi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- deeper than primes
- Status
Give it up, Doron. Incessantly reposting links to your failed attempts to explain things exposes your laziness, not ours. Repetition doesn't improve your gibberish.
Miracle! You are actually right! Just twenty minutes ago I was in the kitchen looking for my can opener, but it appeared to be non-local. So I used my verbal_symbolic skills; I raised my hands, made a symbolic megaphone and said, "Where are youuuuuuu?" Nothing - no response. So I decided to aid my search also with my visual_spacial skills. I imagined/visualized the place I live, and since it is a mansion with three kitchens, I went to the other two and asked again.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Simply repeating your incorrect assumption from before only demonstrates once again that your “direct perception” continues to fail you.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Nope once again it is simply your restriction for sets that are not finite and not empty (thus infinite) of…
That excludes any previously picked members from being picked again, only for a set already defined as infinite.
Who asked about “The second pick of x” anyway? Let’s just stick with the first “pick of X” for now, since you seem to have considerable difficulty just answering a simple question about just that pick.
Here is the question again.
You do understand that in order to have a “second pick of x” you must have previously picked x, don’t you?
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Therein lay the rub of it epix. As already noted by jsfisher, most of us here have far and demonstrably better verbal symbolic and visual spatial skills than Doron. Heck, back before the days of finite element analysis and 3D modeling, such skills were an absolute requirement for the type of engineering (design and development) I was doing at that time. So he can accuse me or anyone here of lacking “visual_spatial skills” as much as he wants and it only serves to demonstrate once again how absolutely and ridiculously useless his purported “direct perception” truly is.
Well, at least he can categorize, or "find his way home." I'm talking about that "direct perception."
http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0522103-113110/unrestricted/Megill_thesis.pdf
Doron at least succeeded in unleashing his "direct perception" rhetoric in the right forum.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Well, at least he can categorize, or "find his way home." I'm talking about that "direct perception."
http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0522103-113110/unrestricted/Megill_thesis.pdf
Doron at least succeeded in unleashing his "direct perception" rhetoric in the right forum.
Unfortunately no, that at least migth have been something. However, a thread was originally started in the math, medicine, science and technology sub forum some 5 or so years ago and was closed simply because Doron could not refrain from his quasi philosophical and quasi religious musing. Sorry you missed that party epix, it was a real non-local hootenanny.
So in that regard, about that “direct perception”, to quote Darth Vader…
Originally Posted by The Man
So again when “(x in C is picked) AND (everything but x, in C is picked)” what “in C” remains ‘unpicked’?
Ask him to describe his Collection in some detail so it would become clearer what he actually manhandles.
So again when “(x in C is picked) AND (everything but x, in C is picked)” what “in C” remains ‘unpicked’?
Doron disclosed that C stands for Collection. This is really a broad term that includes various types of groups, such as sets and lists. According to his manipulations, it seems to me that he deals with the bag:
Ask him to describe his Collection in some detail so it would become clearer what he actually manhandles.
Last edited:
In other words, Doron opened up with "direct perception" prematurely and so he was re-directed sooner than he could expect. Well, what can I say . . .
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
You have difficulties to understand that the incompleteness of "hosted" mathematical spaces with respects to the "host" space holds, whether the amount of the "hosted" spaces is finite or infinite.
In other words, the two axioms are right, if verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills are used as a one comprehensive framework:
Axiom 1:
If (x in C is picked) AND (everything but x, in C is picked) AND (x can't be picked twice), then C is infinite AND incomplete.
Axiom 2:
If (x in C is picked) AND (everything but x, in C is picked) AND (x can be picked twice), then C is finite AND incomplete.
Once again.
Without using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills as a one comprehensive framework you can't understand that everything in terms of collection (for example, points) can't reach the power of the continuum of non-local object (for example, a line), and you do not understand it exactly because your visual_spatial skills are not used in addition to your verbal_symbolic skills.
Again, you do not comprehend the inability of collections of distinct objects to have to power of the continuum of the "host" mathematical space (for example: there is no homeomorphism between 0 dimensional space and 1 dimensional space), which is naturally non-local w.r.t the "hosted" collection.
The term "host" or "hosted" is used in order to clarify that the "host" space
is not made of the "hosted" spaces (for example: ______ (a 1 dimensional space) is not made of "_ _ _" or "......" (which are sub-objects) on it.)
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Wrong, I explicitly use the term "Collections of distinct objects", which is the particular case of 0-URDT.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
You explicitly don't demonstrate verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills as a one comprehensive framework, all along this thread.
Here is a concrete example of your failure (which is supported by scientific material) :
-----------------------------------------------------------
Here is the abstract taken from Philip J. Davis and James A. Anderson book called “Nonanalytic Aspects of Mathematics and Their Implication for Research and Education,” SIAM Review 21(1979), 112-117:
Abstract
In this paper we make a distinction between the practice of mathematics as it is usually presented--a logical chain of abstract, analytical reasoning from premises to conclusions--and how mathematics seems to be done in actuality--as a series of nonverbal, analog, often kinesthetic or visual insights. Mathematics in recent years has created a hierarchy with highly abstract, logical and symbolic material at the peak and with more geometrical, visual, and analog material held to be of lesser worth. We argue that humans are known to vary widely in their approaches to cognition and that the areas of the human brain specifically related to language and logical analysis seem to comprise only a part of the machinery of our intellect. We suggest that it would be wise for the practitioners of mathematics, and perhaps especially the students of mathematics to be aware of the very important nonverbal elements in mathematics. We feel that excessive emphasis on the abstract, analytic aspects of thought may have had deleterious effects on the profession and that a more appropriate balance, more in line with our cognitive endowment as humans, is desirable.----------------------------------------------------------
Here is a part taken from H. M. Hubey book “The diagonal infinity: problems of multiple scales” (http://books.google.com/books?id=wD...m=6&sqi=2&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false ) page 297:
“A large part of the human brain is devoted to spatial computation, which in the language of serial logic becomes mere intuition. But the only way in which we can actually comprehend the most primitive concepts of all sciences, including mathematics of course, is in terms of these basic intuitions. If so, then what purpose does it serve to split the formation into syntax and semantics? What is obviously true by what some call intuition is the working of the parallel-visual-spatial system of the brain. Rigor seems to consist of turning these truths into words. Either this is done so that we can then learn from this to solve those problems that cannot be visualized or it’s done to satisfy those that cannot visualize. In no case is it necessary to stamp and certify only serial symbols as constituting rigor. If anything it is our very capability of spatial and parallel processing that even allowed us to entertain the possibility of a language for expressing truths. If anything language is a tool that allows us to partially reconstruct what we can see or seen to those that haven’t. If it were not so, only animals capable of speech (i.e. humans) would be capable of intelligence, and clearly it is not so.”
I would add that verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills complement each other into a valuable framework.
----------------------------------------------------------
The Real-line and non-local numbers
By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills we get a one comprehensive framework.
For example, by Traditional Mathematics (which is mostly based on verbal_symbolic skills) 0.111...2 = 0.999...10 = 1 where 1 is the considered mathematical object (the number itself) and 0.111...2 or 0.999...10 are some numerals (out of many representations) that represent number 1.
By using verbal_symbolic and visual_spatial skills as follows:
one understands that no branch of that tree actually reaches any other branch of that tree "downward" , no matter how many levels
that tree has (in other words, there is no homeomorphism between 0 dimensional space (notated by "0";"1" symbols)
and 1 dimensional space (notated by "_____" spatial non-composed object)).
According to this comprehensive framework 0.111...2 is a number of its own < number 1 by 0.000...12 where the "...1" part
of that number is the irreducibility of ___ 1 dimensional space into 0 dimensional space (known as a point).
By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills one enables to distinguish between non-local numbers like 0.111...2 or 0.000...12, and local numbers like 1 or 0.
Furthermore, no collection of, for example, 0 dimensional spaces along a 1 dimensional space has the power of the continuum of a 1 dimensional space.
By understanding the power of the continuum in terms of spatial skills, one understands that no collection of sub-objects (for example: "_ _ _" or ".....") of a given space (for example: "_____"), mathematical or physical, has the power of the continuum of that space, or in other words, any given collection of sub-objects is incomplete with respect to the "host" space.
The non-locality of 0.111...2 or 0.000...12 is "naturally vague" in terms of location, and one actually discovers/invents that the Real-line has a non-empty set of non-local numbers between 0 dimensional space and 1 dimensional space.
(By generalization, given a "host" space, no collection of "hosted" spaces has the power of the "host" space).
-----------------------------------------------------------
In other words, you can scratch each other backs as much as you like, it will not help you to actually use your verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, since your mutual back's scratches are done only by verbal_symbolic skills.
Last edited:
Why can't x be picked twice? Because you're still enumerating all the members of an infinite set individually? Still stuck on that, then?
And please explain the difference between infinite and (Doron) incomplete? Can a finite set be incomplete? Which infinite sets are not incomplete?
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
If you read http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7617532&postcount=16470 until its last word, and then think of it, you will get the answers to your questions.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Nope, you just have difficulties defining what you mean by “incomplete”. It looks like your drifting back to your assertion that no set can be complete as your assertions above have “then C is infinite AND incomplete” as well as “C is finite AND incomplete”. Unfortunately, your assertions earlier in this thread that all sets are incomplete because they do not contain elements you claim yourself that they are not defined to contain remains simply self-contradictory. So all sets remain complete by definition and your “incomplete” remains undefined in any generally consistent or even self-consistent manor. Evidently you still simply want to make your “incomplete” synonymous with ‘set’ which makes your claiming any set is “incomplete” superfluous and redundant.
So you still simply can not or simply will not answer the question…
It is a very simply and direct question Doron, that you can not or simply will not answer it directly clearly demonstrates the you either have no clue what your talking about, you would simply like to deceive us about your claimed inapplicability of “all” or both. As I have already stated I find the latter to be the most accurately descriptive of your tendencies.
While the material you have reposted, again, above clearly shows plenty of failures, most simply by you, it can demonstrate no failure of mine since none of it is anything I have asserted. Your “direct perception” continues to fail you, demonstrably.
Perhaps you could highlight for me where you define 'incomplete' in the post? Or where you explain why x cannot be 'picked' twice?
A collection of distinct objects can be
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.
Let x = 'even numbers' and everything but x = 'primes and odd numbers.'
According to your second axiom
if you pick (presumably remove) x, then even numbers are gone and therefore cannot be removed once again, as "x can be picked twice" says it must be the case, not to mention that a distinct object cannot be removed twice, since there is no duplicate in the collection. That means the truth value to the second condition is 0.
By removing x, the collection has been reduced to
3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15.
When you remove everything but x, that means primes and odd numbers, the collection becomes empty. But your conclusion says that the collection of distinct items in C is finite and incomplete.
Look at the axiom from the prospect of truth conditions:
If 1 AND 0 AND 1, then F AND I
Since 1 AND 0 AND 1 evaluates to 0, and zero is assigned to False, it follows that Finite AND Incomplete is a false conclusion.
After some five years of hard work, Doronetics still trips over basic reasoning necessary to prepare chicken soup and therefore it's chronically late in its trip to the Lighthouse of Direct Comprehension -- the promised destination from which it plans to send out the Beam of Strictly Non-Diffracted Light toward the Land of Mathematical Logic in order to trigger the Immediate and Undeterred Renaissance in there to the complete joy of incidental onlookers and occasional passers-by.
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Since your assertions about completeness are restricted only to collections of distinct objects, you can't get the power of the continuum of "____" which is non-local and stronger w.r.t any collection of sub-objects like "_ _ _" or "......" on it.
This simple fact is realized only if verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills are used as a one comprehensive framework of the mathematical research.
Your mathematical research defiantly use only verbal_symbolic skills, and as a result you are unable to get the incompleteness of the power of the continuum of "hosted" sub_objects like sub-objects "_ _ _" or "......" w.r.t "host" space like "____".
Because you are using only verbal_symbolic skills you also can't comprehend the non-locality of the "host" space w.r.t the "hosted" sub-objects, and the locality of the "hosted" sub-objects w.r.t the "host" space, which is not made by the "hosted" sub-objects".
In other words, your assertions and results are closed under using only verbal_symbolic skills, and this closeness is not changed all along this very long thread.
Your use of verbal_symbolic_only skills continues to fail you, demonstrably (your question was answered by me many times, but you can't comprehend it since your reasoning is restricted only to verbal_symbolic skills).
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
epix, you take the wrong way to get what I say.
The facts are these:
1) Nothing is removed from the collection of picked distinct objects.
2) Picking x more that once does not change the fact that it is a single and distinct object of collection of distinct objects.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
This time try to get
by using your verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.doronshadmi said:
Last edited:
- Status