Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
EDIT:

In order to follow the philosophical view of traditional mathematicians, we do not use the term "inventing", but we use the term "discovering".
Click to expand...

"We"? You are alone in your delusion. And now we see you inventing a new meaning for a simple word like discovering.

The point stands. You invent meanings, and you do so to cover your misunderstandings. 'Function' is not defined as you pretend (not that it really matters to your current rant), and 'cardinality' is not defined as you pretend.

Anything you have to say about either is worthless because you wouldn't be talking about the right thing.
 
doronshadmi said:
Only according to your traditional-only point of view, so?
Click to expand...


What you want to call a function isn't. What you want to call cardinality isn't. If by "traditional-only point of view" you mean adhere to basic meaning of things to facilitate communication, than I would agree.

Since your intent is to not communicate--by exploiting private definitions for established terminology and by out-and-out gibberish--what are you expecting to accomplish with your posts?
 
jsfisher said:
Since your intent is to not communicate--by exploiting private definitions for established terminology and by out-and-out gibberish--what are you expecting to accomplish with your posts?
Click to expand...

Since your intent is to not communicate--by using only traditional terminology--what are you expecting to accomplish with your posts?
 
doronshadmi said:
Since your intent is to not communicate--by using only traditional terminology--what are you expecting to accomplish with your posts?
Click to expand...

Barely worthy as a playground taunt among 5-year olds, echoing my words back at me, your post reflects poorly on you. Yes, I do try to stick with established meanings, so your attempt to insult instead provides another example of your ability to contradict yourself in the space on one sentence.
 
jsfisher said:
Barely worthy as a playground taunt among 5-year olds, echoing my words back at me, your post reflects poorly on you. Yes, I do try to stick with established meanings, so your attempt to insult instead provides another example of your ability to contradict yourself in the space on one sentence.
Click to expand...
Another evasion of detailed reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9732357&postcount=2979 (in the name of "stick with established meanings") is shown.
 
laca said:
No, it doesn't, doron. The rest of the world moves, your broken excuse for a caravan stands still.
Click to expand...
You are not in any position (yet) to conclude that.

Try Harder.

For example: By using the traditional reasoning, please provide the proof, which rigorously shows how a collection of distinct elements (where each element has exactly 0 length) provides an element that has length > 0.
 
doronshadmi said:
Only if one only "stick with established meanings", so?
Click to expand...

That would be key to effective communication. It is also key to consistency of argument: You cannot reach conclusions about, oh, say, cardinality when you are basing it all on something that isn't.
 
jsfisher said:
That would be key to effective communication.
Click to expand...

Effective only in terms of the traditional meaning of things, so?

Let's try it again.

By using the traditional reasoning, please provide the proof, which rigorously shows how a collection of distinct elements (where each element has exactly 0 length) provides an element that has length > 0.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You are not in any position (yet) to conclude that.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am. You have failed to show anything. It's not my problem you're hopefully incapacitated.

doronshadmi said:
Try Harder.
Click to expand...

You first.

doronshadmi said:
For example: By using the traditional reasoning, please provide the proof, which rigorously shows how a collection of distinct elements (where each element has exactly 0 length) provides an element that has length > 0.
Click to expand...

You do know that repeating the same thing over and over again while getting the same result but still hoping for something else is a sign of insanity?
 
doronshadmi said:
Effective only in terms of the traditional meaning of things, so?
Click to expand...

Oh, now you have a different concept of what effective means? That's just too much, doron, even for you. Here's your laughing dog: :dl:

I don't know whether you realize this, but what you're doing is like standing in front of a construction yard and yelling at the workers that what they are doing is not effective and they should just do what you do: just stand by and will the construction into existence. It's beyond stupid.

doronshadmi said:
Let's try it again.

By using the traditional reasoning, please provide the proof, which rigorously shows how a collection of distinct elements (where each element has exactly 0 length) provides an element that has length > 0.
Click to expand...

doron_insanity_index++;
 
jsfisher said:
Are you sure you want to admit to everyone that you believe ignoring the meaning of things is part of effective communication?
Click to expand...
jsfisher I do not ignore them.

On the contrary, I expand the meaning of things beyond their traditional meaning.

Since your communication style is done only in terms of the traditional meaning of things, there is no communication between us, and this is my claim about you all along this thread. You simply refuse to do any step beyond the traditional or (by using your expression) beyond the "established meanings".
 
Last edited:
laca said:
doron_insanity_index++;
Click to expand...
I agree with you, it is indeed insane to reply to you, in the first place.

So now we have doron_insanity_index+++ and you are go back to my ignore list.


No bye :covereyes laca.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom