A hidden assumption

[jsfisher]

According to my interpretation of Membership the union of the members of X is X and it is notated as X={E,F} U X={E,F} = X U X = X.

All well and good, except your interpretation of membership has absolutely nothing to do with the mathematical concept of membership.

Now, if you want to continue to develop your own alternate formulation of Mathematics, care on, but you need to recognize that you are the one abandoning convention. Don't expect us to follow, and don't assume you are right just on the basis of you changing around all the definitions of things.

You are inhabiting a world of your own imagination. I am fairly certain there is a name for that behavior.

 

[doronshadmi]

All well and good, except your interpretation of membership has absolutely nothing to do with the mathematical concept of membership.

Now, if you want to continue to develop your own alternate formulation of Mathematics, care on, but you need to recognize that you are the one abandoning convention. Don't expect us to follow, and don't assume you are right just on the basis of you changing around all the definitions of things.

You are inhabiting a world of your own imagination. I am fairly certain there is a name for that behavior.

There is no such object called the mathematical concept of membership which is independent of the current agreement of the current community of mathematicians.

Your wrong understanding of the real meaning of Membership, prevents the notion of agreement\membership membership which leads you to think that membership exists independently of some agreement.

In other words any agreed term can be changed.

 

[jsfisher]

There is no such object called the mathematical concept of membership which is independent of the current agreement of the current community of mathematicians.

In other words any agreed term can be changed.

Let us know when you get the community of Mathematics to agree to your bizarre re-definition of terms, re-definition with the sole purpose of covering up your basic misunderstanding of concepts.

 

[doronshadmi]

Let us know when you get the community of Mathematics to agree to your bizarre re-definition of terms, re-definition with the sole purpose of covering up your basic misunderstanding of concepts.

Bizarre?


Bizarre is the notion that leads some person to claim that things that are cut out of X are still considered as its members.


This Bizarre notion is the current agreement of the current community of mathematicians.

 

[jsfisher]

Bizarre?


Bizarre is the notion that leads some person to claim that things that are cut out of X are still considered as its members.


This Bizarre notion is the current agreement of the current community of mathematicians.

So, since the set of even whole numbers includes 2 in its membership, the set of primes can not include 2, because it is already in another set? I don't have to "cut out" 2 from either set to consider 2 separately.

You really missed some basic concepts, didn't you?

 

[doronshadmi]

So, since the set of even whole numbers includes 2 in its membership, the set of primes can not include 2, because it is already in another set? I don't have to "cut out" 2 from either set to consider 2 separately.

You really missed some basic concepts, didn't you?

2 is a member of the set of even whole numbers as long as it is included in {2,4,6,...}

Also 2 is a member the primes of as long as it is included in {2,3,5,7,...}

2 can be an independent element that is not included in any set, and so is any other element.

For example: if 2 represents some set then {{},{{}}} can be independent of { {{}} , {{},{{}}} , ... } which is the set of natural numbers.

 

[jsfisher]

2 is a member of the set of even whole numbers as long as it is included in {2,4,6,...}

Also 2 is a member the primes of as long as it is included in {2,3,5,7,...}

2 can be an independent element that is not included in any set, and so is any other element.

You were going along so well until this last part, then it just fell apart.

 

[doronshadmi]

You were going along so well until this last part, then it just fell apart.

Not at all.

2 is an independent object, exactly as an ear(=E) cut out of body(=X) is no longer considered as its member.

This independency enables the concept of 2 to be a member of as many sets as you wish, as long as it is included as a part (as a member) of each one of them.

2 is an independent object whether it is made only of sets (for example {{},{{}}}) or not
(for example {ur-elementA,{}} or {ur-elementA,ur-elementB}}

2 is a member of the set of whole even numbers = {2,4,6,...}

2 is a member of the set of prime numbers = {2,3,5,7,...}


The global understanding of this independency can be defined as the set {2, {2,4,6,...}, {2,3,5,7,...}} if we wish to do so.

Any given case above is the result of the invariance(notated by "{" and "}")\variance(notated as some content or its absence) complementation, which is the universal principle of the researchable.

I challenge you to avoid the universal principle and still get the researchable.

Please be aware that any relation (also X=X) is the result of the universal principle.

 

[jsfisher]

I challenge you to avoid the universal principle and still get the researchable.

First, you'd need to define your terms. This seems to be a problem for you.

 

[jsfisher]

...and you are still wrong about a set being the union of all its members.

 

[doronshadmi]

Dear jsfisher,

There is a one and only one person that can help you to get the universal principle.

His name his jsfisher.

As long as jsfisher tries to understand the universal principle as something out there by ignore himself as a participator of this understanding, he will not get the universal principle.

Each one of us and all of us together are the result of invariance\variance complementation, that without it no reseachable realm (abstract or not) holds.


(By the way do you like Van Gough ?

I personally think that he was a great artist.

http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=paq.030.0351a

" It was at Christmas time, 1888, in the Provençal town of Arles, that Vincent van Gogh cut off a piece of his own ear and presented it to a prostitute. From this event has arisen the image of van Gogh as 'the lunatic who cut off his ear'. But there is a contrasting image—'the genius who painted magnificent pictures'. These two divergent concepts have lent some strength to the naïve but popular notion that one must be insane to be a great artist."

I do not think that anyone in our globe has to be educated to see a cut off ear as something that is still considered as a part (a member) of his body , and then to learn how to do some manipulation on it (present it to a prostitute or define the union of its cells) as if it is still a member of his body.

This manipulation is based on insanity, but many people around our globe are educated by this insanity.

One of the main schools of thought that teaches this insanity is the traditional school thought of the mathematical science.

Do you still look at your self as a well educated person of suach a school?)

 

[jsfisher]

Dear jsfisher,

There is a one and only one person that can help you to get the universal principle.

His name his jsfisher.

Thank you for your concern. However, since this universal principle about which you babble is a personal invention of yourself, and since you are incapable of communicating in any effective manner as to essence of this universal principle about which you babble, the fault for my lack of understanding of this universal principle about which you babble falls to you.

Moreover, you have so thoroughly demonstrated severe limitations on your own cognitive and comprehension skills. For example, you are unable to differentiate among a set, its members and its members' members. As a result, you credentials in Mathematics are tarnished. You cannot get the basics right, and so no one here will take you or your gobbledygook seriously on the more advanced topics.

 

[doronshadmi]

Thank you for your concern. However, since this universal principle about which you babble is a personal invention of yourself, and since you are incapable of communicating in any effective manner as to essence of this universal principle about which you babble, the fault for my lack of understanding of this universal principle about which you babble falls to you.

Moreover, you have so thoroughly demonstrated severe limitations on your own cognitive and comprehension skills. For example, you are unable to differentiate among a set, its members and its members' members. As a result, you credentials in Mathematics are tarnished. You cannot get the basics right, and so no one here will take you or your gobbledygook seriously on the more advanced topics.

A paradigm-shift of fandamental concepts is an internal\external complementation.

Anyone who thinks in terms of internal\external dichotomy cannot get it.

Anyone who thinks in terms of internal\external complementation easily gets internal\external dichotomy and understand its built-in irrationality (insanity).

It is all a matter of rational education, and your education probably does not help you to get the Van Gough's case.

 

[jsfisher]

A paradigm-shift of fandamental concepts is an internal\external complementation.

Anyone who thinks in terms of internal\external dichotomy cannot get it.

Anyone who thinks in terms of internal\external complementation easily gets internal\external dichotomy and understand its built-in irrationality (insanity).

It is all a matter of rational aducation.

And still you persist in blaming everyone else for your own inability to define and explain your unique perspective.

 

[doronshadmi]

And still you persist in blaming everyone else for your own inability to define and explain your unique perspective.

I do not blame anyone personally.

I do blame a traditional education that is based on a built-in irrationality (insanity), as explained in the Van Gough's analogy.

You are simply the result of such education, and no one can blame you for this.

Step-by-step thinkers get the distinct side of invariance\variance complementation.

Parallel thinkers get the non-distinct side of invariance\variance complementation.

No one of them is right if he thinks only in terms of Parallel\Step-by-step dichotomy, because a researchable realm is exactly Parallel\Step-by-step complementation.

 

[jsfisher]

I do not blame anyone personally.

I do blame a traditional education that is based on built-in irrationality (insanity), as explained in Van Gough's analogy.

Ah, so you are blaming the traditional education system for your inability to define terms and express yourself. Ok, that makes more sense.

By the way, do you still content that a set is the union of all of its members?

 

[tsig]

You didn't address my question. Instead, you expanded your undefined terminology pool.

I see we have arrived at corndog territory only with math instead of language.

Will we soon see the universal transform that can change one expression into any other?

 

[tsig]

Yes I did.

a+b=b+a is not symmetry itself but the result of symmetry\asymmetry complementation.

Symmetry itself cannot be addressed by using the Multitude, because symmetry itself is total unity where no multitude exists.

If you try to understand Symmetry in terms of one of many things (cardinal=1) or many things (cardinal>1), then you are at symmetry\asymmetry complementation that is not symmetry itself.

If you try to understand Symmetry itself by using cardinal=0 as a complement of cardinal≠0, you are not at Symmetry itself because you are thinking in terms of Nothing\Something complementation.

But Symmetry itself is total unity and it is not researchable.

Asymmetry itself is total isolation and it is not researchable.

The researchable is Symmetry\Asymmetry complementation, but then any researchable thing is the complementation's result.

If you unaware of this notion you are unaware of the fact that any given premise is already a notion that is based on the researchable (which is the result of Symmetry\Asymmetry complementation).

In other words, since mathematics is a researchable thing, it must be aware of researchable\non-researchable complementation.

This awareness is not used as the basis of the mathematical science, and one of the wrong results is to understand the multitude (which is a complementation's result) in terms of the completeness of Symmetry at its self state (which is beyond the researchable and no researchable concept like cardinality has its complete self-state).

You have to be aware of the fact that our dialog is possible because of symmetry\asymmetry complementation, and it cannot be done at Symmetry or Asymmetry self-state.

So the fundamental question of a researchable abstract\non-abstract space is:

How the researchable is possible?

I much as I know, this question was not asked for the past 2500 years of mathematical research, and any axiom that I know is based on non-proved assumptions that are already the result of researchable\non-researchable complementation, without being aware of it.

Furthermore, those axioms are tuned to work only on the asymmetrical side of Symmetry\Asymmetry complementation because Mathematics of the past 2500 years is mostly the result of a step-by-step way of thinking, until this particular way of thinking and Mathematics are synonym.

By understanding this it must not be a surprise to be realized of the fact that Mathematics of the past 2500 years is mostly the result of a step-by-step serial thinkers, and the community known as mathematicians are nothing but a community of persons that are qualified in step-by-step way of thinking, which is nothing but the particular case of an asymmetric point of view of Symmetry\Asymmetry complementation.

In that case we must not be surprised to understand why so many people around the globe do not like Mathematics.

If carefully be examined we discover that most of them are not step-by-step thinkers that are actually forced to do mathematics in term of step-by-step thinkers.

There is no conspiracy of step-by-step of thinkers here but a simple (and devastating) ignorance of Researchable\Non-researchable complementation.

As much as I know my suggested Mathematical framework is the first theory that is aware of the Researchable\Non-researchable complementation.


I'll be more than glade to know that I am wrong about what I wrote above.

Be glade, you are wrong.

Repeating 'catch phrases" like "step-by-step" makes me wonder about your creativity and therefore your ability to come up with anything original.

 

[tsig]

I do not blame anyone personally.

I do blame a traditional education that is based on a built-in irrationality (insanity), as explained in the Van Gough's analogy.

You are simply the result of such education, and no one can blame you for this.

Step-by-step thinkers get the distinct side of invariance\variance complementation.

Parallel thinkers get the non-distinct side of invariance\variance complementation.

No one of them is right if he thinks only in terms of Parallel\Step-by-step dichotomy, because a researchable realm is exactly Parallel\Step-by-step complementation.

Please don't cut off your ear.

You don't hear well enough as it is.

 

[doronshadmi]

Ah, so you are blaming the traditional education system for your inability to define terms and express yourself. Ok, that makes more sense.

By the way, do you still content that a set is the union of all of its members?

By the way do you still content that the a set of union of X any Y that are cut out of set X is still connected to set X?

To claim that X or Y that cut out of set X are still considered as its members, is nothing but a contradiction.

Shell we clap hands for the impressive success of the traditional education method on your "reasonability"?