A hidden assumption

[MattusMaximus]

At this stage I prefer to share my notions with non-professional mathematicians, because they are immediately rejected by professional mathematicians for a good reason (from their point of view) which is: I add a new magnitude that if it is logically understood, then any given non-finite collection is incomplete when compared to the new magnitude.

That's enough for me... bye now.

 

[doronshadmi]

I did read it all the way to the end. It is nonsense.

Please give some example of it that leads you to this conclusion.

 

[doronshadmi]

That's enough for me... bye now.

So what's the point of being critical if you automatically accept some paradigm of an abstract realm?

 

[doronshadmi]

Actually... no.

Having read only a little of that nonsense, I can wipe it off my brain pretty rapidly. Reading to the end might decrease my IQ permanently by several points, and I've got enough problems as it is.

Are you absolutely sure that it is nonsense?

Any question? something?

 

[doronshadmi]

I think that you have missed it, so here it is again.

In order to get this stuff, please ask yourself a simple question, which is:

How the multitude (or the multiple) is defined?

 

[jsfisher]

Please give some example of it that leads you to this conclusion.

Sure. Let's start with your second paragraph. (The first paragraph was a quotation.)

Cantor is wrong because no non-finite collection has the magnitude of the non-local ur-element ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement ) real-line, and as a result any given non-finite collection is open and incomplete when compared with the non-local ur-element real-line's magnitude.

As written, gibberish. You've taken terms that individually have meaning, but when strung together are nonsense. Care to try expressing yourself in a logical and well-defined way?

You did say you wanted to present to the mathematical non-professionals, right? How about making the presentation in English?

 

[jsfisher]

By the way, please tell us now if this is going to end in tales of alien visitations or 4" rebar. I would need time to prepare myself.

 

[doronshadmi]

Sure. Let's start with your second paragraph. (The first paragraph was a quotation.)



As written, gibberish. You've taken terms that individually have meaning, but when strung together are nonsense. Care to try expressing yourself in a logical and well-defined way?

You did say you wanted to present to the mathematical non-professionals, right? How about making the presentation in English?

If you continue to read the post until the end of it, then you will find that no collection (which is a mathematical object that is based on "a one of many ...") has the magnitude of the non-local atom (which is not a "a one of many ..." mathematical object).

The logical basis of the non-local atom is NXOR (Not Xor) connective.

 

[doronshadmi]

By the way, please tell us now if this is going to end in tales of alien visitations or 4" rebar. I would need time to prepare myself.

Please hold you horses and use critics carefully.

Critics is a great tool if used carefully.

 

[doronshadmi]

OP. Please explain, in plain English, what a " non-local ur-element real-line's magnitude " is?

I know what a urelement is, I know what nonlocality is, and I know what a real line is. I have no idea what you are talking about however.

For starters:
1. A urelement is an object which is not a set.
2. A real line is a set of real numbers.

So wtf? How does a non-local urelement have a real line at all? Is the "magnitude" 1 or 0 or something? Am I missing something here??? I am no mathematician... Someone more educated than me please assist. Do you just mean that the line is made up of urelements? If you mean that then you didn't need to actually say the word *urelement* at all! That means you are just adding complicated words!

I know that you do not wish to continue this dialog.

Any way in my system the real-line is not a set of infinitely many distinct elements, as defined by the traditional point of view, but it is an atom or more accurately, a non-local atom.

The magnitude of the non-local atom is bigger than the magnitude of any non-finite collection, and I show it by using logic.

 

[Gravy]

...A non-finite set is simply a set that does not have a final member, and both E and N are non-finite sets as well, where Size_of_E/Size_of_N has a permanent ratio of 1/2.

I was beginning to think the OP was a non-finite post. Glad to see it's just non-sensical. Please re-post in 17 days.

 

[Gravy]

Critics is a great tool if used carefully.

The same is true of English.

 

[jsfisher]

Any way in my system the real-line is not a set of infinitely many distinct elements, as defined by the traditional point of view, but it is an atom or more accurately, a non-local atom.

If your goal is to uproot Cantor's contribution to Mathematics, wouldn't it be best to work within his set of definitions and system rather than make up your own?

Instead, you have invented your own world with non-standard definitions for terms. How can you possibly expect to drawn conclusions regarding traditional Mathematics?

 

[Complexity]

doronshadmi - Please quit posting such ignorant tripe.

You obviously don't understand Cantor's work.

 

[ben m]

Any way in my system the real-line is not a set of infinitely many distinct elements, as defined by the traditional point of view, but it is an atom or more accurately, a non-local atom.

You've invented a new set of mathematical definitions. Using your definitions, you claim to prove that the "real number line" does "map" to "the integers". Good for you.

Cantor proved that the reals do not map to the integers, for the standard definition of "real" and "integer" and "map". Cantor's definitions are the same ones that we use for the rest of algebra, group theory, analysis, and so on---and that's what makes Cantor's work interesting.

What makes your work interesting? You're saying, "If I start with different assumptions, I can reach different conclusions." So can anyone.

 

[doronshadmi]

You've invented a new set of mathematical definitions. Using your definitions, you claim to prove that the "real number line" does "map" to "the integers". Good for you.

Not at all, my claim is this:

No collection of infinitely many objects is complete if it is compared to the non-local ur-element real-line (which is not R set, but it is a non-local atom that is based on NXOR connective).

This is a new notion (based on Logic) of the non-finite's magnitude.

According to the new notion, actual infinity has the magnitude of the non-local atom, where any magnitude of a mathematical object that is based on the multitude (the multiple) is less than actual infinity's magnitude.

For more details please look at http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/NXOR-XOR.pdf .

 

[doronshadmi]

doronshadmi - Please quit posting such ignorant tripe.

You obviously don't understand Cantor's work.

Please give some example.

 

[doronshadmi]

In order to get this stuff, please ask yourself a simple question, which is:

How the multitude (or the multiple) is defined?

 

[Complexity]

Please give some example.

Post #1.

Now, go away.

 

[Zep]

I'm seeing a distinct parallel, nay, near-perfect instant reply, of another recent woo nutter who had a similar "I can invent stuff out of my arse and overturn civilisation as we know it today except every scientists is against me" schtick with a physics proposition...

Have we got a sock-puppet woo in our midst??