A hidden assumption

[jsfisher]

I have revised my list.

Absurd things Doronshadmi believes:

1. A set is equal to the union of its members.
2. 2 is not part of { 2,3,4 } much like a severed finger is not part of your body.
3. 2 may not be a member of { 2 }.
4. A if B, A only if B, and A if and only if B are all equivalent
   constructs.
5. Geometry is a very weak branch of Mathematics.
6. There is no such thing as a number in standard Mathematics.

 

[Apathia]

I have revised my list.

Absurd things Doronshadmi believes:

1. A set is equal to the union of its members.
2. 2 is not part of { 2,3,4 } much like a severed finger is not part of your body.
3. 2 may not be a member of { 2 }.
4. A if B, A only if B, and A if and only if B are all equivalent
   constructs.
5. Geometry is a very weak branch of Mathematics.
6. There is no such thing as a number in standard Mathematics.

I invite you to read some of his pdfs and contributions to other forums.
You will find a number of other even more interesting denials and gaffs.
Here's an entertaining place to start:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=30569
Note that he posts as "Lama" here.

Or just keep engaging him in this thread. Before long your list will contain some really outlandish things. It just gets clearer and clearer why professional mathematicians and math instructors don't give him the time of day.

 

[doronshadmi]

Yes, that is just about what you said before. You are still contradicting yourself. By the way, you presuppose the existence of both (standard) numbers and arithmetic in your ONN treatise. That makes your organic numbers more like compost than anything more substantive.

I am reasonably certain I would never say such a thing.

Good to know.

Yet another absurdity for the list!

Know it is clear that you do not read my posts in order to understand them.

All you care is to play your "king of the hill" game.

You have Natural numbers, Rational numbers, Irrational numbers, ... etc., but not a general definition of it.


There is no general definition of the concept of number in traditional Math.

 

[doronshadmi]

I invite you to read some of his pdfs and contributions to other forums.
You will find a number of other even more interesting denials and gaffs.
Here's an entertaining place to start:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=30569
Note that he posts as "Lama" here.

Or just keep engaging him in this thread. Before long your list will contain some really outlandish things. It just gets clearer and clearer why professional mathematicians and math instructors don't give him the time of day.

Old material. Not relevant anymore.

Remember. we are talking about evolution of ideas.

 

[doronshadmi]

I think I get what you are aiming at here, but your arrow is unable to reach its mark.

At the moment that you get also yourself, then and only then you will start to get it.

 

[PixyMisa]

Know it is clear that you do not read my posts in order to understand them.

All you care is to play your "king of the hill" game.

You have Natural numbers, Rational numbers, Irrational numbers, ... etc., but not a general definition of it.

You mean you don't know the general definition.

Natural numbers are subset of rational numbers.
Both rational and irrational numbers are subsets of real numbers.
Real numbers are a subset of complex numbers, where the imaginary part is zero.
And complex numbers are a subset of hypercomplex numbers, such as quaternions. Hypercomplex numbers can be viewed as being vectors of reals, so the generalisation is straightforward.

There is no general definition of the concept of number in traditional Math.

Wrong.

 

[PixyMisa]

You are missing the irony that your "Incompleteness" is denying Mathematics the ability to work with Infinity as a real concept. You lose the dynamic that is at the base of Calculus, Transfinite Numbers, Godel's Incompleteness Theorm, and the math modern physics depends upon.

If you can't prove Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, that means that you've thrown out arithmetic as well.

Not much of an advance, I'd say.

Think again. You are undermining what you really want to achieve.

He seems unconcerned about this flaw.

 

[Apathia]

Old material. Not relevant anymore.

Remember. we are talking about evolution of ideas.

There doesn't appear to have been much substantive change in your views over the last four or five years. Your mangling of mathematical infinity remains unchanged.
We can only hope that your current material will soon be extinct.

 

[jsfisher]

Know it is clear that you do not read my posts in order to understand them.

All you care is to play your "king of the hill" game.

Call it what you will, but (a) you have been contradicting yourself, and (b) in your ONN descriptions, you do in fact assume the existing of both natural numbers and arithmetic.

Your so called organic natural numbers cannot stand on their own, and they are far, far removed from being any sort of basic building block.

 

[jsfisher]

I invite you to read some of his pdfs and contributions to other forums.
You will find a number of other even more interesting denials and gaffs.
Here's an entertaining place to start:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=30569
Note that he posts as "Lama" here.

Or just keep engaging him in this thread. Before long your list will contain some really outlandish things. It just gets clearer and clearer why professional mathematicians and math instructors don't give him the time of day.

I think I have read all of his .PDF files. They get very repetitive after a while, but they do skip around in the most bizarre ways. I've also tracked down many of this posts in other fora.

Originally, I sincerely had this naive belief that somewhere at the base of his gibberish there was a glimmer of an idea (which got quickly buried in confusion). Alas, there was none.

 

[doronshadmi]

If you can't prove Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, that means that you've thrown out arithmetic as well.

Not at all, Godel's Incompleteness explicitly supports my theory which is:

No resaechable thing is both consistent AND complete (total).

My theory provides the reason of this result, which is:

No reseachable thing is complete(total) AND resachable, because completeness (totality) is non-reseachable.

 

[doronshadmi]

You mean you don't know the general definition.

Natural numbers are subset of rational numbers.
Both rational and irrational numbers are subsets of real numbers.
Real numbers are a subset of complex numbers, where the imaginary part is zero.
And complex numbers are a subset of hypercomplex numbers, such as quaternions. Hypercomplex numbers can be viewed as being vectors of reals, so the generalisation is straightforward.

A geranalization of X is an unchanged property of X under any manipolation.

For example: By my theory, a number is the simplest result (which is reseachable) of Symmetry\Asymmetry complementation.

Please show this unchanged property of the concept of Number by using standard Math.

 

[doronshadmi]

We can only hope that your current material will soon be extinct.

Why?

Because you wish to force the totality of the non-researchable on the researchable, as some restriction that prevents any Evolution of it?

Well save your power for real creativity because totality is complete without any help from you and any definition is more complex than completeness at its self state.

Definitions work only when we deal with the researchable.

 

[doronshadmi]

(a) you have been contradicting yourself

No, you contradict yourself by trying to force completeness on the incomplete.

You are not aware of it, because you are not aware of the researchable\non-researchable aspects of your consciousness.

Your so called organic natural numbers cannot stand on their own,

Before you say anything about ONNs you firsrt have to show that you understand ONNs.

 

[PixyMisa]

Not at all, Godel's Incompleteness explicitly supports my theory which is:

No resaechable thing is both consistent AND complete (total).

No.

Gödel's (first) incompleteness theorem states this:

To every

-consistent recursive class

of formulas, there correspond recursive class-signs

such that neither (

Gen

) nor Neg(

Gen

) belongs to Flg(

), where

is the free variable of

See the difference?

My theory provides the reason of this result, which is:

No reseachable thing is complete(total) AND resachable, because completeness (totality) is non-reseachable.

Total nonsense.

Gödel proved his theorem. You can't "provide the reason of this result". It's proved within the very formal system to which it applies. (Actually, it's proved once for an entire class of formal systems, including arithmetic.)

 

[doronshadmi]

No.

Gödel's (first) incompleteness theorem states this:



See the difference?


Total nonsense.

Gödel proved his theorem. You can't "provide the reason of this result". It's proved within the very formal system to which it applies. (Actually, it's proved once for an entire class of formal systems, including arithmetic.)

He did it because he used non-locality as a hidden assumption.

Without non-locality no two things can be considered as class (or more generally, the Multitude does not hold).

You cannot grasp this simplicity because your mind is lost by sophisticated games.

 

[PixyMisa]

He did it because he used non-locality as a hidden assumption.

Without non-locality no two things can be considered as class (or more generally, the Multitude does not hold).

You cannot grasp this simplicity because your mind is lost by sophisticated games.

Gödel's incompleteness theorem holds true for arithmetic, Doron. It's provably true for arithmetic using arithmetic.

You know, that 1+1=2 stuff? Provably incomplete, using nothing more than that 1+1=2 stuff.

 

[doronshadmi]

Gödel's incompleteness theorem holds true for arithmetic, Doron. It's provably true for arithmetic using arithmetic.

You know, that 1+1=2 stuff? Provably incomplete, using nothing more than that 1+1=2 stuff.

Yes, I Know. But arithmetic does not hold without Non-locality\Locality complementation.

The same hidden-assumption can be found in Hilbert's Axioms of Geometry. ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3625059&postcount=667 ).

He uses a line and a point without understanding them as non-local atom (line) and local atom (point) that are not defined by each other, but can be used in order to get a researchable framework, if they complement each other.

So as you see, from this general point of view of the researchable, we are enable to understand that incompleteness is a fundamental property of the researchable, whether it is called Geometry or Arithmetic.

Simple, isn't it? (and it also can be shown at the basis of Logic).

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, I Know. But arithmetic does not hold without Non-locality\Locality complementation.

Curiously enough, this does not appear to number among the Peano axioms.

And I shudder to think what tortured definition you are using for "locality".

 

[Complexity]

doronshadmi - Where do you see this thread going?

You've failed to persuade a single person that there is anything of value in your work.

We can continue the tedious cycles of "Yes, it is!", "No, it isn't." until the cows come home.

I'll be shocked if anyone changes their mind.

If you're tryiing to get your work out to where the world can see it, you've accomplished that.

Too bad that, in the light of day, it doesn't hold up.

I suggest that you take the approach of "we'll just have to disagree", pick up your marbles, and go home.