A hidden assumption

doronshadmi said:
Dear jsfisher,

There is no use to explain color to a blind man.
Click to expand...

Ah! you have met Christophera, then?

It was nice talking to you. I have learned a lot.

Have a nice life.
Click to expand...

Please tell me you are not running away. You made some claims...I asked you to support your accusations...And now you run away??

Wow. So, you really do make wild, unsupportable accusations about other people. When confronted, you dodge and weave, then eventually just run away.

Do you know what we call people like that? People that make false accusations, then hide? We call them....Liars.

Yes, you are now no longer just a suspected liar. You have demonstrated a profound ability to lie intentionally. Well done!!

Doronshadmi, you are a liar.
 
jsfisher said:
Silence and simplicity are not synonyms.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. Silence is used here as some analogy, and any definition is nothing but some analogy.

No analogy is Simplicity itself, because any analogy is more complex than Simplicity itself.

In other words Simplicity itself is naturally undefined, but used as the best point of view of any definition.

If you are blind to Simplicity itself as naturally undefined, and try to define it, it means that your abstract ability holds only if X is defined, but then you do not get X itself but only some analogy (definition) of it.

Since your abstract ability is blind to X itself, there is no use to continue our dialog about X, unless you directly get it without using any analogy.

You wrote:"Silence and simplicity are not synonyms"

Now understand what you wrote, and then we continue our dialog, if you wish.

As long as you claim that Cardinality is a complete thing, you actually say that some definition (some analogy) is synonym to completeness (totality) itself.

"Silence and simplicity are not synonyms" exactly because Simplicity itself is undefined (and undefined is not some definition, at the moment that you directly get Simplicity itself).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Now understand what you wrote, and then we continue our dialog, if you wish.
Click to expand...


Are you going to continue to dodge any responsibility for a false accusation you made? You alleged I had made contradictory statements. I challenged you to provide evidence, but instead you change the subject.

Either support your accusation, or retract it.

It is not possible to conduct a meaningful dialog with an openly dishonest person.
 
jsfisher said:
Are you going to continue to dodge any responsibility for a false accusation you made? You alleged I had made contradictory statements. I challenged you to provide evidence, but instead you change the subject.

Either support your accusation, or retract it.

It is not possible to conduct a meaningful dialog with an openly dishonest person.
Click to expand...

Does Cardinality is complete as Cantor claim (because if not, then Aleph0 idea does not hold)?

If your answer is "yes", then you make a contradictory statement, because no definition (analogy) is the thing itself.

If your answer by "no", then you supprort my theory and contradict your own claim that my theory is wrong.

If your answer is not yes and not no, then you are using the undefind, but then no premise or conclusion are distinguished from each other.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Does Cardinality is complete as Cantor claim (because if not, then Aleph0 idea does not hold)?
Click to expand...

Cantor made no such claim.

Your question is therefore unanswerable.

Define what you mean by "complete" in non-circular terms, and the question may become answerable. But probably not, because you don't understand the word "cardinality," either.

If your answer is not yes and not no, then you are using the undefind, but then no premise or conclusion are distinguished from each other.
Click to expand...

No, premises and conclusions can be distinguished from each other if they are well-defined (which "complete as Cantor claimed") is not.
 
doronshadmi said:
Does Cardinality is complete as Cantor claim (because if not, then Aleph0 idea does not hold)?

If your answer is "yes", then you make a contradictory statement, because no definition (analogy) is the thing itself.
Click to expand...


A hypothetical future event is not evidence for a past event.

Support your accusation or retract it.
 
jsfisher said:
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.
Click to expand...

awww, you're missing George, aren't you :)
 
nathan said:
awww, you're missing George, aren't you :)
Click to expand...


I miss ChristopherA and DavidJayJordan, too. And now add Becomingagodo to the list. But you are right, George was my favorite, and I do miss him.

;)
 
drkitten said:
Cantor made no such claim.
Click to expand...

Really?

"Cantor introduced into mathematics the notion of a completed set, so that the integers, for example, could be considered together as a set in themselves, and so as a completed infinite magnitude. Only by conceiving of the integers as a whole entity, (as a Ding für sich) could Cantor define the first transfinite number, which he denoted by a lower case omega (ω), in contradistinction to the familiar sideways eight infinity symbol (∞), which had only meant unbounded." ( www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1993/PSCF3-93Hedman.html )

"Cantor is quoted as saying:

The actual infinite arises in three contexts: first when it is realized in the most complete form, in a fully independent otherworldly being, in Deo, where I call it the Absolute Infinite or simply Absolute; second when it occurs in the contingent, created world; third when the mind grasps it in abstracto as a mathematical magnitude, number or order type."
( www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_Infinite )
 
doronshadmi said:
Really?

"Cantor introduced into mathematics the notion of a completed set, so that the integers, for example, could be considered together as a set in themselves, and so as a completed infinite magnitude.
Click to expand...


Yes.

"Completeness" is not the same as "a completed set."

Since "cardinality" is not a set, it is neither a "completed set" nor is it an "uncompleted set."


You might as well ask if "red" plays offense or defense. No, it doesn't. "Red" is a color, and colors don't play football.

Oh, and your very citation gives you the lie, if you understand the notation. The set of all integers is indeed a lower case omega (ω), but that's not the "cardinality" of the set of all integers. Cantor was very clear -- and for good reason -- about distinguishing between sets and their cardinality. The number ω is an ordinal number (the so-called first limit ordinal), and it has a cardinality of aleph-0 (which I can't figure out how to type). But other ordinals also have that same cardinality, for example ω+ω.

So, no, cardinality is not a set. (And I was right. You don't understand "complete," and even if you did, you don't understand "cardinality.")

I repeat, "Cantor never made such a claim."

You don't understand what Cantor said. Why should I believe you when you say you're fixing his math, when you don't even understand what you're fixing?
 
doronshadmi said:
Time is not involved here.

Now please answer to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3633810&postcount=725 .
Click to expand...


My answer is exactly the text you quoted in the above referenced post:

Are you going to continue to dodge any responsibility for a false accusation you made? You alleged I had made contradictory statements. I challenged you to provide evidence, but instead you change the subject.

Either support your accusation, or retract it.

It is not possible to conduct a meaningful dialog with an openly dishonest person.​
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
My answer is exactly the text you quoted in the above referenced post:

Are you going to continue to dodge any responsibility for a false accusation you made? You alleged I had made contradictory statements. I challenged you to provide evidence, but instead you change the subject.

Either support your accusation, or retract it.

It is not possible to conduct a meaningful dialog with an openly dishonest person.​
Click to expand...

At the moment that you answer to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3633810&postcount=725 you will get the exact answer to your question.

So please do it and see for yoursef how you contradict yourself, no matter what answer you provide.
 
doronshadmi said:
You do not need more than that.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I don't. That paper demonstrates pretty conclusively that you have no idea how transfinite mathematics works and that you've learned to parrot a few symbol strings but have no idea what they actually mean.

I had hoped that you could provide evidence against the obvious conclusion and in support of the idea that you had even a marginal understanding of Cantor's theories.

By your own admission, you have none.

This time please reply to the second part of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=734 .
Click to expand...

You mean this?

Contor's notion of a complete set means that the set of all things of some common property has an exact magnitude(a complete thing) which he called cardinal number.
Click to expand...

Easily responded to. I don't believe you know what any of the words in that phrase mean, either.
 
doronshadmi said:
At the moment that you answer to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3633810&postcount=725 you will get the exact answer to your question.

So please do it and see for yoursef how you contradict yourself, no matter what answer you provide.
Click to expand...


So, your statement that I had made (meaning in the past made) a contradictory statement, in doron's world of misunderstanding and gibberish really means that I will make (in the future) a contradictory statement?

Is this more of that 5 year-old reasoning you embrace? No wonder you understand so very little.

By the way, drkitten already provided a perfectly correct response to your bogus question.
 
jsfisher said:
So, your statement that I had made (meaning in the past made) a contradictory statement, in doron's world of misunderstanding and gibberish really means that I will make (in the future) a contradictory statement?

Is this more of that 5 year-old reasoning you embrace? No wonder you understand so very little.

By the way, drkitten already provided a perfectly correct response to your bogus question.
Click to expand...
jsfisher,

You have no choice but to agree with at least one of the 3 options:

1. Yes

2. No

3. Not any of the above options.

In all cases you contradict yourself, so time is not involved here.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom