Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apathia said:
I think he has a perspective with which he tries to stretch and twist mathematical terms to accommodate. The perspective itself is ambiguous and not formally logical
Click to expand...

You are wrong dear Apathia, please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10337277&postcount=181.

jsfisher said:
Doron is not positing ambiguity. Doron redefines things to yield a different result, then claims it is a matter of perspective.
Click to expand...

My suggested view of the real-line (and also the view beyond it) is more accurate than the traditional point of view that uses only ∞ to describe Infinity, in this discussed case.

Moreover, I don't care if transfinite cardinality is discovered or invented.

I do care about the mathematician's abilities to use it as a part of his\her mathematical work, in this discussed case.
 
Last edited:
Yup! I was wrong about Ambiguity.
Organic Mathematics has out raced me again.
I can't even keep up with the "fast observation."

And since I realize that I'm not going to get what you mean by a "fast observation" as opposed to a "more than fast observation," I'm not going to speculate or attempt to understand.

Grace and peace, Doron. I wish I could understand this topic which is so fine and important to you. I wish I could find a common place of understanding we could work with. But again, I'm not confident I understand any word you say. We don't share a common language.

So please just accept a smile, as I leave you to whatever is going on here with the wish that it gives you happiness. :wackynotworthy:
 
Apathia said:
Yup! I was wrong about Ambiguity.
Organic Mathematics has out raced me again.
I can't even keep up with the "fast observation."
Click to expand...

That's just another of Doron's lateral shifts. His track record at defining things is, well, poor, but he does often substitute in different words now and again. I guess he thinks he's moving forward, but it is really sideways.
 
doronshadmi said:
My suggested view of the real-line (and also the view beyond it) is more accurate than the traditional point of view that uses only ∞ to describe Infinity, in this discussed case.
Click to expand...

No, your "suggested view" abandons meaning. The notation 0.999... has a precise meaning, and that meaning gives it a precise value, and that value is 1. Make up as many excuses as you like about points and speed blended with an unending supply of strawmen, and the value remains unchanged.
 
jsfisher said:
No, your "suggested view" abandons meaning. The notation 0.999... has a precise meaning, and that meaning gives it a precise value, and that value is 1.
Click to expand...
The meaning is given by observation, as done in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10334974&postcount=158.

Your observation is simply limited only to |N|.

More details are given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10332081&postcount=110 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10328657&postcount=73.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Were that true, you'd be defining your terms, not shifting to a different set of undefined terms.
Click to expand...
My terms are rigorously defined by the fact that |n>1| < |N| < |P(N)| < |P(P(N))| < |P(P(P(N)))| < |P(P(P(P(N))))| < ... , so you claim has no basis.
 
doronshadmi said:
My terms are rigorously defined by the fact that |n>1| < |N| < |P(N)| < |P(P(N))| < |P(P(P(N)))| < |P(P(P(P(N))))| < ... , so you claim has no basis.
Click to expand...

Which of your many made-up terms are you rigorously defining with this trivial iteration of Cantor's Theorem?

Be that as it may, what does any of this have to do with the mathematical meaning of 0.999...?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10337998&postcount=190.
Click to expand...

Pointing back to a previous post of yours doesn't suddenly make it do what it did not do before. You did not define anything in that prior post; you mostly pointed to yet other previous posts where you also failed to define anything.

Perhaps rather than reiterating empty statements by URL proxy, you could simply post, in one place, a definition for one of these made-up terms of yours.

The mathematical meaning of 0.999... is changed by observation....
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. It is well-fixed, and Doron doesn't get to rewrite the meaning of things to suit his personal incredulity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom