Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

[doronshadmi]

You haven't shown any work, yet. Just assertions and hand-waving.

What you see is what you get.

In your case you don't see, since you don't use your visual_spatial brain skills in addition to your verbal_symbolic brain skills, in order to do math.

Nobody but you is responsible to see in order to get.

 

[jsfisher]

You haven't shown any work, yet. Just assertions and hand-waving.

What you see is what you get.

Yes. This is well-known.

In your case you don't see, since you don't use your visual_spatial brain skills in addition to your verbal_symbolic brain skills, in order to do math.

Yeah, yeah. Your go-to excuse. Nobody can see that all your wrong ideas are really right because they are using the wrong brain skills. How unfortunate for you. If only you could actually define things, and then maybe formally prove things, then you could show everyone, but no, because we all have bad brain skills.

 

[doronshadmi]

because we all have bad brain skills.

jsfisher, speak for yourself and only for yourself.

You definitely have visual_spatial brain skills, but you simply choose not to use them (in addition to your verba_symbolic brain skills) in order to do math.

You and only you are responsible to use or not to use your brain skills.

There is no we to share with you your responsibility, in the considered case.

As for the currently discussed case, the totally smooth endlessly increasing a² is beyond your attempts to close it under your fixed-only paradigm.

 

[jsfisher]

jsfisher, speak for yourself and only for yourself.

You should follow your own advice.

But then you couldn't use your go-to excuse for why you cannot define anything nor prove anything with anything even vaguely close to recognizable Mathematics.

So, doctor, heal thyself by stop telling me about how I lack the cognitive abilities to see your brilliance.

...snip all the ironic part where doronshadmi fails to follow his own advice...

 

[doronshadmi]

You should follow your own advice.

But then you couldn't use your go-to excuse for why you cannot define anything nor prove anything with anything even vaguely close to recognizable Mathematics.

So, doctor, heal thyself by stop telling me about how I lack the cognitive abilities to see your brilliance.

Doctor jsfisher the totally smooth endlessly increasing a² is beyond your attempts to close it under your fixed-only paradigm (your currently recognizable Mathematics).

Add your visual_spatial brain skills to your mathematical activity and I ensure you that you will have no problem to understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12130235&postcount=2837.

For example, Mathematics comes to life through the ability of the human brain to understand the Pythagorean Theorem under the totally smooth infinite growth of one of the perpendicular sides of a given triangle.

 

[jsfisher]

...snip...

I see you persist with your go-to excuse and cover for your own mathematical inabilities. You are again now stuck in your rut of kindergarten taunts.

I'm done with this round of things you can't get right.

History suggests you will persist for several more posts, most of them of a mocking nature. Then there will be another hiatus. Then you will return with yet another version of your misunderstanding of Mathematics.

See you then.

 

[doronshadmi]

I see you persist with your go-to excuse and cover for your own mathematical inabilities. You are again now stuck in your rut of kindergarten taunts.

I'm done with this round of things you can't get right.

History suggests you will persist for several more posts, most of them of a mocking nature. Then there will be another hiatus. Then you will return with yet another version of your misunderstanding of Mathematics.

See you then.

Well jsfisher, it seems that you choose, literally, not to take the a² train.

So stay in your station and this is 4U.

-----------------------------

To those who are interested, please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12130235&postcount=2837.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Also see this, where |x₁-x₂| is a totally smooth endlessly increasing value.

No it's not. Did you read and understand the page/article?

In both cases we are dealing with totally smooth endlessly increasing triangle(s), where one of the perpendicular sides has a fixed value > 0.

No "we" aren't.

The article/page deals with finding the distance between two points. No mention of infinity.

 

[doronshadmi]

The article/page deals with finding the distance between two points. No mention of infinity.

The Pythagorean Theorem is involved with finding the distance between two points (appears here as d² = (x₁-x₂)² + (y₁-y₂)²), but if |x₁-x₂| is taken as a totally smooth endlessly increasing value (like a totally plastic strip-like element) the Pythagorean Theorem holds also in terms of potential infinity, and one realizes that finite values (|y₁-y₂| in this case) have impact on two different potential infinite values (please observe http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12126277&postcount=2799).

Conclusion: Cantorean set theories can't be considered as the foundations of any possible interesting mathematical framework.

 

[doronshadmi]

Some correction of the equation in the previous post.

It has to be d² = (x₂-x₁)² + (y₂-y₁)²

 

[Hevneren]

The Pythagorean Theorem is involved with finding the distance between two points (appears here as d² = (x₁-x₂)² + (y₁-y₂)²), but if |x₁-x₂| is taken as a totally smooth endlessly increasing value (like a totally plastic strip-like element) the Pythagorean Theorem holds also in terms of potential infinity, and one realizes that finite values (|y₁-y₂| in this case) have impact on two different potential infinite values (please observe http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12126277&postcount=2799).

Conclusion: Cantorean set theories can't be considered as the foundations of any possible interesting mathematical framework.

Please show us some proof for the highlighted portion.

 

[doronshadmi]

Please show us some proof for the highlighted portion.

All you have to do is to totally smoothly and endlessly stretch one of the perpendicular sides of a given triangle (please use your visual_spatial brain skills in addition to your verbal_symbolic brain skills, in order to do that).

By doing so, you realize that a² + b² = c², even if, for example, a² is the triangle's stretched element.

By not using also your visual_spatial brain skills, you get a² + b² = c² only in terms of finite or potential infinitely many fixed steps, and this is the current paradigm that is used to prove the Pythagorean Theorem.

The awareness that a² + b² = c² even if, for example, a² is totally smoothly and endlessly stretched, enables us to develop mathematics beyond its current fixed-only paradigm, such that changes, measurements, values, relations etc. are not necessarily collections of fixed-only things.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

The Pythagorean Theorem is involved with finding the distance between two points (appears here as d² = (x₁-x₂)² + (y₁-y₂)²),

So far so good. Let's see if you understand that (x₁,y₁) and (x₂, y₂) refer to the (x,y) co-ordinates of two points.

but if |x₁-x₂| is taken as a totally smooth endlessly increasing value (like a totally plastic strip-like element)

and, no you don't

the Pythagorean Theorem holds also in terms of potential infinity, and one realizes that finite values (|y₁-y₂| in this case) have impact on two different potential infinite values (please observe http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12126277&postcount=2799).

Conclusion: Cantorean set theories can't be considered as the foundations of any possible interesting mathematical framework.

Here's a good analogy of your posts.

Directions to make orange juice from orange juice concentrate is to add water. Everyone can read the can and knows to add water to the concentrate. Everyone gets what is expected.

You read the same instructions and add hammers instead of water. And you use motor oil instead of orange juice concentrate.

Then you blame everyone for not reading the directions. Then you say that everyone needs to follow your directions to get orange juice. They you call hammers "poundy things". Then you call them "bammers" and tell us how to make orange juice with bammers and motor oil. Then you call "bammers" "squashers with sticks". Then get mad at people who point out that you haven't made orange juice. Then rename "squashers with sticks" to "boombangs", and tell people that they should be making orange juice with your recipe because they're wrong and can't see that you're right since they're not doing it your way. You call your boombangs and oil mix orange juice and can't understand why everyone else calls it something else. Every once and a while, you may change the type or weight of the oil, or get a different brand or model of hammer / poundy things / bammers / squashers with sticks / boombangs, but everyone knows it's hammers and motor oil.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

So far so good. Let's see if you understand that (x₁,y₁) and (x₂, y₂) refer to the (x,y) co-ordinates of two points.



and, no you don't



Here's a good analogy of your posts.

Directions to make orange juice from orange juice concentrate is to add water. Everyone can read the can and knows to add water to the concentrate. Everyone gets what is expected.

You read the same instructions and add hammers instead of water. And you use motor oil instead of orange juice concentrate.

Then you blame everyone for not reading the directions. Then you say that everyone needs to follow your directions to get orange juice. They you call hammers "poundy things". Then you call them "bammers" and tell us how to make orange juice with bammers and motor oil. Then you call "bammers" "squashers with sticks". Then get mad at people who point out that you haven't made orange juice. Then rename "squashers with sticks" to "boombangs", and tell people that they should be making orange juice with your recipe because they're wrong and can't see that you're right since they're not doing it your way. You call your boombangs and oil mix orange juice and can't understand why everyone else calls it something else. Every once and a while, you may change the type or weight of the oil, or get a different brand or model of hammer / poundy things / bammers / squashers with sticks / boombangs, but everyone knows it's hammers and motor oil.

You forgot the part where he takes a photo of an empty glass, the concentrate can and a hammer and tells everyone to look it multiple times, Insisting if you look at it just the right way you will see a full glass of OJ.

 

[doronshadmi]

So far so good. Let's see if you understand that (x₁,y₁) and (x₂, y₂) refer to the (x,y) co-ordinates of two points.



and, no you don't



Here's a good analogy of your posts.

Directions to make orange juice from orange juice concentrate is to add water. Everyone can read the can and knows to add water to the concentrate. Everyone gets what is expected.

You read the same instructions and add hammers instead of water. And you use motor oil instead of orange juice concentrate.

Then you blame everyone for not reading the directions. Then you say that everyone needs to follow your directions to get orange juice. They you call hammers "poundy things". Then you call them "bammers" and tell us how to make orange juice with bammers and motor oil. Then you call "bammers" "squashers with sticks". Then get mad at people who point out that you haven't made orange juice. Then rename "squashers with sticks" to "boombangs", and tell people that they should be making orange juice with your recipe because they're wrong and can't see that you're right since they're not doing it your way. You call your boombangs and oil mix orange juice and can't understand why everyone else calls it something else. Every once and a while, you may change the type or weight of the oil, or get a different brand or model of hammer / poundy things / bammers / squashers with sticks / boombangs, but everyone knows it's hammers and motor oil.

You are not using also your visual_spatial brain skills (in addition to your verbal_symbolic skills) in order to define |x₁-x₂| as a totally smooth endlessly increasing value.

More details about the needed paradigm shift, in the considered case, is already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12131858&postcount=2852 and yet under this paradigm-shift a² + b² = c² holds (or by your analogy, we get the expected result even if |x₁-x₂| (which is equivalent to a², in the considered case) is defined as a totally smooth endlessly increasing value).

Conclusion: Cantorean set theories can't be considered as the foundations of any possible interesting mathematical framework.

 

[Hevneren]

You are not using also your visual_spatial brain skills (in addition to your verbal_symbolic skills) in order to define |x₁-x₂| as a totally smooth endlessly increasing value.

More details about the needed paradigm shift, in the considered case, is already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12131858&postcount=2852 and yet under this paradigm-shift a² + b² = c² holds (or by your analogy, we get the expected result even if |x₁-x₂| (which is equivalent to a², in the considered case) is defined as a totally smooth endlessly increasing value).

Conclusion: Cantorean set theories can't be considered as the foundations of any possible interesting mathematical framework.

Once you pick a value from a "potentially infinite" construct, that value is FINITE, even if the construct itself would never "finish". Therefore, a² is finite, as is (a² + b²). You don't get to invent your own kinds of infinity. I suspect you're thinking in terms of old-fashioned computer programming, where you could increment an x₂ variable many, many times and Pythagoras would hold for any value of x₂.

 

[doronshadmi]

Once you pick a value from a "potentially infinite" construct

You don't pick anything from a potential infinity that is defined as totally smooth endlessly increasing value.

You can't define a totally smooth endlessly increasing value in terms of fixed value or collection of fixed values.

You don't get to invent your own kinds of infinity.

It is not my own kind of infinity, it is simply a totally smooth endlessly increasing value that easily used in a² + b² = c²

I suspect you're thinking in terms of old-fashioned computer programming

There is no basis to your suspicion.

Actually you have missed http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12131858&postcount=2852 altogether, by being stucked in the fixed-only value paradigm.

 

[Myriad]

In a smoothly ever-lengthening right triangle, where c (and consequently b) expand indefinitely, as c approaches infinity, the tangent of the angle between sides b and c (which is also the ratio a/b) and the cosine of that angle (which is the ratio a/c) both approach zero. Thus the angle itself approaches zero. The sine of the angle, which is b/c, approaches 1. Thus b and c approach equality.

 

[Hevneren]

In a smoothly ever-lengthening right triangle, where c (and consequently b) expand indefinitely, as c approaches infinity, the tangent of the angle between sides b and c (which is also the ratio a/b) and the cosine of that angle (which is the ratio a/c) both approach zero. Thus the angle itself approaches zero. The sine of the angle, which is b/c, approaches 1. Thus b and c approach equality.

Of course, except in Bizarro World, where a certain forum member apparently spends most of his time.

 

[doronshadmi]

In a smoothly ever-lengthening right triangle, where c (and consequently b) expand indefinitely, as c approaches infinity, the tangent of the angle between sides b and c (which is also the ratio a/b) and the cosine of that angle (which is the ratio a/c) both approach zero. Thus the angle itself approaches zero. The sine of the angle, which is b/c, approaches 1. Thus b and c approach equality.

Under potential infinity (smooth or discrete) approaches a given value < actually reaching a given value.

If in the considered case b² is a fixed value > 0, then c² and a² are the totally smooth endlessly increasing values such that c² is greater than a² exactly by b².

For more details please observe http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12126277&postcount=2799.