Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

[doronshadmi]

That post does not define successor. Try again.

I define it as an optional property of {X}, which your current reasoning can't handle with. So try again to expand your reasoning, if you wish to handle with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11300215&postcount=1605.

 

[jsfisher]

I defines it as an optional property of {X}, which your reasoning can't handle with.

No, you don't define it as anything. You simply observed that something either does or does not have the property--a universal truth nobody needed you to point out.

The truth is that you cannot define it because your whole fantasy involving infinite sets depends on the arbitrary. Give successor or complete a fixed definition, and suddenly things stop being so arbitrary, and doronetics ceases to work.

 

[doronshadmi]

You really should finish the previous current subject before you flitter off to a new one.

I define them as optional properties of {X} and X, which your current reasoning can't handle with. So try again to expand your reasoning, if you wish to handle with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11300215&postcount=1605.

 

[doronshadmi]

Give successor or complete a fixed definition, and suddenly things stop being so arbitrary,

So your reasoning does not distinguish between being arbitrary and being optional, as can clearly be seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11283531&postcount=1518 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11284073&postcount=1525.

Please answer to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11304059&postcount=1617.

 

[jsfisher]

So your reasoning does not distinguish between being arbitrary and being optional, as can clearly be seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11283531&postcount=1518 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11284073&postcount=1525.

Say what you will, your reasoning isn't to be found in Mathematics.

Please answer to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11304059&postcount=1617.

Did. And that is all the answer you will get.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

I define it as an optional property of {X}, which your current reasoning can't handle with. So try again to expand your reasoning, if you wish to handle with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11300215&postcount=1605.

Great. Successor is a property. Define successor.

If I start calling all your posts gribnot, wouldn't you want to know what I mean? But then again, you may not.

 

[doronshadmi]

Great. Successor is a property. Define successor.

The exact definition of successor (that is based on a reasoning that distinguishes between the must-have (called primitive) and the optional) is given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11300215&postcount=1605.

Your gribnot reasoning can't handle with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11300215&postcount=1605.

 

[doronshadmi]

Say what you will, your reasoning isn't to be found in Mathematics.

Another non-informative reply of yours.

Did.

Where exactly you provided links to professional mathematical sources that support your argument that "Mappings are unordered", such that being unordered is an essential (must have) property in order to mathematically be considered as mapping, in the first place?

 

[jsfisher]

Your gribnot reasoning....

You should have found out how Little 10 Toes defines that word before you started using it.

 

[doronshadmi]

You should have found out how Little 10 Toes defines that word before you started using it.

He defines it as a general name of my posts.

Giving names to my posts does not change the fact that Little 10 Toes's reasoning can't handle with my posts.

The first part of post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11305194&postcount=1627 is a concrete example of a reasoning that can't be handled by Little 10 Toes's reasoning.

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

jsfisher, since you are unable to use your mathematical skills in order to support your "Mappings are unordered" argument (as requested in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11305212&postcount=1628), I provide such a source taken from Cornell University:

In page 20 of http://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs2800/2015sp/lnotes/15_cardinality.pdf you can find the expression:

|Evens| < OR = |N| (also written as |Evens| ≤ |N|)

So as you see, |Evens| < |N| is an optional result of comparing cardinalities |Evens| and |N|, exactly as observed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11301653&postcount=1608.

 

[jsfisher]

Giving names to my posts does not change the fact that Little 10 Toes's reasoning can't handle with my posts.

No mathematical reasoning can handle your posts.

 

[jsfisher]

|Evens| < OR = |N| (also written as |Evens| ≤ |N|)

No, it is not. Not as you mean it, anyway. You use OR as the boolean inclusive-or and take absurd liberties applying it to things that are not terms. Your construction, < OR =, is not based in Mathematics. The comparative, less than or equal to, is an atomic relation despite the presence of that conjunction in its name.

|E| ≤ |N| <=> (|E| < |N|) or (|E| = |N|)
The ≤ is often written as <=.

< OR = is nonsense.

 

[doronshadmi]

< OR = is nonsense.

Wrong.

|E| < OR = |N| is the same as (|E| < |N|) OR (|E| = |N|), or in other words, |E| < |N| is an option exactly as |E| = |N| is an option.

Your arbitrary restricted reasoning simply omits |E| < |N| option, as very simply obsereved in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11301653&postcount=1608.

 

[doronshadmi]

No mathematical reasoning can handle your posts.

Your reasoning is no more no less than an arbitrary restriction on mathematical reasoning.

Moreover, there is a very high probability that you are going to miss what I wrote above because of what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11304307&postcount=1624.

 

[doronshadmi]

The comparative, less than or equal to, is an atomic relation despite the presence of that conjunction in its name.

The highlighted part is the same as < OR =, despite your twisted maneuvers.

 

[jsfisher]

The highlighted part is the same as < OR =, despite your twisted maneuvers.

Mathematics has a less than or equal to relation. It even has a symbol for it, ≤, and <= available as a substitute. It does not have a relation or a symbol, < OR =, though.

Be that as it may, what has this to do with your claim about ordered mappings?

And what does your claim about ordered mappings have to do with your inability to define what you mean by successor?

 

[doronshadmi]

Mathematics has a less than or equal to relation.

It is the same as < OR =, which is notated also as ≤.

Be that as it may, what has this to do with your claim about ordered mappings?

Mappings can be ordered OR unordered, and not just unordered, as you try to force on it.

And what does your claim about ordered mappings have to do with your inability to define what you mean by successor?

You are still missing the simple fact that your questions are direct result of your arbitrary restricted reasoning on Mathematics.

Because of this arbitrary restriction http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11305194&postcount=1627 is not in the scope of your reasoning.

 

[jsfisher]

It is the same as < OR =, which is notated also as ≤.

You made that up.

Mappings can be ordered OR unordered, and not just unordered, as you try to force on it.

You made that up, too. Mappings are unordered.

And these things you made up have nothing to do with your lack of definition for successor -- also something you made up.

 

[doronshadmi]

You made that up.

You arbitrarily made up restrictions on Mathematical reasoning.

Because of these restrictions your reasoning can't distinguish between being a primitive and being an optional property of a given primitive.

This inability is the common cause of your misunderstanding of the last issues at hand.

 

[jsfisher]

You arbitrarily made up restrictions on Mathematical reasoning.

Not me, no. On the other hand, mathematical reasoning works; doronetics reasoning, not so much.