Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

[Little 10 Toes]

Doron shows he does not understand English.

If you have an automobile club, is it an automobile or is it a club? How can a automobile join a club? How do you have a club made out of automobiles?

There are no gravititions but gravity works.

Mathematicians know there is an object and course of studies with well founded rules and definitions called mathematics.

As a result theybunderstand that ICM is actually International Congress of Mathematicians where they talk about mathematics.

Wikipedia quote: The International Congress of Mathematicians^WP (ICM) is the largest conference for the topic of mathematics.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

What's the definition of successor?

 

[doronshadmi]

Wikipedia quote: The International Congress of Mathematicians^WP (ICM) is the largest conference for the topic of mathematics.

There is no "the largest conference for the topic of mathematics" without mathematicians.

Moreover, Mathematics can be developed because of mathematicians.

Little_10_Toesetics, jsfirheretics or MetalPigetics is simply the view that Mathematics is only discovered (moreover, the question "discovered by whom?" is simply avoided).

Doronetics is simply the view that Mathematics is invented OR discovered, where in both cases Mathematicians are deeply involved.

 

[zooterkin]

Please look at the last line of your table. You have both x and ~x set to true. Why do you think that is a valid option?

It's there to balance the first line, where x and ~x are mysteriously simultaneously both false.

 

[zooterkin]

Being a successor, according to my definition, is not some member of a given set.

"In the set of natural numbers" still uses Successor(x) = x u {x}.

By using {x} as an optional successor of x there is a set of natural numbers that may be complete if {x} is not a successor of x OR incomplete if {x} is a successor of x.

In case of, for example, set {2,1,4,3,...}, that is notated as 4 is different than that is notated as 3, by that is notated as 1.

Doron, I'm talking about the set of natural numbers, not a set of natural numbers. Is it complete or incomplete? If incomplete, which members are missing and why?

 

[abaddon]

Still waiting for a definition of "successor".

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron, I'm talking about the set of natural numbers

By doing that you actually determine that it is complete, exactly becuae by zooterkinetics Successor(x) = x u {x}.

 

[doronshadmi]

It's there to balance the first line, where x and ~x are mysteriously simultaneously both false.

Already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11337788&postcount=1723, nothing is mysterious.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Still waiting for a definition of "successor".

 

[jsfisher]

Still waiting for a definition of "successor".

You know, Doron may have a point. The last time I bought a car, the car had several options. The dealer couldn't tell me what the options were, only that the car may have an option or it may not. Neither the dealer nor I had any way of telling which options the car had, so we had to guess and agreed upon a sales price accordingly.

To this day I still wonder what the options were. Oh, well. Nice car, though. Had to buy a radio for it.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

I just realized something silly about doron's system.

If dorenitics(sp?) is soooooo great, why is it asking if X is a successor (which, by the way, doron STILL hasn't defined; I haven't forgotten that) and then asking if it's not a successor?

If it was useful (which it isn't), it would just ask the question once. There would be a simple T or F answer.

 

[jsfisher]

I just realized something silly about doron's system.

If dorenitics(sp?) is soooooo great, why is it asking if X is a successor (which, by the way, doron STILL hasn't defined; I haven't forgotten that) and then asking if it's not a successor?

If it was useful (which it isn't), it would just ask the question once. There would be a simple T or F answer.

Doronetics isn't about getting anything right. It is all about claiming everything else is wrong. More economical that way. No need for an actual result, just a plate-full of undefined terms with word salad on the side.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doronetics isn't about getting anything right. It is all about claiming everything else is wrong.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11314932&postcount=1661 easily demonstrates that your claim has no basis.

 

[doronshadmi]

You know, Doron may have a point. The last time I bought a car, the car had several options. The dealer couldn't tell me what the options were, only that the car may have an option or it may not.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11279727&postcount=1485 clearly demonstrates how to use a car as an analogy and also what are exactly the options of this car.

 

[jsfisher]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11279727&postcount=1485 clearly demonstrates how to use a car as an analogy and also what are exactly the options of this car.

There were two. One was the successor option, and the other was the complete option.

 

[doronshadmi]

There were two. One was the successor option, and the other was the complete option.

Both are options, where the exact definition of an option is given by OR logical connective.

More details are already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11337788&postcount=1723.

Moreover, contradiction OR tautology means that they are not simultaneously taken, which enables to use them in mathematical frameworks in the first place.

 

[jsfisher]

Doron,

Does there exist one other person, just one, that agrees with your, um, novel views on Mathematics? There was your associate Moshe Klein, but even he abandoned you after the treatment you gave him here.

Just curious.

Oh, by the way, Mathematics continues to work despite all your criticism of it.

 

[jsfisher]

Both are options, where the exact definition of an option is given by OR logical connective.

More details are already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11337788&postcount=1723.

I see you can't tell me whether the car actually has either one of the options, then.

 

[doronshadmi]

I see ...

You don't see. In order to see it you first have to open your eyes.

So please open you eyes.

 

[jsfisher]

You don't see. In order to see it you first have to open your eyes.

So please open you eyes.

Your attempt to appear clever by cherry-picking a snippet of my statement failed. You'd be better served focusing on the claim rather than the claimant.