• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
To other posters that do not appear at the top of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11721126&postcount=2504)?, you are welcome to open the links there and discuss about their contents.

But please be aware that no fruitful discussion really happens about the issues at hand unless you are open to use both your visual AND symbolic brain skills during the communication among us.
Click to expand...
I just wonder why you, of all people, think that you know the future development of math, while you don't even understand the simplest parts of calculus? It's OK that you don't get it; I know a lot of great people who don't understand math, but why do you think that your missing skills make you some kind of guru?
 
It is ok that there are people that choose to ignore scientific researches of how the human brain combines its visual AND symbolic brain skills during maths work.

Those who do not ignore this fact choose to combine these abilities, and as a result they have no problems to realize that symbolic-only or visual-only deductions can't actually realize (by using their symbolic-only | visual-only agreements) what's really going on in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11721126&postcount=2504)?

Mathematical agreements that are based on combining our visual AND symbolic brain skills during maths work, are the natural direction of mathematical developments, and these agreements (among other scientific developments) actually "open the door" for Unity consciousness in daily life among human beings.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Mathematical agreements that are based on combining our visual AND symbolic brain skills during maths work, are the natural direction of mathematical developments.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure, if you say so. That still would not cause any reversal of established Mathematics. Mathematics isn't flexible that way.

Cantor's Theorem still stands; 2 is a member of {2}; 0.9999... is still 1; and a set is not the union of its elements.
 
No actual establishment (including mathematics) is achieved by partially using our brain skills.

Cantor's transfinite universe or Weierstrass work on limits are both established on the wrong notion of The Archimedean Property, exactly because they used only their symbolic-only brain skills during their mathematical works.

New educational methods that are based on using both our visual AND symbolic brain skill are already developed around the globe and gradually but surly replace the educational methods that are based on the dichotomy between our visual-only | symbolic-only brain skills.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Cantor's transfinite universe or Weierstrass work on limits are both established on the wrong notion of The Archimedean Property, exactly because they used only their symbolic-only brain skills during their mathematical works.
Click to expand...

Archimedes is at fault now, too? What is it you dislike about his fifth axiom or the property bearing his name?
 
jsfisher said:
Archimedes is at fault now, too? What is it you dislike about his fifth axiom or the property bearing his name?
Click to expand...
Let me guess: Doron doesn't understand infinity or infinitesimals, therefore a concept that involves any of those can't possibly have any merit.
 
Hevneren said:
Let me guess: Doron doesn't understand infinity or infinitesimals, therefore a concept that involves any of those can't possibly have any merit.
Click to expand...

Quite soon, I predict, Doronshadmi will be reintroducing his own version of infinitesimals for your benefit. It will be completely devoid of definition but completely understood by anyone having his superior reasoning skills.
 
jsfisher said:
Archimedes is at fault now, too? What is it you dislike about his fifth axiom or the property bearing his name?
Click to expand...
Good morning, after several posts of mine that explicitly reject The Archimedean Property you suddenly wake up, simply marvelous.

By using the The Archimedean Property one misses the true nature of infinite collections which is exactly the inability to define them in terms of fixed values.

Hevneren said:
Let me guess: Doron doesn't understand infinity or infinitesimals, therefore a concept that involves any of those can't possibly have any merit.
Click to expand...
Exactly the opposite, by using The Archimedean Property the endless larger and the endless smaller are not known.

jshisher and you are actual examples of such lack of knowledge exactly because of the dichotomy between your visual brain skills | symbolic brain skills.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
By using the The Archimedean Property one misses the true nature of infinite collections which is exactly the inability to define them in terms of fixed values.
Click to expand...

One does not use the Archimedean property. It is not like butter you may apply to toast if you so choose. It is a property, after all. Things can have the property, or not; you don't get to decide.
 
jsfisher said:
One does not use the Archimedean property. It is not like butter you may apply to toast if you so choose. It is a property, after all. Things can have the property, or not; you don't get to decide.
Click to expand...
Exactly because you agree to define the real number in terms the Archimedean property you miss the true nature of infinite collections which is exactly the inability to define them in terms of fixed values.

By agree with The Archimedean Property the endless larger and the endless smaller (which naturally can't be defined in terms of fixed values) are not known.

Hevneren and you are actual examples of such lack of knowledge exactly because of the dichotomy between your visual brain skills | symbolic brain skills.
 
doronshadmi said:
Exactly because you agree to define the real number in terms the Archimedean property
Click to expand...

Another bare assertion. Got anything to support it?

Got any support for your other recent bare assertion regarding the so-called Axiom of Mathematics?
 
doronshadmi said:
Still can't comprehend that no fixed value is related to endless things, whether they are called real numbers, natural numbers or whatever.
Click to expand...

What precisely are you attempting to say here? Are you suggesting that the real numbers, et al., don't have the Archimedean Property?
 
jsfisher said:
What precisely are you attempting to say here? Are you suggesting that the real numbers, et al., don't have the Archimedean Property?
Click to expand...
No endless things have the Archimedean Property, no matter what names are given to endless things.

A concrete proof, based on visual AND symbolic brain skills is already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11708547&postcount=2451.

jsfisher said:
Got any support for your other recent bare assertion regarding the so-called Axiom of Mathematics?
Click to expand...
The Axiom Of Mathematics:

Given X, no sub-X is X.

This axiom determines that no expressions that may emerge from X, are X, simply because X is non-composed by definition that is known both visually AND symbolically.

Generally, no collection (sub-X things) is the non-composed X.

More details are already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11700724&postcount=2342 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11706920&postcount=2438.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

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