Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

[Little 10 Toes]

False, for example in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...#Infinitesimals you can find mathematical work that does not agree about The Archimedean Property.

No it is true. You just found out about this property.

By the way, what does successor mean? Remember that? How about doron-levels?

 

[doronshadmi]

By the way, what does successor mean? Remember that? How about doron-levels?

That is next to other things.

Given X, no sub-X is X, simply because non-composed X is not a collection of sub-X (it is beyond (or next) to any amount of sub-X).

More details are already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11724605&postcount=2540.

 

[doronshadmi]

Archimedes is at fault now, too?

Good morning, after several posts of mine that explicitly reject The Archimedean Property you suddenly wake up, simply marvelous.

This is a concrete proof of how jsfisher does exactly nothing in order to really comprehend my posts.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

FTFY

Thr Axiom Of Mathematics doron-matics:

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.

Given 2, no sub-2 is 2.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Still can't comprehend that no fixed value is related to endless things, whether they are called real numbers, natural numbers or whatever.

More details are already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11712656&postcount=2465.

I have a line that I have divided into infinite line segments of one unit length.

I have a separate line segment that I have divided into an infinite amount of segments.

I understand that.

 

[jsfisher]

No endless things have the Archimedean Property, no matter what names are given to endless things.

Other than because you said so, why would this be? Do you have a simple example among, say, the integers that would show a violation of the Archimedean Property?

Should be simple, no? You just need to exhibit some A and B, both positive, for which there is no integer n that satisfies the relationship nA > B.

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.

Your linked post focuses on convergent series (of the form a+b+c+d+...). That has nothing to do with the Archimedean Property.

The Axiom Of Mathematics:

Given X, no sub-X is X.

Yes, I know what you claimed it to be. I was asking for you to show it was something more than just a lie you'd fabricated.

 

[doronshadmi]

Other than because you said so, why would this be? Do you have a simple example among, say, the integers that would show a violation of the Archimedean Property?

Should be simple, no? You just need to exhibit some A and B, both positive, for which there is no integer n that satisfies the relationship nA > B.

Dedekind infinite (unlike in the case of finite things) holds exactly because the endless larger property of any infinite collection, which means that bijection between X and its proper subset does not eliminate the difference between X and sub-X, nor eliminate the fact that any infinite collection can't be defined by fixed value exactly because the substance of collections is non-composed (given X (the non-composed substance) no sub-X (its expressions as a collection) is X (the non-composed substance)).

Your linked post focuses on convergent series (of the form a+b+c+d+...). That has nothing to do with the Archimedean Property.

Since a+b+c+d+... is endless smaller thing, it can't be defined by fixed value, exactly as endless larger thing can't be defined by fixed value (explained above).

Yes, I know what you claimed it to be. I was asking for you to show it was something more than just a lie you'd fabricated.

No, you don't know that

Given X (the non-composed substance) no sub-X (its expression as collections) is X (the non-composed substance)

exactly because you can't deduce by using your visual AND symbolic brain skills.

As long as you can't do that you are living under the illusion of your symbolic-only | visual-only dichotomy.

More details about The Axiom Of Mathematics are already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11719779&postcount=2488 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11700724&postcount=2342.

 

[jsfisher]

Dedekind infinite...

...has nothing to do with the Archimedean Property.

Since a+b+c+d+... is endless smaller thing...

...it has nothing to do with the Archimedean Property, either.

It would seem you have been blaming things on the Archimedean Property without understanding what it even is. Should I be surprised?

No, you don't know that

Does your direct perception now extend into mind reading?

Be that as it may, you have alleged that Mathematics has your "The Axiom". It doesn't. It is just something you made that up. Whether you imagine it to be true or not makes no difference to the fact you simply fabricated it. Mathematics has no such axiom, let alone "The Axiom".

 

[doronshadmi]

...has nothing to do with the Archimedean Property.

...it has nothing to do with the Archimedean Property, either.

Since the Archimedean Property does not allow endless larger or endless smaller things, it is true that it has nothing to do with mathematical framework that allows endless larger or endless smaller things.

It would seem you have been blaming things on the Archimedean Property without understanding what it even is. Should I be surprised?

It is clear that you agree with the Archimedean Property exactly because of your dichotomous symbolic-only | visual_only reasoning.

Does your direct perception now extend into mind reading?

Not at all, for the past 9 years *you* clearly provide all is needed in order to know that your mathematical understanding is based on dichotomous symbolic-only | visual_only reasoning.

Mathematics has no such axiom, let alone "The Axiom".

Mathematics is inseparable of our brain skills, and exactly because of this inseparability it can be used as a useful tool in order to develop our brain into Unity consciousness, as already briefly explained in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11700724&postcount=2342 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11706920&postcount=2438 (where this link is about the fundamental concept of set).

Your Mathematics is obsolete exactly because it can't be used in order to develop our brain into Unity consciousness.

 

[Hevneren]

It is clear that you agree with the Archimedean Property exactly because of your dichotomous symbolic-only | visual_only reasoning.

The Archimedean property is something that some algebraic structures have and other algebraic structures don't have. One can't agree or disagree with it; that would be like agreeing with red hair or disagreeing with blue eyes. I suppose you "disagree" with it because some of the proofs that prove you wrong, rely on the set of real numbers having the Archimedean property.

Your Mathematics is obsolete exactly because it can't be used in order to develop our brain into Unity consciousness.

I can live with obsolete mathematics, if the alternative (Unity consciousness) is that you get to make the new, inconsistent, meaningless rules.

 

[jsfisher]

Since the Archimedean Property does not allow endless larger or endless smaller things...

The Archimedean Property does no such thing. It is a property. Something either has the property, or not.

 

[doronshadmi]

The Archimedean Property does no such thing.

It does exactly such things to infinitely many things, for example, the real numbers, such that infinitesimals are washed out by standard real analysis.

Because of standard real analysis one can't understand the non-composed substance of finite or infinite collections, and because of this misunderstanding one defines infinite collections by fixed values like limits, transfinite cardinal numbers etc.

 

[doronshadmi]

The Archimedean property is something that some algebraic structures have and other algebraic structures don't have.

The Archimedean property is an illusion about infinite collections that one gets by partially using his\her brain skills during his\her mathematical work.

This illusion is vanished by using both our visual AND symbolic brain skills during our mathematical work.

A concrete example of one that can't get of this illusion (because he\she does not using his\her visual AND symbolic brain skills) is clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11708547&postcount=2451.

Also see his\her reply about the considered diagram:

You repeat once again on your fundamental mistake about infinitely many things.

No, there aren't infinitely many orange figures in your diagram. So this time I get to say "all".

Indeed this is an "impressive" analysis of Hevneren of the considered diagram.

For more details, please see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11709154&postcount=2462, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11709260&postcount=2463, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11709740&postcount=2464 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11712656&postcount=2465.

As for works about Maths and human brain, please see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11713929&postcount=2466 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11716498&postcount=2467.

 

[jsfisher]

It does exactly such things to infinitely many things, for example, the real numbers, such that infinitesimals are washed out by standard real analysis.

You have that exactly backwards. The group formed by the reals and standard addition lacks infinitesimals. That characteristic has a name, but despite what you present, the name isn't what causes it.

You really need to give up you quest to disprove definitions. It isn't working for you. You don't like infinite series and limits and (now apparently) the Archimedean Property; Mathematics doesn't care.

 

[doronshadmi]

I can live with obsolete mathematics, if the alternative (Unity consciousness) is that you get to make the new, inconsistent, meaningless rules.

Inconsistency is exactly the treatment of traditional mathematics, which defines infinitely many things by fixed values like limit, transfinite cardinality etc.

 

[doronshadmi]

You have that exactly backwards. The group formed by the reals and standard addition lacks infinitesimals. That characteristic has a name, but despite what you present, the name isn't what causes it.

It is not about names, but about the wrong notions that stand at the basis of those names.

You really need to give up you quest to disprove definitions. It isn't working for you. You don't like infinite series and limits and (now apparently) the Archimedean Property; Mathematics doesn't care.

I really do not have to give up in order to expose the failure of those who trained to partially use their brain skills during mathematical work, and by partially using I mean the dichotomous symbolic-only | visual-only brain skills during mathematical work, where axioms, definitions etc. are inseparable parts of any mathematical work.

Mathematics doesn't care.

Now you try to hide under the name Mathematics, as if it is something that is not related of how we are using our brain skills.

Mathematics is no more not less than agreements among human beings, where these agreements are deeply related of how human beings actually using their brain skills, whether you aware of this fact, or not.

 

[jsfisher]

It is not about names, but about the wrong notions that stand at the basis of those names.

Speaking of wrong notions, you posted this:

No endless things have the Archimedean Property, no matter what names are given to endless things.

You put this false premise out there then raced to false conclusions. Until you establish the premise, nothing else matters.

The integers is one of those "endless things". The integers (coupled with simple addition) have the Archimedean Property. Your premise is flatly wrong.

 

[CriticalThanking]

I've ignored this thread for a few years. Based upon this last page, it does not look like anything has changed. Without a compelling reason, I'm not going back through it. A couple of questions:

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.

Is doron saying blind people can do correct mathematics?

I think I asked years ago if this new mathematics predicted any result differently than current mathematics. Has anything been proffered in the intervening time?

CT

 

[doronshadmi]

I've ignored this thread for a few years. Based upon this last page, it does not look like anything has changed. Without a compelling reason, I'm not going back through it. A couple of questions:


Is doron saying blind people can do correct mathematics?

What I say is that even Helen Keller can do Mathematics since her brain has the built-in ability to deduce in parallel (at once, or what I call visual brain skills) AND serial (step by step, or what I call symbolic brain skills).

Doubt and mistrust are the mere panic of timid imagination, which the steadfast heart will conquer, and the large mind transcend.

In the world within and the world without I see a wonderful correspondence, a glorious symbolism which reveals the human and the divine communing together, the lesson of philosophy repeated in fact. In all the parts that compose the history of mankind hides the spirit of good, and gives meaning to the whole.

Optimism is the harmony between man’s spirit and the spirit of God pronouncing His works good.

( http://www.gutenberg.org/files/31622/31622-h/31622-h.htm )

In short, Unity consciousness in daily life.

I think I asked years ago if this new mathematics predicted any result differently than current mathematics. Has anything been proffered in the intervening time?

The predicted result is Unity consciousness among human beings in daily life, exactly because my mathematical framework is inseparable of our brain, and our brain is inseparable of reality as already briefly explained in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11700724&postcount=2342.

 

[Hevneren]

What I say is that even Helen Keller can do Mathematics since her brain has the built-in ability to deduce in parallel (at once, or what I call visual brain skills) AND serial (step by step, or what I call symbolic brain skills).

I can say for sure that Helen Keller can't do mathematics. She died in 1968. But maybe she can do doronetics. That doesn't seem to require a functioning brain.