• 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:
A line-segment is first of all a line. If you define some part of a line, it is called line-segment.

Now you can take finitely many smaller (w.r.t each other) multiple line-segments and add them such that they are > than a line-segment with length X, and walla, we have the Archimedean Property even if no nA is involved.
Click to expand...

I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a mathematician. But this quote makes me think you don't understand infinitesimal.
 
Crawtator said:
I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a mathematician. But this quote makes me think you don't understand infinitesimal.
Click to expand...
Wellcome Crawtator,

There is no infinitesimal in this quote.

Infinitesimals are endless smaller individual things > 0.

For more details, please observe, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11708547&postcount=2451 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11720090&postcount=2496.
 
Last edited:
Crawtator said:
I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a mathematician. But this quote makes me think you don't understand infinitesimal.
Click to expand...
By compressing your imagination infinitely many times and yet be > 0, you actually become a mathematician that understands infinitesimals.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
A definition that is done by partially using our brain, is invalid and leads to invalid mathematical agreements.
Click to expand...
We just disagree on who is doing that.

You are certainly welcome to use whatever definitions and axioms you want and try to build a foundation upon them. Using different definitions, however, means you are not addressing existing mathematics. Hence you are not addressing the criticisms so ably put forth by others.
 
CriticalThanking said:
You are certainly welcome to use whatever definitions and axioms you want and try to build a foundation upon them. Using different definitions, however, means you are not addressing existing mathematics. Hence you are not addressing the criticisms so ably put forth by others.
Click to expand...
Definitions and axioms of traditional mathematics are not based on visual AND symbolic brain skills.

As a result traditional mathematicians can't comprehend, for example, endless smaller things, as clearly observed, for example, in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11708547&postcount=2451 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11720090&postcount=2496.

CriticalThanking said:
We just disagree on who is doing that.
Click to expand...
Traditional mathematicians almost only their symbolic brain skills at the basis of their definitions and axioms, so there is no doubt who partially use their brain skills during their mathematical work.

jsfisher said:
This is another bare assertion. No evidence, just bluster.
Click to expand...
You are a concrete example of a traditional mathematician that use only symbolic brain skills at the basis of definitions and axioms.

More one of your skips on http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11736509&postcount=2649 has been noted.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
This is another bare assertion. No evidence, just bluster.
Click to expand...

Look, if you disagree with Doronshadmi, then you are using only the symbolic part of your brain. If you use the visual part, too, then you will agree with him, because that is what he said. And this is, of course, the nature of mathematics: one person points to a picture and shouts, "See?" and the other person says, "Oh, yeah, I get it now."

You're not doing math right.
 
doronshadmi said:
Definitions and axioms of traditional mathematics are not based on visual AND symbolic brain skills.

As a result traditional mathematicians can't comprehend, for example, endless smaller things, as clearly observed, for example, in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11708547&postcount=2451 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11720090&postcount=2496.


Traditional mathematicians almost only their symbolic brain skills at the basis of their definitions and axioms, so there is no doubt who partially use their brain skills during their mathematical work.
Click to expand...
I highlighted another word whose definition you have changed from a common usage.

Would it be productive for me to say it is because you are (not) using some part of your anatomy? In what way does it further discussion?
 
doronshadmi said:
What is a common usage of this word?

Does it rely only on our symbolic brain skills?
Click to expand...
It is apparently clear only to you. You are the only person in the world who understands doronetics (tm). Therefore it is unclear to the rest of humanity, who by extension, must not be thinking with the appropriate chunk of anatomy.
 
Someone with better math training than I (almost zero) can correct me, but...

Is your point of contention this: an infinite amount of infinitesimals is no longer infinitesimal? If this is your point, don't you understand that this is encompassed by the DEFINITION OF INFINITESIMAL?
 
Last edited:
CriticalThanking said:
at this time the only person visual and symbolic brain skills is you.
Click to expand...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11713929&postcount=2466 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11716498&postcount=2467 clearly show that whether one aware of it, or not, both visual AND symbolic brain skills are active during mathematical work.

Unfortunately the mathematics that was developed for the past 2500 years, is currently learned almost only by using our symbolic-only brain skills, and in order to fix this artificial restriction, mathematical learning has to be opened to modern scientific researches of human brain activity during mathematical work.

By being opened to these scientific researches, no mathematical developments will be forced to be done by symbolic-only brain skills in order to be accepted.

More details that are not restricted to symbolic-only | visual-only dichotomous mathematical work, are already found in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11721126&postcount=2504 (including the links there).

Also skipping on http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11735133&postcount=2610 , http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11735408&postcount=2638 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11735016&postcount=2605 does not help anyone that really wishes to understand my arguments.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Unfortunately the mathematics that was developed for the past 2500 years, is currently learned almost only by using our symbolic-only brain skills, and in order to fix this artificial restriction, mathematical learning has to be opened to modern scientific researches of human brain activity during mathematical work.

By being opened to these scientific researches, no mathematical developments will be forced to be done by symbolic-only brain skills in order to be accepted.
Click to expand...

You propose to throw out 2500 years of a well developed field and replace it with a few hundred words from several posts on an internet forum? Even when those posts are mainly compilations of word-salad comprising monumental re-definitions of already existing terms? Really?
 
Crawtator said:
You propose to throw out 2500 years of a well developed field
Click to expand...
Not at all (you have missed "is currently learned almost only by using our symbolic-only brain skills").

I am talking about mathematical developments of the past 200 years that deal with infinity by using almost only symbolic brain skills, that are currently still learned as the main method around the glob, by ignoring scientific researches of how our brain is actually activated during mathematical work.

Crawtator said:
and replace it with a few hundred words from several posts on an internet forum? Even when those posts are mainly compilations of word-salad comprising monumental re-definitions of already existing terms? Really?
Click to expand...
Word-salad is indeed the best that one can get by trying to comprehend mathematical work that is based on visual AND symbolic brain skills, by using his\her symbolic-only | visual-only brain skills.

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

Can you tell why do you avoid http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11738027&postcount=2665 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11739625&postcount=2675 ?

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

Also rhetoric questions are not very useful for actual learning.
 
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