Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

[jsfisher]

jsfisher, verbal_symbolic-only reasoning can't be used in order to criticize notions that relies on visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning, about the considered subject.

I was doing no such thing. I was criticizing the crap you made up to suit your inabilities to express cohesive thoughts. You cannot dismiss my criticism by continually circling the wagons with your mythical reasoning myth.

 

[jsfisher]

The infinite summation of 2^-n for n = 1 to infinity satisfies the "more precisely" part just fine. It therefore converges.

Since we are talking about summation of infinitely many things, it is no more than potential infinity

Ya, so?

...that can't reach...<gibberish snipped>...

Ya, so?

There is a perfectly serviceable definition in Mathematics for what it means for a infinite summation to converge. You don't get to add restrictions to that definition just because you want to or because you don't like the original. The infinite summation of 2^-n converges, and it converges to 1.

 

[doronshadmi]

Only according to you.

No, it is according to anyone that actually uses visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning.

 

[jsfisher]

Only according to you.

No, it is according to anyone that actually uses visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning.

That would be only you.

 

[doronshadmi]

I was doing no such thing.

This is exactly what you are doing. You are using verbal_symbolic-only reasoning.

 

[doronshadmi]

There is a perfectly serviceable definition in Mathematics for what it means for a infinite summation to converge. You don't get to add restrictions to that definition just because you want to or because you don't like the original. The infinite summation of 2^-n converges, and it converges to 1.

By using visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning, one deduces actual infinity in terms of non-composed object (for example, a non-composed circle, a non-composed line, etc.) that can't be defined in terms of infinitely many objects (for example, infinite collection of points), so such infinite collection is no more than potential infinity.


Now replace the points by infinitely many added smaller values (where each value > 0 (the smallest value 0 is not one of the endlessly added smaller values)), they don't have an accurate value, exactly because any collection of infinitely many values is no more than a potential infinity (it can't define the non-composed, which is, by visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning, actual infinity).

Ya, so?

So by using only verbal_symbolic reasoning, one can't be satisfied by any answer that relies on visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning.

 

[jsfisher]

This is exactly what you are doing. You are using verbal_symbolic-only reaoning.

Repeating yourself does not make it any more convincing.

If you want to be convincing, you need to find support from some authority that isn't you. Something that demonstrates that "visual_symbolic reasoning" (expressed exactly like that) is a valid proof technique. And, no, you don't get to pass off non-verbal reasoning (which is a real thing and something we all do to one extent or another) because it deals with cognition, not proof.

 

[doronshadmi]

If you want to be convincing, you need to find support from some authority that isn't you.

No authority is needed in order to use what one already naturally has, where visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning skills are natural abilities of any healthy human being.

Something that demonstrates that "visual_symbolic reasoning" (expressed exactly like that) is a valid proof technique. And, no, you don't get to pass off non-verbal reasoning (which is a real thing and something we all do to one extent or another) because it deals with cognition, not proof.

Let's go to the basics.

Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof):

"A proof can be traced back to self-evident or assumed statements, known as axioms along with accepted rules of inference.".

Statements and accepted rules of inference as described above, are forms of verbal_symbolic reasoning.


By using also visual_spatial reasoning in addition to verbal_symbolic reasoning, also diagrams or visual_spatial interpretations of symbols (including their absence) are used for deduction.


Here are some examples, that can't be reasoned by using only verbal_symbolic reasoning:


www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12407181&postcount=3050


www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12331274&postcount=3019

Unlike in classic mathematics, the cardinality of, for example, {a,b,c,...} (notated as {|a,b,c,...|} is endlessly changing (classic mathematics can't deal with non fixed cardinalities).

Yet it can be compared with other cardinal numbers, for example:

{|a,b,c,...|} < {|a,b,c,...|+1} by 1

{|a,b,c,...|} < {|a,b,c,...|*|a,b,c,...|} = {|a,b,c,...|*2} twice (in this case the notion of proportion is used).

etc.

Also {|a,b,c|} < {|a,b,c,...|} but the difference is non fixed.


Generally we have the following types of cardinality:

{| |} is the cardinality of NOthing (logically defined as contradiction). (classic mathematics can't deal with this notion)

|{ }| is the cardinality of YESthing (logically defined as tautology). (classic mathematics can't deal with this notion)


{|a,b,c|} is an example of a fixed cardinality (logically defined as ~contradiction AND ~tautology).

{|a,b,c,...|} is an example of a non fixed (endlessly changing) cardinality (logically defined as ~contradiction AND ~tautology). (classic mathematics can't deal with this notion)


The notion of proper subset, in case non fixed cardinality, is irrelevant. (classic mathematics can't deal with this notion)



thing in itself is the foundation of these types (including logic), which is not limited by them (it is not defined by its expressions, as illustrated, for example, by this logical structure). (classic mathematics can't deal with this notion)

 

[jsfisher]

No authority is needed in order to use what one already naturally has, where visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning skills are natural abilities of any healthy human being.

That certainly looks like an admission to me that you cannot back it up. You made it up, and you state without evidence that (a) you do in fact practice it, whatever it actually is, and (b) anyone who disagrees with you doesn't.

Rather convenient for you, I suppose, but completely unconvincing.

Mathematics remains unencumbered by your antics.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

I wonder why doronshadmi can't understand that when you slice up a line segment (fixed distance) into any number of parts, and when you add up all those parts, you still equal the original line segment.

 

[MetalPig]

No, it is an improved version.

After seeing that it's still easily demolished, I'd say more improvement is needed.

 

[zooterkin]

I wonder why doronshadmi can't understand that when you slice up a line segment (fixed distance) into any number of parts, and when you add up all those parts, you still equal the original line segment.

1 / 3 * 3 = .999... != 1

 

[doronshadmi]

I wonder why doronshadmi can't understand that when you slice up a line segment (fixed distance) into any number of parts, and when you add up all those parts, you still equal the original line segment.

EDIT:

A non-composed line is an actual infinity.

Finality many parts on non-composed line are finitely weaker than actual infinity, and therefore can be added up to a given value of some line.

Infinitely many parts on non-composed line are infinitely weaker than actual infinity, where infinitely weaker is exactly potential infinity.

Since potential infinitely is infinitely weaker than actual infinity, no infinitely many parts can be added up to a given value of some line.

In order to understand this, you have to use your visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning skills.

 

[jsfisher]

In order to understand this, you have to use your visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning skills....

So you continue to bleat. However, until such time as you

1. Define what that actually means,
2. Prove it is in anyway as effective as you claim,
3. Demonstrate that it is something you actually do,
4. Correctly, and
5. That the rest of us don't,

then all of your diatribes can be dismissed out of hand. You can do exactly none of the five, so your diatribes are dismissed out of hand.

 

[doronshadmi]

So you continue to bleat. However, until such time as you

1. Define what that actually means,

1. 
   
   It is already defined by using visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning.
   
   You are still insist to define it by using verbal_symbolic-only reasoning, which simply can't work in case of the considered visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic framework.

 

[Hevneren]

I wonder why doronshadmi can't understand that when you slice up a line segment (fixed distance) into any number of parts, and when you add up all those parts, you still equal the original line segment.

Because you're still closed under the relativity of the notion of collection. In order to understand this, you have to use your visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning skills. Good luck with that.

 

[jsfisher]

It is already defined by using visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning.

It is a circle, then. Fail on #1 and no attempts on the other four.

 

[doronshadmi]

I wonder why doronshadmi can't understand that when you slice up a line segment (fixed distance) into any number of parts, and when you add up all those parts, you still equal the original line segment.

Let's take for example 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, … as the added values on a line (which is a non-composed 1-dim object, and therefore it is defined in terms of actual infinity) with accurate value 1.

Let's start:

1/2 + 1/2(=the accurate complement part to 1) = 1

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/4(=the accurate complement part to 1) = 1

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/8(=the accurate complement part to 1) = 1

...

Etc. where each case is finitely weaker than actual infinity (actual infinity is the property of (at least) non-composed 1-dim object, no matter what accurate value is given to it).

In case of 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + … , it is infinitely weaker than actual infinity (actual infinity is the property of (at least) non-composed 1-dim object, no matter what accurate value is given to it), and therefore can't be added up to the accurate value 1.

By being infinitely weaker than actual infinity, there is no accurate complement part to 1, as defined in case of finitely many parts, exactly because being infinitely weaker than actual infinity, is exactly the inaccessibility of potential infinity to actual infinity.


So, since there is no accurate complement part to 1, 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + … can't be added up to 1.

------

Define what that actually means,

It means that by using visual_spatial reasoning, actual infinity is defined as the non-composed property of (at least) 1-dim object, where by using verbal_symbolic reasoning, potential infinity is defined in terms of collection infinitely many objects on the (at least) non-composed 1-dim object.

Prove it is in anyway as effective as you claim,

By using visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning, potential infinity is inaccessible to actual infinity by visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic definition.

Demonstrate that it is something you actually do, Correctly

Since potential infinity is infinitely weaker than actual infinity, no collection of infinitely many objects on (at least) some non-composed 1-dim object with some accurate value > 0, can be added up to this accurate value.

In case of finitely many objects on (at least) some non-composed 1-dim object with some accurate value > 0, they can be added up to this accurate value, since they are finitely weaker than actual infinity.

, and that the rest of us don't,

You don't deduce the difference between potential and actual infinity by using visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning, as addressed above, exactly because you are using only verba_symbolic reasoning skills.

By doing so, there is no wonder why www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12408169&postcount=3068 or www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12408642&postcount=3073 are not understood.

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

Visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning goes beyond infinity in terms of collection of infinitely many objects, where verbal_symbolic reasoning does not go beyond infinity in terms of collection of infinitely many objects.

 

[jsfisher]

Define what that actually means,

It means that by using visual_spatial reasoning, actual infinity is defined as the non-composed property of (at least) 1-dim object, where by using verbal_symbolic reasoning, potential infinity is defined in terms of collection infinitely many objects on the (at least) non-composed 1-dim object.

That's nice, but you didn't answer the question. You were supposed to tell us what this thing you call visual_spatial reasoning (and the other one) actually is. Instead, you tell us what you think it gives you for a certain result.

Fail #1, the second.

Prove it is in anyway as effective as you claim,

By using visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning, potential infinity is inaccessible to actual infinity by visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic definition.

Again, not answering the question.

Fail #2.

Demonstrate that it is something you actually do, Correctly

Since potential infinity is infinitely weaker than actual infinity, no collection of infinitely many objects on (at least) some non-composed 1-dim object with some accurate value > 0, can be added up to this accurate value.

In case of finitely many objects on (at least) some non-composed 1-dim object with some accurate value > 0, they can be added up to this accurate value, since they are finitely weaker than actual infinity.

You really are having trouble addressing the questions asked, don't you?

Fail #3 and #4.

, and that the rest of us don't,

You don't deduce the difference between potential and actual infinity by using visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning, as addressed above, exactly because you are using only verba_symbolic reasoning skills.

Circular and not addressing the question.

Fail #5.


Again, you confirm you can do exactly none of the five, so your diatribes are dismissed out of hand.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Let's take for example 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, … as the added values on a line (which is a non-composed 1-dim object, and therefore it is defined in terms of actual infinity) with accurate value 1.

1) Define non-composed
2) Define actual infinity
3) Define accurate value

Let's start:

1/2 + 1/2(=the accurate complement part to 1) = 1

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/4(=the accurate complement part to 1) = 1

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/8(=the accurate complement part to 1) = 1

...

Semi-accurate overall, but let's continue.

Etc. where each case is finitely weaker than actual infinity (actual infinity is the property of (at least) non-composed 1-dim object, no matter what accurate value is given to it).

4) Define finitely weaker
5) Define object
6) Define property of non-composed
7) Define non-composed 1-dim object
8) Define property of (at least) non-composed 1-dim object

In case of 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + … , it is infinitely weaker than actual infinity (actual infinity is the property of (at least) non-composed 1-dim object, no matter what accurate value is given to it), and therefore can't be added up to the accurate value 1.

9) Define infinitely weaker

By being infinitely weaker than actual infinity, there is no accurate complement part to 1, as defined in case of finitely many parts, exactly because being infinitely weaker than actual infinity, is exactly the inaccessibility of potential infinity to actual infinity.

10) Define inaccessibility
11) Define potential infinity

So, since there is no accurate complement part to 1, 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + … can't be added up to 1.

We already have a length of 1. We are dividing it into infinite pieces. Add up the length of all the pieces and we get 1.

Undefined terms "supporting" an undefined statement without any evidence.
------

It means that by using visual_spatial reasoning, actual infinity is defined as the non-composed property of (at least) 1-dim object, where by using verbal_symbolic reasoning, potential infinity is defined in terms of collection infinitely many objects on the (at least) non-composed 1-dim object.

Too many undefined terms.

By using visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning, potential infinity is inaccessible to actual infinity by visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic definition.

Too many undefined terms.

Since potential infinity is infinitely weaker than actual infinity, no collection of infinitely many objects on (at least) some non-composed 1-dim object with some accurate value > 0, can be added up to this accurate value.

Too many undefined terms

In case of finitely many objects on (at least) some non-composed 1-dim object with some accurate value > 0, they can be added up to this accurate value, since they are finitely weaker than actual infinity.

Too many undefined terms

You don't deduce the difference between potential and actual infinity by using visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning, as addressed above, exactly because you are using only verba_symbolic reasoning skills.

Too many undefined terms

By doing so, there is no wonder why www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12408169&postcount=3068 or www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12408642&postcount=3073 are not understood.

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

Visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning goes beyond infinity in terms of collection of infinitely many objects, where verbal_symbolic reasoning does not go beyond infinity in terms of collection of infinitely many objects.

Is it because you keep changing your posts, using undefined terms, or that you invent your own math and get mad when 99.999999% of the mathematicians aren't agreeing with what you say? Your idea is not that amazing, your math doesn't do anything that existing math doesn't do.