Deeper than primes - Continuation

[epix]

Based on your definition, who should have problems understanding there is a contradiction in this statement: "Turn left and right at the exact same time"?

 

[doronshadmi]

Please note that you did not answer my questions.

Please note that your local-only view prevents your mind to get my answer.

 

[doronshadmi]

oppss...

 

[doronshadmi]

There are scientists that are getting out of the agreed local boxes.

Take for example K. Ghosh ( http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0503/0503003v21.pdf , page 13):

To illustrate let us consider two “set”s each containing a single object: a line-element. The line-elements are intersecting but non-coincident everywhere. The intersection of these two “set”s is a “set” containing points which are fundamentally different from line elements (we can not say that a point is a line-element with one point as the arguments in this section prove that a line-element is not a collection of points). Similar arguments can be extended to higher dimensions.

K. Ghosh ( http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0605/0605061v148.pdf , page 2):

In this section we will demonstrate that a line-element is not a collection of points. Line-elements, area elements and volume-elements are as fundamental as points.

These notions are going to be the main stream, whether the Context-dependent-only skill(esr) like it or not.

 

[doronshadmi]

Here are some persons that get things right:
http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=140626&tstart=0 :

I believe this is related to the mystery of how a line, which
is one-dimensional and therefore has spatial extension, can
be constructed from points, each of which is zero-dimensional
and has no spatial extension. You simply can't get a line
from any number, not even a nondenumerably infinite number,
of points, because even a non-denumerably infinite number of
points has no collective extension: you can't put a point "next
to" a point because there is no such thing as "next to" something
having no spatial extension.

A line is not a collection of points. You can, however, always
pick points out of a line. There are always as many as you need,
and therefore always more than you need. If each point is
associated with some ordinal number, then any line segment, no
matter how short, describes ALL possible ordinals (not just the
members of the set of real numbers). But assuming that the
collection of all ordinals is a set leads to a set theoretical
paradox using the usual rules and assumptions, thus it is usually
assumed that this entity is NOT a set. The "points in a line"
constitute some sort of absolute infinity, not a set and therefore
not a transfinite cardinal: whereas the point subsets people pick
out of a line by mapping other sets to them (such as the real
numbers) are sets and therefore are transfinite cardinals.

The mistake people made was in assuming that a continuum (like a
line) could be completely described by any incomplete subset of
ordinal numbers (like the real numbers). If C is the cardinality
of the continuum, then the cardinality of the set of real numbers
is less than C. All of the alephs are less than C.

 

[epix]

There are scientists that are getting out of the agreed local boxes.

Take for example K. Ghosh ( http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0503/0503003v21.pdf , page 13):

We consider a homogeneous linear array of marbles touching each other. If we now shrink the volume of each marble keeping them in contact (so that the array is always homogeneous) then in the limit that the volume of the marbles is zero we will get a single point.
These discussions lead us to conclude that a line-element is not just a collection of points but is a fundamental
geometric object.

No, we will not get a single point. We will get a collection of spheres whose volume approches zero. Plain and simple.

 

[jsfisher]

The best part is at the end.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0503/0503003v21.pdf

Any one, who had thept any aspect of this article and/or unduly disturbed the author seriously using e.m radiation in a biological way (telepathy) during the last six years, in particular while the article was getting prepared, or/and encouraged to do so is a descendant of Avatar of Dharmaraj

Doron, has anyone been disturbing you seriously using electro-magnetic radiation in a biological way (telepathy) during the last, oh, what is it now, twenty five years?

 

[doronshadmi]

The belief of Ramanujan (Ramanujan credited his acumen to his family Goddess, Namagiri of Namakkal. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan )) do not change the quality of his scientific work.

So is the case about K. Ghosh in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7799483&postcount=224 .

Western atheist persons can't comprehend that.

As for myself, I claim that belief is not sufficient in order to actually be aware of the considered subject, and it can be done only by one's mind, which enables to transcendent its subjective expressed aspects, in order to directly be aware of the objective non-local calm source of all expressions.

Western atheist persons that can't comprehend that, are simply trapped at level of thoughts, which is subjective no matter what model of reality is used by them.

 

[epix]

The belief of Ramanujan (Ramanujan credited his acumen to his family Goddess, Namagiri of Namakkal. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan )) do not change the quality of his scientific work.

Ramanujan was a mathematician so great his name transcends jealousies, the one superlatively great mathematician whom India has produced in the last hundred years. "His leaps of intuition confound mathematicians even today, seven decades after his death. ..the brilliant, self-taught Indian mathematician whose work contains some of the most beautiful ideas in the history of science. His legacy has endured. His twenty-one major mathematical papers are still being plumbed for their secrets, and many of his ideas are used today in cosmology and computer science. His theorems are being applied in areas - polymer chemistry, computers, cancer research - scarcely imaginable during his lifetime. His mathematical insights yet leave mathematicians baffled that anyone could divine them in the first place.

The inexhaustible Ramanujan was an observant Hindu, adept at dream interpretation and astrology. His work was marked by bold leaps and gut feelings. Growing up he had learned to worship Namagiri, the consort of the lion god Narasimha. Ramanujan believed that he existed to serve as Namagiri´s champion - Hindu Goddess of creativity. In real life Ramanujan told people that Namagiri visited him in his dreams and wrote equations on his tongue.

Ramanujan could never explain to G H Hardy (an atheist) how he arrived at his deep insights in mathematical terms; but he did say many of his discoveries came to him in dreams, from the goddess Namakkal, and that he had a morning ritual of awakening and writing them down.

He was intensely religious. He often united mathematics and spirituality together. He felt, for example, that zero represented Absolute Reality, and that infinity represented the many manifestations of that Reality. Ramanujan felt that each mathematical discovery was a step closer to understanding the spiritual universe. He once told a friend, "An equation for me has no meaning unless it expresses a thought of God."

Say hi to your divine link.

 

[jsfisher]

Hey, Doron, good to see you have a new nut-job hero, but you are evading my question:

Doron, has anyone been disturbing you seriously using electro-magnetic radiation in a biological way (telepathy) during the last, oh, what is it now, twenty five years?

 

[epix]

The belief of Ramanujan (Ramanujan credited his acumen to his family Goddess, Namagiri of Namakkal. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan )) do not change the quality of his scientific work.

So is the case about K. Ghosh in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7799483&postcount=224 .

Ramanujan was delusional by today's advanced concept of atheism, whereas K. Ghosh is just a certified pretender. That's why G. H. Hardy, who was the only one at Cambridge to recognized Ramanujan's mathematical brilliance, isn't too often mention as a notable atheist. The modern philosophy of atheism holds that whatever an atheist cannot comprehend is automatically the result of delusion. So that's why you're hanging around here taking your chances.

Goddess Namagiri of Namakkal set up a little test for you. If you pass, your name will be removed from the Center of Phantasmagorical Sphere of the Perpetual Bounce. And so, what is 1729?

 

[doronshadmi]

Western atheists simply ignore any answer ( as given, for example about belief in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7802875&postcount=228 ) that does not fit to their box.

 

[doronshadmi]

Advanced concept of atheism is not achieved if the atheist's fundamental principles are based on dichotomy between concepts like Ethics and Logical reasoning, or based on ever lasting confrontation between expressions (for example: Contradiction is considered as actual), exactly because the atheist's mind is trapped at the level of thoughts (in this case it does not matter if the the person is an atheist or a religious one, in both cases it is not directly aware of its objective (actual) non-local calm source, which actually enables the harmony among all possible expressions, whether they are abstract or physical).

Ignorance may hold whether the people are atheists (for example: Nazism, Communism, Piggish Capitalism or any other atheist dictatorship) or religious (Active fundamentalism, which is not really fundamental because it is trapped at the level of thoughts).

 

[jsfisher]

Western atheists simply ignore any answer ( as given, for example about belief in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7802875&postcount=228 ) that does not fit to their box.

So, since your empty nonsense about verbal vs. visual thinking got you nowhere, you've jumped to deriding atheism as you next ineffective approach.

Well done, Doron. You manage to do so much with so little.

 

[epix]

Goddess Namagiri of Namakkal set up a little test for you. If you pass, your name will be removed from the Center of Phantasmagorical Sphere of the Perpetual Bounce. And so, what is 1729?

Ignorance may hold whether the people are atheists (for example: Nazism, Communism, Piggish Capitalism or any other atheist dictatorship) or religious (Active fundamentalism, which is not really fundamental because it is trapped at the level of thoughts).

Miracle! How could you possibly figure out that number 1729 is linked with ignorance?

There is only one possible explanation:

A common anecdote about Ramanujan relates to the number 1729. Hardy arrived at Ramanujan's residence in a cab numbered 1729. Hardy commented that the number 1729 seemed to be uninteresting. Ramanujan is said to have stated on the spot that it was actually a very interesting number mathematically, being the smallest natural number representable in two different ways as a sum of two cubes:

1729 = 1³ + 12³ = 9³ + 10³
Generalizations of this idea have created the notion of "taxicab numbers". Coincidentally, 1729 is also a Carmichael Number.

Being closed in a box of performing mathematics, both Hardy and Ramanujan didn't notice that 1729 is also the union of two subsequent Ramanujan primes 17 and 29.
http://oeis.org/A104272

I guess that was too easy for you. So I give you a problem to solve - it's similar to the 1729 being a sum of two cubes in two different ways.

Which number satisfies the identity

a² + b² = c³ + d³
where a<b and c<d?

If you answer the right way, you will be released from the Prison of Phantasmagorical Thought on parol.

 

[doronshadmi]

Ignorant persons are like rigid boxes that are floating upon the wavy surface of the sea, and as a result they get contradiction as an actual realm (the calm state of the sea as the natural base ground for harmony among waves, is beyond their wavy-only awareness).


Ignorant persons can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7796111&postcount=218 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7790810&postcount=211 and this is a problem that leads ignorant persons to one of the dead-ends of the evolution.

If they are being aware of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7796111&postcount=218 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7790810&postcount=211 the dead-end problem can be solved.

 

[jsfisher]

I see the Doron Word Shift^TM (patent pending) continues. Got no rise with "atheist" so he's giving "ignorant person" a whirl.

Doron, why not go with substance worthy of an adult rather than kindergarten taunts?

 

[epix]

I give you a problem to solve - it's similar to the 1729 being a sum of two cubes in two different ways.

Which number satisfies the identity

a^2 + b^2 = c^3 + d^3

where a<b and c<d?

If you answer the right way, you will be released from the Prison of Phantasmagorical Thought on parol.

Ignorant persons are like rigid boxes that are floating upon the wavy surface of the sea, and as a result they get contradiction as an actual realm (the calm state of the sea as the natural base ground for harmony among waves, is beyond their wavy-only awareness).

You answer us with awesome and righteous deeds,
God our Savior,
the hope of all the ends of the earth
and of the farthest seas,
who formed the mountains by your power,
having armed yourself with strength,
who stilled the roaring of the seas, the roaring of their waves, and the turmoil of the nations.
Psalm, Chapter 65

65 = 1² + 8² = 1³ + 4³
I see that your extraearthly guide is very good. It stilled the roaring of the waves, made the sea calm and chose the lowest number that satisfies the identity. But your extraearthly guide to the mental pandemonium has a weakness called "analytic proof." And therefore I shall say onto you that your head will ooze cottage cheese when exposed to the follow up.

Conjecture:

There is no prime number p that would satisfy

p = a² + b² = c³ + d³
where a<b and c<d.

If you prove or disprove the conjecture, your numerophobia will go away and your phantasmagoria will be replaced by divine insights:

Ramanujan could never explain to G H Hardy how he arrived at his deep insights in mathematical terms; but he did say many of his discoveries came to him in dreams, from the goddess Namakkal, and that he had a morning ritual of awakening and writing them down.

Cantor believed his theory of transfinite numbers had been communicated to him by God.

 

[doronshadmi]

Here is Dr. Ghosh answer about the "telepathy" case:

"Firstly the attached manuscripts have been accepted in IJPAM
each with two reviewers. So there are a few persons who agree
with us.

The point is, the whole structure of Mathematics, depending on the
set theory is not in accordance with what we are doing. The intersection
of two same objects is a different object: is surely shattering to mathematicians.

The other article which brings out a contradiction to the "tensorial
character of the connection coefficients" is also severe to a conservative
mathematician. Since when I had started writing these things I had
been suspended by the arxiv.

But it is also fact that there had always been a few people bothered
about these issues. Regarding the second article you can look at
the book by Wald (cited in the article). You will never be able to
convince all people.

Lastly, regarding those silly comments. You tell them there is nothing
like that in the past 3/4 years and surely some people used to disturb me
at that time with reference to a few mistakes in the article.

I now know that they came to know about these things from those who read the article.
Hence the telepathy.... things were silly in this context. I was unable to understand that
a few persons are reading the versions (> 5) which did not come out in the arxiv.


I will try to talk with people after the article will get published.



Wishes,

Dr. K. Ghosh"

 

[jsfisher]

Here is Dr. Ghosh answer about the "telepathy" case:

That's nice, but what was the question? ...Where's the rest of his answer?