Deeper than primes - Continuation

[laca]

The case is that any collection with unbounded amount of objects is no more than potential infinity, and anything that is potential infinity does not have well-defined size, which is an essential property of the identity of collections with unbounded amount of objects (their size is = OR ¬= w.r.t themselves).

So, let me get this straight... You define "collection with unbounded amount of objects" as not identical to anything, including itself. And make no mistake about it, it's a definition, just as the idiocy that is "well-defined size" and the garbage about "essential property of identity". Those are axioms you choose for your "framework".

OK. Those are (some of) your choices. Let's see where you go from there. Non-finite sets are not identical to themselves. Jolly good. You have the floor, doron. Lead the way.

 

[doronshadmi]

EDIT:

There are people here that have a hard time to understand that the identity of collections with unbounded amount of objects is involved with the inability to determine their size (their size is = OR ¬= w.r.t themselves). The identity of collections with bounded amount of objects is not involved with such inability (their size is = w.r.t themselves).

These people have hard time to understand it, exactly because they try to get collections with unbounded amount of objects in terms of the identity of collections with bounded amount of objects.

Moreover, they are doing it by using verbal_symbolic-only reasoning, which is insignificant in order to understand the non-locality of actual infinity (without the understanding of actual infinity in terms of non-locality, one has no way to understand collections with unbounded amount of (local) objects as potential infinity, where potential infinity does not have clear size (its size is = OR ¬= w.r.t itself).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9815560&postcount=3498 can help.

 

[laca]

Stop it, doron. It's not about what others get or do, it's about what you do. So stop finding excuses for your incompetence and start showing results.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Dupe

 

[Little 10 Toes]

1. Every set is identical to itself.

For example "N is N".

|{1,2,3,4,5,...}|
  ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
|{1,2,3,4,5,...}|

Again, we are dealing here with one and only one collection with unbounded amount of objects.

Edited and fixed. Can't fix doronetics since it doesn't work.

 

[doronshadmi]

Edited and fixed. Can't fix doronetics since it doesn't work.

EDIT:

All you did is to force your verbal_symbolic-only reasoning (which uses notions that are taken from collections with bounded amount of objects) on an abstract visual_spatial expression that shows that the size of a given collection with unbounded amount of objects can also be greater than itself, or in other words, the self identity of N involved with unclear size, as an essential property of being a collection with unbounded amount of objects (or more generally, N is some form of potential infinity, where the size of such form is = OR ¬= w.r.t itself).

Again, by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial abstract abilities as shown, for example in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9800545&postcount=3440 , the unclear size of collections with unbounded amount of objects is simply one of the essential properties of potential infinity, which simply can't be known by any one that uses only his\her abstract verbal_symbolic reasoning.

 

[laca]

All you did<snip>

Irrelevant. What did you do, doron? Where are the results?

 

[doronshadmi]

Take this argument.:

1. Every set is identical to itself.

I agree.

2. If two things are identical, neither is bigger than the other.

This is true among sets with bounded amount of members.

This is not true among sets with unbounded amount of members, because the identity of such sets is involved with unclear size (their size is = OR ¬= w.r.t itself), as already explained in the following links:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9816893&postcount=3506

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9816583&postcount=3502

 

[doronshadmi]

I am not even sure he understands that functions are sets.

The following abstract visual_spatial expression

|{1,2,3,4,5,...}|
  ↓ ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
  |{1,2,3,4,...}|

holds exactly because one and only one set is involved here.

 

[laca]

So, no results. Got it, thanks. Keep trying, though.

 

[doronshadmi]

There are people here that are waiting to some results without doing the needed paradigm-shift (moving from verbal_only reasoning into the abstract aspect of visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning) in their mind.

Without this paradigm-shift no results are known.

This is one of the beauties of the novel approach, the mathematician is an observer AND a participator of the given framework and its results.

 

[laca]

The results should be obvious to anyone, doron. I don't need to do any paradigm-shift to enjoy the benefits of a bunch of theories I know next to nothing about. You're enjoying the computer, aren't you? Yet you know absolutely nothing about the work laid down during centuries that enabled it. What's worse, you spit on most of that work in this very thread.

So, again, cut the bullcrap excuses and stop generating gibberish. Show us results.

 

[doronshadmi]

As about valuable results, they are totally depend on peoples' mind's abilities in order to value them in the short and long run by using both local AND global (non-local) view of the results, as already explained in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9578867&postcount=2721.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

The following abstract visual_spatial expression

|{1,2,3,4,5,...}|
  ↓ ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
  |{1,2,3,4,...}|

holds exactly because one and only one set is involved here.

No it doesn't because they don't have the same starting point. According to you :

Set A (1,2,3,...)
Set B (1,2,3,4,...)
Set C (1,2,3,4,5,...)

are all different sets. If I extend sets A and B I get

Set A (1,2,3,4,5,...)
Set B (1,2,3,4,5,...)
Set C (1,2,3,4,5,...)

and now they are all the same.

You like to do

Set A (1,2,3,4,5,...)
Set B   (1,2,3,4,5,...)

and claim they are different.

 

[realpaladin]

As about valuable results, they are totally depend on peoples' mind's abilities in order to value them in the short and long run by using both local AND global (non-local) view of the results, as already explained in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9578867&postcount=2721.

So, as an objective tool to further humanity it is of no value at all?

I can tell you that the effort to convert enough people to the Doronetics mindset is too large to be of any use to humanity.

How is the crowd-effort going? I am betting you have little to zero response there, considering the time you are able to spend in here rehashing all your old arguments with new arguees.

Doron Shadmi, you are but an anglerfish and you need others to argue with you to get some semblance of a feeling of being not entirely insignificant.

 

[laca]

No, doron, you cannot be this dense. Not even you. Results do not depend on anyone else's abilities. A person in a coma has no abilities yet can enjoy all the results that science and is trusty sidekick, useful math provide. You can not talk your way out of this. You just expose yourself even more for the incompetent fraud that you are.

 

[doronshadmi]

So, as an objective tool to further humanity it is of no value at all?

Realpaladin, the objectivity of the tool is its non-local level, and by using the abstract aspect of verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning in one's mind, we get a comprehensive framework that consistently links the non-local and objective aspect of one's mind with the local and subjective aspect of one's mind.

The result of this link is a one unified realm, which is free from contradictions that are derived from the current dichotomy between the objective and the subjective.

Organic Mathematics fundamental result is the consistent linkage between the objective and the subjective, which is actually the natural state of mind of any healthy human being on this planet.

This unification in one's mind can't be achieved as long as he\she uses only his\her subjective (local) aspect of his\her mind.

One of the main obstacles to achieve real unity is the a partial use of one's mind ,which is derived from the dichotomy between the abstract verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills in one's mind.

As long as one's mind works under this dichotomy, no results of the unification between the subjective and the objective are known and actually used day-by-day by this dichotomous mind.

The paradigm-shift is actually the transition from the dichotomous realm into the unified real among the objective and the subjective, and this unification is the most important result, where this result is actually the foundation of any further development (abstract or non-abstract) of creatures like us.

You and your friends still miss it, and as a result, you are unaware of the results of the unification among the objective and the subjective.

 

[doronshadmi]

No one accept the person in coma (and no one can determine his\her exact abilities, if he\she suffers or enjoys etc.), can determine if math results are hail or heaven (or any degree between them) for him/her.

Such approach is an example of a person that understands results by mechanical\technological achievements, by ignoring the non-trivial impacts on their users (whether they are aware or unaware users of a given technology).

No one can escape from these non-trivial relations.

 

[laca]

Still no results, I see. Don't give up, doron! Just keep in mind that your pathetic excuses do not constitute a result that stems from your "work". Also, try to understand that results do not suppose any kind of paradigm-shift from anyone. You supposedly went through the paradigm-shift. You use whatever you got and produce a result, which is obvious to anyone. Easy. We're waiting eagerly.

 

[laca]

No one accept the person in coma (and no one can determine his\her exact abilities, if he\she suffers or enjoy etc.), can determine if math results are hail or heaven for him/her.

What? I was referring to the person in coma enjoying the benefits of top-notch medical care, even while lying unconsciously. That person doesn't need to know anything about the science that built the machines that are keeping him alive and quite possibly making him better.

Such approach is an example of a person that understands results by mechanical\technological achievements, by ignoring the non-trivial impacts on their users (whether they are aware or unaware users of a given technology).

No one can escape from these non-trivial relations.

Inane, useless, pathetic gibberish of excuses. So, no results, then?