Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
This is exactly the case among functions that are used to compare given sets in order to find if their sizes are the same or not the same.[...]
Click to expand...
Consider sets A = {1} and B = {3,4}. Using the traditional definition of cardinality, we compare them using this function

f:A->B, f(1) = 3. This function is an injection, which by the traditional definition of cardinality means |A|≤|B|. This function also has no inverse.
 
doronshadmi said:
This is exactly the case among functions that are used to compare given sets in order to find if their sizes are the same or not the same.

Again, please show how y=x^2 (which has no inverse function) is used in order to determine if two given sets have or do not have the same size (where also the case of set's self comparison is included).

I am waiting for you detailed demonstration.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

EDIT:
Because it suddenly dawns upon me that Doron Shadmi *really* can not do mathematics and he will not see the triviality of that proof:

We have set x and we have set y. The equality operator shows that for each y we have exactly one x. The equality operator *mandates* that x and y are of the same size.

Doron Shadmi, you can not do even grade-school mathematics.

And Doron, all the other constraints you are adding are just to get your lying butt out of a fix; you claimed that traditional mathematics has no functions without inverse. You did *not* claim that traditional mathematics, when put through the wringer of OM, has no function without inverse.

You are a cheating, lying person who simply can not concede a point. Bah!
 
Last edited:
BenjaminTR said:
Consider sets A = {1} and B = {3,4}. Using the traditional definition of cardinality, we compare them using this function

f:A->B, f(1) = 3. This function is an injection, which by the traditional definition of cardinality means |A|≤|B|. This function also has no inverse.
Click to expand...

|A|≤|B| is actually |A| < OR = |B|, where only < holds in this case.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

According to the tradinitonal f:A->B, f(1) = 3 we actually have

Code: 
{1}
 ↓
{3,4}

Am I right?
 
Current status of Doron's Misconceptions (as of post 3583):



Handwaving consequences of his notation
Let's start with the handwaving after the ellipsis. Since Doron never bothered to do this, I did it for him:

1 → 1
2 →
3 → 2
4 → 3
5 → 4
...
n → n-1

If you do not write it out correctly one might surmise all manner of unicorn and pixie magic to happen after the ellipsis.

The right side has the 'no result' as a member of the set and is therefore *not* the set of natural numbers.
It is in fact the set of natural numbers + 'no result'.

Doron simply adds a member to the set, but does not count it. I would not want to do business with him...



Not seeing logic errors in his constructed constraints:

After a long and arduous back and forth with JSFisher Doron comes up with the following to show that you can have equality and non-equality at the same time:

Given two sets, A and B, if there is function from A to B such that (for each a in A there is at most one b in B) AND (for each b in B there is exactly one a in A) AND (there is at least one a in A that does not have any b in B) then |A| > |B|
Click to expand...
But this can be shown invalid by using a single set (Doron's set of all natural numbers, for example):
Given a set, A, if there is function from A to A such that (for each a in A there is at most one a in A) AND (for each a in A there is exactly one a in A) AND (there is at least one a in A that does not have any a in A) then |A| > |A|
Click to expand...




Removing all relations with the operands:

Doron now writes his concoction as:

1 ↔ 1
2 →
3 ↔ 2
4 ↔ 3
5 ↔ 4

Where the arrows are arbitrarily enabled/disabled functions.

It shows that in fact, we have three sets!

The set on the left (which may or may not be the natural numbers or the collection of toes Doron has on his left foot, since we never know as he can not complete his notation) then we have the set of switches that enable the 'function' and then on the right we have a set which might be the collection of numbers that Doron can count to without using his fingers.

The 'magical middle' set is what makes any of Doron's proof so utterly worthless; it has no relation to either the set on the left nor to the set on the right. It is an arbitrary set of boolean switches which is not defined.

Because this 'magical middle' is not defined no conclusion can be made about any of Doron's claims. The functions might be defined, but the set that toggles them is not.


Failure to show and/or predict results (therefore disqualifying it as science):

When confronted with the following thought experiment:
Ok, Doron, I understand your argument. So, let's do a thought experiment then. I know you are able to do those, so here it is:
Let's say we have two completely separated islands (no contact is ever made), with two separate colonies (they never know about each other).
On one island (call it island A) live only people that understand Doronetics/OM
On the other island (let's call it island B) live people who will never see or be aware of anything that Doronetics/OM can bring
Let's leave these islands to develop a culture for a while (100 years? 1000 years?)
After that time of complete separation, a discoverer (like Columbus, or Darwin) visits these islands. He is unaware of Doronetics/OM and can not get it.

What is the difference he will see? How will island A differ from island B?

Doron first tries to weasel out by ignoring parts. Then he claims to disagree. And finally he smugly announces that the discoverer does see a difference.
Doron gets annoyed because it is pointed out to him that even though the discoverer can not do OM, he still sees results, so why can't Doron show results?


Redefining his claims about traditional mathematics

With a lot of hubris and huffing and puffing Doron kept shouting and claiming that traditional mathematics was inferior to OM because it did not have functions without an inverse.

When confronted by the simple example of y=x^2 he suddenly starts adding attributes of Doronetics to it to make it incorrect. But his claims where about traditional mathematics, not OM functions.

And of course, he thinks he has something when asking for a detailed explanation on how we can determine the size of sets with that function... hilarious.


And some Doron classics:
doronshadmi said:
Please think about fog.

The not well-defined size of set with unbounded amount of members, is straightforward exactly as the identity of the fog is being unclear.
Click to expand...

and
doronshadmi said:
You are still missing my it.

|N| = OR not= |N|, or in other words, |N| is not well-defined.
Click to expand...
 
realpaladin said:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

EDIT:
Because it suddenly dawns upon me that Doron Shadmi *really* can not do mathematics and he will not see the triviality of that proof:

We have set x and we have set y. The equality operator shows that for each y we have exactly one x. The equality operator *mandates* that x and y are of the same size.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely right, and since this is the case, there is bijection between set x and y.

In terms of comparison if there is a function from a given y member to a given x member, than there is also the inverse function from this given x member to this given y member, so this is not the case that there is no inverse function in y = x^2 expression (as you wrongly claim in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9824635&postcount=3568).
 
Last edited:
realpaladin said:
The 'magical middle' set is what makes any of Doron's proof so utterly worthless; it has no relation to either the set on the left nor to the set on the right. It is an arbitrary set of boolean switches which is not defined.
Click to expand...
It is perfectly defined as a function with no inverse, or as a function that has an input without an output.

Such a function is very useful in order to distinguished between the objective level of non-locality and the subjective level of localities.

Moreover, one enables to understand the difference between actual-infinity (which is beyond collections) and potential-infinity (which is at the level of collections).

Furthermore, the relations among non-locality and locality are non-entropic exactly because no amount of localities can be non-locality, and non-entropic environment is exactly the needed conditions for further (abstract or non-abstract) development of complexity (localities) out of one simplicity (non-locality), where we are some forms of this linkage among the non-local (simple) and the local (complex).

Such linkage is exactly the comprehensive frame that enables to actually unify ethics (in terms of evolutionary scale, which is not restricted to any particular religion, culture, political or economical systems, etc.) with logic\technology, where its users are both observers AND participators which are fully responsible to the results of their actions in any given (abstract or non-abstract) scales of life.
 
Last edited:
realpaladin said:
The right side has the 'no result' as a member of the set and is therefore *not* the set of natural numbers.
It is in fact the set of natural numbers + 'no result'.
Click to expand...
realpaladin does not have the needed abstract abilities in order to distinguish between 'no result' and
 
doronshadmi said:
You are absolutely right, and since this is the case, there is bijection between set x and y.

In terms of comparison if there is a function from a given y member to a given x member, than there is also the inverse function from this given x member to this given y member, so this is not the case that there is no inverse function in y = x^2 expression (as you wrongly claim in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9824635&postcount=3568).
Click to expand...

The above answer was made possible by Doron Shadmi's continuous redefinition of terms.
 
Doron, could we inquire about your latest definition of cardinality? Thanks.
 
I don't think Doron will continue with this nonsense; the book 'Nothing' that I posted the link of already states that the things Doron thinks are novel, regular scientists already knew for ages.

He first needs to refute the regular/traditional notion of nothing before *any* of his work can even get the inkling of 'value'.
 
One never knows, but he's still rambling on about sets and sizes, so I thought I might as well ask for the latest word salad with a side dish of gibberish.
 
laca said:
One never knows, but he's still rambling on about sets and sizes, so I thought I might as well ask for the latest word salad with a side dish of gibberish.
Click to expand...

It is gibberish only if you do not use your verbal AND visual-spatial skills.
 
laca said:
One never knows, but he's still rambling on about sets and sizes, so I thought I might as well ask for the latest word salad with a side dish of gibberish.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am still wondering about that. How to get from a different 'view' on sets, sizes, cardinality, logic etc, to his vison of peace and understanding.

The 'framework' never gets anywhere. I tried conceding, agreeing, but all he seems to want is to dicker and bicker.
It seems it does not matter if someone agrees; he just won't move forward.

Also, his UMES 'paper' is hysterical in that it starts rambling from the get-go. How that will turn into a novel before he sheds his mortal coil I am not sure.

But it gets boring if he keeps on adding stuff to make |N|>|N| a truth in his system.

Many have asked him 'ok, and then what?', but he keeps banging on about it as proud as a baby of his poo-filled diaper.
 
realpaladin said:
For some odd reason I am of the conviction that the generated papers make more sense than OM; both are devoid of meaning, but the generated papers have structure and definitions.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that doron is subconsciously avoiding definitions, because he knows deep down that once he starts getting more precise, he starts getting shot down way more easily. So he stays in his comfort zone, mindlessly spouting random stuff about visual_spatial and verbal_symbolic, randomly capitalizing and parenthesizing and so on. What he doesn't realize is that this makes him even more of a joke.
 
realpaladin said:
By the way Doron, you are too late with your NoThing NonSense!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24442-nothing--the-new-book-from-new-scientist.html

I have read a few chapters (I got a copy, yes) and it absolutely shreds *your* conceptions of NoThing.
Click to expand...

EDIT:

Not at all.

Please look at this question?
"What happens in our brains when we try to think about nothing?"
Click to expand...
The answer: Any thought, no matter what subject is considered, is not the actual

There is an essential difference between "think about nothing" and "think nothing"(= beyond thoughts).

By analogy ,any vocal expression about silence, is not actually silence.
 
Last edited:
realpaladin said:
The above answer was made possible by Doron Shadmi's continuous redefinition of terms.
Click to expand...
You are wrong once again, exactly because you force the notion of Cartesian X/Y framework of (x,y) pairs on the notion of common ground of the non-local aspects of Distinction and Comparison grid, which are in relations with the localities on that common ground.

The notion of common ground as a comprehensive one and only one domain for the relations among non-locality and locality, which is not restricted to the notion of domain and codomain.

By using the common ground as a comprehensive one and only one domain for the relations among non-locality and locality, one actually works in terms of multiverse of all possibilities, where one of the possibilities is to compare between two copies of sets (which means that they have the same members) in more than one way.

So let's refine what I wrote about this subject, according to the notion of multiverse.

By using the notion of the common ground in terms of multiverse, we immediately understand that

Code: 
{1,2,3,4,5,...}
 ↓ ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
  {1,2,3,4,...}

OR

Code: 
{1,2,3,4,...}
 ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
{1,2,3,4,...}

are simply two possibilities of comparisons in that multiverse.

Traditional Mathematics is simply some part of the mutiverse, which is focused only on the particular comparison of the form

Code: 
{1,2,3,4,...}
 ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
{1,2,3,4,...}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hidden_Reality:_Parallel_Universes_and_the_Deep_Laws_of_the_Cosmos can be vary helpful in order to grasp the notion multiverse.

I take a further step by using the notion of the common ground multiverse, which enables the relations among non-locality (the objective) and locality (the subjective(s)).

The beautiful thing about the the common ground multiverse, is that it is naturally non-entropic, and this is exactly the optimal conditions for further development of creatures like us.

We also are able to understand that Reductionism is derived from a school of thought that is focused on some particular properties of the common ground multiverse.

At this point I wish to say "big thank you BenjaminTR" without your excellent criticism in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9814916&postcount=3488 I was possibly missing the notion of the common ground multiverse.

More details are given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9826156&postcount=3579.
 
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