Deeper than primes - Continuation

[doronshadmi]

And this is basic ORM (Object Relation Mapping)...

So you are aware of it and still claim that y = x^2 has no inverse.

Please explain in details how exactly y = x^2 has no inverse.

Again, I am still waiting.

 

[doronshadmi]

Any particular reason you use an IP-number instead of an FQDN?

What?

 

[doronshadmi]

He needs to keep away from the ganja, man...

What?

 

[doronshadmi]

Nothing new here.

And yet you claim that y = x^2 has no inverse.

So once again, please demonstrate it in details, I am waiting.

 

[doronshadmi]

- If there is a relation between two (or more) entities, we always say there is an inverse, otherwise we say there is no inverse.

Nothing new here.

My claim that f(a) without any result is still considered as a function, and this claim is rejected by traditional mathematicians as "no function at all".

The terms "no function at all" is too strong, and by following such approach, we wrongly conclude that, for example, the following sets have the same amount of members (the same finite cardinality):

{1,2,3,4,5}
 ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
{1,2,3,4}

This wrong result is corrected only by the following mapping

{1,2,3,4,5}
 ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ ↓
{1,2,3,4}

where also a function with no inverse ("without any result", in your words) is also used.

(B.T.W the order of the members in the sets above, has no impact on the cardinality of these sets).

 

[realpaladin]

My claim that f(a) without any result is still considered as a function, and this claim is rejected by traditional mathematicians as "no function at all".

No it is not. You are the only one claiming that.

The whole concept of limit (which I tried to have you understand, but which you never could) is based on this.

Actually on the fact that the limit is the *inverse* of 'no function at all'.

Why do you keep making claims about traditional mathematics based on wrong conceptions?

And what does it matter if traditional mathematics is wrong; it produces harmony, beauty and peace, whereas Doronetics, as proven by this thread, only produces bickering, dissent and strife.

 

[realpaladin]

And yet you claim that y = x^2 has no inverse.

So once again, please demonstrate it in details, I am waiting.

JSFisher did that. Missed it?

 

[realpaladin]

So you are aware of it and still claim that y = x^2 has no inverse.

Please explain in details how exactly y = x^2 has no inverse.

Again, I am still waiting.

What has mathematical inverses to do with ORM???

Keep meandering Doron, it only makes you look sillier...

 

[realpaladin]

Doron, let me help you with the y=x^2 "conundrum"...

If you plot it as a graph (i.e. visualize it) you will get a clue... use your visual reasoning Doron.

Failing that... here is another clue: the root of which integer is a negative?

The detailed proof you ask for is so risibly simple that it is taught to 13-year olds...

 

[doronshadmi]

the root of which integer is a negative?

Your understanding of no inverse function is based on the inability to find a solution for the root of negative integer in the universe of integers.

I am talking about the more fundamental level of comparison between members of sets, and at this fundamental level if there is a function from a to b, there must be also the inverse function from b to a.

 

[doronshadmi]

Or stated more simply:

- If there is a relation between two (or more) entities, we always say there is an inverse, otherwise we say there is no inverse.

Which means that f(a) without any result (no inverse form b to a, simply because there is no b) is still considered as a function.

Nothing new here.

I agree with you, but traditional mathematicians reject f(a) as a type of function.

 

[laca]

Is it fun for you, doron, to show with each post you make just how clueless and incompetent you are?

 

[jsfisher]

Your understanding of no inverse function is based on the inability to find a solution for the root of negative integer in the universe of integers.

I am talking about the more fundamental level of comparison between members of sets, and at this fundamental level if there is a function from a to b, there must be also the inverse function from b to a.

Really?

Well, for the current example, it was explicitly stated that f(x) = x^2 was a mapping from the positive integers to the reals. The function is injective.

So, Doron, what pray tell is the inverse function for that? You know, a function that does the reverse mapping from the reals to the positive integers.

You needn't describe the full function. The inverse for 0 will suffice. Remember to check your work. f^-1(0) must be in the domain of f and f(f^-1(0)) must equal 0.

And remember, too, the context is Mathematics, not the screwy realm of doronetics where you take arbitrary departures from normal meaning.

 

[doronshadmi]

"All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually" - Doron Shadmi
"But this means you actually have nothing." - Realpaladin

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9770964&postcount=3246
Wrong, was not changed in your mind. You still get it in terms of some description.

 

[realpaladin]

JSFisher asked you a question. My signature is mine too (ab)use, so, in keeping in spirit with your childishness, neenerneenerneener...

 

[realpaladin]

Which means that f(a) without any result (no inverse form b to a, simply because there is no b) is still considered as a function.


I agree with you, but traditional mathematicians reject f(a) as a type of function.

Too funny! Repeating a clear explanation of your own work and then using more complicated and grammarily botched up sentences to do so.

 

[realpaladin]

Your understanding of no inverse function is based on the inability to find a solution for the root of negative integer in the universe of integers.

I am talking about the more fundamental level of comparison between members of sets, and at this fundamental level if there is a function from a to b, there must be also the inverse function from b to a.

No Doron the liar, you were not. You were simply saying that in traditional mathematics there were no functions without an inverse.

Both JSFisher and I have given an example (one function, two different examples, both correct in traditional mathematics).

The only proper way to get out of this one is to concede that *your* definition of inverse has nothing to do with the traditional mathematical definition of inverse and hence both can not be compared.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well, for the current example, it was explicitly stated that f(x) = x^2 was a mapping from the positive integers to the reals. The function is injective.

EDIT:

Good, so by using this function please give some explicit example:

Some_positive_integer → some_real.

If you do that, you simply can't avoid some_positive_integer ← some_real.

That is how the fundamental level of comparison works.

 

[realpaladin]

EDIT:

Good, so by using this function please give some explicit example:

Some_positive_integer → some_real.

If you do that, you simply can't avoid some_positive_integer ← some_real.

That is how the fundamental level of comparison works.

Actually, this is all that is needed to convince anyone that you have not even your own work in check.

 

[doronshadmi]

The only proper way to get out of this one is to concede that *your* definition of inverse has nothing to do with the traditional mathematical definition of inverse and hence both can not be compared.

Traditional_mathematical_definition_of_inverse ↔ OM_definition_of_inverse

Well, they are comparable even if they are different.