Deeper than primes - Continuation

[doronshadmi]

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

Good, since you know something about my work, then please use your skills in order to correct it in the currently discussed subject.

 

[laca]

Is it frustrating to be unable to show any result from your "work", doron? It's painful just looking at you wriggle in vain trying to save face. Guess what? It's not working.

 

[realpaladin]

Good, since you know something about my work, then please use your skills in order to correct it in the currently discussed subject.

Well, if you want to be embarrassed...

Your whole discourse on |N|>|N| has been broken by that specific comment.

Because if you allow:

some_thing ->

then, according to that post you also must allow

<- some_thing

and then all of your examples with the curly brackets and up and down arrows are null and void....

EDIT:

So, either you drop the whole 'inverse' charade, or you drop the |N| > |N| charade... your call...

 

[realpaladin]

Traditional_mathematical_definition_of_inverse ↔ OM_definition_of_inverse

Well, they are comparable even if they are different.

So Nothing and Something are also comparable, even if they are different?

 

[laca]

Good, since you know something about my work, then please use your skills in order to correct it in the currently discussed subject.

Yes, we know all there is to know about your work. It's unadulterated, inane gibberish. All of it. There can never be any result stemming from it, as it's a hopeless mess of contradictions and it's lacking any kind of rigor, presumably to hide its failures.

Your bluff has been called a long time ago. Instead of showing your losing cards, you keep arguing about the smell in the room, the color of the lighting and similar inconsequential banalities. Everyone is aware of it. The only thing you could do to get out of this impasse is to show some results. You can't. Game over.

 

[laca]

So, either you drop the whole 'inverse' charade, or you drop the |N| > |N| charade... your call...

Gah! Doronetics can accommodate all kinds of contradictions. See, it's not supposed to be useful, so it can safely do that.

 

[jsfisher]

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.

I could care less about the bizarre tangles found in doronetics. We are talking exclusively about Mathematics, here.

You made a bogus claim about mathematicians and inverse functions. It was a lie. When confronted with that lie, you moved the goal posts to include mappings between sets. You claim remained bogus, and you have been called on your lie, too.

The function, f(x) = x^2, has no inverse function. The function can be used to map the set of positive integers to the set of reals, but even with that restricted domain, it still has no inverse.

Your attempt to fog the issue with your partial inverse gibberish is not saving you. Your lie stands as disproved nonsense.

Mathematics copes just fine with non-invertible functions.
Mathematics copes just fine with such functions used to map elements between sets.
Mathematics, unlike doronetics, actually works.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well, if you want to be embarrassed...

Your whole discourse on |N|>|N| has been broken by that specific comment.

Because if you allow:

some_thing ->

then, according to that post you also must allow

<- some_thing

You still don't get

In other words, there is no inverse function for one some_thing.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9833866&postcount=3639 shows exactly how your abstract ability can't go beyond descriptions.

By your non-abstract abilities, you get it as follows:

some_positive_integer → some_real is equivalent to something → nothing for you, and as a result you conclude that

some_real ← some_positive_integer is equivalent to nothing ← something

 

[doronshadmi]

So Nothing and Something are also comparable, even if they are different?

Still can't grasp the actuality of

Isn't it realpaladin?

You still get things only by their descriptions, and in that case all you do is something ↔ nothing

 

[doronshadmi]

The function, f(x) = x^2, has no inverse function. The function can be used to map the set of positive integers to the set of reals, but even with that restricted domain, it still has no inverse.

In that case you do not work at the fundamental level of comparison.

 

[doronshadmi]

Your attempt to fog the issue ...

Actually you are the one that put fog on the fundamental level of comparison.

 

[realpaladin]

Still can't grasp the actuality of

Isn't it realpaladin?

You still get things only by their descriptions, and in that case all you do is something ↔ nothing

So you now are saying that something does not differ from

What is it? According to your PDF's that is the whole of it; the fundamental difference (*you* wrote that, not I) between something and nothing.

Are you calling yourself a liar now? Reread your own PDF's Doron...

 

[doronshadmi]

So you now are saying that something does not differ from

What is it? According to your PDF's that is the whole of it; the fundamental difference (*you* wrote that, not I) between something and nothing.

Are you calling yourself a liar now? Reread your own PDF's Doron...

The keyword is *abstraction*

When you read NOthing you go beyond the description.

 

[realpaladin]

The keyword is *abstraction*

When you read NOthing you go beyond the description.

No, little liar Doron, the keyword may be *everything* but abstraction.

Remember what you said and what adorns my signature?

Let me spell it out again for you, so you can read again why *abstraction* it can not be:

"All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually"

If it is actually, it is not abstract.

 

[jsfisher]

In that case you do not work at the fundamental level of comparison.

That being something you fabricated to cover your lie, so no.

 

[realpaladin]

Hilarious, others have the same fun with Doron (who is, as a crackpot, becoming somewhat of a meme): http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=46384

And his work looks similar to the others...

I especially could agree with the comment:

Do all these crackpots first take undergrad math and then think 'f*ck this! I've got a better idea!'

 

[Little 10 Toes]

That's pretty funny.

 

[doronshadmi]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9834232&postcount=3654 is a perfect example of a mind that can't go beyond descriptions.

For example, look at his response about the following:

Nothing is actually

If it is actually, it is not abstract.

In this case, realpaladin can't do the needed abstraction in order to go beyond the written.

(

He gets it in terms of

Nothing is actually.

instead of

Nothing is actually

)

Realpaladin, instead of look for "others" [that] "have the same fun with Doron", try to develop your absatract skills by asking yourself what you can't do.

Lesson 1:

Please get the difference between the following:

1) Nothing is actually.

2) Nothing is actually

Some hint: No written words is actually

The inability to distinguish between (1) and (2) is indeed Hilarious (in the bad sense).

 

[doronshadmi]

a is a singleton.

The mapping of Traditional Mathematics in case of a is done only in terms of pairs, in a given mathematical universe, as follows:

(a,a) or (a, )

OM goes beyond the restrictions of pairs by define mapping without an inverse mapping to (a), as follows:

a →

This mapping is essentially different than

a → a (based on (a,a))

or

a ← (based on (a, )

 

[jsfisher]

a is a singleton.

The mapping of Traditional Mathematics in case of a is done only in terms of pairs, in a given mathematical universe, as follows:

(a,a) or (a, )

OM goes beyond the restrictions of pairs by define mapping without an inverse mapping to (a), as follows:

a →

This mapping is essentially different than

a → a (based on (a,a))

or

a ← (based on (a, )

Inaccuracies and blunders aside, all this says is that doronetics does math differently and for no apparent purpose other than reveling in inconsistency. This is all well-established, Doron. You need not belabor it.

Now, there is still this little matter of the fib you told regarding Mathematics and inverse functions. Care to correct your lie?