Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
jsfisher said:
This is all well-established, Doron. You need not belabor it.
Click to expand...
Traditional mathematics is no more than a particular universe of mathematical multiverse.

jsfisher said:
Now, there is still this little matter of the fib you told regarding Mathematics and inverse functions. Care to correct your lie?
Click to expand...
Care to not force your particular mathematical universe on the mathematical multiverse (more deails are given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9830197&postcount=3609, but they are currently not in the scope of jsfisher (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9830684&postcount=3610))?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Care to not force your particular mathematical universe on the mathematical multiverse (more deails are given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9830197&postcount=3609, but they are currently not in the scope of jsfisher (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9830684&postcount=3610))?
Click to expand...

No Doron Shadmi the liar, it is not about forcing universes on things; it is about Doron Shadmi stating that traditional mathematics did not have functions without an inverse.

That, and that statement alone is what it is about.

Either retract it or apologize for the error.
 
doronshadmi said:
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

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).
Click to expand...

When I read something childish like this (with the .) I can hear Red (from that 70's show) say exactly what is needed here: "Dumbass!"
 
Functions and their inverses are done among existing things of the same level of existence, for example:

{1,2}

There is no inverse function from the outer "{" and "}" to 1 or 2, or form 1 or 2 to the outer "{" and "}".

But there is an inverse function from 1 to 2 or from 2 to 1.
 
doronshadmi said:
Functions and their inverses are done among existing things of the same level of existence, for example:

{1,2}

There is no inverse function from the outer "{" and "}" to 1 or 2, or form 1 or 2 to the outer "{" and "}".

But there is an inverse function from 1 to 2 or from 2 to 1.
Click to expand...


I don't care about the twisted treatment in doronetics. Doronetics is useless, and it bears little resemblance to Mathematics.

You said Mathematics cannot "deal with" a function without an inverse. Trivial examples with f(x) = x^2 prove your statement to be a lie. The only honorable thing would be for you to retract the bogus statement and apologize, but you persist in obscuring things with gibberish and doronetics contortions.
 
doronshadmi said:
It is exactly about forcing a particular mathematical universe on mathematical mulitverse.
Click to expand...

No, it's about you trying to cover up your own incompetence, ignorance and plain stupidity with gibberish. Luckily, such level of fail is near impossible to hide. You keep trying, though! We'll keep shoving the bullcrap off and show your "work" what it really is: more bullcrap.
 
doronshadmi said:
Care to not force your particular mathematical universe on the mathematical multiverse
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
It is exactly about forcing a particular mathematical universe on mathematical mulitverse.
Click to expand...

Doron Shadmi the liar is caught again redhanded.

Doron, stop being so squiddy (by trying to cloud the issue and then flee into other discussions) and face that you said that:

"Traditional mathematics does not have a function without an inverse."

Are you denying that traditional mathematics has functions without inverse?
 
realpaladin said:
Doron Shadmi the liar is caught again redhanded.

Doron, stop being so squiddy (by trying to cloud the issue and then flee into other discussions) and face that you said that:

"Traditional mathematics does not have a function without an inverse."

Are you denying that traditional mathematics has functions without inverse?
Click to expand...

He is not lying, he is just talking about something else. When he says 'function' he means a mapping, when he says 'no inverse' he means a mapping that does not map some of the source domain members. He does not understand that a function is just a set of n-tuples. He is wilfully ignorant. Wishes to stay that way because he know Math is well beyond his capabilities. You are trying to reason with an the unreasonable. That is impossible.
 
sympathic said:
He is not lying, he is just talking about something else. When he says 'function' he means a mapping, when he says 'no inverse' he means a mapping that does not map some of the source domain members.
Click to expand...

Well, I would have bought that if he had said that his definition of inverse is different from the definition of traditional mathematics.

But he keeps comparing it to traditional mathematics, and in fact, he got his butt handed to him by someone from the Wolfram Alpha team on the Wolfram fora on exactly this quite a few years ago.

Also, if he pretends to know what traditional mathematics is about and where it is wrong, then I can, and will, call him out on that.

If he stops pointing at traditional mathematics and just works on his, what the guy from Wolfram Alpha calls 'hacktower' of logic, work then by all means.

On the talkrational fora, also a few years ago, the fact that he should stop comparing things with traditional mathematics *or* really learn it first was pointed out to him as well.

If you Google for Doron Shadmi then you will find that he has visited a ridiculous amount of math and science fora and on each and everyone this has been said to him.

Also, if you look at the sheer amount of information he *did* look up, then you can not sincerely believe that this has escaped him.

So therefore I can call him a pathological liar, since he knows the difference, he just chooses to act as if we all don't know it and just tries to bluff his way through it.

But you are right in that it is impossible to teach Doron anything, but as I said earlier; Doron is like having a favourite toothache.
 
realpaladin said:
Are you denying that traditional mathematics has functions without inverse?
Click to expand...
At the level that I am talking about, Traditional mathematics does not use a function without an inverse (which means, a function that has an input, but it does not have any output).

You simply have problems to grasp http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9833876&postcount=3640 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9837661&postcount=3659

realpaladin said:
Well, I would have bought that if he had said that his definition of inverse is different from the definition of traditional mathematics.
Click to expand...

Your are a liar (you are actually lying to yourself), because this is exactly what I have said in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9837661&postcount=3659 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9833876&postcount=3640.
 
Last edited:
realpaladin said:
Well, I would have bought that if he had said that his definition of inverse is different from the definition of traditional mathematics.

But he keeps comparing it to traditional mathematics, and in fact, he got his butt handed to him by someone from the Wolfram Alpha team on the Wolfram fora on exactly this quite a few years ago.

Also, if he pretends to know what traditional mathematics is about and where it is wrong, then I can, and will, call him out on that.

If he stops pointing at traditional mathematics and just works on his, what the guy from Wolfram Alpha calls 'hacktower' of logic, work then by all means.

On the talkrational fora, also a few years ago, the fact that he should stop comparing things with traditional mathematics *or* really learn it first was pointed out to him as well.

If you Google for Doron Shadmi then you will find that he has visited a ridiculous amount of math and science fora and on each and everyone this has been said to him.

Also, if you look at the sheer amount of information he *did* look up, then you can not sincerely believe that this has escaped him.

So therefore I can call him a pathological liar, since he knows the difference, he just chooses to act as if we all don't know it and just tries to bluff his way through it.

But you are right in that it is impossible to teach Doron anything, but as I said earlier; Doron is like having a favourite toothache.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct. We can't resist responding. We all have that hidden hope that finally he will come around -- but I suspect he won't. He can't.
 
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