Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
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).
Click to expand...

Good. Now we are getting somewhere. You are stating here that your inverse has nothing to do with the traditional mathematical definition of inverse.

So, as an analogy: "At the level I am playing chess, a cow does not have a clue about mate."

EDIT: Deleted the explanation for Doron. Too much anticipatory fun watching him butcher it...

doronshadmi said:
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
Click to expand...

You simply can't explain it.


doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...

No Doron, don't try your usual sneaky tactic of posting zillions of posts in between so it looks like 'you have always said that'.

You did not, and you make your sneakiness worse by acting as if you did.

Now stop acting like a jester and get on with the show.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I are wrong.

The level of function that I am talking about is more straightforward than the level of Traditional mathematics.
Click to expand...

Well, <SNIP> your function is not straight at all, since you need two points and you only have 1.


Edited by LashL: 
Edited to remove breach. Remain civil, please.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Edited for breach of Rule 0 and Rule 12. Remain civil, please, and remember to address the argument rather than attacking the arguer.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sympathic said:
Stop inventing your stuff and calling it with the same name as something that is already well defined in Math.
Click to expand...
Math is not a privet property of any particular school of thought, so stop trying to force what the community of traditional mathematicians calls well-defined.
 
realpaladin said:
Well, <SNIP>, your function is not straight at all, since you need two points and you only have 1.
Click to expand...
<SNIP>, a function starts also from 1 point, but in this case it simply does not have an inverse function.

Edited by LashL: 
Edited to remove breach. Remain civil, please.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
doronshadmi said:
Math is not a privet property of any particular school of thought, so stop trying to force what the community of traditional mathematicians calls well-defined.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with Math being private or any school of thought. It is the same as referring to the colour of the sky as "green". You can go ahead and use the same name for well established notions when you actually mean something else. In addition to it being plain wrong, it makes communication with you even more difficult than it already is.
 
sympathic said:
This has nothing to do with Math being private or any school of thought. It is the same as referring to the colour of the sky as "green".
Click to expand...
EDIT:

It is the same as restricting the colour of the sky as only-blue (= function must be based on pairs, in order to be defined) but the colour of the sky is not only-blue (= a function is defined also if it is based on a singleton).

By using such a function in a mathematical mutiverse (which is a generalization the traditional mathematical universe (exactly as multiset is a generalization of set), one easily deduces that the notion of transfinite cardinality does not hold water (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9823863&postcount=3563 , http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9830197&postcount=3609).

You simply ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9828130&postcount=3602 like any good traditional mathematician.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I are wrong.
Click to expand...

You will get no argument on that from anyone here.

The level of function that I am talking about is more straightforward than the level of Traditional mathematics.
Click to expand...

No, you were not talking about functions at all. You were just making stuff up as you frequently do to cover your ignorance and your blunders.

You don't get to declare Mathematics wrong by redefining things. That's not how it works. Feel free to invent all the nonsense you like for doronetics -- and it all has been nonsense -- but you get no sway over Mathematics.

Your claim about functions without inverses was fantastically wrong. You know it was wrong.

<Edited to remove a least civil part>
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
EDIT:

Because it is the signature the non-entropic conditions of the mathematical multiverse (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9830197&postcount=3609, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9824985&postcount=3569).
Click to expand...

And this is of what significance to whom and why?

I have not seen a single thing produced by OM except for irritation (proof is in the yellow cards) and strife.

So, please explain what makes this better than traditional science which gives us beauty, harmony and understanding.

After all, you claim in your PDF's that OM will bring unity; you made that claim in the two islands thought experiment more expressly and visually.

Now then, care to show how exactly that is of any importance at all?
 
In a few posts it is time again for a recap of all the errors, including the non-rational tactics employed.

If there is anyone, besides Doron, that has seen anything that has a relation to mathematics, please mention so, otherwise the recap will need to point out that we are working here with a personal hobby construct and not mathematics.

This seems important to me as traditional mathematics is referenced a lot, and most people, including me at some point, make the mistake of thinking that the discussion is about mathematics.
 
sympathic said:
This has nothing to do with Math being private or any school of thought. It is the same as referring to the colour of the sky as "green". You can go ahead and use the same name for well established notions when you actually mean something else. In addition to it being plain wrong, it makes communication with you even more difficult than it already is.
Click to expand...

Actually, the sky is green (in Japanese).
 
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