Deeper than primes - Continuation

[Mudcat]

Please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583 .

I am aware of that post, it makes zero sense to me and it is completely beyond my skill to see what practical use it has. This is why I am asking for clarification. In clear, simple, easy to understand terms.

Me, I am not a mathematician, nor a paleontologist, nor some noble prize winning super genius rocket scientist. I'm Joe Everybody, working man holding two part-time jobs and a full time student.

Please try again, keeping that in mind.

 

[doronshadmi]

I am aware of that post, it makes zero sense to me and it is completely beyond my skill to see what practical use it has. This is why I am asking for clarification. In clear, simple, easy to understand terms.

Me, I am not a mathematician, nor a paleontologist, nor some noble prize winning super genius rocket scientist. I'm Joe Everybody, working man holding two part-time jobs and a full time student.

Please try again, keeping that in mind.

Mudcat,

Are you aware of yourself as the calm source of any possible mantel activity in your mind?

 

[Mudcat]

Mudcat,

Are you aware of yourself as the calm source of any possible mantel activity in your mind?

I am aware that mental activity can be influenced by environmental stimuli, and quite strongly at that. But I fail to see how it connects with my post.

 

[doronshadmi]

I am aware that mental activity can be influenced by environmental stimuli, and quite strongly at that. But I fail to see how it connects with my post.

You did not answer my question, please try again.

 

[Mudcat]

You did not answer my question, please try again.

This question?

Are you aware of yourself as the calm source of any possible mantel activity in your mind?

I don't know what to make of it. What is a calm source? What do you mean by it? What kind of brain activity do you mean? Why do you ask this question? What does have to with my post? What does it have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

[zooterkin]

Made your first mistake here.

Oh, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that...

 

[Mudcat]

Oh, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that...

I'm sure, too. But say zoo (sorry about having to shorten your name, my iPad is giving me fits about it) do you have any clue what they are going on about? If so, please let me know.

 

[doronshadmi]

This question?



I don't know what to make of it. What is a calm source? What do you mean by it? What kind of brain activity do you mean? Why do you ask this question? What does have to with my post? What does it have to do with the price of tea in China?

Please look at the analogy of Unity awareness in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583 .

 

[zooterkin]

I'm sure, too. But say zoo (sorry about having to shorten your name, my iPad is giving me fits about it) do you have any clue what they are going on about? If so, please let me know.

Doron fails to understand several fundamental things about maths, logic and the English language. Rather than take correction from people who do understand, he continues to build his fantasies on the sand of his poor comprehension, and the "insight' that a stick laid across a circle is both inside and outside the circle at the same time, to occasional comic effect. Some of the things he fails to grasp are that a line is covered in points, that .999... is the same as 1, and that infinity is not just a very large number.

 

[PiedPiper]

Why are you guys talking about fireplaces now

I swear, this thread just gets more and more confusing.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron fails to understand several fundamental things about maths, logic and the English language. Rather than take correction from people who do understand, he continues to build his fantasies on the sand of his poor comprehension, and the "insight' that a stick laid across a circle is both inside and outside the circle at the same time, to occasional comic effect. Some of the things he fails to grasp are that a line is covered in points, that .999... is the same as 1, and that infinity is not just a very large number.

Zooterkin,

1) You can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8007222&postcount=396 .

2) You repeat like a parrot after what other people say without actually understand what I say.

3) A line (which is a particular case of "host" space) can't fully be covered by any amount of points (which are particular case of "hosted" spaces) exactly because no higher (mathematical or physical) space is reducible into collection of lower (mathematical or physical) spaces, but your verbal_symbolic-only context-dependent-only view of the considered subject is too weak in order to get it.

4) One of the results of the irreducibility of higher space into a collection of lower spaces is non-local numbers like 0.999...₁₀ < local number 1 by non-local number 0.000...1₁₀

5) Actual infinity is not less than the power of the continuum of a given host (mathematical or physical) space, and no amount of lower (mathematical or physical) spaces is actual infinity, so your claim that I think that infinity is some very large number is actually an example of your inability to get my arguments.

6) And yes, "a stick laid across a circle is both inside and outside the circle" exactly because of what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8007222&postcount=396 (a line can be at AND beyond (not at) a given domain), which is something beyond your verbal_symbolic-only context-dependent-only limited comprehension of this fine subject (you can't get it beyond collections of localities, exactly like the people that you repeat like a parrot after what they say).

 

[Mudcat]

Please look at the analogy of Unity awareness in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583 .

This is the same as this post:

Please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583 .

It is still not making any sense to me. I am asking nicely can you please break it down into simpler terms? After that can you provide how it is in any way useful, practical, and beneficial?

 

[Mudcat]

"insight' that a stick laid across a circle is both inside and outside the circle at the same time, to occasional comic effect.

How is this in anyway 'insightful'? A stick laid across a circle with a diameer smaller than the length of the stick would mean that it is both inside and outside the circle (provided you ignore the problem that it's reaaly just a three-dimensional object on top of a two dimensional shape so can't be 'in' or 'out' of it in the first place).

Some of the things he fails to grasp are that a line is covered in points.

What's so hard to grasp? A line is figure stretches out in oposite directions infinitely, so is covered with an equally infinite number of points. choose two points, and you get a segment, choose one, you get a ray. Basic geometry.

that .999... is the same as 1.

I thought that was one of those things that go without saying?

and that infinity is not just a very large number.

It's not a number at all, any more than zero is.

And this guy wants to make a new 'science'?

 

[Little 10 Toes]

If there is nothing between considered things (numbers or whatever) then there is actually one and only one thing, for example:

There is an endless straight line, which is actually one and only one thing.

Oh, so there are other "one and only one thing(s)"? Please list them all.

For now, I agree that we have only have a line.

Now, there is a point which is located along it, end as a result we are able to distinguish between, for example, left and right rays w.r.t the considered point, even if the point has 0 dimensional space, so 0 dimensional space is not nothing, because if it is omitted, we get a single endless straight line.

No. If I have a single line and a single point is removed or "omitted", then I do not have a endless line. I have two rays.

The rest of your post is based off incomplete information and your own special words and phrases.

 

[doronshadmi]

Oh, so there are other "one and only one thing(s)"? Please list them all.

For now, I agree that we have only have a line.

No. If I have a single line and a single point is removed or "omitted", then I do not have a endless line. I have two rays.

The rest of your post is based off incomplete information and your own special words and phrases.

You contradict yourself because:

1) You agree that we have only a line (a 1-space without any sub-spaces (segments) or lower space(s)(0-space(s)) along it.

2) If you have a single line (according to your agreement with (1)), then this single line remains a single line if no lower space like a point (0-space) exists along it, or in other words, no rays are defined without the existence of a point along the endless line, so you are wrong when you are claiming that "If I have a single line and a single point is removed or "omitted", then I do not have a endless line. I have two rays."

 

[zooterkin]

2) If you have a single line (according to your agreement with (1)), then this single line remains a single line if no lower space like a point (0-space) exists along it, or in other words, no rays are defined without the existence of a point along the endless line, so you are wrong when you claiming that "If I have a single line and a single point is removed or "omitted", then I do not have a endless line. I have two rays."

Oh, yes, I'd forgotten this one. The points are there, by definition, whether you choose to identify them or not, Doron.

 

[doronshadmi]

What's so hard to grasp? A line is figure stretches out in oposite directions infinitely, so is covered with an equally infinite number of points. choose two points, and you get a segment, choose one, you get a ray. Basic geometry.

The basic geometry is that no point (0-space element) is extendible into a line (1-space element) and no line is reducible into a point (0-space element).

As a result not amount of points (collection of 0-spaces) completely covers a line (1-space element).

This simple fact is generalized to any association among lower and higher spaces, such that no collection of lower spaces completely covers the higher space.

Therefore I am using the terms "host"\"hosted" spaces in order to clarify that they are defined but not made of each other.

I thought that was one of those things that go without saying?

This thought is changed if you understand the principle of "host"\"hosted" spaces.

It's not a number at all, any more than zero is.

Numbers are measurement tools of X and not X in itself, for example:

If X is nothing then its cardinality is measured by number 0, where number 0 is not nothing.

If X is fullness (the opposite of nothing) then its cardinality is measured by number ∞, where number ∞ is not fullness.

And this guy wants to make a new 'science'?

Now you are closed under your own loop and ignore what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8007812&postcount=411 under paragraph (5).

 

[doronshadmi]

Oh, yes, I'd forgotten this one. The points are there, by definition, whether you choose to identify them or not, Doron.

Wrong zooterkin,

1-space exists even if no sub-spaces (line segments) or elements of lower space (points) exist along it.

Because you can't grasp this simple fact you can't understand how a line is at AND beyond (not at) a given domain.

Furthermore, multiple points are there exactly because of the association among lower and higher spaces such that they are defined but not made of each other, or in other words, no amount of lower spaces completely covers the higher space (no collection of lower spaces or sub-spaces has the power of continuum of the higher space).

In order to get that one's brain must use not less than its verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, which is something that you definitely don't do.

How convenient for you to ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8007812&postcount=411 , isn't it zooterkin?

 

[doronshadmi]

This is the same as this post:



It is still not making any sense to me. I am asking nicely can you please break it down into simpler terms? After that can you provide how it is in any way useful, practical, and beneficial?

Once again, please read only the part about Unity awareness (as has been written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583) in order to get my previous question to you ("Are you aware of yourself as the calm source of any possible mantel activity in your mind?")

 

[Little 10 Toes]

You contradict yourself because:

1) You agree that we have only a line (a 1-space without any sub-spaces (segments) or lower space(s)(0-space(s)) along it.

Didn't contradict myself. You have assumed that I was using your "definition" of a line. The rest of your post is based on me using your "definition" of a line.

The basic geometry is that no point (0-space element) is extendible into a line (1-space element) and no line is reducible into a point (0-space element).

I, and I think most people here, would agree with this statement minus your "definitions" of point and line because your "definitions" are wrong.

As a result not amount of points (collection of 0-spaces) completely covers a line (1-space element).

Wrong. Again you're using your "definitions" that only you believe in. In addition, your original statement stays that we can't stretch a point to cover a line, but then you say we can't use an infinite amount of points to cover an infinite line.

We can, and do in fact, use points to make up a line. How you may ask? Draw me a standard graph using graph paper. Show me points of X and Y that will make the following statement correct: X + Y = 0. After marking all the points that you can on your paper, you should have a collection of points that has endpoints in the upper left and the lower right quadrants of the paper. I am assuming that you have stayed within the boundaries of the paper. Guess what, you've just created a line segment. Now if your paper was of infinite size, your line segment could turn into a line, but you would still have points covering your line.