Deeper than primes - Continuation

[doronshadmi]

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.

1) A line exists even if there are no points along it, exactly because a line is not a collection of lower spaces (for example, points along a line or along line segments) or sub-spaces (for example, line segments).

2) As a result no amount of lower spaces or sub-spaces has the power of continuum of a line, such that a line can't be completely covered by any amount of collection of lower spaces (points), and its continuum is beyond a collection of segments, simply because actual continuum is beyond the state of collection, no matter what cardinality a given infinite collection has.

3) You can't get actual continuum because your mind is not actually based on your verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

Show me points of X and Y that will make the following statement correct: X + Y = 0.

It can't be done if X and Y are different points (in this case there is a gap between them in the absolute sense).

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

This infinite collection of distinct points does not have the power of the continuum of the 1-space, which they are ordered along it.

In general, no infinite collection of distinct lower spaces or sub-spaces (known also as the "hosted" space) has the power of the continuum of the higher space (known also as the "host" space).

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.

Your twisted verbal_symbolic-only maneuvers have no impact on the "host"\"hosted" association among spaces, which is actually known only by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

 

[doronshadmi]

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.

Little 10 Toes,

An infinite amount of points can't cover also a finite line (known as Segment).

Furthermore, a finite line is not a collection of sub-segments, simply because given any arbitrary member of the collection of sub-segments, the line-segment is at and beyond (not at) the domain of the arbitrary sub-segment, and as a result the collection of sub-segments does not have the power of the continuum of the line-segment.

Moreover, the power of continuum of the collection of sub-segments decreasing by inverse proportionality to the cardinality of this collection.

----------------

Let's get a precise understanding of the power of the continuum of a given space:

Any given space or sub-space > 0 has the power of the continuum, where any collection of lower spaces with cardinality > 0 or collection of sub-spaces with cardinality > 1 that are located on any given space or sub-space > 0, decreasing by inverse proportionality to the cardinality of the considered collection.

Here is a verbal _symbolic AND visual_spatial example (the points represent the verbal _symbolic aspect):

...____________________________... is a line and it has the power of the continuum.


.________. is a line-segment, and no collection of line segments or points along a given line, has the power of the continuum of the given line.

Furthermore:

.________. is a line-segment, and no collection of sub line-segments or points along a given line-segment, has the power of the continuum of the given line-segment.

Moreover, the power of continuum of the collection of sub-segments or points on a given line-segment decreasing by inverse proportionality to the cardinality of this collection.

 

[realpaladin]

I see Zooterkin is still trying to save Doron, the others are new to me.

Doron! Any luck yet with revolutionizing the world of maths?

 

[punshhh]

Two locations in time are comparable simultaneously by memory, and yet the location in the future is potential, so Time can't be defined only in terms of collection of localities.

Step-by-step minds are tuned to get things only in terms of collections, and as a result they can't get the true nature of the continuum, which is not reducible to collections.

You are talking perfect sense to me, unfortunately I don't have sufficient mathematical understanding to join in this debate.

It is remarkable how this step by step abstract thinking cannot break free of its abstraction and entertain the continuum. It just falls back on itself, justifying itself and hiding behind semantics and definitions.

 

[dafydd]

You are talking perfect sense to me, unfortunately I don't have sufficient mathematical understanding to join in this debate.

It is remarkable how this step by step abstract thinking cannot break free of its abstraction and entertain the continuum. It just falls back on itself, justifying itself and hiding behind semantics and definitions.

That speaks volumes. Doron has no clue about mathematics.

 

[zooterkin]

You are talking perfect sense to me, unfortunately I don't have sufficient mathematical understanding to join in this debate.

I think you are at least as well qualified as Doron.

It is remarkable how this step by step abstract thinking cannot break free of its abstraction and entertain the continuum. It just falls back on itself, justifying itself and hiding behind semantics and definitions.

See, there you go! Now, if you could just work in something about the event horizon of the formless, or similar...

 

[dafydd]

I think you are at least as well qualified as Doron.


See, there you go! Now, if you could just work in something about the event horizon of the formless, or similar...

Maybe Doron and Punshhh could work out the equation for the event horizon of the formless.

 

[dafydd]

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.

Do you understand that punshhh? Or is it just semantics and definitions to you?

 

[realpaladin]

Do you understand that punshhh? Or is it just semantics and definitions to you?

What?!!?!?!???? Still with the infinity issues of points on a line?

I thought I and a few others dealt with that until the subject was so wrung out it could have soaked up an ocean...

Let me more or less repeat in a condensed way what I already showed to Mr. Shadmi:

- Since infinity is actually a 'method boundary' and not a 'thing', you can not put the restraints of 'things' on it.
- A coordinate is a 'thing' and thus has restraints.
- A line is nothing but a method to denote coordinates (i.e. things) and thus does not need to have the constraints of the 'things' it points to.
- Since the line has no end points it stretches into infinity.

Now the biggest problem with the Mr. Shadmi brand of 'science' is that it is all based on what is called 'naive' observations and 'common sense'.
But class 101 in advanced science tells you that common sense is not necessarily a good thing to use when dealing with the extremities of knowledge.

Coordinates are not physical manifestations... physical manifestations do have limits like Planck time and are therefore in reality discreet (yeah yeah, I know, there's a lot of stuff not fitting into that, but for the purpose of this thread, it is correct).

The whole thing with coordinates is that you need to imagine something for our visual cortex to work with... but any computer does not have to and will gladly, provided time and memory, go off into infinity (as an example I give you the hunt for digits in Pi).

So what is hampering progress (for over 2 years.... wow... I never had a discussion that long) is the need to visualize all these concepts into a 1D/2D/3D object...

To @doron did Microsoft welcome you after you mailed Steve Ballmer? Or do I need to give you the email address again?

 

[dafydd]

What?!!?!?!???? Still with the infinity issues of points on a line?
I thought I and a few others dealt with that until the subject was so wrung out it could have soaked up an ocean...

Let me more or less repeat in a condensed way what I already showed to Mr. Shadmi:

- Since infinity is actually a 'method boundary' and not a 'thing', you can not put the restraints of 'things' on it.
- A coordinate is a 'thing' and thus has restraints.
- A line is nothing but a method to denote coordinates (i.e. things) and thus does not need to have the constraints of the 'things' it points to.
- Since the line has no end points it stretches into infinity.

Now the biggest problem with the Mr. Shadmi brand of 'science' is that it is all based on what is called 'naive' observations and 'common sense'.
But class 101 in advanced science tells you that common sense is not necessarily a good thing to use when dealing with the extremities of knowledge.

Coordinates are not physical manifestations... physical manifestations do have limits like Planck time and are therefore in reality discreet (yeah yeah, I know, there's a lot of stuff not fitting into that, but for the purpose of this thread, it is correct).

The whole thing with coordinates is that you need to imagine something for our visual cortex to work with... but any computer does not have to and will gladly, provided time and memory, go off into infinity (as an example I give you the hunt for digits in Pi).

So what is hampering progress (for over 2 years.... wow... I never had a discussion that long) is the need to visualize all these concepts into a 1D/2D/3D object...

To @doron did Microsoft welcome you after you mailed Steve Ballmer? Or do I need to give you the email address again?

Yes, and now punshhh has waded in. I could dig up a thread where punshhh demonstrates a lack of knowledge about infinity, but why bother.

 

[punshhh]

Do you understand that punshhh? Or is it just semantics and definitions to you?

I do, it has nothing to do with Dorons point.

 

[dafydd]

I do, it has nothing to do with Dorons point.

But everything to do with this

''It is remarkable how this step by step abstract thinking cannot break free of its abstraction and entertain the continuum. It just falls back on itself, justifying itself and hiding behind semantics and definitions. ''

Entertain the continuum? Is that on this side or the other side of the event horizon of the formless?

 

[punshhh]

What?!!?!?!???? Still with the infinity issues of points on a line?

I thought I and a few others dealt with that until the subject was so wrung out it could have soaked up an ocean...

Let me more or less repeat in a condensed way what I already showed to Mr. Shadmi:

- Since infinity is actually a 'method boundary' and not a 'thing', you can not put the restraints of 'things' on it.
- A coordinate is a 'thing' and thus has restraints.
- A line is nothing but a method to denote coordinates (i.e. things) and thus does not need to have the constraints of the 'things' it points to.
- Since the line has no end points it stretches into infinity.

Now the biggest problem with the Mr. Shadmi brand of 'science' is that it is all based on what is called 'naive' observations and 'common sense'.
But class 101 in advanced science tells you that common sense is not necessarily a good thing to use when dealing with the extremities of knowledge.

Coordinates are not physical manifestations... physical manifestations do have limits like Planck time and are therefore in reality discreet (yeah yeah, I know, there's a lot of stuff not fitting into that, but for the purpose of this thread, it is correct).

The whole thing with coordinates is that you need to imagine something for our visual cortex to work with... but any computer does not have to and will gladly, provided time and memory, go off into infinity (as an example I give you the hunt for digits in Pi).

So what is hampering progress (for over 2 years.... wow... I never had a discussion that long) is the need to visualize all these concepts into a 1D/2D/3D object...

To @doron did Microsoft welcome you after you mailed Steve Ballmer? Or do I need to give you the email address again?

I don't want to put words into Mr Shadmi's mouth or miss-represent him. So I am only putting my interpretation on the table.

It appears that Mr Shadmi is merely pointing out the peculiar result of attempting to apply infinity to a timespace. Perhaps he has got something, maybe not, I don't know as I'm not a mathematician.

I am familiar with the ideas he is putting forward and in the appropriate context they are very usefull.

 

[dafydd]

I don't want to put words into Mr Shadmi's mouth or miss-represent him. So I am only putting my interpretation on the table.

It appears that Mr Shadmi is merely pointing out the peculiar result of attempting to apply infinity to a timespace. Perhaps he has got something, maybe not, I don't know as I'm not a mathematician.

I am familiar with the ideas he is putting forward and in the appropriate context they are very usefull.

Take it from the real mathematicians here that he is talking sheer nonsense. I have no idea what useful purpose his ideas might be put to unless it is printing them out and using them to line a birdcage.

 

[punshhh]

But everything to do with this

''It is remarkable how this step by step abstract thinking cannot break free of its abstraction and entertain the continuum. It just falls back on itself, justifying itself and hiding behind semantics and definitions. ''

Entertain the continuum? Is that on this side or the other side of the event horizon of the formless?

This was addressed to Doron and I expect he will understand my meaning.

 

[dafydd]

This was addressed to Doron and I expect he will understand my meaning.

This is a public forum, and I expect he will understand you. Sadly.

 

[punshhh]

Take it from the real mathematicians here that he is talking sheer nonsense. I have no idea what useful purpose his ideas might be put to unless it is printing them out and using them to line a birdcage.

No it all makes perfect sense, the debate is at an impasse without anyone considering Doron's perspective on the issue.

 

[dafydd]

No it all makes perfect sense, the debate is at an impasse without anyone considering Doron's perspective on the issue.

Perspective? His maths is wrong, end of story.

 

[dafydd]

Perhaps you could elucidate on this for me

Originally Posted by doronshadmi
''In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...3&postcount=37, a reasoning that is based only on verbal_symbolic skills, can't comprehend the result of the transition of finer states to the finest state (which is resulted by a finite collection that no one of its objects is the finest state) and the inaccessibility of finitely or infinitely (which is any amount of) finer states to the finest state (where in the case of infinitely finer states, no transition to the finest state is involved)''

 

[Mudcat]

Take it from the real mathematicians here that he is talking sheer nonsense. I have no idea what useful purpose his ideas might be put to unless it is printing them out and using them to line a birdcage.

THank you for answering the question I put forward to Doron when I joined this thread.

So, his math is wrong and it serves no practical benefit what so ever? That's pretty much what I thought, coming in to the thread.

Edit to add: Still begs the question, why is this on R&P section and not the Bad Science section?