Deeper than primes - Continuation

[doronshadmi]

Yes.

There are other approaches to unity.

There can be infinitely many approaches, but all of them are expressed from AND calm down into Unity, which is beyond any Polychotomy.

 

[doronshadmi]

You call that an explanation?

Yes,

My philosophy is based on the twothing.

but it worthless without direct awareness of Unity, which is not a philosophy (any kind of philosophy is done only at the level of thoughts).

 

[doronshadmi]

I am not a monist.

Indeed you are not aware of Unity.

 

[punshhh]

Only personal view (which is only at the level of thoughts, where thoughts are only subjective) is not Unity awareness.

Unity awareness is actual only if the calm non-subjective source (which is not in itself a thought) is not lost during all possible expressions (whether they are abstract of physical).

There can be infinitely many approaches, but all of them are expressed from AND calm down into Unity, which is beyond any Polychotomy.

Yes I agree.

 

[dafydd]

Yes I agree.

You would.

 

[realpaladin]

Ah, you are acquainted with unity then, greetings.

Oh and by the way I don't want to be a Hindu, remember what I said about belief.

Doron got this whole 'unity of thinginess' from when I pointed out transcendental meditation and the whole 'universal science' of the Maharishi out to him.

I think all of that balmy unity stuff is a load of cobblers... if you were to really try and find some more 'tools for the mind' you would have read the first thread as well were I explained why this unity stuff is utter nonsense.

And Hinduism doesn't factor into this. It is just that this guy, the one the Beatles smoked their Ganja with, found that he could get away from all the poverty and trash that 'unity proponents' so often generate.

 

[realpaladin]

Despite of what has been written by you above, your awareness is trapped at the level of thoughts (you defiantly have no direct awareness of Unity).

Your opinion is worthless since you are not convinced of it yourself; you are on a forum where people communicate using thoughts and words.

Either you are severely damaged in the brain or you are a schoolbook example of the Donning-Kruger effect (needs umlauts, I don't want to figure out how to type them on my tablet).

 

[doronshadmi]

EDIT: Let's take a given circles' circumference as a 1-dimesiaonal space where all natural numbers are found along it as a collection of points (0-dimensional spaces).

EDIT: By using equal lengths of 1-dimesiaonal space between the points (where each point represents only once some natural number) we know that in terms of finite cardinality these clearly distinct points have opposite points (which are located at the half length of the circles' circumference) if the finite cardinality is even, or don't have opposite points (which are located at the half length of the circles' circumference) if the finite cardinality is odd.

Here is some example of odd or even cardinality ( http://britton.disted.camosun.bc.ca/modarith/modular/clocklogo2.gif (Original Web Site by Susan Addington)):

Even cardinality is seen by the blue and purple cases.

Odd cardinality is seen by the red and green cases.


In case of infinite cardinality, we actually can't determine if there is or there is no opposite point (some distinct natural number) which is located at the half length of the circles' circumference.


Question: Why is that, and what conclusions can be derived from this fact, about the nature of infinite cardinality?

 

[realpaladin]

Doron, Cypress Hill made a song about you.

 

[dafydd]

Let's take a given circles' circumference as a 1-dimesiaonal spaces where all natural numbers are found along it as a collection of points (0-dimensional spaces).

By using equal sizes of 1-dimesiaonal spaces between the points (where each point represents only once some natural number) we know that in terms of finite cardinality these clearly distinct points have opposite points (which are located at the half length of the circles' circumference) if the finite cardinality is even, or don't have opposite points (which are located at the half length of the circles' circumference) if the finite cardinality is odd.

Here is some example of odd or even cardinality ( http://britton.disted.camosun.bc.ca/modarith/modular/clocklogo2.gif (Original Web Site by Susan Addington)):

[qimg]http://britton.disted.camosun.bc.ca/modarith/modular/clocklogo2.gif[/qimg]

Even cardinality is seen by the blue and purple cases.

Odd cardinality is seen by the red and green cases.

In case of infinite cardinality, we actually can't determine if there is or there is no opposite point (some distinct natural number) which is located at the half length of the circles' circumference.

Question: Why is that?

Answer that question punshhh. Us lesser mortals are stuck at the level of thought.

 

[dafydd]

The Catholic Church has some odd cardinals. Is that what Doron's farrago of nonsense above is all about?

 

[doronshadmi]

Your opinion is worthless since you are not convinced of it yourself;

Well, it is a clear description of your current (trapped at the level of thoughts) awareness.

you are on a forum where people communicate using thoughts and words.

It does not mean that they have to be trapped only at the level of thoughts, so?

 

[doronshadmi]

I think all of that balmy unity stuff is a load of cobblers... if you were to really try and find some more 'tools for the mind' you would have read the first thread as well were I explained why this unity stuff is utter nonsense.

Well, as an awareness that is trapped only at the level of thoughts, Unity awareness is indeed utter nonsense, so?

 

[jsfisher]

Let's take a given circles' circumference as a 1-dimesiaonal spaces where all natural numbers are found along it as a collection of points (0-dimensional spaces).

You don't know the difference between a circle and its circumference, do you? (The question is purely rhetorical.)

...<mostly gibberish>...
In case of infinite cardinality, we actually can't determine if there is or there is no opposite point (some distinct natural number) which is located at the half length of the circles' circumference.


Question: Why is that?

Two reasons. (1) You have elected a construction method that isn't appropriate for placing the entire set of natural numbers along a circle, and therefore the question you ask is meaningless. (2) The concepts of odd and even is applicable only to the integers, which the cardinality of the set of natural numbers is not, and therefore the question you ask is meaningless.

 

[doronshadmi]

Some traditional mathematician may claim that I "have elected a construction method that isn't appropriate for placing the entire set of natural numbers along a circle".

EDIT: This is wrong, since the form of modular arithmetic is an appropriate way for placing the entire set of natural numbers along it.

 

[doronshadmi]

Some traditional mathematician may say that "The concepts of odd and even is applicable only to the integers, which the cardinality of the set of natural numbers is not"

This is also wrong since:

1) By traditional Mathematics Natural numbers are particular case of integers.

2) Traditional Mathematics uses mapping like:

1 <==> 2
2 <==> 4
3 <==> 6
4 <==> 8
...

or

1 <==> 1
2 <==> 3
3 <==> 5
4 <==> 7
...

in order to conclude things about infinite cardinality.

 

[jsfisher]

Some traditional mathematician may claim that I "have elected a construction method that isn't appropriate for placing the entire set of natural numbers along a circle".

EDIT: This is wrong, since the form of modular arithmetic is an appropriate way for placing the entire set of natural numbers along it.

Is this the best you can do for a back peddle? The method you described in the original post is not appropriate, cannot be used for the full set of natural numbers. The question you ended with is therefore, like most of what you post, without meaning.

Switching as you suggest in your edit quoted above gives a useless many-to-one mapping unrelated to your original meaningless question.

Are you really so confused that you cannot follow your own conversation? Don't answer. It has already been well established that you are.

I now predict a deliberate shift away from the original meaningless question by way of a sequence of quibbles and gibberish. You may now begin.

 

[jsfisher]

Some traditional mathematician may say that "The concepts of odd and even is applicable only to the integers, which the cardinality of the set of natural numbers is not"

This is also wrong since:

1) By traditional Mathematics Natural numbers are particular case of integers.

Nobody claimed otherwise. (And, by the way, "subset" was the word you wanted.)

2) Traditional Mathematics uses mapping like:

1 <==> 2
2 <==> 4
3 <==> 6
4 <==> 8
...

or

1 <==> 1
2 <==> 3
3 <==> 5
4 <==> 7
...

in order to conclude things about infinite cardinality.

And what does that have to do with the concepts even and odd with respect to the cardinality of the set of natural numbers?

 

[doronshadmi]

Furthermore modular arithmetic is used by Traditional Math in order to describe the entire real-line, where integers are definitely included along it as can be seen by the following diagram ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_at_infinity ):

 

[jsfisher]

Furthermore modular arithmetic is used by Traditional Math in order to describe the entire real-line, where integers a definitely included along it as ca be seen by the following diagram ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_at_infinity ):

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Real_projective_line.svg/200px-Real_projective_line.svg.png[/qimg]

Sure. It is very easy to project the entire set of real numbers onto the points of a circle.

This has nothing to do with your original even/odd question. You are simply trying to distance yourself from the nonsense of that post.