• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7714133&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).
Click to expand...

Evidently you just can’t comprehend that “the transition of finer states to the finest state” requires your, well, “transition” which your “no one of its objects is the finest state” implicitly asserts is lacking while your further assertions of “no transition to the finest state is involved” “finitely or infinitely” explicitly asserts no “transition” in your “transition”. Since just your "finest state" is "any amount of) finer states" it is just 'inaccessable' to itself. Thank you for finaily admitting the "inaccessibility" of your notions to just your notions.

doronshadmi said:
Using only Verbal_symbolic_only skills has devastating results on the mathematical science in general, and on the mind of some Verbal_symbolic_only skill(er), in particular.
Click to expand...

What you think has obviously devastated your mind is irrelevant to this thread but since you now do bring your mental stability into question, pretending to ignore posts while replying to them does not bode well for such stability, as noted by other before I recommend you consult a professional therapist or physiatrist.
 
Last edited:
In addition to what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7714559&postcount=39 , verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) simply can't comprehend that the transition from the finer to the finest does not change the fact that no finer object is the finest object.

In other words, no finer object of a given collection is accessible to the finest object state, exactly as (for example) no circle (where a circle has a measured constant pi) is accessible to a point or a straight line.

Once again, since verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) don't use also visual_spatial skills they simply can't get the following example:

An object is considered as a circle only if pi (circumference\diameter) is found, so by following this reasoning a point or a straight are not circles, so a point is smaller than any circle but it is not the smallest circle, and a straight line is bigger than any circle but it is not the biggest circle.

Exactly as no collection of smaller or bigger circles reaches the state of a point or a straight line (the point or the line are inaccessible to the collection of circles, whether this collection is finite or infinite) , so is the case between a collection of curved lines and a straight line, or a collection of points on straight or curved line.

Again these notions are known only by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

When verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't deal with their mind's limitations they reflect it on others, which is a typical response of their imbalanced mind's skills (after all they are using only partially their potential abilities).

Furthermore, they can't comprehend that ignore list can be used in order to ignore a particular person, but it does not mean that given notions are also ignored if they can be useful in order to explain better a given subject.

In other words, ignore list does not necessarily obey "black\white" reasoning, and this is one of the main notions of this thread.

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills it is easily understood that A or B forms are inaccessible to all curves between them (whether the amount of curves is finite or not):

6296000182_d37f5a6074.jpg
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In addition to what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7714559&postcount=39 , verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) simply can't comprehend that the transition from the finer to the finest does not change the fact that no finer object is the finest object.
Click to expand...

Once again you simply assert no “transition” in your “transition”.

doronshadmi said:
In other words, no finer object of a given collection is accessible to the finest object, exactly as (for example) no circle (where a circle has a measured constant pi) is accessible to a point or a straight line.
Click to expand...

Once again your “finest object” is a “finer object” than any other in your “collection” (hint: that’s what makes it your “finest object”). Which is also why your so called “example” simply fails.

doronshadmi said:
Once again, since verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) don't use also visual_spatial skills they simply can't get the following example:

An object is considered as a circle only if pi (circumference\diameter) is found, so by following this reasoning a point or a straight are not circles, so a point is smaller than any circle but it is not the smallest circle, and a straight line is bigger than any circle but it is not the biggest circle.

Exactly as no collection of smaller or bigger circles reaches the state of a point or a straight line (the point or the line are inaccessible to the collection of circles, whether this collection is finite or infinite) , so is the case between a collection of curved lines and a straight line, or a collection of points on straight or curved line.
Click to expand...

“a point or a straight are not circles” by definition, while your “finest object” is definitively a “finer object” than any other in your “collection”. Your example fails once again simply by your apparently deliberate ignorance.


doronshadmi said:
Again these notions are known only by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.
Click to expand...

No Doron they are simply asserted by you, obviously due to deliberate ignorance.
doronshadmi said:
When verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't deal with their mind's limitations they reflect it on others, which is a typical response of their imbalanced mind's skills (after all they are using only partially their potential abilities).
Click to expand...
We already know why you continually try to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others and as to your “imbalanced mind's skills” again please seek professional help .

doronshadmi said:
Furthermore, they can't comprehend that ignore list can be used in order to ignore a particular person, but it does not mean that given notions are also ignored if they can be useful in order to explain better a given subject.
Click to expand...
Evidently you just can’t comprehend that you would not be able to see the posts of those who are on your ignore list, so a usual and as already obvious your “ignore list” is just a lie.
doronshadmi said:
In other words, ignore list does not necessarily obey "black\white" reasoning, and this is one of the main notions of this thread.
Click to expand...
Again pretending to ignore people when you obviously aren’t isn’t going to fool anyone but you. Again please seek professional help as your delusion no longer has even just the pretence of reality.
 
The Man said:
What you think has obviously devastated your mind is irrelevant to this thread but since you now do bring your mental stability into question, pretending to ignore posts while replying to them does not bode well for such stability, as noted by other before I recommend you consult a professional therapist or physiatrist.
Click to expand...
hs-hp.http-www-fourwindshospital-com-thumb.png

While we believe that we offer the finest in psychiatric care, Four Winds has never been content to simply make assumptions about the effectiveness of our treatment programs.
Click to expand...
http://www.fourwindshospital.com/westchester/outcomewes.html

Become the finer part of the finest: four winD.S.
 
Last edited:
Once again, by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills it is easily understood that A or B forms are inaccessible to all curves between them (whether the amount of curves is finite or not):

6296000182_d37f5a6074.jpg


Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't comprehend this simple fact because everything is defined by them only in terms of Verbal_symbolic_only skills (visual_spatial skills are not used).

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills the difference between the suffix "er" and the suffix "st", is easily understood.

For example: "finer than all X" simply means that "all X" is at most finer w.r.t to that is "finer than all X" (where only "finer than all X" is translatable to "finest", which a property that "all X" does not have) but Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't comprehend this simple fact.

Moreover, they will argue that that is "finer than all X" is not defined in terms of X, but by this argument they are actually exclude that is "finer than all X" from "all X", and this exclusion is exactly the term that distinguishes between that is "finer than all X" (whether it is called "finer than all X" or "finest") and "all X".

But Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't get their own arguments, exactly as they can't comprehend the difference between "finer than all X" and " "all X" is at most finer w.r.t to that is "finer than all X" ".

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

"Finer than all thoughts" is not itself a thought exactly as a point or a straight line are not circles' curves (please see the diagram above).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Once again, by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills it is easily understood that A or B forms are inaccessible to all curves between them (whether the amount of curves is finite or not):
Click to expand...

Once again, by using his superior powers of self-delusion, Doron gets the wrong result.
 
That have only verbal_symbolic skills, can response only by these skills (they are ignore visual_spatial skills).
 
doronshadmi said:
That have only verbal_symbolic skills, can response only by these skills (they are ignore visual_spatial skills).
Click to expand...

Still trying to pretend you are ignoring us, Doron? Your unlabeled responses fool no one, except probably you.

Be that as it may, you are wrong, and pretending everyone else lacks some cognitive skill doesn't change the fact you are wrong. It is trivial to demonstrate the depth of your failures because your ideas lack self-consistency and they are riddled with self-contradiction. No amount of pretend alternate reasoning skills you claim to have can alter basic reality.

But do carry on with your fantasy. It does provide amusement.
 
In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7715050&postcount=4 verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) even can't get the difference between "True" and "False" by their non-exclusion approach about verbal_symbolic_only expressions, because "True" can be define only in therms of "False".

For example "False False" is "True", so by their non-exclusion approach about verbal_symbolic_only expressions "True is not excluded form "False", because it is defined by using "False" as the verbal_symbolic_only expression.

"Nice", isn't it?
 
Last edited:
Here is an improved version of post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7715050&postcount=46 .

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills it is easily understood that A or B forms are inaccessible to all curves between them (whether the amount of curves is finite or not):

6296000182_d37f5a6074.jpg


Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't comprehend this simple fact because everything is defined by them only in terms of Verbal_symbolic_only skills (visual_spatial skills are not used), and according to this partial used skills the term "finest" is not excluded from the term "finer", because "finest" can be defined as "finer than all X".

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills the difference between the suffix "er" and the suffix "st", is easily understood.

For example: "finer than all X" simply means that "all X" are at most finer with respect to that is "finer than all X" (where only "finer than all X" is translatable to "finest", which is a property that "all X" do not have) but Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't comprehend this simple fact.

Moreover, they are also argue that that is "finer than all X" is not defined in terms of "all X" (for example: a point or a straight line are not defined in terms of circles) , but by this argument they are actually exclude that is "finer than all X" from "all X" (which contradicts their argument about the non-exclusion between "finer" and "finest, as argued above) and this exclusion is exactly the term that distinguishes between that is "finer than all X" (whether it is called "finer than all X" or "finest with respect to all X") and "all X".

But Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't get their own arguments, exactly as they can't comprehend the difference between "finer than all X" and " "all X" is at most finer with respect to that is "finer than all X" ".

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

"Finer than all thoughts" is not itself a thought exactly as a point or a straight line are not circles' curves (please see the diagram above).

Yet, if only 1-dimesional space is considered, then it is the Unity among (for example) "all curved lines" and a straight line, even if a straight line (whether it is called "finer than all curved lines" or "finest with respect to all curved lines") is excluded from all curved lines, in terms of curvatures, as can be understood by the following diagram:

5721561558_c5b78c3152_b.jpg


This is the beauty of a non-trivial realm, it is Unified AND has entropy-free different expressions, which are changeable by mutations (this realm is developed according to evolutionary principles).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Once again, by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills it is easily understood that A or B forms are inaccessible to all curves between them (whether the amount of curves is finite or not):

[qimg]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6056/6296000182_d37f5a6074.jpg[/qimg]

Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't comprehend this simple fact because everything is defined by them only in terms of Verbal_symbolic_only skills (visual_spatial skills are not used).

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills the difference between the suffix "er" and the suffix "st", is easily understood.

For example: "finer than all X" simply means that "all X" is at most finer w.r.t to that is "finer than all X" (where only "finer than all X" is translatable to "finest", which a property that "all X" does not have) but Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't comprehend this simple fact.

Moreover, they will argue that that is "finer than all X" is not defined in terms of X, but by this argument they are actually exclude that is "finer than all X" from "all X", and this exclusion is exactly the term that distinguishes between that is "finer than all X" (whether it is called "finer than all X" or "finest") and "all X".

But Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't get their own arguments, exactly as they can't comprehend the difference between "finer than all X" and " "all X" is at most finer w.r.t to that is "finer than all X" ".

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

"Finer than all thoughts" is not itself a thought exactly as a point or a straight line are not circles' curves (please see the diagram above).
Click to expand...

You can argue with yourself as much as you like Doron, that is nothing new here. Please let us know when you can spare some time from simply arguing with yourself and do manage to bring yourself to actually agree with yourself.
 
doronshadmi said:
Yet, if only 1-dimesional space is considered, then it is the Unity among (for example) "all curved lines" and a straight line, even if a straight line (whether it is called "finer than all curved lines" or "finest with respect to all curved lines") is excluded from all curved lines, in terms of curvatures, as can be understood by the following diagram:
Click to expand...

How about just understanding “curvatures” in terms of, well, curvature? That would be quite a start for you Doron.

Oh and by the way just what is it about “a straight line” that you think is “finer than all curved lines" or "finest with respect to all curved lines"? If it is in fact curvature then please see above.
 
In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7716750&postcount=52 verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) even can't get verbal_symbolic expressions like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature
curvature is the amount by which a geometric object deviates from being flat, or straight in the case of a line, but this is defined in different ways depending on the context.
Click to expand...
As can be seen, the ugly head of context-dependent-only approach spits its limited view, if things do not fit to the notions of verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers).

Another example of the limited abilities of verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) is their failure to distinguish between "approach" and "reach" (as demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7540470&postcount=16339, and by the following quote:
jsfisher said:
Second off, "approaches" does not mean "can't actually reach". Learn the meanings of words.
Click to expand...
).
 
Last edited:
Let’s see..

First you bemoan the relation and dependence of the definition of a word to the context within which it is used…



doronshadmi said:
In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7716750&postcount=52 verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) even can't get verbal_symbolic expressions like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature

As can be seen, the ugly head of context-dependent-only approach spits its limited view, if things do not fit to the notions of verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers).
Click to expand...

Then you claim some “failure to distinguish” between the different contexts in which two words can be related.

doronshadmi said:
In
Another example of the limited abilities of verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) is their failure to distinguish between "approach" and "reach" (as demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7540470&postcount=16339, and by the following quote:
).
Click to expand...

Is it even possible for you to ever just agree with yourself Doron.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom