Deeper than primes - Continuation

[doronshadmi]

At least mathematicians have reasoning. Goodbye.

Wrong dafydd, if X does not get its own reasoning, X does not have a reasoning.

 

[doronshadmi]

You could put those words in any order and they would still make as much sense.

If you don't get A, no order of its expression makes it understandable to you, especially if getting A is independent of any particular order of its expression (exactly as X,Y,Z order has no impact on (Z AND X AND Y) = (Y AND X AND Z) = (X AND Y AND Z) ... ect. expression).

 

[jsfisher]

Just a quick recap of the past several posts:

1. Doron presents something claiming it to be traditional mathematical notation.
2. Doron defends it by claiming it isn't traditional mathematics notation.

Not his best example of self-contradiction, but a fairly common one.

 

[dafydd]

Wrong dafydd, if X does not get its own reasoning, X does not have a reasoning.

X borrowed some reasoning from Y.

 

[realpaladin]

The claim that any post in this thread must be a response to some other poster, is ridiculous.

Where, in that sentence, do you read that?

I am only accusing you of posting so that the thread gets bumped into the current listing.

Edit: And that is something I think quite sad.

 

[doronshadmi]

X borrowed some reasoning from Y.

So X has no reasoning unless it enables to get out of its box in order to borrw some reasoning from Y.

But X can't do it because its paradigm is context-dependent-only reasoning, as can be seen all along this thread.

 

[dafydd]

So X has no reasoning unless it enables to get out of its box in order to borrw some reasoning from Y.

But X can't do it because its paradigm is context-dependent-only reasoning, as can be seen all along this thread.

Content dependent paradigm reasoning is contextually dependent upon contextual paradigms and unitary axioms of a dualistic nature. I'm surprised you didn't spot that.

 

[doronshadmi]

Let's look at these phrases given by some traditional mathematician:

"

1. Doron presents something claiming it to be traditional mathematical notation.
2. Doron defends it by claiming it isn't traditional mathematics notation.

"

This is wrong since I defend my claims by using only Traditional Maths because <0,1>^k form is a Traditional Mathematics expression.

 

[dafydd]

Let's look at these phrases given by some traditional mathematician:

"

1. Doron presents something claiming it to be traditional mathematical notation.
2. Doron defends it by claiming it isn't traditional mathematics notation.

"

This is wrong since I defend my claims by using only Traditional Maths because <0,1>^k form is a Traditional Mathematics expression.

I prefer Contemporary Jazz maths.

 

[doronshadmi]

Content dependent paradigm reasoning is contextually dependent upon contextual paradigms and unitary axioms of a dualistic nature. I'm surprised you didn't spot that.

The dualistic nature of a given axiomatic system is the mutual independence state among its axiom, or in other words, there is no hierarchy of dependency among axioms, so P(S) is not rise form S, as some traditional mathematician wrongly claims (not all traditional mathematicians have reasoning as can be seen, for example, in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8138972&postcount=908).

 

[doronshadmi]

I prefer Contemporary Jazz maths.

I'd like to know it, please guide me.

http://www.google.co.il/#hl=en&suge....,cf.osb&fp=fcb7df93c734bc6a&biw=1280&bih=861 does not help.

 

[dafydd]

The dualistic nature of a given axiomatic system is the mutual independence state among its axiom, or in other words, there is no hierarchy of dependency among axioms, so P(S) is not rise form S, as some traditional mathematician wrongly claims.

P(S) is axiomatically uber-dependent upon S, as S is the empirical form of the set of non-independent states.

 

[jsfisher]

...<0,1>^k form is a Traditional Mathematics expression.

Not for power sets, it isn't.

Moreover, since you appear incapable of using notation in any sort of intelligible or intelligent way, one can only guess what you might have meant by the exponentiation of tuples.

 

[doronshadmi]

Where, in that sentence, do you read that?

I am only accusing you of posting so that the thread gets bumped into the current listing.

Edit: And that is something I think quite sad.

realpaladin, what you aware of is what you get, so it is indeed sad that your awareness gets bumped.

 

[doronshadmi]

Look how poor is the reasoning of some traditional mathematicians, they can't get simple thing like:

<0,1>^1 expression = 2^1 expression

<0,1>^2 expression = 2^2 expression

<0,1>^3 expression = 2^3 expression

...

etc. ad infinitum, as shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8137722&postcount=890.

 

[doronshadmi]

P(S) is axiomatically uber-dependent upon S

Wrong, axioms are mutually independent self evident truths (no empirical (in)formation is needed) of a given axiomatic system.

 

[realpaladin]

Wrong, axioms are mutually independent self evident truths (no empirical (in)formation is needed) of a given axiomatic system.

mutually independent... neato!

 

[doronshadmi]

mutually independent... neato!

 

[jsfisher]

Look how poor is the reasoning of some traditional mathematicians, they can't get simple thing like:

<0,1>^1 expression = 2^1 expression

<0,1>^2 expression = 2^2 expression

<0,1>^3 expression = 2^3 expression

...

etc. ad infinitum, as shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8137722&postcount=890.

I see. So, we have Doronetics on the left and something more traditional on the right along with an extraneous word, 'expression'. Doron is very good at chucking in the extraneous; it helps bolster the gibberish.

Still, from this we conclude several things. First, the tuple exponentiation was in fact not traditional mathematical notation, as Doron claimed. Doron lied to us. Second, the now-alleged equivalent still in no way relates to power sets in the way Doron used his sham notation. Third, Doron's goal is to obscure, not communicate--why else would he substitute a meaningless notation of his own invention all the while claiming it to be "standard" then claim it related to some subject in a manner it didn't?

 

[jsfisher]

Wrong, axioms are mutually independent self evident truths (no empirical (in)formation is needed) of a given axiomatic system.

Perhaps, Doron, if you actually read with comprehension what has been posted here you'd realize there is only one axiom at issue, and that it is clear from that axiom the relationship between a set and its power set.