Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Doron, you have seriously lost it. Now, you are just denying things for the sake of contradiction.

Well perhaps not simply for contradiction but simply for the persistence of his fantasy world, which seemed steeped in contradiction. So much so that he needs to invent some new alternate ‘location’ called a ‘side’ just so he can maintain his imaginary independence between a line and a point which he claims he can not research independently.
 
Well perhaps not simply for contradiction but simply for the persistence of his fantasy world, which seemed steeped in contradiction. So much so that he needs to invent some new alternate ‘location’ called a ‘side’ just so he can maintain his imaginary independence between a line and a point which he claims he can not research independently.

He was overdue for a vocabulary shift. He'd worn out emergence rather quickly and needed something new.
 
Again.

First of all there must be notions.

Definitions without notions is nothing but a notionless maneuvers with symbols.

In order to get Organic Mathematics notions, you have no choice but to read all of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf .

Furthermore, you can air your view about some part of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf only if you first read all of it.

Organic Mathematics is not a serial step-by-step reasoning, and any part of it can be understood iff you first read all of it.

Then why are your requiring a step by step response? Step one read your PDF in it’s entirety, step two respond to some part of that PDF.


A step by step reasoning is actually a weak emergence reasoning, where the Whole is the sum of the Parts.

Organic Mathematics is a non-standard Strong Emergence Reasoning, where the Whole is greater than the sum of the Parts.

(In Standard Strong Emergence the Whole is greater than the sum of its Parts)

The members of this forum try to force Weak Emergence reasoning on Organic Mathematics, and as an obvious result, they don't understand it.

So you’re notions are not a “step by step reasoning” but any response should follow your step by step reasoning for a response.
 
Organic Mathematic explicitly defines the immediate predecessor of y, as the non-local element that is both on y AND on any arbitrary member of [x,y] interval.

So your 'immediate predecessor' is only an 'arbitrary' predecessor, hardly ‘immediate’. ‘y’ is and ‘arbitrary member’ of the interval [x,y] so by your notions it must proceed itself.
 
Learn what mathematical terms mean, Doron, and stop blaming others for your lack of knowledge. The interval [X,Y] is a finite interval, and that's a fact.



If you can't support your claim, fine, but please have the decency to cease with your empty allegations, then.

For reference, your claim was that somehow the use of the word, all, you found in a wiki article about intervals requires that any real number Y must have an immediate predecessor.

You are unable to support this allegation, so we may reject it.

I separately alleged the set { X : X < Y } for some Y has no largest element. You seem hung up on this one, too, so I will support the claim.

I will use a simple proof by contradiction. As with all such proofs, it begins with an assumption then proceeds to construct a contradiction, thereby showing the assumption to be false.

Assume the set {X : X<Y} does have a largest element, Z.

For Z to be an element of the set, Z < Y.
Let h be any element of the interval (Z,Y).
By the construction of h, Z < h < Y.
Since h < Y, h is an element of the set {X : X<Y}.
Since Z < h, the assumption Z was the largest element of the set has been contradicted.

Therefore, the set {X : X<Y} does not have a largest element.

All you show is that by the construction of Z < h < Y, Z is not the immediate predecessor of Y.

But the construction Z < h < Y is defiantly not the construction Z < Y.

In other words, you artificially determined the construction Z < h < Y in order to get your requested result.

In other words, you have used a circular reasoning.
 
All you show is that by the construction of Z < h < Y, Z is not the immediate predecessor of Y.

But the construction Z < h < Y is defiantly not the construction Z < Y.

In other words, you artificially determined the construction Z < h < Y in order to get your requested result.

In other words, you have used a circular reasoning.

so 1<2<3 is not the construction of 1<3. nice.
 
So you’re notions are not a “step by step reasoning” but any response should follow your step by step reasoning for a response.

Exactly, but this is nothing but the current technical limitation, that has nothing to do with OM's reasoning.
 
All you show is that by the construction of Z < h < Y, Z is not the immediate predecessor of Y.

No, I showed that Z was not the largest element of the set {X : X<Y}.

But the construction Z < h < Y...

No, the construction was for h to be any value in (Z,Y). The consequence of that construction is Z < h < Y.

...is defiantly not the construction Z < Y.

Also not a construction but a consequence.

In other words, you artificially determined the construction Z < h < Y in order to get your requested result.

Nope. All I did was show there exists a value between Z and Y.

In other words, you have used a circular reasoning.

Perhaps rather than just guessing what circular reasoning might mean, you should look it up. Circular reasoning is supporting the premise with the premise.

I did something completely opposite. I used the premise to contradict the premise. That's entirely different.
 
Nope. All I did was show there exists a value between Z and Y.

No, all you did is to define the construction that leads to your requested result.
I did something completely opposite. I used the premise to contradict the premise. That's entirely different.

No. your premise was based on Z<Y assumption, but in the middle of your "proof" you have changed it by using another construction (Z < h < Y) as your assumption .

As a result your "proof" is nothing but a circular reasoning.

In a deductive framework, you can't change your initial conditions.

You did not obey this rule, by changing the initial general Z < Y by the initial Z < h < Y structure.
 
Last edited:
No, all you did is to define the construction that leads to your requested result.

Requested result? Is this another doronism? No result was requested, unless you mean to generate a contradiction.

In that case, yes, we agree. The proof accomplishes what it set out to do.
 
Exactly, but this is nothing but the current technical limitation, that has nothing to do with OM's reasoning.

What “current technical limitation” are you referring to? Your augments about responses generally consist of claims that serial only or step by step reasoning is being used yet you just confirmed that responses should follow only your step by step reasoning for a response .
 
Last edited:
So your 'immediate predecessor' is only an 'arbitrary' predecessor, hardly ‘immediate’. ‘y’ is and ‘arbitrary member’ of the interval [x,y] so by your notions it must proceed itself.

No, y is not an arbitrary number, it is the largest number of [x,y]

Between any two distinct numbers there is an intermediate non-local element, where y is the right side on it and any arbitrary number < y, is the left side on it.
 
What “current technical limitation” are you referring to? Your augments about responses generally consist of claims that serial only or step by step reasoning is being used yet you just confirmed that responses should follow only your step by step reasoning for a response .

You have missed the determination that OMPT.pdf can be understood only by reading all of it, in order to understand any part of it.
 
Between any two distinct numbers there is an intermediate non-local element, where y is the right side on it and any arbitrary number < y, is the left side on it.


You've contradicted an earlier claim. Previously you said a point had no sides. Now, you are claiming it has one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom