Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
zooterkin said:
Please point to a specific post.
Click to expand...
jsfisher and The Man are actively disagree with the non-local property of a line, because they analyze it only by sub-elements, or more accurately, by points.

You disagree with line's non-locality by your claim that there is a sub-element (known by the name "interval") along the real-line, which is made of non-finite amount of sub-elements, and this composed sub-element actually has a point as its immediate successor or immediate predecessor.

By claiming that (in your "up to" posts) you actually say that a non-finite amount of 0-dim elements can fully cover a 1-dim element.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The Man: "Where is my little "dragged point" virus?"

doronshadmi: :id:
Click to expand...

Well you are the one that claims to agree with virions.

So you make up your own little statement, attribute it to some else then profess it as irony?

Clearly irony is something else outside of your “direct perception”
 
The Man said:
Well you are the one that claims to agree with virions.

So you make up your own little statement, attribute it to some else then profess it as irony?

Clearly irony is something else outside of your “direct perception”
Click to expand...

What is "virions"?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No, translating them to Enlgish, and the need of Word spaller, makes it more problematic.
Click to expand...

Wow, you're Word spaller, its aye moist kneeded thing ewe half sown two sum won four righting Enlgish massages!!

It still doesn't explain why you add more things, delete things, and write entirely new messages after you (and typically someone else) has posted.

Can't you write your post, translate it, use a speller, then post it? Opps, that's right, that's a cereal process.

By the way, a translator that gives mispellings?

*Disclaimer: Yes, I did write the hole massage like I did on porpoise. :)
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Don't you amaze yourself from time to time by your inability to get what you read?

Any finite amount is a fixed amount, no matter how many different fixed amounts you check.

This is not that case with a non-finite amount, it is not a fixed amount (its exact cardinality does not exist, as it exists in the case of the cardinality of a finite amount).
Click to expand...

Again! It is what I said!

Any of your 1-dim elements consists of a non-finite, or infinite number of other 1-dim elements!

So, your whole concept of finite elements is down the drain!

Unless you insist that your 1-dim element is indivisable into other 1-dim elements, but in that case only 2 0-dim elements can exist on it; both endpoints.

You are just trying to squirm your way out of a big french kiss with my behind are you?

Now you are just trying to play a fool so I might forget, well, I won't.

P.s. I just as well accept Moshe do stooge in your place, if he so chooses.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
By claiming that (in your "up to" posts) you actually say that a non-finite amount of 0-dim elements can fully cover a 1-dim element.
Click to expand...

But again, that is true of ANY line!

Any line has an infinite amount of possible solutions to the problem of covering it with a set of finite intervals or 'smaller lines'.

Or to put it in woo-speak;

Any ___ has an infinite amount of sets consisting of smaller ___ that cover it completely.

The lengths, or non-localities, will approach 0 when the finite number of that given solution approaches infinity. And tadaaa! We arrive at the dragging point, even in OM.
 
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher and The Man are actively disagree with the non-local property of a line, because they analyze it only by sub-elements, or more accurately, by points.
Click to expand...
Well, since you have yet to satisfactorily define 'non-local', it's hard to say whether people disagree with it.
You disagree with line's non-locality by your claim that there is a sub-element (known by the name "interval") along the real-line, which is made of non-finite amount of sub-elements, and this composed sub-element actually has a point as its immediate successor or immediate predecessor.
Click to expand...
I'm certainly not claiming that my terminology is exact. However, I don't see that there's anything difficult in the concepts. It may be practically impossible to draw the line represented by (3,5], but it's surely not difficult to understand the idea. What I don't get is your leap from the fact that any line has an infinite number of points on it to saying that because of this you cannot have an interval. If an interval is defined as being (3, 5], where do you think it starts? What is the immediately preceding point?
By claiming that (in your "up to" posts) you actually say that a non-finite amount of 0-dim elements can fully cover a 1-dim element.
Click to expand...

A line is not created by sticking lots of points together. It has one dimension, and it joins two points and covers all the points in between. This seems to be the root of your confusion.
 
Doron? Do you speak Hindi, or Bengali, or Rajasthani?

Because then I will ask one of my guys translate it for you, as english nor math can get through to you.
 
realpaladin said:
Ah, the Shadmi threw me off-track.

I have no Jiddish speaking people here.
Click to expand...

Hi Realapaladi,

Both Doron and myself live in Israel. We are Jews !
You can Forgot OM. Do you believe that Mathematics have to possibility of paradigm shift like what happen in physic in 1905 ?

Moshe
 
catbasket said:
I don't understand. We can forget Organic Mathematics? Or were you trying to say something else?
Click to expand...

Hi catbasket,

I want to say that you will never and never and never and never etc.. Until infinity can understand OM if you disagree with the potential of Paradigm shift in Mathematics language like the miracle year of 1905.

I also want to say that OM is only one of many way ( infinite ?) to do that.
if realpaladin don't believe in that possibility then he just waste his time hear.

Moshe
 
Last edited:
MosheKlein said:
Hi Realapaladi,

Both Doron and myself live in Israel. We are Jews !
You can Forgot OM. Do you believe that Mathematics have to possibility of paradigm shift like what happen in physic in 1905 ?

Moshe
Click to expand...

Moshe, yep paradigm shifts can always happen, but just as in physics, it will be hotly debated and proofs are needed.

The whole process of science is:

- Someone sets up a theory, and he (or someone who finds the theory intuitively acceptable) goes and figures out the proof.
- Some other people retest the theory and try to corroborate the proof or find new proofs.
- The theory is accepted, until something comes along that explains the observed phenomena (in the broadest sense of the word) better.

So, it is an 'inbuilt' mechanism in science to overthrow itself, if necessary.

But you will never effect a paradigm shift because you want a paradigm shift.

A paradigm shift happens, sometimes even against the grain of it's discoverer, because it explains more and has more or better proofs or evidence.

A good example in physics is String Theory... while I do not know the finer details, I do know that the maths are more elegant, but it does not explain more or better than what we already can with current other theories.

That is why String Theory is not the prevalent theory at the moment.

That is also what I tried to explain to Doron:

Even if you can defend away any criticism, it does you no good if you can not convince anyone that your theory is better.

If nobody is convinced, then the paradigm shift will not happen.
 
MosheKlein said:
Hi catbasket,

I want to say that you will never and never and never and never etc.. Until infinity can understand OM if you disagree with the potential of Paradigm shift in Mathematics language like the miracle year of 1905.

I also want to say that OM is only one of many way ( infinite ?) to do that.
if realpaladin don't believe in that possibility then he just waste his time hear.

Moshe
Click to expand...

Aw coprolites. And there I thought I had you convinced of what science is about.

You guys are too focussed on Paradigm Shift.

It. Will. Not. Happen. Because. You. Want. It. Too.

Paradigm shifts happen because everybody is convinced that it is a good thing.

Do not tell me that you are 'looking for a paradigm shift'?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom