Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Please explain in details, why it is a straw man?

Here, I've highlighted where you start constructing your straw man argument.

doronshadmi said:
Most of the current community of mathematicians argue that Zeno's Achilles\Turtle Race is not a paradox in the real life because we can summarize non-finite values (where each value > 0) that are added to some initial value. By doing that we are able to get an accurate value, which is different from the initial value. For example: 1 is the initial value and 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+…= 2, where 2 is an accurate value that is different from the initial value 1. Actually the whole idea of Limits is somehow motivated by the desire to solve the Zeno's Paradox.


Now, what you should do is go look up what a straw man argument is and compare that definition with the words I've highlighted to see the connection.
 
Why it is a straw man?

I don't see any meaningful details in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4924305&postcount=5356 .

No detailed criticism, no honest criticism.

For example zooterkin wrote something like: "You gave the wrong answer, can you try again?"

Come on this is a lazy criticism, and therefore erased.

Will you stop with the posthumous edits? At least have the courtesy to indicate what you've changed. I do not recall reading the bolded part when I saw that post this morning, or I would have replied.
 
Here, I've highlighted where you start constructing your straw man argument.




Now, what you should do is go look up what a straw man argument is and compare that definition with the words I've highlighted to see the connection.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-straw-man-argument.htm

A straw man argument is a rhetorical device that is meant to easily prove that one’s position or argument is superior to an opposing argument. However, the straw man argument is regarded as a logical fallacy, because at its core, the person using the device misrepresents the other person's argument. The person does this because it then becomes easier to knock down the weaker version of the opposing argument with one's more substantial counter argument. The term straw man derives from the use of scarecrows for military practice, such as charges. In reality, a scarecrow is far easier to defeat than an actual person.

The straw man argument, also called straw dog or scarecrow, deliberately misrepresents and weakens the argument of the opposing side. This can be done by leaving out key points of an opposing argument, quoting a person’s words out of context, or presenting a particular person’s poor defense as the entire defense of an opposing side. In the worst case, a straw man is literally an imagined person who weakly defends an argument and can be easily defeated.

The straw man argument can be used in arguments in most areas of life, from political, to business, to religious, to personal life. It is also often used in conjunction with other logical fallacies, such as red herring, slippery slope, and ad hominem. One example of a straw man argument can be seen in the following hypothetical situation between a child and his parent:

Child: "Can we get a dog?"
Parent: "No."
Child: "It would protect us."
Parent: "Still, no."
Child: "Why do you want to leave us and our house unprotected?"

The child in the above scenario may be making a straw man argument if the parent's reason for not getting a dog has nothing to do with protection but with other factors. Moreover, not getting a dog is not necessarily proof that the parent doesn't want to protect the family and home as there are other means of protection.

Doron: "I re-investigated the agreed notion of Limits and come to different conclusions, which do not fit to the current agreement between most of the mathematicians"

Jsfisher: "No, it is impossible."

Doron: "Please look at the details of my work. If you do that you will find that it is possible and also enable to deal with a new framework that cannot be seen from the current agreement about Limits"

Jsfisher: "No, only the current agreement holds, and there cannot be any other point of view about Limits."

Doron:" Do you really believe that some agreement cannot be changed just because some community of people has no reason to re-investigate it?"

Jsfisher: "There is absolutely no connection between the community of the mathematicians and the luck of the reason to re-investigate the agreed point of view of this community about Limits. If your argument about the Limit concept is based on such a connection, then you are using a straw man argument".

Jsfisher since you unconditionally refuse to anything that does not follow with the line of the agreements of your community, without providing any good reasoning accept "this is the agreed reasoning, and therefore it must be true", then you are the one who using here a straw man (You refuse to deal with X (novel observation of A) because of Y (An agreement about A)).

EDIT:

By the way, http://www.scribd.com/doc/17504323/WZATRP8 is now in a submission form, and it will be sent to some peer reviewed Journal, after a professional English editor will polish it.

In this version "Most of the current community of mathematicians argue that ..." has been changed to "It is argued that ..."
 
Last edited:
Oh good God, is this thread still alive?

Doron. Honestly. Your theory is not accepted here, it will not be accepted here. There is no point in you continuing this discussion with people who will not listen.

If you are correct, others - people with Ph.D.s in Mathematics - will accept your theory. Then you can come back and prove everyone wrong. Go show your theory to people who might accept it, or at least point out where you went wrong so that you can fix it. You are making no headway here. After your theory has been accepted among the mathematical elite, you can come back and rub jsfisher's nose in it.
 
Oh good God, is this thread still alive?

Doron. Honestly. Your theory is not accepted here, it will not be accepted here. There is no point in you continuing this discussion with people who will not listen.

Well, part of the problem is, as far as I can tell, that Doron is yet to articulate anything which could be called a theory.
 
Doron: "I re-investigated the agreed notion of Limits and come to different conclusions, which do not fit to the current agreement between most of the mathematicians"

Straw man.

Jsfisher: "No, it is impossible."

Lie.

Doron: "Please look at the details of my work. If you do that you will find that it is possible and also enable to deal with a new framework that cannot be seen from the current agreement about Limits"

Straw man.

Jsfisher: "No, only the current agreement holds, and there cannot be any other point of view about Limits."

Lie / straw man.

Doron:" Do you really believe that some agreement cannot be changed just because some community of people has no reason to re-investigate it?"

Straw man.

Jsfisher: "There is absolutely no connection between the community of the mathematicians and the luck of the reason to re-investigate the agreed point of view of this community about Limits. If your argument about the Limit concept is based on such a connection, then you are using a straw man argument".

Lie / straw man.

Jsfisher since you unconditionally refuse to anything that does not follow with the line of the agreements of your community,

Lie / straw man.

...without providing any good reasoning accept "this is the agreed reasoning, and therefore it must be true",

Lie / straw man.

...then you are the one who using here a straw man (You refuse to deal with X (novel observation of A) because of Y (An agreement about A)).

Confirmation Doron still doesn't understand what a straw man is.
 
Straw man.



Lie.



Straw man.



Lie / straw man.



Straw man.



Lie / straw man.



Lie / straw man.



Lie / straw man.



Confirmation Doron still doesn't understand what a straw man is.

That's a hell of a success rate if he doesn't know what he's making...
 
Straw man.



Lie.



Straw man.



Lie / straw man.



Straw man.



Lie / straw man.



Lie / straw man.



Lie / straw man.



Confirmation Doron still doesn't understand what a straw man is.

jsfisher wishes to tell us that there is no agreement about the Limit concept also between the main stream of the mathematical community, that does not reject the non-finite.
 
Last edited:
OMG, there's another one.

It is a Straw Man from you point of view because:


jsfisher: "doron instead of understand the failure of your work and accept that fact, you argue about an agreement between some people, that has nothing to do with the fact that what you say is wrong".

Doron: "please provide the details which clearly show that my work is wrong. As long as you do not do that, you have no case. On the contrary my work analyzes your system in details and clearly shows why your system is wrong. In order to say any meaningful thing about my work, you have to analyze it in details, exactly as I did to your system, and only by this detailed way you mat have a valid argument against my work. Until this very moment you did not do that. As a result your arguments against my work still do not hold water. Furthermore you are using a straw man argument against my work as long as your conclusion is based on generalizations that have nothing to do with my work (exactly as the boy argues against his father that he leaves home unprotected (which is a general claim) just because he does not agree to bye a dog to his boy (which is not necessarily resulted by an unprotected home)"
 
Well I see Doron is turning to his alternate approach, when unable to deal with the discussion at hand, of simply making up the discussion he would prefer to have and sticking someone else to the other side of it.
 
It is a Straw Man from you point of view because:

...<yet another straw man>...


Doron, you are missing a very, very simple point. You continually attempt to characterize the position of everyone else. You do it poorly. Misrepresenting the position of another, then basing an argument on that misrepresentation is constructing a straw man.

Most of what you had to say about "conventional Mathematics" and the Zeno Achilles/Tortoise paradox was flat-out wrong. It would be best if you just steer clear of what you don't understand and focus on your own, best arguments.

If you were to do that, then there'd be no straw men to be dismissed. We could then concentrate on your bogus claims, for example the claim that Achilles' position being less than the tortoise's position be a universal invariant. It isn't, of course, by we can't get to that discussion because of all the debris you've put in the way.
 
Last edited:
Well I see Doron is turning to his alternate approach, when unable to deal with the discussion at hand, of simply making up the discussion he would prefer to have and sticking someone else to the other side of it.

Yep, you are absolutely correct. Hmmm, I wonder if there is a name for that sort of behavior?






Both of us are being too subtle, I think.
 
Doron, you are missing a very, very simple point. You continually attempt to characterize the position of everyone else. You do it poorly. Misrepresenting the position of another, then basing an argument on that misrepresentation is constructing a straw man.

Most of what you had to say about "conventional Mathematics" and the Zeno Achilles/Tortoise paradox was flat-out wrong. It would be best if you just steer clear of what you don't understand and focus on your own, best arguments.

If you were to do that, then there'd be no straw men to be dismissed. We could then concentrate on your bogus claims, for example the claim that Achilles' position being less than the tortoise's position be a universal invariant. It isn't, of course, by we can't get to that discussion because of all the debris you've put in the way.

As usual, you simply try to avoid what I wrote so here it is again but this time without any community of mathematicians (which is something that has no influence on what you have to deal with, in my work) :

doronshadmi said:
It is argued that Zeno's Achilles\Turtle Race is not a paradox in the real life because we can summarize non-finite values (where each value > 0) that are added to some initial value. By doing that we are able to get an accurate value, which is different from the initial value. For example: 1 is the initial value and 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+…= 2, where 2 is an accurate value that is different from the initial value 1. Actually the whole idea of Limits is somehow motivated by the desire to solve the Zeno's Paradox.

This time, please write to the point.
 
Last edited:
As usual, you simply avoid what I wrote so here it is again but this time without any community of mathematicians


Another irony meter has been destroyed. Doron, please recall I wrote this:

Misrepresenting the position of another, then basing an argument on that misrepresentation is constructing a straw man.


Making your references just a little less definite doesn't eliminate the straw. See this part:

doronshadmi said:
It is argued that Zeno's Achilles\Turtle Race is not a paradox in the real life because we can summarize non-finite values (where each value > 0) that are added to some initial value. By doing that we are able to get an accurate value, which is different from the initial value.


That's still a straw man. You are arguing against a position you made up. It continues:

...
Actually the whole idea of Limits is somehow motivated by the desire to solve the Zeno's Paradox.


There's another part you just made up. Stop doing that. It makes you appear stupid and your argument without merit.
 
That's still a straw man. You are arguing against a position you made up. It continues:

Is 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+...=2 (please answer by yes or no)?


http://books.google.com/books?id=GD...goGVCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

http://www.karlscalculus.org/calc2.html

http://cvs.gnowledge.org/episteme3/pro_pdfs/28-broni-prabhu.pdf

http://ubu.math.helsinki.fi:8080/Ca..._Introduction to Calculus/Ten Minute Talk.pdf

clearly show that you are the one that makes things up here.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom