Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

Things or either are or are not. There is no “kind of is” in mathematical terms. If it means what we think it means that it is that what it means, if it doesn’t mean what we think it means, they you have to explain what it means.


1. There is no “New Real Numbers”, there are real numbers and that’s it.
2. The irrational numbers is a R^2 relation. You do not conclude anything by enumeration because R is innumerable.


Pure crap!

1. I agree with you. The diagonal number simply shows that R set is incomplete, because any cardinal is weaker than non-locality (that is something that is beyond your abstract ability, which is limited only to locality).

2. Any given collection that its cardinality > 0 is the result of Relation\Element Interaction (that is something that is beyond your abstract ability, which is limited only to locality).

3. Non-locality is already understood ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4164710&postcount=650 ) but not by the community of current mathematicians.

 

[TMiguel]

1. I agree with you. The diagonal number simply shows that R set is incomplete, because any cardinal is weaker than non-locality (that is something that is beyond your abstract ability, which is limited only to locality).

What? Did you read the innumerable part?
And that complex numbers is a R^2 and so it is bigger cardinality then R?

2. Any given collection that its cardinality > 0 is the result of Relation\Element Interaction (that is something that is beyond your abstract ability, which is limited only to locality).

Drop the “Relation\Element Interaction” we have already told you that it is nonsense.

3. Non-locality is already understood ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4164710&postcount=650 ) but not by the community of current mathematicians.

Has far as I know Locally refers to a determinate place. The closest thing that could make sense is for example on the case of the second law of thermodynamics that in a closed controlled volume it can not be violated, but locally (sub-volume not closed) it can. But that is not what you are implying, neither does the case that I mentioned could be applied in mathematics because if there is a property that a set must have but there is something different that happens within the sub-set, we call it “set” or “sub-set” and absolutely not “non-locally” or “locally”.
And I still don’t know what the hell you mean whit Locally and non-whatever.

 

[doronshadmi]

What? Did you read the innumerable part?
And that complex numbers is a R^2 and so it is bigger cardinality then R?


Drop the “Relation\Element Interaction” we have already told you that it is nonsense.


Has far as I know Locally refers to a determinate place. The closest thing that could make sense is for example on the case of the second law of thermodynamics that in a closed controlled volume it can not be violated, but locally (sub-volume not closed) it can. But that is not what you are implying, neither does the case that I mentioned could be applied in mathematics because if there is a property that a set must have but there is something different that happens within the sub-set, we call it “set” or “sub-set” and absolutely not “non-locally” or “locally”.
And I still don’t know what the hell you mean whit Locally and non-whatever.

Any non-empty set or subet is the rusult of Non-locality\Locality interaction (something that is beyond your current abstract ability).

 

[jsfisher]

Any non-empty set or subet is the rusult of Non-locality\Locality interaction (something that is beyond your current abstract ability).

No, it is not his, my, or anyone else's inabilities that are showing here, doron, just yours. You make up a term which you cannot define, explain, or characterize in any intelligible way, but then you ascribe it fantastical abilities spanning the breath of all knowledge.

Rubbish.

Then you rely on google skills to pull out seemingly learned articles that use the same term you have been using, only the author actually defines the term and uses it in a comprehensible way. You, on the other hand, mostly due to your oft-demonstrated poor reading skills, fail to see the author's usage is not at all like your usage of the term.

Your examples often contradict your claims.

The trouble is, doron, you can make such a colossal mistake as claiming sets are the union of their members and cannot see the blunder even when pointed out by simple counter examples.

Doron, you seem impervious to any form of logical reasoning and incapable of intellectual discourse. I suppose that insulates you from ever discovering that your gibberish is all nonsense and trivia.

I assure you, doron, the lack understanding by others for your ideas is clearly your own doing.

 

[The Man]

No.

If it is Non-Local it is the Relation between Locals, and no relation can be inherently Local, exactly as no Local can be inherently a Relation.

This is just your dogmatic dichotomist approach to Local and non-local as well as relations and what is being related. Since the local in one perspective can be non-local in another so too can a “Relation between Locals” be related to some other “Relation between Locals” (as in electromagnetism). The limitation of association of these ascriptions you profess are entirely your own construct or your own local relations.

 

[doronshadmi]

This is just your dogmatic dichotomist approach to Local and non-local as well as relations and what is being related. Since the local in one perspective can be non-local in another so too can a “Relation between Locals” be related to some other “Relation between Locals” (as in electromagnetism). The limitation of association of these ascriptions you profess are entirely your own construct or your own local relations.

You are unable to get the beauty of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4167380&postcount=271 , do you?

How can it be dogmatic if Distinction is its first-order property (which means that also my paradigm can be changed by a paradigm-shift, which is something that no dogmatic paradigm has)?

 

[TMiguel]

How can it be dogmatic?

Because you believe it without logic or reason, it has nothing to stand upon, and you continue to hold it like the most valuable thing on earth despite it has been proven to you many times that it is a bunch of crap.

 

[doronshadmi]

Because you believe it without logic or reason

This is exactly the story of the Black\White reasoning.

The persons who uses it realy believe (without any good reason) that it is the general and comprehensive method of real reasoning.

But they are wrong, it is nothing but a trivial and particular case of Universal Reasoning, as clearly shown by:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/NXOR-XOR.pdf

Listen to an honest man like Prof. Melvyn B. Nathanson http://www.ams.org/notices/200807/tx080700773p.pdf , maybe you will learn some honesty from him.

 

[jsfisher]

Listen to an honest man like Prof. Melvyn B. Nathanson http://www.ams.org/notices/200807/tx080700773p.pdf , maybe you will learn some honesty from him.

What is it in Nathanson's AMS notice you find interesting, doron. I am curious how you interpret his words.

 

[The Man]

You are unable to get the beauty of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4167380&postcount=271 , do you?

Beauty? As far as art goes it is very poor work, as far as science goes it is even less significant, even in a philosophical sense it has no meaning, which is quite a feat as almost anything can have some philosophical meaning. So the beauty of it is that it demonstrates that even in philosophy some representations can still be absolutely meaningless.

How can it be dogmatic if Distinction is its first-order property (which means that also my paradigm can be changed by a paradigm-shift, which is something that no dogmatic paradigm has)?

Yet your paradigm does not shift and from what I have seen has never shifted. Claiming your “paradigm can be changed by a paradigm-shift” and that paradigm actually having the capability of shifting are two different things. Particularly considering that you ascribe absolutely everything to your dichotomist local / non-local dogma leaving no room for any kind of a “shift”.

No.

If it is Non-Local it is the Relation between Locals, and no relation can be inherently Local, exactly as no Local can be inherently a Relation.

The statement above is simply an edict and nothing more, without any supporting evidence and in direct contraction of considerations like “my local neighborhood” or “my immediate family” both represent relations between locals but are still themselves inherently local relations. Also non-local relations like Electric and Magnetic fields that have been combined as one local relation electromagnetism and further localized as the emission and absorption of virtual photons (Quantum electrodynamics) This represents a paradigm shift from the non-local consideration of an electromagnetic vector field to the more localized aspect of an exchange of virtual photons, providing some of the most precise agreement between theory and experimentation as has ever been encountered by science. Science is designed to change; the paradigm shifts are substantial and historically evident. You utilize your local/non-local dichotomy to account for absolutely everything, specifically ascribing arguments against it as simply one part of it, making it dogma and your assertion “my paradigm can be changed by a paradigm-shift” a lie, if only to yourself.

 

[Skeptic]

You're arguing with a crank, "The Man" -- with someone who is utterly convinced of his own greatness. You might as well try to drain the sea.

Doron NEEDS to believe he's a mathematical-logical-philosophical genius, and therefore every criticism is dismissed as the jealous sniping of pygmies who are all green with envy of him.

Like most crank works, there's little point to trying to undestand what he's talking about since there's simply no "there" there. It's merely the restatement of badly-understood basic terms in cumbersome language.

 

[The Man]

You're arguing with a crank, "The Man" -- with someone who is utterly convinced of his own greatness. You might as well try to drain the sea.

Doron NEEDS to believe he's a mathematical-logical-philosophical genius, and therefore every criticism is dismissed as the jealous sniping of pygmies who are all green with envy of him.

Like most crank works, there's little point to trying to undestand what he's talking about since there's simply no "there" there. It's merely the restatement of badly-understood basic terms in cumbersome language.

More then well understood, Skeptic, but I do think it is important for you to continue to point that out. Hey I actually saw Doron note what he had added to a post, a failing he continually indulged and I would berate him for, so even Doron can learn, although him learning his own limitations is a bit much to hope for. Again it is not so much for Doron’s sake but also for those lurking that may think he actually knows what he is talking about if we do not specifically address it.

 

[catbasket]

Again it is not so much for Doron’s sake but also for those lurking that may think he actually knows what he is talking about if we do not specifically address it.

A job well done. It's a pity that everyone's valiant efforts to educate Doron have failed so spectacularly ... of course this failure is in no way the fault of the educators and is simply a problem for the student to resolve. (Some hope of that, eh?)

If it helps in any way to encourage you guys to carry on - this thread* has helped rekindle my interest in (real) maths, which I sadly lost some time after dropping out of school in 1977 when studying A-Level Pure Maths, Applied Maths and Physics.


* - not including any post by Doron.

 

[TMiguel]

A job well done. It's a pity that everyone's valiant efforts to educate Doron have failed so spectacularly ... of course this failure is in no way the fault of the educators and is simply a problem for the student to resolve. (Some hope of that, eh?)

If it helps in any way to encourage you guys to carry on - this thread* has helped rekindle my interest in (real) maths, which I sadly lost some time after dropping out of school in 1977 when studying A-Level Pure Maths, Applied Maths and Physics.


* - not including any post by Doron.

If you like I can start a new tread about one of my own mathematical researches that I have done when I was a bit younger. A bit crude, hard to read, but it uses simple principles that I in my ignorance of the current mathematical knowledge done the job of “reinventing the wheel”. Well I find it interest, and it is one step away from proving the twin prime conjecture if one of my own conjectures happens to be true (I wasn’t able to prove or disprove that), If you want just say anything and I will try to reproduce it here.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron NEEDS to believe he's a mathematical-logical-philosophical genius, and therefore every criticism is dismissed as the jealous sniping of pygmies who are all green with envy of him.

Nonsense,

I am an ordinary man who dislikes fanatic approach no matter what name is given to it.

Black\White reasoning as the only possibility of the foundations of Mathematical science is simply trivial.

 

[jsfisher]

Black\White reasoning as the only possibility of the foundations of Mathematical science is simply trivial.

Well, it's not trivial, but it is also not the only possibility. Mathematics has its only branches set aside for such "fuzzy" topics.

Now, back to this AMS Notice link you posted. Care to comment on it? Or are you going to leave it as just another irrelevant aside from you?

 

[catbasket]

If you want just say anything and I will try to reproduce it here.

Yes please! I've PM'd you my email address in case you prefer to send it that way.

 

[doronshadmi]

Here is an important correction at the end of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4195319&postcount=373 .

Instead of:

"This simultaneity cannot be understood and be developed unless Distinction and Non-locality become first-order properties of the mathematical science that helps to find the "trunk" for different "branches" (different deductive context-dependent axiomatic systems)(and it cannot be done unless the mathematician's interaction and influence are totally ignored (where this ignorance easily leads to hidden assumptions in the foundations of this science))."

it has to be:

"This simultaneity cannot be understood and be developed unless Distinction and Non-locality become first-order properties of the mathematical science that helps to find the "trunk" for different "branches" (different deductive context-dependent axiomatic systems)(and it cannot be done if the mathematician's interaction and influence are totally ignored (where this ignorance easily leads to hidden assumptions in the foundations of this science)).

Do not derail this thread by continuing a discussion from a closed thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[drkitten]

Here is an important correction at the end of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4195319&postcount=373 .

Instead of:

"This simultaneity cannot be understood and be developed unless Distinction and Non-locality become first-order properties of the mathematical science that helps to find the "trunk" for different "branches" (different deductive context-dependent axiomatic systems)(and it cannot be done unless the mathematician's interaction and influence are totally ignored (where this ignorance easily leads to hidden assumptions in the foundations of this science))."

it has to be:

"This simultaneity cannot be understood and be developed unless Distinction and Non-locality become first-order properties of the mathematical science that helps to find the "trunk" for different "branches" (different deductive context-dependent axiomatic systems)(and it cannot be done if the mathematician's interaction and influence are totally ignored (where this ignorance easily leads to hidden assumptions in the foundations of this science)).

Because that change is so important in interpreting the otherwise meaningless gibberish.

In approximately the same way that a turd sandwich is much better when made with dijon mustard instead of the ordinary yellow stuff.

I suggest a much simpler rewriting of the relevant post:

It has to be:

"[Every word that Doron writes] cannot be understood and be developed [and should be] totally ignored."

 

[doronshadmi]

In general Relation cannot be but Non-local, where an Element can be Non-local of Local w.r.t another Element.

If I wrote that an Element cannot be but local, then I was wrong.