Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

So you decided to sodomize the "not equal to" symbol to symbolize the existence of things "beyond" certain location.

This is a simple fact that the distinct and local 0(x) or 0 have ≠ between them upon inifinitely many given scales, where this fact is notated as 1(0(x)≠0).

I see that you still can't grasp the fact that 0(x) ≤ 0(1), such that x is both ≤ 1, is RAA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum ).

 

[epix]

Do you know that any arbitrary R member is 0(), and no amount of 0() is 1()?

And do you know the secret that the set of positive integers is a subset of R?

Let number 6, notated as 0() by you, be the arbitrary member of R. The "proof" that "no amount of sixes" is 1() -- which is a one-dimensional object by your definition, such as a line segment, "...is a line segment" is below.

666666666666666666...

The proof is based on the manifestation of deep madness. LOL.

If you had said "no amount of ordered 0()s is 1(), the outcome would have been different, maybe less crazy I guess, but you had not.

If Adolf had your symbolism available back then, not even one intercepted message would get decoded by the Allies.

 

[doronshadmi]

And do you know the secret that the set of positive integers is a subset of R?

Let number 6, notated as 0() by you, be the arbitrary member of R. The "proof" that "no amount of sixes" is 1() -- which is a one-dimensional object by your definition, such as a line segment, "...is a line segment" is below.

666666666666666666...

The proof is based on the manifestation of deep madness. LOL.

If you had said "no amount of ordered 0()s is 1(), the outcome would have been different, maybe less crazy I guess, but you had not.

If Adolf had your symbolism available back then, not even one intercepted message would get decoded by the Allies.

You still can't get 666666666666666666... and you also have missed http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6432988&postcount=11988.

 

[epix]

You still can't get 666666666666666666...

I'm working on it . . .

666


666


666


The the line segment is shrinking -- shrink, shrink -- even though the devil is invariant: 6x6x6=216.

 

[epix]

I see that you still can't grasp the fact that 0(x) ≤ 0(1), such that x is both ≤ 1, is RAA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum ).

Even though I included the link that could explain to you what a ≤ x ≤ b means in the language that math speaks with, you ignored it. Due to your total math illiteracy, you continue to hold the expression absurd.

So once again . . .
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ClosedInterval.html

 

[doronshadmi]

Even though I included the link that could explain to you what a ≤ x ≤ b means in the language that math speaks with, you ignored it. Due to your total math illiteracy, you continue to hold the expression absurd.

So once again . . .
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ClosedInterval.html

The language that math speaks about a ≤ x ≤ b is based on collection of 0(), end exactly because a, x or b are no more than 0(), thay can't be 1(), which exists simultaneously at AND beyond the location of any given 0().

This fact is notated exactly by ≠ of 1(0(a)≠0(x)≠0(b)) expression or by 1(0(x)≠0) expression, as well.

 

[doronshadmi]

The the line segment is shrinking -- shrink, shrink --

It is not less than smaller.

 

[zooterkin]

If Adolf had your symbolism available back then, not even one intercepted message would get decoded by the Allies.

Nor by the intended recipients, I suspect.

 

[zooterkin]

About the irreducibility of 1() to 0() and the non expansion of 0() to 1().

Still stuck on trying to enumerate all the points on a line? You. Don't. Need. To. Do. That. They are just there, you don't have to account for all of them.

 

[doronshadmi]

Still stuck on trying to enumerate all the points on a line? You. Don't. Need. To. Do. That. They are just there, you don't have to account for all of them.

You still stuck under the wrong notion that a collection of distinct 0() is 1(). This collection is just there without using enumeration, and yet it is not 1().

You simply can't grasp 1(0(x)≠0) expression upon infinitely many scales, which has nothing to do with any kind of enumeration.

 

[epix]

The language that math speaks about a ≤ x ≤ b is based on collection of 0(), end exactly because a, x or b are no more than 0(), thay can't be 1(), which exists simultaneously at AND beyond the location of any given 0().

This fact is notated exactly by ≠ of 1(0(a)≠0(x)≠0(b)) expression or by 1(0(x)≠0) expression, as well.

Your enunciation and the strange symbolism are the major ingredients in the recipe for the bowl of goulash you've been trying to serve.

No one claims that 0() is 1(), as no one claims that 0=1. If you organize the members of the set of real numbers in the ascending order, the result resembles a line. You claim that there are gaps in that set (collection), but you can't show that there is an interval [a,b] for which there is no real number x_i.

Let x_i be a real number -- a member of an ordered interval. What is the next real number?
Obviously, it is x_i+1. But you claim that there are cases where x_i has a successor x_i+2. I suggested to you to hit the ordered set of positive integers and find the gaps in there, before trying to demolish R.

Let's see if you can get beyond shuffling 0()s and 1()s around: What is the immediate successor of √2? If the immediate successor is t, how do you find out that there should be a real number s right between √2 and t? This is the same as spotting a gap in 1,2,3_5,6... You can spot the gap only when you know how the missing number looks like, and if you know that, then the number exists. There is no way that there is any gap there, coz if i say let A be the set of positive integers, then I mean a set with no gaps. If I meant otherwise, I would included the provision in the definition.

So, what is the immediate successor of √2?

 

[doronshadmi]

If you organize the members of the set of real numbers in the ascending order, the result resembles a line.

You are wrong.

The members of R set are 0(), and their distinct values can't be given without 1(), such that 1(0(x)≠0), where 1() is exactly ≠ between distinct 0(x)≠0.

What is the immediate successor of √2?

It does not have an immediate successor exactly because no amount of distinct 0() is 1().

You still do not get the notion of infinite interpolation of distinct 0() along 1(0(x)≠0), where x and y are distinct (x≠y) and order has no significance.

Your enunciation and the strange symbolism

It is strange because you don't get the notion of this notation.

 

[epix]

The language that math speaks about a ≤ x ≤ b is based on collection of 0(), end exactly because a, x or b are no more than 0(), thay can't be 1(), which exists simultaneously at AND beyond the location of any given 0().

No, Doron. Numbers are not zero-dimensional objects; they are not points. We use numbers to locate points, that's all. There is a correspondence between numbers and points, though, but I'm not the one who will attempt the foolish feat of explaining.

Note the difference between F0()=0()LISH and FO=OLISH. Since O equals O, and O is the 15th letter of the alphabet, then 15=15 and so it's up to the "King Solomon" to right your mind.

I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me.
Romans 15:15
http://www.jstor.org/pss/40248000

Religion & Philosophy
is like a car race and a trophy
first came Car and then came Race
as first comes God and then his Grace

(His Uttermost Omniscience God the Lord, Ph.D. shall try to explain regarding points. Well, let's hope for a miracle. )

 

[jsfisher]

Ok, I'll admit it: Real life has distracted me from doronetics.

Can some one, please, explain what Doron means by his latest notational gibberish, 0() and 1()? I assume it has something to do with points and lines (Doron gets hung up on points and lines), but it isn't clear what it has to do with them. And it gets worse when Doron treats 0() and 1() as functions of boolean arguments.

 

[epix]

Ok, I'll admit it: Real life has distracted me from doronetics.

Can some one, please, explain what Doron means by his latest notational gibberish, 0() and 1()? I assume it has something to do with points and lines (Doron gets hung up on points and lines), but it isn't clear what it has to do with them. And it gets worse when Doron treats 0() and 1() as functions of boolean arguments.

God has taken a couple of days off, and so no one really knows what Doron means. But a guess could do as an interim: The 0() and 1() expressions are indigenous to Doronetics, coz parenthesis were invented to enclose characters -- characters such as 0 and 1. Since Doron's ideas are all of the novel kind, he puts the characters outside the parenthesis. There is a guess that says that () stands for an object and the prefix number translate the whole expression as 0() = "a zero-dimensional object" and 1() = " a one-dimensional object". The objects are presumably the point and the line.

There are instances where a lower-case letters have been spotted inside the parenthesis, such as 0(x). That expression probably reads zero-dimensional object x or point x. So a point in general is denoted as 0() and a particular point as 0(x). I haven't seen the line version yet for the particular case.

 

[doronshadmi]

Ok, I'll admit it: Real life has distracted me from doronetics.

Can some one, please, explain what Doron means by his latest notational gibberish, 0() and 1()? I assume it has something to do with points and lines (Doron gets hung up on points and lines), but it isn't clear what it has to do with them. And it gets worse when Doron treats 0() and 1() as functions of boolean arguments.

0() is for strict relation.

1() is for non-strict relation.

Strict relation or non-strict relation are not necessarily understood as points or lines.


For example:

Given A ~A domains, 0() is A XOR ~A, where 1() is A NXOR ~A

 

[doronshadmi]

I haven't seen the line version yet for the particular case.

2(1(x)≠1)


In general X(x), where X is the dimensional space and x is a name of a given X.

 

[doronshadmi]

No, Doron. Numbers are not zero-dimensional objects; they are not points. We use numbers to locate points,

In the case of R set, 0() is the minimal possible location along 1(), and no amount of 0() locations is 1(), because 1() is at AND beyond any given distinct 0() along it.

We use numbers to locate points

No, we use numbers whether thay are strict or non-strict, for example:

0() or 1() are strict numbers, where 0.999...[base 10]() is a non-strict number, such that no amount of the strict numbers
0()+0.9()+0.09()+0.009()+ ... is the strict number 1().

Also 1() or 2() are strict numbers, where 1.999...[base 10]() is a non-strict number, such that no amount of the strict numbers
1()+0.9()+0.09()+0.009()+ ... is the strict number 2().

...

etc. ... ad infinitum ...

Also be aware of the fact that, for example, 0.9(0(0.9)), where 0(0.9) is a strict location along 0.9(), and no amount of distinct 0() is 0.9().

 

[epix]

Ok, I'll admit it: Real life has distracted me from doronetics.

Can some one, please, explain what Doron means by his latest notational gibberish, 0() and 1()? I assume it has something to do with points and lines (Doron gets hung up on points and lines), but it isn't clear what it has to do with them. And it gets worse when Doron treats 0() and 1() as functions of boolean arguments.

If you came across my attempt to decode that particular symbolism, then be advised to null and void it, coz Doron committed the defining here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6444698&postcount=12016

According to his words, 0() and 1() stands for strict relation and non-strict relation respectively. So, the expression 1(0(x)≠0) that he used quite recently means that the strict relation involving x is not identical to the strict relation involving y, and that is all happening in the non-strict relation 1(). He used that expression to show that 5/2, for example, doesn't have a real result. See, Doron keeps denying the existence of the linear continuum, and one of the consequences is that there exist non negative real numbers a and b with b≠0 where a/b doesn't have a real result. He can't provide an example of such two real numbers, though. Instead, he uses the strict and the non-strict arguments to show that such numbers do exist.

 

[epix]

0() or 1() are strict numbers, where 0.999...[base 10]() is a non-strict number, such that no amount of the strict numbers
0()+0.9()+0.09()+0.009()+ ... is the strict number 1().

I thought that 0() stands for "strict relation" and 1() for "non-strict relation." That's how you defined the symbolism:

0() is for strict relation.

1() is for non-strict relation.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6444698&postcount=12016

Now you say that 0() and 1() are BOTH STRICT NUMBERS.
What happened to the strict and non-strict difference between 0() and 1() and how come that the word "number" suddenly replaced the original defining word "relation?"

Don't sweat it out to explain or you lose control over your gibberish for good.

But there is a tiny light at the end of the tunnel. I have an impression from your scribble that you don't agree with the idea that "0.999999..." actually equals 1. Am I right or not?