Deeper than primes

[The Man]

The Man you simply lack of any understanding of what is written in the links of my previous replay to you.

What is written in those links lacks any definition of your “superposition” without superposition and simply claims it is “indeterminate”, “intermediate” as well as you asserting that you just call such a “superposition”. Those links just confirm your intent not to define your “superposition” without superposition and your deliberate attempt to deceive by continuing to refer to it as what you specifically claim it is not. As noted before that was already perceived to be your intent, so it comes as no big surprise.

At least your assertion “AB means that "A=bottom and B=top" is indeterminate so we can't determine if it is "bottom", "top" or some intermediate state between them.” Would place your “AB” “between” "A=bottom and B=top" inclusively. So it would seem your “non-strict” and “indeterminate” “AB” does have some restrictions and some determination making it “intermediate” and “between”.

Care to expand on that Doron or simply contradict yourself? I project that even if the former, soon to come the latter.

 

[doronshadmi]

"Non-local" is just something you invented to cover your ignorance. The real numbers are everywhere dense. Your protests don't change that.

If a person believes in "death by entropy" paradigm I am the last person that is going to argue with him in terms of belief.

If a person enables to re-consider his agreed paradigm, I am the first person that is going to argue with him in terms of paradigm's-shift.

jsfisher, you are not a person that enables to re-consider his agreed paradigm.

 

[doronshadmi]

So it would seem your “non-strict” and “indeterminate” “AB” does have some restrictions and some determination making it “intermediate” and “between”.

The right phrase is this:

"So it would seem my “non-strict” and “indeterminate” AB is different than determined strict A or B"

 

[doronshadmi]

Care to expand on that Doron or simply contradict yourself? I project that even if the former, soon to come the latter.

Contradiction, in this case, is the result of forcing determination on the indeterminate or the strict on the non-strict, and this is exactly what you are doing, The Man.

 

[doronshadmi]

At least your assertion “AB means that "A=bottom and B=top" is indeterminate so we can't determine if it is "bottom", "top" or some intermediate state between them.” Would place your “AB” “between” "A=bottom and B=top" inclusively.

You are still forcing strictness and determination on AB, and as a result you can't get it.

 

[doronshadmi]

I suppose, too, we are the lighthouse, vigilant in guiding would-be sailors from the rocky shores of Doronetics.

All you can get is found under the spot of your lighthouse, where from this spot Doronetics can't be seen.

 

[epix]

All you can get is found under the spot of your lighthouse, where from this spot Doronetics can't be seen.

[qimg]http://www.christianfaith.com.au/system/files/Bible%20with%20spotlight%202_0.jpg[/qimg]

D.D. means Doctor of Divinity, but also Doctor of Doronetics. If the curriculum is basically the same, then there doesn't have to be an adjustment to the acronym of both titles, right?

Your pic is a tough one. It says, "I'm thinking a passage in the Bible. Which one is it?"

Can that be done?

 

[doronshadmi]

 

[doronshadmi]

Can that be done?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7386339&postcount=16022

 

[jsfisher]

[qimg]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6008/5961689020_957e098143_b.jpg[/qimg]

No.

(1) That isn't how 0.999... is shown to be 1 in any formal way.
(2) Getting 0.999... from 1/1 is a trivial exercise left for the interested reader.

 

[doronshadmi]

No.

(1) That isn't how 0.999... is shown to be 1 in any formal way.
(2) Getting 0.999... from 1/1 is a trivial exercise left for the interested reader.

By Traditional Math (which is actually a verbal_sequential-only reasoning) 0.111...[base 2] = 0.999...[base 10] = 1

By using verbal_sequential\visual_spatial reasoning as follows:

it is a simple exercise for the interested mind to immediately get that 0.111...[base 2] < 1

 

[jsfisher]

By Traditional Math (which is actually a verbal_sequential-only reasoning) 0.111...[base 2] = 0.999...[base 10] = 1

No, it is not.

By using verbal_sequential\visual_spatial reasoning as follows:

[qimg]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6142/5962015728_d2fe37cc5f_z.jpg[/qimg]

it is a simple exercise for the interested mind to immediately get that 0.111...[base 2] < 1

(1) No, it doesn't show that. It only helps demonstrate (which is far short of proving) that any finite such "decimal" is less that 1. It says nothing about the the infinite version, 0.111...₂.

(2) Since it gets the wrong result, the only real conclusion here is that this personal invention of yours, verbal_sequential\visual_spatial reasoning, isn't very useful.

 

[epix]

By Traditional Math (which is actually a verbal_sequential-only reasoning) 0.111...[base 2] = 0.999...[base 10] = 1

By using verbal_sequential\visual_spatial reasoning as follows:

[qimg]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6142/5962015728_d2fe37cc5f_z.jpg[/qimg]

it is a simple exercise for the interested mind to immediately get that 0.111...[base 2] < 1

I can only see three vertically organized values:

1/10 (dec)
2 (bin)
10 (bin)

 

[epix]

[qimg]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6008/5961689020_957e098143_b.jpg[/qimg]

You have a penchant for turning something simple into something needlessly complicated. You don't need to convert to another base to uncover a problem with this particular proof that only works when the left side of the equation is strictly kept in the exact format and the right side in the approximate format all throughout. Here it is once again:

In this type of progress, the members of the left side are not evaluated in the approximate format, which allows the flow to reach the last line where the contradiction emerges. But in the all-format flow, the trouble start already in line 4 where

9x = 9

If you let the left side go to the approximate format and execute 9*x with x previously defined as x = 0.999..., then

9*0.999... = 8.999...1

and therefore it cannot equal 9.

The choice of preferring 0.999... = 1, baring the limit, instead of invoking a contradiction is simply wrong. It can be shown why: A contradiction of this kind is almost always preceded by a contradiction in some assumption, in this case that the expression "0.999..." is a real number. Here is the problem:

All manipulation that enter the various proofs, including the one that involves Dedekind cut, ask sooner or later and through different expressions for 0.999... = p/q. In other words, they ask for 0.999... to be a rational number. But there is no solution to p/q = 0.999... and therefore 0.999... cannot be a rational number. If not, then the only option left to place it is that 0.999... is an irrational number. That's can't be true, coz 0.999... has periodic fractional part and that fact places it into Q -- the rational numbers. So by one definition, the expression 0.999... is a rational number, but by the other it is not. This contradiction must be resolved. There is an ongoing effort to resolve the issue. (I already posted a quote addressing that.) The only equation that sets correctly 0.999... = 1 is the one which shows that 1 is the limit of 0.999...

Hey, do you feel like do some base converting here?

That's the place where "0.999..." is asked to become a rational number and therefore a real number. It refuses, but the math folks would go ahead anyway, coz the God of Number Crunching would get upset, and you don't want that to happen, coz He is defined mean. Yep.

 

[doronshadmi]

No, it is not.



(1) No, it doesn't show that.

It shows that if the mind understands that no branch of that tree actually reaches any another branch of that tree, even if there are infinity many laves of that tree (where 1 is some branch of that tree), it immediately understands that this tree is actually some case of an infinite interpolation.

Infinite interpolation is a direct result of the fact that there is no homeomorphism between 1-dimensional space and 0-dimensional space or between between 2-dimensional space and 1-dimensional space etc. ad infinitum ... (or more general,
between any k-dimensional space (where k = 1 to ∞) and any n-dimensional space (where n = 0 to ∞ AND n < k)), where ∞ is an infinite extrapolation, which can't reach ∞(that has no successor) (Non-locality/Locality co-existence is an actual fact)).

Verbal_sequential-only minds, like jsfisher,

It says nothing about the the infinite version, 0.111...₂.

simply can't get infinite interpolation (where some case of it is shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7392225&postcount=16031) or infinite extrapolation (where ∞ is an infinite extrapolation, which can't reach ∞(that has no successor)).

 

[doronshadmi]

So by one definition, the expression 0.999... is a rational number, but by the other it is not.

epix, any given number that has infinity many symbols is a non-local number, for example:

0.333...[base 10] < 1/3

 

[doronshadmi]

Some correction at the beginning of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7394481&postcount=16035.

Instead of

It shows that if the mind understands that no branch of that tree actually reaches any another branch of that tree, even if there are infinity many laves of that tree (where 1 is some branch of that tree), it immediately understands that this tree is actually some case of an infinite interpolation.

it has to be:

"It shows that if the mind understands that no branch of that tree actually reaches any another branch of that tree, even if there are infinitely many levels of that tree (where 1 is some branch of that tree), it immediately understands that this tree is actually some case of an infinite interpolation."

(Also in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7394523&postcount=16036 , please replace "infinity" by "infinitely".)

Anyway, jsfisher's "Death by entropy" reasoning can't get the openness of infinite interpolation, as shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7392225&postcount=16031 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7394481&postcount=16035 (including the correction in this post).

 

[doronshadmi]

Jsfisher and The Man are two minds that can't comprehend that no collection has the power of the continuum, where the power of the continuum is a property of Non-locality.

 

[epix]

Originally Posted by epix
So by one definition, the expression 0.999... is a rational number, but by the other it is not.

epix, any given number that has infinity many symbols is a non-local number, for example:

0.333...[base 10] < 1/3

What's that for? 0.333... is a rational number, coz there exists p/q such that when p and q are entered into the Long Division algorithm, the result is 0.333... which satisfies the other definition of a rational number -- there is no contradiction that my quote refers to.

Your inequality lacks a definition of "1/3" and therefore you can't prove that inequality.

 

[doronshadmi]

Originally Posted by epix
So by one definition, the expression 0.999... is a rational number, but by the other it is not.



What's that for? 0.333... is a rational number, coz there exists p/q such that when p and q are entered into the Long Division algorithm, the result is 0.333... which satisfies the other definition of a rational number -- there is no contradiction that my quote refers to.

Your inequality lacks a definition of "1/3" and therefore you can't prove that inequality.

epix, you still do not get non-local numbers, which are not rational or irrational numbers.

because Traditional Math does not get Non-locality, it has no choose but to define 0.333...[base 10] as 1/3 or 3/14...[base 10] as Pi , etc. ...

You simply ignore verbal_sequential\visual_spatial reasoning as used in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6465716&postcount=12075 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6470162&postcount=12091 , and continue to use verbal_sequential-only reasoning, exactly like jsfisher and The Man.