• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
zooterkin said:
Are you saying that this:



is your definition for 'incompleteness'?
Click to expand...
The definition is not less that using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

Please pay attention of the fact that you insist to define things only it terms of verbal_symbolic skills.
 
doronshadmi said:
The definition is not less that using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

Please pay attention of the fact that you insist to define things only it terms of verbal_symbolic skills.
Click to expand...

Do you think you could answer the question? Is this your definition of "incomplete":

the inability of collections of distinct objects to have to power of the continuum of the "host" mathematical space
Click to expand...
?
 
doronshadmi said:
Do you think you could use your verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills in order to get my already given answer (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7617532&postcount=16470 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7617572&postcount=16472)?
Click to expand...

Oh, look, yet another convoluted way to say, "No".

I asked you to define "incomplete". You referred to a post which did not apparently do so. I asked for clarification. You quoted that sentence fragment. I'm now asking you to confirm or deny if that is your definition of "incomplete". I'll try again:
Is this your definition of "incomplete":

the inability of collections of distinct objects to have to power of the continuum of the "host" mathematical space
Click to expand...
? Yes or no?
 
doronshadmi said:
Since your assertions about completeness are restricted only to collections of distinct objects, you can't get the power of the continuum of "____" which is non-local and stronger w.r.t any collection of sub-objects like "_ _ _" or "......" on it.
Click to expand...


Really? Show exactly where I have made any “assertions about completeness” that “are restricted only to collections of distinct objects” or stop lying about it.


doronshadmi said:
This simple fact is realized only if verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills are used as a one comprehensive framework of the mathematical research.

Your mathematical research defiantly use only verbal_symbolic skills, and as a result you are unable to get the incompleteness of the power of the continuum of "hosted" sub_objects like sub-objects "_ _ _" or "......" w.r.t "host" space like "____".
Click to expand...

Your “direct perception has failed you yet again.

Please tell us Doron what “power of the continuum” the “hosted” sub line segment AB lacks that the “Host space” line segment AC has?


doronshadmi said:
Because you are using only verbal_symbolic skills you also can't comprehend the non-locality of the "host" space w.r.t the "hosted" sub-objects, and the locality of the "hosted" sub-objects w.r.t the "host" space, which is not made by the "hosted" sub-objects".

In other words, your assertions and results are closed under using only verbal_symbolic skills, and this closeness is not changed all along this very long thread.

Your use of verbal_symbolic_only skills continues to fail you, demonstrably (your question was answered by me many times, but you can't comprehend it since your reasoning is restricted only to verbal_symbolic skills).
Click to expand...

Nope, the question was simply and ineffectively dodged by you many times and continues to be. This latest tact of yours, simply claiming “verbal_symbolic_only skills” for others, continues to fail you as did your “Serial only reasoning” and “local only reasoning” ascription shticks did before. Stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.
 
doronshadmi said:
epix, you take the wrong way to get what I say.

The facts are these:

1) Nothing is removed from the collection of picked distinct objects.

2) Picking x more that once does not change the fact that it is a single and distinct object of collection of distinct objects.
Click to expand...
Well, that deepens the mystery that surrounds the meaning of the verb PICK, as used by Doronetics to bring certain insights into multitudes called Collections.

So if nothing is removed from a collection by picking, then the action must cause some changes to the members of the collection, otherwise there would be no indication that some picking has been done. A part of your axiom says that "x can be picked twice." But if the process of picking doesn't leave any apparent consequence to x, then there is no way of telling whether x was picked twice, thrice, or not at all.

Here is a collection of five distinct objects: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
I decide to pick one member of the collection the way that you become aware of my choice, specifically that I've picked one member twice. How do I do that by using PICKING defined by Doronetics? Can you post the collection of five distinct objects above the way that I would know which member you picked twice?

You may not be aware of the fact that methods outside Doronetics describe in detail permitted operation done on certain types of collections. The manipulation of sets, multisets, lists, or other specialized groups is not described by randomly assembled verbiage of terms due to the fear of chaos and anarchy reigning in the realm of reason.
 
doronshadmi said:
Since your assertions about completeness are restricted only to collections of distinct objects, you can't get the power of the continuum of "____" which is non-local and stronger w.r.t any collection of sub-objects like "_ _ _" or "......" on it.
Click to expand...
The rendition of your axioms doesn't specify that the collection in question is R, or the continuum. The last reference of yours regarding the space where the collection lives was
I explicitly use the term "Collections of distinct objects", which is the particular case of 0-URDT.
Click to expand...
R is a collection of distinct objects as N is. So your complaint doesn't make sense. (What the heck is 0-URDT?)

Do you know that God made the continuum and breathed power into it?

...we see that the real numbers, or the continuum, report on the way God
has made the universe.
Click to expand...
http://www.biblicalchristianworldview.net/Mathematical-Circles/powerContinuum.pdf
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Your mathematical research defiantly use only verbal_symbolic skills, and as a result you are unable to get the incompleteness of the power of the continuum of "hosted" sub_objects like sub-objects "_ _ _" or "......" w.r.t "host" space like "____".
Click to expand...
That's interesting. Unlike you, God sees the cause of someone not getting it elsewhere. Since He is the creator of mankind, He surely knows what my problem is:

To prove this, Cantor used the reductio ad absurdum approach. He assumed that you can count the real numbers between 0 and 1 and then he reasoned to a contradiction. Follow this reasoning carefully. Your mind needs to be fully engaged. You may need to remove all distractions so that you can focus.
Click to expand...
http://www.biblicalchristianworldview.net/Mathematical-Circles/powerContinuum.pdf
 
epix said:
So if nothing is removed from a collection by picking, then the action must cause some changes to the members of the collection, otherwise there would be no indication that some picking has been done.
Click to expand...
The knowledge in one's mind about the picked objects is changed.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Go to the shop on the other side of the street, they sale merchandise that is based only on verbal_symbolic skills.
Ask for salesmen jsfisher or The Man.
Click to expand...
:)


That all looks really great but that's not what I asked for; this is all soybean-based food and as you know its allergenecity can mess up your digestive system. As far as I remember I asked for verbal_symbolic_skills-based food.

Well, sir, sorry, but I'm not following... I don't know what you're talking about.

Can I talk to The Man?

Sorry, but the manager is not available right now.

I didn't ask for the full time manager, did I? I want to talk to that manager who works only part time.

The Man___! Customer service, please. The Man___!


Can I help you with anything?

I hope so. I want something that is verbal_symbolic_skills-based.

Yes, of course. Follow me, please.

POULTRY

I would recommend this product. It's new.

Chicken wings? But I asked for...

No. These are parrot wings.

Alright! Wait a minute. You charge $42 for a pound?

Well, the farm raising takes some time before the parrots learn to repeat the whole Gettysburg Address and are ready for the store. That hikes up the cost.

So how come that those parrot drumsticks over there are only $3 a pound?

Well, they come from One Word Farm in Kentucky.

I see. So I take four of them.

Good. Go and help yourself. They are four_piece-packaged and available for customer pick up in the lower-east sector of the third shelf in the southwest corner of the store. Please don't remove the drumsticks from the shelf when picking them up.

:confused: Huh? Why not?

Do you see the sign over there?
The knowledge in one's mind about the picked objects is changed.
Click to expand...

Darn!
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Go to the shop on the other side of the street, they sale merchandise that is based only on verbal_symbolic skills.

Ask for salesmen jsfisher or The Man.
Click to expand...

It's really a simple question, and I'm struggling to understand why you persist in evading it. I'm trying to understand what you mean by 'incomplete'. You appear to have given a definition, but I want to be certain.

Is this your definition of "incomplete":

the inability of collections of distinct objects to have to power of the continuum of the "host" mathematical space
Click to expand...
? Yes or no?
 
zooterkin said:
It's really a simple question, and I'm struggling to understand why you persist in evading it. I'm trying to understand what you mean by 'incomplete'. You appear to have given a definition, but I want to be certain.

Is this your definition of "incomplete":


? Yes or no?
Click to expand...
Why do you insist to get definition (of "incomplete", in this case) only in terms of verbal_symbolic skills?
 
doronshadmi said:
Why do you insist to get definition (of "incomplete", in this case) only in terms of verbal_symbolic skills?
Click to expand...

I'm not insisting on anything of the sort, at the moment. I'm just asking if what you said was your definition of 'incomplete'. Why is that so hard to answer?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom