• 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.
Are there corndogs available in here? Sure sounds like they should be.

I'll have two, with mustard, and a large diet pepsi.

Thanks!
 
ddt said:
Why should he? He's defined them in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4121353&postcount=418 and that definition is crystal clear. He also proved them to be more powerful than your MAFs. What more do you want? The ball's in your park, to show just one vaguely interesting MAF. But you can't, can you?


Complete non-sequitur.

In fact, I'm not satisfied with jsfisher's EMAF definition #1. He defined an EMAF to be of the form f(A), where f is a function and A is a tuple. I think this needs to be extended to a form I'll call EEMAF.

First of all, using functions is restrictive: for every A, there is only one y such that f(A) = y if f is a function. So I relax this to using relations instead of functions, so my first shot at an EEMAF definition is: anything of the form
R(A, y)
However, when we note that a relation is just a subset of the cartesian product of its domains, we can do even better:
every set S is an EEMAF.

What about that? An EEMAF is a set. Period.

And as EEMAF is clearly, from its construction, a more general notion than EMAF, which again is a more general notion than MAF, everything MAF you can make up is automatically an EEMAF.

MAFs are just sets. What about replacing your notion of MAF with set? Then you indeed have something that is acknowledged to be the basis of much of mathematics.
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4122426&postcount=459
 
doronshadmi said:
Wrong ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114233&page=55 ).

ddt, this is more or less your (in)ability to read and grasp new ideas.
Click to expand...

Could you have the decency to link to a particular post? I have my pages at 50 posts.

You mean post #2161? OK, you're right about that one. You back then failed to explain what you meant by it, despite being asked; as you are now just throwing it up.

It's also good to see again my post #2163 there:
To get back to that supposed dichotomy - let's take number theory as an example. One of the most important theorems in number theory is the Prime Number Theorem, about the distribution of prime numbers. Do you care to explain us what techniques are used to prove this theorem?
Click to expand...
You didn't answer that then, and you haven't answered it now. It's already abundantly clear that you don't have the mathematical knowledge to do so.

In fact, you don't even have the mathematical knowledge to prove such simple things as:
- associativity and commutativity of set union
- associativity and commutativity of set intersection
- the Theorem of Pythagoras
and various other simple questions you failed to answer.

Of course, you still can prove me wrong on all these counts. But I don't hold my breath.
 
ddt said:
He also proved them to be more powerful than your MAFs. What more do you want?
Click to expand...
No.

His entire framework is the particular case of distinct MAF *__* (notated, in this particular case, as Formulation #1__Formulation #12)
 
doronshadmi said:
No.

His entire framework is the particular case of distinct MAF *__* (notated, in this particular case, as Formulation #1__Formulation #12)
Click to expand...

Well, this makes it clear you don't understand EMAF at all.

Be that as it may, is this your answer to the MAF challenge? A simple binary MAF at that, and certainly not a very interesting one, either.

Don't you realize this doesn't even qualify as an MAF? You very specifically defined * to be an element (singular). Formulation #1 _ Formulation #1 would qualify (although it would be nice if you could say something about your underbar relation), but the example you gave doesn't satisfy the very form you laid out.

This is further evidence you don't understand your own notation.
 
doronshadmi said:
ddt said:
He also proved them to be more powerful than your MAFs. What more do you want?
Click to expand...
No.
Click to expand...
You can judge that? You, who hasn't shown a single proof of himself here?

doronshadmi said:
His entire framework is the particular case of distinct MAF *__* (notated, in this particular case, as Formulation #1__Formulation #12)
Click to expand...

"Formulation"? What's that supposed to mean? And why #1 and #12?

Besides, you only show with this post that you really didn't understand jsfisher's post.

And I remark you haven't answered to any of my challenges from post #463.
 
Whenever people note that this or that sentence in his work is wrong, Doron says that that's not what the sentence "really means" and therefore the critic is "unfair" or "misinformed".

That's quite true -- the sentence usually doesn't mean what the critic thinks it means -- but that's only because most of Doron's writings is literally meaningless and doesn't mean anything in particular at all. From the discussion above, it's quite clear that not even Doron knows what he wrote means -- at least, he never managed to explain it in any clear fashion.

This is typical of crank works, and the main reason why the only appropriate reply to them is, as Vergil told Dante, to "speak not to them, but look, and pass them by."
 
jsfisher said:
Well, this makes it clear you don't understand EMAF at all.

Be that as it may, is this your answer to the MAF challenge? A simple binary MAF at that, and certainly not a very interesting one, either.

Don't you realize this doesn't even qualify as an MAF? You very specifically defined * to be an element (singular). Formulation #1 _ Formulation #1 would qualify (although it would be nice if you could say something about your underbar relation), but the example you gave doesn't satisfy the very form you laid out.

This is further evidence you don't understand your own notation.
Click to expand...

Wow, you took the words straight out from my mouth, my little asymmetric-only thinker.
 
Skeptic said:
Whenever people note that this or that sentence in his work is wrong, Doron says that that's not what the sentence "really means" and therefore the critic is "unfair" or "misinformed".

That's quite true -- the sentence usually doesn't mean what the critic thinks it means -- but that's only because most of Doron's writings is literally meaningless and doesn't mean anything in particular at all. From the discussion above, it's quite clear that not even Doron knows what he wrote means -- at least, he never managed to explain it in any clear fashion.

This is typical of crank works, and the main reason why the only appropriate reply to them is, as Vergil told Dante, to "speak not to them, but look, and pass them by."
Click to expand...
Let us see if you are able to reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4119262&postcount=340 .
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
Whenever people note that this or that sentence in his work is wrong, Doron says that that's not what the sentence "really means" and therefore the critic is "unfair" or "misinformed".

That's quite true -- the sentence usually doesn't mean what the critic thinks it means -- but that's only because most of Doron's writings is literally meaningless and doesn't mean anything in particular at all. From the discussion above, it's quite clear that not even Doron knows what he wrote means -- at least, he never managed to explain it in any clear fashion.

This is typical of crank works, and the main reason why the only appropriate reply to them is, as Vergil told Dante, to "speak not to them, but look, and pass them by."
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reflections, Skeptic.

Upfront, I admit to having very little experience with cranks. Until I met Doron, I thought that a crank would come up with, say, a proof that the circle can be squared and the proof would at least follow the basic form of a mathematical proof. Sure, there's an error in it, somewhere, but at least you can reason about that.

However, Doron's work is so devoid of meaning and basic mathematical form that it doesn't even lead to interesting discussion as everything centers around trying to extract from him what his posts - which are at best grammatically correct nonsense and often even not that. By comparison, JdG's trolling led to more interesting threads, e.g., his "black hole" thread.

I'm also quite surprised at Doron's persistency in pursuing this - 1,571 posts here, 2,164 on IIDB, 458 on SC and hundreds various other fora - and inadvertently met with either the sort of replies we've seen here or with silence. Some may temporarily be taken in by the pretty pictures and formulae that seem impressive at first for the layman, but in the end, no one buys the nonsense. What makes a crank tick to put so much effort in it? It's massively masochistic, IMHO.

On the one hand, I fully agree with your advice to meet cranks with silence - reacting doesn't lead to any discernible progress. On the other hand, shouldn't at least be pointed out that the writing is crackpottery?

This is of course a derail from the topic of the thread, but, judging from Doron's latest reactions, that is essentially dead: Doron's posts #471 and #472 are both ad-hom attacks on the messenger, thus blocking any progress on elucidating his "theories". Coincidentally, they correspond to nr. 5 in your post #372, thus reinforcing your crank diagnosis.
 
ddt said:
Doron's research associate, Moshe Klein, has given a talk on "Organic Mathematics" in the Fifth International Congress in Applied Mathematics and Computing, August 2008, in Plovdiv, Bulgaria. At least, the PDF here claims so.

Let's disregard that he misspells the name of the conference ("Computation" instead of "Computing"), and that the professor who he claims invited him, Bromi Bainov, is nowhere to be found on the web but shares his last name with organizer Drumi Bainov.

[...]

Or is there something not quite true about the above? I couldn't find a comprehensive program for FICMAC.
Click to expand...

ddt said:
Thirdly, it's very interesting to note that this "preliminary" version has a date of Aug. 5, and carries a notice it is the talk at FICMAC and the "right" version of Sept. 28, and does not carry such a notice; while the conference was Aug. 12-18.

To be frank, I'm very wary this paper was accepted at all at the conference. Could someone who has access to such info clear this up? And if it was, tell what the deadline for submission of manuscripts is?
Click to expand...

Bump.
 
ddt said:
Doron's posts #471 and #472 are both ad-hom attacks on the messenger
Click to expand...

ddt, this is an "insightful" sentence from a person which writes things like:

"Note you're pulling now the words "order" and "distinction" out of your ass" http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4122099&postcount=450

Since you are an ad-hom expert, will you, for example, explain us what exactly is ad-hom in post #472 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4123357&postcount=472 ?

Since Skeptic cannot reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4119262&postcount=340 , maybe you can do that.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Wow, you took the words straight out from my mouth, my little asymmetric-only thinker.
Click to expand...


So, you continue to dodge the challenges before you? They are in direct response to your claims - statements you made for which we require evidence. Are you unable to support your claims?

For completeness, here are mine again (and ddt has a couple of his own, too):

  1. Name one branch of Mathematics that is now isolated from the rest of the body of Mathematics.
  2. Show us just one interesting MAF (you know, one of those *_*_* type things) that cannot be equally represented as an EMAF.

We suspect your claims may have been a bit overstated, and therefore you cannot meet these simple "back up your statements" requests.

You've failed repeatedly so far. Want to try again?
 
jsfisher said:
Name one branch of Mathematics that is now isolated from the rest of the body of Mathematics.
Click to expand...

The body of Mathematics ???

This is the whole point, there is no such a thing currently.

Again please show us how the current "body of Mathematics" enables us to research, for example, Logic, ZF set theory, Geometry, Number theory, Real Analysis, etc ... by using a one generalization (only such generalization can be considered as a body for different organs)?

Do not forget that each time when I did it in my papers, you (not you as a single person) jumped and said: You cannot talk (for example) about lines and points in terms of Logic or in terms of Membership (and vice versa).

jsfisher said:
Show us just one interesting MAF (you know, one of those *_*_* type things) that cannot be equally represented as an EMAF.
Click to expand...

Your entire framework is the particular case of distinct MAF *__* (notated, in this particular case, as Formulation #1__Formulation #12)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom