Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
jsfisher said:
How embarrassing is it going to be for poor Doron when he finally realizes that a line is an edge.
Click to expand...

How embarrassing is it going to be for poor jsfisher when he finally realizes that a non-finite line (which is not a ray) is edgeless.

jsfisher said:
Then again, since he's still unconvinced 2 is a member of {2}, it may be a while. Reality can be so difficult to comprehend sometimes.
Click to expand...
Then again, since he's still can't get that {{},{{}}} is not { {{},{{}}} } , it may be a while. Reality can be so difficult to comprehend sometimes.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No, only a point is actually finite w.r.t a line segment, where a line segment is an intermediate result that is less than edgeless line and more than a point.

If a point is represented by 0 and an edgeless line is represented by 1 then a segment is represented as x, such that 0 < x < 1

The naïve nonsensical gibberish is entirely yours.
Click to expand...


No Doron, as you clearly demonstrate above. If nonsense is represented by 0 and useless gibberish is represented by 1 then OM is represented by C.R.A.P. (Capricious References Articulating Pomposity), such that 0 < OM’s C.R.A.P. < 1.
 
The Man said:
No Doron, as you clearly demonstrate above. If nonsense is represented by 0 and useless gibberish is represented by 1 then OM is represented by C.R.A.P. (Capricious References Articulating Pomposity), such that 0 < OM’s C.R.A.P. < 1.
Click to expand...
The Man, since ignorence of actual infinity and actually finite is the basis of your reasoning, then your reply does not hold water
Edited by Darat: 
Attempt to circumvent autocensor removed.


Schlars like you are unable to distinguish between 1/3[base 2] = 0.010101... which is a non-local number,
and between 1/3[base 3] = 0.1000... which is a local number, as clealy seen in:

base2_3.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
doronshadmi said:
A line is not made of points, exactly as a plane is not made of lines, etc... ad infinitum.


As an abstract concept in your mind.

Location has a logical foundation, based on NXOR\XOR Logic ( http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/NXOR-XOR.pdf ).
Click to expand...

Time to pull a doronshadmi.
Please go back and read the whole message. By your post you obviously did not read the whole message. :D [/sarcasm]

With that being said, you still didn't answer the whole post. Here's what you missed:

Why can a line not be located? Please go into details about how a line can not be located.

Also, since I know the location of a point (0-dimensional element) is it local or non local to a cube (3-dimensional element)? What if I now have a line (1-dimensional element) and the cube? If I have two points (0-dimensional elements) are they local or non-local to each other?

Follow up: Please define line.

Your "paper" http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/NXOR-XOR.pdf does not contain the word location. How can it explain location when it doesn't even use the word?
 
doronshadmi said:
How embarrassing is it going to be for poor jsfisher when he finally realizes that a non-finite line (which is not a ray) is edgeless.
Click to expand...

Well, doron, I'm not the one that cannot get his terminology straight. Your "non-finite" is an ignorant substitute for "infinite". "Non-finite line" (well, really "infinite line") is an ignorant redundancy, as is the parenthetical "(which is not a ray)".

And if that weren't a sufficient display of ignorance, the "is edgeless" adds to the pile-on.

No, doron, my usage of English and mathematical terminology is reasonably precise. Yours, on the other hand, is forced, corrupted, and ignorant, usually wallowing in the realm of gibberish. If that's really how you want to pretend to communicate with people, well, then so be it, but it is counterproductive.

If your goal is anything other than counterproductive communication, then, yes, you should be embarrassed.

Then again, since he's still can't get that {{},{{}}} is not { {{},{{}}} } , it may be a while. Reality can be so difficult to comprehend sometimes.
Click to expand...

And there is that reading comprehension problem you have, too, still, I see. You did, however, again confirm you can't understand that 2 is an element of {2}.
 
doronshadmi said:
Why? Just because you can't get a point as the minimal form of actually finite and an edgeless line as the minimal form of actual infinity?
Click to expand...

No, please re-read my post, I stated why: you are the physical manifestation of inability.
 
doronshadmi said:
Then again, since he's still can't get that {{},{{}}} is not { {{},{{}}} } , it may be a while. Reality can be so difficult to comprehend sometimes.
Click to expand...

Oh, don't get me started on you vs. reality... You're so far from reality you couldn't recognize it even if it kicked you in your non-local place AND local place.
 
doronshadmi said:
Schlars like you are unable to distinguish between 1/3[base 2] = 0.010101... which is a non-local number,
and between 1/3[base 3] = 0.1000... which is a local number
Click to expand...
Are you saying that 1/3 in base 3 is actually a different number from 1/3 in base 2?
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
Are you saying that 1/3 in base 3 is actually a different number from 1/3 in base 2?
Click to expand...


Doron doesn't understand that a number transcends its representation. What's really odd, though, is that he'll dwell on digits and decimal places for real numbers, but for the positive integers, he's locked on the von Neuman representation of integers as sets.

If you mention that, for example, { {}, { {} } } isn't the integer 2, but only a representation of 2 according to a certain set scheme, he'll drop his jaw in disbelief.

Doron is always curious in his inconsistencies.
 
zooterkin said:
Are you saying that 1/3 in base 3 is actually a different number from 1/3 in base 2?
Click to expand...
1/3[base 3] is the local number 0.1000...

1/3[base 2] is the non-local number 0.010101...

shlish.jpg


See the difference?

This fine distinguishing does not exist in jsfisher’s or The Man’s local-only reasoning.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
If you mention that, for example, { {}, { {} } } isn't the integer 2, but only a representation of 2 according to a certain set scheme
Click to expand...
No, 2 is only a representation of { {}, { {} } }.

Again your inability to deal with Complexity is clearly shown.

jsfisher said:
my usage of English and mathematical terminology is reasonably precise.
Click to expand...
Your mathematical terminology has no rigorous understanding of the researchable, because you do not understand the difference between the actual and the potential.
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
Why can a line not be located? Please go into details about how a line can not be located.
Click to expand...

Do you see this? ._______ (all you need is a single point and a single line).

Now use your brain and answer to your question by yourself.
 
Last edited:
laca said:
Ironically, all this statement of yours is proving is that all your theory is made of nothing. :D
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Actual atoms are made of nothing.

A complex thing is the exact result of the linkage between non-local and local atoms.
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
Lol.This is one for my Sheer Gibberish collection.
Click to expand...

Do you mean that you can't get the notion of an edgeless line as an actual non-local atom, and a point as an actual local atom (where no one of them is made by the other) where their common property is their emptiness?

If you are able to get en existing AND empty thing like {}, you have no problem to get the notion of an atom.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom