Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
sympathic said:
This fundamental failure is what made everything you see around you possible. What have you been able to achieve using your OM? and spare us the ethics/voodoo ramblings. Your counter-productive and fixated (sometimes even destructive) approach as it comes across in your posts shows that either OM is not what you think it is, or that even you do not get it.
Click to expand...
1) The "ethics/voodoo ramblings" is a direct result of your limited formal training of this subject.

2) I do not need more than OM's proof without words in order to show how your "reasoning" is based on X > and = 0.
 
doronshadmi said:
1) The "ethics/voodoo ramblings" is a direct result of your limited formal training of this subject.

2) I do not need more than OM's proof without words in order to show how your "reasoning" is based on X > and = 0.
Click to expand...

As always, you did not address the core of my post, but rather hijacked it to further discuss your convoluted ideas. Is this your idea of a conversation?
 
jsfisher said:
Why do you assume that? It isn't at all true, so why did you make it up?
Click to expand...

Because it is true.

You simply do not have any understanding of the real nature of infinitely many added and convergent values, exactly as shown in the case of (2a+2b+2c+2d+...), whish only approach and can’t reach the value of the limit.
 
jsfisher said:
Nope, not a fact. Just another doron baseless assumption. The limit of the width is 0, and the limit of the length is X.

If you can prove otherwise (that's prove, not just assert and assume), please do so, but you will fail in the attempt.
Click to expand...
The proof without words:

[qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg[/qimg]

The days of your X > AND = 0 reasoning are over, and you can’t do anything about this fact.
 
sympathic said:
No it is not. If at all the proper way to write what you meant is "X>0 AND X=0" but you don't even understand that.
Click to expand...

You did not change the simple fact that X is based on a wrong reasoning, if your Limit-oriented reasoning is used.
 
doronshadmi said:
You did not change the simple fact that X is based on a wrong reasoning, if your Limit-oriented reasoning is used.
Click to expand...

Nor did I attempt to. I just claimed that writing coherent and consistent statements is imperative in Math. But you don't do math - you do drawings.
 
doronshadmi said:
The proof without words:

[qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg[/qimg]

The days of your X > AND = 0 reasoning are over, and you can’t do anything about this fact.
Click to expand...

More accurately it is a proof without proof. But why all of a sudden the need to prove? what happened to "direct perception". Doron Shadmi: "I have a feeling it is true, therefore it is true".
 
sympathic said:
Nor did I attempt to. I just claimed that writing coherent and consistent statements is imperative in Math. But you don't do math - you do drawings.
Click to expand...

This is simply wrong since "X > AND = 0" has exactly the same meaning as "X > 0 AND X=0".

You are invited to prove that this is not the case.
 
sympathic said:
More accurately it is a proof without proof. But why all of a sudden the need to prove? what happened to "direct perception". Doron Shadmi: "I have a feeling it is true, therefore it is true".
Click to expand...
Dirrect perception is the common source of both feeling and logical reasoning.

You have asked for a proof in your terms, I provided one by using a proof without words.

Your Limit-oriented obsolete reasoning can't comprehend it.

Very simple, you can’t grasp the fact that it has been proven that (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X.
 
doronshadmi said:
Dirrect perception is the common source of both feeling and logical reasoning.

You have asked for a proof in your terms, I provided one by using a proof without words.

Your Limit-oriented obsolete reasoning can't comprehend it.

Very simple, you can’t grasp the fact that it has been proven that (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X.
Click to expand...

The only thing I have ever asked is for you to learn maths properly, and leave us all alone until you do.
 
sympathic said:
The only thing I have ever asked is for you to learn maths properly, and leave us all alone until you do.
Click to expand...
Do you mean your Limit-oriented obsolete reasoning?

Let us leave it to the historians, it is not relevant anymore.
 
sympathic said:
Nor did I attempt to. I just claimed that writing coherent and consistent statements is imperative in Math. But you don't do math - you do drawings.
Click to expand...
Writing is nothing but some particular way to express a notion, exactly as a diagram is another particular way to express a notion.

In both cases the notion is the important thing, and not any particular expression of it.

Your reply is another example of the destructive influence of your formal training on your abstraction abilities.

Your teachers washed your brain with the slogan that “writing ... is imperative in Math” until you are not able the get coherency and consistency if it is expressed by a diagram.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom