Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
You may say that the limit of the non-local number 3.14159265...[base 10], is the local number pi, such that 3.14159265...[base 10] < pi....
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't, but this is irrelevant to the question at hand. You are evading the question.

We are left with the conclusion doronetics has no concept of limit and doronshadmi has no concept of limit. That's great, but it diminishes the value of doronetics even further, were that possible,

Too bad for you, but leave Mathematics alone. It has a perfectly reasonable concept for limit. It is consistent and generates no apparent contradictions. Clearly you don't understand it, but so what else is new?
 
jsfisher said:
No, I wouldn't, but this is irrelevant to the question at hand. You are evading the question.

We are left with the conclusion doronetics has no concept of limit and doronshadmi has no concept of limit. That's great, but it diminishes the value of doronetics even further, were that possible,

Too bad for you, but leave Mathematics alone. It has a perfectly reasonable concept for limit. It is consistent and generates no apparent contradictions. Clearly you don't understand it, but so what else is new?
Click to expand...

Limit of a number.... Thanks Doron for your convincing demonstration that you have no clue what a limit is or what it is used for.
 
Here is an interesting part of Prof. Richard Arthur (http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~rarthur/index.shtml#What's new) article about the real line and the Cantorian actual infinite “Leibniz and Cantor on the Actual Infinite” (http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~rarthur/papers/LeibCant.pdf . page 4):
Questions of applicability, of course, lead us to some other salient issues. One of
these concerns the applicability of the mathematics of the real line. If one rejects the
(Cantorian) actual infinite, Cantor claimed, then one must also reject irrationals:


The transfinite numbers are in a certain sense new irrationalities, and in my view the
best method of defining the finite irrational numbers is quite similar to, and I might
even say in principle the same as, my method of introducing transfinite numbers.
One can say unconditionally: the transfinite numbers stand or fall with the finite
irrational numbers: they are alike in their innermost nature, since both kinds are
definitely delimited forms or modifications of the actual infinite.



Here Cantor alludes to the fact that just as irrationals can be conceived as limits of
infinite sequences of rational numbers, so transfinite numbers can be conceived as limits of infinite sequences of natural numbers, in each case added in immediately after the sequence they limit. If one rejects transfinites, what right has one to allow the extension of the number system to include irrationals?


A reluctance to jettison the theory of the real line thus explains the widespread acceptance among modern mathematicians of the Cantorian theory of the infinite.
Click to expand...

It is clearly shown that Cantor understood actual infinity in terms of Collections.


Because of this misunderstanding he actually missed the real actual infinity which is not less than the non-local atomic aspect, which can’t be captured in terms of Complexity, where Complexity is the result of the linkage of the non-local atomic aspect with the local atomic aspect.


OM, by clearly distinguish between the atomic and the complex, enables to understand the incompleteness of any infinite Complexity w.r.t to the non-local atomic aspect that enables it.


One of OM’s results is the distinction between accurate values and inaccurate values, which is not found under the Cantorian reasoning of Infinity.
 
Last edited:
sympathic said:
Limit of a number.... Thanks Doron for your convincing demonstration that you have no clue what a limit is or what it is used for.
Click to expand...

"the limit of the non-local number ", please be accurate when you quote others.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
"the limit of the non-local number ", please be accurate when you quate others.
Click to expand...

Please use a dictionary when you write posts in English (and since when has accuracy or cohesion been so important to you?). Nonetheless, there isn't such a thing as "local number" or "non-local number". There is no limit of numbers either. A limit is used with functions and sequences. Try actually learning the basics before running out to infinities.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Thank you for exposing your dogmatic attitude about the mathematical science.

Say no more.
Click to expand...

You are very welcome - move on, the need to properly define things and use them consistently is not for you. Try art.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Stay behind, the mathematical science is not for dogmatic persons. Try religion.



Your dogmatic ability prevents from you the get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5717208&postcount=9043, so?
Click to expand...

It is not my dogmatic ability that prevents me from getting whatever you post here. I get it just fine, it is just plainly and utterly wrong. You will find no one here or anywhere else for that matter who will accept your ramblings as math. Keep trying though if this is your idea of fun.
 
sympathic said:
Apparently, it is not for you either.
Click to expand...
As long as it is the science mechanic technicians.

But you see sympathic? OM changes that mechanic limited reasoning, in order to deal with real Complexity, which is something that your mechanic limited reasoning unable to comprehend.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom