Deeper than primes

[jsfisher]

jsfisher, call it end, call it edge, call it $%&^$.

Since you are offering to be flexible in this, how about we just call things by there proper names? Novel concept for you, I know, but why not give it a try?

It does not change my argument about polygons with 4 endpoints or 3 endpoints

No, does not change your argument at all. Polygons don't have endpoints, be it 3 or 4, so your argument is completely wrong.
,

...and their relevancy to Y as a complement of S to X.

And this part is unchanged, too. Completely wrong for the reasons already given.

Once again it is demonstrated how limited are your abstraction abilities, exactly because you have no ability to generalize your reasoning beyond any particular representation of it.

Actually, you are doing all the demonstrating -- of how muddle, gibberish, contradiction, inconsistency, and illogic produce fail in so many different variations.


What was all this tangent of fail for? Oh, yeah. You still cannot understand how an infinite series can have an exact value. All this nonsense just to give yourself some comfort in your denial.

Doesn't matter, though. Real Mathematics continues along just fine, highly useful and no apparent inconsistencies that can't be managed. Doronetics, on the other hand, is still stuck at zero.

 

[doronshadmi]

Again a circle is a "bended" form "of constant X>0" that does not have "ends".

And it is irrelevant to the class of all the projections of the different ends of all bended forms of constant X>0 upon the non-bended form of constant X>0, exactly as it is defined by:

The Man I see that you wish to become an expert of irreverent replies.

 

[doronshadmi]

remain simply irrelevant. As again adding zero to the series still only adds zero to the series and a constant is just that, constant. That you think adding zero is somehow required for or part of the convergent series and that anyone (but you) would claim that a constant which is specified as being greater than zero somehow equals zero, simply demonstrates that you in fact have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5791966&postcount=9304.

 

[doronshadmi]

EDIT:

You still cannot understand how an infinite series can have an exact value.

As again adding zero to the series still only adds zero to the series and a constant is just that, constant. That you think adding zero is somehow required for or part of the convergent series and that anyone (but you) would claim that a constant which is specified as being greater than zero somehow equals zero, simply demonstrates that you in fact have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Again The Man, you simply can't get the fact that all added elements "before" 2*0 are > 0, and as a result there is an unclosed gap (the variant Y>0, which is the complement of S to X) between the class of all bended Koch's fractal forms of constant X>0 accurate value, and its projection ( which is exactly the infinite convergent series S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+…) ) upon the non-bended form of the constant and accurate value X>0.

jsfisher and The Man,

You still cannot understand how an infinite series has an inaccurate value, exactly because variant Y (which is the complement of S = (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) to X) is > 0, exactly as shown by the red non-triangle polygon:

By your wrong reasoning Y=0 (the red triangle polygon), and you are unable to grasp that if Y (which is the complement of S = (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) to X) is = 0, then it has no impact on the result (exactly as The Man said), so only the complement variant Y>0 is relevant, and as a result S = (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X by variant Y>0(exactly as shown by the red non-triangle polygon, where the red non-triangle polygon, is an invariant form).

Both S AND Y are inaccurate values > 0, which is a fact that your Limit-oriented reasoning can't comprehend.

 

[The Man]

Again The Man, you simply can't get the fact that all added elements "before" 2*0 are > 0, and as a result there is an unclosed gap (the variant Y>0, which is the complement of S to X) between the class of all bended Koch's fractal forms of constant X>0 accurate value, and its projection ( which is exactly the infinite convergent series (2a+2b+2c+2d+…) ) upon the non-bended form of the constant and accurate value X>0.

Once again, show your “unclosed gap” in the infinite convergent series.

jsfisher and The Man,

You still cannot understand how an infinite series has an inaccurate value, exactly because variant Y (which is the complement of S = (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) to X) is > 0, exactly as shown by the red non-triangle polygon:


[qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4063/4490940378_b65cb4c07f_o.jpg[/qimg]

Doron you simply can not understand that your “red non-triangle polygon” is the result of a finite number of iterations.

By your idiotic reasoning Y=0 (the red triangle polygon), and you are unable to grasp that if Y (which is the complement of S = (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) to X) is = 0, then it has no impact on the result (exactly as The Man said), so only the complement invariant Y>0 is relevant, and as a result S = (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X (exactly as shown by the red non-triangle polygon).

“exactly as The Man said” was that adding zero to a sum has zero impact on that sum. Certainly as I have been repeatedly saying that and have finally gotten you to at least agree with that, I was, and am, indeed able to grasp that. Although I don’t think you fully grasp it yet. As jsfisher has asked you several times

So, when is Y = 0, as you claimed it?

 

[jsfisher]

Again The Man, you simply can't get the fact that all added elements "before" 2*0 are > 0, and as a result there is an unclosed gap

You say that like it means something special. It doesn't, and you are unable to show otherwise. You continue to ignore / misunderstand / abuse / corrupt what is meant by an infinite series, such as S.

S has a fixed, well-defined, finite value. It is exactly equal to the limit of S_q as q approaches infinity. That's a matter of definition.

...(the variant Y>0, which is the complement of S to X)

Difference. Please try to get at least one thing right.

...between the class of all bended

Bent. You just try to hard to be wrong all the time.

...Koch's fractal forms of constant X>0 accurate value, and its projection ( which is exactly the infinite convergent series S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+…) ) upon the non-bended form of the constant and accurate value X>0.

My, isn't that a muddle. You could have just said "width" and avoided all that gibberish.

jsfisher and The Man,

You still cannot understand how an infinite series has an inaccurate value

No, we understand infinite series just fine. It is you that doesn't understand them, or much else mathematical. You insist things are defined differently than they are and behave differently than they do.

...exactly because variant Y (which is the complement of S = (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) to X) is > 0, exactly as shown by the red non-triangle polygon

More muddle. No, Y = 0. On the other hand, Y_i > 0 for all i. You really should try to keep these things straight. And it is still not the complement. It's a difference relationship.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4063/4490940378_b65cb4c07f_o.jpg

By your wrong reasoning Y=0 (the red triangle polygon), and you are unable to grasp that if Y (which is the complement of S = (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) to X) is = 0, then it has no impact on the result (exactly as The Man said), so only the complement variant Y>0 is relevant, and as a result S = (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X by variant Y>0(exactly as shown by the red non-triangle polygon, where the red non-triangle polygon, is an invariant form).

More muddle. More gibberish. Yes, Y = 0 (no, not the red triangle). Y is the limit of Y_i as i approaches infinity. Y_i is the width of K_i, the i-th generation of Koch's curve. Y_i = X - S_i, a difference relationship. Finally, Y = X - S = 0.

All of these are consistent results within Mathematics. However, since you fog everything with misuse and muddle, it is no surprise you get so many things all wrong.

Both S AND Y are inaccurate values > 0, which is a fact that your Limit-oriented reasoning can't comprehend.

You repeat this claim often, yet you cannot support it.

 

[doronshadmi]

EDIT:

Doron you simply can not understand that your “red non-triangle polygon” is the result of a finite number of iterations.

No The Man,

You simply can't understand that variant Y>0 is a complement of S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) upon infinitely many bended levels, where S is an inaccurate result of infinitely many accurate values.

The set of all oranges is not itself an orange.

The set of all added accurate values, is not itself an accurate value.

My Koch's proof is done under Standard Math.

“exactly as The Man said” was that adding zero to a sum has zero impact on that sum. Certainly as I have been repeatedly saying that and have finally gotten you to at least agree with that, I was, and am, indeed able to grasp that.

Once again, your limited reasoning (already shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5735873&postcount=9169) deals only with accurate (fixed) values, and it is based on local-only view of the researched subject.

Once again, show your “unclosed gap” in the infinite convergent series.

No problem:

0.1+0.01+0.001+...[base 2] < 1 by 0.000…1[base 2], where both 0.1+0.01+0.001+...[base 2] and 0.000…1[base 2] are inaccurate values.

…

0.9+0.09+0.009+...[base 10] < 1 by 0.000…1[base 10], where both 0.9+0.09+0.009+...[base 10] and 0.000…1[base 10] are inaccurate values.

...

etc. … ad infinituum.

 

[doronshadmi]

EDIT:

You really should try to keep these things straight. And it is still not the complement. It's a difference relationship.

No jsfisher, variant Y > 0 is the inaccurate value that complements S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) inaccurate value to X accurate value.

You say that like it means something special. It doesn't, and you are unable to show otherwise. You continue to ignore / misunderstand / abuse / corrupt what is meant by an infinite series, such as S.

Your limited reasoning and the definitions that are derived form this limited reasoning, simply can't comprehend the real nature of infinite collections (where an infinite series is some particular case of an infinite collection).

Finally, Y = X - S = 0.

So now Y=0, so what happend to

For instance, when is Y ever 0? [Hint: Never.] (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5761323&postcount=9224)

, jsfisher?

According to you jsfisher: Finally an infinite series has a finite value. And you, jsfisher, dare to claim that you do not force the finite on the infinite.

All of these are consistent results within Mathematics.

Some correction: All of these are inconsistent results within Mathematics.

 

[doronshadmi]

Yes, Y = 0 (no, not the red triangle). …. Finally, Y = X - S = 0

Let us see:

Well, jsfisher, you have failed. Y=0 is exactly the red triangle.

 

[The Man]

No The Man,

You simply can't understand that Y>0 is a complement of S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+...), where S is an inaccurate result of infinitely many accurate values.

No Doron “S” is just a sum (in this case the sum of a convergent infinite series) and has nothing to do with your “inaccurate” fantasies.

The set of all oranges is not itself an orange.

The set of all added accurate values, is not itself an accurate value.

My Koch's proof is done under Standard Math.

The set of all oranges is not itself and orange.

Because a set is a set not, well, an orange.

The set of all added accurate values, is not itself an accurate value.

Because a set is a set not, well, a value, though such a set can have a sum which would be a value and not, well, a set.

This proof is done under Standard Math.

Clearly not, as none of your nonsensical gibberish is consistent with what you like to call “Standard Math”.

Repeating your nonsensical gibberish that has already been addressed Doron does not make it any less nonsensical gibberish having already been addressed.

Once again, your limited reasoning (already shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=9169) deals only with accurate (fixed) values, and it is based on local-only view of the researched subject.

As I did not write that post or the paper you cite in that post, I do not see how you think that post applies to me. Other than the fact that you typically misinterpret what you read, like in that paper you cite, and as usual for you, you just like to attribute your misinterpretations to someone else. Particularly as I have already explained to you that math deals quite well variables (values that are not fixed) as well as estimated values, rages of values and rounded values (values that are not accurate). Once again you might have a better understanding of math and what terms like accurate mean if you had ever actually used math for anything other than just your fantasies.

No problem:

0.1+0.01+0.001+...[base 2] < 1 by 0.000…1[base 2], where both 0.1+0.01+0.001+...[base 2] and 0.000…1[base 2] are inaccurate values.

…

0.9+0.09+0.009+...[base 10] < 1 by 0.000…1[base 10], where both 0.9+0.09+0.009+...[base 10] and 0.000…1[base 10] are inaccurate values.

...

etc. … ad infinituum.

Obviously you’ve still got that problem of you thinking that because you claim there is an “uncovered gap” and give it some nonsensical representation like “0.000…1[base 2]” somehow shows that there is an “uncovered gap”.

None of your assumptions, misinterpretations, contrivances or drawings will change the fact that the difference between the series ½+1/4+1/8+1/16…. and the self similar two times series 1+½+1/4+1/8+1/16… is just 1 (an “accurate value” by your own assertions) which is itself the sum of the series ½+1/4+1/8+1/16…. by that same two times self similar relationship. That is all anyone needs to show that you are just completely and utterly wrong about the sum of a convergent infinite series even some 2,300 yea

 

[dafydd]

jsfisher, call it end, call it edge, call it $%&^$.

It does not change my argument about polygons with 4 endpoints or 3 endpoints,
and their relevancy to Y as a complement of S to X.

Once again it is demonstrated how limited are your abstraction abilities, exactly because you have no ability to generalize your reasoning beyond any particular representation of it.

Does it ever enter your head that you might actually be wrong about something? We all make mistakes sometimes.

 

[jsfisher]

EDIT:

You really should try to keep these things straight. And it is still not the complement. It's a difference relationship.

No jsfisher, variant Y > 0 is the inaccurate value that complements S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) inaccurate value to X accurate value.

You still insist on muddle, I see. Which Y is that? I've been very clear what my Y_i terms are. And I have been equally clear that my use of the lone Y is the limit of Y_i as i approaches infinity. You on the other hand, just insist on muddle.

You also insist on using the wrong terms. You aren't very good at this math thing at all, doron.

You say that like it means something special. It doesn't, and you are unable to show otherwise. You continue to ignore / misunderstand / abuse / corrupt what is meant by an infinite series, such as S.

Your limited reasoning and the definitions that are derived form this limited reasoning, simply can't comprehend the real nature of infinite collections (where an infinite series is some particular case of an infinite collection).

Umm, no. You are the one that claimed to be working within the bounds of "standard math". In point of fact you continue to get that all very wrong, but still, you claimed "standard math" as the domain for the discussion. Don't blame me just because you can't cope with the very domain upon which you insisted.

Finally, Y = X - S = 0.

So now Y=0, so what happend to

For instance, when is Y ever 0? [Hint: Never.] (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5761323&postcount=9224)

, jsfisher?

You aren't paying attention, are you? I have been very clear in my usage of X, Y, and S, with and without qualifying subscripts. Your Y, on the other hand, has been one continuous muddle of Y_something, but you are always, deliberately unclear about what the something is. Your Y is never 0, even though you claimed "by standard math" it was. My Y, on the other hand, is always 0.

According to you jsfisher: Finally an infinite series has a finite value. And you, jsfisher, dare to claim that you do not force the finite on the infinite.

Nothing was forced. No numbers were injured producing an infinite summation.

All of these are consistent results within Mathematics.

Some correction: All of these are inconsistent results within Mathematics.

Prove it.

And, please, without all the blunders you have so far tried to pass off as proof.

 

[jsfisher]

Let us see:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4063/4490940378_b65cb4c07f_o.jpg

Well, jsfisher, you have failed. Y=0 is exactly the red triangle.

Wow, that is just so wrong it defies any correction.

Tell me, though, will you be petitioning the EU to replace all roadway yield signs with Y=0?

 

[doronshadmi]

No Doron “S” is just a sum (in this case the sum of a convergent infinite series) and has nothing to do with your “inaccurate” fantasies.

No The Man “S” is just a fog (in this case the fog of a convergent infinite series) and has nothing to do with your “accurate” fantasies.

Look at this:

S=(0.9+0.09+0.09+0.009+...[base 10]) and it is a fog < 1 by fog 0.000...1[base 10]

As you see, all infinitely many added sums of the form above are not resulted by a sum, but they are resulted by a fog.

Exactly the same result it true for all infinitely many finite bended Koch’s fractal forms that have constant sum X AND different endpoints, where
S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) is exactly the projection of all these different endpoints upon the non-bended constant sum X.

Since all projections are the result of all bended Koch’s fractal forms that have constant sum X AND different endpoints, then the two different points are an invariant property of this projection, exactly because they belong to all infinitely many finite bended Koch’s fractal forms that have constant sum X, that can’t be reduced to sum 0.

As a result the sum of S < the constant sum X.

This result is clearly seen by this proof without words:

 

[doronshadmi]

You still insist on muddle, I see. Which Y is that? I've been very clear what my Y_i terms are. And I have been equally clear that my use of the lone Y is the limit of Y_i as i approaches infinity. You on the other hand, just insist on muddle.

You still insist on irrelevant replies, because my argument is about not less than Y_∞

Variant Y>0 exactly because S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) is the result of the invariant state of the projections of different endpoints of all bended Koch’s fractal forms that have constant sum X upon the non-bended constant sum X.

Your Y=0 is permanently out of the picture exactly because no bended Koch's fractal form is missing from the collection of all infinitely many finite bended Koch’s fractal forms that have constant sum X.

 

[doronshadmi]

You also insist on using the wrong terms. You aren't very good at this math thing at all, doron.

I use Difference relationship between sums.

I use Complement relationship between fogs ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5734631&postcount=9165 ).

EDIT:

Some correction of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5795158&postcount=9314.

Instead of “As a result the sum of S < the constant sum X” it has to be “As a result the fog of S < the constant sum X”.

 

[doronshadmi]

Exactly The Man.

In the case of Y=(2a+2b+2c+2d+...), Y is an inaccurate value, as long as Y is an infinite convergent series.

Once again exactly wrong, Y is a variable not a value. It represents a range of values and you have asserted that …

Again, rounded values are accurate values and also ranges of values that (by your own words) have sums, can’t be but accurate values.

ranges of values that have sums “can’t be but accurate values”. A convergent series is a range of values that has a sum. So by your own assertions it “can’t be but accurate values”. Again you claims are simply based on your assumption that an infinite convergent series has no sum, which was proven wrong some 2,300 years ago

Anything that has a sum (range or not) is a finite (fixed) mathematical object.

Anything that has a fog (range or not) is an infinite (non-fixed) mathematical object.

The Man you simply unable to comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5735873&postcount=9169 because of your "fixed-only" reasoning.

A convergent series is a range of values that has a sum.

No, a convergent series is a range of values that has a fog.

 

[sympathic]

....by fog 0.000...1[base 10] ....

You do realize that "0.000......1" does not exist, do you? (who am I fooling, you probably do not and will refuse to accept this).

"...." means repeat indefinitely. How do you place a "1" after an indefinite number of "0"?

 

[doronshadmi]

You do realize that "0.000......1" does not exist, do you? (who am I fooling, you probably do not and will refuse to accept this).

"...." means repeat indefinitely. How do you place a "1" after an indefinite number of "0"?

EDIT:

"...1" of "0.000...1" represents (for example) the non-local unclosed gap between the infinite convergent series 0.9+0.09+0.009+...[base 10] and the natural number 1.

You can't get that because you can't comprehend the non-local atomic aspect, that can't be reduced to 0 (the local atomic aspect) by an infinite convergent series like 0.9+0.09+0.009+...[base 10], for example.

0.000...1 is a non-local number, also known as fog.

 

[zooterkin]

"...1" of "0.000...1" represents (for example) the non-local unclosed gap between the infinite convergent series 0.9+0.09+0.009+...[base 10] and the natural number 1.

You can't get that because you can't comprehend the non-local atomic aspect.

1 / 3 * 3 = 1

regardless of which base you represent it in.