Deeper than primes

[The Man]

It was corrected during your reply.

But the primary issue…

Both of these purported ‘Definitions’ specifically invoke your “concept "magnitude of existence", they do not define it.

was not.

But the "important" thing here that you read reply like a copy machine, without realize that it is a typo, and take this trivial typo, which anyone (but you) can immediately understand as a typo mistake, and use it as one of your arguments against OM.

Your direct perception fails you again. How about addressing the primary arguments against your ‘definitions’ instead of you just focusing on your ‘typo’ and your fantasy that I didn’t already know what you had intended to write?

You mean to separate the subjective aspect of some particular researcher, from his/her scientific work (in this case the opinions, beliefs, and other subjective aspects of the researcher are clearly separated from his/her scientific research, or in other words, you reinforce my claim about the subjective-only approach of the modern science about the concept of the "researcher")]

“the subjective-only approach of the modern science about the concept of the "researcher"”? What a ridiculous claim. Doron you’re the only one with a “subjective-only approach” “about the concept of the "researcher" and as usual you just want to ascribe it to anyone but you. Doron it is the subjective aspects of the researcher the equipment, the protocols and even the environment that need to be mitigated or monitored. The focus, Doron, is on the research and making that as objective as possible. This “subjective-only approach of the modern science about the concept of the "researcher"” nonsense is just yours.

OM changes this subjective-only approach about the concept of the "researcher", by use it as a non-personal (general) concept, and the outer "{""}" of the concept of set, is one of the sufficient ways to express the non-personal (general) concept of the "researcher", which can't be grasped in flat-land, where the "researcher" is still a subjective-only concept.

Doron your subjective notation and notion about “sufficient ways to express the non-personal (general) concept of the "researcher"” does not change or control the subjective aspect a researcher or other aspects can introduce into the research, it simply ignores those specific aspects.

No, I use "A" or "{""}" to express the notion of sets, and in both cases "that has no successor" (the non-personal aspect of the "researcher") is involved, which is something that can't be comprehended from flat-land.

So you are conflating some aspect of ordering (a successor and specifically the lack of a successor) with some “non-personal aspect of the "researcher"”. Once again Doron you never fail to raise the bar for ridiculous assertion just by yourself.

 

[The Man]

Evidently you have no clue what really observation is, The Man.

The reason: It can't be known from flat-land.

“Evidently”? So you have evidence to support this claim that I have “no clue what really observation is”? By all means, please provide such evidence.

"Can't be satisfied" is a normal property of any framework, which is strong enough to deal with Arithmetic, so please give me a break (go learn Godel's incompleteness theorems).

Give yourself a break Doron, it is your "magnitude of existence" if you find it to be unsatisfactory for you, that is still simply just your problem.

No, in other words you do not understand that an inaccurate Cardinality means that the given collection is incomplete (its exact magnitude can't be satisfied).

No Doron you just don’t understand the words “inaccurate” or “incomplete”, but that is nothing new here. Again if you think a “given collection is incomplete” then show what member of that collection is not a member of that collection? That you find your own "magnitude of existence" to be unsatisfactory for you is just simply your own problem.

Do you want the inaccurate or accurate value?

Hey it is your claim that the “cardinality of any given infinite collection is inaccurate”, if you just don’t know whether your own claim is “inaccurate or accurate”, then that is just your problem.

The Man, since you play this kind of game about infinite collections, then please tell us what is exactly the result of aleph1 - aleph0 ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_arithmetic#Subtraction

Subtraction
If the axiom of choice holds and given an infinite cardinal σ and a cardinal μ, there will be a cardinal κ such that μ + κ = σ if and only if μ ≤ σ. It will be unique (and equal to σ) if and only if μ < σ.

Exactly as you don't grasp a non-local number like 0.999...[base 10] (an example of infinite interpolation) and can't grasp that there is no definable result to aleph1 - aleph0 ( http://books.google.com/books?id=Jd...q=Cardinal arithmetic and subtraction&f=false )

Did you even read the reference you just cited or did you just look for some key words?

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron it is the subjective aspects of the researcher the equipment, the protocols and even the environment that need to be mitigated or monitored. The focus, Doron, is on the research and making that as objective as possible.

"...making that as objective as possible." has a meaning only if there are states that are independent of any subjective (relative) existence.

These are exactly "that has no successor" (the non-personal aspect of the concept of "researcher") and "that has no predecessor" ("emptiness").

No relative (subjective) "magnitude of existence" is total as "that has no successor" (notated by cardinality 0) or "that has no predecessor" (notated by cardinality ∞), and it is expressed as x, such that 0 < x < ∞, where x is a relative "magnitude of existence", which is infinite if it is converges to 0 OR diverges to ∞, or it is finite if it does not converge to 0 AND does not diverge to ∞.

“Evidently”? So you have evidence to support this claim that I have “no clue what really observation is”? By all means, please provide such evidence.

The minimal observation is the result of the linkage among the total "magnitudes of existence", such that the "researcher" observes "emptiness".

A non-minimal observation, is an observation of "non-emptiness", where a non-minimal observation can be finite or infinite.

Some examples:

{} is the minimal observation ("that has no successor" observes "that has no predecessor").

{1} is an example of a finite observation.

{1,2,3,4,5,…} is an example of an infinite observation.

{
 {1,2,3,4,…}
  ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕     is an observation between an infinite observed thing 
 {2,4,6,8,…}  and its infinite proper subset.
}

etc … etc … infinitely many observations, where "that has no successor" (the non-personal aspect of the concept of "researcher", which is notated by the outer "{""}", is always presented.

As long as you do not understand that any observation is not less then observer\observed linkage, such that the observed is not the observer, you do not understand the concept of observation (again, both states are derive from the un-manifested (the un-marked)).

Doron your subjective notation and notion about “sufficient ways to express the non-personal (general) concept of the "researcher"” does not change or control the subjective aspect a researcher or other aspects can introduce into the research, it simply ignores those specific aspects.

If you understand what I wrote above, you immediately realize that your flat-land is subjective-only framework that ignores totality, where only totality is objective.

 

[doronshadmi]

Did you even read the reference you just cited

Yes I read about subtraction and transfinite cardinality, did you even read it?

 

[doronshadmi]

No Doron you just don’t understand the words “inaccurate” or “incomplete”, but that is nothing new here. Again if you think a “given collection is incomplete” then show what member of that collection is not a member of that collection?

If you get the notion that no relativity is total, you immediately understand the incompleteness of x w.r.t ∞ ( notated as x < ∞ ).

 

[The Man]

"...making that as objective as possible." has a meaning only if there are states that are independent of any subjective (relative) existence.

Looks like you've set your ridiculous claim bar even higher. Doron your false dichotomy does not make “states that are independent of any subjective (relative) existence” requisite, even when the researched subject is extremely subjective like pain or the appearance of some new control interface.

These objectives (and therefore total states) are exactly "that has no successor" (the non-personal aspect of the concept of "researcher") and "that has no predecessor" ("emptiness").


No relative (subjective) "magnitude of existence" is total as "that has no successor" (notated by cardinality 0) or "that has no predecessor" (notated by cardinality ∞), and it is expressed as x, such that 0 < x < ∞, where x is a relative "magnitude of existence", which is infinite if it is converges to 0 OR diverges to ∞, or it is finite if it does not converge to 0 AND does not diverge to ∞.

Again, your requirements, your problems.

Again what is this "magnitude of existence" that you keep referring to?

The minimal observation is the result of the linkage among the total "magnitudes of existence", such that the "researcher" observes "emptiness".

A non-minimal observation, is an observation of "non-emptiness", where a non-minimal observation can be finite or infinite.

Some examples:

{} is the minimal observation ("that has no successor" observes "that has no predecessor").

{1} is an example of a finite observation.

{1,2,3,4,5,…} is an example of an infinite observation.

{
 {1,2,3,4,…}
  ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕       is an observation between an infinite observed thing 
 {2,4,6,8,…}    and its infinite proper subset.
}

etc … etc … infinitely many observations, where "that has no successor" (the non-personal aspect of the concept of "researcher", which is notated by the outer "{""}") is always presented.

Doron your extremely naive, intentionally conflated and specifically dichotomistic musing don’t constitute evidence.

As long as you do not understand that any observation is not less then observer\observed linkage, such that the observed is not the observer, you do not understand the concept of observation (again, both states are derive from the un-manifested (the un-marked)).

See the no true Scotsman fallacy.

If you understand what I wrote above, you immediately realize that your flat-land is subjective-only framework that ignores totality, where only totality is objective.

Doron if you actually understood anything at all you would immediately realize that your fiat-land is just your subjective-only framework that totally ignores objectivity.

 

[The Man]

Yes I read about subtraction and transfinite cardinality,

So you simply did not understand what you did read?

So Doron show us that you actually read and understood the reference you cited by showing where it claimed anything about “no definable result to aleph1 - aleph0” as you claimed in your post that cited that reference?

And before you dig too deep a hole for yourself (as if it wasn’t already too late for that admonishment) please see again…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_arithmetic#Subtraction

Subtraction
If the axiom of choice holds and given an infinite cardinal σ and a cardinal μ, there will be a cardinal κ such that μ + κ = σ if and only if μ ≤ σ. It will be unique (and equal to σ) if and only if μ < σ.

did you even read it?

Yes I did, but unlike you I was already quite familiar with the subject.

If you get the notion that no relativity is total, you immediately understand the incompleteness of x w.r.t ∞ ( notated as x < ∞ ).

Again, simply a false dichotomy with a no true Scotsman chaser.


So you can’t actually show that an infinite set is incomplete (is missing some member or members), but simply want to claim so?

 

[doronshadmi]

Again, simply a false dichotomy with a no true Scotsman chaser.

The Man, which exists in flat-land can't get the un-marked as the source of ∞ and 0, and the relative results of their linkage.

No wonder that Dichotomy is the best of what The Man gets in flat-land, and it is really spread all over this thread (including his last two posts, which do not hold water).

 

[jsfisher]

Exactly

Good. You admit you don't understand the word, inaccurate.

...as you don't grasp a non-local number like 0.999...[base 10] (an example of infinite interpolation)

No. That's completely different. The term, non-local number, is just something you made up and refuse to define. Without a definition, it has no meaning, and so there is nothing, as you say, to grasp.

...and can't grasp that there is no definable result to aleph1 - aleph0

Now you are just making stuff up (again). Your statement has no basis in fact. You are lying.


Perhaps you should stop wasting so much effort lying about what everyone else does or doesn't understand and focus a bit more on defining what it is you are actually think you are talking about.

 

[doronshadmi]

So you simply did not understand what you did read?

So Doron show us that you actually read and understood the reference you cited by showing where it claimed anything about “no definable result to aleph1 - aleph0” as you claimed in your post that cited that reference?

And before you dig too deep a hole for yourself (as if it wasn’t already too late for that admonishment) please see again…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_arithmetic#Subtraction

Are both cardinals in "If the axiom of choice holds and given an infinite cardinal σ and a cardinal μ..." are infinite cardinals?

In that case please write the exact result of aleph1-aleph0=

 

[doronshadmi]

Good. You admit you don't understand the word, inaccurate.

This part of your reply is ridicules.

Perhaps you should stop wasting so much effort lying about what everyone else does or doesn't understand and focus a bit more on defining what it is you are actually think you are talking about.

Perhaps you should stop wasting so much effort to claim that what you don't get is a lie , by simply get out of your box.

 

[The Man]

The Man, which exists in flat-land can't get the un-marked as the source of ∞ and 0, and the relative results of their linkage.

No wonder that Dichotomy is the best of what The Man gets in flat-land, and it is really spread all over this thread (including his last two posts, which do not hold water).

Doron who thinks everyone exists in his fiat-land can’t get that “the un-marked” is well just “un-marked” so his “source of ∞ and 0, and the relative results of their linkage” remains just “un-marked” by his own edict.

No wonder a deliberately conflated and naive dichotomy is the best of what Doron insists upon in his fiat-land which he unremarkably just spews repeatedly all over this thread as if he actually knew what he was talking, could actually comprehend what he reads or the references he cites and could remember what we have already been over numerous times.

 

[doronshadmi]

See the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Indeed the fallacy of your relative-only subjective-only flat-land reasoning, is not changed by rejecting the concept of totality.

 

[The Man]

Are both cardinals in "If the axiom of choice holds and given an infinite cardinal σ and a cardinal μ..." are infinite cardinals?

The “cardinal σ” is specified as being infinite. The “cardinal μ” is neither specified as being infinite nor is it restricted from being infinite, though it is restricted from being greater than “cardinal σ”.

Please try to apply this to the reference you cited.

In that case please write the exact result of aleph1-aleph0=

Apply the conditional statements, do the math Doron and try to understand the reference you cited.

Again

So Doron show us that you actually read and understood the reference you cited by showing where it claimed anything about “no definable result to aleph1 - aleph0” as you claimed in your post that cited that reference?

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron who thinks everyone exists in his fiat-land can’t get that “the un-marked” is well just “un-marked” so his “source of ∞ and 0, and the relative results of their linkage” remains just “un-marked” by his own edict.

No wonder a deliberately conflated and naive dichotomy is the best of what Doron insists upon in his fiat-land which he unremarkably just spews repeatedly all over this thread as if he actually knew what he was talking, could actually comprehend what he reads or the references he cites and could remember what we have already been over numerous times.

No wonder that The Man gets only the "branches" (the level of dichotomy), and misses the "trunk" of (the level which is beyond dichotomy) of Y, because at flat-land the un-marked can't be understood as the level beyond dichotomy.

 

[The Man]

Indeed the fallacy of your relative-only subjective-only flat-land reasoning, is not changed by rejecting the concept of totality.

Only in your self-contradictory, nonsense-only, deliberate ignorance-only, fiat-land “reasoning” where the king obviously still has no clothes (even though he likes to claim that by his OM he is dressed AND NOT dressed).

 

[doronshadmi]

The “cardinal σ” is specified as being infinite. The “cardinal μ” is neither specified as being infinite nor is it restricted from being infinite, though it is restricted from being greater than “cardinal σ”.

By exactly how much? EDIT: (you still do not get your own question and my answer in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6349487&postcount=11598).

 

[The Man]

No wonder that The Man gets only the "branches" (the level of dichotomy), and misses the "trunk" of (the level which is beyond dichotomy) of Y, because at flat-land the un-marked can't be understood as the level beyond dichotomy).

Once again Doron, get out more, you will easily find trees that branch at the roots into separate trunks. You false dichotomies, poor analogies, “un-marked” ‘sources’ and fiat-land edicts can not supplant actually doing some simple research.

 

[doronshadmi]

Only in your self-contradictory, nonsense-only, deliberate ignorance-only, fiat-land “reasoning” where the king obviously still has no clothes (even though he likes to claim that by his OM he is dressed AND NOT dressed).

The self-contradictory, nonsense-only, deliberate ignorance-only, is a direct result of your relative-only framework, that can't get totalities like "that has no successor or "that has no predecessor".

 

[doronshadmi]

Once again Doron, get out more, you will easily find trees that branch at the roots into separate trunks.

In that case what you call trunks is at the level of the branches, where what you call roots is the level beyond them.