Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

I think you'll find you are replying to epix, not The Man.

Thank you zooterkin.

Sorry The Man, my mistake.

 

[doronshadmi]

OM application mainly concerns the time travel. Once are the mathematicians able to grasp that "1() that is 1-dimensional space with no sub-dimensional spaces along it," we are right back in the 15th century.

Wrong epix,

We will enter to the 21 century with the ability to distinguish between the Local and the Non-local, and the ability to distinguish between the complex and the non-complex.

A better understanding of Complexity is essential for the survival of complex phenomenon like us in the vary near and far future, and OM is one of the possible ways to develop the awareness of the importance of Complexity's better understanding.

It can't be done if the place value is taken as system of numerals, which prevents any understanding of the existence of non-local numbers, which are essential to our measurement and better understanding of Complexity.

epix, you systematically continue to ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6474902&postcount=12106, I wonder why

“non-extendible to 1()”? So now your “concept of Segment” isn’t even one dimensional?

Here is a concrete example of the devastating influence of "Traditional Math" on The Man's reasoning, which prevents from him to understand the difference between 1(), 1(0(x)≠0) and 0().

 

[epix]

Wrong.

0.999...[base 10]+0.000...1[base 10]=1 has the necessary algebraic terms.

Where are they? There is no woman that would believe BD claims until she sees it.

On the contrary the Limit concept does not have the necessary algebraic terms, because it can't explain how a given distinct 0-dimesional space x reaches distinct 0-dimensioanl space y , such that ( there is nothing between 0(x) and 0 ) AND ( 0(x) ≠ 0 ).

The concept of the limit got nothing to do with your gross misinterpretation. Point 'x' moves along the horizontal axis and point 'y' moves along the vertical axis with only one possible point of intersection and that's point [0,0] -- the origin. So there can't be x - y = 0 and at the same time x - y ≠ 0 as your day-dreaming claims. Your interpretation of how standard math should work and doesn't is affected by your symbolic illiteracy of it. That's why you didn't comment on the contradiction here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6492023&postcount=12141
coz you don't have the slightest idea what's going on in there.

 

[doronshadmi]

Where are they? There is no woman that would believe BD claims until she sees it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6453327&postcount=12048 is in front of your mind, but your wrong notions about the considered subject simply prevent from you to get it, all along this thread.

That's why you didn't comment on the contradiction here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6492023&postcount=12141
coz you don't have the slightest idea what's going on in there.

Wrong epix, all you have is to look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6494154&postcount=12145.

The concept of the limit got nothing to do with your gross misinterpretation. Point 'x' moves along the horizontal axis and point 'y' moves along the vertical axis with only one possible point of intersection and that's point [0,0] -- the origin. So there can't be x - y = 0 and at the same time x - y ≠ 0 as your day-dreaming claims. Your interpretation of how standard math should work and doesn't is affected by your symbolic illiteracy of it.

You are not with me epix.

0(x) and 0 are points along 1-dimensional space like the real-line, for example, where by OM the real-line is 1-dimensional space ( notated by 1() ), which exists independently of any existing sub-space along it, where 0() is such a sub-space.

As for your 2-dimensional space ( notated by 2() ) it exits independently of any sub-spaces like 1() or 0().

Also you are using wrong notions like

"Point 'x' moves along the horizontal axis and point 'y' moves along the vertical axis

epix, you have to enter the following fundamental fact to your mind:

No sub-space moves along a given space. All we have is strict or non-strice sub-spaces w.r.t a given (strict or non-strict ) space, for example:

0.999...[base 10] is a non-strict sub-space w.r.t 1() strict space, and 0() is a strict sub-space w.r.t 1() strict space.

Your claim that 0(x) or 0 moves along 1() clearly demonstrates that you can't comprehend 0() as totally local AND strict space that essentially can't move form its strict location.

 

[doronshadmi]

Really? So if the points A and B were equal would your “1-dim space” exist between those points?

No, because actually there exists only one 0(), no matter how many names it has.

It is in fact you who are trying “to avoid ≠ between some arbitrary distinct pair” and the dependence of the “1-dim space” on and resulting from that inequality.

1) If A and B are distinct from each other, you can’t avoid ≠ between them, so your claim is false.

2) The existence of 1() is independent of any existing sub-space along it.

Doron, to try to put it more succinctly for you, if “1-dim space exists independently of any sub-levels of existence along it, where 0-dim space is such sub-level of existence” then the “0-dim space” is simply not a “sub-level of” that “1-dim space”.

The Man, the existence of 1() is independent of 0(), whether 0() exists or does not exist as 0() along it.

Your limited 0()-only reasoning can’t comprehend the independence of spaces w.r.t each other, whether they are defined as non-complex ( 1(), 0() ) or complex ( 1(0()) ) forms.

Now if you are trying to claim some non-zero infinitesimal difference between 1 and 0.9999..., then your “points” are no longer zero dimensional, having that non-zero infinitesimal extent.

Wrong.

For example: Local number 0.000... (a point, which is 0-dim space) < Non-local number 0.000...1[base 10], where ...1 is a line (a 1-dim space) between Non-local number 0.999...[base 10] (a complex of 1 and 0 dim spaces) and Local number 1 (a point, which is 0-dim space).

 

[doronshadmi]

Well it is not surprising that you simply do not comprehend the meaning of a “sub-space“.

Wrong.

Let us take, for example 3() and 2():

You can’t comprehend that 3() exists independently of any 2() spaces w.r.t it, as clearly seen in the following diagram:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_subspace

It has to be stressed that this diagram is a piece of 3() space, which has a form of a cube, where a cube is a complex w.r.t 3() exactly as a line segment is a complex w.r.t 1().

 

[The Man]

No, because actually there exists only one 0(), no matter how many names it has.

So the existence of your “1-dim space” does depend on the existence of more than one point. I’m glad that you have finally come to realize that.

1) If A and B are distinct from each other, you can’t avoid ≠ between them, so your claim is false.

I claimed you were trying not that you were succeeding. Your next assertion shows clearly that you are still “trying “to avoid ≠ between some arbitrary distinct pair” and the dependence of the “1-dim space” on and resulting from that inequality” and still not succeeding

2) The existence of 1() is independent of any existing sub-space along it.

You have just asserted above that it is dependent on the existence of more than one point.

The Man, the existence of 1() is independent of 0(), whether 0() exists or does not exist as 0() along it.

Again see your first assertion quoted above where you claim the “existence of” your “1()” is dependent on there being more than one point.

Your limited 0()-only reasoning can’t comprehend the independence of spaces w.r.t each other, whether they are defined as non-complex ( 1(), 0() ) or complex ( 1(0()) ) forms.

Again, stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.

Evidently you simply can not comprehend the meaning of the word independence.

Wrong.

For example: Local number 0.000... (a point, which is 0-dim space) < Non-local number 0.000...1[base 10], where ...1 is a line (a 1-dim space) between Non-local number 0.999...[base 10] (a complex of 1 and 0 dim spaces) and Local number 1 (a point, which is 0-dim space).

So after I state the consequences of a non-zero infinitesimal, you then say “Wrong.” and proceed to assert that you are in fact using a non-zero infinitesimal and evidently would simply prefer to ignore those consequences. So how many points are “between Non-local number 0.999...[base 10] (a complex of 1 and 0 dim spaces) and Local number 1 (a point, which is 0-dim space)”?

Wrong.

Let us take, for example 3() and 2():

You can’t comprehend that 3() exists independently of any 2() spaces w.r.t it, as clearly seen in the following diagram:
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/Secretsharing-3-point.png/220px-Secretsharing-3-point.png[/qimg]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_subspace

It has to be stressed that this diagram is a piece of 3() space, which has a form of a cube, where a cube is a complex w.r.t 3() exactly as a line segment is a complex w.r.t 1().

Next time try actually reading the article instead of just looking at the pictures.

Definition
A Euclidean subspace is a subset S of Rn with the following properties:
1. The zero vector 0 is an element of S.
2. If u and v are elements of S, then u + v is an element of S.
3. If v is an element of S and c is a scalar, then cv is an element of S.
There are several common variations on these requirements, all of which are logically equivalent to the list above.[4] [5]

 

[The Man]

Thank you zooterkin.

Sorry The Man, my mistake.

No problem, you accidently attributing a quote from epix to me is of little concern. However, you deliberately trying to attribute your own assertions to others, well, when are you going to apologize for that?


ETA:

For example….

Do you think you could stop claiming that (for example) variable x ( where x is any arbitrary distinct 0() of [0,1] ) is both ≤ 1 OR both ≥ 0, which is definitely a contradiction?

Do you think you can actually learn what the symbols “≤” and “≥” represent, evidently you simply do not want to.

As you're the only one making that ridiculous and nonsensical claim Doron, only you can stop making it and stop trying to attribute it to others. Or can you?

Your 0()-only reasoning simply can't get that the claim that "1-dim space is completely covered by 0-dim spaces" is equivalent to the claim that (for example) "variable x ( where x is any arbitrary distinct member of [0,1] ) is both ≤ 1 OR both ≥ 0".

Both claims are definitely a contradiction.

Again just you unapologetically trying to pawn off your own (evidently deliberate) ignorance and assertions on to others

 

[epix]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6453327&postcount=12048 is in front of your mind, but your wrong notions about the considered subject simply prevent from you to get it, all along this thread.

What you demonstrate got nothing to do with algebraic terms. I've already replied to that argument of yours, but you simply disregarded it, coz your argument went up the smoke.

Here is a related example of a complete backwardness of OM: There are two finite positive numbers a and b such as a < 1 and b < 1. Number a has twenty thousand zeroes after the decimal point and ends with 1318; number b has twenty-five thousand zeroes after the decimal point and ends with 666. How does OM express the multiplication of both numbers and its result; how does a*b = c look like in OM?

 

[epix]

Your 0()-only reasoning simply can't get that the claim that "1-dim space is completely covered by 0-dim spaces" is equivalent to the claim that (for example) "variable x ( where x is any arbitrary distinct member of [0,1] ) is both ≤ 1 OR both ≥ 0".

You always mention the word "equivalent" but never write down the actual equation that would demonstrate the argument in the language standard math speaks with. If you have anything against standard math, you need to show where it stutters. Your OM translation of the alleged problem is illegal; such a translation is maybe permissible in translating the Bible, but math is not a religion. You need to demonstrate that your mind isn't the one of a fanatic priest but a mind of a mathematician.

 

[epix]

Originally Posted by doronshadmi
Your 0()-only reasoning simply can't get that the claim that "1-dim space is completely covered by 0-dim spaces" is equivalent to the claim that (for example) "variable x ( where x is any arbitrary distinct member of [0,1] ) is both ≤ 1 OR both ≥ 0".

Both claims are definitely a contradiction.

Again just you unapologetically trying to pawn off your own (evidently deliberate) ignorance and assertions on to others

According to OM, plural=singular.

 

[The Man]

Originally Posted by doronshadmi
Your 0()-only reasoning simply can't get that the claim that "1-dim space is completely covered by 0-dim spaces" is equivalent to the claim that (for example) "variable x ( where x is any arbitrary distinct member of [0,1] ) is both ≤ 1 OR both ≥ 0".

Both claims are definitely a contradiction.




According to OM, plural=singular.

That really seems to be his problem of late epix. That for some reason he seems to think some point must be both greater than and equal to zero as opposed to just one point being equal to zero and all other points (in the interval) being greater than zero. I think it really comes back to his non-zero infinitesimal assertions, where such a non-zero infinitesimal would encompass both zero and greater than zero to some infinitesimal but non-zero extent. It is rather bizarre though that he asserts “any arbitrary distinct member of [0,1]” as opposed to just two specific ones. Since in the interval (0,1) all members are greater than zero and less then one. While for the interval [0,1] zero and one are now also members of that interval. So the only difference is the inclusion of the two boundary points in the closed interval that are not included in the open. Thus the majority of a collection of “arbitrary distinct member of [0,1]” would be both greater than zero and less than one, while only one specific “distinct member of [0,1]” equals zero and only one specific “distinct member of [0,1]” equals one. Further he claims “both ≤ 1 OR both ≥0” (so it is "both" one "OR" "both" the other) as if he has simply divided the interval into two subsets and “any arbitrary distinct member of [0,1]” must encompass one subset or the other and both subsets must include one boundary point each.

 

[epix]

Further he claims “both ≤ 1 OR both ≥0” (so it is "both" one "OR" "both" the other) as if he has simply divided the interval into two subsets and “any arbitrary distinct member of [0,1]” must encompass one subset or the other and both subsets must include one boundary point each.

If you conceive a total logical goulash, then you won't be able to serve it in the bowl shaped by the standard math expressive symbolism, and that's what is happening to Doron. Just follow the yellow line . . .
The same goes for his "equivalencies" that he can express only verbally, such as "your claim is equivalent to . . . ," but he never writes down the equation to show you where you go allegedly wrong. Instead, he goes into a verbal assertive mode supplemented by OM notation made of parenthesis and numbers. The more he feels that he messed up, the more parenthesis appear in his defensive arguments. In that case, he also adds more afterthoughts and explanatory remarks enclosed in ( ), so it all makes a lovely configuration reminiscent of Salvator Dali paintings.

 

[doronshadmi]

So the existence of your “1-dim space” does depend on the existence of more than one point.

No The Man.

1-dim space exists independently of any sub-space like 0-dim space along it.

Your 0-only reasoning simply can't get anything without using 0-dim space.

So how many points are “between Non-local number 0.999...[base 10] (a complex of 1 and 0 dim spaces) and Local number 1 (a point, which is 0-dim space)”?

If only non-local number 0.999...[base 10] and local number 1 are considered, then there is 0.000...1[base 10] between them , such that ...1 is a line (with no points along it) between 0.999...[base 10] and 1.

 

[doronshadmi]

No problem, you accidently attributing a quote from epix to me is of little concern. However, you deliberately trying to attribute your own assertions to others, well, when are you going to apologize for that?


ETA:

For example….








Again just you unapologetically trying to pawn off your own (evidently deliberate) ignorance and assertions on to others

Your limited 0-only reasoning is exactly the framework that its users\developers have to apologize in front of the the people around the world, because they are deliberately forcing their ignorance for the past 3000 years on our civilization and block any improvement of the understanding of Complexity and its essential building-blocks.

Next time try actually reading the article instead of just looking at the pictures.

Next time try to understand that your 0-only reasoning can't comprehend the independence of the existence of spaces w.r.t each other.

Definition
---------------
A Euclidean subspace is a subset...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_subspace

No The Man, a space is not a collection, and you simply can't get it because your reasoning is limited to 0-only elements.

 

[doronshadmi]

What you demonstrate got nothing to do with algebraic terms. I've already replied to that argument of yours, but you simply disregarded it, coz your argument went up the smoke.

Here is a related example of a complete backwardness of OM: There are two finite positive numbers a and b such as a < 1 and b < 1. Number a has twenty thousand zeroes after the decimal point and ends with 1318; number b has twenty-five thousand zeroes after the decimal point and ends with 666. How does OM express the multiplication of both numbers and its result; how does a*b = c look like in OM?

So now your smoke prevents from you to get what have been written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6499689&postcount=12164.

 

[doronshadmi]

Further he claims “both ≤ 1 OR both ≥0” (so it is "both" one "OR" "both" the other) as if he has simply divided the interval into two subsets and “any arbitrary distinct member of [0,1]” must encompass one subset or the other and both subsets must include one boundary point each.

The Man, you still do not get that your R members are exactly distinct 0() spaces, and each distinct 0() space is different from another distinct 0() space only if there is 1() space between them, where only 1() can be at AND beyond the location of any given distinct 0() (which is a property that no 0() space has.)

 

[zooterkin]

If only non-local number 0.999...[base 10] and local number 1 are considered, then there is 0.000...1[base 10] between them , such that ...1 is a line (with no points along it) between 0.999...[base 10] and 1.

0.000...1[base 10] exists only in your imagination, as does a line with no points on it.

 

[doronshadmi]

If you conceive a total logical goulash,

The logical goulash is done by you, when you claim that:

"Point 'x' moves along the horizontal axis and point 'y' moves along the vertical axis

Do you understand that a point is totally local where immobility is one of its essentials?

 

[doronshadmi]

0.000...1[base 10] exists only in your imagination, as does a line with no points on it.

It is better than your imagination, which according to it totally local and different distinct 0-dim spaces completely cover a 1-dim space.