Deeper than primes

[HatRack]

All we need is one line.

You never said that points A and B are distinct. Thus, it is false to assume that a unique line AB has been determined. One flaw in your proof amongst many.

 

[doronshadmi]

You never said that points A and B are distinct. Thus, it is false to assume that a unique line AB has been determined. One flaw in your proof amongst many.

Wrong, read this:

For this game we need two points, a line and a plane.

You still do not get that a given line and its non-local property exists, even if no point exists along it.

Furthermore, two points and their local property exist, even in no names are given to them.

 

[doronshadmi]

Be that as it may, this is just another example of Doron not being able to express himself with any clarity or precision.



The word you are struggling to find on your keyboard is "oh". Ho is slang for prostitute. Please use the correct word.



Again you blame me for your failure. You have no basis for this bald accusation, and it isn't true. It may be convenient for you to think otherwise, but you are simply lying to yourself.

Really, Doron. Stop lying about me to cover your own blunders and cognitive limitations. If doronetics has any merit, focus on that. Your continual lying and inability to stay on topic only underscores that it doesn't.



As I have said right along. Knock yourself out! Develop a new mathematical foundation. Mathematics has plenty of room for new ideas.

Heck, you even have your first axiom for Doronetics. Admittedly, it is not a very constructive axiom, and it lacks some foundation, but its yours.

On the other hand, stop accusing the parts of Mathematics you can't understand as being wrong. They aren't. They certainly aren't wrong just because you'd like something else. Build your something else; try to avoid the obvious contradictions and inconsistencies that plague all of your work to date; then maybe we can explore its utility.

So far, Doron, all you do harp about how everyone else is wrong and how everyone else just doesn't get it. You really need a mirror.

You still do not get it jsfisher.

You play a limited game, which is closed under the concept of Collection.

I play with AND beyond the concept of Collection.

Your game is wrong. Actually you can't comprehend the concept of Collection exactly because you are closed under it, and it can really be comprehended only if you get it without being closed by it.

Non-locality\Locality Linkage is the foundation of the Mathematical Science, whether you get it or not.

It is not up to you anymore.

 

[jsfisher]

I play with AND beyond the concept of Collection.

You "played" with AND without regard to its meaning (and its origin isn't with collections).

 

[HatRack]

Wrong, read this:



You still do not get that a given line and its non-local property exists, even if no point exists along it.

Furthermore, two points and their local property exist, even in no names are given to them.

You are using non-standard geometry. None of the "deductions" you spew follow from any known theorems. If you do not wish to obey the rules of Euclid's postulates, then you must specify your own axiomatic system for geometry. Just like you must specify your own axiomatic system for your non-standard analysis.

So, we have one axiom so far. Let's have the rest. This is mathematics Doron, you must be rigorous.

 

[jsfisher]

So, we have one axiom so far. Let's have the rest. This is mathematics Doron, you must be rigorous.

Ah! There, you see, is the beauty of Doronetics. Rigor is not required when you have the power of direct perception. Doron has freed himself from the necessity of consistency or proof through the sheer will of his mind. If he thinks it to be so, then it must be so.

Doron is therefore able to use his time and effort focussed on more important things, like brushing up on his gibberish and his insults.

 

[laca]

All we need is one line.

Your reading comprehension fails you again, doron.

Ho, yes it can.

This is where jsfisher seriously abuses both language and mathematical development, becuse his notion is closed under the concept of Collection.

Mathematical development? Seriously? You call your assorted gibberish mathematical development?

 

[laca]

Wrong, read this:

Yes, doron. Where did you specify that they are distinct? See, this is a big part of your problem. It's a fairly small error, we all know you meant distinct points. But when pointed out to you, instead just saying something like "yes, I meant to say distinct", you just can't admit that you erred.

You still do not get that a given line and its non-local property exists, even if no point exists along it.

Furthermore, two points and their local property exist, even in no names are given to them.

Whatever doron, until you define your own axiomatic system, you're out of luck, because in every other currently known system your gibberish is contradictory, because its exact negation can be derived from the axioms. Funny, ain't it?

You won't be able to convince anyone with regurgitating the same nonsense and accusing everyone of being "closed under Collection". You need to lay it out so that it is a consistent framework. Of course, even if you manage to choose your axioms so that it is consistent and somehow all your garbage makes sense in view of those axioms (which I'm certain you won't), you still need to show how it is useful.

In view of all this, a rational person would either get to work and start to formalize everything or just quit. I'm predicting you'll choose otherwise.

 

[laca]

You still do not get it jsfisher.

You play a limited game, which is closed under the concept of Collection.

I play with AND beyond the concept of Collection.

And I played with my willie until I got old enough. Now it's serious.

Your game is wrong. Actually you can't comprehend the concept of Collection exactly because you are closed under it, and it can really be comprehended only if you get it without being closed by it.

Maybe it's just me, but this is all starting to sound like religion. We just have to accept it. Without a shred of proof or even plausibility. Guess what? We don't.

Non-locality\Locality Linkage is the foundation of the Mathematical Science, whether you get it or not.

What linkage? You're arguing for locality (points) being fundamentally different from non-locality (lines and higher order spaces).

By the way, how do you figure that lines cannot completely cover a 2-dim space, since according to you they're both possessing non-locality?

 

[HatRack]

this axiom is strictly not ZFC, because ZFC is closed under the concept of Collection.

Doron,

Your axiom is a contradiction in the ZFC system. ZFC is widely used and is considered a rigorous basis for a wide variety of mathematics, including and most importantly analysis.

Now, read this next part carefully:

In order for anyone to even consider accepting your axiom, you have to show us which ZFC axiom we should drop. The ZFC axioms state some very basic properties and existences of sets. For example, one guarantees the existence of unordered pairs. Another essentially guarantees the existence of the natural numbers. Another guarantees that unions exist, and so on.

In fact, I believe it is not even necessary to use at least two of the ZFC axioms (choice/regularity) to deduce the negation of your axiom, but I could be wrong, and I will stand corrected if I am. Basically, any system of logic which implies the Peano Axioms along with some elementary set theory puts the spike in your axiom.

So, you have to explain to us which ZFC axiom is wrong and why. Until then, there's no point in continuing, because no one will ever take you seriously if you throw away ZFC without reason.

 

[HatRack]

Ah! There, you see, is the beauty of Doronetics. Rigor is not required when you have the power of direct perception. Doron has freed himself from the necessity of consistency or proof through the sheer will of his mind. If he thinks it to be so, then it must be so.

Doron is therefore able to use his time and effort focussed on more important things, like brushing up on his gibberish and his insults.

My mistake. Let's add that to the list of axioms in Doron's theory.

The Axiom of Direct Perception

Whatever Doron Shadmi directly perceives as being correct, is correct, and should be accepted by all others without question.

 

[HatRack]

Your game is wrong. Actually you can't comprehend the concept of Collection exactly because you are closed under it, and it can really be comprehended only if you get it without being closed by it.

And stop telling people they are "closed under collection". We're not mathematical operators.

 

[doronshadmi]

And I played with my willie

...

By the way, how do you figure that lines cannot completely cover a 2-dim space, since according to you they're both possessing non-locality?

No, you still continue to play with your willie instead of fully read http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6592095&postcount=12597

What linkage? You're arguing for locality (points) being fundamentally different from non-locality (lines and higher order spaces).

And yet both of them have a common property, they exist as non-composed spaces.

 

[laca]

No, you still continue to play with your willie instead of fully read http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6592095&postcount=12597

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

 

[doronshadmi]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited moderated content.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

What linkage? You're arguing for locality (points) being fundamentally different from non-locality (lines and higher order spaces).

And yet both of them have a common property, they exist as non-composed spaces.

 

[laca]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited moderated content.

And yet both of them have a common property, they exist as non-composed spaces.

doron, you know what you have to do. Start working and present a rational argument. Until you do, you're just looking silly.

 

[sympathic]

And stop telling people they are "closed under collection". We're not mathematical operators.

He is not knowledgeable of the mathematical meaning of "closed under". I am guessing he is freely translating something from his native tongue. But as jsfisher noted, all he really needs is a mirror.

 

[doronshadmi]

doron, you know what you have to do. Start working and present a rational argument. Until you do, you're just looking silly.

laca, you asked a question.

A simple and clear answer was given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6592095&postcount=12597.

You can't comprehend it.

 

[jsfisher]

laca, you asked a question.

A simple and clear answer was given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6592095&postcount=12597.

You can't comprehend it.

No, the content of that post is easily understood: Therein Doron makes a ridiculous statement and leaps to an incorrect conclusion. Included also is a generous dose of gibberish delicately spiced with contradiction.

The comprehension problem, Doron, is yours.

 

[doronshadmi]

Ah! There, you see, is the beauty of Doronetics. Rigor is not required when you have the power of direct perception. Doron has freed himself from the necessity of consistency or proof through the sheer will of his mind. If he thinks it to be so, then it must be so.

Doron is therefore able to use his time and effort focussed on more important things, like brushing up on his gibberish and his insults.

jsfisher, since when one has to prove an axiom (no matter what name is given to it)?