Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

Well Doron, now that we're circling back to your inability to understand infinite processes, maybe you can clear up the following issues:

Since time is not involved here, there is no process. All there is is the inability of all sub-existing things to be an existing thing, for example: the inability of the collection of all points along a line has a magnitude of existence < line.

1) If 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... is less than 1 as you claim, then how come no matter what number a < 1 I choose, I can find a partial sum Sn such that 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... + 1/2^n > a?

No matter how many infinitely many partial sums you find, they are not summed into a non-partial sum, exactly because of the inability of all sub-existing things to be an existing thing.

2) If there are gaps in the real number line, then how come no matter what arbitrary curve I draw across the x-axis, it is always the case that there is a point A such that the curve and the x-axis intersect, as guaranteed by the Intermediate Value Theorem?

You find only what you wish to find, by ignore what you don't wish to find. In this case you wish to find a location along a curve, but you ignore the fact that your ability to find a distinct location is possible exactly because no matter what scale level you are using along the curve, A≠B is a fundamental term of [A,B] distinct existence, where ≠ is an inseparable term of distinction (you, care only about A or B and ignore ≠).

3) And let's never forget your complete failure where you claimed that two equivalent logical statements were different (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6611705) only to be rigorously disproven (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6612258) that you've never owned up to.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6667691&postcount=13321 (get out of your loop).

 

[HatRack]

Since time is not involved here, there is no process. All there is is the inability of all sub-existing things to be an existing thing, where the inability of the collection of all points a long a line has a magnitude of existence < line.

Highlighted are all the terms that need defining.

No matter how many infinitely many partial sums you find, they are not summed into a non-partial sum, exactly because of the inability of all sub-existing things to be an existing thing.

You didn't address the point. The point is that S = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... cannot possibly be less than 1 because for all a < 1 I can find a finite, partial summation Sn = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... + 1/2^n such that Sn > a. That leaves exactly two choices: S = 1 or S > 1. Hence, your reasoning (which uses undefined terms as highlighted) is incorrect.

You find you you wish to find, by ignore what you don't with to find, in this case you wish to find location along a curve, but you ignonre the fact that your ability to find a distinct location is possible exactly because no matter what scale level you are using a long the curve A≠B is a fundamental term of [A,B] distinct existence, where ≠ is an inseparable term of distinction (you, care only about A or B and ignore ≠).

If I find a point of intersection no matter which way I draw a curve through the line, then the line has no gaps. It's that simple. Whatever reasoning you are using to arrive at a different result is incorrect.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6667691&postcount=13321 (get out of your loop)

Here is my argument:

[latex]$$$
\exists z \, \forall (x \ne x) \, (x \ne x) \rightarrow ((x \ne x) \in z)$$$[/latex]​

[latex]$$$
\exists z \, \forall (x = x) \, (x = x) \rightarrow ((x = x) \notin z)$$$[/latex]​

Sorry Doron, but that is completely nonsensical. Those statements are not well-formed. Perhaps you should take a course on first-order logic because it is clear that you are struggling with it.

 

[doronshadmi]

You better make an appointment with your local patent and trademark office. ASAP.

Your idiotic cynical jokes really help you to stay ignorent.

 

[doronshadmi]

Highlighted are all the terms that need defining.

They are defined, you simply ignore Emptiness, Fullness, and a non-finite collection of points or sub-segments along a line or a given segment.

You didn't address the point. The point is that S = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... cannot possibly be less than 1 because for all a < 1 I can find a finite, partial summation Sn = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... + 1/2^n such that Sn > a. That leaves exactly two choices: S = 1 or S > 1. Hence, your reasoning (which uses undefined terms as highlighted) is incorrect.

Again, it is about time to use your mind in order to get a simple notion like a non-finite collection of points or sub-segments along a line or a given segment.

Also you your mind in order to get a simple notion like non-partial sum, for example, you have no problem to define Sn > a for any finite case. But infinitely many finite cases are not a non-partial sum (a sum of infinitely many cases). exactly as the collection of all points is not a line.

If I find a point of intersection no matter which way I draw a curve through the line, then the line has no gaps. It's that simple. Whatever reasoning you are using to arrive at a different result is incorrect.

It is "that simple" because you ignore the existence of ≠, which is inseparable of any arbitrary [A,B]

Sorry Doron, but that is completely nonsensical. Those statements are not well-formed. Perhaps you should take a course on first-order logic because it is clear that you are struggling with it.

They are well-formed and can't be comprehended from your limited view of the considered subject, so?

 

[HatRack]

They are defined, you simply ignore Emptiness, Fullness, and a non-finite collection of points or sub-segments along a line or a given segment.

Define them then.

Again, it is about time to use your mind in order to get a simple notion like a non-finite collection of points or sub-segments along a line or a given segment.

Why don't you just use the word "infinite" instead of non-finite? I get the impression that you think infinite and non-finite have different meanings. And infinite collections are much more than a notion, they have precise definitions in terms of bijections.

Also you your mind in order to get a simple notion like non-partial sum, for example, you have no problem to define Sn > a for any finite case. But infinitely many finite cases are not a non-partial sum (a sum of infinitely many cases). exactly as the collection of all points is not a line.

Doron, you can have an infinite amount of finite things, take the natural numbers for instance. The problem is that an element of the sequence of partial sums (1/2, 3/4, 7/8, 5/16, ...) can always be found to exceed any number less than 1, and so it is nonsensical to take anything less than 1 as the sum of 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ...

It is "that simple" because you ignore the existence of ≠, which is inseparable of any arbitrary [A,B]

≠ is not something that has any type of existence associated with it in mathematics, any more than any other words we use to describe mathematics have. It is simply symbolic shorthand for saying that two sets do not have the same elements. If you're interested in any type of communication with the rest of the world, you need to learn what standard mathematical definitions mean and stop twisting them around for your own purposes.

They are well-formed and can't be comprehended from your limited view of the considered subject, so?

No, they are not well-formed. This isn't up for debate Doron, you are simply and plainly wrong.

 

[epix]

"" ≠ "that has no predecessor" exactly as silence ≠ "silence", because silence is the actual state and "silence" is a non-silent expression of the actual silence.

The absence of sound (silence) is a straight line, whereas the presence of sound is a curve that reflects upon the frequency of the sound. Since a straight line is a 1-dimensional object, and according to your views 1-dimensional object has a mirror image that exists as -1-dimensional object, silence must have a negative mirror image. Just look at the mirror and be quiet. Do you hear anything? No? Well, that's because "no" means negative, so does "-" (minus). This experiment proves that your concept of negative dimensionality is sound -- and that's the problem: it cannot be sound, coz you don't hear any sound.

 

[doronshadmi]

Define them then.

Already done at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6667634&postcount=13318 .
It is not my problem that you are using an agreed reasoning that can't comprehend it.

Why don't you just use the word "infinite" instead of non-finite? I get the impression that you think infinite and non-finite have different meanings. And infinite collections are much more than a notion, they have precise definitions in terms of bijections.

Wrong conclusion, and no, your "precise definitions in terms of bijections" is a reasoning that ignores Emptiness, Fullness, Non-locality and the intermediate existence of Collections between Emptiness and Fullness.

Doron, you can have an infinite amount of finite things, take the natural numbers for instance. The problem is that an element of the sequence of partial sums (1/2, 3/4, 7/8, 5/16, ...) can always be found to exceed any number less than 1, and so it is nonsensical to take anything less than 1 as the sum of 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ...

I do not claim such nonsense. You can use any arbitrary convergent series and still the sum is < 1 exactly because no non-finite collection of sub-objects of a given object, is that object.

≠ is not something that has any type of existence associated with it in mathematics, any more than any other words we use to describe mathematics have. It is simply symbolic shorthand for saying that two sets do not have the same elements. If you're interested in any type of communication with the rest of the world, you need to learn what standard mathematical definitions mean and stop twisting them around for your own purposes.

If you wish to get out of your , you have no choice but to get Distinction as a fundamental term of the Mathematical Science, where ≠ is an inseparable factor.

No, they are not well-formed. This isn't up for debate Doron, you are simply and plainly wrong.

This isn't up for debate under your , so?

 

[doronshadmi]

The absence of sound (silence) is a straight line,

Wrong, a point is a local "sound" and a line is a non-local "sound".

 

[doronshadmi]

and a value that can not go negative

-1 is a negative existing value, 1 is a positive existing value, 0 is non-negative and non-positive existing value.

No one of these exiting values is "that has to predecessor" (in the absolute sense), which is Emptiness.

Ah, I see ...

No, you don't.

 

[jsfisher]

Let's research the core of Mathematics as an expressed language, as follows:

Let's not. Notation and meaning are well-established in Mathematics. I'm sorry you don't understand the notation nor its meaning, but that is no reason to invent some nonsensical substitute.

 

[doronshadmi]

Notation and meaning are well-established in Mathematics.

Only if Mathematics is the holy-scripts of some kind of religion.

jsfisher, Mathematics is not the property of any community even if this community is 3,500 years old.

 

[zooterkin]

Only if Mathematics is the holy-scripts of some kind of religion.

jsfisher, Mathematics is not the property of any community even if this community is 3,500 years old.

What does your reply have to do with what jsfisher said?

 

[epix]

If you wish to get out of your , you have no choice but to get Distinction as a fundamental term of the Mathematical Science, where ≠ is an inseparable factor.

If ≠ is an inseparable factor and '/' cannot be separated from '=', then, according to your definition of non-existence X≠X and existence X=X, the world is a collection of non-existing things. It could be that Emptiness, which is proven not to exist in positively dimensioned world actually exists in the negatively dimensioned world, as you believe, is devouring the existing things of this world. This could be proven by the existence of the E identity:

x_______E = E_______y

Solving for both uknown variables x and y, we get

black holE = Emptiness.

The problem is that '=' doesn't exist, coz '≠' is inseparable and so there are no equations of any kind.

 

[epix]

Wrong, a point is a local "sound" and a line is a non-local "sound".

Well, you must be using some weird sequencer. That's not what I see on mine. Silence is a straight line and sound is a curve.

 

[doronshadmi]

What does your reply have to do with what jsfisher said?

The "well established" part.

 

[epix]

You can use any arbitrary convergent series and still the sum is < 1 exactly because no non-finite collection of sub-objects of a given object, is that object.

You must be under impression that all convergent series have limit L=1, so any arbitrarily chosen convergent series has "sum<1".

I would suggest to avoid certain topics and focus intead on negatively dimensioned Emptiness and other features of OM, so your unfamiliarity with high-school math wouldn't raise big questionmarks over your relentless attempt to lift comteporary math from the Pit of Tardiness and clean it with your "novel notions." Notions, potions, lotions -- they all rhyme with "oceans", but notions don't swim and therefore=> they can't be liquids(X~//#|X|).

 

[jsfisher]

The "well established" part.

And what does this have to do with zooterkin's statement?

One non sequitur after another does not make for constructive communication, Doron. Is that your goal, to not communicate?

 

[HatRack]

If you wish to get out of your , you have no choice but to get Distinction as a fundamental term of the Mathematical Science, where ≠ is an inseparable factor.

Doron, you seem to be under the impression that one or more of the following holds true:

1. The mathematical community is too stubborn to accept your ideas.
2. The mathematical community is incapable of understanding your ideas.

Have you ever considered that maybe the problem is that you are incapable of communicating your ideas?

ETA:

By the way Doron, since you love Wikipedia so much, how about checking out this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person).

I think this part is especially interesting:

Virtually universal characteristics of cranks include:

1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.

Hmmm, let's see. You claim that you're right and every other mathematician is wrong, so that's 1. You claim that your discovery will lead to world peace and solve all of civilization's problems, that's 2. You refuse to acknowledge your trivial error of claiming that those two logical statements are different when they are trivially the same, that's 3. And finally, you go on and on about you think is correct but rarely if ever listen to what any of those who are more experienced in mathematics have to say, that's 4.

Hey look at that, you satisfy the 4 criteria of a crank as given by the wonderful people at Wikipedia whom you love so much. You're a crank!

 

[jsfisher]

Doron, you seem to be under the impression that one or more of the following holds true:

1. The mathematical community is too stubborn to accept your ideas.
2. The mathematical community is incapable of understanding your ideas.

Have you ever considered that maybe the problem is that you are incapable of communicating your ideas?

...or that his ideas are trivial, contradictory, and/or irrelevant to anything interesting.

 

[doronshadmi]

Have you ever considered that maybe the problem is that you are incapable of communicating your ideas?

Have you ever considered that maybe the problem is that your reasoning has a built-in property, which prevents the understanding of what is out of your ?