Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
HatRack said:
:dl:

Proof that Doron doesn't actually read people's posts.
Click to expand...
Again, you are unable to demonstrate how exactly the member of {} is a set.

If you can't do that, then your set's-only framework does not have any rigorous formal foundation.
 
doronshadmi said:
Again, you are unable to demonstrate how exactly the member of {} is a set.
Click to expand...

{} doesn't have a member. You poor thing, you still can't understand that?

ETA: The fact that {} has no members is precisely why the statement "all members of {} are sets" is true. You can say anything you want about "all members of {}". It's a vacuous truth.

doronshadmi said:
If you can't do that, then your set's-only framework does not have any rigorous formal foundation.
Click to expand...

Uhh, no.
 
Last edited:
HatRack said:
{} doesn't have a member. You poor thing, you still can't understand that?

ETA: The fact that {} has no members is precisely why the statement "all members of {} are sets" is true. You can say anything you want about "all members of {}". It's a vacuous truth.



Uhh, no.
Click to expand...

You :boxedin: thing by your :boxedin: reasoning "{} doesn't have a member" AND "all members of {} are sets", even if every member by your :boxedin: reasoning is a set. :jaw-dropp
 
doronshadmi said:
But I am talking about Emptiness, where negative existence (like -1) is not Emptiness, which is something that you can't comprehend by your relative-only view of this subject.
Click to expand...

Again stop trying to simply posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others. Doron no one has claimed “negative existence (like -1) is” your “Emptiness”.


Once again the question is…

The Man said:
The Man said:
So now your “magnitude of existence” can have a negative value?
Click to expand...

Would you care to actually address the question that was asked as opposed to whatever questions in you head that you continue to address instead?
Click to expand...



doronshadmi said:
How relative-only view of this subject you have. Emptiness (which is total denial of existence) denials the existence of 1, -1 and 0, and your relative-only view of this subject simply can't comprehend it, exactly as it can't comprehend the totality of fullness, which is beyond collections AND also appears as the non-local property that bridges between localities of a given collection.
Click to expand...

Again stop trying to simply posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others. If you can’t answer the question asked then just say so, and you simply avoiding the question while bemoaning what you would have rather been asked tends to indicate that you simply can’t or don’t want to actually address the question asked.
 
HatRack said:
So, in the top half of your post, {} = 0, but in the bottom half, {} ≠ 0. What a strange world Doronetics is. The meaning and properties of objects shifts around from sentence to sentence. It's almost as if the author of Doronetics hasn't the slightest idea what he's doing. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Well that’s his “cross context” approach HatRack, it takes on whatever meaning he wants whenever he wants it to be so and I’m quite sure he knows that is exactly what, and all, he is doing.
 
doronshadmi said:
EDIT: Once again, this is a philosophical forum. If you don't wish or simply can't re-examine Mathematics from a philosophical level, then simply say it loud and clear
Click to expand...

I would say, "After you, Doron", but I suspect my signature quote from Bertrand Russell and the Dunning-Kruger effect would prevent you from recognising the irony of your statement.
 
doronshadmi said:
In that case please show a member of {}, which is a set.

The rest of your post is based on the ability to show it.
Click to expand...

Doron, your reading comprehension skills are a good match for your powers of reasoning. Neither are ever apparent.

Once again, let's go back to the statement you made:
doronshadmi said:
1) This rule does not hold in the case of the empty set, because the "member" of {} is not a set.
Click to expand...

Here, you clearly state (a) there is a member of {}, and (b) that member is not a set. The (a)-part is completely false for the empty set has no members, and that in turn makes the (b)-part irrelevant.

Two errors in the span of just a handful of words. Well done!

On the other hand, I stated this:
jsfisher said:
Wrong. Every member of {} is a set, without exception.
Click to expand...

Where as your statement alleges the existence of a member of the empty set, mine does not. If any such member does exist then it will be a set, but there is no requirement at least one exists.

You statement is equivalent to "there exists a member of the empty set such that the members is not a set." My statement is equivalent to "for any member of the empty set, the member is a set."

See the difference? Of course you don't.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I disagree with you, small children get a line as an indivisible object which exists simultaneously in AND out of a given domain like a circle, for example.
Click to expand...


The goal posts have moved yet again. Concepts of "in" and "out" are not the same as "in" and "not in".
 
HatRack said:
You better be careful Doron. Before long, your posts will consist of nothing but :boxedin:.
Click to expand...

You do not have to be careful anymore HatRack if by your "reasoning" "{} doesn't have a member" AND "all members of {} are sets"
 
doronshadmi said:
You do not have to be careful anymore HatRack if by your "reasoning" "{} doesn't have a member" AND "all members of {} are sets"
Click to expand...

Yes, that is my reasoning precisely. The second proposition directly follows from the first. I'm sorry that you can't comprehend this basic logic, but the rest of the world can. We don't need your Doronetics.
 
jsfisher said:
Here, you clearly state (a) there is a member of {},
Click to expand...

I wrote "member" that is not the same as member.

Again we see that you simply can't get the totality of Emptiness which can't be defined in terms of an existing things like members, sets, or any other existing things.
 
Last edited:
HatRack said:
Yes, that is my reasoning precisely. The second proposition directly follows from the first. I'm sorry that you can't comprehend this basic logic, but the rest of the world can. We don't need your Doronetics.
Click to expand...

HatRack, by your reasoning ("every member is also a set") AND ("{} doesn't have a member") AND ("all members of {} are sets")

See no more :covereyes
 
Having to discuss things with Doron is like playing the game 'code breaker' with someone who changes the colours whenever you home in on them...

The Arcturian Megadonkey has nothing on the Earthly Shadmi...

Doron, again... what is it about infinities or 'aproaches' or that a line can be of length 0 that you do not understand?

We never finished that...
 
doronshadmi said:
I wrote "member" that is not the same as member.
Click to expand...

The empty set doesn't have a "member" either.

Again we see that you simply can't get the totality of Emptiness which can't be defined in terms of an existing things like members, sets, or any other existing things.
Click to expand...

Please stop projecting. Mathematics is fine, and you have not found any flaws in it. The fact is now and has always been that you don't understand it, so you make stuff up. Your "totality of emptiness" is your self-deluded invention (an invention you cannot even describe in any cohesive way); it is not Mathematics. It doesn't make Mathematics wrong.

Now, if you'd like to qualify your remarks with "In Doronetics,..." then we could have a different discussion. (Well, if you were actually willing to narrow in on the meaning of things.) In the interim, though, quit trying to disprove Mathematics by your complete failure to understand it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom