• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher, you say the right words to the wrong person.

The name of the right person is jsfisher.
Click to expand...


Prove me wrong; prove you claims aren't bogus. Just show us where in the proof that construction appears. Come on, it must be there, right?
 
doronshadmi said:
|S| = |P(S)| is right, where both |S| and |P(S)| are equally ever increasing (which is present continuous).
Click to expand...
It's obvious that translating the Cantor's proof into an informal version would do no good, coz you can't grasp the significant difference between a set and its power set. If S = {1, 2, 3, 4, . . .}, then the members progress toward infinity via 1-dim space.

1_____2______3______4 . . . -->

Most of the elements of the members of the power set move toward infinity through a multidimensional space. All such subsets with cardinality C>2 rendered in 2-dim space (on a piece of paper) are therefore non-injective and surjective. As a result, they can't be put into 1-on-1 correspondence with the naturals of S and their minimal cardinality is therefore aleph1, like in the case of the real numbers. Since the cardinality of the naturals is aleph0, your relation between a set and its power set appears to be close to the miracle. No matter which variant (there seems to be only one though) of Cantor's proof you use, the power set of infinite S is not denumerable.

Of course, your logic that enters your way of proving things is based on a "4-dim declaration."

1. Because
2. I
3. said
4. so

... And suddenly there were two: God and Doron.
 
epix said:
It's obvious that translating the Cantor's proof into an informal version would do no good, coz you can't grasp the significant difference between a set and its power set.
Click to expand...


Don't you find it a tad ironic, too, that according to Doron, Cantor was completely wrong except when Doron's using Cantor's results to advance his own nonsense?
 
doronshadmi said:
This is the best advice that you can give to yourself, it is about time to wake up from Cantor's "paradise" dream.
Click to expand...

I see you are back to your childish reflection strategy. Way to go! while this can be practical with your kindergarten students crowd, it will not get you a long way in the adults world.
 
epix said:
It's obvious that translating the Cantor's proof into an informal version would do no good, coz you can't grasp the significant difference between a set and its power set.
Click to expand...
Given some set and its power set, there is any chosen degree of mapping between the set and its powerset, starting from no mapping and ending with |P(S)| mappings, or vice versa.

So as you see epix, "the significant difference between a set and its power set" has more than one fixed degree.

Furthermore, we actually discover that Cantor's GCH http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis is false.
 
Last edited:
sympathic said:
I see you are back to your childish reflection strategy. Way to go! while this can be practical with your kindergarten students crowd, it will not get you a long way in the adults world.
Click to expand...
Happy birthday sympathic.

Celebrating birthdays holds for both children AND adults, isn't it sympathic?
 
doronshadmi said:
Given some set and its power set, there is any chosen degree of mapping between the set and its powerset, starting from no mapping and ending with |P(S)| mappings, or vice versa.
Click to expand...


Quantity is not a substitute for quality. The goal was never to find multiple mappings, none of which were bijective. There are plenty of them, and your silly bit maps and gibberish are not needed to find them.

Just one that is bijective is all that is required...just one...say between {A} and its power set. Despite your claims and nonsense, you cannot produce one.
 
doronshadmi said:
The Man, your inability to get the simultaneity of the invariance of pi AND the variance of curvature among a collection of infinitely many circles, is equivalent to your inability to get the ever increasing collection of natural numbers as a present continuous state.
Click to expand...

Doron your inability to get the fact that pi doesn't change specifically because the circumference of a circle increases or decreases to the same proportion as its diameter increases or decreases does nothing to support your assertion that the set of all natural numbers is ever increasing. Again what is "increasing" in your set of "natural numbers" and thus what has changed about your set of "natural numbers"? What is increasing or changing in the set of all natural numbers?

Again..

The Man said:
By all means please explain to us the difference between increasing and decreasing with “no past (before) and no future (after)”?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Furthermore, we actually discover that Cantor's GCH http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis is false.
Click to expand...
Since Cantor's continuum hypotheses states that
There is no set whose cardinality is strictly between that of the integers and that of the real numbers.
Click to expand...
you and the demons who you confer with must have such a set stashed under the pillow. Stop being secretive and let the world see it.

Thanks. But I said "set"; I didn't mean the power set.
 
jsfisher said:
Just one that is bijective is all that is required...just one...say between {A} and its power set. Despite your claims and nonsense, you cannot produce one.
Click to expand...
You can take the mapping between natural numbers and the results of Cantor's construction method, as a parallel one step, such that no mapping between natural numbers and any powerset degree, is missing.

Your one game is simply closed under X^2 matrix, and as a result you are unable to get the bijective results of 2^X as rigorously and explicitly demonstrated at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6925404&postcount=14419 .

As one can't rid off his\her shadow, so any given powerset degree can't rid of the bijection with natural numbers, exactly as shown at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6925404&postcount=14419 .

In other words, your mapping is a parallel case that is closed under X^2 matrix, and as a result it can't get the parallel 2^X mapping between P(S) and S, exactly as explicitly defined by using Cantor's construction method by parallel mode.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Doron your inability to get the fact that pi doesn't change specifically because the circumference of a circle increases or decreases to the same proportion as its diameter increases or decreases does nothing to support your assertion that the set of all natural numbers is ever increasing.

Again what is "increasing" in your set of "natural numbers" and thus what has changed about your set of "natural numbers"? What is increasing or changing in the set of all natural numbers?

Again..
Click to expand...

Wrong The Man, the invariance property of being natural number is common (invariant) for the set of natural numbers, yet (each natural number is different than any other natural number) AND (the largest natural number is not satisfied) (which is the variant property of the set of natural numbers).

The Man, the set of all natural numbers is an unsatisfied fantasy, and you can't comprehend it exactly because you do not understand the inseparability of the invariance with the variance, exactly as shown in the case (the invariant pi) AND (the variant curvature) among any collection (finite or not) of circles.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You can take the mapping between natural numbers and the results of Cantor's construction method, as a parallel one step, such that no mapping between natural numbers and any powerset degree, is missing.
Click to expand...

That would be the construction method that doesn't actually exist. You have failed to show otherwise. And that would be the mapping you have failed to show exists.

Please try again, though. Please show us your bijective mapping between the natural numbers and the power set of {A}. Then go ahead and show us where you imagined "Cantor's construction method" to be.
 
epix said:
Since Cantor's continuum hypotheses states that

you and the demons who you confer with must have such a set stashed under the pillow. Stop being secretive and let the world see it.
Click to expand...

Very simple, any bijective degree between X^2 and 2^X.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom