• 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.
Belz... said:
I'm having trouble believing that this thread is still going on.
Click to expand...
The difficulty of believing is usually ascribed to the turbulent effects of multidimensional atheism. Mathematics eats what is served and that includes irrational numbers. Since irrational numbers are a subset of real numbers, real irrationality exists as a separate field of mathematics and its aspects are heavily discussed here. This particular field heavily influences the very concept of infinity and Cantor's Hypothesis of The Continuum, and so it follows that this thread must continue without bound toward infinity.
 
doronshadmi said:
AB is non-strict, so your "specifically and strictly" does not hold water.
Click to expand...


So are you now claiming your "AB" is something other than just being strictly your "AB"? That would be typically self contradictory of you. The simple fact remains Doron that you simply do not like limitation least of all your own.


doronshadmi said:
The Man, your replies have no value what so ever about OM, as long as you are stuck in your local dead end street.
Click to expand...

As your “OM” has no value that you have demonstrated the lacking and “dead end street” remains simply and strictly still just yours.

doronshadmi said:
For example http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7318785&postcount=15807 is beyond your local dead end street.
Click to expand...

Your “direct perception” continues to fail you.
 
jsfisher said:
Referring back to irrelevant posts doesn't make them relevant. You have done nothing to distinguish arithmetically your fantastical 0.000...1 from zero.

...if it talks like a duck....
Click to expand...
All you have to do is to notice the difference in the shape. '0' is not identical symbol to '1'. The arithmetic difference is naturally forthcoming. The difference is negligible, but Doron is a precisionist who doesn't accept the dismissal of the delta increment, or usually h, during the process in which the derivative of a function is determined -- he doesn't accept the concept of limits, which is also solely responsible for "1 - 0.999... = 0" asserted across the board.


eq1.gif


Gee, where did that h go?
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
So are you now claiming your "AB" is something other than just being strictly your "AB"?
Click to expand...

A is a strict False value.

B is a strict True value.

AB is a non-strict False\True superposition value.

AND connective is a binary operation, which has strict output only if both input values are strict.

The output is non-strict if one of the inputs is non-strict, and the commutativity of AND connective has no influence on the non-strict output.

Since you get AB as strict value, you are unable to get AB as a non-strict False\True superposition value.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
as is your habit, the fault you claim of others is all yours.

But enough of your repeated efforts to dig up irrelevant posts. Arithmetically, how do 0.000...1 and 0 differ?

Perhaps some examples would help. What's 10 - 9.999...? What's 10*0.000...1?
Click to expand...

10 - 9.999... = (10 - 9) - 0.999... = 0.000...1

10*0.000...1 = 0.000...10
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Only by your local-only reasoning.

(...it's a closed box reasoning that can't deal with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7351173&postcount=15887)


0.999...

0.000...1/10 = 0.000...0.1
Click to expand...
That would make "some authors" climb multidimensional walls...
Some authors forbid decimal representations with an infinite sequence of digits 9.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_representation

You are using symbolism left and right in similar way someone ignores the dead end sign and proceeds. What is really 0.999... ?

This number rendition features decimal expansion of period one. That means it is a rational number. But the other definition -- the quotient definition -- says that a rational number exists as a result of q being divided into p during a process called the long division that takes care of the decimal expansion. The problem is that there is no p and q, such as

p:q = 0.999...

and therefore by one definition, 0.999... is a rational number and by the other it is not. Since Q is a subset of R, you need to visit the axiomatic framework that governs over R to resolve the issue. Better yet, you ask the top mathematicians about it to enjoy the different views of "traditional mathematics." But there is a consensus that I join: arithmetic operations involving numbers ended with ellipses is a big no-no. Only Rampepurdian Scholars who balance their checkbooks according to OM use it to the joy of the God of Perpetual Discombobulation.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
For local-only minds this is the case.
Click to expand...
The "non-local mind" can deliver a classic example of the ultimate decomposition of reason.

Exhibit 1.
10*0.000...1 = 0.000...10
Click to expand...
Following the syntax, we get

100*0.000...1 = 0.000...100
1000*0.000...1 = 0.000...1000
10000*0.000...1 = 0.000...10000

It's easy to see that OM axioms hold 0.1 and 0.10000 as two different values.

Exhibit 2.
0.000...1/10 = 0.000...0.1
Click to expand...

Here, OM makes a revolutionary step toward the unification of all fields of known and uknown mathematics by introducing two decimal points in one number.

The Great Re-paganisation of mathemacs by OM will prove that the monotheistic system of only One Decimal Point is a one way ticket toward the global confusion in all numerical and analytic procedures to come. Our Savior has landed. Welcome. Any baggage?

8.88...54.3...45.56.

:confused:
 
epix said:
Here, OM makes a revolutionary step toward the unification of all fields of known and uknown mathematics by introducing two decimal points in one number.
Click to expand...


1/10 = 0.1

0.000...0.1 is 10 times smaller than 0.000...1 , where both are non-local numbers.

0.000...0.000...1 is infinitesimally smaller than 0.000...1 , where both are non-local numbers.

0.000...0.000...0.1 is 10 times smaller than 0.000...0.000...1 , where both are non-local numbers.

These non-local numbers are infinitesimally smaller than some local number like 1, etc.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Wrong.

0.1 = 0.1000... < 0.1000...1
Click to expand...
But that's not what is being said here and what I referred to.
10*0.000...1 = 0.000...10
Click to expand...

Let me show you the proper usage of the elipses (...):

1. DesperaDo... (ron)

2. Desperado, why don't you come to your senses?
You been out ridin' fences for so long now...

 
epix said:
But that's not what is being said here and what I referred to.
Click to expand...

You wrote 0.1 and 0.1000 (which is the same value) but we are talking about 0.000...1 and (for example) 0.000...1000, where 0.000...1 is 1000 times smaller than 0.000...1, which are indeed two different values.

B.T.W (for example) 0.000...0.1[base 10] = 0.000...1[base 100], etc.

epix, why can't you get out of your "no-no" box?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom