Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

The only one lacking spatial, visual, symbolic, and language skills is you, doron. Please stop projecting your inabilities onto others.




The sentence you quoted doesn't require I understand what you mean by "to pick", and you still haven't explained why 17 cannot be picked twice from the set of integers.

That aside, are you still going to dodge the question, or will you finally explain what you mean by this whole picking process? I'm betting you won't just because it is so much easier to make wild, baseless claims if you use words that have special meanings known only to you.

A typical response of a person that can't use visual_spatial skills in addition to his verbal_symbolic skills.

Please pay attention how he avoids detailed replay to what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7608536&postcount=16434.

 

[doronshadmi]

Originally Posted by epix
Your link doesn't include the statement that you disagree with; that is, "no order" is the same as "order has no significance."


If I was wrong, then you disagree with yourself (follow the yellow line), but your repeated statement doesn't negate your claim. It follows that I couldn't be wrong.

You are chasing your tail; you are trying to justify your statement that honey is sweet, for example, but you can't find and present the opposing view.

epix, you still do not get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7601467&postcount=16420.

 

[doronshadmi]

You're affected by the frequent use of infinity where things approach ∞; you see a sequence where more and more members are added as the membership grows unbound. That's why you regard n as the temporarily last member in the process. But if you read again related Peano axiom

Every natural number a has a natural number successor

you may realize that n doesn't have to be necessarily the last number in the sequence in a given moment and that weakens your notion of "inherent incompleteness."

You still do not use your verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills as a one comprehensive framework, which is a must have terms if you wish to get what a show (symbolically AND visually).

In the set theory, nothing approaches anything. The space in { } is populated instantly by items that have something in common by definition.

Again what you call "definition" is restricted by you only to verbal_symbolic skills.

One of the questions is how many items are in there. In the case of

{2, 4, 6, 8}

where all members are divisible by 2, which is a part of the defining terms, there are 4 members and the collection is complete as indicated by the brace } in the end. When the collection looks like this

{1, 2, 3, 4, ...}

and after it is clear what the expression stands for and the definition of the collection/set is stated (it is N), the question is how many items are in there. Since the whole expression includes the closing brace }, it is complete as well.

Wrong, what is between { } can't reach the power of { }, or in order words { } is non-local w.r.t what is between it and what is between { } is local w.r.t to { } ( { } is the "host" mathematical space, and what is between { } is the "hosted" mathematical space ).

This notion is comprehended only if verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills are used as a one comprehensive framework.

and call S "infinite AND incomplete." Then you should calculate the degree of incompleteness, coz that's what I'm really curious about.

Non-local numbers calculate the degree of incompleteness (for example http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7511706&postcount=16304).

Also, time is not involved here (there is no process) because the inability of any collection (finite or infinite) to be non-locality, is its essential property.

 

[jsfisher]

A typical response of a person that can't use visual_spatial skills in addition to his verbal_symbolic skills.

Please stop with this empty excuse for you acting stupid. You don't like infinity. That's been clear from your long history of Internet posts, even through the fog of gibberish you spew. Your inability to express your displeasure is your limitation, not ours. Our "visual_spatial" skills exceed yours; our "verbal_symbolic" skills exceed yours.

Your latest ramblings suggest you have discovered that an infinite set has no last element no matter what complete ordering you might apply. "Oh, my god!!! Infinite sets must be incomplete!!!!!"

No, not true, except for special meanings of 'incomplete' known only to you. Moreover, your discovery that infinite sets under any ordering have no last element is about as insightful as your starting point for this very, very long thread, that multiplication is based in repeated addition.

The properties of infinity all stem from its axiomatic origins. If you object to those properties, then invent a different Set Theory with the standard Axiom of Infinity omitted or replaced.

Instead of "there exists a set that contains the empty set and the successor to every member of the set" give us something else. That would be the basis for a legitimate discussion instead of all this gibberish (verbal and visual) you post so freely.

 

[doronshadmi]

You don't like infinity.

On the contrary, I show that no collection of distinct objects has the power of the continuum of actual infinity, which is non-local w.r.t all possible collections.

The properties of infinity all stem from its axiomatic origins. If you object to those properties, then invent a different Set Theory with the standard Axiom of Infinity omitted or replaced.

I am doing it all along this thread, but since your reasoning is restricted only to your verbal_symbolic skills you get the Axioms that are defined in terms of visual_spatial skills as "Just scribbling dots, curves, and arrows" ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7606644&postcount=16430 ).

Please stop with this empty excuse for you acting stupid.

Please get out of your verbal_symbolic_only box (this link may help: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7587585&postcount=16372).

Instead of "there exists a set that contains the empty set and the successor to every member of the set" give us something else. That would be the basis for a legitimate discussion instead of all this gibberish (verbal and visual) you post so freely.

Another example of your determination to define things only in terms of verbal_symbolic skills.

 

[jsfisher]

On the contrary, I show that no collection of distinct objects has the power of the continuum of actual infinity, which is non-local w.r.t all possible collections.

"Power of the continuum of actual infinity"? Is that like extra-strength detergent? Why do you insist of juxtaposing perfectly meaningful words in ways to render them gibberish?

Moreover, since you continue to fail at giving terms like "non-local" any actual definition, any claims by you regarding non-locality are equally meaningless. It is doubly meaningless since you are hell-bent on disproving an axiom.

On the other hand, if you wish to identify with intuitionism and such, then restrict yourself to only those constructions and concepts valid in those realms.

 

[The Man]

Your reasoning is restricted only to verbal_symbolic skills.

Your “direct perception” has failed you yet again.

As a result you can't get "+1" expression, or the following axiom:

If (x in C is picked) AND (everything but x, in C is picked) AND (x can't be picked twice), then C is infinite AND incomplete.

For example, you ask:

You do not understand that everything in terms of collection (for example, points) can't reach the power of the continuum of non-local object (for example, a line), and you do not understand it exactly because your visual_spatial skills are not used in addition to your verbal_symbolic skills.

Again, you do not comprehend the inability of collections of distinct objects to have to power of the continuum of the "host" mathematical space (for example: there is no homeomorphism between 0 dimensional space and 1 dimensional space), which is naturally non-local w.r.t the "hosted" collection.

The term "host" or "hosted" is used in order to clarify that the "host" space
is not made of the "hosted" spaces (for example: ______ (a 1 dimensional space) is not made of "_ _ _" or "......" (which are sub-objects) on it.)

In other words, you still do not get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7601080&postcount=16418 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7601467&postcount=16420.

So which is it, you simply will not or you simply can not answer the question asked? All of your bemoaning about “verbal_symbolic skills” and "visual_spatial skills" can not conceal the fact that despite your stated distain for “all” you certainly have no problem considering “all” when you think it suits your need as in “(x in C is picked) AND (everything but x, in C is picked)”. So again when “(x in C is picked) AND (everything but x, in C is picked)” what “in C” remains ‘unpicked’?

 

[epix]

So again when “(x in C is picked) AND (everything but x, in C is picked)” what “in C” remains ‘unpicked’?

The only item there to clue the answer is C. Let C stand for Circle. Jump start your visual_spatial skills and let the circle change its shape until it reaches the desirable form; that is 0.

Doron bemoans our lack of verbal_symbolic and visual_spatial skills but doesn't adjust his arguments accordingly. Instead of "nothing, zilch, zero" he comes with "C" and walks away. Then he naively expects that we graduate from Doronetics with honors ready to change the world for better AND better.

 

[doronshadmi]

Your “direct perception” has failed you yet again.

Using only your verbal_symbolic skills has failed you yet again.

 

[doronshadmi]

"Power of the continuum of actual infinity"? Is that like extra-strength detergent? Why do you insist of juxtaposing perfectly meaningful words in ways to render them gibberish?

Why do you insist to use only verbal_symbolic skills, which naturally get verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills as gibberish?

 

[doronshadmi]

Let C stand for Circle.

C stands for collection of "hosted" distinct objects, which naturally do not have the power of the continuum of a given "host" mathematical space.

This notion is understood only if verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills are used.

 

[doronshadmi]

what “in C” remains ‘unpicked’?

The second pick of x, which is the result of the inability of any "hosted" collection (finite or not) of distinct objects the have the power of the continuum of the "host" mathematical space.

 

[zooterkin]

Why do you insist to use only verbal_symbolic skills, which naturally get verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills as gibberish?

No, he's saying it's gibberish because it is. Like the latest example you have kindly provided us with.

The second pick of x, which is the result of the inability of any "hosted" collection (finite or not) of distinct objects the have the power of the continuum of the "host" mathematical space.

 

[epix]

The second pick of x, which is the result of the inability of any "hosted" collection (finite or not) of distinct objects the have the power of the continuum of the "host" mathematical space.

Doron, no matter how I try to use my visual_spatial skills, I just can't identify the "the second pick of X."

Taking a wild guess: Is it that pick with a solid handle?

 

[doronshadmi]

No, he's saying it's gibberish because it is.

It is gibberish in terms of verbal_symbolic_only skills that have no ability to understand non-locality, unless visual_spatial skills are used in addition to verbal_symbolic skills.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron, no matter how I try to use my visual_spatial skills, I just can't identify the "the second pick of X."

You can't identify the second pick of x, if you are using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills in order to comprehend infinite collections of distinct objects, simply because the visual_spatial skills provide the understanding of the power of continuum of non-locality, which no collection of distinct objects (finite or infinite) reaches.

For example, you don't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7611837&postcount=16443.

 

[zooterkin]

It is gibberish in terms of verbal_symbolic_only skills that have no ability to understand non-locality, unless visual_spatial skills are used in addition to verbal_symbolic skills.

I don't suppose you'd care to give a useful definition of any of those highlighted terms?

 

[doronshadmi]

I don't suppose you'd care to give a useful definition of any of those highlighted terms?

I don't suppose you'd care to read all of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7606644&postcount=16430 including the links there.

 

[zooterkin]

I don't suppose you'd care to read all of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7606644&postcount=16430 including the links there.

That's yet another long-winded way of saying "No".

 

[doronshadmi]

That's yet another long-winded way of saying "No".

That's yet another short way to express your laziness.