which is simply an aggregation of words that have no meaning what so ever, and therefore one can't conclude anything about them.
On the contrary, if a given information can be accepted, rejected or partially accepted or rejected, it is definitely not in the category of word salad, that by definition has no meaning what so ever.
This is wrong.
Saying that a pile of nonsense words can't result in
any conclusions being drawn is self-evident nonsense. The lack of a coherent radio signal means that you can conclude that no meaning is being conveyed.
by your own evidence
you have no clue what are you talking about
This is wrong.
For those who are curious, I have actually taken many higher-level maths courses; while my final major ended up being Literature rather than Computer Engineering with a minor in Physics as originally planned, I
do have the background to be able to understand this sort of thing.
I just don't
care, because it's all irrelevant anyway; it does not support the "theorem" in any form, and is simply there to give doronshadmi a wall to hide behind. I
especially don't care because, as has been demonstrated elsewhere, for all his claims of superior mathematical knowledge,
doronshadmi does not understand math.
I have no interest in wasting my time trying to decipher a poorly-worded "proof" from someone who repeatedly and demonstrably fails to grasp the concepts they attempt to use, and which is not actually relevant to the claims made in any case.
you have no clue what my theorem is, generally or particularly.
This is wrong.
I fully understand your "theorem" - in fact, I have given multiple summaries of it in previous posts. What I don't bother to deal with is the wall of nonsense that follows.
Which is irrelevant.
You actually did not say anything about my theorem
This is wrong.
Simply reading my previous posts is enough to see that this is complete and utter tripe.
Using other persons to support something that you don't understand in the first place, by your own evidence, is no more than a concrete example of how the ignorance of the mob is flourishing.
This is wrong.
Firstly, the only opinion I have offered regarding this "theorem" is my own. Your "math" is
not part of the theorem; it is an attempt to show how a system implied by the theorem operates.
As the system is not properly defined, the theorem which suggests its existence is not properly defined and is self-contradictory, and the premises which supposedly result in the theorem's adoption are completely lacking in basic supporting evidence, there is no need to address it. It is
irrelevant.
What I
have used other people's posts to point out - or would have, if I wasn't posting from phone and incapable of fetching links - is that,
even if we care at all about your irrelevant pseudomath, it is very likely wrong.
Because you don't understand math.
And you are very, very fond of making up nonsense phrases to try and hide that.
Yes, I know, anything that does not fit to your material-only theorm, is unconditionally excluded.
This is wrong.
Are we done yet?
