Dave Posted July 25, 2004 Posted July 25, 2004 If 0,0,0,0,0,0,... reaches 0 then it is not a collection of infinitely many elements anymore. I don't get what you're trying to infer here. It doesn't matter whether the value of the limit is actually an element of the sequence or not. When we have a sequence of numbers converging to a limit l, then we can define this rigorously; however, from an intuitive point of view, all this definition is saying is that if we take any point on the sequence, then there will always be an infinite number of points between that point and the limit. If you're talking about something completely different, then I apologise profusely. If you could explain an "XOR connection", then it'd be nice.
bloodhound Posted July 25, 2004 Posted July 25, 2004 yeah. got no idea what XOR is. heard it when my fren was talking electronics. some kind of logic gate i suppose
Dave Posted July 25, 2004 Posted July 25, 2004 That's the only place I've ever heard of it apart from programming. Stands for "exclusive or" - basically it's either one or the other, not both. Truth table: A | B | A xor B T T F T F T F T T F F F
Guest Doron Shadmi Posted July 25, 2004 Posted July 25, 2004 anything can be shown by changing the definition of something. Definitions depending on our most basic insights, which related to some fundamental mathematical concept. I do not change the definition level about Limit and Infinity mathmatical concepts. I go deeper than that and change the insight of these concepts, which leads to a paradigm shift of the Language of Mathematics. I dont see what ur point is.. What exactly are you trying to show us in this thread? that all the work done by mathematicians since ages ago are flawed? No, they did a great work, but since my work is a paradigm shift we can re-examine the Language of Mathematics from its most fundamental concepts.
Guest Doron Shadmi Posted July 25, 2004 Posted July 25, 2004 When we have a sequence of numbers converging to a limit l, then we can define this rigorously; This is the Whole point, because nothing is converging when we deal with a collection of infinitely many elements that can be found in infinitely many different scales. I disagree with the intuitions of Weierstrass, Cauchy, Dedekind, Cantor and other great mathematicians that developed the current mathematical methods, which are dealing with the Limit and the Infinity concepts. And my reason is this: No collection of infinitely many elements that can be found in infinitely many different scales, can have any link with some given constant, in such a way that it will be considered as a limit of the discussed collection. In short, Nothing is approaching from the collection to the given constant, as can be clearly seen in my sports car analogy at page 2 of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ed.pdf Take each separate position of the car, then compare it to zero state and you can clearly see that nothing is approaching to zero state. Therefore no such constant can be considered as a limit of the above collection. It means that if the described collection is A and the limit is B, then the connection between A,B cannot be anything but A_XOR_B (any transformation from A state to B state cannot be but a quantum-like leap). If you're talking about something completely different, then I apologise profusely. If you could explain an "XOR connection", then it'd be nice. There is no way to isolate and talk about my new points of view, if you do not understand tham. The only way to do that is to read stap by stap all of my first posts (including their links) and only then we can talk on any part of them. Thank you. Dororn
Dave Posted July 25, 2004 Posted July 25, 2004 You seem to be throwing ideas at us that you're not defining in a mathematical fashion (or I just don't know about them). Until you come along with a formal mathematical definition of your ideas then there's no way I'm going to make any sense of your ideas. I've read your initial posting and that doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me either. In short, we could be arguing about this until the cows come home because you've got a different idea about convergence than the rest of us have.
Guest Doron Shadmi Posted July 25, 2004 Posted July 25, 2004 Hi Dave, You seem to be throwing ideas at us that you're not defining in a mathematical fashion Please give a detailed example where I am throwing ideas that are not based on Mathematical thinking. ...you've got a different idea about convergence than the rest of us have. Yes, I have, and this the purpose of this thread, to get your detailed response on my non-standard ideas, if you want.
Dave Posted July 25, 2004 Posted July 25, 2004 Please give a detailed example where I am throwing ideas that are not based on Mathematical thinking. I never said that. I said that you need to post something along the lines of "this is my idea" and define your ideas precisely.
Guest Doron Shadmi Posted July 26, 2004 Posted July 26, 2004 So I'll ask you again, please give me some example of an Idea, which has no precise reasoning behind it, thank you.
Dave Posted July 27, 2004 Posted July 27, 2004 Your reply is not making a lot of sense in the context of my request. It is blatently obvious that you have put a lot of thought into this, and obviously you have put a lot of mathematical reasoning into this. What I am saying is: make a post that summarises all of your ideas in one concise block of text, and try and define those ideas by using strict mathematical notation, in a structure that is easier to understand. This way, I (and others) can offer a better opinion on your ideas, because at the moment they seem to be scattered around the thread quite haphazardly.
Guest Doron Shadmi Posted July 29, 2004 Posted July 29, 2004 Dear Dave, Please let me explain my problem to address my ideas by standard mathematical methods. Let us say that you are living in a 2-D universe an I ma living an a 3-D universe. I can see any x,y movement of yours and you can see only my x,y movements where any z movement of mine is understood as x,y movement by you. I try to explain you my z movements but if you are in a 2-D universe, you will not be able to understand me, and I have no ability to show you a z movement in a 2-D universe. The one and only one solution, in my opinion, is that you have no choice but to come to my 3-D universe, and only then you will be able to see my z movements. If you have any advice or another opinion then I'll be glad to know them. Thank you.
Dave Posted July 29, 2004 Posted July 29, 2004 I don't see how that links to your posts regarding to infinity? (NB: I'm not trying to insult you by sounding patronising, I'd just like to give you a wall to bounce ideas off of)
Guest Doron Shadmi Posted July 29, 2004 Posted July 29, 2004 I don't see how that links to your posts regarding to infinity? Please tell me why do you think so?
Dave Posted July 29, 2004 Posted July 29, 2004 You seem to have used some kind of analogy to your idea about limits, but I don't get what you're trying to imply by using this analogy and how it links into the picture as a whole.
Dave Posted July 29, 2004 Posted July 29, 2004 Well, I can't - it's your idea, I just can't see how it links into everything.
Guest Doron Shadmi Posted July 29, 2004 Posted July 29, 2004 Do you mean that you do not find even a one subject that you agree/do not agree with?
Dave Posted July 29, 2004 Posted July 29, 2004 No, I'm saying I just don't get what the entire 2D/3D post was about.
Guest Doron Shadmi Posted July 29, 2004 Posted July 29, 2004 My theory can be understood only if you can see (understand) my z movements (reasoning). There is no way to translate them to a x,y only system.
Dave Posted July 29, 2004 Posted July 29, 2004 Okay then. So if I can't understand your theories (in theory), then why post the thread?
Guest Doron Shadmi Posted July 29, 2004 Posted July 29, 2004 Because by my experience over the last 4 years, from time to time I find persons that understand me, and then we share each other's ideas through a fruitful dialog.
Sayonara Posted July 29, 2004 Posted July 29, 2004 The 2D/3D limitation looks like a crock to me, unless there's some reason why we can represent and explain tesseracts in 3-dimensional terms (and/or in a 2-dimensional medium) which does not also apply to the problems of telling a 2D being about a third dimension. Or I could have missed the point. That happens.
Sayonara Posted July 29, 2004 Posted July 29, 2004 Hi Sayonara³' date='2d/3d is just an analogy.[/quote'] I realise that, but analogies are only useful because they refer to something that is true (or 'real' in the physical sense.) [edit] Also, an analogy is supposed to be familiar to the audience, in order to anchor alien concepts in the real world for them. An analogy that requires the audience to imagine concepts or rule sets for which they don't have any frame of reference has pretty much failed from the start. Not that I'm picking holes or anything.
Recommended Posts