The Foundations of a Non-Naive Mathematics

[sparkster]

I give up...

You're a really sad person. You've spent 20 years at this?! I've tried being patient, asking specific questions, but you are clearly too ignorant of what mathematics really is to be able to answer them.

Now, of course, you're going to rationalize this post by called me a bodyguard of mathematics, telling me that I won't come to where you're standing to look at your point of view, or make ludicrous mystical comments. Of course you're free to do this, but none of that will change the fact that you don't know math and that you're theories are just the ramblings of another (unoriginal) crank.

Have fun trying to be original and deluding yourself. Have fun not answering questions and chaning the subject when you can no longer avoid the major and damning problems that are pointed out in your "theories" (and I use that term very loosely).

My last suggestion to you: actually learn some mathematics. Even if you don't believe it when you're learning it, you'll see how it works and be in a better place to critique it. When people see that you actually understand what you are trying to change, you a lot less likely to be laughed at. As things stand now, you theories are just that...laughable at best. And tragic (that you actually think that qualify as intellectual, scholarly work) at worst.

 

[Lama]

Let us clarify the 'finite' concept in my framework:

In my system I have 4 building-blocks, which are:

{}, {.}, {._.}, {__}

The cardinal of {} is 0.

The cardinal of {.} is one of many.

The cardinal of {._.} is one of many.

The cardinal of {__} is The one.

The bounds of lowest and highest existence (the ends) of these building-blocks
are determined by their cardinality, for example:

(in this example I omitted {.}_AND_{._.} and used only their building-blocks)

The lowest and highest bounds of {.} are cardinals 1 to 1.

The lowest and highest bounds of {._.} are cardinals 1 to 1.

The lowest and highest bounds of {} are cardinals 0 to 0.

The lowest and highest bounds of {__} are cardinals The 1 to The 1.

The lowest and highest bounds of {{.},{._.},{.}} are cardinals 1 to 3.

The cardinals beyond {.} are 0, n>1 and the 1.

The cardinals beyond {._.} are 0, n>1 and the 1.

The cardinals beyond {} are n>0 and The 1.

The cardinals beyond {___} are any cardinal which is not The 1.

The cardinals beyond some n are 0 and any j where j>n.

 

[Lama]

I give up ...

Dear ex-xian,

Do you say that after you read
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=282481&postcount=471 ?

Also please read my previous post (#492), thank you.

 

[sparkster]

Dear ex-xian,

Do you say that after you read
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=282481&postcount=471 ?

Also please read my previous post (#492), thank you.

Oh yes, I read it. I just reenforced my belief that you aren't interested in learning actual math or listening to critiques of your lame, pointless, and ignorant theories. Naturally, you're going to see this as a victory for yourself and the profoundly stupid ideas you write about. Please be assured that this is not the case--I'm not giving up because you've put me in my place. Rather because talking to you is like talking to a child. You can't/won't comprehend what other people write when they don't agree with you. Instead of appempting to receive criticism (which you asked for), you accuse others of being bodyguards of math, refusing to come to where you are, or other ridiculous and childish excuses.

You're either a troll or a pitiful, ignorant individual.

 

[Lama]

...because talking to you is like talking to a child.

Ho dear ex-xian, this is the best complement that I can get, and I which to be opened like a child for the rest of my life.

Now, did read also post #492 ?

 

[yesicanread]

contradiction = not-contradiction

How's this for a contradiction. Do you understand my reasoning Lama ?

So ( A = (Set = (2*A))) = Triangle inequality theorem = Triangle inequality theorem = contradiction

 

[yesicanread]

How's this for a contradiction. Do you understand my reasoning Lama ?

So ( A = (Set = (2*A))) = Triangle inequality theorem = Triangle inequality theorem = contradiction

The full theory that uses this iiis...

(A = ( Set = ( 2 * A ))) = ( Set = ( 2 * A)) = Three right angles I'm thinking.

If I hadn't posted here before, I wouldn't have seen this.

 

[sparkster]

Ho dear ex-xian, this is the best complement that I can get, and I which to be opened like a child for the rest of my life.

In that case, let me explain. I did not me "like a child" in the sense of a child's sense of wonder, amazement, and openness. On the contrary, I meant a bratty, stubborn child who clings to what he wants in spite of the adults' explanations. I hope that's more clear.

Now, did read also post #492 ?

I've read all your gibberish, yes.

 

[arildno]

I which to be opened like a child for the rest of my life.

So that's why you lobotomized yourself 20 years ago?

 

[Lama]

I've read all your gibberish, yes

You read but did not understand a single note of it, because you are not able to grasp that mathematics is not just an external method that can be learned in school, but first of all the creative abilities of parsons who can see beyond any given external method, which is based on some agreement between a group of people.

I do not belong to your school of thought, but I clearly showed that I understand the fundamental concepts of your school of thought.

On the contrary I did not show any ability to see things beyond your school of thought, because in your school of thought, you do not learn how to use your creative abilities, but only how to be a good technician of the academic standard system.

But I believe that you can do much more then that, if you reduce your aggressive attitude to unfamiliar ways of thinking, which are not belong to your school of thought.

 

[arildno]

I do not belong to your school of thought..

You do not belong to any school of thought, because you lack the ability to think (i.e, what is usually considered the defining feature of a human being)

 

[Lama]

You do not belong to any school of thought, because you lack the ability to think (i.e, what is usually considered the defining feature of a human being)

Dear arildno, so why do you waste your time in a thread of someone who cannot think?

On the contrary I learn How to develop my system because of your questions,
and I really want to thank you for that.

 

[sparkster]

You read but did not understand a single note of it, because you are not able to grasp that mathematics is not just an external method that can be learned in school, but first of all the creative abilities of parsons who can see beyond any given external method, which is based on some agreement between a group of people.

What are you smoking and where can I get some?

I do not belong to your school of thought, but I clearly showed that I understand the fundamental concepts of your school of thought.

No, you didn't. Amazing how you post such blatant lies. You displayed your ignorance of even the most simple definitions, of the most basic concepts. When challenged, you asked that we no longer discuss standard math and instead focus on your theories. Here's a hint about mathematics--you can't learn it just from widipedia and mathworld.

Tell you what. See if you can answer these questions about "standard" mathematics.

With a delta-epsilon proof, show that $$\lim_{x\rightarrow 2} (x^2+x-6) = 0$$.
Find $$\frac{d}{dx} (x^2+x-6)$$ by first principles.
Prove that $$\mathbb{Z}_6$$ is an abelian group with respect addition.
Solve this integral, $$\int xe^{-x} \,dx$$

If you can do these, then you will have demonstrated a very basic understanding of mathematics. Also, provide detailed explanations of your solutions.

On the contrary I did not show any ability to see things beyond your school of thought, because in your school of thought, you do not learn how to use your creative abilities, but only how to be a good technician of the academic standard system.

Well, you're typo is actually correct. Other than that, more self-rationalizing. Sad really. Also, the fact that you consider mathematics nothing more than techniques that you think to be sucessful at mathematics one does not need creativity shows that really haven't studied math at all. Spend some time proving things about and studying the hilbert space $$\l^2$$ and tell me no creativity is involved.

But I believe that you can do much more then that, if you reduce your aggressive attitude to unfamiliar ways of thinking, which are not belong to your school of thought.

If I had "aggressive" attitudes toward unfamiliar areas of thought, I wouldn't study mathematics, physics, philosophy, or anything interesting. The point is to explore unfamiliar things that are coherent, not gibberish. Yours is the latter, not the former.

 

[Lama]

With a delta-epsilon proof, show that...

I see that you forgot about:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

kaiser:

off course I agree with this definition. I meant for you to provide the definition for the limit of S(n), no need delta epsilon at this point. A limit can be defined using epsilon and S(n). At any case, I am not interested in your definitions at the moment. I need to be convinced that you understand and know how to use the fundamental "conventional" mathematical definitions before we can move on to your definitions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lama:

Ok, the main persons in modern Math that are related to the so called rigorous definition of the limit concept are Cauchy and Weierstrass.

Cauchy said:" When some sequence of values that are related one after the other to the same variable, are approaching to some constant, in such a way that they will be distinguished from this constant in any arbitrary smaller sizes that are chosen by us, then we can say that this constant is the limit of these infinitely many values that approaching to it."

Weierstrass took this informal definition and gave this rigorous arithmetical definition:

The sequence S1,S2,S3, … ,Sn, ... is approaching to (limit) S if for any given positive and arbitrary small number (e > 0) we can find a matched place (N) in the sequence, in such a way that the absolute value S-Sn (|S-Sn|) become smaller then any given epsilon, starting from this particular place in the sequence
(|S-Sn| < e for any N < n).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And then I clearly and simply explain in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=275250&postcount=318 why I do not share these reasoning with the rest of you.

Again, my work is in the most fundamental levels of the basic concepts of the language of Mathematics, and all I need is to show that I understand the reasoning behind these basic concepts, and I clearly showed that I understand the reasoning behind it.

Now after I showed it, I want you to show that you can understand my different point of view about these fundamental concepts.

And you have to understand that in this gentle level your technical skills cannot help you, but only your most simple ability to understand deep things, that cannot be thought by any external method.

It is like a swing in jazz, you have it or you don't have it, and no school can give you the swing.

So, I have a very simple question to you.

Can you take off your boxing gloves and try to understand my reasoning with your bear hands?

 

[sparkster]

<List of excuses>

I didn't ask you if you agreed with it, I challenged you to prove that you actually understand math. Will you show that you do, admit that you don't, or continue to make excuses? I think you'll chose the last.

 

[kaiser soze]

Lama, quoting definition you downloaded from the web does not prove you understand them. I agree with ex-xian, prove him and us that you know basic math by accepting his challenge.

Kaiser.

 

[Lama]

didn't ask you if you agreed with it, I challenged you to prove that you actually understand math. Will you show that you do, admit that you don't, or continue to make excuses? I think you'll chose the last.

So you cannot do it, because you cannot understand anything of what I wrote to you in post #504.

Again I do not need to show that I know how to use your reasoning to prove things, all I need to show is that I understand the most fundamental reasoning behind it, and I clearly showed it in my previous post.

If you do not understand it then you cannot understand what is the meaning of fundamental work on the most basic concepts of the Langauge of Mathematics.

prove him and us that you know basic math by accepting his challenge

By these words you show that you do not understand the meaning of the words 'basic Math', and so is ex-xian.

Basic Math is exactly what I am doing in my work, when you understand 'basic math' as basic techniques of your reasoning.

 

[arildno]

Your a ****ing retard, Lama!
Stick your head up your ass and eat your own **** if you like, but you won't get any here to enjoy the taste of it

 

[Lama]

Well arildno I like to eat @@@@@ more then **** , so you see we have a different taste.

 

[sparkster]

Again I do not need to show that I know how to use your reasoning to prove things, all I need to show is that I understand the most fundamental reasoning behind it, and I clearly showed it in my previous post.

Oh really. Then why did you write this?

Please demonstrate some fundamental mathematical idea, which can clearly show that I do not understand (again, not disagree with, but do not understand) its standard interpretation.

If you do not understand it then you cannot understand what is the meaning of fundamental work on the most basic concepts of the Langauge of Mathematics.

I freely admit that I don't understand much of what you write. It's total gibberish. Will you also admit that you don't understand math?

prove him and us that you know basic math by accepting his challenge

By these words you show that you do not understand the meaning of the words 'basic Math', and so is ex-xian.

Basic Math is exactly what I am doing in my work, when you understand 'basic math' as basic techniques of your reasoning.

Once again, you change the meaning of words to suit yourself. You claimed that standard math is a shadow your system and that you have a strong, solid grasp on standard math. Personally, I think you were lying and I think it's been demonstrated by many people that you don't understand mathematics. Prove us wrong.

 

[Lama]

So ex-xian and kaiser soze,

If you still cannot understand by reading my work that I cannot write what I write without a deep understanding of standard reasoning, then you have no ability to see beyond what you learned in your school of thought.

 

[sparkster]

So ex-xian and kaiser soze,

If you still cannot understand by reading my work that I cannot write what I write without a deep understanding of standard reasoning, then you have no ability to see beyond what you learned in your school of thought.

Prove that you have this understanding. You offered to before! Here, I'll quote you again.

Please demonstrate some fundamental mathematical idea, which can clearly show that I do not understand (again, not disagree with, but do not understand) its standard interpretation.

If you don't, you've just lost what little credibility you might have retained.

 

[Lama]

Ex-xian,

Do you know what is a fundamental Mathematical Idea (and I do not mean to some basic techniques to prove things)?

 

[sparkster]

Do the problems, which you asked for, or admit that you can't. It's as simple as that.

A correction: the operation for the abelian group problem should have been circle addition, not addition. Addition isn't an operation for Zmodn.

 

[quantumdude]

It seems that for every single question that is asked of Lama, he either cuts and pastes old posts or posts a link to his book. This has gone on for 26 pages, and there is no indication that it will not go on for another 26, if left on its own. Since there is no need to waste bandwidth at PF on that sort of back-and-forthing, I'm putting a stop to it now.

Here's that link again: http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/No-Naive-Math.pdf

Apart from that, say goodnight to this thread.