Transfinites?

[Monad]

Cantor used the expression 2^aleph0 in order to represent the magnitude of R set.

Since base 2 can be represented as a tree diagram, we can use it in order to research a collection of infinitely many elements.

For example, let us look at the infinitely long Top_to_Bottom Cyan tree, which is also represented as
{1, 2, 4, 8, 16, ...}.

It is obvious that we always find finitely many leafs in any arbitrary level of this tree, so this tree cannot have the magnitude of 2^aleph0.

Furthermore, since in any arbitrary level we are still in N set, we can never define aleph0 as a transfinite number.

Now let us say that we start by a collection of infinitely many R members, which are represented by infinitely many Green points.

In this case, we know that we can never start to use base 2 in order to construct a Bottom_to_Top tree, if our collection of points can construct a solid line, and if we do that, we discover that we get infinitely many identical trees that cannot have |R| (if, again, R set is like a solid line).




1 |
2^0 _______._______ |
/ \ |
2^1 ___.___ ___.___ |
/ \ / \ |
2^2 _._ _._ _._ _._ |
/ \ / \ / \ / \ |
2^3 . . . . . . . . |
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ V
2^4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . oo


8 8
2^3 ___.___ ___.___
/ \ / \
2^2 _._ _._ _._ _._
/ \ / \ / \ / \
2^1 . . . . . . . .
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ ---> oo
2^0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...


4 4 4 4
2^2 _._ _._ _._ _._
/ \ / \ / \ / \
2^1 . . . . . . . .
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ ---> oo
2^0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...


2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2^1 . . . . . . . .
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ ---> oo
2^0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...


1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ---> oo
2^0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...


If we look at http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PowerSet.html then we can see that the expression 2^S (where S is any number) is a general notation of a power set.


It means that |{0,1}| standing in the base of any power set.

And it is easy to show that, for example, 2^3 is equivalent to the power set of 3:



8
2^3 ___.___
/ \
2^2 _._ _._
/ \ / \
2^1 . . . .
/ \ / \ / \ / \
2^0 . . . . . . . .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

is equivalent to |{{}, {0}, {1}, {2}, {0,1}, {0,2}, {1,2}, {0,1,2}}| = 2^3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


And because base |{0,1}| cannot be found, then the whole idea of the transfinite cardinals does not hold, if the R set elements have no room to construct a Binary tree.

And if they have a room to construct a Binary tree, then R set is enumerable, and Cantor's second diagonal method does not hold.

[Keeblergiant]

I didn't read the rest of your post, but this is wrong:


Cantor used the expression 2^aleph0 in order to represent the magnitude of R set

2^aleph0=aleph1...however, we do not know whether or not |R|=aleph1...that's called the continuum hypothesis.

[Monad]

I didn't read the rest of your post, but this is wrong:


Quote:
Cantor used the expression 2^aleph0 in order to represent the magnitude of R set


No dear this is right, accoring to Cantor 2^aleph0 = |R| see for yuorself:

http://www.ii.com/math/ch/

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Continuum.html

The Continuum Hypothesis is Aleph0 < ? < 2^Aleph0.

[Keeblergiant]

accoring to Cantor 2^aleph0 = |R|

And that's because Cantor believed in the continuum hypothesis

[Monad]

And that's because Cantor believed in the continuum hypothesis



No dear, 2^Aleph0 = |R| = c according to Modern Mathematics.


By the Continuum Hypothesis we ask if 2^Aleph0 is Aleph1, or not?

[Zach]

well, im already lost :Llol:

[Keeblergiant]

Yeah...you're right. Haha I haven't really thought about it for a while. Atleast I got the continuum hypothesis part right (|R|=aleph1).

[Keeblergiant]

However...after reading your whole post, it seemed familiar...I'd seen the same thing before (differently worded, but same argument). However, there is a way around it...I'll check it out in one of my books tonight and post it later...

[Monad]

However, there is a way around it...I'll check it out in one of my books tonight and post it later...

Great :2thumbs:

If you looK at pages 4-7 of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/TRANSFINITES.pdf you will see why Cantor did not prove that |P(S)| > |S| .

[Keeblergiant]

I was going to type up Cantor's first uncountability proof (the one that shows that the real numbers are uncountable without second diagonalization), however, it's too much typing and can be found after a simple google search.

I'll read your transfinite paper in a bit (I need food right now), but a little question first: When you say P(S) are you referring to the power set?

[Keeblergiant]

Wow...definitely don't like the conclusion in the transfinite paper. You cannot say that P{x} cannot "exist" without {x}, because P{x} is a self-contained set, and if we followed your logic, no set could exist ({1} cannot exist without {}, and since {} is fundamental it would not be able to exist at all).

[Monad]

Wow...definitely don't like the conclusion in the transfinite paper. You cannot say that P{x} cannot "exist" without {x}, because P{x} is a self-contained set, and if we followed your logic, no set could exist ({1} cannot exist without {}, and since {} is fundamental it would not be able to exist at all).

And because of this reason {} is defind by an Axiom (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AxiomoftheEmptySet.html).





Let us show that Aleph0 also cannot be found:

Cantor used the expression Aleph0 in order to represent the magnitude of N set.

In the basis of Von Neumann Hierarchy there exists a Binary-Tree:



0 = |{ }|



1 = |{{ }}| = {0}
1.
|


2 = |{{ },{{ }}}| = {0,1}
1. .
| |
2|____|
|


3 = |{{ },{{ }},{{ },{{ }}}}| = {0,1,2}
1. . . .
| | | |
2|____| |____|
| |
3|__________|
|


4 = |{{ },{{ }},{{ },{{ }}},{{ },{{ }},{{ },{{ }}}}}| = {0,1,2,3}
1. . . . . . . .
| | | | | | | |
2|____| |____| |____| |____|
| | | |
3|__________| |__________|
| |
4|______________________|
|
|

...

This Binary-Tree stands at the basis of N members.

Since base 2 can be represented as a tree diagram, we can use it in order to research a collection of infinitely many elements.

For example, let us look at the infinitely long Top_to_Bottom blue tree, which is also represented as
{1, 2, 4, 8, 16, ...}:


1 |
2^0 _______._______ |
/ \ |
2^1 ___.___ ___.___ |
/ \ / \ |
2^2 _._ _._ _._ _._ |
/ \ / \ / \ / \ |
2^3 . . . . . . . . |
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ V
2^4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . oo

Since in any arbitrary level we are still in N set, we can never define Aleph0 as a transfinite number.

Now let us say that we start by a collection of infinitely many N members, which are represented by infinitely many green points:




8 8
2^3 ___.___ ___.___
/ \ / \
2^2 _._ _._ _._ _._
/ \ / \ / \ / \
2^1 . . . . . . . .
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ ---> oo
2^0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...


4 4 4 4
2^2 _._ _._ _._ _._
/ \ / \ / \ / \
2^1 . . . . . . . .
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ ---> oo
2^0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...


2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2^1 . . . . . . . .
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ ---> oo
2^0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...


1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ---> oo
2^0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...


In this case, when we construct a Bottom_to_Top trees, we discover that we get infinitely many identical trees that cannot have |N| because also in this case we are still in N.


And also in this case we still in N because it is nothing but an horizontal version of the blue tree:



16
_______._______
8 / \
___.___ ___.___ ___.___
4 / \ / \ / \
_._ _._ _._ _._ _._ _._ _._
2 / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ --->oo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...


In short, the transfinite system does not exist.

[Keeblergiant]

And because of this reason {} is defind by an Axiom (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AxiomoftheEmptySet.html).

It's defined as an axiom, but not for that reason. It's defined as an axiom because that is what is needed to create the natural numbers, however, the same you've described in your conclusion can apply to a non-numerical set, such as {a,b,e,h}.

[Monad]

It's defined as an axiom, but not for that reason. It's defined as an axiom because that is what is needed to create the natural numbers, however, the same you've described in your conclusion can apply to a non-numerical set, such as {a,b,e,h}.


You missed th point dear, because if we are talking about non-numerical system, then {} is the Set concept itself, and without {} we cannot talk about {a,b,e,h}.

In short, we cannot avoid {} if we want to talk about sets.

The beautiful thing of Von Neumann Hierarchy is, that he uses the Set concept itself in order to define the Natural numbers, so my conclusion is actually based on the existence of the Set concept itself.

In other words: '{}' is the Set concept itself, and I use it as the fundamental must have building-block of my conclusion.

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



Now take a continuus set of points- such as a line

No dear, no model that is described by a solid (pointless) line (for further information please look at http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/SegPoint.pdf), can also be described by a model, which is based on infinitely many elements.


I want to clarify my argument about the transfinite system, which is based on a collection of infinitely many elements + a universal quantification that is related to them.

I clime that if we have a collection of infinitely many elements, then no universal quantification can be related to them, because if we force the universal quantification on a collection of infinitely many elements, we get an actual infinity, and actual infinity is too strong in order to be used as an input in the domain of any language, including the language of Mathematics.


For example:

No collection of infinitely many segments can construct a one infinitely long solid line, and the reason is very simple:

In a collection of infinitely many elements, we always have elements that can be manipulated by us by using functions or any other mathematical tool.

If we force the universal quantification on a collection of infinitely many elements, the result is that we find ourselves out of the domain of the collection of infinitely many elements, which is equivalent to the state of a one infinitely long solid line.

And no mathematical tool can deal with this totality because on information can be found and manipulated when we deal with Actual infinity (which in this case, is represented by a one infinitely long solid (pointless) line).

The Idea of the transfinite system according to Cantor, actually forces the universal quantification on a collection of infinitely many elements, but then it is totally misses the results of this forcing, and continue to use mathematical manipulations on Actual infinity state, which is nothing but a fundamental conceptual frailer of his understanding of the Infinity concept.

Please see this diagram for better understanding:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/RiemannsLimits.pdf


In short, it is about time that Cantor's infinity world will get off stage.

[Keeblergiant]

You missed th point dear, because if we are talking about non-numerical system, then {} is the Set concept itself, and without {} we cannot talk about {a,b,e,h}.

No, {a,b,e,h} is a self contained set. If you look at the way the axiom of the empty set is stated, it only applies to numerical sets. {a,b,c} and {{},{a},{b},{c},{a,b},{a,c},{b,c},{a,b,c}} are related in the fact that one is the powerset of the other, but {{},{a},{b},{c},{a,b},{a,c},{b,c},{a,b,c}} is not reliant on {a,b,c} to define it.

[Monad]

but {{},{a},{b},{c},{a,b},{a,c},{b,c},{a,b,c}} is not reliant on {a,b,c} to define it.

I disagree with you, because {a} cannot be defined if the set concept itself (which is notated as '{}') is not defined.

Also {a,b,c} cannot be defined if {a} (for example) is not defined, and P({a,b,c}) cannot be defined if {a,b,c} is not defined, etc...

You simply ignored Von Neumann Hierarchy that clearly shows this dependency of existence.

In short, only non-composed elements are not depend on their self existence on other elements,
and any Power(x) (which is clearly a composed element) is defiantly depend on the existence of x, otherwise it cannot be considered as the Power of x.

[Keeblergiant]

I disagree with you, because {a} cannot be defined if the set concept itself (which is notated as '{}') is not defined.

But, when you say {} you are talking about a set, not set notation.

[Monad]

But, when you say {} you are talking about a set, not set notation.

Exactly, therefore {a} must be a set where a is not necessarily a set.

Also pay attention to the fact that {} is a "must have" member of any power set, and without it, there is no power set.

And again you ignored the fact that a composed element like a power set, cannot be considered as a fundamental building-block.

[Keeblergiant]

Exactly, therefore {a} must be a set where a is not necessarily a set.

And this has to do with what? I was talking about how {a} is not dependent on {}...


Also pay attention to the fact that {} is a "must have" member of any power set, and without it, there is no power set.

And your point? {a,b,c} is still a set that is not dependent on {}.



And again you ignored the fact that a composed element like a power set, cannot be considered as a fundamental building-block.

Fundamental building block for what? I was talking about non-numerical sets...they don't have "building-blocks." You cannot derive {dog, cat} from any number system (and I am talking about the actual objects, not the words, so you can't use any a=1, b=2, c=3 crap).

[Monad]

{} is the container itself and without it we cannot talk about the existence of any set.

In the case of Emptiness, we have only {} without any content.

My proof is based on the dependency of the power set on the existence of the set concept itself.

Therefore the minimal power set is not less then {{}}, and we can learn that without {}, {{}} cannot exist.

So please save your dogs and cats to another story.

[Keeblergiant]

{} is the container itself and without it we cannot talk about the existence of any set.

No, but we were discussing the empty set, which isn't the container for anything. Notion and notation are two different things.

[Monad]

but we were discussing the empty set, which isn't the container for anything.

Simplicity is the name of the game, more you simple more you exist.

Try to define P(X) without the existence of X, for example:

Try to define P({}) (={{}}) without the existence of {}.

In other words {} can exist without P({}) but not vice versa.

A person that do not understand first the deep connections between simplicity and symmetry, cannot
understand the depth of the Language of Mathematics and its reasoning and use mechanically (without any deep insight) its tools.



Notion and notation are two different things.

We need both body and soul, in order to have a useful framework.


which isn't the container for anything

{} is an Empty container, where {{}}(=P({}) ) is some example of a Non-empty container.

In both cases, if '{' and '}' are not used, then we do not have any framework to talk about.

[Hvyarms]

So one scientist(S1) was in his lab arguing with another scientist(S2).

S1 said that if a tree falls in the forest and no one was around to hear it it would make no sound.

S2 disagrees and said that if a tree falls in the forest and no one was around to hear it, it would still make a sound.

They are not arguing about the physical properties of the tree or even that of sound... they are arguing about the DEFINITION of sound.

One believes for sound to exist someone must hear it, the other thinks it is independent of an observer.

My point is how we look at an issue is going to determine how others react to it dependent upon how their definitions conflict with ours.

I did'nt read the stuff above... I just saw posts arguing back and forth.

I don't know if this holds here but you might want to see if it does so you can save both you and the other person the time of arguing back and forth rather than for concepts, but for your own definitions.

[Keeblergiant]

Yeah...that's why I didn't make a reply, because it was obvious that I was never going to listen to him, and he was never going to listen to me

[Monad]

S1 said that if a tree falls in the forest and no one was around to hear it it would make no sound.

S2 disagrees and said that if a tree falls in the forest and no one was around to hear it, it would still make a sound.

In both cases something is changed, because a tree falls in the forest and its environment is changed even no one is aware about it.

So both S1 and S2 agree about the changes.


Yeah...that's why I didn't make a reply, because it was obvious that I was never going to listen to him, and he was never going to listen to me

No dear you finally understood that P() is meaningless, but you don't have the guts to say that I am right in this case.

[Hvyarms]

I want to emphasis I didn't read your dispute.... but to monad.

Do you know how to comprehend when reading?



In both cases something is changed, because a tree falls in the forest and its environment is changed even no one is aware about it.

So both S1 and S2 agree about the changes.

The argument wasn't about if something changed or not... both obviously agreed on that.... the question was how they defined something. Anyone could see that something changed... the argument was about a definition of how something EXISTS.

You seem to be a very argumentative person who thinks they know everything about everything. The fact of the matter is this... if you look at something and draw conclusions that are meaningless... they are just that.. Meaningless. Everyone agree's about the change... the poitn I was bringing out was possibly you two were disagreeing about a definition of a concept.

Did I read your stuff? No... sure didn't... was just offering a possible explanation that might hold who knows.

But now see'ng that you just try to correct everything posted even when there is nothing to correct, as in my post, it shows to me I would lean to the other guy being correct even if he isn't.

WHY? Because I would trust someone who doesn't attempt to overanalyze moreso than I would someone who does try to... IE You.

Is this an attack against you? No... just pointing out what I observed from your last post.

[Keeblergiant]

No dear you finally understood that P() is meaningless, but you don't have the guts to say that I am right in this case.

No, you're just too fuqing stupid to realize that there is a difference between the notation of a set and the empty set.

[dutchie]

KG, give it up...

[Monad]

No dear Keeblergiant you are too rude to understand that the concept "Empty Set" needs both some concept and some notation that can help us to speack about this concept.

So any set is both some concept and '{' '}' that can help us to use it.

In the case of the Empty set, this is the simpler then any other concept that you choose, so there is hierarchy of simplicity in any Set theory where {} exists.

And for you dear Hvyarms, you blame me by your own problems, because if you read and understand what I write, then I do not know everything, I simply do not agree with your analogy and point out that there can be some agreement between people, even if they have different technical definitions, and this agreement maybe can help them to define even deeper and more general definition then the two original separated definitions.

But in this case you and Keeblergiant (each one by his own style) do not realy want to hear the voice of other people.

[Keeblergiant]

NOTATION DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. It is the concept behind the notation. I can give anything any notation I want and it still wouldn't matter, as long as the concept stays the same. Notation is arbitrary, notion is not.

[Monad]

Dear Keeblergiant,

But I agree with you, therefore the Emptiness concept is simpler then any other concept, that is used By Math.

But in order to use it we need a framework and the framework is the set concept.

Now in order to discuss about Emptiness by using the set concept, we need some tools, and in this case we use the notation technique and choose some agreed symbols, in order to address our ideas.

In the basis of a formal system there are what we call, true values, which are the valid conditions of our system.

But after we show their validity by logical propositions and axioms, we still can measure the power of the existence of some system, and this is exactly the meaning of the first-order concept, where second-order concepts cannot exist without the first-order concepts.

So we cannot avoid the hierarchy of existence in any mathematical framework.

Now in ZF, for example, it is agreed that the axiom of the empty set and the axiom of the power set are not depend on each other, but their products has an hierarchy of simplicity, which means that the axiom of the power set cannot produce anything if there is no (at least) some existing set, and in this case, the axiom of the empty set produces the minimal product which is necessary for the axiom of the power set product.

As a result the products of the axiom of the power set are composed by products like the empty set, but the empty set is not composed by the products of the power set, and we clearly get an hierarchy of dependency of the products, that cannot be ignored.

In short the product of P(X) depend on X and not vice versa.

I used this fact in order to show that P(X) has to be examined by X, and not vise versa.


No, but we were discussing the empty set, which isn't the container for anything. Notion and notation are two different things.

The Empty set is the container of the Emptiness concept.

Since Pure Mathematics is no more then a theorethical framework, then it does not deal directly with actual things, but only with their concepts.

In short, {x-concept} is not x-itself, and if you forget this simple fact along the way, then you are not in the scope of a theoretical framework anymore.

[Hvyarms]

And for you dear Hvyarms, you blame me by your own problems, because if you read and understand what I write, then I do not know everything, I simply do not agree with your analogy and point out that there can be some agreement between people, even if they have different technical definitions, and this agreement maybe can help them to define even deeper and more general definition then the two original separated definitions.

But in this case you and Keeblergiant (each one by his own style) do not realy want to hear the voice of other people.

Ok, I was nice but I'll be blunt.

Your an idiot... you try to sugar coat your arguments with "dears" and attempting to sound pacifistic for one simple reason... You don't know what the hell your talking about and your trying to sound smart. Explain to me how MY ARGUMENT WAS WRONG. I had no problems in my argument.. you brought up a COMPLETELY different argument that was IRRELAVENT regarding my original argument.

Quite frankly... If I don't understand something... I could almost say with 100% accuracy that you won't. I'm not here trying to toot my own horn or whatever, but frankly I know a lot... about a lot of area's, as many here know.

For Your original comment to my analogy. IT HAD NO RELEVANCE. I don't think you understand this simple concept. HOW is it relevant to talk about a CONCEPT when two people are arguing about a DEFINITION of that concept? It's not. Did I one time in my post say conceptually they weren't thinking the same thing? No. YOU guessed and pulled it out of the land of no relevance.

It is IRRELAVENT whether or not a concept is similar if people's arguments are clouded by a definition. Furthermore, in my specific argument I made to both of you I was SPECIFICALLY talking about a definition as an abstract concept relating to your argument. The fact that YOU extrapolated my definition argument into a conceptual argument is once again IRRELAVENT.

If you can't argue why my definition argument can't hold... then why argue at all. Because once again you were trying to sound smart when obviously you lack that trait.

It would be like two people arguing about Astrophysics and then me comming into the middle of the argument and saying "Green Tea is Cool"... it is irrelavent... plain and simple. Just like your argument directed at MY argument was IRRELAVENT.

Could people be arguing about a concept similarly as you suggest? Why Yes they could... wow thats nice to know... now what relevance does that have to my argument about definitions? None.

So once again I reenforce my original argument toward you saying you simply are INCAPABLE of performing proper reading comprehension and therefore your opinion regarding both my topic now as well as the original topic of this post most likely are null.

[Monad]

you brought up a COMPLETELY different argument that was IRRELAVENT regarding my original argument.

Dear Hvyarms,

This is exactly what I said, I do not try to argue with the validity of your argument, all I showed is that even if there are different definitions about some event, then still it is maybe possible to find some point of view that can close the gap between the different definitions, in a deeper level of understanding.

In the case of your falling tree, in both cases there are waves in the air that make changes, without any connection if they understood by some existing cognition as sound, or not.

In the case of a sound, it is obvious that some cognition has to exist in the range of these waves, so your original analogy is reduced to a very simple question, which is:

Is there an EXISTING cognition in the range of these waves, or not?

[Hvyarms]

Dear Hvyarms,

This is exactly what I said, I do not try to argue with the validity of your argument, all I showed is that even if there are different definitions about some event, then still it is maybe possible to find some point of view that can close the gap between the different definitions, in a deeper level of understanding.

In the case of your falling tree, in both cases there are waves in the air that make changes, without any connection if they understood by some existing cognition as sound, or not.

In the case of a sound, it is obvious that some cognition has to exist in the range of these waves, so your original analogy is reduced to a very simple question, which is:

Is there an EXISTING cognition in the range of these waves, or not?

That's exactly what my first post was about... the fact is two people were arguing about the WRONG thing... different definitions rather than different concepts. All you did was reinforce my argument... The analogy isn't reduced to anything... it holds.. you attempting to comment on something to "sound smarter" is what is questioned here. The fact of the matter is my analogy is correct... it displays a circumstance as demonstrated above... whether or not this applies to this situation that you guys are talking about, I have no clue. The fact of the matter is your argument is pointless because all it does is reinforce my original argument. If your argument is not meant as a different opinion, but to say I'm right... then you succeeded. If you meant something else... you failed... badly.

[Monad]

If your argument is not meant as a different opinion, but to say I'm right... then you succeeded. If you meant something else... you failed... badly.

The simplest facts have to be taken first, and not the opinions about them.

In the case of the falling tree, it is agreed that there are waves in the air.

On this common basis, it is also agreed that in order to understand them as "suond", we need a cogniniton in their scope, that all.

Strictly speacking, If there is an awared cognition, there are waves in the air and sound, and if there is no cognition, there are still waves in the air.

So the common thing has to be the waves in the air, and then one person talking only about this common thing, and the other preson add a cognition in the range of them.

Conclusion, both of them are right, according to their minimal conditions.

[Hvyarms]

The simplest facts have to be taken first, and not the opinions about them.

In the case of the falling tree, it is agreed that there are waves in the air.

On this common basis, it is also agreed that in order to understand them as "suond", we need a cogniniton in their scope, that all.

Strictly speacking, If there is an awared cognition, there are waves in the air and sound, and if there is no cognition, there are still waves in the air.

So the common thing has to be the waves in the air, and then one person talking only about this common thing, and the other preson add a cognition in the range of them.

Conclusion, both of them are right, according to their minimal conditions.

Ok after all of these explanations and stuff your still clueless so I am going to deem you an idiot and move on after this post because it's wasting my time with someone who obviously can't grasp a simple concept.

Once again, ALL of your arguments are irrelavent. NO ONE CARES ABOUT WHAT THEY SHOULD BE ARGUING ABOUT. The point of my post was to demonstrate how people can make human errors by arguing about the WRONG THINGS.

IT IS FVCKING UNDERSTOOD THEY ARE ARGUING ABOUT THE WRONG THING.

I don't think you grasp that STILL.

It is irrelavant if they are right, wrong, indifferent or otherwise. I was pointing out HOW and WHY they were arguing to attempt to stop your argument in case had a basis here which again I didn't know if it would since I didn't read your crap.

You simply can't grasp an ABSTRACT concept. You have to attempt to analyze it further than it should be once again.

For that reason alone without reading the other guy's argument I will believe him.

Once you come here and say... wow I woke up... I'm a tool.. then I'll listen to you.

[Monad]

You do not get it man, I simply do not care about your falling tree analogy, because it is IRRELEVANT in the case of the dialog between Keeblergiant and me.

I tried to show it to you, but you are so concentrated in your own Ego, therefore you missed it.

Keeblergiant and me are definitely arguing about the right things, and accept of your rude Ego you did not demostrate that you understand about what we are arguing, so first show that you understand deeply what stands in the basis of our disagreement, and only then you can use any analogies that you want,

Until then, you have nothing to say, because general analogies, which are not connected the agument between Keeblergiant and me, ARE IRRELEVANT.

[Hvyarms]

You do not get it man, I simply do not care about your falling tree analogy, because it is IRRELEVANT in the case of the dialog between Keeblergiant and me.

I tried to show it to you, but you are so concentrated in your own Ego, therefore you missed it.

Keeblergiant and me are definitely arguing about the right things, and accept of your rude Ego you did not demostrate that you understand about what we are arguing, so first show that you understand deeply what stands in the basis of our disagreement, and only then you can use any analogies that you want,

Until then, you have nothing to say, because general analogies, which are not connected the agument between Keeblergiant and me, ARE IRRELEVANT.

ROFL, your such an idiot it's hilarious. I've backed you so far into your corner that it's crazy. You went from one argument, to another, to another. Now your argument is that my analogy doesn't apply. I said time and time again my argument was ABSTRACT and quite possibly might not apply to your argument. I also stated that I hadn't nor wanted to read your pathetic little argument. The fact that YOU can't put a sentence together is the real problem. If for the last 10 + posts all you have been trying to say is "Your analogy doesn't apply to our situation"... THEN STATE IT THUSLY (deleted).

Your such an (deleted) ... lol.

[Monad]

Dear Hvyarms,

I gave you the right analogy by using your falling tree in a different way, but your EGO cannot give you the chance to see anything but itself.

So if you don't know it yet, your EGO is talking to itself, and it is very sad to hear what words he says to itsef.

[Bigsky770]

. . .No reason in the world why we can't get along in here. Please, no name-calling....K?

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

[dutchie]

Yeah, I second that! I already posted something like "Give it up.", and now it applies to all of you. Apparently both Monad AND Keebler Giant won't give an inch towards each other, and I don't give a shit who's wrong or who's right (I understand nothing of the ongoing argument anyway).

I don't know what it is you're trying to prove, Monad, but it's not something very many people here at AO give a f.ck about anyway, so divert your attention towards something else, or take your argument and go to some math theory discussion forum, of which I'm sure there are many to be found on the web.

[Zach]

(I understand nothing of the ongoing argument anyway).


LOL, I have felt this way since the second post :Llol:

[Zach]

By the way, what level of math would this be at Monad and Keeblergiant?

[Hvyarms]

Dear Hvyarms,

I gave you the right analogy by using your falling tree in a different way, but your EGO cannot give you the chance to see anything but itself.

So if you don't know it yet, your EGO is talking to itself, and it is very sad to hear what words he says to itsef.

In the interest of pure reason like dutchie and others I will ignore your comments basically. I will say one last time that you don't know what your talking about and will move on to another thread that has some sort of relevance.

[Keeblergiant]

By the way, what level of math would this be at Monad and Keeblergiant?

Monad is attempting to describe an alternative to modern abstract algebra...