• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
(Shrug)

More evidence that Doron is a typical mathematical crank.

1). Naturally enough, he latches into one of the most famous (to the laymen) problems in mathematics. (Hilbert, in this case).

2). He misunderstands it completely.

3). He thinks that all that matematicians want or need on order to solve the problem is some new notation, or some new terms. Cranks *love* new notation and terms, because they're easy to invent.

4). He cannot imagine why (except for a conspiracy against him, of course) mathematicians ignore his "amazing discovery".
 
jsfisher said:
What utter nonsense!

Let's take cryptography as a modest example. I will not mention RSA and elliptic curve methods and how they span other branches. Instead I will point out IDEA encryption. Curiously, it is a very simple, elegant encryption method based on three other branches of mathematics.

No communication? Stop saying stupid things.

I asked for evidence; you came up empty. Want to try again?
Click to expand...
Have you noticed that the braches that you have motioned are based on the particular case of clear distinction, as a first-order property of the entire researched framework?

All along our dialogs, it prevents from you to get anything that that is not based on clear distinction, as a first-order property of the entire researched framework.
 
ddt said:
No you haven't. No paradigm in sight. Let's look at this portion of Hilbert's speech:


He speaks of an organism, of similarities between math branches, but not of a single paradigm or a single overriding principle.

Is there a single paradigm (necessary) for the various organs of a human body to be able to interact with each other?

Is there a single paradigm (necessary) for the various parts of a car to be able to interact with each other?

Is there a single paradigm (necessary) for the various branches of mathematics to be able to interact with each other?

No, no, no.
Click to expand...

The Organic paradigm is not a single thing, but it is an organism (something that you don't get yet), which is not less than the improved interactions between the simple and the complex, which is not limited to any particular case of Order or Distinction.

This is not the case of the current mathematical paradigm that is mostly based on the particular case of clear distinction as its first-order property and prevents a further development of the mathematical science, as long it is taken as the one and only one possibility to do Math.
 
Skeptic said:
(Shrug)

More evidence that Doron is a typical mathematical crank.

1). Naturally enough, he latches into one of the most famous (to the laymen) problems in mathematics. (Hilbert, in this case).

2). He misunderstands it completely.

3). He thinks that all that matematicians want or need on order to solve the problem is some new notation, or some new terms. Cranks *love* new notation and terms, because they're easy to invent.

4). He cannot imagine why (except for a conspiracy against him, of course) mathematicians ignore his "amazing discovery".
Click to expand...

Skeptic, it is obsolete and boring.

ddt and jsfisher at least write to the point and air their view in detailes as an inherent part of thier disagreement with me.

You don't.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Skeptic, it is obsolete and boring.

ddt and jsfisher at least write to the point and air their view in detailes as an inherent part of thier disagreement with me.

You don't.
Click to expand...

Skeptic's posts are a very apt analysis of your stance, though. And every response of yours to jsfisher or me corroborates that analysis. You might also review your response to Skeptic's post in which he shreds to pieces your UR "paper" - you sidestepped or flat-out denied every issue he had with the paper.

Calling this discussion a "disagreement" is giving yourself too much credit. It gives the air of a discussion between equals/peers. Hint: you're not and you'll never be.
 
doronshadmi said:
The Organic paradigm is not a single thing, but it is an organism (something that you don't get yet), which is not less than the improved interactions between the simple and the complex, which is not limited to any particular case of Order or Distinction.
Click to expand...
"organism" here isn't more than a metaphor, just as Hilbert described it in his speech. You, however, are constantly trying or claiming to capture all of mathematics (all of which you don't understand at all) in your meaningless buzzwords like "non-locality", and now "distinction" - or whatever the mot-du-jour is in your fantasy world - and your "X\Y complementation" stuff. None of which you've adequately defined or even clarified to a satisfying level. Note you're pulling now the words "order" and "distinction" out of your ass, which didn't occur in this discussion on Hilbert's speech.

Interaction between simple and complex? I thought we were discussing the interaction between various branches of mathematics - can we please keep on topic?

doronshadmi said:
This is not the case of the current mathematical paradigm that is mostly based on the particular case of clear distinction as its first-order property and prevents a further development of the mathematical science, as long it is taken as the one and only one possibility to do Math.
Click to expand...
(emphases mine)

Can you also write a paragraph without a nonsensical "particular case" thrown in? And could you clarify the bolded words - you failed thus far to do that.

You haven't shown in any way there is anything preventing the development of math. I gave three examples of thriving interaction between various mathematical branches and you failed at acknowledging that.

In fact, you even failed at answering each elementary-level math question asked of you.
 
ddt said:
"organism" here isn't more than a metaphor, just as Hilbert described it in his speech. You, however, are constantly trying or claiming to capture all of mathematics (all of which you don't understand at all) in your meaningless buzzwords like "non-locality", and now "distinction" - or whatever the mot-du-jour is in your fantasy world - and your "X\Y complementation" stuff. None of which you've adequately defined or even clarified to a satisfying level. Note you're pulling now the words "order" and "distinction" out of your ass, which didn't occur in this discussion on Hilbert's speech.

Interaction between simple and complex? I thought we were discussing the interaction between various branches of mathematics - can we please keep on topic?


(emphases mine)

Can you also write a paragraph without a nonsensical "particular case" thrown in? And could you clarify the bolded words - you failed thus far to do that.

You haven't shown in any way there is anything preventing the development of math. I gave three examples of thriving interaction between various mathematical branches and you failed at acknowledging that.

In fact, you even failed at answering each elementary-level math question asked of you.
Click to expand...

1) My answer to jsfisher in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4122039&postcount=445 also hold for you.

2) I am going to write to the moderator about your (see the bolded part) style.
 
doronshadmi said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4083359&postcount=1

Now please show your match (be careful, it must not be limited to clear distinction as if it is the only possibility of Distinction).
Click to expand...

jsfisher asked for a MAF that is interesting. You claim MAFs are of the form * _ * ..., but nothing of that form appears in the post. The post you cite doesn't contain MAFs.

Oh, and it's not interesting either.

Try again.

Oh, why are you unable to show any one other than you who uses these MAF things of yours? Do you not understand what 'Agreed' means? Should we just add this to the list of questions you're unable to answer?
 
doronshadmi said:
Have you noticed that the braches that you have motioned are based on the particular case of clear distinction, as a first-order property of the entire researched framework?

All along our dialogs, it prevents from you to get anything that that is not based on clear distinction, as a first-order property of the entire researched framework.
Click to expand...

You failed the challenge, doron. You alleged there are now branches of Mathematics isolated from the rest of the body of Mathematics. You need to exhibit at least one example to support your bogus claim, not unrelated gibberish.

Want to try again? Got evidence?
 
doronshadmi said:
Have you noticed that the braches that you have motioned are based on the particular case of clear distinction, as a first-order property of the entire researched framework?

All along our dialogs, it prevents from you to get anything that that is not based on clear distinction, as a first-order property of the entire researched framework.
Click to expand...

If one does not have a clear distinction between terms being discussed, there is no discussion for one cannot know what each word means. That's your whole problem, you keep making up new meanings for existing words, and then keeping those meanings entirely in your head. If you stuck to meanings that are agreed on, you'll find you'll get a lot further. (Oh, but I forget, you're showing every sign of not understanding the agreed meaning of 'agreed'.)
 
doronshadmi said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4083359&postcount=1

Now please show your match (be careful, it must not be limited to clear distinction as if it is the only possibility of Distinction).
Click to expand...

You failed this challenge, too.

You were to offer up a single, interesting MAF. Pointing back to a failed post of undefined terms, faulty reasoning, and irrelevant diagrams is completely off-track.

Want to try again? You need something of this form: *_*_* (or *_* or *_*_*_* or ...) where * is an element and _ is a relationship. I didn't make up the notation; you did. So, please, kindly identify an element, a relationship, and something in the proper form.

You don't understand EMAF's at all, that's clear, but now it is becoming apparent you don't understand your own MAF's either.


ETA: Oops, nathan beat me to it.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
2) I am going to write to the moderator about your (see the bolded part) style.
Click to expand...
Please do so. I'm looking forward to it.

doronshadmi said:
1) My answer to jsfisher in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4122039&postcount=445 also hold for you.
Click to expand...
Apart from having to guess at certain words there (e.g., motioned should be mentioned, right?) that post remains nonsense. A simple first question about that post: when you write "the braches that you have motioned", do you mean the math branches that were used in conceiving the IDEA encryption scheme? Could you be so kind as to first mention which those branches are?

I'm afraid though, that that question also remains on the "questions not answered by Doron" list.

I further note that you do not deny my claim that your "organic paradigm" is a (misguided) attempt at unifying mathematics in some vague notions like "locality", and that it isn't meant as an organism in the metaphorical sense that Hilbert employed. In fact, I note that this is the first time ever you employed the word "organism" for describing your "organic paradigm", here on JREF.

You also thus far fail to illustrate with examples that mathematical branches have become disconnected - as jsfisher and nathan have argued in their latest posts - thus also rendering the need for your whole exercise of wanting to have a unifying "organic paradigm" moot.

I note that mathematics, a century after Hilbert's lecture, still is a thriving endeavour of various interconnected branches; and that Hilbert's confidence that mathematicians would still be able to look outside their own specialization was warranted.

You might also look at the talk on the youtube TMiguel linked to. If you don't believe us, maybe you'd believe a professional.
 
jsfisher said:
You failed this challenge, too.

You were to offer up a single, interesting MAF. Pointing back to a failed post of undefined terms, faulty reasoning, and irrelevant diagrams is completely off-track.

Want to try again? You need something of this form: *_*_* (or *_* or *_*_*_* or ...) where * is an element and _ is a relationship. I didn't make up the notation; you did. So, please, kindly identify an element, a relationship, and something in the proper form.

You don't understand EMAF's at all, that's clear, but now it is becoming apparent you don't understand your own MAF's either.


ETA: Oops, nathan beat me to it.
Click to expand...
jsfisher,

You have nothing to say about EMAF, isn't it?

Please don't be sad, you can't help it (EDIT: here is some example http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4075327&postcount=2204 -out of many- of your inability to grasp new ideas).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher,

You have nothing to say about EMAF, isn't it?
Click to expand...
Why should he? He's defined them in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4121353&postcount=418 and that definition is crystal clear. He also proved them to be more powerful than your MAFs. What more do you want? The ball's in your park, to show just one vaguely interesting MAF. But you can't, can you?

doronshadmi said:
Please don't be sad, you can't help it.
Click to expand...
Complete non-sequitur.

In fact, I'm not satisfied with jsfisher's EMAF definition #1. He defined an EMAF to be of the form f(A), where f is a function and A is a tuple. I think this needs to be extended to a form I'll call EEMAF.

First of all, using functions is restrictive: for every A, there is only one y such that f(A) = y if f is a function. So I relax this to using relations instead of functions, so my first shot at an EEMAF definition is: anything of the form
R(A, y)
However, when we note that a relation is just a subset of the cartesian product of its domains, we can do even better:
every set S is an EEMAF.

What about that? An EEMAF is a set. Period.

And as EEMAF is clearly, from its construction, a more general notion than EMAF, which again is a more general notion than MAF, everything MAF you can make up is automatically an EEMAF.

MAFs are just sets. What about replacing your notion of MAF with set? Then you indeed have something that is acknowledged to be the basis of much of mathematics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom