Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
The amount of your bank account depends on your knowledge about it, and your knowledge is changeable by observation.

If you observation is focused only on "how many"? you have to ask yourself "what observation gives this knowledge"?

I have found that this observation is not less than Relation\Element Interaction, where the relation in this case is + and the Element is some agreed unit measurement.

In this case, the order between the units is ignored and only the sum (the amount) is considered.

But this amount cannot be known unless REI is used.

I have found that Relation is always non-local where an Element can be local or non-local during REI.
Click to expand...

I had a professor back in the seventies who was highly innefective because he was incapable of answering student questions. When a question was asked of him, he'd either answer with something irrelevant to the question or repeat word for word what he'd said before. This was very aggravating.

I'm never able to get an answer from you that is spot on, except perhaps for "no." But then I don't know where I have strayed because the fog has not cleared.

But I suppose the following is as close as it is going to get.
In this case, the order between the units is ignored and only the sum (the amount) is considered.
Click to expand...

By conventional arithmetic my bank accounbt is saved from chaos. That there is an established method that yields an agreed amount to all accontants.
By these conventions, I can't go withdraw billions that aren't there, because I say that no quantity in a set is complete and definite.

Accounting counts only what you call the "serial" aspect of number. Contextual to that usage you can talk "complete" and "definite."

Of course that doesn't mean the amount is fixed. Change happens.
Empericist that I am, I agree that the bottom line is observation.

I've said before that you have a differerent concept of what is number.
You've denied that. But when it comes to what you call your "parallel" aspects of Organic Natural Numbers, you really do. It's not the way most people think of number. Most don't get to the concept of number till things are counted.

I have so many questions like:
When and why is a number reckoned but not counted?
Is any number always "metaphysically" present so that it is the virtual amount or a virtual member of any set?

But it seems I should ask Professor Holbrook these questions.
 
doronshadmi said:
Yep.

It refers by relations, where any relation is non-local.
Click to expand...

How very odd that you are telling me what I meant by my words. No, that isn't what I meant by "multiple independent relations", nor is it what could be deduced from any conventional reading of the phrase.

However, it is obvious, now, that your attempt to define local and non-local is circular since your definition for local and non-local depends on the meaning of relation which in turn depends on the meaning of non-local. Your definition for local is vacuous and circular. Neither attribute is good alone; you have them both.

You are not making things any better.
 
jsfisher said:
However, it is obvious, now, that your attempt to define local and non-local is circular since your definition for local and non-local depends on the meaning of relation which in turn depends on the meaning of non-local.
Click to expand...

Please read definitions 4 and 5 more carefully. They are about locality or non-locality of objects and not of relations.

The non-locality of relations is obvious (please see page 3 in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf ).

1) Any relation is non-local.

2) An object called Point cannot be but local.

3) An object called Line segment can be non-local.

(2) and (3) are determined by the number of relations that are needed in order to define the relation from object x to object y.

Nothing is circular here because I do not use Relation's inherent non-locality, but I use the number of the relations that are needed.

Furthermore, in an expression like "< AND >" , "<" and ">" are objects if observed from "AND" relation.
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
I had a professor back in the seventies who was highly innefective because he was incapable of answering student questions. When a question was asked of him, he'd either answer with something irrelevant to the question or repeat word for word what he'd said before. This was very aggravating.

I'm never able to get an answer from you that is spot on, except perhaps for "no." But then I don't know where I have strayed because the fog has not cleared.

But I suppose the following is as close as it is going to get.


By conventional arithmetic my bank accounbt is saved from chaos. That there is an established method that yields an agreed amount to all accontants.
By these conventions, I can't go withdraw billions that aren't there, because I say that no quantity in a set is complete and definite.

Accounting counts only what you call the "serial" aspect of number. Contextual to that usage you can talk "complete" and "definite."

Of course that doesn't mean the amount is fixed. Change happens.
Empericist that I am, I agree that the bottom line is observation.

I've said before that you have a differerent concept of what is number.
You've denied that. But when it comes to what you call your "parallel" aspects of Organic Natural Numbers, you really do. It's not the way most people think of number. Most don't get to the concept of number till things are counted.

I have so many questions like:
When and why is a number reckoned but not counted?
Is any number always "metaphysically" present so that it is the virtual amount or a virtual member of any set?

But it seems I should ask Professor Holbrook these questions.
Click to expand...

In pure mathematics there is no process (time is not involved) here but immediate knowledge of the account value, which is based on the relations between elements, where the elements are agreed units.

So, serial or parallel observations have no influence on the number of the agreed units.

Serial and parallel observations have an influence about the knowladge of the exact location of each local object that can be found in your account.

In both cases REI is needed where Relation is naturally non-local and Element is Local or Non-local according to the observation.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Prediction is not an issue here (at this stage).
Click to expand...

ha ha! That you cannot tell that I was talking about predicting behaviour and not maths speaks volumes.

It was my (internalized) prediction, it was fulfilled. I conclude you are indistinguishable from a random noise generator.
 
doronshadmi said:
In pure mathematics there is no process (time is not involved) here but immediate knowledge of the account value, which is based on the relations between elements, where the elements are agreed units.

So, serial or parallel observations have no influence on the number of the agreed units.

Serial and parallel observations have an influence about the knowladge of the exact location of each local object that can be found in your account.

In both cases REI is needed where Relation is naturally non-local and Element is Local or Non-local according to the observation.
Click to expand...

ha ha! good one. If time is not involved, then there's no distinguishing serial and parallel observations. You're a hoot!
 
doronshadmi said:
In pure mathematics there is no process (time is not involved) here but immediate knowledge of the account value, which is based on the relations between elements, where the elements are agreed units.

So, serial or parallel observations have no influence on the number of the agreed units.

Serial and parallel observations have an influence about the knowladge of the exact location of each local object that can be found in your account.

In both cases REI is needed where Relation is naturally non-local and Element is Local or Non-local according to the observation.
Click to expand...

Yup. I should have asked Professor Hollbrook.

I'll take it that my account is not in Non-Local flux, though you never really have assured me that it isn't.
Also, then, I have no idea what your ONNs are, since now quantity and number have nothing to do with "Serial" and "Parallel" Complementation.

Again, as the pathetic Mad Gardener, I thought I saw something I could make sense of in your ONNs, but what I really saw was an aurora on a stick.

I really should put all this on ignore and get on with my life.
 
One claims that internal observation from x to y is subjective and does not provide the correct knowledge about x or y.

In that case let us use an external (objective) observation of x and y.

x = point

y = line

z = plane

w = volume

If x is observed through w w.r.t z, then x cannot be but on z XOR not on z.

By observation w x is local w.r.t z.

If y is observed through w w.r.t z, then y can be on z AND not on z.

By observation w y can be non-local w.r.t z.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
One claims that internal observation from x to y is subjective and does not provide the correct knowledge about x or y.

In that case let us use an external (objective) observation of x and y.

x = point

y = line

z = plane

w = volume

If x is observed through w w.r.t z, then x cannot be but on z XOR not on z.

By observation w x is local w.r.t z.

If y is observed through w w.r.t z, then y can be on z AND not on z.

By observation w y can be non-local w.r.t z.
Click to expand...

hurrah! my intersection hypothesis still fits the data.
 
nathan said:
hurrah! my intersection hypothesis still fits the data.
Click to expand...

No it does not because by your hypothesis:

nathan said:
The intersection of a line and a point on the line, is not the line, so:
doron_equal (line, point-on-line) is false.
Click to expand...

So (If y is observed through w w.r.t z, then y can be on z AND not on z) is false by your hypothesis.

y on z is (by your intersection hypothesis) is a point (x) on y.

By using observation w, y is non-local w.r.t x (or z) and it does not fit your intersection hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
quantity and number have nothing to do with "Serial" and "Parallel" Complementation.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

But they have a lot to do with local-objects distinction under a given cardinal (where cardinality is not the sum of the local objects but it is the number of the local objects that are involved in order to get the sum).

Apathia said:
I have no idea what your ONNs are
Click to expand...

ONNs are the result of Non-locality\locality complementation, where:

1) Relation is always non-local w.r.t to an object.

2) An object called Point is always local w.r.t an object.

3) An object called Line can be non-local w.r.t an object.

Without Relation\Element(=Object) Interaction, no sum or no cardinality can be found.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No it does not because by your hypothesis:



So (If y is observed through w w.r.t z, then y can be on z AND not on z) is false by your hypothesis.

y on z is (by your intersection hypothesis) is a point (x) on y.

By using observation w, y is non-local w.r.t x (or z) and it does not fit your intersection hypothesis.
Click to expand...

excellent! you've returned to form and unable to follow a simple function definition.
 
doronshadmi said:
But they have a lot to do with local-objects distinction under a given cardinal (where cardinality is not the sum of the local objects but it is the number of the local objects that are involved in order to get the sum).
Click to expand...

So, any set is incomplete, because at the moment of encounter you can choose to ignore certain elements that are in the set or reckon certain elements that aren't?

I ask how many oranges are in the bowl. I see three. But you say four, because you count one that happens to be on the table, or could be on the table, if we brought it in from the Kitchen.

The set containing the square root of 144:
I say its sole member is 12, and that as {12} it is complete and all that it is.
You say no, because there are always other numbers in the environment one could choose to include in that set.

If this is what you wish to assert ...
 
doronshadmi said:
You see tree becuse you have used your memory as a relation between objects.

Without it three does not exist.
Click to expand...

But maybe your memory is different. You see four.
Or you see that orange in the Kitchen in the bowl on the table in the dining room.
And the square root of 144 is 58463 to your memory.

So a set is is a pourous container that can contain any amount without any way of determining a definite quantity.

Its all a spaced out, washed out, weed way of speaking.

The funny thing is that I agree with you about the primacy of the empirical.
But what you are doing is washing out mathematical language so my three can be your four.
You chuck away conventional language which is able to speak of collections as complete in relation to the specific definition of their classes.

Having no conventions of definition, does not yield creativity, but worthless slush.
 
doronshadmi said:
There is state _._

From . point of view . = ___

From ___ point of view ___ < and > .

You simply used an external point of view of . and ___ relations.

I used an internal point of view of . and ___ relations.

No point of view is exclusive during research and this is the main idea of my work.
Click to expand...
You do understand that “exclusive” means excluding something? Your “external point of view” that you ascribe to me excludes your “internal point of view” that you ascribe to only to yourself; you are actually the one using “exclusive” points of view. None of which refutes the fact that you do not use “=” as self identity as you claimed to do, but in fact confirms that you do not. It also confirms that you consider (although will not admit) “___” to be a collection of “.” otherwise you would not have noted “From . point of view . = ___” and “From ___ point of view ___ < and > . “ as an “internal point of view” (claiming “.” is internal to “___”).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom