Deeper than primes

[Apathia]

If you understand that any set cannot be defined unless it is a result of non-locality\locality interaction (where this interaction cannot be but an intermediate result of opposite totalities, called total-isolation and total-connectivity) then you can understand why any set is incomplete by definition.

Yes, Doron, "incomplete" in the sense, definition, and context in which you are using it above.

But you understand don't you that the word, "complete" is used in a conventional way in which a set is said to be complete.
The set of all natural numbers greater than 2 and less than 4, {3}, is complete containing all it's defintion requires.

Now if you wish to insist that there is no such sense a set is complete, you claim a confusing dogmatism.

What I wish of you is a clarity of definition and qualification that shows how a set in your terminology is incomplete, but to its purpose is complete.

Of course no set is in its content the Totality. But it may be total as per its defined and required content.

You do make that distinction in usage, don't you?

 

[doronshadmi]

Neither prior post repairs your defective definitions. Depending on which version you are currently promoting, either everything is local or nothing is. You cannot define, characterize it, or even talk about it in coherent English, so please do not attempt to shift the blame for getting it.

No jsfisher,

You clearly show that you do not get non-locality, and in this case you do not have any meaningful thing to say abuot it.

 

[doronshadmi]

Yes, Doron, "incomplete" in the sense, definition, and context in which you are using it above.

But you understand don't you that the word, "complete" is used in a conventional way in which a set is said to be complete.
The set of all natural numbers greater than 2 and less than 4, {3}, is complete containing all it's defintion requires.

Now if you wish to insist that there is no such sense a set is complete, you claim a confusing dogmatism.

What I wish of you is a clarity of definition and qualification that shows how a set in your terminology is incomplete, but to its purpose is complete.

Of course no set is in its content the Totality. But it may be total as per its defined and required content.

You do make that distinction in usage, don't you?

{3} is researchable exactly because it is a result that is stronger than total isolation and weaker than total connectivity.

Actually your ability to define the member of set {3} as the thing that is greater than 2 and smaller than 4, is exactly because 2 and 4 are also results that are stronger than total isolation and weaker than total connectivity.

At the moment that you are able to research, you are not dealing with the complete.

Maybe this analogy can help here:

Totally white is complete.

Totally black is complete.

But there is no such a thing like totally grey, because given any grey, there are more grays that are not that grey.

In we know it exactly because we understand that any given grey is the result of Black\White interaction, that cannot be complete (total) as Black or White are.

 

[doronshadmi]

I'm a professional teacher, and I deal with visual-spacial learners all the time.

Yes, you deal with them by translating their immediate understanding to the traditional step-by-step serial reasoning, which can be analyzed only by cutting the parts from the whole.

In other words, your professionalism as a step-by-step teacher is the best way to not get visual spatial learners in their terms (which is not a step-by-step learning, and therefore can get things that you as a step-by-step observer, can never get).

The reasons for the misunderstandings are that you are wrong, your writings are nonsensical ...

Is this "detailed" criticism is used by you on visual-spatial learners in your class, which get at conclusions that do not fit your step-by-step observation, as you do to me here in this forum?

 

[jsfisher]

No jsfisher,

You clearly show that you do not get non-locality, and in this case you have any meaningful thing to say abuot it.

Provide a reasonable definition for non-locality. Is that such an impossible task for you?

 

[doronshadmi]

Provide a reasonable definition for non-locality. Is that such an impossible task for you?

It is clearly reasonable.

In order to get it you have to open your second eye (and you can do it only by yourself).

Until this very moment you are using one and only one eye.

 

[jsfisher]

It is clearly reasonable.

In order to get it you have to open your second eye (and you can do it only by yourself).

Until this very moment you are using one and only one eye.

All your recent attempts at a definition for non-locality carry the defect that either everything is non-local or nothing is non-local. No binocular vision effect, including looking cross-eyed, can change that.

 

[doronshadmi]

All your recent attempts at a definition for non-locality carry the defect that either everything is non-local or nothing is non-local.

You do not know what non-locality is ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4233919&postcount=865 ) remember?

So how can you recognize this "defect"?

For you a line is determined by points, and in that case your recognition of a non-local object (which is, by the way, not a relation, but you do not know the difference) does not hold water ( as can be seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4225755&postcount=804 ).

 

[Apathia]

{3} is researchable exactly because it is a result that is stronger than total isolation and weaker than total connectivity.

Actually your ability to define the member of set {3} as the thing that is greater than 2 and smaller than 4, is exactly because 2 and 4 are also results that are stronger than total isolation and weaker than total connectivity.

At the moment that you are able to research, you are not dealing with the complete.

Maybe this analogy can help here:

Totally white is complete.

Totally black is complete.

But there is no such a thing like totally grey, because given any grey, there are more grays that are not that grey.

In we know it exactly because we understand that any given grey is the result of Black\White interaction, that cannot be complete (total) as Black or White are.

This is pretty much what I thought I was understanding of you.
Now you are continuing to assert "Complete (total)" in the context of your Local/Non-Local Interaction.
Fine. It's just that slow people like me will tend to think you're wanting to include the number 59 in the set of all natural numbers between 2 and 4, just because it is out there in Non-Local Land.

But aside from that, let's look at your interesting analogy above.
Would you then characterize the numeral three as similar to "grey," not being a difinitive point-like value, but a smudge?
It would fit an earlier interpetation I had of your ONNs as involving not just a nomnitive sense but an adjectival one.

 

[doronshadmi]

It's just that slow people like me will tend to think you're wanting to include the number 59 in the set of all natural numbers between 2 and 4, just because it is out there in Non-Local Land.

Again, non-locality\locality interaction does not change the fact that 59 is not between 2 and 4.

But aside from that, let's look at your interesting analogy above.
Would you then characterize the numeral three as similar to "grey," not being a difinitive point-like value, but a smudge?

Number 3 is a local number, but any number (including non-local numbers like 0.999...[base 10]) is the result of non-locality\locality interaction.

It would fit an earlier interpetation I had of your ONNs as involving not just a nomnitive sense but an adjectival one.

I do not understand what do you mean by that.

 

[jsfisher]

You do not know what non-locality is ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4233919&postcount=865 ) remember?

All that has been established is that you don't know what non-locality is.

Prove me wrong. Provide a real definition for local and non-local.

 

[doronshadmi]

All that has been established is that you don't know what non-locality is.

Prove me wrong. Provide a real definition for local and non-local.

You are not wrong or right here, because you get exactly nothing about my theory.

You did your best in order to take http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf down.

You have failed.

You are unable to face it.

End of story ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4233224&postcount=852 ).

 

[Apathia]

Number 3 is a local number, but any number (including non-local numbers like 0.999...[base 10]) is the result of non-locality\locality interaction.

I do not understand what do you mean by that.

I suppose the integer 3 would be a definite point value. But it appears from your diagrams that what you call "non-local numbers" are "hazy" in value, so to speak.

Your ONNs based in Local/Non-Local Interaction, seem to me to involve an adjectival use of numbers. There are different kinds of 3. For example there is the 3_3, which is our ordinary serial 3. And there is the 2_3 of which only 2 of the 3 is serialized or counted, while 1 of the 3 reamains parallel and not included in the count.
(Yes I realize the circularity in what I just wrote.)

 

[jsfisher]

You are not wrong or right here, because you get exactly nothing about my theory.

You did your best in order to take http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf down.

You have failed.

You are unable to face it.

Huh? I have done nothing to take down your website or any document it contains. This claim of yours is bogus. Why are you lying?

End of story ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4233224&postcount=852 ).

That post has nothing to do with my issue.

All I have asked for is a simple definition of what you mean by local and by non-local. They are your terms; why cannot you define them?

 

[Skeptic]

Jfisher -- don't take it personally. Doron isn't lying--he really believes you did your best to take his site down.

To paranoids like Doron, every server hiccup or bad internet connection which made their mastepiece unavailable for five minutes is a plot by "enemies" to "silence" them. When the connection is restored, it means Doron had, once again, defeated the forces of evil out to get him.

They usually blame whomever it is that they're arguing with on the internet at the time for being behind the evil plot. That's why you were chosen.

 

[doronshadmi]

Jfisher -- don't take it personally. Doron isn't lying--he really believes you did your best to take his site down.

To paranoids like Doron, every server hiccup or bad internet connection which made their mastepiece unavailable for five minutes is a plot by "enemies" to "silence" them. When the connection is restored, it means Doron had, once again, defeated the forces of evil out to get him.

They usually blame whomever it is that they're arguing with on the internet at the time for being behind the evil plot. That's why you were chosen.

Skeptic,

Your understanding of "take it down" is trivial.

As an evolutionist I believe that any idea has to survive criticism before it can be accepted, and even if it is accepted it is still opened to criticism, and so are the fundamental accepted notions of the mathematical science.

My arguments were improved exactly because of jsfisher's criticism and I thank him for that, but at the moment that his criticism is under loop, it is not affective anymore.

Jsfisher's last posts are criticism under loop that do not follow anymore in details about my arguments. In that case I do not define his criticism as something that can be used in order to reexamine my arguments.

As for you skeptic,

You did not contribute any meaningful thing to this forum accept for chip , armature and shallow psychology.

 

[doronshadmi]

Huh? I have done nothing to take down your website or any document it contains. This claim of yours is bogus. Why are you lying?

Are you kidding?

Who is talking about any website?

I am talking about your current under-loop criticism about the content of UR.pdf.

That post has nothing to do with my issue.

It does not work that way.

You have to show in details exactly why http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4233224&postcount=852 has nothing to do with your issue.

All I have asked for is a simple definition of what you mean by local and by non-local. They are your terms; why cannot you define them?

The answer was fully given in UR.pdf.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4225755&postcount=804 clearly shows that you do not get it.

From this point you are under loop and your criticism has lost its effective influence on my work.

I am not going to continue the dialog with you on this subject unless you convince me that you are not under loop.

A good point to start with is to reply to anything that was written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4233961&postcount=868 (including its links) and not only to its first sentence (as you did in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4234292&postcount=871 ).

EDIT:

Another suggestion:

Please provide your definitions for Non-locality and Locality.

 

[Skeptic]

Well, that's true, Doron -- they laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein, and they laugh at you. The problem is, they also laughed at creationists, flat-earthers, free-energy cranks, and at Bozo the clown. Chances are about a million to one that you're one of the clowns, not one of the geniuses.

Skeptic,

Your understanding of "take it down" is trivial.

Ah yes, I keep forgetting you keep using words in ways nobody else does, and then pretend that somehow proves you to be superior because people can't undestand you. But, 99% --or, more accurately, 100%--of the time, the reason people cannot undestand you is not because you're smarter or more profound than them, but simply because your writing is unclear and uses words in ridiculous fashion. Just because you're incoherent doesn't mean you're more intelligent. If anything, the opposite is probably the case.

You have to show in details exactly why http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=852 has nothing to do with your issue.

He doesn't have to do a damn thing. YOU are suggesting the theory, YOU have to show why it's worth the paper it's printed on. Why do you think anybody has to jump through your hoops just so you'll deign to discuss what the heck it is your theory is talking about with them? If you don't want to discuss it, don't. It's not as if there's anything to it except for vague redefinitions of obvious concepts, which you think are incredibly important for some reason.

How much time did you spend on this nonsense? Months? Years? Decades? Whatever it is, cut your losses: any day less you spend on this nonsensical theory of yours is one day more you have to learn something worthwhile about mathematics. Given the level of mathematical knowledge you've shown so far in your posts, I would suggest, first, a few remedial courses in formal logic, since you obviously have no idea what it's all about.

 

[nathan]

I am probably more visual spatial learner ( http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/Product_Marketing/UDB/udb.htm ) , which may be one of the reasons of the misunderstandings between us.

huh? I thought everybody thought in images. I'm always visualizing and drawing diagrams of maths, code, data, whatever. Doesn't prevent me explaining stuff to people though.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well, that's true, Doron -- they laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein, and they laugh at you. The problem is, they also laughed at creationists, flat-earthers, free-energy cranks, and at Bozo the clown. Chances are about a million to one that you're one of the clowns, not one of the geniuses.

Let us be more modest.

They laughed at the first man that suggested negative numbers.

Ah yes, I keep forgetting you keep using words in ways nobody else does, and then pretend that somehow proves you to be superior because people can't undestand you.

Not superior but different.

Is there a special reason why you try to address me by using words like "superior" (megalomaniac),"paranoid", or other symptoms of severe mental disorders?

Your dramatic criticism lead me to guess that this is the case of "ha'posell, be'moomo hoo posell".

But, 99% --or, more accurately, 100%--of the time, the reason people cannot undestand you is not because you're smarter or more profound than them, but simply because your writing is unclear and uses words in ridiculous fashion. Just because you're incoherent doesn't mean you're more intelligent. If anything, the opposite is probably the case

I interpret agreed notions by using non-standard observations of them.

In that case especially professional persons find that they cannot use the agreed body of knowledge in order to understand my non-standard interpretations of the already agreed concepts, methods, axioms, models, etc …

He doesn't have to do a damn thing. YOU are suggesting the theory, YOU have to show why it's worth the paper it's printed on.

I do not agree with you.

Both sides (if they wish to) have to do their best in order to understand each other.

It is not an easy task but there are no shortcuts here.

How much time did you spend on this nonsense?

Currently you are not in a position to say any meaningful thing about my work, unless you argue in details about its content.