Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

Little 10 Toes,

If we observe a non-local element, its value can be in more than a one relation w.r.t another element.

But this is not the case here.

In this case I am trying to define the difference between finite and non-finite sets, where each member is local (can be distinguished from another member by using only one relation).

Let us use the notion of proper subset in order to distinguish between finite and non-finite sets as follows:

Definition 3: If A is a set and B is some arbitrary proper subset of A, then if |B| cannot be but |B| < |A|, then A is finite.

If we can use definition 3 in order to conclude that anything that does not satisfy it, must be a non-finite set, then definition 3 is enough to distinguish between finite and non-finite sets.

What do you think?

 

[doronshadmi]

Snapshots of some notions may prevent the possibility to realize that they are actually movies (where in this case, no observation is exclusive (where the non-exculsive observation is the result of element or observers' motions w.r.t each other)).

Let us look at:

I'm going to advise people not to respond to this thread. doronshadmi has a history of being totally incomprehensible and his threads always go for dozens of pages without any progress being made.

Doron, you are misusing common terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiset

I will not be replying to this thread any more.

He clearly likes only notion's snapshots (called also common terms).

 

[doronshadmi]

If the cardinality of B is less than the cardinality of set A, then set A is a finite set.

This is not my definiton for at least two reasons:

1) Subset is not the same as proper subset.

2) You ignored the term "cannot be but |B| < |A|".

 

[The Man]

Anyone how divides atoms cannot get non-locality.

I was simply referring to the fact that the term “Atom” is not always used to describe something inadvisable. So let’s look at what you consider to be inadvisable and what you do with it.

And by define a line segment as collection of sub-elements, you are unable to get it as a non-local object. The reason: you are using again locality as exclusive observation.

So you clearly define a line segment as undividable or in your limited use of the term an “Atom”.

Yet you also define a line (or line segment) WRT a point as

There is state _._

From . point of view . = ___

From ___ point of view ___ < and > .

Would you look at that, you have divided “___” into two segments one “<” “.” and one “>” “.”. You are the one who asserts and requires the inadvisability of lines or line segments but then needs to divide them in order to assert the multiple relationships you require for your varying definition of non-locality. Of course since you need to divide what you consider to be indivisible (line or line segment) in order to get the multiple relationships that cause you to define the line or line segment as non-local, by your own assertions then you “cannot get non-locality” as it requires you to divide what you have asserted is inadvisable. To put it succinctly, by your own assertions, in order for you to get non-locality you have to not get non-locality, I must say that I am certainly not surprised.

Again some of us would still disagree with your assertions but no one is likely to agree with your assertions when you can not even clearly demonstrate that you agree with your own assertions. Your whole process appears simply to be you claiming one thing (you use “=” as self identity or a line segment can not be divided into smaller segments) then basing your subsequent assertions on exactly the opposite of what you have claimed. That is just you lying to yourself and trying to lie to us, which is nothing new

 

[doronshadmi]

Would you look at that, you have divided “___” into two segments one “<” “.” and one “>”

The man,

< and > is true only by simultaneity.

There is no part of ____ that is < than the point and another part of ____ that is > than the point simply because there are no parts in ____

In that case _____ is simultaneously and without any divisions or parts < and > the point.

AND truth table is:

0 0 ---> 0
0 1 ---> 0
1 0 ---> 0
1 1 ---> 1

1 1 ---> True only if there is a one simultaneity between 1,1 .

If _._ state is observed from ___ to . and ___ is an atom, then ___ is
(without any parts or divisions) < AND > .

As long as you don't get this simple beauty, you are unable to get non-locality.

I am certainly not surprised, because all along our dialog all you get is the parts.

 

[The Man]

The man,

< and > is true only by simultaneity.

There is no part of ____ that is < than the point and another part of ____ that is > than the point simply because there are no parts in ____

In that case _____ is simultaneously and without any divisions or parts < and > the point.

AND truth table is:

0 0 ---> 0
0 1 ---> 0
1 0 ---> 0
1 1 ---> 1

1 1 ---> True only if there is a one simultaneity between 1,1 .

If _._ state is observed from ___ to . and ___ is an atom, then ___ is
(without any parts or divisions) < AND > .

As long as you don't get this simple beauty, you are unable to get non-locality.

I am certainly not surprised, because all along our dialog all you get is the parts.

You are the one dividing it into parts, one < and one >, that those parts are as you put it “simultaneous” is irrelevant you have still distinguished one part “<” form another “>”. I am certainly not surprised that you would bring up simultaneity, the AND truth table while simply claiming “There is no part of ____ that is < than the point and another part of ____ that is > than the point simply because there are no parts in ____” thereby asserting the different parts that you ascribe as “<” and “>” as part of your claim that “there are no parts in ____”. Perhaps you are saying your assertion

There is state _._

From ___ point of view ___ < and > .

is wrong since you now claim…

There is no part of ____ that is < than the point and another part of ____ that is > than the point simply because there are no parts in ____.

So there are no parts to “___” even though you specifically distinguish between some thing (just not a “part”) that is “<” and some thing (just not a “part”) that is “>”. You can call them whatever you choose or not call them whatever you choose, but in the common parlance they are just parts of “___”.

As long as you don't get this simple beauty, you are unable to get non-locality. .

By your own assertion “you are unable to get non-locality”, which does not matter to you as you simply do not care what you assert.

 

[jsfisher]

It will be come later.

At this stage I wish to clearly distinguish between finite and non-finite sets.

For what purpose? Can you produce some sort of coherent outline for the finished document? Infinite sets is not a trivial concept, and how you intend to use the concept may simplify what constitutes an acceptable definition.

By the way, your use of cardinality in your definitions is problematic. Your use of the relations greater-than and less-than is problematic, too.

 

[RandFan]

{snip}

I could be wrong but I don't see any progress in this thread. The thread is composed of two dozen pages. That would seem to me to be an accurate prediction. Please to correct any error. What progress has been made? Is anyone in agreement with your thesis?

 

[jsfisher]

I could be wrong but I don't see any progress in this thread. The thread is composed of two dozen pages. That would seem to me to be an accurate prediction. Please to correct any error. What progress has been made? Is anyone in agreement with your thesis?

Can the circumference be used to measure progress?

 

[The Man]

I could be wrong but I don't see any progress in this thread. The thread is composed of two dozen pages. That would seem to me to be an accurate prediction. Please to correct any error. What progress has been made? Is anyone in agreement with your thesis?

No one that I have read on this thread, so far, agrees with doron and that includes doron himself, since he asserts that he uses “=” as self identity but does not. Claims no point of view is “exclusive” while using “From . point of view . = ___” yet “From ___ point of view ___ < and > .” as points of view that exclude each other. Requires “There is no part of ____ that is < than the point and another part of ____ that is > than the point simply because there are no parts in ____” after asserting in one of his exclusive points of view that “From ___ point of view ___ < and > .” So clearly, RandFan, no one agrees with doron, not even doron.

 

[RandFan]

Can the circumference be used to measure progress?

If one travels some distance but ends up at the beginning is that progress? I guess in some sense.

 

[RandFan]

I've got to be honest. I'm not sufficiently competent to directly refute the ideas. I hesitate to use thesis because I'm not even certain you've advanced such. But I have honestly looked at the OP and and from my limited capability I've got to agree with PixyMisa.

No.

Likely the best response so far.

To the rest I would just like to say, good luck, were all counting on you.

 

[doronshadmi]

You are the one dividing it into parts,

The man,

It is beyond your absract ability.

Also you have missed http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4228045&postcount=810 .

EDIT: Again, anyone who gets atom as a composed thing does not get non-locality.

So there are no parts to “___” even though you specifically distinguish between some thing (just not a “part”) that is “<” and some thing (just not a “part”) that is “>”. You can call them whatever you choose or not call them whatever you choose, but in the common parlance they are just parts of “___”.

Look at this (AND connective):

   =  0 0 --> F
 _ =  0 1 --> F
_  =  1 0 --> F
__ =  1 1 --> T

Get it?

In the case of _._ interaction, ___ is a one and only one thing that is both < AND > w.r.t .

 

[jsfisher]

Again, anyone who gets atom as a composed thing does not enables to get non-locality.

That is not a very common way to arrange those words.

 

[The Man]

The man,

It is beyond your absract ability.

Also you have missed http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4228045&postcount=810 .

EDIT: Again, anyone who gets atom as a composed thing does not get non-locality.




Look at this (AND connective):

Just what is connected by that connective? can you say “parts”?

   =  0 0 --> F
 _ =  0 1 --> F
_  =  1 0 --> F
__ =  1 1 --> T

Get it?

So one part FALSE AND one part FALSE results in FALSE

One part FALSE AND one part TRUE also results in FALSE

One part TRUE AND one part FALSE likewise results in FALSE

One part TRUE AND one part TRUE results in TRUE

I got that a long time ago studying Boolean logic. When are you going to “Get it?”

In the case of _._ interaction, ___ is a one and only one thing that is both < AND > w.r.t .

Sure one thing where one part is “<” “.” is TRUE (in your notation “ _ = 0 1” ) and another part is “>” “.” is TURE (in your notation “_ = 1 0” only then is “< AND >” TRUE. However you assert.

There is no part of ____ that is < than the point and another part of ____ that is > than the point simply because there are no parts in ____

So by your own assertions “< AND > w.r.t .” results in “ = 0 0 --> F” since there are no true parts for the connective AND to, well, connect.

Even your stilted and obscure notion belies your assertions with one part “_ = 1 0” combining with another part “ _ = 0 1” for you to get “__ = 1 1 --> T”. Your attempts to obscure your subdivision into parts within the connective AND only resulted in you confirming that you do have parts requiring that connective AND. Even by any broad definition of “Atom” your inclusion of a logical convective in “< AND >” makes it a compound proposition and thus “___” “In the case of _._ interaction” “w.r.t .” is not an “Atom” unless you assert that “Atom” as you use it contains logical connectives which would make them “a composed thing” thus you do “get non-locality” by you own assertions. So is it an “Atom” with the compound proposition “< AND >” meaning you just don’t “get non-locality” by your own assertion? Or is that “__” is simply not an “Atom” and you just do not get the terms “Atom”, “no- locality”, “self identity” and “exclusive” just to name a few?

 

[doronshadmi]

QUOTE=The Man;4238806]So by your own assertions “< AND > w.r.t .” results in “ = 0 0 --> F” since there are no true parts for the connective AND to, well, connect.[/QUOTE]

No The Man,

I see that you do not get the full picture which is NXOR\XOR (it does not matter if it is false or true, but it does matter both states are actually the same (a non-local atom), or not):

Look at NXOR connective:

   =  0 0 --> T
 _ =  0 1 --> F
_  =  1 0 --> F
__ =  1 1 --> T

Now Look at XOR connective:

   =  0 0 --> F
 _ =  0 1 --> T
_  =  1 0 --> T
__ =  1 1 --> F

By reduction without loss of generality ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Without_loss_of_generality ) we do not care if we deal with 0,1 or T,F.

In that case all we care is if both states are actually the same (a one thing that cannot be divided by any pair (or more) of different states) or not (a thing that cannot be the same under different states)

Furthermore, < AND > in the case of _._ must not be observed by serial observation (along the line w.r.t the point) but by parallel observation w.r.t to the point.

Without the parallel observation, non-locality cannot be understood.


Get it?

Be aware that we are not talking here about non-locality in general, but about the case of a non-local object (a line segment, in this case).

Please this time read also http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4228045&postcount=810 in order to see another observation that leads us to conclude that a point cannot but a local object, where a line segment can be a non-local object.

 

[The Man]

No The Man,

I see that you do not get the full picture which is NXOR\XOR (it does not matter if it is false or true, but it does matter both states are actually the same (a non-local atom), or not):

Look at NXOR connective:

   =  0 0 --> T
 _ =  0 1 --> F
_  =  1 0 --> F
__ =  1 1 --> T

Now Look at XOR connective:

   =  0 0 --> F
 _ =  0 1 --> T
_  =  1 0 --> T
__ =  1 1 --> F

By reduction without loss of generality ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Without_loss_of_generality ) we do not care if we deal with 0,1 or T,F.

Well you’re the one who brought the truth table up even though you now claim not to care about it.

In that case all we care is if both states are actually the same (a one thing that cannot be divided by any pair (or more) of different states) or not (a thing that cannot be the same under different states)

Speak for yourself, but please try to be more coherent and less self contradictory when you do that.

Furthermore, < AND > in the case of _._ must not be observed by serial observation (along the line w.r.t the point) but by parallel observation w.r.t to the point.

Without the parallel observation, non-locality cannot be understood.

Oops, there’s that exclusive point of view again. So no point of view is exclusive except the “parallel observation” that you require excluding anything “observed by serial observation “. You just can’t help always contradicting yourself, can you?

Get it?

I got it a long time ago and have been saying it since the other thread your entire notion is simply based on just you contradicting yourself and you seem to enjoy it to boot.

Be aware that we are not talking here about non-locality in general, but about the case of a non-local object (a line segment, in this case).

Please this time read also http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4228045&postcount=810 in order to see another observation that leads us to conclude that a point cannot but a local object, where a line segment can be a non-local object.

Be aware that what I have been and continue to talk about is just you contradicting your self and making excuses. You claim to use “=” as self identity but do not. You claim no point of view is exclusive, yet regularly assert some exclusive point of view as the required missing element for someone to get your notions. You claim that a line or line segment can not be divided then you divide it while simply asserting that you do not care about that division. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again you will most likely not get anyone to agree with your assertions until you can at least clearly demonstrate that you agree with your assertions.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well you’re the one who brought the truth table up even though you now claim not to care about it.

In other words you did not get the generalization.

Oops, there’s that exclusive point of view again.

The Man,

Non exclusive means that a conclusion about X is changed by different observations.

In this case, ___ cannot be seen by serial observation, and can be seen by parallel observation.

In other words, we are not limited only to one and only one observation (the serial observation in your case).

By your replies there are two options:

1) No observation.

2) Serial observation, which is used by you as the one and only one point of view of X.

By (2) you are the one who using here an exclusive point of view, because you have no other alternative.

 

[jsfisher]

Look at NXOR connective:

   =  0 0 --> T
 _ =  0 1 --> F
_  =  1 0 --> F
__ =  1 1 --> T

Did you mean for there to be an "NXOR between the two operands? Also, didn't you mean for the operands and the result to have a common domain, either all (0,1) or all (F,T)? E.g.,

0 nxor 0 --> 0
0 nxor 1 --> 1
1 nxor 0 --> 1
1 nxor 1 --> 0

And what pray tell do those two NXOR operands represent? Are you saying that " " is equal to 0 (or F) and "_" is equal to 1 (or T)?

...By reduction without loss of generality ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Without_loss_of_generality ) we do not care if we deal with 0,1 or T,F.

You still don't understand that term, do you?

 

[The Man]

In other words you did not get the generalization.


The Man,

Non exclusive means that a conclusion about X is changed by different observations. .

Exclusive means to exclude or not include so non exclusive means inclusive, since your observationally dependent conclusions are, well, observational dependent then they exclude those conclusions based on other observations or perspectives. If you want to assert observational dependent conclusions then just call them that, calling them “non exclusive” is inaccurate because by asserting the dependence of the conclusion on the observation you also assert it’s exclusion of some other conclusion that would have been drawn from some other observation.

Since you are now asserting observational (or perspective dependent) conclusions I guess you now agree with what I had always said on the other thread that your assertions and ascriptions (local and non-local) are just a matter of perspective.

In this case, ___ cannot be seen by serial observation, and can be seen by parallel observation.

In other words, we are not limited only to one and only one observation (the serial observation in your case). .

So you limit non-locality to one particular perspective that you call “parallel observation” to claim “we are not limited only to one and only one observation”. Even in just two sentences you can not agree with yourself.

Just what is it that you claim to be seeing in “parallel” for “__” it couldn’t be “.” could it? Since you claim that “__” is not comprised of “.”. However I am sure if you had written another sentence about “__” you would have contradicted yourself on that as well.

By your replies there are two options:

1) No observation.

2) Serial observation, which is used by you as the one and only one point of view of X.

By (2) you are the one who using here an exclusive point of view, because you have no other alternative.

The alternatives are yours, you are the one limiting attributes and conclusions (by your own assertion) to particular exclusive perspectives and continue to profess the requirement of one exclusive perspective that you call “parallel” to get non-locality.