Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

Well, since 2 is both prime and even, it would be unreasonable to expect otherwise. Two is also an integer, positive, a solution to x^2 - 4 = 0, and a bunch of other things, too. Care to guess what that implies in terms of set membership?

This is not relevant because I am talking about the non-locality or locality of element X w.r.t element Y.

By the way, are you claiming 2 is not both even and prime?

No, I claim that 2 is local because it cannot both a member AND not a member of a given set.

By the way, your reply is a good example of a person that is using a step-by-step observation in order to understand thing.

Your two questions above clearly show that you do not read the whole post in order to answer parts of it, but you reply to each paragraph separately before you understand its whole\parts relations.

I promise you that by this thinking style, you are not going to get my posts.

First, since set membership is not a temporal phenomenon, the adverb simultaneously as no meaning in your statement

There is nothing temporal here if you get things in parallel, and in this case, a non-local element is both a member AND not a member of a given set.

The problem is in the limited one-and-only-one-serial-observation of Set.

Second, nothing you have suggested for your definition of non-local supports your statement

Again, my definition is about the non-locality of an element w.r.t another element.

You refuse to get it, and force on me a general definition of non-locality, which is something that I did not do.

...which everything is, so everything must be non-local.

You have no idea of what is non-local element, or how a relation (which is not an element) is non-local by nature.

This ignorance prevents from you to say any meaningful thing about non-locality.

Even if your premises weren't faulty, there is no logical connection from them to this conclusion.

You cannot say that, because you did not provide any evidence that clearly shows that you understand the non-standard observation of these mathematical subjects.

 

[doronshadmi]

Right. The chief should always blame the customers for the poor quality of the soup.

If you get it you immediately understand what non-locality is, if you do not get it after 5 month dialog, you cannot get it.

 

[The Man]

No.

There are no half things in "< AND >" because ____ is an atom.

Says you, without any support for your assertions (as usual). In the X Y Z coordinate system example before the line segment from (4, 3, 1) to (4, 3, 10) is as much a line segment as those from (4, 3, 1) to (4, 3, 5) and from (4, 3, 5) to (4, 3, 10).

Since _____ is determined by you by coordinates (and any given coordinate is local by nature) you force them on the non-composed state of ____ , which causes you to use concepts like half line segments.

No just line segments, one could be half, 2/3 , five times or the same size of the other. You are the only one trying force a “state of ____ “ so you can claim that

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

Yet you have not said what it is that you think can only “be seen by parallel observation”. We know standard geometry defines and distinguishes between line segments using coordinates. How do you do that?

In other words, you are closed under Locality, as an exclusive point of view, that has no alternatives.

Yet as noted in the quote from you above you assert it is you who “has no alternatives” but “parallel observation” since “In this case, ___ cannot be seen by serial observation”. Your process remains the same you claim one thing, do the exact opposite then claim what you are doing as a limitation of others.

The rest of your post is nothing but locality as an exclusive point of view.

Some examples of Non-locality:

If the domain is . , then ____ is < AND > than . (notated as _._)

If the domain is . , then ____ is in AND out of . (notated as _._)

If the domain is [ ] , then ____ is in AND out of [ ] (notated as [_]_)


By your local exclusive point of view (where concepts like "half" are used), you cannot define Non-locality.

Actually the definition was yours (what little of it there was) I simply showed how that conclusion could be obtained, explainable and suported by standard geometry, something you claimed was entirely dependent on your “parallel observation”

Analytic approach cannot be but a step-by-step serial observation, and your perception is limited to this thinking style.

Yes we are all well aware of your preference in not using an “Analytic approach” in your “thinking style”. As a result you make ludicrous assertions like what follows

As a result you have no chance (even if your life will be depended on it) to get Non-locality.

I already shown you how coordinates define the line segment as well as permit your “Non-locality” defining conclusion of “< AND >”.

Different alternatives of X cannot be considered as exclusive.

So all “alternatives” are all inclusive or include all other “alternatives”? That would make them all the same. I order for an “alternative” to be different from another it must include something excluded by the other alternative and/or exclude something included by the other alternative.

Only a Cyclops' view (like your view) is exclusive, exactly because X is observed from one and only one point of view (there are no alternatives).

Anyone can observe X from any point of view in a coordinate system by changing the origin of the coordinates or the system of coordinates itself. The conclusions that are independent of the choice of origin or the choice of coordinate systems are considered to be the defining characteristics and are supportable by the coordinate system (or frame of reference) invariance of those conclusions. Any conclusions you derive for your non-analytical, no coordinate system of imaginary dogmatic edicts are equally pointless as they are supportable. Fortunately for you that is not an issue as it would require an “Analytic approach” to understand the need of a coordinate system just to define and distinguish any given point (“.”) or line segment (“__”).

The Man,

Also you have missed the following:

Nope.

_._ is not a combination of the two cases:

x = _

y = .

x < y (example: _ .)

or

x > y (example: . _)

More precisely:

((_ .) or (. _)) ≠ (_._) = (__ < and > . from __ to . observation)

where ((__ .) and (. __)) is impossible.[\quote]

Based on your above assertions ((_ .) AND (. _)) does “= (__ < and > . from __ to . observation)”. Once again you start with a claim “is not a combination of the two cases” then use the alternative of cases “or” as opposed to combining “AND” the cases as you originally claimed as well as your conclusion requires. Finally you assert “where ((__ .) and (. __)) is impossible” while asserting ((__ .) and (. __)) in your symbolic notations.

Furthermore:

x = _

y = .

x = and > y (example: ._)

or

x < and = y (example: _.)

More precisely:

((_.) or (._)) ≠ (_._) = (__ < and > . from __ to . observation)

where ((_.) and (._)) is impossible, because . cannot be both on (_.) and on (._)

In order to bat this impossibility let us use two line segments in different colors:

____

If . is on __ , than it is red

If . is on __ , than it is blue


It is quite trivial to understand that . cannot be red and blue

On the contrary, if ____ are in each other's domain, they can be both red AND blue (exactly as __ is in and out of . domain, but not vice versa)


By understanding Non-locality\Locality Interactions one concludes that Dedekind's cut of the rational numbers cannot satisfy the fact that given any R member on the real-line it cannot be considered as a limit for anything that is < or > than it.

You still continue to delude yourself, this was already described before and again above in the X Y Z coordinate system example where the line segment from (4, 3, 1) to (4, 3, 10) is as much a line segment as those from (4, 3, 1) to (4, 3, 5) and from (4, 3, 5) to (4, 3, 10). The point (4, 3, 5) is included within both the line segment (4, 3, 1) to (4, 3, 5) and from (4, 3, 5) to (4, 3, 10) as well as one from (4, 3, 2) to (4, 3, 8) or (4, 3, 3) to (4, 3, 15) and an infinite number of other line segments that could contain point (4, 3, 5). Coordinates describe the relationship between a point and a line segment “More precisely” then any of your non-analytical, imaginary and ‘pointless’ conclusions or dogmatic edicts. Those coordinates clearly demonstrate and define that a line segment (“__”) has a “domain”, like from (4, 3, 2) to (4, 3, 8) which includes an infinite number of points while a point (“.”) has a domain like (4, 3, 2) which only includes itself, yet can be included within an infinite number of line segments. As usual your assertion “exactly as __ is in and out of . domain, but not vice versa” is completely backasswards.

 

[jsfisher]

This is not relevant because I am talking about the non-locality or locality of element X w.r.t element Y.

Then why did you raise the topic in the first place?

No, I claim that 2 is local because it cannot both a member AND not a member of a given set.

Then why did you raise the topic of two different sets?

If even you cannot follow your own posts, why do you expect us to?

 

[jsfisher]

If you get it you immediately understand what non-locality is, if you do not get it after 5 month dialog, you cannot get it.

If you cannot define any of your concepts after 5 months of failure, you cannot explain them.

 

[doronshadmi]

Anyone can observe X from any point of view in a coordinate system by changing the origin of the coordinates or the system of coordinates itself.

The Man,

A point of view is not a point of some coordinate system.

A point of view is the perception's ability.

The rest of your post is based on this misunderstanding.

 

[doronshadmi]

Then why did you raise the topic in the first place?



Then why did you raise the topic of two different sets?

If even you cannot follow your own posts, why do you expect us to?

Because non-locality is understood by you as something that can be defined as:

The same result from different observations.

But I am talking about different observations that change the result of the same observed element.

From one observation the same element is local, and form another observation the same element is non-local.

This exactly the property of a line segment, which it is not a property of a point (a point is not changed under different observations).

 

[jsfisher]

Because non-locality is understood by you as something that can be defined as:

The same result from different observations.

Please don't speak for me. I am perfectly capable of speaking for myself.

But I am talking about different observations that change the result of the same observed element.

From one observation the same element is local, and form another observation the same element is non-local.

You are talking about Mathematics as if it were a sequence of science experiments. It isn't. It has rules, and those rules do not allow the alternate views you so ignorantly claim.

As you have been told so very many times, Mathematics is very adaptable, but if you want something shaped differently than what's found in the existing branches, you need to define your own branch of Mathematics. Simply taking an existing branch that you don't really understand in the first place, then declaring some parts wrong by fiat, is an exercise in insanity, not intellectual brilliance.

And before you go about inventing a new branch, you really need a better understanding of what is there already. After all, you are the one who impressed us with your mastery of logic by stating that the construct A if B, the construct A only if B, and the construct A if and only if B are all equivalent.

You have impressed us all with your insistence that a set is equal to the union of its members and that 2 may or may not be a member of the set, {2}. And we are well aware the you stated emphatically believe here is no such thing as a number in standard Mathematics.

You should actually learn a subject before you become critical of it.

 

[The Man]

The Man,

A point of view is not a point of some coordinate system.

As usual the misunderstanding is entirely yours “A point of view” can be specifically the view from some “point of some coordinate system” hence the word “point” being the defining factor. Just as a “A point of view” can be the expression of an opinion or a particular “point” in a subject of discussion, like the point I just made in my previous sentence or the point I made before about your observationally dependent non-local definition of “< AND >” not being “exclusive” to your “parallel observation” as you claim. It could even be the perspective from which a narrative is related like “Doron only perceives things from his singular point of view and therefore claims that anyone who disagrees with him does so because they are limiting themselves to only one point of view which he selects then ascribes to them”. Those are three standard points of view on “A point of view”, which you can find well supported by encyclopedias and reference materials should you care to get their point of view. Now lets see what is your perspective on “A point of view”.

A point of view is the perception's ability.

This is just you being silly again and combining “perception”, “ability” and “point of view” into some amorphic construct that you think constitutes a sentence. “The perception’s ability” to do what, perceive? That would make it both silly and redundant but if that is how you what to describe your point of view, silly and redundant would barley scratch the surface.

The rest of your post is based on this misunderstanding.

All of your posts and your notions in general are based on this and similar misunderstanding by you as well as your selective and exclusive “point of view” (however you choose to describe it).

 

[doronshadmi]

As usual the misunderstanding is entirely yours “A point of view” can be specifically the view from some “point of some coordinate system” hence the word “point” being the defining factor.

You are right.

This is exactly the reason why you do not get non-locality.

You are using serial\local-only perception as the one and only basis for any pre-condition, rule or conclusion, which naturally prevents any understanding of the non-local.

In other words, in your exclusive world of serial\local-only perception, a term like "can be ..." (as used in the quote above) cannot be found, simply because there are no alternatives in your universe.

 

[doronshadmi]

You are talking about Mathematics as if it were a sequence of science experiments. It isn't. It has rules, and those rules do not allow the alternate views you so ignorantly claim.

No, I am talking about perception as an inseparable factor the mathematical research (pure or applied, it does not matter).

By using non-exclusive perceptions of the mathematical subjects, one misses the ability to understand the researched mathematical universe from different and non-exclusive observations.

What you call common rules is nothing but the serial observation of the mathematical universe, where any premise rule or result is limited to serial observation, which is without a doubt an exclusive observation of this science for the past 2500 years.

The rest of your post is based on this artificial, arbitrary and limited observation of serial-only thinking style, which actually shapes the entire mathematical universe by a particular perception, used as the basic agreement between the community of mathematicians around the world.

I disagree with this agreement, and do my best in order to prevent any excusive perception at the basis of the mathematical science.

 

[doronshadmi]

jsfisher and the man,

I wonder why you do not reply in details to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4230971&postcount=827 ?

 

[doronshadmi]

Typo corrections of the two first sentences of #951 ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4253652&postcount=951 ):

No, I am talking about perception as an inseparable factor of the mathematical research (pure or applied, it does not matter).

By using an exclusive perception of the mathematical subjects, one misses the ability to understand the researched mathematical universe from different and non-exclusive observations.

 

[jsfisher]

jsfisher and the man,

I wonder why you do not reply in details to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4230971&postcount=827 ?

1. It did not present anything paradoxical.
2. It did not invoke a question.
3. It did support any point you are trying to make.
4. It had no apparent relevance to the discussion.

 

[The Man]

You are right.

This is exactly the reason why you do not get non-locality.

You are using serial\local-only perception as the one and only basis for any pre-condition, rule or conclusion, which naturally prevents any understanding of the non-local..

By your own definition of “non-local” as

Definition 5: If object x = and ≠ (where ≠ is < xor >) or < and > w.r.t object y, then object x is called Non-Local.

I have already demonstrated how a coordinate system can be used to obtain and support your “< and >” conclusion that you claim defines “Non-Local” and also claim is restricted to only one perception you claim as “parallel observation”. So not only is your defining conclusion of “Non-local” obtainable by a coordinate system or standard geometry, you are the only one trying to limit your defining conclusion to only one perspective, your own.

In other words, in your exclusive world of serial\local-only perception, a term like "can be ..." (as used in the quote above) cannot be found, simply because there are no alternatives in your universe.

Now you're just being silly again, by saying you cannot find something that you assert I used in what you quoted from me after you claimed “You are right” in my assertion that the misunderstanding is entirely yours.

As you have asserted.

Analytic approach cannot be but a step-by-step serial observation, and your perception is limited to this thinking style.

Your non-analytical approach has simply constricted you to such ridiculous and self contradictory statements that require you to remain in denial about what those statements assert.

 

[jsfisher]

No, I am talking about perception as an inseparable factor the mathematical research (pure or applied, it does not matter).

Which is your invention as an excuse for not knowing very much in the way of Mathematics.

By using non-exclusive perceptions of the mathematical subjects, one misses the ability to understand the researched mathematical universe from different and non-exclusive observations.

Timothy Leary might agree with you, but no sane mathematician would. Mathematics is not studied by observation. Moreover, you do not observe things differently -- you just flatly misunderstand them, then make stuff up to fill the voids.

You have demonstrated you inability to comprehend a simple syllogism, yet you believe your logic impeccable.

You have maintained repeatedly that a set is equal to the union of its members. That is blatantly, absolutely, irrefutably as bogus a claim as can be made, yet you cling to it like religious dogma.

Why is that?

 

[The Man]

jsfisher and the man,

I wonder why you do not reply in details to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4230971&postcount=827 ?

1. It did not present anything paradoxical.
2. It did not invoke a question.
3. It did support any point you are trying to make.
4. It had no apparently relevance to the discussion.

I have to agree with jsfisher on that one.

However if you insist on an “analytical approach” or remarks (as you do not seem capable or willing to do that yourself), I would have to point out that an internal perspective is just as subjective as an external perspective. It is just that one perspective is subject to being, well, internal and the other to being external. An objective perspective only arises by being unbiased or considering attributes independent of the observer. This of course is in direct conflict with your entirely observer and perspective dependent conclusion process. So the “paradox” like the “misunderstanding” is again entirely yours.

 

[doronshadmi]

I have already demonstrated how a coordinate system can be used to obtain and support your “< and >”

No, you did not because for you ___ is made of sub-elements.

The rest of your post is based on this premise.

 

[doronshadmi]

An objective perspective only arises by being unbiased or considering attributes independent of the observer.
.

Yeh,

Like you, using coordinates as a point of view to determine a line segment, isn't it?

 

[doronshadmi]

1. It did not present anything paradoxical.
2. It did not invoke a question.
3. It did support any point you are trying to make.
4. It had no apparent relevance to the discussion.

5. You did not show that you understand the basic notions of this thread; therefore you cannot say any meaningful thing about it.

I did my best in order to communicate with you, you did not do anything to communicate with me, because you cannot get things beyond the analytic serial\local-only observation.

As I said, you are nothing but a community of people that are using an exclusive observation of the researched things.

By using this excusive observation a line segment is determined by sub-elements, and you are totally blind to any other alternative.

Furthermore this exclusive blindness is used by the members of your community to determine what Mathematics is or what Mathematics is not.