Deeper than primes

[ddt]

These rules, definitions and axioms depends on observations and I am not talking about sensual observations of physical stuff but about the fundamental ability get a knowledge whether it is abstract or not.

Your community is ignorant about it because it is limited to one and only one observation type (the serial step-by-step one, which is also called analytic) and as a result any rule, definition or axiom is nothing but the outcome of this particular observation.

This thread is a very good example of my arguments about the community of mathematicians that shaped the mathematical science by a single observation's type.

I'm wavering between the characterizations "word salad" and "bollocks"... Whatever way, you did your best again to show profound ignorance about mathematics. Great job!

 

[The Man]

The objectivity of mathematical objects is discovered by non-exclusive observations.

It means that different conclusions of the same object are discovered by different observations.

As a result our body of knowledge is sufficient enough in order to understand the interaction between different results, which are based on different observations of the same objects.

For example: a point properties or a line properties are discovered by different observations. .

No they were not “discovered” no one dug up a “point” or accidentally mixed some things together and suddenly created a “line”. They were simply defined as theoretical abstractions. Once defined however their usefulness was readily “discovered” and continues today.

Then we are able to define more interesting relations between these objects, which enrich our body of knowledge about them.

By observing a point we define that a one relation with another object is enough in order to define the interaction with the other object.

This is not the case about a line segment because by using different observation we define that there are cases where a one relation with another object is not enough in order to define the interaction with the other object.

By using these results a point, a line and their possible interactions are not entirely determined by any particular observation of them.

The organic natural numbers are exactly the result of interactions that are based on different observations of objects like a point or a line segment.

Please pay attention that the concept of relation itself is inherently non-local and does not depend on observations.

This is not the case about objects. Their properties are discovered by observations.

Again observational dependent conclusions are, well dependent on the observer or the observation. Objective conclusions are not dependent on the observer. You are simply arguing for subjective conclusions so that those “objects” can be subjected to whatever conclusions you choose to think they should be subjected to.

Great,

As a result any object that has "theoretical extents" w.r.t to other objects, can be non-local w.r.t to these objects.

A line segment is the simplest case of such an object.

This is not the case with any object that has no "theoretical extents" w.r.t to other objects.

A point is the simplest case of such an object.

Theoretical extents are not “w.r.t.” anything; you continue to insist upon subjecting everything to your exclusive and observationally dependent non-analytical process.

So you have refined your definition of non-local to include anything with theoretical extents?

The interaction between these simplest cases is one of the ways to get the organic natural numbers.


EDIT:


No, our undertanding can be based on direct immediate and parallel observation of the researched object, a step-by-step observation of it or any possible interaction of Parallel\Serial observations.

So now what you refer to as “a step-by-step observation” or an “analytical approach” is just as valid as your preferred and previously exclusively correct “parallel observation”?

A definition (as currently understood) is nothing but the result of a serial step-by-step observation.

To paraphrase you with the correct usage of some of words you use most but understand the least ‘A definition is noting without an analytical approach’.

The current community of mathematicians is nothing but a group of people which are skilful to get things only if they are defined by a serial step-by-step observation.

Furthermore, over the past 2500 years the mathematical science itself was recognized by this particular observation.

Well a least you got the part about them being skilful correct, but that particular skill seems to have eluded you or more likely you just fail to observe it.

The aim of my work is to show that the mathematical science is not the result of any particular observation.

Then why do you continually try to force things to your one particular point of view and remain in denial that other points of view (like coordinate systems) can obtain the same conclusions you use as your defining aspects. In fact above you have now associated your non-local definition to having theoretical extents. If current math and geometry can do things better then your own work so much so that you are now modifying your own work to emulate current math and geometry, why would anyone need your work?

Again it is only you that claims conclusions must be “the result of any particular observation”, specifically your own.

No,

If a line segment is defined by a serial observation, then it is determined and distinguished by points.

Horse hockey, I made no observations, serial or otherwise in the line segment examples I gave before. I simply defined a line segment by giving two points in a coordinate system.

This is not the case if a line segment is defined by parallel observation.

In that case objects like points or coordinates are not used in order to distinguish between different line segments and the non-local property of a line segment is considered in order to distinguish between line-segments, for example:

x = ____

y = ____


x < and = y (example: _____)

or

y > and = x (example: _____)

So from some point to some other point you have a line segment configured to be COLOR=”RED” then from some point to some other point you have a line segment configured to be COLOR=”BLUE” and claim this is a demonstration of you defining and distinguishing line segments without using points. You have absolutely no idea how “skillful” that “community of mathematicians” were so many thousands of years ago to develop a geometric system that even you use today (perhaps without realizing it) in your effort to assert that you do not use it.

 

[doronshadmi]

Theoretical extents are not “w.r.t.” anything;

Please demonstrate how extension is considered by ignoring anything but the extended thing.

I really wish to see such a trick.

They were simply defined as theoretical abstractions. Once defined however their usefulness was readily “discovered” and continues today.

These theoretical abstractions are based only on serial step-by-step thinking style.

The outcomes that are based on this thinking style are indeed very useful but they are not the one and only one thinking style that can be used in order to develop the mathematical science.

You are talking about past, present and future achievements that are based on a particular thinking style, the serial step-by-step analytic one.

I claim that by using more than a one thinking style, already known knowledge can fundamentally be changed in addition to a new knowledge, which is added to the considered body of knowledge.

In this case the considered is the body of knowledge of the mathematical science, which is not saved from fundamental changes of already agreed things, especially if these things are the outcome of a one and only one thinking style.

Then why do you continually try to force things to your one particular point of view and remain in denial that other points of view (like coordinate systems) can obtain the same conclusions you use as your defining aspects.

You did not show that using coordinates can obtain the same conclusions that I get about line segments.

Also please answer to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4256330&postcount=975.

... even you use today (perhaps without realizing it) in your effort to assert that you do not use it.

You are right, but there is a very important difference between you and me.

You are using one and only one thinking style, where I do not.

This is the reason why you cannot get my work.

 

[jsfisher]

The outcomes that are based on this thinking style are indeed very useful but they are not the one and only one thinking style that can be used in order to develop the mathematical science.

As has been pointed out to you so many times before, if you'd like to develop something new in Mathematics, have at it. Nobody here objects to you coming up with a new branch. However, you don't get to redefine the existing branches on personal fiat.

 

[nathan]

You are using one and only one thinking style, where I do not.

That's trivially true, because you do not think.

 

[doronshadmi]

As has been pointed out to you so many times before, if you'd like to develop something new in Mathematics, have at it. Nobody here objects to you coming up with a new branch. However, you don't get to redefine the existing branches on personal fiat.

In order to talk about branches, you have to understand the tree.

Since you are ignorent of the trunk, you cannot talk about branches.

And yes, an existing branch can fundamentally be changed by a new understanding of it.

 

[drkitten]

In order to talk about branches, you have to understand the tree.

We've been telling you that for some time now.

We've even been trying to teach you the fundamentals.

A pity that you're so willfully ignorant that you don't even understand the basics of the fields you're botching.

 

[doronshadmi]

We've even been trying to teach you the fundamentals.

You can't because you are using only a one thinking style, which is nothing but a particular case of many other thinking styles that you don't use.

 

[drkitten]

You can't because you are using only a one thinking style

Well, I'm glad that at least you admit you're unteachable, even if you get the reason wrong.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well, I'm glad that at least you admit you're unteachable, even if you get the reason wrong.

Do you really think that there is a border between being a teacher and being a student?

I don't think so, each one of us is both a student and a teacher in the same time.

 

[drkitten]

Do you really think that there is a border between being a teacher and being a student?

Of course not.

Which explains why you can't explain your "ideas." You can't teach, either.

I don't think so, each one of us is both a student and a teacher in the same time.

Wrong. You're neither a teacher nor a student.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

In order to talk about branches, you have to understand the tree.

Since you are ignorent of the trunk, you cannot talk about branches.

And yes, an existing branch can fundamentally be changed by a new understanding of it.

But you won't acknowledge what terms and definitions we use about the trunk, so how can we use the same terms about the branch?

I think your tree is full of nuts.

Do you really think that there is a border between being a teacher and being a student?

I don't think so, each one of us is both a student and a teacher in the same time.

Yes there is a border. A teacher has more experience in a selected field and is willing to pass on that knowledge to someone who wishes to understand further in that field. Stephen Hawking is someone who teaches the mysteries of the universe while a kid could teach him about Pokemon video games. If Steve doesn't want to learn, Steve is not a student. If the kid can't explain about Pokemon video games, then the kid is not a teacher.

You, however, do not fall in either one of those groups. You would be the law student that would not answer questions involving a police investigation because you believe you have the right to remain silent. (You do not have the right to remain silent because that applies to you when you are under arrest.)

So when are you going to start talking about your tree trunk? And avoidance of previously mentioned word definitions still noted.

 

[The Man]

Please demonstrate how extension is considered by ignoring anything but the extended thing.

I really wish to see such a trick.

Again it is called a coordinate system, which is not a ‘thing’ but an abstract concept. Do you have some difficulty distinguishing between the two? The key point is, much as you try to profess, the concept of coordinate systems gives us the ability to “perceive” things from multiple perceptivities, just what you claim to do but can not demonstrate. The consideration of coordinate systems is demonstrated by most of the technology you use and even your futile attempts to demonstrate that you do not use coordinate systems.

These theoretical abstractions are based only on serial step-by-step thinking style.

The outcomes that are based on this thinking style are indeed very useful but they are not the one and only one thinking style that can be used in order to develop the mathematical science.

No one but you is claiming that there is one and only one way to examine things, all we do claim is that such examination must produce some improvement. How one gauges improvement then becomes the question, you can just accept something offered as an improvement, or you can analyze what is presented to determine if there is some actual improvement. In the former everything is acceptable, or without examination everything one claims improves, does so, so everything improves. In the latter the only things that improve are those that have demonstrably improving attributes that one can demonstrate by analyzing those attributes.

You are talking about past, present and future achievements that are based on a particular thinking style, the serial step-by-step analytic one.

Nope, as I have always said it is you confined to one “thinking style” which simply seems to be you disagreeing with yourself. Nothing new in the past, present, or future, when you actually what to expand your perspectives you might actually learn what has been done in the past, is being done in the present and might be done in the future.

I claim that by using more than a one thinking style, already known knowledge can fundamentally be changed in addition to a new knowledge, which is added to the considered body of knowledge.

In this case the considered is the body of knowledge of the mathematical science, which is not saved from fundamental changes of already agreed things, especially if these things are the outcome of a one and only one thinking style.

Oh, except from your exclusive non-thinking style?

You did not show that using coordinates can obtain the same conclusions that I get about line segments.

Except for the fact that some given line segment can have coordinate positions greater then and less then some given point and that you have to think about it.

Also please answer to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4256330&postcount=975.

No time now but I will give you the analytical approach you request later.

You are right, but there is a very important difference between you and me.

No doubt.

You are using one and only one thinking style, where I do not.

This is where you are worng, you have speficialy stated and contunue to assert the correctness of your “one and only one thinking style” of “parllel obsevation”.

This is the reason why you cannot get my work.

You do not get your work because you find analyzing your work as a determent, why should you expect anyone else to find it of any consequence if you are not willing yourself to take your work seriously.

 

[The Man]

Doron, for someone proclaiming the significance of alternate points of view you seem to take a singular approach. Coordinate systems enable us to take multiple approaches. For example, within certain coordinate systems line segments are straight in others they are curved. In such systems a line segment, still defined by two points, can also be referred to as a cord. In polar coordinates we can define such a cord as (in a radius angle notation) from 5 units at 90 degrees to 5 units at 180 degrees. I am curious to see if your work has addressed such alternative perspectives that are currently available within standard geometry.

 

[doronshadmi]

Again it is called a coordinate system

If a line segment is determined by points, its non-locality cannot be researched.

In other words, the rest of your post is limited to local observation.

A thing is used here for any abstract or non-abstract researchable.

 

[zooterkin]

The patience of some posters here never ceases to amaze me. Bravo!

For example, within certain coordinate systems line segments are straight in others they are curved. In such systems a line segment, still defined by two points, can also be referred to as a cord.

Just in case doronshadmi should choose to follow up on this, the spelling is 'chord'.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron, for someone proclaiming the significance of alternate points of view you seem to take a singular approach. Coordinate systems enable us to take multiple approaches. For example, within certain coordinate systems line segments are straight in others they are curved. In such systems a line segment, still defined by two points, can also be referred to as a cord. In polar coordinates we can define such a cord as (in a radius angle notation) from 5 units at 90 degrees to 5 units at 180 degrees. I am curious to see if your work has addressed such alternative perspectives that are currently available within standard geometry.

If a line segment is an atom, then it is measured by relations between atoms.

For example: 1(= ____) – 0.5(= __) = 0.5(=__)

EDIT:

By understanding a line segment as an atom, the real-line is a 1D overlap of infinitely many different non-local atoms, ordered according to a local atom, for example:


0 = . (local atom)

1 = ____ (non-local atom)

.5 = __ (non-local atom)

Pi = ______________ (non-local atom)

Real-line example: ______________.______________

 

[nathan]

If a line segment is an atom, then it is measured by relations between atoms.

For example: 1(= ____) – 0.5(= __) = 0.5(=__)

Hurrah! Atoms that can be divided.

 

[nathan]

If a line segment is determined by points, its non-locality cannot be researched.

In other words, the rest of your post is limited to local observation.

A thing is used here for any abstract or non-abstract researchable.

Could you please highlight exactly where you used 'thing' in the two sentances prior to you claiming you used 'thing' in some way?

 

[nathan]

Just in case doronshadmi should choose to follow up on this, the spelling is 'chord'.

hehe, way to go picking on that misspelling Haven't you noticed Doron's misspellings are so complete they often hit a completely different word!