Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
zooterkin,

A chord in the abstract sense (a line segment that is straight or not) is not made or determined by sub-elements.

I hope that you are able to get its non-local property, which used as a connector between local elements.
Click to expand...

Oooo. Wrong again doronshadmi. There is nothing abstract about a chordWP. In fact, a chordWP is straight. Once again, you make up definitions on the fly of words that 99.9% of math people already use correctly.

Since you are not willing to discuss definitions of words that you use to discuss your trunk, I know I'm wasting my time. I'll continue to point out the errors in your "logic" until you start responding to my posts. You've had what, something like 10 years, to think about your ideas. It might only take me 10 minutes to counter them.
 
The Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

No,

Since ___ is an atom it is not measured by sub-elements.

This is exactly the reason why ____ < AND > then . , if _.__ state is observed from ___ to . , where "<" or ">" are not related to any . but to ___ w.r.t the . , where this observation is not along ____ (as used by a serial observation) but parallel to _____

Actually "<" or ">" do not understood here only as "smaller" or "greater" but also as notations which determine that ___ is beyond . domain
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
doron, your reading comprehension skills are failing you again. It was clear from context that only one meaning applied. Care to guess which one? 50/50 chance....
Click to expand...

I am talking about the abstract interpretation of a chord.
 
doronshadmi said:
A chord in the abstract sense (a line segment that is straight or not) is not made or determined by sub-elements.
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
I am talking about the abstract interpretation of a chord.
Click to expand...

Nothing "abstract" about the word chord. It simply has two different meanings in two branches of math. And in graph theory, it is not a line segment. So you're talking out of your posterior again. But do carry on to make a fool of yourself, Doron Shadmi, CAD manager at Tahal.
 
doronshadmi said:
zooterkin,

A chord in the abstract sense (a line segment that is straight or not) is not made or determined by sub-elements.

I hope that you are able to get its non-local property, which used used as a connector between local elements.

For more details please look at http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf
Click to expand...

Little 10 Toes said:
Oooo. Wrong again doronshadmi. There is nothing abstract about a chordWP. In fact, a chordWP is straight. Once again, you make up definitions on the fly of words that 99.9% of math people already use correctly.

Since you are not willing to discuss definitions of words that you use to discuss your trunk, I know I'm wasting my time. I'll continue to point out the errors in your "logic" until you start responding to my posts. You've had what, something like 10 years, to think about your ideas. It might only take me 10 minutes to counter them.
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chord_(geometry)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chord_(graph_theory)
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
I am talking about the abstract interpretation of a chord.
Click to expand...

I am so glad you posted a few times after me since this will show everyone your standard mode of operation. You use a word that already has an established definition and use the "abstract" definition (aka you'll make it up).

In fact if you go to the chordWP page, you'll notice that there isn't the word "abstract" anywhere on the page. Same thing with Chord_(geometry)WP and Chord_(graph_theory)WP.

You had the chance to define what you mean by "abstract" when I called upon the fact that there is no abstract definition. Funny that you decided to give us two standard definitions that show chords are not "a line segment that is straight or not".

Generally speaking, it's a line segment that connects two points on a circle's circumference. A diameter is a special chord, just like a square is a special rectangle. Nothing abstract about chords there.

Love is abstract, hate is abstract, Picasso is abstract. And my 10 minutes are up for this post.
 
ddt said:
Nothing "abstract" about the word chord. It simply has two different meanings in two branches of math. And in graph theory, it is not a line segment. So you're talking out of your posterior again. But do carry on to make a fool of yourself, Doron Shadmi, CAD manager at Tahal.
Click to expand...
No ddt,

In both cases we deal with something that can be non-local w.r.t to other things.
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
I am so glad you posted a few times after me since this will show everyone your standard mode of operation. You use a word that already has an established definition and use the "abstract" definition (aka you'll make it up).

In fact if you go to the chordWP page, you'll notice that there isn't the word "abstract" anywhere on the page. Same thing with Chord_(geometry)WP and Chord_(graph_theory)WP.

You had the chance to define what you mean by "abstract" when I called upon the fact that there is no abstract definition. Funny that you decided to give us two standard definitions that show chords are not "a line segment that is straight or not".

Generally speaking, it's a line segment that connects two points on a circle's circumference. A diameter is a special chord, just like a square is a special rectangle. Nothing abstract about chords there.

Love is abstract, hate is abstract, Picasso is abstract. And my 10 minutes are up for this post.
Click to expand...
No,

Abstract is anything that is not necessarily related to any physical phenomena.

In that case love, hate, line, point, etc… can be considered as abstract or non-abstract concepts, according to the researched enviornment.
 
Last edited:
nathan said:
Back to your usual trick of editing the past I see. And you didn't remove the statment that the difference between two atoms is another atom. Ergo atoms are divisible.
Click to expand...

Since no atom is a component of another atom (otherwise the researched thing is not an atom but a composed element) no atom is changed under any operation.

The changed thing is the observation's point of view of some equation.

There are basically at least two ways to look at some equation:

From the arithmetic to the result or form the result to the arithmetic.

In both cases the result can be considered as an atom that does not depend on any arithmetic manipulation.
 
The Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

In that case you are using two locations that are based on x,y where x is some angle and y is some length.

So by your particular example we get a local object that is determined by the localities 90,5 and 180,5.

Form a local point of view 90,5 and 180,5 are not equal to each other.

From the line-segment's point of view these local identities are in a superposition w.r.t to each other, because a line-segment is simultaneously at both local values.


This situation is based on ONN2 symmetrical case, represented as:

Code: 
 90,5    90,5
180,5   180,5
.         .          
|         |
|         |
|_________|__
|
|
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No,

Abstract is anything that is not necessarily related to any physical phenomena.

In that case love, hate, line, point, etc… can be considered as abstract or non-abstract concepts, according to the researched enviornment.
Click to expand...

Nice escape clause there. "It could be, depending on what you're basing it on." Based on that, anything you tell us has no meaning. Nice way to teach something.

Still haven't defined chord I notice. We'll make this simple. Please go back and look at the posts that ask you to confirm definitions of words. How about you tell us what your definitions are.. Nevermind. You haven't, and you still won't. I think the following post still applies here:

Little 10 Toes said:
Avoidance of posts defining words that you use uniquely noted. Since you won't answer questions, I feel that you are a fanatic of your own ideas and aren't open to using common terms. How can you share your "ideas" without a common language?

Your shalmerflik is so getuy of werlug, I'm klutairq that you can yiwl without hiltnerbrafing all over your reezlents!! You tell me what I said and I'll tell you if you're right.
Click to expand...
 
doronshadmi said:
In that case you are using two locations that are based on x,y where x is some angle and y is some length.
Click to expand...
Well, normally (x,y) is used for Cartesian coordinates, (r, θ) are used for polar coordinates.
So by your particular example we get a local object that is determined by the localities 90,5 and 180,5.

Form a local point of view 90,5 and 180,5 are not equal to each other.
Click to expand...
With you so far, though I don't know what you mean by 'local point of view'
From the line-segment's point of view these local identities are in a superposition w.r.t to each other, because a line-segment is simultaneously at both local values.
Click to expand...
And... no. Just because the line goes from one to the other doesn't make them the same. My route to work goes from town A to town B; that doesn't make town A the same place as town B.


What can you do with your notation that can't be done with conventional notation?
 
zooterkin said:
My route to work goes from town A to town B; that doesn't make town A the same place as town B.
Click to expand...

Unless the road is considered, which is non-local w.r.t town A and town B that (as you said) have places (they are local w.r.t the road).

zooterkin said:
What can you do with your notation that can't be done with conventional notation?
Click to expand...
Do you mean notion?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Unless the road is considered, which is non-local w.r.t town A and town B that (as you said) have places (they are local w.r.t the road).
Click to expand...


And yet you still cannot define local and non-local -- not even informally without contradiction or circular reasoning.
 
jsfisher said:
And yet you still cannot define local and non-local -- not even informally without contradiction or circular reasoning.
Click to expand...
No,

You can't get it becuse you are closed under serial observation, and I do not care anymore in your case.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Unless the road is considered, which is non-local w.r.t town A and town B that (as you said) have places (they are local w.r.t the road).
Click to expand...

They are two separate places. They are at two different locations on the same road. That does not make the two places the same.

Do you mean notion?
Click to expand...

No. I don't think you have one of those.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom