Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
How it is well-defined if first I (or "my", as written by you) has do define what is well-defined?
Click to expand...

What the hell are you on about now? The use and syntax of “I” in a sentence in the English language is well defined and that is how I was using it.

doronshadmi said:
Your first usage is not less than what you call "my" where "my" does not hold without self-reference.
Click to expand...

No, it does not hold without external reference, specifically to the English language in this case, which gives us the definition and correct syntax of the usage of “I” or “my”.

doronshadmi said:
So is I, it is not less than I=I (self relation of I to itself, which is not less than I=I).

You are stack in I (or "my", as written by you) at the level of direct experience, without understand it.
Click to expand...

No, I am specifically using well defined symbols and syntax to communicate with others, try it sometime.

doronshadmi said:
The direct experience of I does not depend on its understanding, exactly as some apple falling on your head even if you don't understand the laws of Gravitation.
Click to expand...

Yet communicating that experience to others does depend on at least an understanding of communication and then an understanding of what it is you are trying to communicate, areas in which you are woefully lacking. Your lack of understanding does not remove dependence, an apple falling on your head still depends on gravity whether you understand it or not.


doronshadmi said:
A Well Formed Formula holds only if I is understood and not just directly experienced.
Click to expand...

A Well Formed Formula holds if it meets the well formed definition of a well formed formula. Clearly a well formed definition is something you have not “directly experienced”


doronshadmi said:
So is the case of A alone or = alone,

They are not understood unless they are interact with each other under a one framework, where the minimal interaction is Element's self-relation, notated, for example, as A=A, where A is the Element aspect of that interaction and = is the Relation aspect of that interaction.
Click to expand...

No, they are not understood unless they are defined, do you have any ‘well formed definitions’ in your notions?

doronshadmi said:
AGAIN:

A=I

[qimg]http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/AAA.jpg[/qimg]

In other words, a valid formula is not less than Relation Element Interaction (REI).

The minimal terms for re-search are:

Element (the local aspect of re-search)

Relation (the non-local aspect of re-search)

Self-reference (the interaction aspect of re-search)

No re-search holds unless it is REI.
Click to expand...


Nope, as I expected you obviously don’t. You can not define your local and non-local yet you want to use those as the basis of your REI? Well I will have to say that you notion of “re-search” is very simplistic. With “Self-reference” as “the interaction aspect of re-search” then all “re-search” is just that things are what they are. Figured that out all on your own did you? To think the rest or us have been wasting all of our time doing actual research (not your “re-search”) where we determine more “interaction”, relationships and what things are then just your naive “Self-reference”.
 
ddt said:
So do you mean "I" as the first person singular personal pronoun?
Click to expand...

How could he? That would require a prior definition, an understanding of how the symbol was being used. He already told us it was self-evident. You, ddt, are just being silly.
 
ddt said:
So do you mean "I" as the first person singular personal pronoun?
Click to expand...

1) jsfisher claims that A alone or = alone are Well Formed Formulas.

2) I claim that it is impossible to define A alone or = alone as WFF unless they are mutually independent.

It means that they save their identities under Interaction, where this interaction is self–reference of Element A to itself by Relation = , notated as A=A, such that:
AAA.jpg


3) Only Relation Element Interaction enables to define A (Element) or = (Relation) as WFF.

4) Furthermore, I show that even the most direct and intimate experience of one's self, is not less then self-relation of one to itself (I=I).

5) Also I show that one's self experience does not depend on the understanding of this direct and intimate experience, exactly as things are falling down even if we do not define the laws of Gravitation.

6) In means that re-search is exactly what it is: to search again some natural phenomena in order to understand the principles that enable it.

7) EDIT: This understanding is achieved only if mutual independency holds, as explained in (2).


Your inability to get what I say is based on your inability to directly know yourselves by any need of any language.

EDIT:

Only if you directly get yourselves, you are able to understand the need to go beyond this direct experience, in order to understand it (to research the principles that enable it).

It is achived by Relation Element Interaction.
 
Last edited:
Some claims:

But A=A is still not A alone.

Well, he is right. A alone is not WFF where A=A is WFF.


EDIT:


Furthermore, one has to explain how A alone or = alone refer to each other (interact with each other), in the first place.

REI explains it.

I do not see how it can be done without REI, so please open my eyes to something that is not REI and can do it.
 
Last edited:
ddt said:
So do you mean "I" as the first person singular personal pronoun?
Click to expand...

jsfisher said:
How could he? That would require a prior definition, an understanding of how the symbol was being used. He already told us it was self-evident. You, ddt, are just being silly.
Click to expand...
:D
As in "We hold these truths to be self-evident"? :)

The Man said:
That is how I have been using it, which I am sure comes as a surprise to no one.
Click to expand...
Quelle surpise! I happen to do that too when writing English. :)

Little 10 Toes said:
No he doesn't. He has used the phrase (more or less) "the symbol I" in several posts.
Click to expand...
Hmm. These discussions with doron are so long-winded that I lost track of it. But in the post I reacted to, he said:
doronshadmi said:
How it is well-defined if first I (or "my", as written by you) has do define what is well-defined?
Click to expand...
and from the reference to the first person singular possessive pronoun, I get the impression that he indeed meant the personal pronoun - and meant so all along.

Anyway, it's again a fine example of doron's excellent communication skills.
 
jsfisher said:
I have never made this claim.
Click to expand...
Since you agree with this definition http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4504420&postcount=2088, which claims that:

Each propositional variable is, on its own, a formula.

and since you claim that "on its own" = "alone" ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4504700&postcount=2091 ) , you are actually claim that A alone is a Well Formed Formula.

Furthermore, in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4496377&postcount=2023 you claim that each A (where, according to your claim, A alone is WFF) is another formula (where formula means Well Formed Formula).

I disagree with this definition and your use of this definition and claim that any definition (even the definition of the most intimate expiriance of your own self to itself) is not less than the form A=A.

You disagree with it and claim that A alone (this is your interpretation to "on its own") is a different Well Formed Formula than A=A.

In other words, you indeed claim that A alone is WFF.

In other words, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4496540&postcount=2035 holds.

Actually jsfisher, our last dialog is a concrete example of why http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4496540&postcount=2035 holds.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I give you the whole hand (including the answer "YES" in (4) of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4516817&postcount=2166 ), you want only the finger.

Nice ddt, nice.
Click to expand...
The word "yes" does not occur in that post. You're lying. And I couldn't care less for your whole hand - the numbered points in that post are either gibberish or more lies, as at least one pointed out by jsfisher. As for the rest:

doronshadmi said:
Your inability to get what I say is based on your inability to directly know yourselves by any need of any language.
Click to expand...

No, you have a fundamental communication problem. You're unwilling to even answer yes/no questions with a simple yes/no, even when asked for. That you meant "I" as the first person singular personal pronoun clearly was not self-evident, as you've never stated that you meant that and used it in a context where everyone expected a mathematical symbol. You knowingly fostered this confusion by referring to "the symbol I" - Little 10 Toes was right in pointing that out, see, e.g., post #2118.

You're a serial liar, you're intentionally deceptive in your communication, and as for mathematics, you're a 100% crackpot.
 
doronshadmi said:
6) In means that re-search is exactly what it is: to search again some natural phenomena in order to understand the principles that enable it.
Click to expand...


Try searching again (or again and again) for the origin of the word and do some actual research this time. The prefix “re” can mean “again” or “again and again” to indicate ‘repetition’ (or to ‘petition again’) but it also means “back” or “backward” to indicate withdrawal or backwards motion as in ‘revert’ (backwards application of ‘vertere’ or to ‘turn’ back or backwards). In fact both are applicable to the meaning in the word ‘research’ indicating a repeatedly backwards search for a cause, supporting documentation or just general information about someone or something. In your personal and obscure usage “re-search” just means to search again and again, which probably is more applicable to you since you never seem to find anything thus requiring you to “re-search”. So please “re-search” research and keep doing it again and again until you understand its common meaning. Oh but wait you do note it as a search of “some natural phenomena in order to understand the principles that enable it.” and thus a search going backwards for causes and contributing factors, then again backwards from that for causes and contributing factors, then again backwards from that for causes and contributing factors... (ect). Too bad you simply are not self-aware of your own understanding and (or should I say demonstrative lack of) usage of research.
 
Let’s look at another or your ridiculously contradictory assertions

doronshadmi said:
It means that they save their identities under Interaction, where this interaction is self–reference of Element A to itself by Relation = , notated as A=A, such that:
[qimg]http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/AAA.jpg[/qimg]

3) Only Relation Element Interaction enables to define A (Element) or = (Relation) as WFF.
Click to expand...

So interaction is “A=A” and you have also referred to ‘definition’ as just yyyy ‘=’ xxx. So in order to define a relation like ‘=’ as you note above requiring your ‘interaction’ of ‘self-reference’ that definition then becomes ‘= = =’ where ‘=’ is the ‘element’, the ‘relation’ and the entire ‘interaction’. Your ‘REI’ falls apart when applied to ‘=’ the primary ‘element’ of ‘relation’ in your ‘interaction’.



doronshadmi said:
4) Furthermore, I show that even the most direct and intimate experience of one's self, is not less then self-relation of one to itself (I=I).
Click to expand...

Hey, what you do to yourself with your REI in the privacy of your own home is your business. We do not need to hear about your “most direct and intimate experience of one's self” or what it “is not less then”.
 
doronshadmi said:
Since you agree with this definition...
In other words, you indeed claim that A alone is WFF.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is true. I have claimed the A in A = A is a formula, a well-formed formula in fact.

doronshadmi said:
1) jsfisher claims that A alone or = alone are Well Formed Formulas.
Click to expand...

No, that is untrue. I never claimed that.


Doron, if you cannot understand what you yourself wrote, why do you expect others to understand it.
 
jsfisher said:
Yes, that is true. I have claimed the A in A = A is a formula, a well-formed formula in fact.
Click to expand...

In other words, you agree with me that A (some Element) is WFF only if Relation is used also.

In that case there are not two A formulas, but one and only one formula A that is related to it self by at least one relation notated by = :
AAA.jpg
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Try searching again (or again and again) for the origin of the word and do some actual research this time. The prefix “re” can mean “again” or “again and again” to indicate ‘repetition’ (or to ‘petition again’) but it also means “back” or “backward” to indicate withdrawal or backwards motion as in ‘revert’ (backwards application of ‘vertere’ or to ‘turn’ back or backwards). In fact both are applicable to the meaning in the word ‘research’ indicating a repeatedly backwards search for a cause, supporting documentation or just general information about someone or something. In your personal and obscure usage “re-search” just means to search again and again, which probably is more applicable to you since you never seem to find anything thus requiring you to “re-search”. So please “re-search” research and keep doing it again and again until you understand its common meaning. Oh but wait you do note it as a search of “some natural phenomena in order to understand the principles that enable it.” and thus a search going backwards for causes and contributing factors, then again backwards from that for causes and contributing factors, then again backwards from that for causes and contributing factors... (ect). Too bad you simply are not self-aware of your own understanding and (or should I say demonstrative lack of) usage of research.
Click to expand...

No.

Backwards cannot be less than Locality (its cardinal has not predecessor).

Forward cannot be more than Non-locality (its cardinal has no successor).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom