Deeper than primes

[The Man]

No.

In = = = only the middle is Relation.

You did not get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4518433&postcount=2181 .

So ‘= ≠ =’ when ‘=’ is not in the middle? How about ‘A = B = C’? ‘B’ is in the middle so it must be the ‘relation’? Again your ‘placeholder’ dodge does not cut the mustard.

ETA:

To put it more succinctly Doron you are now claiming that your ‘relation’ is not a ‘relation’ when defined in your ‘self-reference interaction of definition’ so then how does one define a specific ‘relation’ in your ‘REI’. If your ‘REI’ can not define the relations it uses and depends upon then it can not define the ‘elements’ or 'interactions' either as you note, ‘element’, ‘relation’ and ‘interaction’ are all need for definitions in your ‘REI’.

 

[doronshadmi]

So ‘= ≠ =’ when ‘=’ is not in the middle? How about ‘A = B = C’? ‘B’ is in the middle so it must be the ‘relation’? Again your ‘placeholder’ dodge does not cut the mustard.

ETA:

To put it more succinctly Doron you are now claiming that your ‘relation’ is not a ‘relation’ when defined in your ‘self-reference interaction of definition’ so then how does one define a specific ‘relation’ in your ‘REI’. If your ‘REI’ can not define the relations it uses and depends upon then it can not define the ‘elements’ or 'interactions' either as you note, ‘element’, ‘relation’ and ‘interaction’ are all need for definitions in your ‘REI’.

This time really try to understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4496144&postcount=2010 .

Also you did not get yet http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4519061&postcount=2189 , which shows that = is some particular case of Relation.

As for ‘A = B = C’ the Relation = is in the middle between Elements A,B or B,C .

Element is the related.

Relation is the relator.

Well Formed Formula is not less than Relator\Related Interaction.

 

[doronshadmi]

Being constant does not make something an “atom” especially not in your usage of the term as a non-composite thing. The speed of light is constant yet it is still a speed requiring both time and space for the composition of that proportion.

The speed of light is not changed no matter what are the values of Space or Time.

The speed of light is the atom (the invariant) where Space or Time are changed relatively to it.

This kind of relation is similar to the relation between atoms and composed results that are based on these atoms.

Your abstraction ability has to be developed, if you don't get that.

 

[doronshadmi]

I see. So the answer to my question, "Are you going somewhere with this?", is a resounding, "No!"

No, you don't see.

 

[The Man]

This time really try to understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4496144&postcount=2010 .

Also you did not get yet http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4519061&postcount=2189 , which shows that = is some particular case of Relation.

As for ‘A = B = C’ the Relation = is in the middle between Elements A,B or B,C .

Element is the related.

Relation is the relator.

Well Formed Formula is not less than Relator\Related Interaction.

A particular case that is the ‘relation’ of your ‘self-reference interaction’ that you call ‘definition’. In defining that ‘relation’ in your ‘REI’ it is just ‘= = =’ thus ‘relation’, ‘element’ and your ‘interaction’ are all the same thing. Obviously you have ignored and continue to ignore this fundamental lack of distinction between your ‘relation’, ‘element’ and ‘interaction’ of your ‘REI’ when it is applied to defining your stated ‘relation’ and ‘interaction’ of ‘self-reference’, however I can assure you that not everyone else will be as willfully ignorant as you.

 

[The Man]

The speed of light is not changed no matter what are the values of Space or Time.

The speed of light is the atom (the invariant) where Space or Time are changed relatively to it.

This kind of relation is similar to the relation between atoms and composed results that are based on these atoms.

First that constant is an “atom” which in your usage means that it is not a composite. Yet you also assert that it is composed of both time and space making it not one of your “atoms”. Further you then describe it as a relation between “atoms and composed”, again refuting your previous and continuing statements that it is an “atom” in your usage of that term.

Your abstraction ability has to be developed, if you don't get that.

Your self-awareness needs to be developed because you have just directly contradicted yourself at fist in the same sentence then reinforced that contradiction in the next sentence and clearly you just don’t get that.

 

[doronshadmi]

The Man,

= = = is not relation only but a relation between related things where related things are always Elements, no matter what their names are, for example:

In the expression "Relation = Relation" Element is called "Relation" and Relation is called "=" .

You do not distinguish between some particular name of X and X, where X in this example is Element, no matter what name it has.

In general nothing is researchable if it is less than Relation Element Interaction, where Interaction is at least Element's self-reference:

Element is marked as A, Relation is marked as = , and REI in this case is:

So ‘= ≠ =’ when ‘=’ is not in the middle?

This is a REI but a false one.

By using = and ≠ we get:

'= = =' is true

'≠ ≠ ≠' is false

'≠ = ≠' is true

'= ≠ =' is false

'= = ≠' is false

They are WFFs exactly because what's in the middle is Relation and what's in the sides is Element(s).

Furthermore, WFF is at least REI no matter if Relation is not in the middle, as can be seen by some Lisp expression, for example:

(+ 2 3) is equivalent to 2+3 and in both cases + is Relation and 2 or 3 are Eement(s).

First that constant is an “atom” which in your usage means that it is not a composite. Yet you also assert that it is composed of both time and space making it not one of your “atoms”.

No.

You, The Man, claim that the constant of the speed of light is made of the values of Space AND Time.

It is clearly not the case exactly as Pi is not made by any particular values of Diameter AND Circumference.

Further you then describe it as a relation between “atoms and composed”, again refuting your previous and continuing statements that it is an “atom” in your usage of that term.

You simply do not get (yet) that from a general abstraction point of view, the relation between an atom and some composed expression that is based on it, is similar to the Pi (or the speed of light) and some composed expression that is based on it.

The atoms of OM are Relation (Non-local w.r.t Element) AND Element (Local w.r.t Relation), and any OM's reseachable expression is some composition of REI.

The Invariant is the signature of the atomic state that stands at the basis of the composed things.

 

[jsfisher]

I see. So the answer to my question, "Are you going somewhere with this?", is a resounding, "No!"

No, you don't see.

If and when you decide on a destination, do let me know.

 

[doronshadmi]

If and when you decide on a destination, do let me know.

To show what is beyond the box.

 

[sympathic]

can you show us a mathematical problem solved using your approach? for example provide us with a proof using your approach that the sum of two even integers is always even.

 

[The Man]

The Man,

= = = is not relation only but a relation between related things where related things are always Elements, no matter what their names are, for example:

Well that is one of the problems with your ‘REI’ if you always consider what is related to be ‘elements’ and never ‘relations’ then your ‘REI’ can never define the ‘relations’ it depends upon, but only ‘elements’ that are not ‘relations’

In the expression "Relation = Relation" Element is called "Relation" and Relation is called "=" .

So then ‘= = =’ is ‘relation’ ‘relation’ ‘relation’. Thanks for directly contradicting yourself again as usual.

You do not distinguish between some particular name of X and X, where X in this example is Element, no matter what name it has.

What I do not do is make distinctions for your ‘REI’ that it does not define and can not maintain itself. You on the other hand prop up you ‘REI’ notion by maintaining some distinctions in your mind that the notion itself can not sustain or support.

In general nothing is researchable if it is less than Relation Element Interaction, where Interaction is at least Element's self-reference:

Quite specifically nothing is researchable with your ‘REI’ fantasy since all it really says is ‘= = =’ and trivial.

Element is marked as A, Relation is marked as = , and REI in this case is:
[qimg]http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/AAA.jpg[/qimg]



This is a REI but a false one.

By using = and ≠ we get:

'= = =' is true

'≠ ≠ ≠' is false

'≠ = ≠' is true

'= ≠ =' is false

'= = ≠' is false

They are WFFs exactly because what's in the middle is Relation and what's in the sides is Element(s).

You have not established a formal language or grammar for your ‘REI’ thus there can be no Well-Formed Formulas, so you must be meaning ‘WFF’ as in ‘Wildly Fictional Fantasy.’

Furthermore, WFF is at least REI no matter if Relation is not in the middle, as can be seen by some Lisp expression, for example:

(+ 2 3) is equivalent to 2+3 and in both cases + is Relation and 2 or 3 are Eement(s).

Or again as in’= = =’ where ‘relation’ ‘=’ is in the middle and on the sides. You have painted yourself into a corner Doron. If the ‘=’ on the sides are not relations but the middle ‘=’ is then your ‘REI’ can not define the 'relations' it requires within it own tenets. If all ‘=’ are relations then your ‘Relation’ ‘Element’ ‘Interaction’ just becomes a ‘Relation’ ‘Relation’ ‘Relation’ in its most basic form. More simply put your ‘REI’ is not self consistent or fails to support itself when applied to itself.

No.

You, The Man, claim that the constant of the speed of light is made of the values of Space AND Time.

No it is not a ‘claim’ it is a fact, speed has the units of distance over time.

It is clearly not the case exactly as Pi is not made by any particular values of Diameter AND Circumference.

Clearly you are ignorant; Pi has no units as the proportion of a distance over a distance. I would explain that difference to you but you generally ignore explanations and have a demonstrative problem distinguishing differences or the lack thereof.

You simply do not get (yet) that from a general abstraction point of view, the relation between an atom and some composed expression that is based on it, is similar to the Pi (or the speed of light) and some composed expression that is based on it.

While you simply do not get that both Pi and the speed of light represent proportions, one unitless and the other not, however as proportion they are both the division of some value by another. That was one of your first definitions of your ‘atom’ Doron, indivisibility, now you claim your “atoms” to not only be divisible but specifically the result of a division as in the speed of light or Pi. Once again your propensity to contradict yourself surprises no one.

The atoms of OM are Relation (Non-local w.r.t Element) AND Element (Local w.r.t Relation), and any OM's reseachable expression is some composition of REI.

The Invariant is the signature of the atomic state that stands at the basis of the composed things.

More of your ‘Wildly Fictional Fantasy’ Doron? Until you can establish a formal language and grammar that supports your ‘REI’ that is the only ‘WFF’ you can get out of it.

By the way ‘Invariant’ just means that it does not vary and has nothing to do with your contradictory indivisible ‘atomic’ states that you have now directly asserted are the result of, well, divisions.

 

[jsfisher]

Well that is one of the problems with your ‘REI’ if you always consider what is related to be ‘elements’ and never ‘relations’ then your ‘REI’ can never define the ‘relations’ it depends upon, but only ‘elements’ that are not ‘relations’

A very real problem with much of doronetics is it vacillates between the incomprehensible and the trivial. These REIs appear to be no exception.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well that is one of the problems with your ‘REI’ if you always consider what is related to be ‘elements’ and never ‘relations’ then your ‘REI’ can never define the ‘relations’ it depends upon, but only ‘elements’ that are not ‘relations’

Relation is the relator.

Element is the related.

It does not matter what names are given to the relator, it is still relator.

It does not matter what names are given to the related, it is still related.

These states are invariant under interaction, and the rest of your post is based on your inability to get this invariance.

EDIT:

While you simply do not get that both Pi and the speed of light represent proportions,...

As for proportion, x/y is not necessarily a division but it is an invariant (constant) state between x and y.

Furthermore, even if the expression is a composed thing like x divided by y, it does not mean that the invariant proportion is changed by these divisions, or in other words, an indivisible atom is similar to some invariant proportion that is not changed under division.

Again:

The Invariant is the signature of the atomic state that stands at the basis of the composed things.

 

[The Man]

A very real problem with much of doronetics is it vacillates between the incomprehensible and the trivial. These REIs appear to be no exception.

Indeed, I do not think we will ever be able to obtain anything else from him. Can one actually get any more trivial then ‘= = =’?

 

[doronshadmi]

You have not established a formal language or grammar for your ‘REI’ thus there can be no Well-Formed Formulas, so you must be meaning ‘WFF’ as in ‘Wildly Fictional Fantasy.’

I do better than that.

I show exactly what are the must have terms (REI) that enable WFF, in the first place.

 

[The Man]

Relation is the relator.

Element is the related.

It does not matter what names are given to the relator, it is still relator.

It does not matter what names are given to the related, it is still related.

These states are invariant under interaction, and the rest of your post is based on your inability to get this invariance.

Which means you can only ‘relate’ your ‘elements’ and not your own ‘relations’ or even your own ‘interaction’ and thus the only ‘invariant’ aspect of your ‘REI’ is its self-inconsistency.

As for proportion x/y is not necessarily a division but it is an invariant (constant) between x and y.

No “x/y” is specifically a division of x by y and does not need to be a “state between” x and y, just as ½ is not between 1 and 2 and a proportion does not have to be constant either, such as the proportion of peoples height to their weight. Some proportions do happen to be constant like the speed of light and Pi, but neither of them is a “state between” the numerator and denominator of those proportions while both are quite specifically the result of division. So once again you choose parade your ignorance by claming division is “not necessarily”, well, division. Being Saint Patrick’s Day here in the US today, it is a day we are accustomed to watching a parade, although you seem to parade your ignorance about everything everyday.

 

[The Man]

I do better than that.

I show exactly what are the must have terms (REI) that enable WFF, in the first place.

Yes Doron we understand that your ‘REI’ are “the must have terms” that enable your ‘Wildly Fictional Fantasy’, but what is not incomprehensible about your notions, apparently even for you since you can not explain them without always contradicting yourself, is in fact quite literally trivial.

 

[doronshadmi]

Which means you can only ‘relate’ your ‘elements’ and not your own ‘relations’ or even your own ‘interaction’ and thus the only ‘invariant’ aspect of your ‘REI’ is its self-inconsistency.

Which means that you don't understand what you read.

Relator and related are mutually independent, which is something that you simply don't get.

Please refreash your screen and look again at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4525984&postcount=2213.

No “x/y” is specifically a division of x by y and does not need to be a “state between” x and y, just as ½ is not between 1 and 2 and a proportion does not have to be constant either,...

½ is also the ratio between 1 and 2.

And I am talking about an invariant proportion as a signature of atomic state at the basis of some x/y expression.

 

[The Man]

Which means that you don't understan what you read.

Please refreash you screen and look again at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4525984&postcount=2213 .

Absolutely not Doron! I have told you time and time again that I will not read or respond to your surreptitious editing practices. This childish behavior of yours, where you significantly alter a post and expect someone has quoted and responded to everything in your original post to then go back and address additions that you yourself are not willing to clearly identify, is not a habit I will indulge you in. If there is something you added to that post you want me to respond to then you can simply add it to a new post. I should caution you however, your insistence that I respond to something you have written never does seem to bode well for you.

 

[doronshadmi]

Absolutely not Doron!

No problem, enjoy your ignorence.