Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

How on earth does what I posted support your claim this proves you right?

So you are a kind of a person that first shoots, then asks.

Please reverse it, if you wish to first understand what you shoot at, then please start by reading:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf

To further abuse the coin 'Heads' AND/OR 'Tails' (NOT) analogy - you have completely failed to get the elastic band!

Yes I know that you have completely failed to get the elastic band!

Why are you talking to yourself?

Clearly you are incapable of getting that under catbasket revised Organic Mathematics the '+' is merely a local representation of the non-local aspect!

Let us play your silly game.

By your silly game you think that a representation ('+') is the same as the represented (the non-local aspect).

So first, you have to learn how to play silly games, then you can play it.

 

[zooterkin]

ON use Distinction as their first-order properties, where conventional mathematics is nothing but the particular case of crisp Distinction, as if it is the universal principle of the foundations of this science.

So, conventional maths can tell me which is better, Cheese and Onion or Salt and Vinegar?

 

[zooterkin]

So first, you have to learn how to play silly games, then you can play it.

A nice summary, thanks.

 

[catbasket]

So you are a kind of a person that first shoots, then asks.

I do not even own a gun.

Yes I know that you have completely failed to get the elastic band!

It is evident from your own words that is you that does not get the elastic band. Prove me wrong!

Why are you talking to yourself?

Please stop interrupting my soliloquy^WP.

Let us play your silly game.

Cool! My silly game of choice is Pin-Pango Dice. I pick the red counters, bid two no trumps and play Bishop to Actress1. Your move.

By your silly game you think that a representation ('+') is the same as the represented (the non-local aspect).

That is not what I said. Your logic is flawed. 'Representation' and 'non-local' 'aspects' play no part in Pin-Pango Dice.

So first, you have to learn how to play silly games, then you can play it.

I think you missed the word 'too' from the end of that sentence.

 

[The Man]

Here you have missed it again. "In relation to …" means that we are focused on the relation aspect (the non-local aspect) that exists between the parts.

Oh so you are not focused on the ‘parts’ because you are focused on the ‘parts’?

No The Man, The coin is exactly a Whole\Parts thing or Non-local\Local thing. You simply do not get this simple beauty and continue to force your partial X OR Y Local-only reasoning on the coin.

Doron the focus on parts is yours as is the partial reasoning.

Again, NO.

The coin is exactly a Whole\Parts thing or Non-local\Local thing.

Doron whole and parts are not synonymous with local and non-local.

Wrong. A flip cannot be in more than a one and only one part's state of the coin.

Again with the misuse of the word ‘state’ do you even know what it means. Each ‘flip’ of a coin includes both a ‘left part’ and a ‘right part’ of the coin and thus would be non-local by your definition.

No.

A rubber band shows the non-local aspect of the coin.

Again Doron a different partition or no partition of the coin gives different results. Your definitions of ‘local’ and ‘non-local’ are entirely based on your partitioning and thus the resulting parts or lack thereof. This is again evident in your insistence that parts and whole translate to local and non-local in your fantasy language.

A flip shows the local aspect of the coin.

Again depending on how you partition the coin. Not only are you entirely focused on the ‘parts’ aspect of the coin you are also limiting yourself to just one pair of particular parts of that coin.

The coin itself is not totally non-local and not totally local.

No Doron the coin is totally local to itself by the standard application of ‘local’ meaning ‘in the vicinity of’.

The coin itself is exactly non-local\local thing (a whole\parts thing in your language).

No Doron, local and non-local are not the same as parts and whole in English, that they are in your fantasy language is your problem.

Thank you.

Indeed "the man uses only the 'parts view' as the basis of his definitions of 'local' and 'non-local'".


No The Man, you do not get your own words.

Doron the definitions were your's as is the requirement of ‘parts’ for those definitions, obviously Doron does not ‘get’ his own definitions or notions.

 

[The Man]

It's a lot easier to prove the Hokey Cokey true in doronetics -



Therefore -

[in]out + [in]out = shake it all about

Finally an interpretation of Doron’s notions with some utility, as clearly demonstrated at every wedding I have been to.

 

[doronshadmi]

Oh so you are not focused on the ‘parts’ because you are focused on the ‘parts’?

The Man thank you for clearly support my claim about your reasoning.

You force the researched Whole\Parts universe to be understood only in terms of 'parts', 'partition', etc.

As a result your reasoning totally ignores the Whole aspect of the universe and fails to get it as a Whole\Parts thing.

I clearly show exactly how Whole\Parts is the same as Non-locality\Locality, by logically provide the different tautologies that stand at the basis of any researched universe, here its is again:

You call it Whole\Parts.

I call it Non-locality\Locality.


We are talking on the same thing, but you ignore the Whole and use only its Part's view.


[in]out = Whole = Non-locality

[in]out , [in]out = Parts = Locality


( ([in]out) = (in AND out) = the tautology of Non-locality ) ≠ ( ([in]out , [in]out) = (in OR out) = the tautology of Locality )

There is no use to dialog with you anymore, because there is no use to talk about the stereoscopic view of the universe with somebody that insists to use a one eye.

( Your 'one eye view' has no chance to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4693012&postcount=2715 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4692830&postcount=2714 )

If you are using a rubber band, then you are focused only on its whole aspect (the tautology of this use is 'tails' AND 'heads', where a rubber band must be simultaneously 'tails' AND 'heads' (NOT('tails' AND 'heads') is a contradiction from rubber band's (Non-local) point of view)).

If you are using the rubber band in relation to your partitioned ‘parts’ then you are still ‘focused on the parts aspect‘.

Here is a typical example of your 'one eye view' reasoning.

Because of your 'one eye view' reasoning you do not get that the rubber band analogy is focused on the relation and not on the parts. You do not need more than that in order to totally fail to get the stereoscopic Whole (Non-local)\Parts (Local) view of the concept of Universe.

 

[doronshadmi]

So, conventional maths can tell me which is better, Cheese and Onion or Salt and Vinegar?

No, conventional maths can tell you that there are Cheese , Onion , Salt , Vinegar.

It does not tell you which is better or how Cheese , Onion , Salt , Vinegar exist, in the first place.

 

[zooterkin]

No, conventional maths can tell you that there are Cheese , Onion , Salt , Vinegar.

It does not tell you which is better or how Cheese , Onion , Salt , Vinegar exist, in the first place.

So, go on, what does ON do?

 

[doronshadmi]

So, go on, what does ON do?

They show you how these things come to existence, and help you to research their relations in order to find your best choice of how to use them, where the choice is based on both Whole (Non-local) and Parts (Local) considerations.

 

[angelsaramark]

Brilliant!

I didn’t paid enough attention to notation (I personally tend to ignore them if you understand what it means), it is very common to change notation if you state what it means (in many areas they not only change notation and convention has it is imperative to do so), but your statement is none of the less correct.

However a (sum) partition can also be a set (and in this case is), because he represented has a group of elements independently of what they mean (of course he means to sum the elements of the group in order to reproduce the partitioned number), unless of course I miss interpreted the English word set. A miss interpretation of the question is not however the reason why he didn’t answer my questions, because he did realised what I mean.
He did not answer the question because for him to give an honest answer he is forced to conclude that he missed something very important, and that would simply invalidate what he is doing, in this case he missed a mean of quantification and a definition of order.

This has to be the most astounding discovery since TimeCube! My dear Sir, this is nothing less than the unified field / free energy / zero vector / missing link universal convergence proof! Congratulations and get ready for Mr. Nobel to laud you along with world academia and heads of state for your life changing contribution of mankind.

 

[zooterkin]

They show you how these things come to existence, and help you to research their relations in order to find your best choice of how to use them, where the choice is based on both Whole (Non-local) and Parts (Local) considerations.

Go on, then, tell us how ON shows how Cheese , Onion , Salt , Vinegar come into existence.

 

[doronshadmi]

Go on, then, tell us how ON shows how Cheese , Onion , Salt , Vinegar come into existence.

By the interaction between the Non-local (Whole) and the Local (Parts).

For example:

a = Cheese , b = Onion , c = Salt , d = Vinegar .

If the Whole is represented as a line and a,b,c,d are represented by a point then ON 4 is:

Conventional maths is based only on the last form of the example above.

 

[The Man]

The Man thank you for clearly support my claim about your reasoning.

You force the researched Whole\Parts universe to be understood only in terms of 'parts', 'partition', etc.

As a result your reasoning totally ignores the Whole aspect of the universe and fails to get it as a Whole\Parts thing.

Well you’re the one basing his definitions of ‘local’ and ‘non-local’ on how many ‘parts’ they involve.

I clearly show exactly how Whole\Parts is the same as Non-locality\Locality, by logically provide the different tautologies that stand at the basis of any researched universe, here its is again:

Again Doron you confuse you simply claiming something to be ‘clearly showing’ something, other then just ‘clearly showing’ that you like to make baseless claims.

There is no use to dialog with you anymore, because there is no use to talk about the stereoscopic view of the universe with somebody that insists to use a one eye.

Oh no, not the no dialog dialog again!!!!

( Your 'one eye view' has no chance to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4693012&postcount=2715 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4692830&postcount=2714 )


Here is a typical example of your 'one eye view' reasoning.

Because of your 'one eye view' reasoning you do not get that the rubber band analogy is focused on the relation and not on the parts. You do not need more than that in order to totally fail to get the stereoscopic Whole (Non-local)\Parts (Local) view of the concept of Universe.

“focused on the Relation” of what?

Here you have missed it again. "In relation to …" means that we are focused on the relation aspect (the non-local aspect) that exists between the parts.

Oh no, did you say ‘between the parts’?

Without parts Doron there is just the whole so your “Whole\Parts” notion is entirely focused on there being, well, parts.

Try opening at least one of your eyes, if only partially, when you type and actually try to read what you write.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well you’re the one basing his definitions of ‘local’ and ‘non-local’ on how many ‘parts’ they involve.

No, a reseachable universe has the concept of "meny" iff there is a non-local atom between local atoms (for example: ._____.) .

Without the Whole (Non-local) \ Part (Local) interaction (where ___ atom is not . atom), the concept of "meny" (including "one of meny") does not hold.

"turned into one" (in the case of Universe) is not "turned into a one of meny". The "one" of "turned into one" is the Whole (the non-local aspect of the Universe, which is notated as "____").

More about your inability to get the concept of "Universe" can be shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4693012&postcount=2715 .

Without parts Doron there is just the whole so your “Whole\Parts” notion is entirely focused on there being, well, parts.

No, without Whole\Parts there is no reseachable Universe.

Here is some example: ._____. where "______" represents Whole and "." represents Part

“focused on the Relation” of what?

Simply on the relation, represented as _____

X = Whole = relation = Non-local

Y = Part = Local

"focused on X" does not mean the the Y aspect of X\Y universe is totally ignored.

The tautology of ____ in ____\. universe is (. AND .)

The tautology of . in ____\. universe is (. OR .)

(. AND .) is not (. OR .) exactly as ___ is not .

Here is the Whole\Parts Universe:

.    . = Part = local  
|    |
[U]|[/U]____[U]|[/U] = Whole = relation = non-local

Oh no, did you say ‘between the parts’?

Without parts Doron there is just the whole so your “Whole\Parts” notion is entirely focused on there being, well, parts.

Again, "focused on X" does not mean the we totally ignore the aspect of X\Y that is not under focus.

If we totally ignore Y, then X becomes total and non-researchable (and vice versa).

You still do not get X\Y researchable universe, where X of the X\Y universe is not total X, and Y of X\Y universe is not total Y.

Try opening at least one of your eyes, if only partially, when you type and actually try to read what you write.

Ye, try to open your other eye, because your one opened eye can see only . (the Part aspect of the Whole (Non-local) \ Parts (Local) Univerese).

 

[The Man]

No, a reseachable universe has the concept of "meny" iff there is a non-local atom between local atoms (for example: ._____.) .

Without the Whole (Non-local) \ Part (Local) interaction (where ___ atom is not . atom), the concept of "meny" (including "one of meny") does not hold.

Which ‘atoms’ would these be again, your indivisible and non-composite ‘atoms’ or your ‘atoms’ composed as a division?

"turned into one" (in the case of Universe) is not "turned into a one of meny". The "one" of "turned into one" is the Whole (the non-local aspect of the Universe, which is notated as "____").

More about your inability to get the concept of "Universe" can be shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4693012&postcount=2715 .

So you simply presume the universe is not ‘one of many’.

No, without Whole\Parts there is no reseachable Universe.

Technically, Doron, it is only the ‘parts’ that make it researchable or a even a ‘whole’. Lose just one 'part' and there is a hole in your whole, but then specificity has never been your forte.

Here is some example: ._____. where "______" represents Whole and "." represents Part

What is this, now your are claiming that “.” is ‘part’ of “_______”!!! You better watch out next thing you’ll be saying is that two points “. .” define a line “_____”, which in your Doronograms might just look like this “._____.”.

Simply on the relation, represented as _____

The tautology of ____ in ____\. universe is (. AND .)

The tautology of . in ____\. universe is (. OR .)

(. AND .) is not (. OR .) exactly as ___ is not .

Here is the Whole\Parts Universe:

.    . = Part = local  
|    |
[U]|[/U]____[U]|[/U] = Whole = relation = non-local

Well there we have it ladies and gentlemen the ‘whole’ universe represented by a Doronogram, how amazing.

Ye, try to open your other eye, because your one opened eye can see only . (the Part aspect of the Whole (Non-local) \ Parts (Local) Univerese.

“...But men shulde leve
Wel more thing then men han seen with ye!
Men shal not wenen every thing a lye
But yf himself yt seeth, or elles dooth;”

Geoffrey Chaucer 1385
The Legend of Good Women. The Prologue 1.10

 

[doronshadmi]

So you simply presume the universe is not ‘one of many’.

No.

I show that you do not understand the word "one" of "turned into one".

This "one" is what enables the parts to be gathered, and it is essentially not any one of the gathered parts.

Each part is a "one of many" thing.

The "one" that gathers the parts is not "a one of many" thing.

______ is the one that gathers the many and it is Non-local by nature.

. is "a one of many" thing and it is Local by nature.

_____ thing is not the sum of . things, but within a given universe it is the one that enables . to be summarized.

By your one eye view you do not see beyond . (the Part).

Let us expose your blindness of the Whole:

Technically, Doron, it is only the ‘parts’ that make it researchable or a even a ‘whole’.

Essentially you do not get that a researchable universe is not less than ___\. thing where ___ is the gatherer and . is the gathered.

Furthermore, no finite or infinitely many . is ____ , or in other words, each . is "a one of many" thing of some universe, where ____ is not "a one of many" thing of that universe.

The tautology of ____ of the ____\. Universe is (. AND .)(we are focused on ____ aspect of ___\. Universe, but not totally ignore . aspect of it).

The tautology of . of the ____\. Universe is (. OR .) .)(we are focused on . aspect of ___\. Universe, but not totally ignore _____ aspect of it).

What is this, now your are claiming that “.” is ‘part’ of “_______”!!! You better watch out next thing you’ll be saying is that two points “. .” define a line “_____”, which in your Doronograms might just look like this “._____.”.

No, your one eye view claiming that.

Since I am using two eyes (eye ____ \ eye .) to understand the universe, I know that ____ is not made of .
, for example:

__._.__

, and no matter how many . are gathered by _____, they are not gathered "up to" _____ simply because ______ is the non-local atom of ____\. universe, and . is the local atom of ____\. universe (the same universe).

____\. uinverse is beyond the "one eye" viewers, and you, The Man, are such a viewr.


There is no use to talk to a one eye viewer, because he can't get ____\.

“...But men shulde leve
Wel more thing then men han seen with ye!
Men shal not wenen every thing a lye
But yf himself yt seeth, or elles dooth;”

Now you are talkin', you booga booga cyclops. (By cyclops view, take the parts and nothing is left, or in other words: the Whole is an illusion).

By Organic Mathematics: take the Part and the Whole is left (total connectivity (string)), take the Whole and the Part is left (total isolation (bead)).

Which ‘atoms’ would these be again, your indivisible and non-composite ‘atoms’ or your ‘atoms’ composed as a division?

The cyclops can't get the idea of 'atom' as a thing that is not based (not mande of) on other thing.

The atom of the Whole (____ = the string) is not made of the atom of the Part (. = the bead), The atom of the Part (. = the bead) is not made of the atom of the Whole (____ = the string).

 

[doronshadmi]

Let us make sense of it like this:

Each cardinal > 1 is defined by a recursion of two basic states of Distinction, which are:

1) Superposition of Ids (the id of a given element is not crisp).

Superposition of ids of a given element is notated as n , where n = 2 → ∞


2) Crisp id of the given element is notated as n where n=1


Each serial observation of some Organic Number can be shown by first using the partition of some cardinal, for example, the ordered partitions of cardinal 4 are:

1 1 1 1 

2 1 1 

2 2 

3 1 

4

Now by using Distinction as the leading property of the research, we look for the association of crisp and non-crisp ids of each element, by using recursion, where each recursion is closed under some cardinal, where some partition is a collection of cardinals, for example:

-------------------------------------------
Under the partition 1 1 1 1, we have exactly 1 Distinct form of non-crisp ids, notated as:

 1 1 1 1  = partition 
([U]4[/U],[U]4[/U],[U]4[/U],[U]4[/U]) = distinction

where 4 means that each element (under cardinal 1) has a superposition of 4 ids.
-------------------------------------------




-------------------------------------------
Under the partition 2 1 1, we have exactly 2 Distinct forms of non-crisp or crisp ids, notated as:

  2  1 1  = partition 
([U]2[/U],[U]2[/U],[U]4[/U],[U]4[/U]) = distinction

where 4 means that each element (under cardinal 1) has a superposition of 4 ids, and 2 means that each element (under cardinal 2) has a superposition of 2 ids.

  2  1 1  = partition 
([U]1[/U],[U]1[/U],[U]4[/U],[U]4[/U]) = distinction

where 4 means that each element (under cardinal 1) has a superposition of 4 ids, and 1 means that each element (under cardinal 2) has a crisp id.
-------------------------------------------




-------------------------------------------
Under the partition 2 2, we have exactly 3 Distinct forms of non-crisp or crisp ids, notated as:

  2   2   = partition 
([U]2[/U],[U]2[/U],[U]2[/U],[U]2[/U]) = distinction

where 2 means that each element (under cardinal 2) has a superposition of 2 ids.

  2   2   = partition 
([U]1[/U],[U]1[/U],[U]2[/U],[U]2[/U]) = distinction

where 2 means that each element (under cardinal 2) has a superposition of 2 ids, and 1 means that each element (under cardinal 2) has a crisp id.

  2   2   = partition 
([U]1[/U],[U]1[/U],[U]1[/U],[U]1[/U]) = distinction

where 1 means that each element (under cardinal 2) has a crisp id.
-------------------------------------------




-------------------------------------------
Under the partition 3 1, we have exactly 3 Distinct forms of non-crisp or crisp ids, notated as:

   3   1  = partition 
([U]3[/U],[U]3[/U],[U]3[/U],[U]1[/U]) = distinction

where 3 means that each element (under cardinal 3) has a superposition of 3 ids, and 1 means that 1 element (under cardinal 1) has a crisp id.

   3   1  = partition 
  2  1,1  = partition 
([U]2[/U],[U]2[/U],[U]1[/U],[U]1[/U]) = distinction

where 2 means that each element (under cardinal 2, which is under cardinal 3) has a superposition of 2 ids, 1 means that 1 element (under cardinal 1, which is under cardinal 3) has a crisp id, and another 1 means that 1 element (under cardinal 1) has a crisp id.

   3   1  = partition 
  2  1,1  = partition 
([U]1[/U],[U]1[/U],[U]1[/U],[U]1[/U]) = distinction

where 1 means that each element (under cardinal 2, which is under cardinal 3) has a crisp id, another 1 means that 1 element (under cardinal 1, which is under cardinal 3) has a crisp id, and another 1 means that 1 element (under cardinal 1) has a crisp id.

-------------------------------------------


4=4 and has 0 partitons.


Organic Number 4 is the result of universe ____\. , such that 4 = _____ and 1 = . , gathered by ______

 

[The Man]

No.

I show that you do not understand the word "one" of "turned into one".

This "one" is what enables the parts to be gathered, and it is essentially not any one of the gathered parts.

Each part is a "one of many" thing.

The "one" that gathers the parts is not "a one of many" thing.

______ is the one that gathers the many and it is Non-local by nature.

. is "a one of many" thing and it is Local by nature.

_____ thing is not the sum of . things, but within a given universe it is the one that enables . to be summarized.

By your one eye view you do not see beyond . (the Part).

Again claming is not ‘showing’ Doron, if it were than anything could be ‘shown’.

Let us expose your blindness of the Whole:

I notice how you did not include my subsequent statement about the potential for a ‘hole in your whole’, again making the blindness and ignorance wholly yours.

Essentially you do not get that a researchable universe is not less than ___\. thing where ___ is the gatherer and . is the gathered.

As always you have no idea what research is or how to use it to substantiate your claims. Furthermore, as previously noted by jsfisher, you seem to be fixated on anthropomorphism giving your notion of ‘whole’ the responsibility of ‘gathering’ its required parts.

Furthermore, no finite or infinitely many . is ____ , or in other words, each . is "a one of many" thing of some universe, where ____ is not "a one of many" thing of that universe.

The tautology of ____ of the ____\. Universe is (. AND .)(we are focused on ____ aspect of ___\. Universe, but not totally ignore . aspect of it).

The tautology of . of the ____\. Universe is (. OR .) .)(we are focused on . aspect of ___\. Universe, but not totally ignore _____ aspect of it).

No, your one eye view claiming that.


Since I am using two eyes (eye ____ \ eye .) to understand the universe, I know that ____ is not made of .
, for example:

__._.__

Trust me Doron we all know what your notions ‘are made of’ and you might want to actually get your brain in there, preferably somewhere between you eyes.

, and no matter how many . are gathered by _____, they are not gathered "up to" _____ simply because ______ is the non-local atom of ____\. universe, and . is the local atom of ____\. universe (the same universe).

Which ‘atoms’ would these be again, your indivisible and non-composite ‘atoms’ or your ‘atoms’ composed as a division?

____\. uinverse is beyond the "one eye" viewers, and you, The Man, are such a viewr.


There is no use to talk to a one eye viewer, because he can't get ____\.

Doron your talking does not seem to be of much use to anyone, but you.

Now you are talkin', you booga booga cyclops.

Hey now, just who do you think you are calling ‘booga booga’? One of my neighbors was named ‘booga booga’, you might have read about him in Homer’s Odyssey but his brother, Polyphemus, was more popular and got included in the story instead. Poor booga booga was quite upset having missed out on all that fame (polyphemus now meaning ‘famous’) and fortune (all the people he could eat) it was a very sore subject in the local islands for a whole millennium or two.

(By cyclops view, take the parts and nothing is left, or in other words: the Whole is an illusion).

The only thing that is an illusion on this thread, Doron, is your notions.

By Organic Mathematics: take the Part and the Whole is left (total connectivity (string)), take the Whole and the Part is left (total isolation (bead)).

So just what are your ‘parts’ part of if not your ‘whole’? Which apparently now does not require any ‘parts’ to be a ‘whole’? So you are now claiming that your ‘parts’ actually have no relation to your ‘whole’. In case you missed it with both your eyes sans your brain, the ‘string’ is as much ‘part’ of the ‘necklace’ as are the ‘beads’ in your analogy.

The cyclops can't get the idea of 'atom' as a thing that is not based (not mande of) on other thing.

Oh so now your notions have no ‘parts’? Well that solves everything doesn’t it? Certainly there are no consistent parts to your notions other then contradiction.

The atom of the Whole (____ = the string) is not made of the atom of the Part (. = the bead), The atom of the Part (. = the bead) is not made of the atom of the Whole (____ = the string).

Well your misunderstanding in that is simply because you have misplaced your ‘whole’. The ‘whole’ is the ‘string’ with ‘beads’ which are both just ‘parts’ of that ‘whole’. Try using your brain and your eyes as parts of your ‘whole’ instead of just pulling things out of your ‘hole’

 

[zooterkin]

Let us make sense of it like this:

I was with you up to here...

Each cardinal > 1 is defined by a recursion of two basic states of Distinction, which are:

1) Superposition of Ids (the id of a given element is not crisp).

Superposition of ids of a given element is notated as n , where n = 2 → ∞


2) Crisp id of the given element is notated as n where n=1

And what is your definition of 'crisp'? How do you distinguish between those two ids, both referred to as n? What do they mean, and what do you do with them?

Organic Number 4 is the result of universe ____\. , such that 4 = _____ and 1 = . , gathered by ______

And?