Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
By the way we can use "if A then B" reasoning in order to show the limitation of this reasoning, for example:

A = "only 'if A then B' reasoning is used"

B = "X reasoning cannot be understood"

If A then B, and by using it, we understand that X cannot be understood by it.
 
doronshadmi said:
No, it is a non-finite tree that has an atomic building-block and if you are going to ask if I mean to a composed atom or a non-composed atom, then first go climb a tree and stay there.
Click to expand...

Then the subdivisions continue infinitely. When are you going to climb down from your tree of fantasy?

Oh and by the way thanks for reminding me, which of your atoms are your referring to this time the ones that are non-composed and indivisible or the ones you claimed as your atoms that are specifically composed as divisions? Much like your never ending tree that ends with the branches that split infinitely many times but stop splitting when you need them to so they don’t actually split infinitely many times.
 
The Man said:
Then the subdivisions continue infinitely. When are you going to climb down from your tree of fantasy?

Oh and by the way thanks for reminding me, which of your atoms are your referring to this time the ones that are non-composed and indivisible or the ones you claimed as your atoms that are specifically composed as divisions? Much like your never ending tree that ends with the branches that split infinitely many times but stop splitting when you need them to so they don’t actually split infinitely many times.
Click to expand...
This The Man will sell his soul to the goddess of ignorance in order to fudging his view in any condition.

People like The Man are afraid of ? mark, which is an inseparable property of the tree of complexity ( see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4829448&postcount=3812 ).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
This The Man will sell his soul to the goddess of ignorance in order to fudging his view in any condition.
Click to expand...

A goddess of ignorance that doesn’t ignore me is hardly worth being even considered a pinnacle of ignorant, let alone a goddess of ignorance. How’s your ignorance coming along with ignoring me as you have often asserted you would?


doronshadmi said:
People like The Man are afraid of ? mark, which is an inseparable property of the tree of complexity ( see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4829448&postcount=3812 ).
Click to expand...

Oooohhhhhh, ssssssssssoooooooo scary that question mark????????????????????

Say if Doron’s “tree of complexity” falls in the forest of math with on one there to hear it, does it make any sense?
 
The Man said:
Say if Doron’s “tree of complexity” falls in the forest of math with on one there to hear it, does it make any sense?
Click to expand...
You are one on its branches, so you know the answer.

All you have to do is to take your fingers out of your ears, open your closed eyes and get
CTREE.jpg
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The fact is that you replied only to a tiny part of it.
Click to expand...
Yes - responding only to some parts doesn't mean I ignored the rest. I read and considered it all, not ignoring any of it, and responded to those parts for which I thought a response was necessary/useful/constructive.
 
Last edited:
dlorde said:
Yes - responding only to some parts doesn't mean I ignored the rest. I read and considered it all, not ignoring any of it, and responded to those parts for which I thought a response was necessary/useful/constructive.
Click to expand...
In other words, you have no meaningful thing to say about this subject.
 
doronshadmi said:
In other words, you have no meaningful thing to say about this subject.
Click to expand...
Regarding your paper or article or whatever it is - I couldn't find any significant interest or meaning in it so there was little meaningful to say in response.

As I said before, if you were to rewrite it in intelligible English, you might get a better response from readers - I doubt it, but it's worth a shot. Have you yet had any responses from anyone that indicate that they understood what you meant by any of it ?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You are one on its branches, so you know the answer.

All you have to do is to take your fingers out of your ears, open your closed eyes and get
[qimg]http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CTREE.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...


Again with your never ending tree that ends. What makes you think isolating the end of your endless tree, as you did in the images of your previous post, makes it any less of an end? You do understand that if your tree actually did not have an end you could not show us that end, don’t you?

You know if one was to propose a “tree of complexity” they might actually try and make it, well, complex. One would be hard pressed to find a tree, any tree, that is not more complex then your simply bifurcating ‘tree of complexity’.
 
Doron,

I've noticed your posts for the past several days have been free of any intellectual content, just school yard taunts and retorts. Any prospect for this changing, or will your current modus operandi continue unabated?
 
jsfisher said:
Doron,

I've noticed your posts for the past several days have been free of any intellectual content, just school yard taunts and retorts. Any prospect for this changing, or will your current modus operandi continue unabated?
Click to expand...

You are not in position to notice anything, jsfisher.

Still can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4805347&postcount=3645 , isn't it :boxedin:?


Go, take a walk with "up to" zooterkin, you are a good company for each other. And do not forget also The head\hammer Man.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom