Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
dlorde said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

Yes, 15 physicists that Moshe met at http://www.vxu.se/msi/konferens/QTRF5/Program_June4.pdf were very interesed in OM, and we are going to write a paper with one of them.
 
doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think we can take that as an affirmation of the “continue unabated” option.

doronshadmi said:
You have missed the "..." isn't it?
Click to expand...


"Isn't it" what? Obviously you continue to miss the meaning of infinite.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
Anyone else think that the "tree" looks like the Legion of Doom's headquarters from the old Super Friends cartoon?
Click to expand...

Good catch L10T, I did not recognize it, but since you mention it I can't see how I missed it. Perhaps now we have a clue as to who is behind Doron's 'research'.
 
doronshadmi said:
Yes, 15 physicists that Moshe met at http://www.vxu.se/msi/konferens/QTRF5/Program_June4.pdf were very interesed in OM, and we are going to write a paper with one of them.
Click to expand...
<sigh> by 'your paper or article or whatever it is' in which I was unable to find significant significant interest or meaning, I clearly wasn't referring to the talk by Moshe. As you seem unable to either understand my posts or write explanations I can understand, and are unwilling or unable to explain your ideas more clearly, I'll close my contribution here.

Although perhaps Moshe might be able to translate for you?
 
Last edited:
dlorde said:
<sigh> by 'your paper or article or whatever it is' in which I was unable to find significant significant interest or meaning, I clearly wasn't referring to the talk by Moshe. As you seem unable to either understand my posts or write explanations I can understand, and are unwilling or unable to explain your ideas more clearly, I'll close my contribution here.

Although perhaps Moshe might be able to translate for you?
Click to expand...
Please try this http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE
 
With Doron now in his insult/spam mode, I thought maybe the rest of us might like a little puzzle: The following has been appearing with greater frequency in Doron's latest cut-and-paste documents. How many errors can you spot? (The space after the "d" in define(s) is mine, not Doron's. The Latex processor doesn't seem to like the word define.)



[latex]
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
First we observe the partitions of number $n$: &$\Gamma(n)$\\
\\
Every $\alpha \in \Gamma(n)$ has an inner structure: &$\alpha \equiv (a_{1}, a_{2}, a_{3},\dotsc,a_{n})$\\
&$\sum_{i=1}^{n} i a_{i} = n$\\
\\
We d efine the following function: &$g(a,b) = \frac{(a+b-1)!}{(a-1)!b!}$\\
\\
Every Partition $O(\alpha)$ d efines a different Organic &\\
Numbers that are calculated by the recursion: &$O(\alpha) = \prod_{i=1}^{n} g(Or(i), a)$\\
\\
The value of $Or(n)$ is based on the following algorithm:
&$Or(n) = \sum_{\alpha \in \Gamma(n)} O(\alpha)$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
[/latex]
 
jsfisher said:
With Doron now in his insult/spam mode, I thought maybe the rest of us might like a little puzzle: The following has been appearing with greater frequency in Doron's latest cut-and-paste documents. How many errors can you spot? (The space after the "d" in define(s) is mine, not Doron's. The Latex processor doesn't seem to like the word define.)



[latex]
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
First we observe the partitions of number $n$: &$\Gamma(n)$\\
\\
Every $\alpha \in \Gamma(n)$ has an inner structure: &$\alpha \equiv (a_{1}, a_{2}, a_{3},\dotsc,a_{n})$\\
&$\sum_{i=1}^{n} i a_{i} = n$\\
\\
We d efine the following function: &$g(a,b) = \frac{(a+b-1)!}{(a-1)!b!}$\\
\\
Every Partition $O(\alpha)$ d efines a different Organic &\\
Numbers that are calculated by the recursion: &$O(\alpha) = \prod_{i=1}^{n} g(Or(i), a)$\\
\\
The value of $Or(n)$ is based on the following algorithm:
&$Or(n) = \sum_{\alpha \in \Gamma(n)} O(\alpha)$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
[/latex]
Click to expand...

jsfisher, thank you very much for your affords, but as usual you are using an obsolete stuff, which clearly shows that you don't read
our work.

The right one is this:
doronshadmi said:
[latex]
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
First we observe the partitions of number $n$: &$\Gamma(n)$\\
\\
Every $\alpha \in \Gamma(n)$ has an inner structure: &$\alpha \equiv (a_{1}, a_{2}, a_{3},\dotsc,a_{n})$\\
&$\sum_{i=1}^{n} i a_{i} = n$\\
\\
We d efine the following function: &$g(a,b) = \frac{(a+b-1)!}{(a-1)!b!}$\\
\\
Every Partition $\alpha$ d efines different Organic &\\
Numbers $D(\alpha)$ that are calculated by the recursion: &$D(\alpha) = \prod_{i=1}^{n} g(Or(i), a)$\\
\\
The value of $Or(n)$ is based on the following algorithm:
&$Or(n) = \sum_{\alpha \in \Gamma(n)} D(\alpha)$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
[/latex]
Click to expand...
You insult youself by avoiding this (this is a new version):
doronshadmi said:
According to Standard Math, there is one and only one set of elements, called real numbers, along the real-line, which are filtered according to some principles.

We can use Ford Circle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_circle ) in order to rigorously demonstrate it:

FordC.jpg


The whole numbers are the result of a filter that ignores the existence of elements between some two given locations (the whole numbers are based only on elements like these two given locations).

The rational numbers are the result of a filter that ignores the existence of elements that are not based on tangent circles, between some two given locations (the two given locations are included in the collection of rational numbers).

The irrational numbers are the result of any location between some two given locations that are not the results of the previous two filters.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher, thank you very much for your affords, but as usual you are using an obsolete stuff, which clearly shows that you don't read
my work.

The right one is this:
Click to expand...

So you replaced in the formulae O(alpha) by D(alpha) and now it's suddenly different? :jaw-dropp

A rose by any other name...
 
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher, thank you very much for your affords, but as usual you are using an obsolete stuff, which clearly shows that you don't read
our work.
Click to expand...


The point of this exercise is that you don't read your work. You just cut-and-paste the same tired gibberish from document to document without a clue what you really wrote or drew. The superficial renaming of one function isn't a material change and hadn't been included in the error count. I guess we have to reconsider that.

Doron, you can play along, too. Even if you are unable to spot any errors, you could at least take a guess at number. Are there more than 10 or are there 10 or fewer? What would you guess? Intervals and cardinality. You like intervals and cardinality.
 
jsfisher said:
With Doron now in his insult/spam mode, I thought maybe the rest of us might like a little puzzle: The following has been appearing with greater frequency in Doron's latest cut-and-paste documents. How many errors can you spot? (The space after the "d" in define(s) is mine, not Doron's. The Latex processor doesn't seem to like the word define.)
Click to expand...

You mean this appeared in the PDF's he's been linking to? I long stopped downloading those.

Anyway, now that Doron has vindicated that the formulae are right (up to renaming), let's take a stab at it. I can see two glaring errors:

1) In the formula for D(alpha), on the rhs an 'a' pops up right out of nowhere

2) There's an infinite recursion. In order to calculate D(alpha), you need OR(n), but to calculate OR(n), you need D(alpha).

and as an aesthetic one, I'd say

3) Lose the definition of g. We all know the Binomium of Newton.
 
jsfisher said:
The point of this exercise is that you don't read your work. You just cut-and-paste the same tired gibberish from document to document without a clue what you really wrote or drew. The superficial renaming of one function isn't a material change and hadn't been included in the error count. I guess we have to reconsider that.

Doron, you can play along, too. Even if you are unable to spot any errors, you could at least take a guess at number. Are there more than 10 or are there 10 or fewer? What would you guess? Intervals and cardinality. You like intervals and cardinality.
Click to expand...
I'll be glade to know what is wrong in:

[latex]
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
First we observe the partitions of number $n$: &$\Gamma(n)$\\
\\
Every $\alpha \in \Gamma(n)$ has an inner structure: &$\alpha \equiv (a_{1}, a_{2}, a_{3},\dotsc,a_{n})$\\
&$\sum_{i=1}^{n} i a_{i} = n$\\
\\
We d efine the following function: &$g(a,b) = \frac{(a+b-1)!}{(a-1)!b!}$\\
\\
Every Partition $\alpha$ d efines different Organic &\\
Numbers $D(\alpha)$ that are calculated by the recursion: &$D(\alpha) = \prod_{i=1}^{n} g(Or(i), a)$\\
\\
The value of $Or(n)$ is based on the following algorithm:
&$Or(n) = \sum_{\alpha \in \Gamma(n)} D(\alpha)$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
[/latex]

This is nothing but the serial view of Organic Numbers that was written by Moshe, so even if there is a mistake in this algorithm Moshe will check it again.

The main point here is that this algorithm has no impact on OM's reasoning, because it is nothing but using Standard Mathematics in order to calculate the number of forms of a given Organic Number. The knowledge of the numbers of forms is only a tiny part of the knowledge of what Organic Number is.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
I'll accept credit for that one. The a should have been ai, which is how it appeared in the original.
Click to expand...

However, Doron corrected your quiz question and didn't change that one. So, according to Doron's latests insights, it is 'a' and not 'a_i' :p As far as I'm concerned, he can't backpedal from that one now.

(and yes, I had suspected as much).

ETA: In post #3858, Doron again uses 'a' without the index. So it really is his wish that it is without the index.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom