Deeper than primes

[jsfisher]

You edited your post again, didn't you?

Anyway, read carefully. I commented on the formulae. And I'm confident that jsfisher can quote from which of your "papers" he got it.

OMPT.pdf, Non-Euclidean Probability (An Informal Introduction), 15 February 2009 version.

 

[doronshadmi]

No, what you really mean is that you have been editing things long after people have read your posts. Thanks for playing, though.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4837559&postcount=3858

 

[ddt]

I'll be glade to know what is wrong in:

<snip>

First of all, you presumably mean "glad" and not "glade". Check up on your English.

Secondly, look first at post #3855. I even used your name 'D'.

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.

So you admit you're just copying his work without understanding it? You've been bleating here for over a year about "Organic Numbers" and it's only now that you - sorry, Moshe - comes up with a definition for them?

<Dirty Harry mode on>
Give it up, punk!
</Dirty Harry>

 

[doronshadmi]

OMPT.pdf, Non-Euclidean Probability (An Informal Introduction), 15 February 2009 version.

Try this http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT or this http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf .

 

[ddt]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4837559&postcount=3858

And what's different between your posts #3858 and #3850, as far as the definition of "Organic Numbers" is concerned?

 

[doronshadmi]

So you admit you're just copying his work without understanding it?

Yes, this is Moshe's part and if there is a mistake there he will fix it, so?

 

[doronshadmi]

And what's different between your posts #3858 and #3850, as far as the definition of "Organic Numbers" is concerned?

Again, I will send http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4837549&postcount=3855 to Moshe and thank you for your remarks, I think that you are right about 'a' and the recursion case.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

I'll be glade to know my English errors in http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE .

1) Why are you bringing types of Government into a "Math" discussion?
2) USSR was in existence after WWII. What "emergency atmosphere" was needed?
3) "The raise of Complexity"
4) What is "Complexity"?
5) "Fellows, when the doors of the bank are opened?"
6) "Does a civilization survives the power of its developed technologies?"
7) Destruction does not equal the collapse of complexity. Ask the Incas.
8) Why the case change in "complexity"?
9) What is/are "specials"?
10) Why the case change in "complexity"?

All this before page 9.

 

[doronshadmi]

1) Why are you bringing types of Government into a "Math" discussion?
2) USSR was in existence after WWII. What "emergency atmosphere" was needed?
3) "The raise of Complexity"
4) What is "Complexity"?
5) "Fellows, when the doors of the bank are opened?"
6) "Does a civilization survives the power of its developed technologies?"
7) Destruction does not equal the collapse of complexity. Ask the Incas.
8) Why the case change in "complexity"?
9) What is/are "specials"?
10) Why the case change in "complexity"?

All this before page 9.

Where are the English mistakes?

 

[ddt]

So you admit you're just copying his work without understanding it?

Yes, this is Moshe's part and if there is a mistake there he will fix it, so?

Again, I will send http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4837549&postcount=3855 to Moshe.

So, here we have the unequivocal admission of Doron that he doesn't understand a word of what he's doing. He doesn't even understand his own formulae - yes, Doron, your name is on the paper, so these are your formulae as far as anyone's concerned.

 

[dlorde]

Please try this http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE

Incomprehensible gibberish also. At least you're consistent... e.g. a couple of excerpts at random:

X is an element. Identity is a property of X which allows distinguishing among it.

... a point and a line are two abstract observations that if associated, enable to define things mathematically, where Distinction is their first-order property.

'Speaks' for itself really, doesn't it?

Perhaps you could just present or demonstrate one of the (surely many) wonderful achievements made possible by this stuff? Something that shows its practical advantage over 'classical' maths?

I have to admit I'm no great shakes at maths theory (although I can usually follow the logic of most propositions), so perhaps some kind soul in the forum could summarize what this document is about ?

 

[doronshadmi]

So, here we have the unequivocal admission of Doron that he doesn't understand a word of what he's doing. He doesn't even understand his own formulae - yes, Doron, your name is on the paper, so these are your formulae as far as anyone's concerned.

Again,

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.

 

[doronshadmi]

At least you're consistent...

At least you are consistent by your inability to get simple things.

Perhaps you could just present or demonstrate one of the (surely many) wonderful achievements made possible by this stuff?

All we need is to develop a mathematical framework that an inseparable aspect of it is based on EEM, as clearly written in http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM .

Since you are unable to get EEM, there is no use to talk with you on this subject.

 

[ddt]

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.

You're glossing over the main fact here.

And that is that you have admitted yourself that you are talking out of your posterior orifice (please look that up before you react).

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.

You've been posting here over a year about "Organic Numbers" and failed to come up with a formula. Now there is one, and there's a glaring hole in it. That's the main point. The emperor is still naked; there is no knowledge of what "Organic Numbers" are, it's all smoke and mirrors.

 

[zooterkin]

Perhaps you could just present or demonstrate one of the (surely many) wonderful achievements made possible by this stuff? Something that shows its practical advantage over 'classical' maths?

A reasonable request, and you are, not surprisingly, not the first to make it. A reasonable response is so far unforthcoming.

I have to admit I'm no great shakes at maths theory (although I can usually follow the logic of most propositions), so perhaps some kind soul in the forum could summarize what this document is about ?

I don't have any more experience than you, but I think you were pretty close with "incomprehensible gibberish".

 

[doronshadmi]

You've been posting here over a year about "Organic Numbers" and failed to come up with a formula.

ddt, since all your reasoning is based on the existence of formula, you have no ability to get what OM really is.

Now there is one, and there's a glaring hole in it. That's the main point.

There is a mistake in this formula that will be corrected soon by Moshe.

This formula has nothing to do with OM's reasoning, it was written in order to communicate with people that get anything only by a step-by-step serial reasoning.

 

[ddt]

ddt, since all your reasoning is based on the existence of formula, you have no ability to get what OM really is.

The existence of formula is not disputed here. However, the existence of a formula for "Organic Numbers" is. And frankly, it's all that matters. Without it, OM is bollocks to begin with.

And how is that remedial course English going?

There is a mistake in this formula that will be corrected soon by Moshe.

We have no dealings with Moshe. You're the one promoting that formula here. You're responsible.

This formula has nothing to do with OM's reasoning, it was written in order to communicate with people that get anything only by a step-by-step serial reasoning.

What "OM's reasoning"? All the gibberish that you've been writing here? Nobody has managed to make head or tail out of it.

 

[dlorde]

Where are the English mistakes?

They are throughout, as ddt has mentioned. Some are obviously grammatical errors, but mostly they are English words strung together nonsensically and non-grammatically:

"The raise of Complexity"
"Fellows, when the doors of the bank are opened?"
"Identity is a property of X which allows distinguishing among it."
"Does a civilization survives the power of its developed technologies?"

The difficulty in comprehension comes from the mix of incorrect words and incorrect grammar in the same sentence. String such sentences together, and you get gibberish. Try to explain obscure and/or opaque ideas in this 'language', replete with undefined concepts and unexplained geometric diagrams whose annotations appear to bear no relation to them, and the reader is lost in a surreal, nonsensical trip.

Consistency in Complementary Logic is the ability to find the bridges between opposites under a one framework by avoiding self-contradiction.

What does that actually mean ? a 'consistent' theory does not contain contradictions, by definition, but what are the 'bridges between opposites under a one framework'(sic) and how can they be found 'by avoiding contradiction'?

Goal: Bridging Logic\Technologic and Ethics
Way: Development of a formal language which reduces the abilities of its users to ignore current and future influences on user's ecosystem

This is followed by pages of dodgy-looking maths, supposedly defining this formal language, with no explanation at all of where ethics is involved or 'bridged', or how it might affect a user's view of influences on their ecosystem - which was supposed to be the main point of it. That's not just linguistic gibberish, it's conceptual gibberish.

Since you seem to be able to write (slightly) more coherent sentences in this forum than in those, presumably carefully prepared, papers, I wonder if they are actually Moshe's writings. If so, I feel sorry for his audience in that presentation...

 

[jsfisher]

There is a mistake in this formula that will be corrected soon by Moshe.

Oh, too bad. You guessed 1. Thanks for playing, but the number of errors exceeds 10.

 

[doronshadmi]

Oh, too bad. You guessed 1. Thanks for playing, but the number of errors exceeds 10.

I am not guessing here. Let us give Moshe the time to fix it, and then we will see.

Please show some error that was not written by ddt.