Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
"The raise of Complexity"
Plese write your version.
"Fellows, when the doors of the bank are opened?"
Plese write your version.
"Identity is a property of X which allows distinguishing among it."
Plese write your version.
"Does a civilization survives the power of its developed technologies?"
Plese write your version.
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.
In order to get it you have no choice but to read and understand http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT (at least pages 18-20)
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
X > 0

Let us look at (0,X] interval.

According to "up to" zooterkin and jsfisher, 0 is an immediate predecessor of (0,X].

Zooterkin and jsfisher think that there is a meaning to < relation by ignoring the content of interval [0,0] or interval (0,X].

Let us demonstrate their failure by using this diagram:

SportsCar.jpg



We can clearly see that d and e are the same value only if there is no Sports Car.

We can also see that since there are infinitely many Sports Cars between X and 0, then for any e there is d such that 0<d<e and as a result 0 cannot be an immediate predecessor of a mathematical object that is a collection of infinitely many 0<d<e relations ( infinitely many Sports Cars between X and 0, that cannot be 0 ( e=d does not hold in (0,X] )).
 
Last edited:
According to "up to" zooterkin and jsfisher, 0 is an immediate predecessor of (0,X].

By definition, 0 is the immediate predecessor of (0, X].

Zooterkin and jsfisher think that there is a meaning to < relation by ignoring the content of interval [0,0] or interval (0,X].
I have no idea what you are trying to communicate by that sentence.
Let us demonstrate their failure by using this diagram:

[qimg]http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/SportsCar.jpg[/qimg]


We can clearly see that d and e are the same value only if there is no Sports Car.

We can also see that since there are infinitely many Sports Cars between X and 0, then for any e there is d such that 0<d<e and as a result 0 cannot be an immediate predecessor of a mathematical object that is a collection of infinitely many 0<d<e relations ( infinitely many Sports Cars between X and 0, that cannot be 0 ( e=d does not hold in (0,X] )).

Proof by sports car. What's the Latin for that?
 
jsfisher,

Where are the more than 10 errors ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4837967&postcount=3880 ), please provide one, which is not in the list of ddt.


Doron,

You have admitted it isn't your work, and you have admitted you don't understand it. You just blindly paste into one document after another. So, what's the point? If Moshe cares to join the forum and discuss it, that would be fine, but - by your own admission - any discussion with you would be wasted.
 
Doron,

You have admitted it isn't your work, and you have admitted you don't understand it. You just blindly paste into one document after another. So, what's the point? If Moshe cares to join the forum and discuss it, that would be fine, but - by your own admission - any discussion with you would be wasted.

In other words, you can't demonstrate your 10 or more errors.

Here are some of my corrections:

[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: $k=n-1$ &$D(\alpha) = \prod_{i=1}^{k} g(Or(i), a_{i})$\\
\\
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]

I have added index i to a in D(alpha) equation.

I have changed index n to index k in D(alpha) equation.

Any way this is Moshe's stuff, so I am still waiting to his reply about this case,
which is, again, a minor problem that has no influence on OM's reasoning.
 
Last edited:
They are throughout, as ddt has mentioned.
To be fair, it was Little 10 Toes who mentioned that. I only nitpicked about a missing article.

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.
Of course, the incorrect English does not help. But the gamma of topics strung together - math, democracy, ethic, etc. etc. - in one presentation without any explanation whatsoever what they have to do with each other - is of course the main culprit here.

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...
Actually, the PowerPoint of Moshe's talk is a lot less cooky - it doesn't have all these wild associations, to boot.
 
I have changed index n to index k in D(alpha) equation.
And what's that supposed to help?

Any way this is Moshe's stuff, so I am still waiting to his reply about this case,
No, you post it here, so it's your stuff. Otherwise, get Moshe to post here.

which is, again, a minor problem that has no influence on OM's reasoning.
You're right. It remains nonsense.

ETA:

4) so which one is the "Organic Number"? Is it Or or is it D?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom