Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
MosheKlein said:
One is the only case were there is no real distinction.
Click to expand...

If there are no distinctions for 1, then Or(1) should be 0. But it isn't, is it? In actual fact, you get Or(1) = 1 by using the only partition of 1, and that action is an inconsistency in your process, just as your forced definition for Or(1) is an inconsistency in your formulae.

So 1 in OM is the same as in Euclidian Mathematics.
Click to expand...

Euclidean Mathematics?

OM will help us/you to have a direct perception of Mathematics !
Click to expand...

Not likely. Your OM is founded on an inconsistent set of special cases and arbitrary results. That makes it totally incompatible with Mathematics.

By the way, neither you nor Doronshadmi have shown any utility for OM. Got any?

Also, even though you and Doronshadmi agreed to the description I presented for distinction, Doronshadmi has been back-pedaling ever since, but he has been unable to define his meaning for distinction. Can you provide a definition?
 
MosheKlein said:
Dear Man

haven't you understand already
that I am dyslectic in English.
It's like a black board for me
many red colors in the speller of word..

can't you explain yourself much shortly
what is the main problem ?

Sincerely
Moshe:con2:
Click to expand...

Well I tried that before, but I'll try it again.

Why are ordering distinctions excluded? You referred to them as being significant in serial observations, but did not answer as to why they are excluded. So the question simply became why are ordering distinctions or significant serial observations excluded?
 
dlorde said:
I admire your patience. The generation of Organic Numbers is now referred to as 'a game' that takes place in a 'playground', and the rules for generating them are not fixed. It's like pinning jelly to the wall.

Truly a construction built on shifting sands - or perhaps a game played with moving goalposts :D
Click to expand...

Doron seems almost compelled to change the wording of his references from time to time. I think he believes it might confuse others as much as he confuses himself and once in a ‘state’ of common stupor, they might just agree with him.
 
doronshadmi said:
The Man, one of the first things that are needed is to define the basic environment (the playground) where the game takes place.
Click to expand...

Your fantasies are clearly where you are playing your “game”. So step one: Done.

doronshadmi said:
In this case the environment is nxn matrix, where one axis measures the uncertainty of the played element(s) and the other axis measures the redundancy of the played element(s).

The game is considered as a one thing with many different situations that are measured by the nxn matrix, where each salutation is both local and global case of the game. Also all along the game the player is a significant factor of the game.

But the most important thing is to define the invariant properties that are not changed even if the playgrounds, the games (they rules), or the players are changed.

And this is exactly what OM is all about, where its invariant properties are Distinction, Non-locality and Locality.
Click to expand...

“invariant properties”? Doron, your arbitrary ascriptions of “Distinction, Non-locality and Locality” are only “invariant properties” of your fantasy.

doronshadmi said:
You and Jsfisher looking only on the "branches" of the ecosystem (playgrounds, games' rules (in your case you ignore the players)), and totally ignore its "trunk" (these invariant properties that are not changed even if the playgrounds, the games (they rules), or the players are changed).
Click to expand...

No Doron we are looking at the roots, which are firmly entrenched only in your fantasies.

doronshadmi said:
You still continue to ignore it, and as a result you continue not to get OM.

Nobody but you can help you to get OM's ecosystem as a one complex organism, which is the result of Non-locality\Locality Intercation.
Click to expand...

Again with the ‘you won’t get it unless your get it’ assertion.


doronshadmi said:
EDIT:

I wish to add that your analogies are limited to the macro realm and ignore QM micro realm.
Click to expand...

What you mean like the micro-organisms, that I mentioned before, of our ecosystem which are currently trying to consume you?
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Your fantasies are clearly where you are playing your “game”. So step one: Done.



“invariant properties”? Doron, your arbitrary ascriptions of “Distinction, Non-locality and Locality” are only “invariant properties” of your fantasy.



No Doron we are looking at the roots, which are firmly entrenched only in your fantasies.



Again with the ‘you won’t get it unless your get it’ assertion.




What you mean like the micro-organisms, that I mentioned before, of our ecosystem which are currently trying to consume you?
Click to expand...

You can't grasp:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4859114&postcount=4198

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4859508&postcount=4207

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4859722&postcount=4217

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4859878&postcount=4220



Go clime a tree The Man, maybe you will get things better from a higher point of view.

Oppss... you can't because you don't know where the trunk is, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Doron seems almost compelled to change the wording of his references from time to time. I think he believes it might confuse others as much as he confuses himself and once in a ‘state’ of common stupor, they might just agree with him.
Click to expand...

Actually, wording shifts is about all Doron does. He can't dissect things into explainable units that others can understand (sort of a downward movement concepts and complexity), nor can he generalize things in any tangible way (sort of an upward movement). The best he has been able to do is move sideways by renaming things from time to time.

Anyone else remember when symmetry was the first-order property at the basis of organic numbers? Currently, distinction is the reigning undefined term, but soon it will evolve, possibly into an uncertainty x redundancy matrix where the matrix is a direct consequence of the line\point interaction.
 
doronshadmi said:
Let us do it even better:

Distinction refers to the identified states of a thing, that can be used both as globel and local property of a given system.

[snip]
Click to expand...

Nope, you didn't do one better. Please define "identified states of a thing". Do you mean liquid, solid, gas, plasma? Or the color of "a thing"? The shape? The number of sides? The Manufacturer's Suggested retail price? The usage of "the thing"?
 
Little 10 Toes said:
Nope, you didn't do one better. Please define "identified states of a thing". Do you mean liquid, solid, gas, plasma? Or the color of "a thing"? The shape? The number of sides? The Manufacturer's Suggested retail price? The usage of "the thing"?
Click to expand...

Little 10 Toes said:
Nope, you didn't do one better. Please define "identified states of a thing". Do you mean liquid, solid, gas, plasma? Or the color of "a thing"? The shape? The number of sides? The Manufacturer's Suggested retail price? The usage of "the thing"?
Click to expand...

Oh, it is just a confabulation of terminology. It is just what they refer to as identity states or more specifically states of identity. Meaning how one might uniquely identify something. Thus a superposition of identity states, that in this case is simply a liner addition of said ‘states’. However Doron specifically conflates such a superposition with Quantum Mechanics, which would actually be a vector addition of state vectors not ‘identities’ and involves complex numbers or real numbers combined with ‘imaginary’ numbers. Not physical states like phases of materials (referring to degrees of freedom) or even state vectors like Quantum Mechanics that are intrinsic properties of those elements being considered. Instead just distinctions arbitrary ascribed and specifically stated as not information carried by some given value. Further exacerbated by the fact that OM or “On”s specifically do not involve vectors, integers, real numbers or imaginary numbers (the square root of a negative number), but simply whole numbers. It is simply a rather limited form of discrete math, if OM can even be called math since the apparent inconsistencies of its foundations and thus applications do not seem to support such an ascription, as jsfisher has already noted.
 
:rolleyes:

bunnyn.jpg



:D
 
Little 10 Toes said:
Go outside, look at one of the stars. That's how "over-my-head" your post is. :D
Click to expand...

In other words

Capricious References Asserting Pomposity


or simply CRAP.

Little 10 Toes said:
If doronshadmi continues to use "a thing" when he is descibing something specific, he needs to be specific. It's like a reporter saying, "Something happened somewhere, sometime, involving some person."
Click to expand...

Basically what I have been saying, as the 'degrees of freedom' for information not carried by a value (or specific parameter) is infinite. So Doron must limit that freedom of information to just the information he puts in so he can claim to get it back out and ‘research’ what he claims is not researchable.

See also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom_(physics_and_chemistry)
 
jsfisher said:
No argument there. Unfortunately, because they are arbitrary, they have are of no inherent value.
Click to expand...

Since you are unable to grasp a definition like:

Distinction refers to the identified states of a thing, that can be used both as globel and local property of a given system.

we shell start by more concrete example like n-Redundancy x n-Uncertainty matrix:

Code: 
1x1            
               
A .            
               
(A)            
               
               
               
2X2            
               
A . .          
               
B . .          
               
(AB,AB)        
(AB,A)         
(AB,B)         
(A,A)          
(B,B)          
(A,B)          
               
               
               
3X3            
               
A . . .        
               
B . . .        
               
C . . .        
               
(ABC,ABC,ABC)  (Uncertainty and Redundancy)
(AB,ABC,ABC)   
(AC,ABC,ABC)   
(BC,ABC,ABC)   
(AB,AB,ABC)    
(AC,AB,ABC)    
(BC,AB,ABC)    
(AC,AC,ABC)    
(BC,BC,ABC)    
(AB,AB,AB)     
(AC,AB,AB)     
(BC,AB,AB)     
(AC,AC,AB)     
(BC,BC,AB)     
(AB,AB,A)      
(AC,AB,A)      
(BC,AB,A)      
(AC,AC,A)      
(BC,BC,A)      
(AB,AB,B)      
(AC,AB,B)      
(BC,AB,B)      
(AC,AC,B)      
(BC,BC,B)      
(AB,AB,C)      
(AC,AB,C)      
(BC,AB,C)      
(AC,AC,C)      
(BC,BC,C)      
(ABC,ABC,A)    
(ABC,ABC,B)    
(ABC,ABC,C) 
(A,B,ABC) (only Uncertainty)   
(A,A,A) (only Redundancy)
(B,B,B)
(C,C,C)
etc...  (I did not finish the 3x3 case)
...
...
(A,B,C) (no Redundancy and no Uncertainty)


Another (more clear) representation:
Code: 
1x1                                        
                                           
A .                                        
                                           
(1) = (A)                                  
                                           
                                           
                                           
2X2                                        
                                           
A . .                                      
                                           
B . .                                      
                                           
(2,2) = (AB,AB)                            
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)                      
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)                  
                                           
                                           
                                           
3X3                                        
                                           
A . . .                                    
                                           
B . . .                                    
                                           
C . . .                                    
                                           
(3,3,3) = (ABC,ABC,ABC)                    
(3,3,2) = ...                              
(3,3,1) = ...                              
(3,2,1) = ...                              
(2,2,2) = ...                              
(2,2,1) = ...                              
(1,1,3) = (A,A,ABC),(B,B,ABC),(A,B,ABC)    
(1,1,2) =                                  
(A,A,AB),(A,A,AC),(A,A,BC)                 
(B,B,AB),(B,B,AC),(B,B,BC)                 
(A,B,AB),(A,B,AC),(A,B,BC)                 
(A,C,AB),(A,C,AC),(A,C,BC)                 
(B,C,AB),(B,C,AC),(B,C,BC)                 
(1,1,1) = (A,A,A),(B,B,B),(C,C,C),(A,B,C)


So as you see, ONs are not n! lists.

You simply don't wish to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4859722&postcount=4217 .
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
I must have missed that party.
Click to expand...

ChristopherA was a CT nut. He was convinced the World Trade Center towers had concrete cores and that during the construction of the towers, the steel rebar had been deliberately coated with spray-on C4 explosives.

How did he know all this? Spirits from an (American) Indian burial ground in California revealed the truth to him. He also got confirmation from a PBS documentary he saw about 15 years ago. The documentary itself has since been destroyed, and all records of its existence, systematically wiped.

He also won several minor court cases in California in which a simple reading of the judge's decision might lead you to believe the judge decided against him.
 
The Man said:
Basically what I have been saying, as the 'degrees of freedom' for information not carried by a value (or specific parameter) is infinite. So Doron must limit that freedom of information to just the information he puts in so he can claim to get it back out and ‘research’ what he claims is not researchable.
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense,

The Man, by your illusion you claim that you can completely cover a 1-dim element by infinitely many 0-dim elements.

Your "dragging point" is an example of your inability to understand the difference between 0-dim element and 1-dim element.

A 0-dim element can't be dragged, because any change of a position of a 0-dim element is a disjoint 0-dim element, and this fact is invariant, no matter what scale is used.

In other words the "memory" of a "dragging point" is exactly one 0-dim and disjoint element.

This is not the case with a 1-dim element. Such an element exists at-once in at least two given locations (which is a property that no 0-dim element has).

The ability of a 1-dim element to be at-once in at least two given locations, gives it its non-local property.

The inability of you, jsfisher, ddt, zooterkin , and more posters to get the 1-dim element as an example of Non-locality, and the 0-dim element as an example of Locality, prevents from you to get the following:

1) No collection of 0-dim elements can completely cover a 1-dim element.

2) As a result no collection of 0-dim elements is complete (there are always uncovered domains along the 1-dim element, no matter how many
0-dim elements exists along the 1-dim element).

3) There is a universe which is the result of the bridging between Non-locality and Locality, where the results of the bridging are measured at least by n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy matrix.

Since you have no ability the get (1),(2),(3) all you do in this thread is running after your own illusionary tails and\or scratch each other's back.

Your social behavior is nice and cozy, but it makes you an ignorant community that can't get anything that is out of its :boxedin:.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom