Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
realpaladin said:
I have succesfully shown that Ayurvedic Mathematics are not Ayurvedic Mathematics, nor are they a new way of looking at things.

They are simply Mathematics. Period.

It turned out simply to be a stack of handy algorithms (whom I *do* use to teach kids advanced math, so it *is* quite valuable).

Do not make a claim that you can not prove yet. You can not prove it yet. You are in the 'convince' phase of a possible discovery.

Moshe, do not let Doron do a 'Fleishman' on you.
Click to expand...

EDIT:

As long as you don't get the difference between silence itself and the word "silence", you can't get the difference between direct perception itself and the words "direct perception".

Simple as that.
 
Last edited:
Christian Klippel said:
If i do some simple math by simply adding up numbers according to this test, i come up with quite a high number in relation to this OM stuff. Especially #14 brings a lot of points for doron.

Greetings,

Chris
Click to expand...

Dircet perception is exactly itself. If we need bla bla bla ... in order to define it, it is not dircet perception.

Simple as that.

Since http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html is closed under definitions, it is too weak in order to measure direct perception.

Christian Klippel you are using the wrong tool in oreder to measure direct perception's value.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
EDIT:

As long as you don't get the difference between silence itself and the word "silence", you can't get the difference between direct perception itself and the words "direct perception".

Simple as that.
Click to expand...
That is just evasive wordplay.

I know there is a difference between 'a' circle and the concept 'circle'. The literal representation of the concept can not exist.

But still there is proof backing the concept.

Let us, for a moment, assume that we are doing it wordless, then still you can prove it.

You can describe steps I have to take, just like any other algorithm, to make me see 'it'.

If you can not, then you will most definitely not be the next Newton of Mathematics, as nobody can follow what you are doing.

Repeatability is one of the cornerstones of science, hence my reference to Fleischman.
 
realpaladin said:
That is just evasive wordplay.

I know there is a difference between 'a' circle and the concept 'circle'. The literal representation of the concept can not exist.

But still there is proof backing the concept.

Let us, for a moment, assume that we are doing it wordless, then still you can prove it.

You can describe steps I have to take, just like any other algorithm, to make me see 'it'.

If you can not, then you will most definitely not be the next Newton of Mathematics, as nobody can follow what you are doing.

Repeatability is one of the cornerstones of science, hence my reference to Fleischman.
Click to expand...

1) I am not any next (give any name that you wish), I am simply I.

2) If you can follow your I by direct perception (which is not a thought about your I), you are in a good position in order to grasp OM.
 
Last edited:
realpaladin said:
Repeatability is one of the cornerstones of science, hence my reference to Fleischman.
Click to expand...

Repeatability is another name to Invariant Symmetry.

OM's Invariant Symmetry manifests itself as Non-locality\Locality linkage that stands at the basis of any Complex\Simple phenomena.

Also Repeatability is shown by the redundant property of at least n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy tree, as clearly and simply explained in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMDP.pdf .
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Repeatability is another name to invariant Symmetry.

OM's invariant Symmetry manifests itself as Non-locality\Locality linkage that stands at the basis of any Complex\Simple phenomena.

Also Repeatability is shown by the redundant property of at least n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy tree, as clearly and simply explained in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMDP.pdf .
Click to expand...


Repeatability, as in, others should be able to replicate your findings.

We are trying hard, but we find nothing to replicate.

If you can not achieve that, the theory, even if it were right, is dead in the water.
 
realpaladin said:
Repeatability, as in, others should be able to replicate your findings.

We are trying hard, but we find nothing to replicate.

If you can not achieve that, the theory, even if it were right, is dead in the water.
Click to expand...

Let us use your last word (water) in order to get some OM's notion.

A little fish asks his mother:

"Mom, one fish told me that there is such a thing called water.

I am trying hard to get it but can't find it.

Please tell me Mom, where it is?"

n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy (at least one of its aspects) *is* Repeatability.
 
doronshadmi said:
Let us use your last word (water) in order to get some OM's notion.

A little fish asks his mother:

"Mom, one fish told me that there is such a thing called water.

I am trying hard to get it but can't find it.

Please tell me Mom, where it is?"

n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy (at least one of its aspects) *is* Repeatability.
Click to expand...

??? You are talking about probability and I am talking about scientific process... Where do the two meet?

Btw. The second link you gave says 'no habla'.
 
MosheKlein said:
jsfisher,

I have enter to this forum since you claim that there are 10 mistaks in my algorithm of On. Since then ddt compute the first 100 On(n) numbers
Doron said that there is completely new way to look on distinction
as you begin to understand.

As you know Quantum mechanics was developed to provide a better explanation of the atom, especially the spectra of light emitted by different atomic species. The quantum theory of the atom was developed as an explanation for the electron's staying in its orbital, which could not be explained by Newton's laws of motion and by Maxwell's laws of classical electromagnetism.

In the conference in Sweden there was a lecture saying that we are waiting today to a new Newton who will invent/discover new mathematics.

I know that OM is this New Mathematics !

Moshe
Click to expand...

Still no evidence of "even one minor practical use for organic mathematics" which was what jsfisher requested you provide.

New Mathematics? No. OM is a new The Emperor's New ClothesWP
 
Last edited:
Doron, since as you say, "any observation is based on a direct perception of the observer" (post 938), perhaps you could post up an example of OM in practical use so we can directly perceive it.

Having no worked examples of OM to observe means we cannot directly perceive how it is used.
 
realpaladin said:
??? You are talking about probability and I am talking about scientific process... Where do the two meet?

Btw. The second link you gave says 'no habla'.
Click to expand...

At least at the n-Uncertainty x n- Redundancy tree.

I see that you did not understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4876963&postcount=4471 .

Also you ignored http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4876910&postcount=4468 .

The second link in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4876990&postcount=4472 was corrected, thank you.
 
dlorde said:
Doron, since as you say, "any observation is based on a direct perception of the observer" (post 938), perhaps you could post up an example of OM in practical use so we can directly perceive it.

Having no worked examples of OM to observe means we cannot directly perceive how it is used.
Click to expand...

The worked example is first of all you.

For better understanding please read very carefully page 7 of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMDP.pdf .
 
Last edited:
catbasket said:
Still no evidence of "even one minor practical use for organic mathematics" which was what jsfisher requested you provide.

New Mathematics? No. OM is a new The Emperor's New ClothesWP
Click to expand...

Why? just because you can't get yourself by direct perception (which is not a thought about yourself)?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
At least at the n-Uncertainty x n- Redundancy tree.

I see that you did not understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4876963&postcount=4471 .

Also you ignored http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4876910&postcount=4468 .

The second link in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4876990&postcount=4472 was corrected, thank you.
Click to expand...

What is wrong with you?

Ok. In step-by-step english:

1) Group/person A, sets up a theory and works out the necessary proof (i.e. sets up the necessary experimental/theoretical verification).

2) Group/person B (and C and D etc.) tries to replicate the results of group/person A by methods provided by person A.

If step 2 can not be succesfully completed, your theory is dead in the water.

How hard is this?

I am just saying, you are not getting step 2 done at the moment, so even if you *were* right, there is no *science* in your method, so it is worth *nothing*.

It does not matter one Iota if you can defend your theory against the world and then some if nobody else can do the same as you can.

If only you can do it, it is not *science*, it is woo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom