Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

STOP RE-EDITING YOUR POSTS!

Man, thinking things through is demonstrably not your forte.

No, translating them to Enlgish, and the need of Word spaller, makes it more problematic.

 

[doronshadmi]

What definition of "practical" are you using? My dictionary gives six meanings for "practical", not one of which can be used to describe postcount=4486 as a "practical example".

I tried using "direct perception" to detect a practical example in there but it appears my direct perception doesn't work.

Am I immune to Organic Mathematics?

You try do define definition for "practical" instead of do direct perception parctical training.

In other words you are not doing OM.

 

[doronshadmi]

As always intelligence, education and skepticism are the best inoculations against the spread of such self-replicating nonsense.

Since you do not get (yet) that direct perception is not a thought, you are using here wrong analogies that are based on the level of different thoughts.

There is no skepticism at direct perception because skepticism works only on the level of thoughts.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4877172&postcount=4486 is exactly organized thoughts by direct perception, that delete your "dragged point" virus.

 

[catbasket]

The right notions are http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4877172&postcount=4486 .

Notions, eh? I thought that post was supposed to be a practical example, not more theory?

You try do define definition for "practical" instead of do direct perception parctical training.

Definitions are our friends. *
My direct perception doesn't work.

In other words you are not doing OM.

Of course not!

It seems that for those of us who not "get" it, the following is the doronshadmi approved learning plan for Organic Mathematics -

10 We not "get" it.
20 Doron cannot explain it to us unless we already "get" it.
30 GOTO 10.



* as is the Preview Post button.

 

[realpaladin]

I just hope that you are not going to show something about my taxes and the non-finite, because my direct perception fact is about the non-finite, in case that you have missed it (and you have missed it).

Yup. Flew right over my head.

But Doron... you have not proven anything yet, replicated anything yet (except links to your own posts)... what gives?

When will something happen with your theory?

Or does it have the same value as the verbal statement "the walls of my office are white" i.e. information you can not do a thing with, but which really is a fact.

What would OM do to the world, in other words.

 

[realpaladin]

10 We not "get" it.
20 Doron cannot explain it to us unless we already "get" it.
30 GOTO 10.

You forgot:

5 POKE 808,225

Which meant you could not break the running program.

 

[doronshadmi]

Notions, eh? I thought that post was supposed to be a practical example, not more theory?


Definitions are our friends. *
My direct perception doesn't work.


Of course not!

It seems that for those of us who not "get" it, the following is the doronshadmi approved learning plan for Organic Mathematics -

10 We not "get" it.
20 Doron cannot explain it to us unless we already "get" it.
30 GOTO 10.



* as is the Preview Post button.

You did not even try to read and understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4877172&postcount=4486 .

So, you get the expected results, which are: not getting OM.

 

[realpaladin]

Since you do not get (yet) that direct perception is not a thought, you are using here wrong analogies that are based on the level of different thoughts.

I most certainly start getting an inkling that thoughts are not involved here, I agree.

There is no skepticism at direct perception because skepticism works only on the level of thoughts.

Yahooo!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4877172&postcount=4486 is exactly organized thoughts by direct perception, that delete your "dragged point" virus.

That example says nothing more than any infinite set would have told you...

 

[doronshadmi]

What would OM do to the world, in other words.

It will provide it the simplest long term agreement that enables the optimal Comlexity\Simplicity development.

Please read all of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMDP.pdf from top to bottom.

Then think about it, and only then please air your view in details about its content.

 

[doronshadmi]

I most certainly start getting an inkling that thoughts are not involved here, I agree.

You are wrong.

It not less than organized thoughts by direct perception, where direct perception is the organizer and it is not a thought.

That example says nothing more than any infinite set would have told you...

Wrong, it clearly shows that the cadinality of a non-finite set is not well-defined (cannot be clearly known, exactly because R set is incomplete) as the cardinality of a finite set.

 

[realpaladin]

It will provide it the simplest long term agreement that enables the best Comlexity\Simplicity development.

Please read all of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMDP.pdf from top to bottom.

Then think about it, and only then please air your view in details about its content.

Deal. But if I do, do you agree to bow down and kiss my hairy heini when I show you wrong?

 

[realpaladin]

You are wrong.

It not less than organized thoughts by direct perception, where direct perception is the organizer and it is not a thought.

Yippie-kay-yay!

Wrong, it clearly shows that the cadinality of a non-finite set is not well-defined (cannot be clearly known, exactly because R set is incomplete) as the cardinality of a finite set.

Yes.

 

[doronshadmi]

Deal. But if I do, do you agree to bow down and kiss my hairy heini when I show you wrong?

If you want to shoot, shoot, don't talk.

I am fully opened to your detailed criticism.

 

[realpaladin]

Direct perception's concrete example

Direct perception is not a thought exactly as silence itself is not the thought "silence".

Thoughts are organized by direct perception.

Some example of organized thoughts:

"No amount of 0-dim elements can fully cover a 1-dim element"

_____ represents a non-finite 1-dim element.

• represents a single 0-dim element.

There are infinitely many • on _____

By using organized thoughts that are based on direct perception, it is shown that for any arbitrary • on _____ there is • < • < • , where < is possible for any amount of • on _____ exactly because no collection of • elements can fully cover _____

By using organized thoughts that are based on direct perception, we immediately conclude that 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 exist along the 1-dim element).

Where is the cardinality of the 0-dim elements complete?

Or rather... where does that differ from an infinite set?

 

[realpaladin]

If you want to shoot, shoot, don't talk.

I am fully opened to your detailed criticism.

Agree, or no deal! You are so infinitely sure about yourself!

 

[doronshadmi]

Where is the cardinality of the 0-dim elements complete?

Or rather... where does that differ from an infinite set?

It has a fixed amout of elements, someting that a non-finite set does not have.

 

[realpaladin]

And something that shows exactly the same as your example:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Geometry_for_elementary_school/Lines

Geometry for elemental schools!

 

[realpaladin]

It has a fixed amout of elements, someting that a non-finite set does not have.

It does 'have what'? A 'fixed' amount? As in 'never more or less than that amount' ?

But...but... your example says something else. I reread that 3 times now....

 

[doronshadmi]

Agree, or no deal! You are so infinitely sure about yourself!

I am wating to your detailed critisism, so please start to read my paper.

Thank you.

 

[zooterkin]

"No amount of 0-dim elements can fully cover a 1-dim element"

You seem to be really hung up on this one.

Are you really unable to understand that it's possible to talk about a range of numbers on the real line, e.g. [3,5], without having to identify each individual one? Do you really not get it?