Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
MosheKlein said:
Congetulation for the PHD degree !
It can be very helpful if you decide to be in.
Click to expand...
Meh, it's 15 years old... and I do not want to be in with people that babble incoherent nonsense.

MosheKlein said:
Are the numbers on the infinite string of TM
Click to expand...
You mean 'symbols' that define the transition map and you mean infinite tape.

MosheKlein said:
have redundancy or uncertainty ?
Click to expand...
You mean 'oogedyboogedyboo'.

I am not done with your indivisibility problem.

You are going to prove to me why ANY 1-dim element that has locality/non-locality linkage is indivisible.

I still state that this is your basic error; if the two localities are ANY distance apart from each other, otherwise you do not have a 1-dim element, then that distance can be divided.

Showing you are wrong AGAIN:

The dimension of the 1-dim element is 1a (meaning 1 atom), right?

- na = 2na/2 because any line with length na can be split up in n*1a elements.

- na = 2n(a/2), but this is not possible in your OM, because 1a is indivisible!

So, OM fails the most basic of math.
 
Last edited:
realpaladin said:
Meh, it's 15 years old... and I do not want to be in with people that babble incoherent nonsense.


You mean 'symbols' that define the transition map and you mean infinite tape.


You mean 'oogedyboogedyboo'.

I am not done with your indivisibility problem.

You are going to prove to me why ANY 1-dim element that has locality/non-locality linkage is indivisible.

I still state that this is your basic error; if the to localities are ANY distance apart from each other, otherwise you do not have a 1-dim element, then that distance can be divided.

Showing you are wrong AGAIN:

The dimension of the 1-dim element is 1a (meaning 1 atom), right?

- na = 2na/2 because any line with length na can be split up in n*1a elements.

- na = 2n(a/2), but this is not possible in your OM, because 1a is indivisible!

So, OM fails the most basic of math.
Click to expand...


Before we can go to the concept of dimension in OM
Please let me ask you a very simple question :

Do you agree with me that a line is not collection of many points ?
 
jsfisher said:
(I know I am going to regret this....)

Why are you bringing up Turing machines?
Click to expand...

Haven't to understand already that the only and really the only connection between OM and traditional mathematics is the symbols of the letters.
and even the space between the letters is different ?
 
MosheKlein said:
Before we can go to the concept of dimension of OM
Please let me ask you a very simple question :

Do you agree with me that a line is not collection of many points ?
Click to expand...

Man... you *do* have a problem with basic math;

Points have no size, but the answer to your question is:

A line is a collection of a type 2 infinity number of points.

The proof is:
Start with the length of your line, in your case at least 1 (atomic), then subtract 0. If the result is not yet 0, repeat.

Infinity hurts your brain, or what?
 
realpaladin said:
Man... you *do* have a problem with basic math;

Points have no size, but the answer to your question is:

A line is a collection of a type 2 infinity number of points.

The proof is:
Start with the length of your line, in your case at least 1 (atomic), then subtract 0. If the result is not yet 0, repeat.

Infinity hurts your brain, or what?
Click to expand...

I am sorry but there are too many words in your answer for me:

yes or no ? ( line is made from points )
 
realpaladin said:
Man... you *do* have a problem with basic math;

Points have no size, but the answer to your question is:

A line is a collection of a type 2 infinity number of points.

The proof is:
Start with the length of your line, in your case at least 1 (atomic), then subtract 0. If the result is not yet 0, repeat.

Infinity hurts your brain, or what?
Click to expand...

It's a blindspot Doron and Moshe seem to share.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom