Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
They are misleading jokes, so be more creative and next time please try to invent non-misleading jokes.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Doron, a joke is a joke - the whole point is that they are misleading in some way - it's the cognitive dissonance that's makes them funny - just as your insistence on Direct Perception to 'get' OM, when nobody knows how to Directly Perceive OM as anything more than a dull maths exercise, is funny!
 
Last edited:
dlorde said:
:rolleyes: Doron, a joke is a joke - the whole point is that they are misleading in some way - it's the cognitive dissonance that's makes them funny - just as your insistence on Direct Perception to 'get' OM, when nobody knows how to Directly Perceive OM as anything more than a dull maths exercise, is funny!
Click to expand...

First you have to understand X in order to say some misleading joke about it (otherwise there is no cognitive dissonance).

You are not in that position.
 
Last edited:
Did you hear the one about two Israelis and a line? No? Probably just as well. It was pointless, anyway.
 
jsfisher said:
Did you hear the one about two Israelis and a line? No? Probably just as well. It was pointless, anyway.
Click to expand...

:bigclap

Great jsfisher, I really like it !! StandUp is your future !! Just be careful when you SeatDown on non-pointless chair.
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
A 15 word post that was edited 5 minutes after posting. Classic doronshadmi. I wonder why he didn't wait to use the other 115 minutes that were available to him.
Click to expand...

Still some time left, perhaps he is just thinking of what to add so he can tell you to go back and read it again.
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
A 15 word post that was edited 5 minutes after posting. Classic doronshadmi. I wonder why he didn't wait to use the other 115 minutes that were available to him.
Click to expand...

I've seen 4-word posts that were edited within 5 minutes. The most amusing part was the re-edited post was identical to the original. I think Doron hits [Submit Reply], then immediately hits [Edit] as a matter of habit.
 
Doron,

Please accept my apology.

What follows in this post isn't a joke. It's another attempt to communicate with you. Please specifically point out where I'm being misleading.

As I see your Organic Numbers:

An Organic Number has two meshed aspects:
"Parallel" and "Serial."
"Serial" is number as we outside your community are accustomed to.
We add up individuals who share or are regarded as being members of a class.
For example, the class of oranges. 1 orange + another orange + another orange = three oranges. Serial answers the question of how many, or quantity.

You call the concept behind seriality, "Umcertanity."
I'm going to ignore that term in this post, since it doesn't give clarity to readers. Perhaps we'll find word that captures the idea better.

Overarching this seriality is said to be "local," meaning that the individuals are "local to a given class. In the example they have been gathered together in "Orange."

While this pretty much what old school numbers are about, Organic Number has an additional aspect of individuals in "parallel."
Basically that means that they stand on their own as their own individual self-same kind. Each is regarded as minority of one, itself, independent of any class it might share with others. It's in a class by itself.

Let's say we look at the oranges this way:
We ignore the class of Orange. We don't count them up, but just know three separate individuals. They're just being there.

You also use the word "Redundancy" for when we take one of those unique to itself oranges and replicate it so that we don't have two of a class, but a copy of one.

But the "Parallel" aspect individuals are "non-local," meaning they aren't "local" to a shared class. You also mean by this that in the sense of Organic Number that includes both the Parallel and the Serial, they may not be local to a given class, but in Non-Locality they aren't excluded from it.
It's like when Ghandi said he was at the same time a Christian, a Hindu, and a Muslim. He was and wasn't a member of those groups. The Non-Local aspect of an individual is beyond and within all boundaries.

Organic Number is a meshing of the aspects of Parallel and Serial. (Or an interaction of Redundancy and Uncertainly, as you put it.)

An Organic Number doesn't have a fixed quantity as old school numbers do.
It may be designated with a "3," but that means more than just one serial quantity.
The serial quantity depends on an observation or decision.

Back to the oranges:
The quantity depends on how we regard them.
Here's one orange, another orange, and William.
William is being regarded as a being unto himself. He stands alone in his unique identity. Which is not to say he isn't an orange or can't share in the class of Orange. But we have the option of not putting him down for the count.
So there are two oranges. That's the quantity we come to, unless we refocus and subsume William under Orange.

The Organic Number 3 starts with William, Mary, and Oliver Cromwell.
The count is potential. You like to say it's in "superposition." until a decision based on class is made.

We adults tend to see things through the lens of class. We notice oranges and don't examine the individuating details.
Children do perceive things more concretely and haven't matured in the manipulation of abstract classes.
This is why they seem to be more aligned to Organic Number.

There's some more I want to say about Non-Locality and mathematical objects, but I'll stop here and await your correction.
 
Goood morning Doron!

Leaving aside your bla-bla remarks we will continue with self-evident facts.

First, again, the answer to what the length is of a line that has {1,1/2,1/3,1/4,1/5,1/6,...} or any variation thereof:
realpaladin said:
Well doron,

In math, your answer is lim(1), i.e. it approaches one, but never reaches it.

In physics, it is 1 - Plancks length (if you want to get into more detail, you will get into Heisenberg, Feynman etc. and have to read 'The Elegant Universe')

And guess what, they are not the same answers!
Click to expand...

Which you may have missed. Or, more probably, deliberatly ignored.

By the way, both physics and mathematics are 'infinite'. There is nothing hard in setting up infinite loops etc.

But, especially for you, I will be keeping score on how Math, Physics & OM are doing on specific problems in this forum.

I would like to ask other forum members to keep track of the scoreboard as well and show it at the bottom of your posts.

Since OM can not answer the question 'what is the length of a line consisting of the above set' (which can be proven because any OM set *must* be finite because there actually being a smallest member) it has 0 points.

Scoreboard for real questions:
Math: 1
Physics: 1
OM: 0

On to the next conundrum for OM.

Consider the following:

OM says, as per words of Doron, that no line can be composed of 0-dim elements. It *has* to be made up from 1-dim elements.
This is at the very core of what he has directly perceived.

So, any 2 1-dim elements that are not on the same line will be at an angle to each other.

In OM, I postulate, therefore there can not be the concept of a circle, it can have only polygons.

Making it:

Scoreboard for real questions:
Math: 2
Physics: 2
OM: 0

Time for coffee!
 
realpaladin said:
Goood morning Doron!

Leaving aside your bla-bla remarks we will continue with self-evident facts.

First, again, the answer to what the length is of a line that has {1,1/2,1/3,1/4,1/5,1/6,...} or any variation thereof:


Which you may have missed. Or, more probably, deliberatly ignored.

By the way, both physics and mathematics are 'infinite'. There is nothing hard in setting up infinite loops etc.

But, especially for you, I will be keeping score on how Math, Physics & OM are doing on specific problems in this forum.

I would like to ask other forum members to keep track of the scoreboard as well and show it at the bottom of your posts.

Since OM can not answer the question 'what is the length of a line consisting of the above set' (which can be proven because any OM set *must* be finite because there actually being a smallest member) it has 0 points.

Scoreboard for real questions:
Math: 1
Physics: 1
OM: 0

On to the next conundrum for OM.

Consider the following:

OM says, as per words of Doron, that no line can be composed of 0-dim elements. It *has* to be made up from 1-dim elements.
This is at the very core of what he has directly perceived.

So, any 2 1-dim elements that are not on the same line will be at an angle to each other.

In OM, I postulate, therefore there can not be the concept of a circle, it can have only polygons.

Making it:

Scoreboard for real questions:
Math: 2
Physics: 2
OM: 0

Time for coffee!
Click to expand...

A curve is also a 1-dim element, and in the case of a circle, its curvature is w.r.t a single 0-dim element.

Also in this case the existence of a 1-dim element is not defined by or made of 0-dim elements, since curvature is not essential for the existence of a 1-dim element.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
A curve is also a 1-dim element, and in the case of a circle, its curvature is w.r.t a single 0-dim.

Also in this case the existence of a 1-dim element is not defined by or made of 0-elements, since curvature is not essential for the existence of a 1-dim element.
Click to expand...

So that means OM can not use combinatorial techniques to describe shapes?
Cumbersome!

There is also a flaw in that reasoning: curvature is defined by a third point on the line segment. But since a 1-dim is indivisible, it is the atom, there can be no point ON the segment, or else the 1-dim would not be the 1-dim.

The score goes up, the crowd starts cheering.
Scoreboard for real questions:
Math: 3
Physics: 3
OM: 0
 
realpaladin said:
There is also a flaw in that reasoning: curvature is defined by a third point on the line segment.
Click to expand...

No, the single 0-dim w.r.t the curved 1-dim element, is not on that 1-dim curved element.

Furthermore, no infinitely many 0-dim elements on this curved 1-dim element are this curved 1-dim element.
 
aphatia said:
1 orange + another orange + another orange = three oranges.
Click to expand...

Thank you for flying OM.

At this very moment you are using Non-locality\Locality linkage, where in this case Non-locality is represented by "+" and Locality is represented by "Orange".

As you see, you can't avoid OM.

All is needed now is that you directly get OM, instead of get it only on the level of its different verbal-based representations.

aphatia said:
The Organic Number 3 starts with William, Mary, and Oliver Cromwell.
The count is potential. You like to say it's in "superposition." until a decision based on class is made.
Click to expand...

Number 3 and also our abilities to classify (in any possible degree) its elements, are both the result of Non-locality\Locality linkage.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
zooterkin said:
ETA: How long is the line on which the numbers in the following series appear: {1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, ... } ?
Click to expand...
doronshadmi said:
How do you measure length, in this case?
Click to expand...
zooterkin said:
In units.
Click to expand...
What is unit, in this case?
Click to expand...

Whatever units you like. Just answer the question.



ETA: Is there some reason you are not using the quote function properly? You're constructing the quotes by hand, and losing the links back to the original posts. You are also introducing typos in the usernames, in some cases.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom