Deeper than primes

[jsfisher]

Look, Moshe is a free man, and can express his views independently.

More reading comprehension issues, there, doron? The post was about you, not Moshe.

 

[MosheKlein]

None of them.

Do you really want to claim here that x^(log) <> y^(log(x)) ?

 

[doronshadmi]

None of them.

If @ is used here in order to get OM, then Moshe and you are simply wasting your time (see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4894349&postcount=4953 ).


If you wish to show that Moshe has some degree of dyslexia, then everybody here (expect you) already aware of it.

So jsfisher, what exactly is your point, do you like to play the straw man or what?

 

[doronshadmi]

More reading comprehension issues, there, doron? The post was about you, not Moshe.

No, it is about your inability to distinguish between Moshe and Me.

So, also clear distinct case is too hard for you.

 

[doronshadmi]

Do you really want to claim here that x^(log) <> y^(log(x)) ?

Look Moshe,

I'll ask you again to show exactly how this stuff is used in order to get OM better.

If you cannot do that, then please open your own thread on your @ case and invite jsfisher to reply to you there.

 

[MosheKlein]

Look Moshe,

I'll ask you again to show exactly how this stuff is used in order to get OM better.

If you cannot do that, then please open your own thread on your @ case and invite jsfisher to reply to you there.

ok Doron,

This is your thread for OM.
I will not write here anymore
about my @ discovery
No problem.

Moshe

 

[jsfisher]

Do you really want to claim here that x^(log) <> y^(log(x)) ?

MosheKlein, you established the initial context for your @ operator. You presented as "the next level" above addition and multiplication within the normal arithmetic of real numbers. You claimed to have a full hierarchy of operators that would be commutative, associative, and be distributive over the next lower level in the operator hierarchy.

Well, as a general statement of that normal arithmetic, X^(log Y) and Y^(log X) are not equivalent.

 

[doronshadmi]

MosheKlein, you established the initial context for your @ operator. You presented as "the next level" above addition and multiplication within the normal arithmetic of real numbers. You claimed to have a full hierarchy of operators that would be commutative, associative, and be distributive over the next lower level in the operator hierarchy.

Well, as general statement of that normal arithmetic, X^(log Y) and Y^(log X) are not equivalent.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4894455&postcount=4966

jsfisher, you are hijacking this thread for your straw man games, it will be informed to the moderators if you continue your dialog here about @ or any other Moshe's stuff that is not related to OM' s comprehensive understanding.

 

[Apathia]

Pardon me, Doron.

Is the Redundancy/Uncertainity Linkage still related to an (at least "kindergarden") understanding of what OM is about?

(Let me anticipate an answer:

Yes. But I'm not really getting its meaning which comes only in "Direct Perception.")

Was Moshe's paper at the QM conference irrelevant and misleading?

 

[Apathia]

Moshe's presentation at the QM conference?

Moshe's algorithm is nothing but some particular case of Organic Numbers, which is based on certain recursion.

Furthermore, it provides only the quantitative information of this particular case.

In other words, it is nothing but some "light" example, which demonstrates Non-locality\Locality linkage, and how superposition of ids or distinct ids are global or local aspects of a one complex form.

Was this about Moshe's "@" or his paper?

 

[jsfisher]

ok Doron,

This is your thread for OM.

Now, there you are mistaken, MosheKlein, and on two counts. First, this is by no means Doron's thread. He has no ownership rights to it whatsoever other than having set the initial thread topic in the opening post and thread title.

Second, discussion of your @ operator isn't off-topic. I think even Doron would agree thread topic has been somewhat Brownian since its beginnings, and it didn't begin as a discussion of OM. The thread has drifted, meandered, bounced off walls to get to where it is now, and along that disjoint path, you introduced your @ operator.

It was entirely on topic--more so than most all of Doron's recent posts--and it even related to OM--more so than most all of Doron's posts--in that your exploration of the @ operator became the basis for your initial understandings of OM.

I claim your @ operator was inadequately thought out and poorly expressed. By implication, therefore, your understanding of OM is based on false premises and misunderstandings.

Further discussion of your @ operator is completely relevant. So, I say again: As a general statement of that normal arithmetic, X^(log Y) and Y^(log X) are not equivalent.

 

[jsfisher]

Was this about Moshe's "@" or his paper?

This was about the paper. Slide 17 of the Sweden presentation, if I recall correctly, has a description of how to compute Or, the organic number for any number n (an integer).

The description has appeared in many, many of the Doron/Moshe documents in its error-laden form.

 

[Apathia]

This was about the paper. Slide 17 of the Sweden presentation, if I recall correctly, has a description of how to compute Or, the organic number for any number n (an integer).

The description has appeared in many, many of the Doron/Moshe documents in its error-laden form.

Errors et al, that presentation did open up for some of us here a crack in a window on Doron's philosophy of Organic Numbers.
It would be sad to see it entirely dismissed as "floppy."
Especially when it repeats a lot of Doron's own presentations.

 

[doronshadmi]

To the posters of this thread.

As you can clearly see, even Moshe has difficulties to get OM because he does not use direct perception techniques, in order to be aware of the silent source of his mental activity.

At this stage all he has is a strong intuition about this silence source, but intuition about that source is not that source.

Direct perception is gotten only if mantel activity is reduced to its simplest state.

This state is not deep sleep, not dreaming and not awareness that is based on thoughts (what is considered and "normal" awareness).

No verbal definitions or any other mental activity representation is direct perception, and therefore it cannot be understood directly in a media like this forum.

What I did for the past 9-10 months here, is to develop OM on the level of "normal" awareness.

As a result OM has now the exact from of at least n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy Organism, which is the minimal form where direct perception expresses itself by using Non-locality\Locality linkage.

There is no room in n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy Organism for any subjective woo woo verbal-based definitions, exactly because n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy is the simplest organism that enables the optimal base ground for Complexity objective development.

n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy Organism is going to air its view more and more in the near future, and I am nothing but a single factor of this development process, that reduced direct perception expression into to this beautiful Complexity\Simplicity linkage ( as clearly explained (where this explanation is not direct perception) in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMDP.pdf ).

 

[jsfisher]

Errors et al, that presentation did open up for some of us here a crack in a window on Doron's philosophy of Organic Numbers.
It would be sad to see it entirely dismissed as "floppy."
Especially when it repeats a lot of Doron's own presentations.

I agree about the presentation...especially the audio version. The importance of slide 17, though, had more to do with the fact it elicited doron's admission he didn't understand the content of the slide at all (but merely faithfully reproduced it whenever he felt it appropriate) and that Moshe, its author, had never reviewed the slide's content, not in any of its prior instances.

 

[jsfisher]

To the posters of this thread.

As you can clearly see, even Moshe has difficulties to get OM because he does not use direct perception techniques, in order to be aware of the silent source of his mental activity.

Oh, no! Say it isn't so. Even the acolyte has lost his faith.

 

[Apathia]

"Lord, preserve me from the enemy who has something to gain, and from the friend who has something to lose"

T. S. Eliot

 

[doronshadmi]

Now, there you are mistaken, MosheKlein, and on two counts. First, this is by no means Doron's thread. He has no ownership rights to it whatsoever other than having set the initial thread topic in the opening post and thread title

It is correct iff one does not write off-topic.

Second, discussion of your @ operator isn't off-topic. I think even Doron would agree thread topic has been somewhat Brownian since its beginnings, and it didn't begin as a discussion of OM.

Worng, OM is discussed right form post #1 ( as clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4083359&postcount=1 ).

The thread has drifted, meandered, bounced off walls to get to where it is now, and along that disjoint path, you introduced your @ operator.

It was entirely on topic--more so than most all of Doron's recent posts--and it even related to OM--more so than most all of Doron's posts--in that your exploration of the @ operator became the basis for your initial understandings of OM.

I claim your @ operator was inadequately thought out and poorly expressed. By implication, therefore, your understanding of OM is based on false premises and misunderstandings.

Further discussion of your @ operator is completely relevant. So, I say again: As a general statement of that normal arithmetic, X^(log Y) and Y^(log X) are not equivalent.

It is completely relevant only to a straw man like you, jsfisher.

 

[doronshadmi]

Oh, no! Say it isn't so. Even the acolyte has lost his faith.

OM is not some kind of faith, as your verbal-based definitions are.

In your case it is even worse because you are living in the past and play the straw man.

 

[doronshadmi]

I agree about the presentation...especially the audio version. The importance of slide 17, though, had more to do with the fact it elicited doron's admission he didn't understand the content of the slide at all (but merely faithfully reproduced it whenever he felt it appropriate) and that Moshe, its author, had never reviewed the slide's content, not in any of its prior instances.

As usual jsfisher, you are living in the past.