Deeper than primes

[realpaladin]

Can't get ≠ (no matter what 0-dims are used), isn't it realpaladin?

≠ means "is not equal to".

So, 0-DimA ≠ 0-Dim<enumeration> means they are not the same.

Now we can go back to the 'value' versus 'existence' discussion again, if you want.

In the case of 'existence' it means 'not that instance', and in the case of 'value' it means 'with different properties'.

Both still prove my point.

 

[doronshadmi]

≠ means "is not equal to".

So, 0-DimA ≠ 0-Dim<enumeration> means they are not the same.

Now we can go back to the 'value' versus 'existence' discussion again, if you want.

In the case of 'existence' it means 'not that instance', and in the case of 'value' it means 'with different properties'.

Both still prove my point.

What point?

≠ is exactly an example of an uncovered 1-dim domain, no matter how many 0-dim elements are on this 1-dim element.

 

[realpaladin]

What point?

≠ is exactly the uncovered 1-dim domain.

Ok, so you are saying this:

- Since the endpoints of the 1-dim are not equal, the whole 1-dim is uncovered by 0-dim points.

Is that what you are saying?

Just want that clear before I start about that.

 

[realpaladin]

And I still disagree on what the smallest example of non-locality is.

It still is !0-DimA (Not 0-DimA).

 

[zooterkin]

At the moment that you dirctly get this silence, we shell meat and you will understand what Logics really is (not your verbal-based notions).

Turtle soup is the answer?
I guess it makes as much sense as anything else you've said.

 

[realpaladin]

What point?

≠ is exactly an example of an uncovered 1-dim domain, no matter how many 0-dim elements are on this 1-dim element.

Aw, darn... it almost made sense.

But there we go again... you still can not show one point on your 1-dim element where there is not a 0-dim element on it.

The ≠ is meaningless in that context, since you have no reference.

 

[doronshadmi]

Ok, so you are saying this:

- Since the endpoints of the 1-dim are not equal, the whole 1-dim is uncovered by 0-dim points.

Is that what you are saying?

Just want that clear before I start about that.

No,

Given any amount of 0-dim elements on some 1-dim element, the form of this 0-dim element is not less than ... 0-dim ≠ 0-dim ≠ 0-dim ... where ≠ is an example of an uncovered domain on that 1-dim element.

 

[doronshadmi]

Aw, darn... it almost made sense.

But there we go again... you still can not show one point on your 1-dim element where there is not a 0-dim element on it.

The ≠ is meaningless in that context, since you have no reference.

You do not understand Generalization.

 

[doronshadmi]

Turtle soup is the answer?
I guess it makes as much sense as anything else you've said.

Continue to use typos as the basis of your understanding, you are in the right way.

 

[doronshadmi]

And I still disagree on what the smallest example of non-locality is.

It still is !0-DimA (Not 0-DimA).

1-dim element = 0-dim element.

Nice realpaladin, continue this 0=1 way, why not?

 

[realpaladin]

No,

Given any amount of 0-dim elements on some 1-dim element, the form of this 0-dim element is not less than ... 0-dim ≠ 0-dim ≠ 0-dim ... where ≠ is an example of an uncovered domain on that 1-dim element.

So you both have an infinite number of uncovered domains as well as covered domains.

But as soon as I can specify any uncovered domain, I actually have covered it, and therefore it is not an uncovered domain any longer.

Btw. the term domain is wrong, as it denotes a range...

But that means you not only have taken your criticisms of a normal line, copied them, but worsened the problem.

 

[realpaladin]

1-dim element = 0-dim element.

Nice realpaladin, continue this 0=1 way, why not?

No, !0 means everything but zero. That is quite obvious.

It does not mean 0 equals 1.

In OM, !0-DimA would mean, 0-DimA does not equal any other 0-Dim and it does not equal any other 1-Dim, any other 2-Dim, any other 3-Dim etc.

So anywhere else but this specific locality. Which makes the answer... non-local.

 

[realpaladin]

You do not understand Generalization.

Enlighten me. Can you?

 

[doronshadmi]

So you both have an infinite number of uncovered domains as well as covered domains.

Again we are not talking here about amounts.

We are talking here about the structural deference between two atomic types, where one type is non-local and the other is local.

 

[doronshadmi]

Enlighten me. Can you?

In this case, nobody but you.

 

[realpaladin]

Again we are not talking here about amounts.

We are talking here about the structural deference between two atomic types, where one type is non-local and the other is local.

No, we were explicitly talking about amounts.

The original question was, show me at least one point that is not on your 1-dim element.

You need to drive it back to structural differences, because as soon as anything 'Mathy' comes along, the argumentation goes astray.

So again. I still say, you can not pinpoint one single point on your 1-dim element that is not covered by a 0-dim.

 

[realpaladin]

In this case, nobody but you.

In that case. I do get generalisation, and your argument is wrong. Thanks.

 

[doronshadmi]

No, !0 means everything but zero. That is quite obvious.

It does not mean 0 equals 1.

In OM, !0-DimA would mean, 0-DimA does not equal any other 0-Dim and it does not equal any other 1-Dim, any other 2-Dim, any other 3-Dim etc.

So anywhere else but this specific locality. Which makes the answer... non-local.

1) You are right, I have missed "!" .

2) So you actually agree that no matter what pair of different dims are used, it is always based on ≠ (non-locality)\some dim (locality) linkage.

3) (2) is an example of a generalization.

4) Covering dim by itself is trivial, we are talking about fully cover n+1-dim by n-dim, that cannot be done.

 

[doronshadmi]

In that case. I do get generalisation, and your argument is wrong. Thanks.

Not even close.

 

[doronshadmi]

No, we were explicitly talking about amounts.

Here is where your "generalization" continues to fail.