Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
realpaladin said:
There *is* no “0.0000…1” as 0.999... is infinitely repetent (don't know the english word for it, it means repeating pattern in Dutch Math)

We also never say 1 = 0.999... but lim(1) = 0.999...

Which is a far more concise way of talking about the fact that the pattern of 9's is infinitely repetent. There is no 1 'somewhere'.

The number will just approach 1 the longer the series gets.

By introducing your non-local domain, you are introducing, on purpose, a calculation error.
Click to expand...

*bump*
 
The Man said:
Why should I ask when you have already asserted it as a division or more specifically a fraction?
Click to expand...

Since atoms cannot be divided, a scale factor is used, in this case, for example:


(0.333...[base 10] < 1/3) = (0.999...[base 10] < 1) / 3 , where "/ 3" expression is a scale factor, in this case.
 
Doron, I will not fall into the trap of 'bickering' with you again.

So I just restate it.

There *is* no “0.0000…1” as 0.999... is infinitely repetent (don't know the english word for it, it means repeating pattern in Dutch Math)

We also never say 1 = 0.999... but lim(1) = 0.999...

Which is a far more concise way of talking about the fact that the pattern of 9's is infinitely repetent. There is no 1 'somewhere'.

The number will just approach 1 the longer the series gets.

By introducing your non-local domain, you are introducing, on purpose, a calculation error.
 
Ok dear posters, I am going to take a very long vacation from this thread.

I'll be back only if I will find some news in what you have to say about OM.


Apathia, in my opinion, you are the best.
 
Last edited:
Ok, that gives me good time to compile a list of items in need of clarification and correction.

I think some people are willing to help, off the top of my head the topics would include, amongst others:

* Working with infinities is not satisfactorily shown.
* The constraints of dimensionalities put up by OM have not been shown to be necessary for any new type of knowledge garnering.
* The stance of OM on whether it is a philosophy, calculation method or logical reasoning theory.
* The necessity of introduction of definitions of symbols to make the theory workable at all is not shown.
* The internal consistency of OM is not shown.

When I have time I will go through the thread from post 1 up until this one to make the list complete. With links. Fiona style.
 
individual statements and links to books are not exactly a clear epistemology
perhaps you could summarize for our benefit
 
!Kaggen said:
individual statements and links to books are not exactly a clear epistemology
perhaps you could summarize for our benefit
Click to expand...

You asked for an epistemology, now it has to be a clear one as well?

I will not oblige you.

In discussions, there is either the effort of mutual context, which are provided by the links and clarifications and the backgrounds of the discussers.

Both are amply mentioned in the thread.
 
Thanks for the laugh
As I expected realpaladin your answer comes with having how many PhD's?
doron its your turn

btw. need 15 posts so that I can post a URL, this thread might just help
 
Last edited:
!Kaggen said:
Thanks for the laugh
As I expected realpaladin your answer comes with having how many PhD's?
doron its your turn

btw. need 15 posts so that I can post a URL, this thread might just help
Click to expand...

Nah, not really.

Funny that you think that stating a number (2) of PhD's has anything to do with epistemology. It might be the culmination of following those beliefs.

If you had read the posts really well instead of skimming them to find a few cheap 'pot-shots', you would have noticed it rather served as a quick and loose justification for making statements that were outside the realm of the discussion.

Rather to prevent it from derailing.

The justification of what I find as a true belief or ratification of what I have learned should have happened way before I would try to get any educational institute's certification, otherwise it would be kind of hard to follow through, wouldn't it?

Furthermore, you are barking up the wrong tree. As you did not try to find out more about Doron and his mathematical antics, you missed his lengthy threads in several math and physics fora as well.

And finally, if you were actively looking at the statements made, then you would not try to strawman the discussion by going to epistemology at all, but you would see that the discussion is on following lines of logic.

As a starting point you should have taken Doron's document (which quite clearly explains his epistemology, that is why nobody asks for it explicitly) and checked whether the followed lines of reasoning

"...it follows from..." and "...it is clearly shown..."

were anywhere near in the realms of Math (clearly described, rigorously proven) or Physics (ditto, although quite in movement).

You would also have seen a question and even a request, more than once, of asking Doron whether it was his 'belief' and my statement that if such were so, I would be done.

The only answer I can really give to your input is 'what the hell?'
 
realpaladin said:
Nah, not really.

Funny that you think that stating a number (2) of PhD's has anything to do with epistemology. It might be the culmination of following those beliefs.

If you had read the posts really well instead of skimming them to find a few cheap 'pot-shots', you would have noticed it rather served as a quick and loose justification for making statements that were outside the realm of the discussion.

Rather to prevent it from derailing.

The justification of what I find as a true belief or ratification of what I have learned should have happened way before I would try to get any educational institute's certification, otherwise it would be kind of hard to follow through, wouldn't it?

Furthermore, you are barking up the wrong tree. As you did not try to find out more about Doron and his mathematical antics, you missed his lengthy threads in several math and physics fora as well.

And finally, if you were actively looking at the statements made, then you would not try to strawman the discussion by going to epistemology at all, but you would see that the discussion is on following lines of logic.

As a starting point you should have taken Doron's document (which quite clearly explains his epistemology, that is why nobody asks for it explicitly) and checked whether the followed lines of reasoning

"...it follows from..." and "...it is clearly shown..."

were anywhere near in the realms of Math (clearly described, rigorously proven) or Physics (ditto, although quite in movement).

You would also have seen a question and even a request, more than once, of asking Doron whether it was his 'belief' and my statement that if such were so, I would be done.

The only answer I can really give to your input is 'what the hell?'
Click to expand...

"The justification of what I find as a true belief or ratification of what I have learned should have happened way before I would try to get any educational institute's certification, otherwise it would be kind of hard to follow through, wouldn't it?"

I subscribe to your own answer above, though many unfortunately don't.

Sometimes cheap 'pot-shots' or a less cynical word "joking" helps put things into perspective

I am barking at the inability to be clear which I believe is the cause of the lengthy non-arguments with Doron in many forums. He is just as guilty.

"The justification of what I find as a true belief or ratification of what I have learned should have happened way before I would try to get any educational institute's certification, otherwise it would be kind of hard to follow through, wouldn't it?"

Good start in summarizing your epistemology

Logic is a formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. In other words Logic does not define the origin and nature of knowledge it deals with the mechanics of knowledge. However seeing that Doron keeps referring to "direct perception" as the origin of knowledge in OM the discussion is really epistemological. Therein lies the inability of you and Doron to reach a common basis. He is talking epistemology and you are talking logic.

"As a starting point you should have taken Doron's document (which quite clearly explains his epistemology, that is why nobody asks for it explicitly) and checked whether the followed lines of reasoning

"...it follows from..." and "...it is clearly shown..."

were anywhere near in the realms of Math (clearly described, rigorously proven) or Physics (ditto, although quite in movement)."

I agree 100%, therefore Doron would do more justice to his ideas, by first developing a clear epistemology and you would do better in this discussion by leaving the logic until this time. Otherwise it is just bickering.

"You would also have seen a question and even a request, more than once, of asking Doron whether it was his 'belief' and my statement that if such were so, I would be done."

I think this has been explicit from the word go so I do not count this as an excuse to continue the discussion. However the reason for Doron not answering this question can easily be explained by the presumption by most people on this forum that a "belief" is to be ignored especially in the light of math and science .

This is the basis of most discussions on this forum which are the result of either an assumed epistemology by inference (which you subscribe to) or an unclear epistemology (Doron, "the crackpots" and the theists). The extremely difficult task of developing a personal epistemology results in us choosing one or the other.
 
!Kaggen said:
<snip>
Click to expand...
You can split quoted text by adding extra [ /QUOTE] and [ QUOTE] tags at the point where you wish to comment. (without the spaces).

There's a testing sub-forum here where you can practice using any of the forum's posting functions - e.g. multi-quote, posting pics etc..
 
The Man said:
However, that does not preclude one from adhering to their own subjectivity about how, where and when they choose to apply such objectifying tools. Unfortunately I do not see OM inherently making those circumstances any better, but simply detracting from the effectiveness of actual math. Education, compassion, empathy and tolerance are the only basis for such considerations and those are simply parts of our own subjective experiences.
Click to expand...
Quite, this is the core of the argument against the value of the claimed objectives of OM. Maths in its application is a tool, and the ethics and morals of tool use reside with the tool user, not the tool. You can use a screwdriver to tighten a screw or to stab someone - should we wait for Doron to create us an ethical screwdriver as part of an ethical toolkit? No, we should educate and enlighten the tool users.
 
The Man said:
Oh just to add I found your post quite intuitive, Apathia, certainly nothing wrong with your direct perception that I can find. In fact you tentatively stress some of the points I was making on another thread we have both been engaged in. Specifically not limiting subjectivity to things other then what are generally considered objects. Indeed as you state, math can tend to be perceived as objectification in simply processing data. Yet that too is what we do in establishing our own subjective perspectives, process data. In a certain sense math does require that objectification in order to be effective, but it does not itself restrict one from being subjective about the processes involved. One of the best examples is the use of data from what most would subjectivity determine to be immoral experiments. Were I conducting a study on pain, I would have to analyze the data as objectively as possible. However that does not preclude me from having a subjective opinion about how that data was collected. Say perhaps from torture and refusing to participate or lend credence to an activity one finds highly objectionable. So yes, math does tend to objectify, that is fundamentally part of its function and effectiveness. However, that does not preclude one from adhering to their own subjectivity about how, where and when they choose to apply such objectifying tools. Unfortunately I do not see OM inherently making those circumstances any better, but simply detracting from the effectiveness of actual math. Education, compassion, empathy and tolerance are the only basis for such considerations and those are simply parts of our own subjective experiences.
Click to expand...

Thank you for following my post closely.
I hope my musings help others in the thread to see where Doron is coming from and what his insistence on getting the "Non-Local" into mathematics is about.
I'm also at a place where I can engage Doron in a dialog about how that is supposed to happen.
And then move on to other questions about his intuitive approach to infinity.

Perhaps you are able to see the importance of the question I asked in my last post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom