Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
I use "for all" but not on infinite sets, and as a result expose you trivial and flat game with sets, so?

And I am commenting only on the cases where it would be used on infinite sets. The fact you could not / cannot see that significant detail speaks poorly for your direct perception abilities.
 
You are none three for three at failing to answer the question.
No, you are failing to get the answer because you do not use Direct Perception (your verbal-only bla bla bla ... is based on Direct Perception).


Your non sequitur raises the same question, but at the other of the spectrum.

Spectrum is exactly the result of Non-Locality\Locality Linkage that is based on Direct Perception, so?

How can you formally define the empty set in your private mathematics without using a prohibited quantification? (English phrases such as "no members" or the equivalent cannot be used since it would entail a prohibited quantification.)

There are no prohibited quantifications in my system.

"for all" is valid in the case of finite sets, and it is invalid in the case on infinite sets, so?
 
And I am commenting only on the cases where it would be used on infinite sets. The fact you could not / cannot see that significant detail speaks poorly for your direct perception abilities.

No, the fact that you do not get that an infinite set is incomplete shows that you are unable to get Non-Locality\Locality Linkage that is based on Direct Perception, so?


Edit:

For example, you do not get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5008057&postcount=5718 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4996018&postcount=5644 , so?
 
Last edited:
I knew it wasn't Hebrew, and I was reasonably sure it wasn't any bla bla bla, but I really would have sworn it was a statement in English.

Thanks for the correction: Posts by doron are not in English. Got it.
No you do not get it.

At the basis of any bla bla bla ... there is Direct Perception, which itself is not bla bla bla ... but can be expressed by bla bla bla ...
 
Your non sequitur raises the same question, but at the other of the spectrum.

Spectrum is exactly the result of Non-Locality\Locality Linkage that is based on Direct Perception, so?

If this weren't so sad an example of poor reading comprehension, it might be comical.


There are no prohibited quantifications in my system.

"for all" is valid in the case of finite sets, and it is invalid in the case on infinite sets, so?

Are you quibbling over distinctions between prohibited and invalid, or do you not recognize the contradiction in these two statements?

Be that as it may, yes for all...infinite sets...invalid together in your private mathematics. And, as a consequence, very few interesting statements can be made in your private mathematics. You cannot even construct an axiom of the empty set for your set theory (unless only a finite number of sets are possible in your set theory).
 
Direct Perception is the base ground for both Ethics Logical reasoning, and if we soon will not start to shape our reality right form this base ground, nothing will stop us in the very near future to eliminate our own complex existence.

-----------------------------

The mathematical science and our own survival


One of the most powerful tools that our civilization uses is the mathematical science.

One of the main reasons of the efficiency of this science is the universal principles that stand at its foundations.

Because of these universal principles our civilization achieved its current technology, but the motivations and use of these technologies are not based on universal principles.

In my opinion non-universal principles that are fragmented to different cultures, religions, nations etc… + technology that is derived from universal principles is a very dangerous cocktail that may lead us to self-made destruction.

In my opinion one of the ways to reduce the chance of self-made destruction is to define a universal framework that may be used as a common base ground for both Ethics and Logical reasoning.

For the past 30 years I am trying to develop such a framework, and this goal is definitely beyond the abilities of a single person.

Anyway, I wish to share with you some of my last results (and please forgive me about my English (my language is Hebrew)) which draw some sketches of this universal framework.

I call this framework Organic Mathematics, or OM.

OM ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/17039028/OMDP ) demonstrates Direct Perception as the common foundation of both Intuition and Logical reasoning. Furthermore, Direct Perception is actually the base ground of any mantel activity, whether it is expressed by senses, emotions, or logical reasoning.

Direct Perception is actually the silent presence of any mantel activity, which enables to bridge our ethical aspects with our logical\technological aspects under a one framework.

The luck of Direct Perception as the base ground of a powerful language like the mathematical science, can easily lead us to manipulate deeper forces of Nature, which are not balanced by universal ethical principles (universal ethical principles must not be limited to any particular religion, culture or civilization).

In my opinion if our species will not learn very soon how to develop the universal bridge between Ethics and Logics under a one comprehensive framework, we shell not survive further manipulations of Nature's forces.



Please look at:


Mathematics As a Tool For Survival:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM

and http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE

for clearer representation of my argument (and again, sorry about my English).


More comprehensive papers abut this subject are:


Why Zeno's Achilles\Tortoise Race is not a Paradox?
(Non-Locality\Locality Linkage as "The Tree of Knowledge"):


http://www.scribd.com/doc/17504323/WZATRP8


Organic Mathematics (A Non-formal Introduction):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT


ORGANIC MATHEMATICS, Proposing a way to solve Hilbert's 6th Problem:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18453171/IJPAMOM [1]

[1] Moshe Klein, Doron Shadmi: Organic Mathematics, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, volume 49 No. 3 2008, 329-340


From my experience of the past 7 years no peer reviewed journal (except one) or scholars that work in the fields of exact sciences have shown any interesting in this kind of project, and I hope that somebody will find this kind of project important.
 
Last edited:
Be that as it may, yes for all...infinite sets...invalid together in your private mathematics. And, as a consequence, very few interesting statements can be made in your private mathematics. You cannot even construct an axiom of the empty set for your set theory (unless only a finite number of sets are possible in your set theory).
Again, jsfisher this is exactly what you get from your bla bla bla ... trivial level, so?

Try to use Direct Precetion, and your view about Math will be changed by a paradigm-shift.
 
Last edited:
Direct Perception is the...

So, when faced with inconvenient truths are questions you cannot answer, you try to quickly change the subject.


Without quantification over an infinite collection -- an invalid construct in doron's private mathematics -- how does doron formulate an axiom of the empty set?

The claim is he cannot (unless his set theory is restricted to only a finite number of possible sets). Doron responds by trying to change the subject.

Without quantification over an infinite collection -- an invalid construct in doron's private mathematics -- how does doron identify a set as infinite?

The claim is he cannot in any formal way. Doron responds by trying to change the subject, four times, now.
 
So, when faced with inconvenient truths are questions you cannot answer, you try to quickly change the subject.


Not at all, it is always the same subject, your blindness.

More details in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5008114&postcount=5726 .

Without quantification over an infinite collection -- an invalid construct in doron's private mathematics -- how does doron formulate an axiom of the empty set?

There exists X that has no sub-existing things, so?
 
Last edited:
Again, jsfisher this is exactly what you get from your bla bla bla ... trivial level, so?

Try to use Direct Precetion, and your view about Math will be changed by a paradigm-shift.


No thank you. Simply wanting to believe something is correct isn't good enough for me. I'd prefer it actually to be correct.
 
Not at all, it is always the same subject, your blindness.

More details in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5008114&postcount=5726 .


So, you refute my claim of evasion by repeating the evasion? Now, how about addressing the meat of my post:

Without quantification over an infinite collection -- an invalid construct in doron's private mathematics -- how does doron formulate an axiom of the empty set?

The claim is he cannot (unless his set theory is restricted to only a finite number of possible sets). Doron responds by trying to change the subject.

Without quantification over an infinite collection -- an invalid construct in doron's private mathematics -- how does doron identify a set as infinite?

The claim is he cannot in any formal way. Doron responds by trying to change the subject, four times five times, now.
 
No thank you. Simply wanting to believe something is correct isn't good enough for me. I'd prefer it actually to be correct.

Direct Perception is the exact state that does not need belief in order to be known and expressed.
 
So, you refute my claim of evasion by repeating the evasion? Now, how about addressing the meat of my post:

Without quantification over an infinite collection -- an invalid construct in doron's private mathematics -- how does doron formulate an axiom of the empty set?

There exists X that has no sub-existing things, so?
 
There exists X that has no sub-existing things, so?

So?

So, there is no way to express that formally without using a quantifier over an infinite collection -- something you claim is invalid in your private mathematics.

So, your attempt is a failure. Care to try again?



Mathematics: 1, Direct perception: 0.
 
and defies definition? This sounds like (fundamentalist) religion, not science.
No, religion is based on beliefs.

Direct Perception is the exact state that does not need belief in order to be known and expressed.
 
Last edited:
So?

So, there is no way to express that formally without using a quantifier over an infinite collection -- something you claim is invalid in your private mathematics.

Yes there is. Non-finite things are incomplete collections, so?

Also we do not need the existing of infinite collections in order to directly get the a existence of X that has no sub-exiting things.

This X is exactly Non-locality, which is beyond your limited loca-only abstract ability.
 
Last edited:
and defies definition? This sounds like (fundamentalist) religion, not science.

When you add in the following:
doronshadmi said:
In my opinion if our species will not learn very soon how to develop the universal bridge between Ethics and Logics under a one comprehensive framework, we shell not survive further manipulations of Nature's forces.

...how can it be anything but exactly like a fundamentalist religion?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom