Deeper than primes

[zooterkin]

By using Direct Perception I show that from one hand Standard Math does not ignore Complexity in order to distinguish between
S members (S={ {{}}, {{a}}, {{a,b}}, {{b}}, ... , {{a,b,c,...}}, ...}), and on the other hand it ignores Complexity when Cardinality is measured.

Then direct perception is not much use, is it?

If you want to measure complexity, then use something which measures it. Cardinality is simply counting the number of members in a set.

I don't measure how good a batsman Andrew Strauss is just by counting the number of innings.

 

[ddt]

You've also shown time and again unwillingness to actually learn mathematics.

No ddt, you have shown you inability to grasp this simple fact:

By using Direct Perception I show that from one hand Standard Math does not ignore Complexity in order to distinguish between
S members (S={ {{}}, {{a}}, {{a,b}}, {{b}}, ... , {{a,b,c,...}}, ...}), and on the other hand it ignores Complexity when Cardinality is measured.

Thanks for again proving my point. Are you proving that post one paragraph at a time?

 

[doronshadmi]

Then direct perception is not much use, is it?

If you want to measure complexity, then use something which measures it. Cardinality is simply counting the number of members in a set.

I don't measure how good a batsman Andrew Strauss is just by counting the number of innings.

Zooterkin,

You demonstrate your trivial ability to understand that Cardinality is based on our ability to distinguish between the members, and it is done exactly because we do not ignore the inner structure (the Complexity) of each member.

Standard Math understands Cardinality as the measurement of the first-level of this Complexity, and it does it by claiming that it uses generalization of the concept of Set.

I expose this bogus, whether you are ignorant about it, or not.

you are the one who uses bogus and bizarre rules here, as clearly shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5017573&postcount=5831 .

 

[doronshadmi]

Thanks for again proving my point.

Yes a prove your bogus point.

 

[dlorde]

Hare are some works of Michail Zak:

http://www.ejtp.com/articles/ejtpv5i18p61.pdf

http://www.ejtp.com/articles/ejtpv4i16IIp11.pdf

They go around OM but do not penetrate to the real core of things because they are still using the standard verbal-only step-by-step formalism.

They avoid OM completely. They outline an attempt to provide a way to describe the characteristics of life and intelligence from physics first principles by explicit mathematical modelling of behaviour based on QM-like probability-density functions and 'wavefunction collapse' under feedback, etc...

In what way is there even the most tenuous connection with OM as you have described it here?

 

[dlorde]

I believe that each one of us has a unique and important view of this subject.

Yet you persistently dismiss the 'unique and important' views of the few people to whom you have attempted to explain the details of your attempt (OM) to address this important concern.

 

[doronshadmi]

They avoid OM completely. They outline an attempt to provide a way to describe the characteristics of life and intelligence from physics first principles by explicit mathematical modelling of behaviour based on QM-like probability-density functions and 'wavefunction collapse' under feedback, etc...

In what way is there even the most tenuous connection with OM as you have described it here?

Are you kidding?

Probably not.

The reason: you did not try to read and understand any of the following:

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

 

[doronshadmi]

Yet you persistently dismiss the 'unique and important' views of the few people to whom you have attempted to explain the details of your attempt (OM) to address this important concern.

These people, and you are one of them, do not bother to really read AND understand what I have to say.


The reason: you can't do the needed paradigm-shift.

Look how trivial is your reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5037911&postcount=5899 , and it is trivial exactly because your unique point of view was not expressed yet because you are using the voice of the mob instead really penetrate to the core of this subject

 

[The Man]

<preceding nonsense snipped>
I believe that each one of us has a unique and important view of this subject.

Well let’s just see how you subsequent posts bear out that asserted ‘belief’.

No ddt, you have shown you inability to grasp this simple fact:

By using Direct Perception I show that from one hand Standard Math does not ignore Complexity in order to distinguish between
S members (S={ {{}}, {{a}}, {{a,b}}, {{b}}, ... , {{a,b,c,...}}, ...}), and on the other hand it ignores Complexity when Cardinality is measured.

Zooterkin,

You demonstrate your trivial ability to understand that Cardinality is based on our ability to distinguish between the members, and it is done exactly because we do not ignore the inner structure (the Complexity) of each member.

Standard Math understands Cardinality as the measurement of the first-level of this Complexity, and it does it by claiming that it uses generalization of the concept of Set.

I expose this bogus, whether you are ignorant about it, or not.

you are the one who uses bogus and bizarre rules here, as clearly shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5017573&postcount=5831 .

Are you kidding?

Probably not.

The reason: you did not try to read and understand any of the following:

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

These people, and you are one of them, do not bother to really read AND understand what I have to say.


The reason: you can't do the needed paradigm-shift.

Look how trivial is your reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5037911&postcount=5899 , and it is trivial exactly because your unique point of view was not expressed yet because you are using the voice of the mob instead really penetrate to the core of this subject

Nope your posts clearly and demonstrably show that it is only your “view of this subject” that you consider to be “unique and important”.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well let’s just see how you subsequent posts bear out that asserted ‘belief’.

Nope your posts clearly and demonstrably show that it is only your “view of this subject” that you consider to be “unique and important”.

The Man, first you have to get my view (all you get is <preceding nonsense snipped>
) in order to say something about it, so?

You are invited to show that you really get, for example, http://www.scribd.com/doc/17504323/WZATRP8 (this is an edited version with no English problems), unless you are still a point dragger (in that case do not bother to sell your defective merchandise).

 

[The Man]

The Man, first you have to get my view (all you get is <preceding nonsense snipped>
) in order to say something about it, so?

You are invited to show that you really get, for example, http://www.scribd.com/doc/17504323/WZATRP8 (this is an edited version with no English problems), unless you are still a point dragger (in that case do not bother to sell your defective merchandise).

So your argument against my point that your claim of

I believe that each one of us has a unique and important view of this subject.

is evidently and entirely false by the content of your own posts is to post the assertion that “The Man, first you have to get my view”? I get your view Doron and in my hardly unique view your view is nothing but nonsense. “You are” and have been “invited to show that you really get, for example, http://www.scribd.com/doc/17504323/WZATRP8” by describing some practical application of your OM or view on ethics and logic. In repose all you present is baseless nonsense that you think sounds enlighten. The fact that you are unable to make any practical sense of your own notion and views simply demonstrates that they make no practical sense even to you and thus your own “unique and important view of this subject” is simply nonsense.

Well once again Doron thank you for clearly and unequivocally demonstrating that you “believe that each one of us has a unique and important view of this subject” only when, in your view, it agrees with, well, your view.

 

[dlorde]

These people, and you are one of them, do not bother to really read AND understand what I have to say.

To the contrary, I have bothered to read all the articles you linked to, and I do believe I understand the gist of what you are struggling to say. Unfortunately, I readily admit to not understanding much of the detail in those articles - partly because of the poor English, but mostly because so much of is nonsensical word-salad. Understanding is not just a matter of 'bothering', it requires clarity of expression on the part of the communicator.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - A. Einstein

If I'm one of 'these people' who don't understand, how many do you know that do understand? Be honest now...

The reason: you can't do the needed paradigm-shift.

Sadly, demanding the use of 'Direct Perception' is not sufficient. I see no paradigm-shift, just a misguided rehash of holism and scrambled maths.

Look how trivial is your reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5037911&postcount=5899 , and it is trivial exactly because your unique point of view was not expressed yet because you are using the voice of the mob instead really penetrate to the core of this subject

My response may have been trivial, but it was sadly true - you have consistently dismissed almost all the - by your own declaration - unique and important views expressed here. This surely speaks for itself.

But perhaps you could express my unique point of view for me, as you seem to know so much about it?

 

[doronshadmi]

To the contrary, I have bothered to read all the articles you linked to, and I do believe I understand the gist of what you are struggling to say. Unfortunately, I readily admit to not understanding much of the detail in those articles - partly because of the poor English

What poor English you find in http://www.scribd.com/doc/17504323/WZATRP8 ?

 

[doronshadmi]

So your argument against my point that your claim of



is evidently and entirely false by the content of your own posts is to post the assertion that “The Man, first you have to get my view”? I get your view Doron and in my hardly unique view your view is nothing but nonsense. “You are” and have been “invited to show that you really get, for example, http://www.scribd.com/doc/17504323/WZATRP8” by describing some practical application of your OM or view on ethics and logic. In repose all you present is baseless nonsense that you think sounds enlighten. The fact that you are unable to make any practical sense of your own notion and views simply demonstrates that they make no practical sense even to you and thus your own “unique and important view of this subject” is simply nonsense.

Well once again Doron thank you for clearly and unequivocally demonstrating that you “believe that each one of us has a unique and important view of this subject” only when, in your view, it agrees with, well, your view.

The Man, dragging points is not one of the important unique views of this subject simply because it is ill-logical nonsense.

There is no use to talk with you on this subject exactly because you get higher dimensions as a result of dragging lower dimensions.

You poor abstract ability is limited to serial step-by-step dragged things, so?

Understanding Comlexity, as shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5038203&postcount=5903 is practical, and you The Man do not get it exactly as you do not get a single word of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5037911&postcount=5899 ( <preceding nonsense snipped>
is your best ), so?

 

[The Man]

The Man, dragging points is not one of the important unique views of this subject simply because it is ill-logical nonsense.

If it were, it certainly would fit right in with most of your assertion.

There is no use to talk with you on this subject exactly because you get higher dimensions as a result of dragging lower dimensions.

Yet you keep talking to me even after repeatedly claiming you would not, whose failure is that?

You poor abstract ability is limited to serial step-by-step dragged things, so

Understanding Comlexity, as shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5038203&postcount=5903 is practical, and you The Man do not get it exactly as you do not get a single word of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5037911&postcount=5899 ( <preceding nonsense snipped>
is your best ), so?

Once again you confuse simply using a word like complexity with understanding complexity; your insistence that cardinality is a measure of complexity clearly demonstrates that you do not understand either of those words regardless of how often you insert them into your ramblings. Again please show some practical application of your notions. Your use of words that you clearly do not understand is not a practical application, even though you seem to consider it as such. Doron I understand every word of your referenced post “http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5037911&postcount=5899” and that (every word of your post) is quite literally what makes it nonsense.

 

[dlorde]

What poor English you find in http://www.scribd.com/doc/17504323/WZATRP8 ?

None - congratulations, you've found someone to translate for you - and very well. The English is impeccable. Unfortunately, what she has translated is nonsensical word-salad...

 

[jsfisher]

None - congratulations, you've found someone to translate for you - and very well. The English is impeccable. Unfortunately, what she has translated is nonsensical word-salad...

Your use of the word, impeccable, in this context is strange and unknown to me.

 

[zooterkin]

The Man, dragging points is not one of the important unique views of this subject simply because it is ill-logical nonsense.

What exactly is your difficulty with dragging a point?

 

[doronshadmi]

None - congratulations, you've found someone to translate for you - and very well. The English is impeccable. Unfortunately, what she has translated is nonsensical word-salad...

The word-salad is a direct result of your limited understanding, so?

 

[doronshadmi]

If it were, it certainly would fit right in with most of your assertion.

Let us look at the reasoning of a point dragger like The Man.

Because he is a serial-only thinker, then 1-dim does not exist unless 0-dim exists.

1-dim exists iff 0-dim is dragged, 2-dim exists iff 1-dim is dragged, etc ...

n=1 to ∞
k=0 to ∞

In general, according to The Man's serial-only reasoning, n-dim exists iff k-dim is dragged.

It is obvious that a serial-only thinker is closed under a step-by-step reasoning and as a result he simply unable to get anything that is not a step-by-step reasoning.

If you show abstract or practical results that are not limited by step-by-step reasoning, a serial-only thinker will not get them.

OM is exactly a framework where step-by-step reasoning is nothing but some partial case.

I clearly show, by using OM, how fundamental mathematical concepts are essentially changed by using both parallel AND serial reasoning as complemented views of a one complex realm.

It is beyond serial-only thinkers exactly because their minds are now closed after a long period of serial-only training and the damage is irreversible.

Generally damaged minds are good for one and only one purpose which is: to learn how to be developed by avoiding the methods that caused these damaged minds.

This learning is very practical and this is exactly what OM does, but it is clear that the damage of serial-only training is irreversible in the case of The Man. He does not have the skills to be extended beyond his step-by-step reasoning.

EDIT:

The Man may claim that defining things is not equivalent to the way of how they exist. Also in this case The Man's reasoning is closed under a step-by-step reasoning because n-dim is undefined if k-dim is undefined (and in the language of The Man: n-dim is dragged k-dim).

Here is some concrete example that supports what has been written above:

your insistence that cardinality is a measure of complexity clearly demonstrates that you do not understand either of those words regardless of how often you insert them into your ramblings.

Translation:

The Man has no skills to get the argument written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5038203&postcount=5903.