Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

So where's Moshe? Is two enough?

No, two is not enough, and no, Moshe agrees with OM and he fed up by the ignorece of posters like you.

More accuratly, Moshe agrees with OM intuintivly, which means that he does not have yet a direct perception of it, and it is not good enough for me.

Since this is the case, I'v asked him to move his name to the Acknowledgements part of http://www.scribd.com/doc/17504323/WZATRP8 and I am still looking for some one that will get OM by direct perception, as I do.

 

[doronshadmi]

That was directed at Doron, but it's a question I've been asking myself recently ...

I dunno. Previously I've learned quite a bit from the replies to Doron, but if we're heading back to discuss the same old same old yet again (post 1465 was January!) ... it's probably time for me to waste spend some time in more interesting threads.

So, a quick thank you to you guys'n'gals (far too many of you to name) who have helped reawaken my interest in Maths, and to Apathia for the attempts to understand and explain OM from a more philosophical angle. Some of the jokes and wise-cracks were good enough for TLA Pith nomination, if only they would have made sense to anyone outside this thread!

PS - Santa changed his plans back in December, but "Engineering Mathematics 5th ed: Programmes and Problems" by K.A. Stroud is on order and should be arriving in a day or two

I wish you the best catbasket

 

[The Man]

Again!

What again? Going back and significantly editing your previous post, that I quoted in its entirety before that edit , two minutes before you make this post does not make this post anything “again”.

Here it is The Man: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4340862&postcount=1465 and you agree with this part, taken from wikipedia:

"By dragging a 0-dimensional object in some direction, one obtains a 1-dimensional object."

This sentence, which you agree with, actually says that a higher-dimension exists as a result of dragging lower-dimension.

No it actually and specifically refers to “dimensional object”s as “an inductive description of dimension”, which you might understand if you would actually read that line, the section I quoted or the article itself. What it does not say and I have never said is “that a line does not exist unless a point is dragged”

This is an utter nonsense simply because no lower-dimension can be dragged unless the higher dimension already exists.

If now you claim that you disagree with the dragging model, then let's go for it.

Do you agree that a line exists even if points do not exist?

Do you agree that a point exist even if a line does not exist?

Please do not sell again your "a line is defined by points" story because we are talking here about the existence of things and not how they are indirectly described by verbal bla bla bla … maneuvers, that have no impact on the existence of things.

Sorry Doron but if you feel your interpretation of what was specifically not claimed is “utter nonsense” then that is simply your problem as you are the only one asserting that claim.

Oh and a line segment is defined by points.

 

[doronshadmi]

What again? Going back and significantly editing your previous post, that I quoted in its entirety before that edit , two minutes before you make this post does not make this post anything “again”.



No it actually and specifically refers to “dimensional object”s as “an inductive description of dimension”, which you might understand if you would actually read that line, the section I quoted or the article itself. What it does not say and I have never said is “that a line does not exist unless a point is dragged”




Sorry Doron but if you feel your interpretation of what was specifically not claimed is “utter nonsense” then that is simply your problem as you are the only one asserting that claim.

Oh and a line segment is defined by points.

Thank you for supporting http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5042313&postcount=5920.

You can use any verbal bla bla bla ... like "inductive description of dimension", still it does not change the fact that you support this ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4340862&postcount=1465 ):

"To construct the plane one needs two steps: drag a point to construct the real numbers, then drag the real numbers to produce the plane."

In other words, you support the nonsense that the existence of higher dimension depends on dragging lower dimension, and your serial-only reasoning rising its limited head, so?

Ho and a line segment exists independently of any lower dimension along it, which is something that your serial-only reasoning can't get, so?

Save your limited ill-fantasy to your limited club, I do not buy your defective and partial reasoning, exactly because it is addressed by your serial-only club as the one and only one way to get things.

Here is some example of your poor reasoning ability:

In means that one and only one state (Singularity) manifests itself as the interaction between at least two independent atoms (where independent atoms are naturally not derived from each other, but they derived from their common property known as singularity, which is indivisible by nature, at its self state).

Having them “derived from their common property known as singularity” would make them mutualy dependent on that “common property” and thus not independent in that regarad. As you claim that they are “independent” and “derived from their common property known as singularity” that makes that “property known as singularity” divisable into asspects that result in one “independent atom” or the other.

Some analogy:

The Trunk is a common property of two branches, such that no branch is derived from any other branch, but any branch is derived from The Trunk.

In other words, a one atomic state is a common property of two expressions of it, which are not derived from each other.

These expressions are called Non-locality and Locality, and they are linkable exactly because they are derived from a one indivisible common source.

Your flatten serial-step-by-step-left-hemisphere-only reasoning can't get it, so?

What it does not say and I have never said is “that a line does not exist unless a point is dragged”

I'll ask again:

Do you agree that a line exists even if points do not exist?

Do you agree that a point exist even if a line does not exist?

 

[zooterkin]

"To construct the plane one needs two steps: drag a point to construct the real numbers, then drag the real numbers to produce the plane."

Where are you quoting this from?

 

[doronshadmi]

Where are you quoting this from?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4340862&postcount=1465

 

[doronshadmi]

OM is the exact framework that bridging the following:

http://www.web-us.com/brain/right_left_brain_characteristics.htm

 

[dlorde]

OM is the exact framework that bridging the following:

http://www.web-us.com/brain/right_left_brain_characteristics.htm

Pop psychology. There are known structural differences between the hemispheres, and some functional differences, but very little experimental evidence of the kind of functional lateralisation espoused by these pseudo-scientific fancies.

 

[doronshadmi]

Pop psychology. There are known structural differences between the hemispheres, and some functional differences, but very little experimental evidence of the kind of functional lateralisation espoused by these pseudo-scientific fancies.

Are you an expert in this area?

 

[sympathic]

Are you an expert in this area?

Why? Are you an expert?

 

[doronshadmi]

Why? Are you an expert?

No, but most of the experts in this area agree with http://www.web-us.com/brain/right_left_brain_characteristics.htm , and no one says that there is a clear-cut dichotomy between left and right hemispheres.

This is exasctly the reason of why the word "style" is used in http://www.web-us.com/brain/right_left_brain_characteristics.htm , so what is your point?


Furthermore, here is a part taken from http://www.emis.de/journals/ZDM/zdm973a1.pdf :

3.1 The theory of functional asymmetry in the brain
In neurology, studies are made, e.g., on the meaning of
different parts of the brain for human performance. Several
investigations of different types show that the two
cerebral hemispheres process stimuli in different ways. In
more than 90% of the normal adult population, the left
cerebral hemisphere processes stimuli sequentially – one
after another –, whereas the right hemisphere is specialized
in parallel processing. One can deduce that the left
hemisphere is better suited, e.g., for reading, speaking, analytic
deduction and arithmetic, whereas the right hemisphere
is better, e.g., in spatial tasks, recognition of faces
and music. However, the dichotomy verbal/nonverbal is
inadequate for completely describing hemispheric specialization.
It is better to say that there is a continuum of
functions between the hemispheres, the differences being
quantitative rather than qualitative (Springer & Deutsch
1985; Wheatley & al. 1978).

There is no doubt that the current mathematical activity is mostly done on left cerebral hemisphere that has – one after another – (sequential) nature.


According to the linked article "verbal/nonverbal is inadequate for completely describing hemispheric specialization" exactly because of the "the continuum of functions between the hemispheres".

In other words, it is possible to develop a mathematical activity where the continuum of functions between the hemispheres is its main style.


This is exactly OM's aim: to create a "Corpus callosum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_callosum) orianted" mathematical activity (see http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2008/05/manin_on_foundations.html).


By the current mathematical activity anything has to be translated in terms of left cerebral hemisphere style in order to be considered as Mathematics.


OM goes beyond this arbitrary limitation, which is nothing but some artificial hegemony of verbal-only thinkers that really believe that everything has to be translated into their verbal-only skills, in order to be considered as the mathematical science.


One of the immediate results of the continuum-of-functions-between-the-hemispheres thinking style is fundamental understanding of Complexity, as shown in the case of Cardinality (see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5038203&postcount=5903).

 

[sympathic]

This is exactly OM's aim: to create a "Corpus callosum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_callosum) orianted" mathematical activity (see http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2008/05/manin_on_foundations.html).


By the current mathematical activity anything has to be translated in terms of left cerebral hemisphere style in order to be considered as Mathematics.


OM goes beyond this arbitrary limitation, which is nothing but some artificial hegemony of verbal-only thinkers that really believe that everything has to be translated into their verbal-only skills, in order to be considered as the mathematical science.


One of the immediate results of the continuum-of-functions-between-the-hemispheres thinking style is fundamental understanding of Complexity, as shown in the case of Cardinality (see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5038203&postcount=5903).

The limitation is all yours. So is OM, which seems to be your private obsession. Just a quick question for you: how many hours of face to face discussions have you had with Moshe Klein? and he still does not get "direct perception" as you admit. Have you ever considered that this is all your fantasy and nothing more? any honest (at least with himself) researcher would come to this conclusion.

 

[The Man]

Thank you for supporting http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5042313&postcount=5920.

You can use any verbal bla bla bla ... like "inductive description of dimension", still it does not change the fact that you support this ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4340862&postcount=1465 ):

"To construct the plane one needs two steps: drag a point to construct the real numbers, then drag the real numbers to produce the plane."

In other words, you support the nonsense that the existence of higher dimension depends on dragging lower dimension, and your serial-only reasoning rising its limited head, so?

The nonsense still remains yours Doron since nowhere, ay least on this thread has anyone but you claimed “the nonsense that the existence of higher dimension depends on dragging lower dimension”. I would mention you evoking a strawman, but that is another concept you simply do not seem to understand. If you would just actually read the linked article you would find this.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension

In mathematics and physics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it.

So the concept of a point is actually fundamental to the concept of dimension, whether it be a dimensional space or dimensional object. You might also learn that the dimensions of an object are independent of any higher dimensional space that object might be embedded in.

You keep using the word “existence” (or exists as below) but still have not defined how you establish “existence”. You were claiming cardinality as a ‘measurement unit of existence’, but that caused you difficulty as the empty set has a cardinality of 0 yet you assert it exists. So Doron, no one can help you with your nonsense as long as you continue depending upon your nonsense and trying to pawn off your nonsense onto others does not make it anything else then simply your nonsense.

Ho and a line segment exists independently of any lower dimension along it, which is something that your serial-only reasoning can't get, so?

By all means please define such a line segment.

Save your limited ill-fantasy to your limited club, I do not buy your defective and partial reasoning, exactly because it is addressed by your serial-only club as the one and only one way to get things.

Here is some example of your poor reasoning ability:

Some analogy:

The Trunk is a common property of two branches, such that no branch is derived from any other branch, but any branch is derived from The Trunk.

In other words, a one atomic state is a common property of two expressions of it, which are not derived from each other.

These expressions are called Non-locality and Locality, and they are linkable exactly because they are derived from a one indivisible common source.

Your flatten serial-step-by-step-left-hemisphere-only reasoning can't get it, so?




I'll ask again:

Do you agree that a line exists even if points do not exist?

Do you agree that a point exist even if a line does not exist?

And I’ll say it again:

Stop purporting your fantasies as facts and just show where I have ever claimed “that a line does not exist unless a point is dragged”.

 

[dlorde]

Are you an expert in this area?

Exactly what area would that be? You don't need to be an expert to know that the stuff you linked to is pop-psychology, but do I try to keep up to date on the basics.

 

[dlorde]

No, but most of the experts in this area agree with http://www.web-us.com/brain/right_left_brain_characteristics.htm

OK, let's see your links to these expert opinions.

Furthermore, here is a part taken from http://www.emis.de/journals/ZDM/zdm973a1.pdf :

You don't seem to have read (understood?) even the full quote you posted:

It is better to say that there is a continuum of functions between the hemispheres, the differences being quantitative rather than qualitative

These differences are not consistent, they vary between individuals, and AFAIAA there is no good experimental evidence for the kind of clear differences specified in your original link. If you do have such evidence, present it or link to it.

There is no doubt that the current mathematical activity is mostly done on left cerebral hemisphere that has – one after another – (sequential) nature.

Evidence?

According to the linked article "verbal/nonverbal is inadequate for completely describing hemispheric specialization" exactly because of the "the continuum of functions between the hemispheres".

Exactly. There is a continuum of functionality between hemispheres which means 'verbal/nonverbal' is inadequate to describe them.

In other words, it is possible to develop a mathematical activity where the continuum of functions between the hemispheres is its main style.

Where does it mention developing anything mathematical with any 'style' at all? What does that even mean?

This is exactly OM's aim: to create a "Corpus callosum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_callosum) orianted" mathematical activity (see http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2008/05/manin_on_foundations.html).

Doron, try to understand what the Corpus Callosum is - it's just a bunch of neural 'wires' between the two hemispheres, nothing more. The Manin article just uses it as a metaphor, just as it uses the pop-psychology left-brain right-brain idea - or did you miss the double-quotes ("left-brain", "right-brain").

If you want to buttress the crumbling foundations of OM, you'd be better off avoiding the quicksand of left-brain, right-brain woo. If you want to incorporate anatomical structures like the Corpus Callosum into your fabrication, it's worth making it clear if your use is metaphorical or not. Either way, you really need to explain what its role is in your construct. As it is, it just sounds like you're out of your depth in neurophysiology/anatomy and just co-opting whatever concepts have Latin names you think sound cool and funky.

 

[doronshadmi]

The limitation is all yours. So is OM, which seems to be your private obsession.

No sympathic.

You get OM as my "private obsession" exactly because you get it by using only a verbal-based reasoning.

Moshe learned Mathematics in the University and as a result he has great difficulties to use Direct Perception. Nevertheless it was his decision to work with me for the past 7 years. After I saw that he can't use Direct Perception I decided to stop working with him on OM. He is doing now his own research on this subject independently of me and I wish him the best success.

 

[doronshadmi]

The nonsense still remains yours Doron

This ("To construct the plane one needs two steps: drag a point to construct the real numbers, then drag the real numbers to produce the plane.") is your choice not mine, so stop your ridicules maneuvers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension

In mathematics and physics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it.

So the concept of a point is actually fundamental to the concept of dimension

Again you do not distinguish between the existences of dimension and the number of distinct names that 0-dim element has according to higher dimensions.

Again you show how your view is limited to the partial case verbal-based reasoning where each name is clearly distinguished form rest of the names (x in 1-dim, x,y in 2-dim, x,y,z in 3-dim, etc …)

You keep using the word “existence” (or exists as below) but still have not defined how you establish “existence”.

By all means please define such a line segment.

You keep using your limited verbal-based reasoning that can't get Direct Perception of the existence of things. So?

 

[doronshadmi]

Exactly what area would that be? You don't need to be an expert to know that the stuff you linked to is pop-psychology, but do I try to keep up to date on the basics.

You need to be bilnd in order to not see that this is not a pop-psychology, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_hemisphere .

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron, try to understand what the Corpus Callosum is - it's just a bunch of neural 'wires' between the two hemispheres,

The connection between right-left hemispheres is important to full potential of brains activity.

The current community of mathematicians is mostly verbal-based left-hemisphere thinkers.

All you have to do is to see how everything has to be translated to verbal-based reasoning in order to be considered as Math, so?

 

[The Man]

This ("To construct the plane one needs two steps: drag a point to construct the real numbers, then drag the real numbers to produce the plane.") is your choice not mine, so stop your ridicules maneuvers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension



Again you do not distinguish between the existences of dimension and the number of distinct names that 0-dim element has according to higher dimensions.

Again you show how your view is limited to the partial case verbal-based reasoning where each name is clearly distinguished form rest of the names (x in 1-dim, x,y in 2-dim, x,y,z in 3-dim, etc …)

Again none of what I said or quoted says anything about the “existence of dimension”, so the “ridicules maneuvers” are still entirely yours. You can stop them anytime you want when you can “distinguish between the existences of dimension and the number of distinct names that 0-dim element has according to higher dimensions.” That any point in an n dimensional space requires n coordinates to define that point in that space says nothing of the "existence" of an n dimensional space, it simply says that any point in an n dimensional space requires n coordinates to define that point in that space.

You keep using your limited verbal-based reasoning that can't get Direct Perception of the existence of things. So?

Again is that your direct perception that told you cardinality was ‘a measurement unit of existence’ and that an empty set “is an existing thing but its Cardinality = 0.”? Your direct perception does not appear to measure up when it comes to your own ascription of ‘a measurement unit of existence’

Stop purporting your fantasies as facts and just show where I have ever claimed “that a line does not exist unless a point is dragged”.