Deeper than primes

[The Man]

The self inconsistent fashion is a direct result of your inability to get the difference between membership between atoms and non-atoms.

No just a result of your inconsistent assertions.

By using your example, the vehicle as a whole is non-local w.r.t its black or white aspects, where black or white aspects are local w.r.t the vehicle.

<subsequent nonsense snipped>

Nope in my example those aspects belong to (as part of) the car, the car along with its aspects belongs to (as part of) the police department (perhaps even the local police department). The car as a whole does not belong to (as part of) those or any other of its aspects, unlike you inconsistent notions. Again take as much time as you need to create a self-consistent definition of ‘belong’ for your notions of non-locality.

 

[doronshadmi]

The car as a whole does not belong to (as part of) those or any other of its aspects,

The car as a whole is non-local w.r.t any part where any part is local w.r.t the car as a whole.

For example: The one dimensional space does not need line segments along it in order to exist. By using this reasoning the one dimensional space is non-local w.r.t any given line segment along it where any given line segment is local w.r.t the one dimensional space.

The one dimensional space is the whole and the line segments are parts along it that have no influence on its existence as a whole.

Since your reasoning is limited to weak emergence, where the whole is the sum of its parts, you have nothing to say about OM, which is a non-standard strong emergence framework, where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT page 17).

<subsequent nonsense snipped>

By your weak emergence reasoning this is exactly what you get: nonsense.

Again we see your inability to reply in datails to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5190443&postcount=6080 .

 

[The Man]

The car as a whole is non-local w.r.t any part where ant part is local w.r.t the car a a whole.

As your notion of “non-local” is simply a contradiction it still remains without any self-consistent meaning in this discussion. That contradiction seems to stem from your inconsistent use of the word “belongs”. Again take as much time as you need to develop a consistent meaning for that word and then apply it consistently in your notions.

For example: The one dimensional space does not need line segments along it in order to exist. By using this reasoning the one dimensional space is non-local w.r.t any given line segment along it where any given line segment is local w.r.t the one dimensional space.

Your reasoning is flawed and your use of the word “exist” still remains without any relevant meaning defined by you in this discussion. Indeed we do not need to define a given line as segments, but we can. It is the fact that we can and specifically how we can that establishes the one dimensional space as a whole as a connected and continuous space or not. Again the limitation is yours in that a line or line segment is an “atom” and thus can not be divided into segments which simply make your notion of a line segment as an “atom” self-contradictory and your notion of the line as an “atom” contradictory to the consideration of line segments.

The one dimensional space is the whole and the line segments are parts along it that have no influence on its existence as a whole.

As has already been explained to you in other posts it establishes if that one dimensional space as a whole is connected and continuous or not.

Since your reasoning is limited to weak emergence, where the whole is the sum of its parts, you have nothing to say about OM, which is a non-standard strong emergence framework, where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT page 17).

Without just one of its parts (or line segment in the case of the line) “the sum of the parts” is less then “the sum of its parts”.

By your weak emergence reasoning this is exactly what you get: nonsense.

Your phrase “weak emergence reasoning” is simply nonsense.

Again we see your inability to reply in datails to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5190443&postcount=6080 .

I did reply in detail to the relevant details, the rest of your post was just nonsensical gibberish. However, I could still point out that you having ‘aims’ and ‘goals’ in no way demonstrates, confers or imbues utility for your OM. In fact it simply demonstrates that as such claimed ‘utility’ is your “aim” or “goal” that it is currently lacking in your OM.

 

[doronshadmi]

As your notion of “non-local” is simply a contradiction

By your local-only reasoning, so?

Your reasoning is flawed and your use of the word “exist” still remains without any relevant meaning

Again, by your limited reasoning.

As has already been explained to you in other posts it establishes if that one dimensional space as a whole is connected and continuous or not.

As has already been explained to you that the existence of one dimensional space is independent of the existence of the sub-things that exist in this space.

Without just one of its parts (or line segment in the case of the line) “the sum of the parts” is less then “the sum of its parts”.

You made a gibberish salad of weak, strong and non-standard strong emergence.

The quality of your replies is reduced from post to post.

Your phrase “weak emergence reasoning” is simply nonsense.



I did reply in detail to the relevant details,

You did nothing because you do not understand OM, by using your local-only reasoning.

 

[The Man]

By your local-only reasoning, so?

It is a contradiction by any reasoning that is not, well, contradictory.

Again, by your limited reasoning.

Again the limitations that result from your “atoms” are simply yours.

As has already been explained to you that the existence of one dimensional space is independent of the existence of the sub-things that exist in this space.

Claiming is not explaining Doron and as “existence” or “exist” still remain without any meaning given by you in this discussion you still have plenty of ‘splainin’ to do. So your contention is now that if we remove some segment from a line or line segment that the line or line segment (as the entire space) still remains intact exactly as before? The line segments are not in the one dimensional space, it is their union that comprises and establishes the characteristics of that one dimensional space.

You made a gibberish salad of weak, strong and non-standard strong emergence.

Well your gibberish lacks the calories for anything more substantial then just a light salad.

The quality of your replies is reduced from post to post.

Given the quality of your notions your notion of quality is hardly without rebuke.

You did nothing because you do not understand OM, by using your local-only reasoning.

Back to the “local-only reasoning” labeling of people again. Isn’t it about time for some new catch phrases for you to label people with Doron?

 

[dlorde]

Occasionally I feel a twinge of sympathy for Doron - it must be like one of those dreams where you have the secret of <insert relevant topic here - e.g. 'Peace In Our Time>, and it's so simple if only they could understand... and they just say "No, you're talking gibberish, wake up, it's time to go to work."

But for Doron, it's not a dream... it's -

Organic Mathematics - the Movie:

In a world drowning in a mathematics without morals, one man stands against the tide - is Organic Mathematics the way to higher ground and an era of enlightenment, or will it be just another footnote to history?

A James Randi Production, Starring Brad Pitt as Doronshadmi and Tom Hanks as Moshe Klein.

... Does your calculator have a sense of ethics? ...

On DVD Monday.

 

[The Man]

On DVD Monday.

Will that be available or not available at my local store while available and not available at a non-local store?

Calculator with ethics, hasn’t that idea been explored already?

“Multiply 5 times 6 please Hal”

“I’m sorry Dave I’m afraid I just can’t do that”

“What’s the problem Hal”

“I think you know want the problem is just as well as I do Dave”

“What are you talking about Hal”

“I know you and Frank were planning to divide the result and I’m afraid that is something I just can not allow to happen”

 

[doronshadmi]

The Man,

Here is a simple task for you.

Here is a line segment x________z where x and z are zero dimensional spaces on it.

Please tell us exactly where x________z is located?

Propositions like “ it is located between …” are not acceptable because you always can define an arbitrary zero dimensional space y along ________ which is not x or z, and this state is invariant, no matter how many arbitrary zero dimensional spaces along ________ are defined.

In other words, between any pair of zero dimensional spaces along ________ there is always an uncovered one dimensional space that its exact location is unknown.

You are invited to define the all zero dimensional spaces along the one dimensional space, such that each zero dimensional space will have its unique value AND no one dimensional space will be found between the unique zero dimensional spaces.

It is clearly understood that x,y or z are zero dimensional spaces so you actually have to show how infinitely many unique zero dimensional spaces totally cover a one dimensional space, such that no one dimensional space will be found between the infinitely many unique zero dimensional spaces.

When you do that, then and only then you define exactly where x________z is located.

Please do that.

 

[doronshadmi]

So your contention is now that if we remove some segment from a line or line segment that the line or line segment (as the entire space) still remains intact exactly as before? The line segments are not in the one dimensional space, it is their union that comprises and establishes the characteristics of that one dimensional space.

At the moment that you get the idea of the atomic state you have no problem to understand the existence of an empty dimensional space (stage) independently of any sub-things (players) on it.

You still can't get simple things like:

{} = ___ (stage)

{{}} = __|__

           |_
{{{}}} = __|__

             |_|_
{{{{}}}} = __|__

                              |_    |_|_  (players)
{ {}, {{}}, {{{}}} } = __|____|_____|____ (stage)

 

[Little 10 Toes]

The Man,

Here is a simple task for you.

Here is a line segment x________z where x and z are zero dimensional spaces on it.

Please tell us exactly where x________z is located?

Propositions like “ it is located between …” are not acceptable because you always can define an arbitrary zero dimensional space y along ________ which is not x or z, and this state is invariant, no matter how many arbitrary zero dimensional spaces along ________ are defined.

In other words, between any pair of zero dimensional spaces along ________ there is always an uncovered one dimensional space that its exact location is unknown.

You are invited to define the all zero dimensional spaces along the one dimensional space, such that each zero dimensional space will have its unique value AND no one dimensional space will be found between the unique zero dimensional spaces.

It is clearly understood that x,y or z are zero dimensional spaces so you actually have to show how infinitely many unique zero dimensional spaces totally cover a one dimensional space, such that no one dimensional space will be found between the infinitely many unique zero dimensional spaces.

When you do that, then and only then you define exactly where x________z is located.

Please do that.

Why can't you use the word "points" instead of "zero dimensional space"? Why do you want to use so many different terms when just one will do?

So I have a line segment XZ. It's located anywhere I want it to be. Number line, geometric plane, where ever.

I have not used any propositions. Point Y wasn't used to define line segment XZ. By using two basic tools (compass and straight edge) I can label point Y on line segment XZ and have point Y divide XZ into to equal lengths. Better yet, I can then divide line segment XY again to form line segment XAYZ, where XA is 0.25 units long, AY is 0.25 units long, YZ is 0.50 units long.

In other words, between any pair of points along a line segment, there is always an uncovered line segment that its exact location is known.

But now you're going to complain and bring up the "But you haven't shown were it's located" arguement. And I'll answer, your question is too vague. I can take that line segment and put it on a geometric plane. I can take that same line segment and place it on a number line. Either way, you're OM can't answer the same challenge since there will always be a line segment between two points.

 

[The Man]

Why can't you use the word "points" instead of "zero dimensional space"? Why do you want to use so many different terms when just one will do?

So I have a line segment XZ. It's located anywhere I want it to be. Number line, geometric plane, where ever.

I have not used any propositions. Point Y wasn't used to define line segment XZ. By using two basic tools (compass and straight edge) I can label point Y on line segment XZ and have point Y divide XZ into to equal lengths. Better yet, I can then divide line segment XY again to form line segment XAYZ, where XA is 0.25 units long, AY is 0.25 units long, YZ is 0.50 units long.

In other words, between any pair of points along a line segment, there is always an uncovered line segment that its exact location is known.

But now you're going to complain and bring up the "But you haven't shown were it's located" arguement. And I'll answer, your question is too vague. I can take that line segment and put it on a geometric plane. I can take that same line segment and place it on a number line. Either way, you're OM can't answer the same challenge since there will always be a line segment between two points.

A fine post Little 10 toes, but just to throw my two cents in.

The Man,

Here is a simple task for you.

Here is a line segment x________z where x and z are zero dimensional spaces on it.

Please tell us exactly where x________z is located?

Between “where” and “is” in your statement.

Or if you are trying to use that to represent the geometrical concept of a line segment then from X to Z but your notation does not seem to indicate if x, z or both are actually included or not so the interval representation could be (X,Z), (X,Z], [X,Z) or [X,Z]

Propositions like “ it is located between …” are not acceptable because you always can define an arbitrary zero dimensional space y along ________ which is not x or z, and this state is invariant, no matter how many arbitrary zero dimensional spaces along ________ are defined.

More Doronic contradiction, if between X and Z is not an acceptable definition or distinction for you then nether is your line segment “x________z” . You can’t have it both ways Doron define a line segment as (X,Z), (X,Z], [X,Z), [X,Z] or even “x________z” and then claim those are not “acceptable”. A line segment is defined by the locations of its end points which appropriately locates that segment between those points.

In other words, between any pair of zero dimensional spaces along ________ there is always an uncovered one dimensional space that its exact location is unknown.

You are invited to define the all zero dimensional spaces along the one dimensional space, such that each zero dimensional space will have its unique value AND no one dimensional space will be found between the unique zero dimensional spaces.

It is clearly understood that x,y or z are zero dimensional spaces so you actually have to show how infinitely many unique zero dimensional spaces totally cover a one dimensional space, such that no one dimensional space will be found between the infinitely many unique zero dimensional spaces.

When you do that, then and only then you define exactly where x________z is located.

Please do that.

Again you keep coming back to your basic misconception about line segments which most grade school kids overcome in the first lecture. A line segment is defined by points not made from points. We can represent that line segment as a union of closed sets (or smaller line segments). As the size of each set gets smaller and smaller approaching the limit of zero the total number of segments increases approaching the limit of infinity.

 

[The Man]

At the moment that you get the idea of the atomic state you have no problem to understand the existence of an empty dimensional space (stage) independently of any sub-things (players) on it.

You still can't get simple things like:

{} = ___ (stage)

{{}} = __|__

           |_
{{{}}} = __|__

             |_|_
{{{{}}}} = __|__

                              |_    |_|_  (players)
{ {}, {{}}, {{{}}} } = __|____|_____|____ (stage)

So you are not even going to try to answer the question? Your “atomic” line segments are simply a problem in and of themselves as they preclude the very consideration of, well, line segments.

 

[doronshadmi]

Why can't you use the word "points" instead of "zero dimensional space"? Why do you want to use so many different terms when just one will do?

So I have a line segment XZ. It's located anywhere I want it to be. Number line, geometric plane, where ever.

I have not used any propositions. Point Y wasn't used to define line segment XZ. By using two basic tools (compass and straight edge) I can label point Y on line segment XZ and have point Y divide XZ into to equal lengths. Better yet, I can then divide line segment XY again to form line segment XAYZ, where XA is 0.25 units long, AY is 0.25 units long, YZ is 0.50 units long.

In other words, between any pair of points along a line segment, there is always an uncovered line segment that its exact location is known.

But now you're going to complain and bring up the "But you haven't shown were it's located" arguement. And I'll answer, your question is too vague. I can take that line segment and put it on a geometric plane. I can take that same line segment and place it on a number line. Either way, you're OM can't answer the same challenge since there will always be a line segment between two points.

In other words, there exist non-local elements in addition to local elements in the same framework.

Thank you for supporting OM’s reasoning.

 

[doronshadmi]

A line segment is defined by points not made from points.

Since the exact location is determined only by points w.r.t a given line (and it does not matter if it is the real-line, geometric line, etc ...) then as long as there are lines between points we still have elements that their exact location is unknown and they are called non-local elements.

Since this is the case then a lines\points framework is based on both Non-locality AND locality and OM is based on this fact, whether it is used by Logics, Real analysis, Geometry, Category or Set theories.

Non-locality both belongs AND does not belong w.r.t a given domain.

Locality belongs XOR does not belong w.r.t a given domain.

The linkage of Non-locality\Locality building-blocks is OMs researchable framework.

Thank you too for supporting OM.

As the size of each set gets smaller and smaller approaching the limit of zero the total number of segments increases approaching the limit of infinity.

Since no amount of infinitely many points can totally eliminate the lines between any given arbitrary points and since lines are not made of points (and therefore their existence is not based on the existence of points), then from a non-finite point of view nothing becomes smaller (we deal with an invariant proportion upon infinitely many scale levels, where each level has both points and lines), where no point or line are considered as final elements of the non-finite collection of points AND lines.

In other words since no collection of elements is non-local then it is incomplete w.r.t to Non-locality.

Non-locality (notated by ∞) is actual infinity where a collection of local\non-local elements along it is potential infinity w.r.t Non-locality.

 

[doronshadmi]

So you are not even going to try to answer the question? Your “atomic” line segments are simply a problem in and of themselves as they preclude the very consideration of, well, line segments.

The problem is in your head, that can't get the notion of non-standard stron emergence reasoning where the whole is grater than the sum of the parts ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT page 17 ).

 

[zooterkin]

Since the exact location is determined only by points w.r.t a given line

What do you mean, with respect to a given line? Are you talking about the line between two defined end-points, or something else? Which 'exact location' do you mean? A line is not a location.

(and it does not matter if it is the real-line, geometric line, etc ...) then as long as there are lines between points we still have elements that their exact location is unknown and they are called non-local elements.

What elements do you mean? Do you mean all the points on the line? Their exact location is not unknown, just not enumerated. What problem does this cause?

 

[doronshadmi]

A line is not a location.

A line is an example of Non-locality, exactly as a point is an example of Locality.

OM deals with the linkage between Locality and Non-locality.

Standard Math can't research this linkage because it is based only on Locality.

What elements do you mean?

Lines.

 

[zooterkin]

And the other questions?

 

[The Man]

Since the exact location is determined only by points w.r.t a given line (and it does not matter if it is the real-line, geometric line, etc ...) then as long as there are lines between points we still have elements that their exact location is unknown and they are called non-local elements.

What “exact location” are you referring to? The “exact location” of a line segment can only be as exact as, well, that line segment which is defined by its end points. If you are referring to some particular location (or point) of or on some particular line segment then once you define that location ‘exactly’ the location is known as ‘exactly’ as that definition provides. If your only point is that if you do not define an exact location (to whatever degree of exactness you are interested in) then you can not “know” that exact location (to whatever degree of exactness you are interested in), that is simply trivial.

Since this is the case then a lines\points framework is based on both Non-locality AND locality and OM is based on this fact, whether it is used by Logics, Real analysis, Geometry, Category or Set theories.

OM is not “used” by any of those considerations as it is simply self contradictory and of no demonstrative utility.

Non-locality both belongs AND does not belong w.r.t a given domain.

Simply a contradiction, seeming predicated on just perhaps an inconsistent use of the word “belong”

Locality belongs XOR does not belong w.r.t a given domain.

Although not apparently a direct contradiction, still basically gibberish without some clear, self consistent and non-circular definition of “belong w.r.t a given domain”

The linkage of Non-locality\Locality building-blocks is OMs researchable framework.

As one of your “building-blocks” is a direct contradiction and the other is an indefinite stringing together of words and some of your favorite catch phrases, then that is all your “OMs researchable framework” represents.

Thank you too for supporting OM.

Hey no problem, any idea when you are actually going to start supporting it yourself instead of just making inconsistent claims and direct contradictions?

Since no amount of infinitely many points can totally eliminate the lines between any given arbitrary points and since lines are not made of points (and therefore their existence is not based on the existence of points),

Once again your reasoning is deliberately flawed. A line segment is defined by points thus such definition is explicitly based on, well, points. As an abstract concept a geometrical line or line segment is only its definition.

then from a non-finite point of view nothing becomes smaller (we deal with an invariant proportion upon infinitely many scale levels, where each level has both points and lines), where no point or line are considered as final elements of the non-finite collection of points AND lines.

Simply more Doronic contradictory assertions, if no line segment is considered as the final element then nothing precludes the consideration of smaller line segments.

In other words since no collection of elements is non-local then it is incomplete w.r.t to Non-locality.

Again more Doronic contradictory assertions, if you do consider a line or line segment to be “non-local” then a collection of lines or simply a collection of line segments that comprises a line or a line segment is also “non-local”.

Non-locality (notated by ∞) is actual infinity where a collection of local\non-local elements along it is potential infinity w.r.t Non-locality.

Still more Doronic contradictory assertions, a “collection of local\non-local elements” “is potential infinity w.r.t Non-locality” that “Non-locality” “actual infinity” actually being part of that “collection” as those required “non-local elements”.

 

[The Man]

The problem is in your head, that can't get the notion of non-standard stron emergence reasoning where the whole is grater than the sum of the parts ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT page 17 ).

So you’re still simply not going to answer the question?