Deeper than primes

[Little 10 Toes]

Hurrah!!! You edited an existing message before you wrote another one. Will wonders never cease?

You are right about that part, it is wrong.

I fixed it in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5235905&postcount=6267.

But here it is again with a better version:

The minimal form of total finite (Locality) is a point (a 0-dim element).

The minimal form of total non-finite (Non-locality) is an edgeless line (a 1-dim element).

A line segment is the minimal non-total finite form, and it is the result of Non-locality\Locality linkage.

Given an arbitrary segment along the edgeless line, non-finite extrapolation between a pair of points is defined in terms of "farer w.r.t that line segment (there is no maxima because no segment can be an edgeless line).

Given an arbitrary segment along the edgeless line, non-finite interpolation between a pair of points is defined in terms of "closer w.r.t that line segment (there is no minima because no segment can be a single point).

Minima and maxima can be found only in the case of finite interpolation or extrapolation w.r.t that line segment.

The difference between finite\infinite interpolation\extrapolation is clearly shown by the 0.999… example in post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5223529&postcount=6164.

So your local/non-local applies only to geometry. Correct me if I'm wrong.

What about a ray? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_(mathematics)#Ray

One end has a end point while the other extends into infinity. Opps, I meant to say non-finite for you doronshadmi. Since the point is local (location known), how is the rest of the ray? Local or non-local?

 

[doronshadmi]

Logically that is also simply a contradiction, as you claim the proposition that the “line segment is on” and its negation “not-on” are both true for the same point.?

Can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5176867&postcount=6071 , isn't it The Man?

You have been informed numerous times that I simply will not condone your childish behavior of surreptitiously editing posts.

A typical reply of a person that its reasoning is local-serial-only reasoning.

 

[doronshadmi]

So your local/non-local applies only to geometry. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are worng.

It is based on Logics where a non-local element bolongs AND does not belong w.r.t a given domain (geometrical or not), and a local element bolongs XOR does not belong w.r.t a given domain (geometrical or not).

Please see http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT pages 26-29.

 

[jsfisher]

It is based on Logics where a non-local element bolongs AND does not belong w.r.t a given domain (geometrical or not), and a local element bolongs XOR does not belong w.r.t a given domain (geometrical or not).

Nope. That's not logic. Logic excludes such nonsense. Consistency and avoiding contradictions demand it.

Get a spell-checker, by the way.

 

[The Man]

Can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5176867&postcount=6071 , isn't it The Man?

Not much to "get" Doron you simply open that post with a direct contradiction and I addressed that post in its entirety in the very next post. What makes you think that you simply calling it “non-local” makes it any less of a contradiction or that simply referring to that post, now some 17 or so days later, makes it anything other then simply self contradictory gibberish? You seem to try and invoke language, Doron, as if it were some “charm of making” simply say a couple of magic words like “non-local” or “non finite interpellation” then suddenly, poof, your contradiction is not a contradiction anymore and you can “use” (as a “complex system”) some “non finite energy source” that you simply can not locate (since you can’t “know” the location in OM) or apparently even use to toast a slice of bread

A typical reply of a person that its reasoning is local-serial-only reasoning.

Nope, just my typical reply when you simply ignore that I have specifically told you I will neither read nor respond to your surreptitiously edited posts. What happened, Doron, you had been noting edits for a short while, but seem now to have simply given up? Certainly it is not indicative of you actually being able to learn anything from these discussions.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

You are worng.

It is based on Logics where a non-local element bolongs AND does not belong w.r.t a given domain (geometrical or not), and a local element bolongs XOR does not belong w.r.t a given domain (geometrical or not).

Please see http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT pages 26-29.

How about you go back and answer my post? Also, if you keep mentioning 0-dimensional elements and 1-dimensional elements and their locations, how does location matter to Logics [sic]?

Nice jump from 3 paragraphs about coins to 2.5 pages of lines. "If we draw a line segment on a particular location that is determined by a point, the line segment is on AND not-on the point..." Nice. After saying a line segment is on a point, you then say it's not on the point.

Can you provide the definition of Local and Non-local without using terms from Geometry?

Can you stop editing your posts after people reply?

 

[doronshadmi]

<sigh> No, that's not the bit I am asking you to explain. What do you mean by, ""A line is not made up of points"?

The minimal form of actual infinity is an edgeless line.

The minimal form of actually finite is a point.

An edgeless line exists even if there is no a single point along it.

A point exists even if it does not exist along an edgeless line.

In other words, an edgeless line and a point are two qualities that are not made of each others, simply because they are two different forms of atoms, where an atom is an existing thing that is not made of sub-things.

When the two actual atomic states are linked, we get a segment, which is not actual infinity (it is not an edgeless line) AND not actually finite (it is not a point).

By using an infinite extrapolation a line segment is not an edgeless line.

By using an infinite interpolation a line segment is not a point.

By using this notion we understand that a line segment has no minima under non-finite interpolation (it can’t be a point) and no maxima under non-finite extrapolation (it can’t be an edgeless line).

In addition to infinite interpolation or extrapolation, there is finite interpolation or extrapolation, where there is minima or maxima.

In this case any arbitrary point between the segment’s edges is the minima and the edges of the line segment are the maxima.

The non-local number 0.999... is a measurement tool of infinite interpolation, and since by using an infinite interpolation a line segment is not a point, then 0.999... is not the point that has value 1.000...

In general, there is a symmetry between non-finite extrapolation AND non-finite interpolation, that logically prevents from a segment to be a single point exactly as it prevents from a segment to be an edgeless line.

At the moment that you understand the qualitative difference between the actual infinity (which its minimal form is an edgeless line) and the actually finite(which its minimal form is a point), you have no problem you have no problem to understand why a non-finite interpolation of a line segment, which is measured by the non-local number 0.999..., is < from 1.000... exactly by 0.000...1 (where 0.000...1 is actually the permanent existence of a line segment under non-finite interpolation, exactly as the permanent existence of a segment holds in the case of infinite extrapolation, because no segment is as edgeless line).

So, by understanding the qualitative difference between a line and a point, we are able to understand the different measured results of finite interpolation or extrapolation (which are based on local numbers) and the different measured results of infinite interpolation or extrapolation (which are based on non-local numbers).

In a real complex realm (abstract or not) both local and non-local numbers are used and complement each other, such that a local number 1.000... can be a result of the addition of two non-local numbers like 0.999... and 0.000...1

Also, for example, a non-local number like 3.333... can be a result of the ratio between the local number 10 and the local number 3.

So 0.999... + 0.000...1 = 1 similarlly as 10/3 = 3.333...

By understding the different quality between Non-locality and Locality 0.999... < 1.000

 

[doronshadmi]

Can you provide the definition of Local and Non-local without using terms from Geometry?

You did not read pages 27-29 of http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT.

 

[doronshadmi]

Some correction of the last part of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5240708&postcount=6287 :

Also, for example, a non-local number like 0.333...[base 10] can be a result of the ratio between the local number 1 and the local number 3 that are related by base 10.

So 0.999...[base 10] + 0.000...1[base 10] = 1 similarly as 1/3[base 10] = 0.333...[base 10]

The base value is important, for example 1/10[base 10] = the local number 0.1[base 10] where
1/10[base 2] = the non-local number 0.000110011...[base 2]

In the case of 0.333...[base 10] and 1/3 as an accurate location along 1 , 1/3(as an accurate place) = 0.333...[base 10] + 0.000...1/3[base 10]

For example:

1/3[base 3] is a local number, where 1/3[base 2] is a non-local number:

 

[The Man]

The minimal form of actual infinity is an edgeless line.

The minimal form of actually finite is a point.

An edgeless line exists even if there is no a single point along it.

A point exists even if it does not exist along an edgeless line.

Again without defining what constitutes that something “exist(s)” or what constitutes a “minimal form” your assertions are still just niave gibberish.

In other words, an edgeless line and a point are two qualities that are not made of each others, simply because they are two different forms of atoms, where an atom is an existing thing that is not made of sub-things.

A line can be considered to be comprised of line segments (in some considerations it must be as that is how it is derived) and line segments are bound (or defined) by points. Once again claiming a line is an atom “where an atom is an existing thing that is not made of sub-things” only precludes one from such a consideration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_(geometry)

In Euclidean geometry, a line is a straight curve. When geometry is used to model the real world, lines are used to represent straight objects with negligible width and height. Lines are an idealisation of such objects and have no width or height at all and are usually considered to be infinitely long. Lines are a fundamental concept in some approaches to geometry such as Euclid's, but in others such as analytic geometry and Tarski's axioms they enter as derived notions defined in terms of more fundamental primitives such as points.

When the two actual atomic states are linked, we get a segment, which is not actual infinity (it is not an edgeless line) AND not actually finite (it is not a point).

A line segment is bound and thus finite. Try looking up the word “finite”. Again this is your usual self contradictory assertions Doron, claiming it is not infinite yet not finite. Only zero meets that requirement. So your assertion then becomes that a line segment has zero extent and is therefore in OM is simply a point.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/finite

fi⋅nite
   ˈfaɪ naɪtShow Spelled Pronunciation [fahy-nahyt] Show IPA
–adjective
1. having bounds or limits; not infinite; measurable.
2. Mathematics.
a. (of a set of elements) capable of being completely counted.
b. not infinite or infinitesimal.
c. not zero.

3. subject to limitations or conditions, as of space, time, circumstances, or the laws of nature: man's finite existence on earth.

By using an infinite extrapolation a line segment is not an edgeless line.

A line segment is bound at both ends and thus finite, a ray is bound only at one end and infinite while a line is infinite and not bound at either end. All simply trivial and none of your “infinite extrapolation” fantasy gibberish is required or changes any of that.

By using an infinite interpolation a line segment is not a point.

A line segment has a one dimensional extent; a point has no extent(s). All simply trivial and none of your “infinite interpolation” fantasy gibberish is required or changes any of that.

By using this notion we understand that a line segment has no minima under non-finite interpolation (it can’t be a point) and no maxima under non-finite extrapolation (it can’t be an edgeless line).

In addition to infinite interpolation or extrapolation, there is finite interpolation or extrapolation, where there is minima or maxima.

Simply your usual nonsensical fantasy gibberish.

In this case any arbitrary point between the segment’s edges is the minima and the edges of the line segment are the maxima.

No, since a line segment is an ordered and bound set, one point or boundary is the minimum and the other the maximum, which is why it can be accuratly represented as an interval.

The non-local number 0.999... is a measurement tool of infinite interpolation, and since by using an infinite interpolation a line segment is not a point, then 0.999... is not the point that has value 1.000...

Since your “infinite interpolation” is just your meaningless fantasy gibberish, so too is the above quotation.

In general, there is a symmetry between non-finite extrapolation AND non-finite interpolation, that logically prevents from a segment to be a single point exactly as it prevents from a segment to be an edgeless line.

A line or line segment has extents a point does not, that is what defines a point from a line or line segment. Your superfluous, meaningless “non-finite extrapolation AND non-finite interpolation” fantasy "symmetry" gibberish is not required and changes none of that.

So now you’re back to “non-finite” again. If you mean infinite then say infinite, as zero is “non-finite” (although zero is certainly more applicable to your “non-finite extrapolation AND non-finite interpolation” notions).

At the moment that you understand the qualitative difference between the actual infinity (which its minimal form is an edgeless line) and the actually finite(which its minimal form is a point), you have no problem you have no problem to understand why a non-finite interpolation of a line segment, which is measured by the non-local number 0.999..., is < from 1.000... exactly by 0.000...1 (where 0.000...1 is actually the permanent existence of a line segment under non-finite interpolation, exactly as the permanent existence of a segment holds in the case of infinite extrapolation, because no segment is as edgeless line).

So, by understanding the qualitative difference between a line and a point, we are able to understand the different measured results of finite interpolation or extrapolation (which are based on local numbers) and the different measured results of infinite interpolation or extrapolation (which are based on non-local numbers).

In a real complex realm (abstract or not) both local and non-local numbers are used and complement each other, such that a local number 1.000... can be a result of the addition of two non-local numbers like 0.999... and 0.000...1

Also, for example, a non-local number like 3.333... can be a result of the ratio between the local number 10 and the local number 3.

So 0.999... + 0.000...1 = 1 similarlly as 10/3 = 3.333...

By understding the different quality between Non-locality and Locality 0.999... < 1.000

Since your “infinite interpolation” and “infinite extrapolation” are meaningless fantasy gibberish, so too was the above quotation.

 

[doronshadmi]

Again without defining what constitutes that something “exist(s)” or what constitutes a “minimal form” your assertions are still just niave gibberish.



A line can be considered to be comprised of line segments (in some considerations it must be as that is how it is derived) and line segments are bound (or defined) by points. Once again claiming a line is an atom “where an atom is an existing thing that is not made of sub-things” only precludes one from such a consideration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_(geometry)








A line segment is bound and thus finite. Try looking up the word “finite”. Again this is your usual self contradictory assertions Doron, claiming it is not infinite yet not finite. Only zero meets that requirement. So your assertion then becomes that a line segment has zero extent and is therefore in OM is simply a point.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/finite





A line segment is bound at both ends and thus finite, a ray is bound only at one end and infinite while a line is infinite and not bound at either end. All simply trivial and none of your “infinite extrapolation” fantasy gibberish is required or changes any of that.




A line segment has a one dimensional extent; a point has no extent(s). All simply trivial and none of your “infinite interpolation” fantasy gibberish is required or changes any of that.



Simply your usual nonsensical fantasy gibberish.



No, since a line segment is an ordered and bound set, one point or boundary is the minimum and the other the maximum, which is why it can be accuratly represented as an interval.



Since your “infinite interpolation” is just your meaningless fantasy gibberish, so too is the above quotation.



A line or line segment has extents a point does not, that is what defines a point from a line or line segment. Your superfluous, meaningless “non-finite extrapolation AND non-finite interpolation” fantasy "symmetry" gibberish is not required and changes none of that.

So now you’re back to “non-finite” again. If you mean infinite then say infinite, as zero is “non-finite” (although zero is certainly more applicable to your “non-finite extrapolation AND non-finite interpolation” notions).



Since your “infinite interpolation” and “infinite extrapolation” are meaningless fantasy gibberish, so too was the above quotation.

Since you can't get the minimal form of actual infinity (represent as an edgeless line) and can’t get the minimal form of actually finite (represent as a point) you are unable to get a segment as an intermediate result between actual infinity and actually finite, which is less than actual infinity and more than actually finite.

This inability of yours is expressed all along your last post, and therefore your last post does not hold water.

 

[laca]

Since you can't get the minimal form of actual infinity (represent as an edgeless line) and can’t get the minimal form of actually finite (represent as a point) you are unable to get a segment as an intermediate result between actual infinity and actually finite, which is less than actual infinity and more than actually finite.

This inability of yours is expressed all along your last post, and therefore your last post does not hold water.

You have no right whatsoever to talk about someone else's inability. You are the physical manifestation of the concept of inability. The hypocrisy flowing from your posts is reaching new heights with each post.

 

[The Man]

You have no right whatsoever to talk about someone else's inability. You are the physical manifestation of the concept of inability. The hypocrisy flowing from your posts is reaching new heights with each post.

Do not dismay laca, without such hypocrisy Doron would have nothing to post.

 

[The Man]

Since you can't get the minimal form of actual infinity (represent as an edgeless line) and can’t get the minimal form of actually finite (represent as a point) you are unable to get a segment as an intermediate result between actual infinity and actually finite, which is less than actual infinity and more than actually finite.

This inability of yours is expressed all along your last post, and therefore your last post does not hold water.

Since a line segment is "actually finite" your assertions are simply naïve nonsensical gibberish.

 

[laca]

Do not dismay laca, without such hypocrisy Doron would have nothing to post.

Well, that would be fine by me...

 

[dafydd]

You have no right whatsoever to talk about someone else's inability. You are the physical manifestation of the concept of inability. The hypocrisy flowing from your posts is reaching new heights with each post.

And the unintentional humour.

 

[dafydd]

Since you can't get the minimal form of actual infinity (represent as an edgeless line) and can’t get the minimal form of actually finite (represent as a point) you are unable to get a segment as an intermediate result between actual infinity and actually finite, which is less than actual infinity and more than actually finite.

This inability of yours is expressed all along your last post, and therefore your last post does not hold water.

What about non-actual infinity?

 

[The Man]

What about non-actual infinity?

Probably results in a non-actual infinite interpolation of a non-actual infinite energy source at some non-actual location of non-actual use (much like Doron’s OM).

 

[jsfisher]

Probably results in a non-actual infinite interpolation of a non-actual infinite energy source at some non-actual location of non-actual use (much like Doron’s OM).

You left out "edgeless."

 

[dafydd]

You left out "edgeless."

Ah,that Zen koan,the edgeless edge.