Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
Do you mean that you can't get the notion of an edgeless line as an actual non-local atom, and a point as an actual local atom (where no one of them is made by the other) where their common property is their emptiness?

If you are able to get en existing AND empty thing like {}, you have no problem to get the notion of an atom.
Click to expand...

An edgeless line as actual non-local atom! Priceless.You're making this up as you go along.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
Time to pull a doronshadmi.
Please go back and read the whole message. By your post you obviously did not read the whole message. :D [/sarcasm]

With that being said, you still didn't answer the whole post. Here's what you missed:

Why can a line not be located? Please go into details about how a line can not be located.

Also, since I know the location of a point (0-dimensional element) is it local or non local to a cube (3-dimensional element)? What if I now have a line (1-dimensional element) and the cube? If I have two points (0-dimensional elements) are they local or non-local to each other?

Follow up: Please define line.

Your "paper" http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/NXOR-XOR.pdf does not contain the word location. How can it explain location when it doesn't even use the word?
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
Do you see this? ._______ (all you need is a single point and a single line).

Now use your brain and answer to your question by yourself.
Click to expand...

Well, since a line is made up of points, and I know where the point is, and as you claim, the point is part of the line, why can't I determine where the line is?

Also, love how you only answered 0 of 6 questions. :rolleyes:
 
doronshadmi said:
1/3[base 3] is the local number 0.1000...

1/3[base 2] is the non-local number 0.010101...

[qimg]http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/shlish.jpg[/qimg]

See the difference?
Click to expand...

I'm aware the representation is different, but they are still the same numerical value.

I'm still waiting for you to explain the line which has no points on it.
 
jsfisher said:
More reading comprehension issues or is it your inability to stay focused on a topic? The topic was integers versus von Neuman's representation. Why have you jumped to this other convolution?
Click to expand...
Because both of them are examples of your inability to deal with Complexity.
 
laca said:
If this exact post would have come from anyone else, it would have been funny. But I know you're serious, so it's sad instead.
Click to expand...
laca, you are not in any position to say any meaningful thing in this thread, because you don't have any understanding of any of the subjects (standard or not) that are discussed here.
 
In other words, all of you simply are not able to get the notion of an edgeless line as the minimal form of non-local atom, or a point as the minimal form of local atom.

Since this is the case there is no use to discuss with you anymore on this subject.
 
doronshadmi said:
In other words, all of you simply are not able to get the notion of an edgeless line as the minimal form of non-local atom, or a point as the minimal form of local atom.

Since this is the case there is no use to discuss with you anymore on this subject.
Click to expand...

We are not able to "get" your theory just as you are not able to "get" @%@$!@#%#%D@#$RF#@%$$R@$%Q#R@%@%#...
 
doronshadmi said:
No, a line is not made up of points.
Click to expand...

Why can a line not be located? Please go into details about how a line can not be located.

Also, since I know the location of a point (0-dimensional element) is it local or non local to a cube (3-dimensional element)? What if I now have a line (1-dimensional element) and the cube? If I have two points (0-dimensional elements) are they local or non-local to each other?

Follow up: Please define line.
 
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher said:
More reading comprehension issues or is it your inability to stay focused on a topic? The topic was integers versus von Neuman's representation. Why have you jumped to this other convolution?
Click to expand...
Because both of them are examples of your inability to deal with Complexity.
Click to expand...


And yet another topic shift. Doron, please try to say focused. You erroneously said the number 2 was a representation of { {}, { {} } }, remember? Trying to hide behind all these other inventions of yours doesn't bolster your case.

Now, what evidence do you have for this backward concept that von Neuman's representation is reality and numbers are mere representations?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom