Deeper than primes

[sympathic]

NXOR(the logical base of Non-locality) and XOR(the logical base of Locality) are values as well .

These values are interpreted differently if we deal with total results (the first table) or non-total results (the second table).

The total and the non-total are clearly distingueshed by OM's reasoning.

so now you are "developing" truth tables also. Can they include drawings too?

 

[doronshadmi]

so now you are "developing" truth tables also. Can they include drawings too?

No, I use truth tables that are based on the notions behind the names or notations.

The notion is very simple:

NXOR is the logical value of Non-locality (A,B have the same values (F,F or T,T)).

XOR is the logical value of Locality (A,B have different values (F,T or T,F)).

So as you see Non-localiy and Locality stand the the basis of Logics.

 

[sympathic]

No, I use truth tables that are based on the notions behind the names or notations.

As long as you are having fun.

 

[sympathic]

No, I use truth tables that are based on the notions behind the names or notations.

The notion is very simple:

NXOR is the logical value of Non-locality (A,B have the same values (F,F or T,T)).

XOR is the logical value of Locality (A,B have different values (F,T or T,F)).

do you even know what a truth table is?

 

[doronshadmi]

do you even know what a truth table is?

A truth table is a a tool which enables to examine the logical validitiy of a given combination of logical values.

 

[sympathic]

A truth table is a a tool which enables to examine the logical validitiy of a given combination of values.

No it is not. look it up you are good at that. Try understanding what you read instead of giving it your own interpretation.

 

[doronshadmi]

No it is not. look it up you are good at that. Try understanding what you read instead of giving it your own interpretation.

Yes It is, and it is based on at least Non-locality (A,not-A has F,F or T,T) or Locality (A,not-A has F,T or T,F).

The rest of Logics is based on this.


Your inability to get this simple basis of Logics, prevents from you to understand Logics itself, where a truth table is nothing but its tool.

This time please do not ignore http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT pages 26-29.

 

[sympathic]

Yes It is, and it is based on at least Non-locality (A,not-A has F,F or T,T) or Locality (A,not-A has F,T or T,F).

The rest of Logics is based on this.


Your inability to get this simple basis of Logics, prevents from you to understand Logics itself, where a truth table is nothing but its tool.

This time please do not ignore http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT pages 26-29.

You are hopeless.

 

[sympathic]

by the way my degree in maths certifies that I am able to get the basics of Logic - how about you?

 

[laca]

by the way my degree in maths certifies that I am able to get the basics of Logic - how about you?

Careful, he's got TWO published papers! By the International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics!!!1!! Bow down before your master, you pathetic worm!

 

[The Man]

I really started to develop OM only 7 years ago, during internet dialogs both with professional and non-professional persons. Still it does not matter how much time (even a lifetime) one develops his\her theory, it can be found useful many years after the developer is dead, so you are using here a very week argument that again demonstrates your ignorance of how real science is developed during the years.

No Doron, you have yet to even start developing your OM notions. Oh certainly you have developed catch phrases, uniquely erroneous usages of words and established concepts as well as diagrams that could only loosely be classified as abstract art. As far as developing your theory goes you have done nothing yet. Developing it would be the exact opposite of what you are doing. It would require you to define terms, understand related established concepts, actually deal with and resolve contradictions, inconstancy and conflict within your theory and in general, not just gloss over them by calling them “non-local”.

As for segments, they are exactly elements that are not totally local (they are not a point) AND not totally non-local (they are not an edgeless line).

A segment is totally localized to within its boundaries, that is what makes it a segment.

The realm of such elements enables the existence of infinite interpolation\extrapolation.

We have already established that you do not understand the concepts of interpolation and extrapolation, no need to demonstrate that further.

For example, please show me a totally accurate location in our physical realm,

44º35’25” North by 104º42’55” West

or totally non-accurate location in our physical realm.

There (otherwise know as not here).

You will not find them in the physical realm, but you will find them in the abstract realm of ideas.

Get yourself a GPS unit or an understanding of what constitutes a physical location.

Complexity is developed by using both abstract and non-abstract realms, so from this comprehensive view, any result is based on the abstract AND the non-abstract, such that the abstract notions of today can become the non-abstract technology of tomorrow.

You really do not understand the words abstract or complexity do you?

As for your designs that are based on Electricity, a better understanding of electrons may be used for better developments of Electric technology, and by QM we know that an electron is like a segment that is not entirely particle (local) and not entirely wave (non-local).

We already have a far better understanding of electrons then your OM, it is called quantum mechanics (and more specifically quantum field theory). If you actually understood how modern electronics work you would know that already.

OM, by using Non-locality\Locality linkage enables to understand better the real nature of electrons, by using infinite interpolation\extrapolation (the non-local signature of this linkage) in addition to finite interpolation\extrapolation (the local signature of this linkage), where no one of them is total under Non-locality\Locality Linkage.

Well, by all means please, be my guest and point out that “real nature of electrons” that you “understand better” “by using Non-locality\Locality linkage . Mind you all of our modern technology is essentially based on our understanding of the electron (among other things) so you have set a pretty high bar for you to jump considering you can not even design a functioning toaster based specifically on your ‘better understanding’.

Furthermore, concepts like Superposition, Uncertainty, Redundancy, Randomness, Locality, Non-locality, Finite, Infinite, Complexity, Serial, Parallel, etc… are all based on a one comprehensive model of the linkage between the non-local and local aspects of a one atomic state, where an atom is both existing AND empty (of any sub-things) thing.

It is not a “comprehensive model” it is just an amorphous blob of contradictions, trivial assertions, catch phrases and wild imagination that attempt to lay claim to every thing that already works while directly contradicting what specifically makes it work.

Once again your Atom concept simply limits you and precludes you from considering such things as line segments. That you even evoke a segment in your remarks above simply demonstrates that not even you believe in your own notions. You have to first actually adhere to your own notions, Doron, before you can even claim to be actually developing them.

 

[jsfisher]

No, I use truth tables that are based on the notions behind the names or notations.

The notion is very simple:

NXOR is the logical value of Non-locality (A,B have the same values (F,F or T,T)).

XOR is the logical value of Locality (A,B have different values (F,T or T,F)).

So as you see Non-localiy and Locality stand the the basis of Logics.

Is there truly nothing you don't understand?

 

[jsfisher]

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

Well, right from the get-go, there's a problem. That document still uses the organic number scheme you have already rejected. This cannot be used as a reliable reference.

NXOR for Non-locality
[TABLE=head]A | B || A NXOR B
F | F ||T
T | F || F
F | T || F
T | T || T[/table]

XOR for Locality
[TABLE=head]A | B || A XOR B
F | F ||F
T | F || T
F | T || T
T | T || F[/table]

Thanks for providing an answer to the question no one asked. Yep, those are the truth tables for XOR and NXOR, but your locality/non-locality qualifiers are of no relevance.

A=(XOR connective) OR (NXOR connective)

No. "A" was stipulated as a logical variable, valued either T for true or F for false. Moreover, the binary operator, OR, has neither XOR nor NXOR in its range.

That reality renders this:

[TABLE=head]A || NOT A
XOR || NXOR
NXOR || XOR[/TABLE]

...as utter gibberish.

[TABLE=head]A | NOT A || A AND NOT A
XOR | NXOR || F
NXOR | XOR || F[/table]

...snip...

[TABLE=head]A | NOT A || A AND NOT A
XOR | NXOR || T
NXOR | XOR || T[/table]

Marvelous! Instant contradiction.

 

[doronshadmi]

by the way my degree in maths certifies that I am able to get the basics of Logic - how about you?

Your Logics is based only on local reasoning.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well, right from the get-go, there's a problem. That document still uses the organic number scheme you have already rejected. This cannot be used as a reliable reference.



Thanks for providing an answer to the question no one asked. Yep, those are the truth tables for XOR and NXOR, but your locality/non-locality qualifiers are of no relevance.



No. "A" was stipulated as a logical variable, valued either T for true or F for false. Moreover, the binary operator, OR, has neither XOR nor NXOR in its range.

That reality renders this:



...as utter gibberish.



Marvelous! Instant contradiction.

Again, your notions are linited to local reasoning.

You have no chance to get the foundations of Logics itself as a result of Non-locality\Locality Linkage, by your local-only reasoning.

 

[doronshadmi]

Is there truly nothing you don't understand?

Yes, I do not understand how you are unable to get the abstract notion of an edgeless line.

 

[The Man]

Yes, I do not understand how you are unable to get the abstract notion of an edgeless line.

That is simply because you do not understand, as jsfisher has already noted, that a line is an edge. If you simply mean an endless line, that particular abstract notion has been around far longer then you Doron, but you are the only one here who seems to have any difficulty understanding it.

 

[doronshadmi]

44º35’25” North by 104º42’55” West

This is an abstraction that cannot actually be found in the physical world of segments, which are not totally local (like a point) AND not totally non-local (like an edgeless line).

And you say that you understand QM, but QM supports my argument about the physical realm, and not your naïve argument about totally accurate location like 44º35’25” North by 104º42’55” West that can be found in the physical realm.

You do not understand your own arguments, The Man.

 

[doronshadmi]

That is simply because you do not understand, as jsfisher has already noted, that a line is an edge. If you simply mean an endless line, that particular abstract notion has been around far longer then you Doron, but you are the only one here who seems to have any difficulty understanding it.

Please demostrate how a line is an edge (please do it by using what you call an endless line).

 

[jsfisher]

Please demostrate how a line is an edge (please do it by using what you call an endless line).

Consider any line in a plane. The line (endless, you may note) is an edge. It is the edge of the two half-planes delineated by the line.