• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
Yes I know jsfisher, you refuse to get Gödel’s result about the impossibility of strong axiomatic systems to be both consistent AND complete, according to classical mathematics.
Click to expand...

Ignoring the false, baseless presumption regarding what I do or do not get, why are you implying Gödel's theorems are bound by so-called classical mathematics? Are you trying to tell us Gödel falls apart in Doronetics?

Since Gödel rejects Doronetics, I guess it is only fair Doron rejects Gödel.

By the way, you still haven't responded regarding the significance of Rq(q) the the paper you cited. You also haven't shown any relevance of the paper to your silly circle and line drawing.
 
The Man said:
No Doron, it is “non-interesting exactly because” it is useless, undefined and self contradictory. Even as you yourself note, it claims a proposition and its negation are both true, so it is “non-interesting” just by your own standard.
Click to expand...
Again, your Local-only reasoning is weaker than OM's reasoning, because if P is non-local then P XOR not-P, is a contradiction.

Your Local-only reasoning is non-interesting at the moment that it tries to deal with storing axiomatic systems, without the understanding that such systems are essentially incomplete if they are consistent, exactly as clearly shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5289082&postcount=6704 .

Your inability to distinguesh between a theorem of X and an axiom of X, clearly exposes your inability to understand even the classical math on this subject.
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
What misunderstanding? I asked you several questions and you only answer one.

If I have a point and two cubes, what relationship does the point have to the two cubes? What about the two cubes to each other?
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
Again, learn http://www.scribd.com/doc/21954566/NXOR-XOR pages 9-11.

All you need is there.
Click to expand...
Funny how you can't support your claim of "misunderstanding" when challanged.

If I look at your "paper", some things jump out at me.
The standard notion of the concept of Set: "By the standard notion a set is determined by its members, where the domain is not explicitly defined."
Click to expand...
Please provide the source of this "definition".
 
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher said:
Ignoring Since Gödel rejects Doronetics, I guess it is only fair Doron rejects Gödel.
Click to expand...

No jsfisher, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5303017&postcount=6755 is simply beyond your mind.
Click to expand...


Oh, my! Classic fail on the quote function, there, Doron.

Be that as it may, you still stand rejected by Gödel (and anyone else with any sort of real mathematics ability).

You still stand unable to state any significance for Rq(q) in the paper you cited.

You still stand unable to articulate the relationship between Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem and your circle and line drawing.
 
doronshadmi said:
Again, your Local-only reasoning is weaker than OM's reasoning, because if P is non-local then P XOR not-P, is a contradiction.
Click to expand...

Again your loco-only reasoning prevents you from understanding what constitutes a contradiction.

doronshadmi said:
Your Local-only reasoning is non-interesting at the moment that it tries to deal with storing axiomatic systems, without the understanding that such systems are essentially incomplete if they are consistent, exactly as clearly shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5289082&postcount=6704 .

Your inability to distinguesh between a theorem of X and an axiom of X, clearly exposes your inability to understand even the classical math on this subject.
Click to expand...

Your loco-only reasoning is “non-interesting” all the time and specifically by your own assertion, and that is the most entertaining part.
 
doronshadmi said:
Again, your Local-only reasoning is weaker than OM's reasoning, because if P is non-local then P XOR not-P, is a contradiction.

Your Local-only reasoning is non-interesting at the moment that it tries to deal with storing axiomatic systems, without the understanding that such systems are essentially incomplete if they are consistent, exactly as clearly shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5289082&postcount=6704 .

Your inability to distinguesh between a theorem of X and an axiom of X, clearly exposes your inability to understand even the classical math on this subject.
Click to expand...

Didn’t have time before as I was leaving work, but let’s examine the claims above by Doron in more detail.

We have “if P is non-local then P XOR not-P, is a contradiction” and again his assertions of people expressing “Local-only reasoning”.

If P is ‘Non-Local only reasoning’ making not P “Local-only reasoning” then "if P is non-local”, as it is in ‘Non-Local only reasoning’, then ‘Non-Local only reasoning’ XOR “Local-only reasoning” is a contradiction. Thus Doron is, anytime he asserts someone having “Local-only reasoning”, simply demonstrating his own “Local-only reasoning”. Again Doron, no one is likely to agree with your notions if you can not even agree with your own notions. By your own ‘non-local reasoning’ you can not accuse someone of “Local-only reasoning” without committing that very same “Local-only reasoning” offense yourself.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
You still stand unable to articulate the relationship between Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem and your circle and line drawing.
Click to expand...

No jsfisher, you are unable to get how Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and OM get the same result about strong axiomatic systems.

The difference is that OM has a positive solution of this result (strong axiomatic systems are naturally incomplete AND consistent) where Gödel’s result is a negative solution that breaks down Hilbert’s program to prove the completeness of formal systems within the framework of deductive formalism.

In other words, you are totally ignorant of this subject, like the most of your dogmatic local-only community.

Mathematics never was your private property and never will.

Mathematics is changeable at any of its levels, including the most fundamental agreed notions of it.
 
The Man said:
If P is ‘Non-Local only reasoning’ making not P “Local-only reasoning” then "if P is non-local”, as it is in ‘Non-Local only reasoning’, then ‘Non-Local only reasoning’ XOR “Local-only reasoning” is a contradiction.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and P NXOR not-P is consistent if P is non-local, but since all you see is nothing but contradiction, you have missed this, isn't it The Man.

The Man said:
Thus Doron is, anytime he asserts someone having “Local-only reasoning”, simply demonstrating his own “Local-only reasoning".
Click to expand...
Wrong. You force here not-P (Locality) in order to conclude something about P (Non-locality).

Again we see that you get everything only in terms of forcing Locality on Non-locality.


-------------------------------------------------------------------


Now us reverse The Man’s post by forcing Non-locality on Locality.

It goes like this:

The Man said:
If P is ‘Local only reasoning’ making not P “Non-Local-only reasoning” then "if P is Local”, as it is in ‘Local only reasoning’, then ‘Non-Local only reasoning’ NXOR “Local-only reasoning” is a contradiction.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and P XOR not-P is consistent if P is Local, but since all you see is nothing but contradiction, you have missed this, isn't it The Man.

The Man said:
Thus Doron is, anytime he asserts someone having “Non-Local-only reasoning”, simply demonstrating his own “Non-Local-only reasoning".
Click to expand...
Wrong. You force here not-P (Non-Locality) in order to conclude something about P (Locality).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Exactly, and P NXOR not-P is consistent if P is non-local, but since all you see is nothing but contradiction, you have missed this, isn't it The Man.
Click to expand...

You said it was a contradiction “if P is non-local”, try to get your own notions Doron.


doronshadmi said:
Wrong. You force here not-P (Locality) in order to conclude something about P (Non-locality).
Click to expand...

Nope the claim of “local-only reasoning” is yours, thus so too is said reasoning so that “P NXOR not-P is consistent”.


doronshadmi said:
Again we see that you get everything only in terms of forcing Locality on Non-locality.
Click to expand...

Again we see that you do not even comprehend your own assertions.

doronshadmi said:
-------------------------------------------------------------------


Now us reverse The Man’s post by forcing Non-locality on Locality.

It goes like this:
Click to expand...

Do not modify a quote and attribute it to me. If you can not take ownership or your own assertions than do not try to ’force’ them off onto someone else along with your “local-only reasoning” .


doronshadmi said:
Exactly, and P XOR not-P is consistent if P is Local, but since all you see is nothing but contradiction, you have missed this, isn't it The Man.
Click to expand...

Well thanks, Doron, for confirming that you only displace your own “local-only reasoning” onto others.

Now you're asserting “If P is ‘Local only reasoning’ making not P “Non-Local-only reasoning” then "if P is Local”, as it is in ‘Local only reasoning’, then ‘Non-Local only reasoning’ NXOR “Local-only reasoning” is a contradiction.”?

Before it was “because if P is non-local then P XOR not-P, is a contradiction”.

Make up your mind Doron





doronshadmi said:
Wrong. You force here not-P (Non-Locality) in order to conclude something about P (Locality).
Click to expand...


Nope, you just try to force your own “local-only reasoning” onto others when you ascribe to them “local-only reasoning”. Again try to at least get your own notions. In the example given P was ‘Non-Local only reasoning‘, try not to confuse yourself too much Doron, we know that is hard for you.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
You said it was a contradiction “if P is non-local”, try to get your own notions Doron.
Click to expand...

It is a contradiction only if XOR is used as the logical connective of P (Non-locality) ; not-P (Locality).

Remember, the result is only according to P.

If P is Non-local then:

a) P XOR not-P is a contradiction.

b) P NXOR not-P is consistent.

Code: 
P not-P  NXOR
F  F      T
F  T      F
T  F      F
T  T      T

If P is Local then:

a) P NXOR not-P is a contradiction.

b) P XOR not-P is consistent.

Code: 
P not-P  XOR
F  F      F
F  T      T
T  F      T
T  T      F
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
It is a contradiction only of XOR is used as the logical connective of P (Non-locality) ; not-P (Locality).

Remember, the result is only according to P.

If P is Non-local then:

a) P XOR not-P is a contradiction.

b) P NXOR not-P is consistent.


If P is Local then:

a) P NXOR not-P is a contradiction.

b) P XOR not-P is consistent.
Click to expand...

I would recommend setting up an appointment with a local shrink. A non-local shrink will also work.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
it is a contradiction only of xor is used as the logical connective of p (non-locality) ; not-p (locality).

Remember, the result is only according to p.

If p is non-local then:

A) p xor not-p is a contradiction.

B) p nxor not-p is consistent.


If p is local then:

A) p nxor not-p is a contradiction.

B) p xor not-p is consistent.
Click to expand...

rotfl!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Doron, please go away and don't come back until you have published a paper in a respectable (preferably mathematical) journal. Maybe you can share the edition with Anita aka. VisionFromFeeling explaining how she aced the IIG test, went on to win the MDC by using non-local (read: deluded) reasoning to "see" inside people etc.

Until then, we're just going around in circles. There's no use in continuing this conversation. We are convinced by now that you have an endless supply of ad-hominems, gibberish, made-up half-baked definitions, re-definitins, contradictions and you can always invalidate someone's reasoning by labeling it "local-only" etc. There is nothing else you can convince us of at this point. Not unless you start making sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom