• 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.
jsfisher said:
Actually, I think you misinterpreted his gibberish. Hard to believe, but true. His comment that 1 = 0.999... was loosely qualified by his patented "in Standard Mathematics...".

None of that matters, however, since his paper begins with all sorts of false statements about positional notation for numbers. Anything that follows from a false premise is irrelevant.

Then again, if P is your false premise, and since ~P can be false, and ~~P is the same as P, the premise must never have been false in the first place.

QED. Quod erat Doron.
Click to expand...

Seems to me to be Doron’s major malfunction, JS. In that by the principle of explosion the validity of a contradiction dictates the validity of everything (including Doron’s nonsense “tautology” table). As some of you may remember Doron’s assertions on other threads (not sure if he made the same claim on this one) about people potentially being able to explode a star with just their minds. Combined with his almost fanatical assertions about OM saving mankind have brought me to the surmise of late that his OM is Doron’s version of “The Secret”. Even if contradictions are only valid in some obscure sense (that he calls non-local) then the potential for anything to be valid resides in that same sense. Kind of like in the matrix where the people tied into the matrix are only aware of the “choice” at a subconscious level thus the program continues and does not fail as did the “no choice” versions. Similarly I think Doron perceives this potential for anything to be valid, even if just in some obscure sense or on a subconscious level, permits, I guess, the universe from not failing. So Doron desperately needs anything to be possible(like his “non-finite interpolation” as a “non-finite energy source”) as he continually remarks about removing or disregarding limits, if even in just some obscure or subconscious sense. Thusly the consideration of a contradiction to be valid opens the door to such possibilities and he sees it as something we can tap into as expressed by his claims of wanting ‘non-local technology’ to be developed. Unfortunately that too is its Achilles heel that slams the door shut. If all things are possible and a contradiction valid then it is just as possible that Doron is completely wrong and some things are not possible even if it contradicts the notion that all things are possible. I think Doron desperately needs the consideration of a contradiction being valid and sees that as potentially expanding possibilities without realizing that a resulting limitation of possibilities is just as valid as anything else when everything, including a contradiction, is potentially valid.






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_(2006_film)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_matrix
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Remember



Thus that “1” “Identity” is not “0” “Identity” can be found “Under isolator alone” by your own assertion. Try at least to keep up with your own C.R.A.P. Doron
Click to expand...

No, if they are totally isolated then you simply cannot compare them in order to know that they are not the same
 
doronshadmi said:
Elements holds the id-names of the thinks of some system, where relations are not the ids, but exactly the linkage between them, for example:

Code: 
"="       ≠      "≠"
 |________________|
          =

where the relations =,≠ are not the elements (ids) "=","≠"
Click to expand...

Ah, the utility of quotation marks.
The concept designated by the equal sign, =, ceases to be a relation when it becomes the object of a relation. The object of the relation = for example.

But what I'm asking about is this very juggling that can transform a relation into an object of a relation, and an object of a relation into a relation.
How is that possible?
And how about when we are manipulating a concept that is a relation itself by another relation without denying that the first concept is a relation?

That would be some kind of organic complexity wouldn't it?

We are always making these realtions to elements, elements to relations exchanges and hiarchies.

It seems to me that there is nothing that is a fixed relation or a fixed element. No fixed non-local elements or fixed non-local relations, and no fixed non-local concepts.

The essential feature of non-locality is that it has no concepts belonging and fixed to it. It has no landscape of features prior to the manipulations of analytic and discursive thought.
The utility of the bowl is its empty space.
 
jsfisher said:
Doron, you cannot comprehend the concept of monadic operator (aka unary operator) can you?

You still have S and ~S independent of each other. Still useless.
Click to expand...

Monadic operator is not researchable , because you need at least S and ~S in order to get a result.

~S and S are exactly NXOR\XOR Logic.
 
Apathia said:
Ah, the utility of quotation marks.
The concept designated by the equal sign, =, ceases to be a relation when it becomes the object of a relation. The object of the relation = for example.

But what I'm asking about is this very juggling that can transform a relation into an object of a relation, and an object of a relation into a relation.
How is that possible?
And how about when we are manipulating a concept that is a relation itself by another relation without denying that the first concept is a relation?

That would be some kind of organic complexity wouldn't it?

We are always making these realtions to elements, elements to relations exchanges and hiarchies.

It seems to me that there is nothing that is a fixed relation or a fixed element. No fixed non-local elements or fixed non-local relations, and no fixed non-local concepts.

The essential feature of non-locality is that it has no concepts belonging and fixed to it. It has no landscape of features prior to the manipulations of analytic and discursive thought.
The utility of the bowl is its empty space.
Click to expand...

Again, Relation (and not the name of some relation) is non-local.

As for elements, a line is the minimal form of Non-local element, and a point is the minimal form of a local element.
 
doronshadmi said:
Monadic operator is not researchable , because you need at least S and ~S in order to get a result.

~S and S are exactly NXOR\XOR Logic.
Click to expand...


So, the answer to my question is, no, you cannot comprehend monadic operators. Thanks.

QED.
 
doronshadmi said:
No, if they are totally isolated then you simply cannot compare them in order to know that they are not the same
Click to expand...

Then your claim of “Under isolator alone 1≠0”

doronshadmi said:
Under isolator alone 1≠0, 1 or 0 identities are ignored (because they are totally isolated).
Click to expand...

Is simply wrong, by your own assertions. Please let us know when to can at least agree with yourself (I doubt anyone is expecting it any time soon).
 
jsfisher said:
So, the answer to my question is, no, you cannot comprehend monadic operators. Thanks.

QED.
Click to expand...

jsfisher what is exactly monadic in ?:
Code: 
P NOT-P
F T 
T F

You need at least P and NOT-P in order to get some researchable result.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher what is exactly monadic in ?:
Code: 
P NOT-P
F T 
T F
Click to expand...

Well, assuming that was meant to be the truth table for the monadic operator NOT, and "P" and "NOT-P" were intended as column headings for the table, and the values under the "P" column heading were the possible operands for the monadic operator NOT, and the values under the "NOT-P" column being the results of applying the monadic operator NOT to the corresponding operand in the adjacent column, then, in answer to your question of "what is exactly monadic", I'd respond:

The operator NOT is monadic.


I had thought that was clear.
 
The Man said:
Then your claim of “Under isolator alone 1≠0”



Is simply wrong, by your own assertions. Please let us know when to can at least agree with yourself (I doubt anyone is expecting it any time soon).
Click to expand...


x is a place holder for some id.

This one framework can be representend as:

Code: 
x       ≠        x
|________________|
        =

Avoid the Connector, and nothing is compareable bcause of total isolation:
Code: 
x       ≠        x

Avoid the Isolator, and nothing is compareable bcause of total connectivity:
Code: 
x                x
|________________|
        =
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Well, assuming that was meant to be the truth table for the monadic operator NOT, and "P" and "NOT-P" were intended as column headings for the table, and the values under the "P" column heading were the possible operands for the monadic operator NOT, and the values under the "NOT-P" column being the results of applying the monadic operator NOT to the corresponding operand in the adjacent column, then, in answer to your question of "what is exactly monadic", I'd respond:

The operator NOT is monadic.


I had thought that was clear.
Click to expand...

By single state (monadic, as you call it) you cannot get any researchable result, because nothing is reseachable if you cannot compare.

This is exactly the reason that you need at least P and NOT-P in order to conclude something about NOT.


Again, you play with names without any notion behind them.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
x is a place holder for some id.

This one framework can be representend as:

Code: 
x       ≠        x
|________________|
        =

Avoid the Connector, and nothing is compareable bcause of total isolation:
Code: 
x       ≠        x

Avoid the Isolator, and nothing is compareable bcause of total connectivity:
Code: 
x                x
|________________|
        =
Click to expand...

Doron repeating your nonsensical diagrams does not make them any less nonsensical nor does it help your contradictory assertions that.

Firstly

doronshadmi said:
Under isolator alone 1≠0, 1 or 0 identities are ignored (because they are totally isolated).
Click to expand...

Then conversely


doronshadmi said:
No, if they are totally isolated then you simply cannot compare them in order to know that they are not the same
Click to expand...


So, please let us know when to can at least agree with yourself (I doubt anyone is expecting it any time soon).

If that graphical nonsense above was intended to indicate that your first assertion of “Under isolator alone 1≠0” was wrong then you could just simply say so.
 
doronshadmi said:
By single state (monadic, as you call it) you cannot get any researchable result, because nothing is reseachable if you cannot compare.

This is exactly the reason that you need at least P and NOT-P in order to conclude something about NOT.
Click to expand...

Monadic operators take one operand. You are displaying even more ignorance about truth tables than I thought possible. The truth table shows the result of the operator on the inputs. A monadic operator, such as NOT, takes one input, so there is only one input column (the first one). The last column of the truth table shows the output.

If the input is TRUE, the result of NOT will be FALSE.
If the input is FALSE, the result of NOT will be TRUE.

That's it.

Code: 
P   NOT-P
T     F
F     T
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom