Deeper than primes

[Complexity]

Please provide more details that support your argument.

I haven't made an argument; I made an assertion.

I have offered and shall offer no evidence to support my assertion.

Although I was combative and argument seeking when I was younger, I've grown tired of hollow, interminable, dishonest, ego-filled, or unproductive discussions. (n.b. the only two of these terms that I think apply to this thread are 'interminable' and 'unproductive')

Suffice it to say that I think my assertion is defensible and widely shared, but I don't wish to engage anyone in a 9000-post discussion of the point.

 

[doronshadmi]

I haven't made an argument; I made an assertion.

I have offered and shall offer no evidence to support my assertion.

Although I was combative and argument seeking when I was younger, I've grown tired of hollow, interminable, dishonest, ego-filled, or unproductive discussions. (n.b. the only two of these terms that I think apply to this thread are 'interminable' and 'unproductive')

Suffice it to say that I think my assertion is defensible and widely shared, but I don't wish to engage anyone in a 9000-post discussion of the point.

Silly rabbits! Nothing is deeper than primes.

Complexity, this quote looks like a strong deretmination, so why do you call it an assertion?

 

[The Man]

An obsolete and wrong reasoning that can’t comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5734631&postcount=9165 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5721761&postcount=9104 , so?

Again, 1 is an "accurate value" by your own assertions and is proven to be the sum of the infinite convergent series ½+¼+1/8+1/16 by that difference (of 1) from the two times self similar infinite convergent series 1+½+¼+1/8+1/16 . That you obviously can’t comprehend that is simply your problem. A problem that was as obsolete even some 2,300 years ago as it is today. So?

Here you fail, because a space is not less than the linkage of local element like a single point and a non-local element, like single line (closed or not)

The point belongs XOR does not belong w.r.t a given line.

The line belongs AND does not belong w.r.t a given point.

Once again there “you fail” in not being definitive about what constitutes your ascription of ‘belonging’ even in your own “linkage of local element like a single point and a non-local element, like single line (closed or not)”.

The contradiction is a direct result of the understanding of that linkage only from its local (point) aspect.

No it simply and directly results from your inconsistent and directly conflicting use of the ascription “belongs” in your “linkage of local element like a single point and a non-local element, like single line (closed or not)”.

The rest of your post is based on this local-only reasoning of a considered space, and What You See Is What You Get, which by this local-only reasoning it can't be but a contradiction.

All of your posts as well as your notions are based simply on your indefinite and inconsistent use of the ascription “belongs”. "What You See Is What You Get", a “fog”. Though, much as you might like to prefer roaming around and “researching” in your own personal “fog”. Myself and others here, having utilized both the flexibility and definitive nature of mathematics, actually get things done. You strive for the flexibility of mathematics, but are obviously dismayed by the definitive nature of mathematical terminology, symbols and references. Hence your assertions and notions remain, well, foggy, even to you. However it is that “linkage”, the flexibility of mathematics (like choosing a particular reference frame) and the definitive nature of mathematical terminology, symbols and references (once that frame has been established and defined) that gives mathematics it’s utility. Give up that definitive nature (as you obviously insist upon doing) or that flexibility (the only thing you want to keep) and you lose the utility. Which is why, after all your blustering, your notions remain without any utility. Except in your own fantasy of saving our civilization from your own paranoia of your, much despised by you, own interpretation of the ‘L value of the Drake equation’.

 

[doronshadmi]

All of your posts as well as your notions are based simply on your indefinite and inconsistent use of the ascription “belongs”.

Since you are using a local-only reasoning, What You See Is What You Get, including this artificial limitation of the mathematical science:

the flexibility of mathematics (like choosing a particular reference frame) and the definitive nature of mathematical terminology, symbols and references (once that frame has been established and defined) that gives mathematics it’s utility. Give up that definitive nature (as you obviously insist upon doing) or that flexibility (the only thing you want to keep) and you lose the utility.

Again, your reasoning is limited to a local-only reasoning of that science.

On top of this limitation your frame has been established and defined so again, What You See Is What You Get (which in this case is a local-only view of the mathematical science) and no mathematical terminology, symbols and references can change the fact that you are closed under a local-only reasoning, which naturally get non-locality as a contradiction under your What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG).

Your forcing attitude to establish any definition on localities (points) including lines, is simply an artificial attempt to avoid the simple notion that a line is not made by a collection of points. Since your forcing attitude to establish any definition on localities, does its “best” in order to not dealing with the notion of non-locality, you indeed get a framework that can’t assert or conclude anything that is not derived from local-only reasoning of the researched subject.

Again The Man, WYSIWYG.

 

[The Man]

Since you are using a local-only reasoning, What You See Is What You Get, including this artificial limitation of the mathematical science:


Again, your reasoning is limited to a local-only reasoning of that science.

Again with your loco-only labels and “reasoning”

On top of this limitation your frame has been established and defined so again, What You See Is What You Get (which in this case is a local-only view of the mathematical science) and no mathematical terminology, symbols and references can change the fact that you are closed under a local-only reasoning, which naturally get non-locality as a contradiction under your What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG).

So I guess you are going to also ignore the flexibility of math that I mentioned, as well as definitive terminology, symbols and references that are not limited to any particular reference frame.

Again “What You See Is What You Get”. You see a “fog” and you express a “fog”, which naturally makes your notion foggy, even to you. Don't blame us that your notions are simply as foggy as you intend them to be.

 

[doronshadmi]

Again with your loco-only labels and “reasoning”



So I guess you are going to also ignore the flexibility of math that I mentioned, as well as definitive terminology, symbols and references that are not limited to any particular reference frame.

Again “What You See Is What You Get”. You see a “fog” and you express a “fog”, which naturally makes your notion foggy, even to you. Don't blame us that your notions are simply as foggy as you intend them to be.

Again, Your forcing attitude to establish any definition on localities (points) including lines, is simply an artificial attempt to avoid the simple notion that a line is not made by a collection of points. Since your forcing attitude to establish any definition on localities, does its “best” in order to not dealing with the notion of non-locality, you indeed get a framework that can’t assert or conclude anything that is not derived from local-only reasoning of the researched subject.

A problem that was as obsolete even some 2,300 years ago as it is today. So?

A solution (of Archimedes) that was as obsolete even some 2,300 years ago as it is today. So?


Again The Man, WYSIWYG.

EDIT:

A fog is a natural result of the infinite linkage among the local and non-local atomic qualities, that are the nutural foundation of infinite Complexity and infinite Quantity.

 

[doronshadmi]

Which is why, after all your blustering, your notions remain without any utility. Except in your own fantasy of saving our civilization from your own paranoia of your, much despised by you, own interpretation of the ‘L value of the Drake equation’.

Open your TV, Listen to the radio, Look at the Internet, Learn the History of Mankind, and then re-examine the degree of the probability of my interpretation of ‘L value of the Drake equation’ in the near and far future, which unfortunately is still based on a dichotomy between Ethics(where the technology of the consciousness’ development is included) and Logics\Technology.

More details are seen in http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM and http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE

 

[sympathic]

Sympathic: “I have a nice job and a diploma, which enables me to define a sun that rises and shines in the middle of the night”

Doron: “Please wake me up when it happens”

Sympathic: "ripe tomatoes are red"

Doron: "ripe tomatoes are blue"

This discussion is pointless and leads nowhere. I would comment that it is appropriate to question the sanity of an individual insisting that ripe tomatoes are blue.

 

[doronshadmi]

Sympathic: "ripe tomatoes are red"

Doron: "ripe tomatoes are blue"

This discussion is pointless and leads nowhere. I would comment that it is appropriate to question the sanity of an individual insisting that ripe tomatoes are blue.

Sympathic: “I have a nice job and a diploma, which enables me to define a sun that rises and shines in the middle of the night”

Doron: "I would comment that it is appropriate to question the sanity of an individual insisting that he has a nice job and a diploma, which enables him to define a sun that rises and shines in the middle of the night”

 

[sympathic]

Sympathic: “I have a nice job and a diploma, which enables me to define a sun that rises and shines in the middle of the night”

Doron: "I would comment that it is appropriate to question the sanity of an individual insisting that he has a nice job and a diploma, which enables him to define a sun that rises and shines in the middle of the night”

Thank you for confirming any attempt to communicate with you is pointless. And by the way: you are aware that the earth is round, and while it is night your time the sun rises somewhere else around the globe, are you?

 

[doronshadmi]

you are aware that the earth is round, and while it is night your time the sun rises somewhere else around the globe, are you?

Are you aware of the meaning of "somewhere else"?

Thank you for confirming any attempt to communicate with you is pointless.

Thank you for confirming any attempt to communicate with you is lineless.

 

[sympathic]

Are you aware of the meaning of "somewhere else"?



Thank you for confirming any attempt to communicate with you is lineless.

You are beyond hope. This is my last post to you on this thread.

 

[doronshadmi]

You are beyond hope. This is my last post to you on this thread.

Enjoy your nice job and diploma.

 

[doronshadmi]

Don't blame us that your notions are simply as foggy as you intend them to be.

Don’t blame me that your notions get a fog as some "white noise" that has to be eliminated, in order to define fixed-only reasoning.

 

[doronshadmi]

Once again that brings us to a circle. In X and Y coordinates a circle starts and ends at the same point. In polar coordinates the circle starts at zero degrees and ends at 360 with the same R. Is that your whole problem that you simply do not understand coordinates and how different reference frames give you different coordinates for what might even be the same point is some given reference frame?

Given two values to the same location does not make it two different locations, and in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5799260&postcount=9332 we are dealing with at least two different locations (endpoints).

 

[doronshadmi]

I think you have completely overlooked the cyclone of S occluded by the partly cloudy x. (Highs in the mid-60's with a 30% chance of rain in non-local areas.)

Some correction, it can start by 30% chance of rain in non-local lines.

 

[doronshadmi]

k < x < n


A fog is the infinite irreducibility of x to k or the infinite non-increaseability of x to n


x is a placeholder for a fog, for example: fog S=(0.9+0.09+0.009+0.0009+...[base 10]) which is < than sum 1 by fog 0.000...1[base 10]


In the case of infinite non-increaseability x is a placeholder for fog S and n is a placeholder for sum 1


In the case of infinite irreducibility x is a placeholder for fog 0.000...1[base 10] and k is a placeholder for sum 0


So, x of the expression k < x < n is the placeholder for any infinite series of fixed added values, which is not itself a fixed value.


More details are seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5795672&postcount=9323 , http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5799260&postcount=9332 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5799988&postcount=9344.

 

[zooterkin]

k < x < n


A fog is the infinite irreducibility of x to k or the infinite non-increaseability of x to n


x is a placeholder for a fog, for example: fog S=(0.9+0.09+0.009+0.0009+...[base 10]) which is < than sum 1 by fog 0.000...1[base 10]

Doron, try to keep your terms straight at least within posts, if not between them. Make up your mind; is your unnecessary 'fog' the infinite irreducibility of x, or x itself? What are the possible values of k, x and n?

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron, try to keep your terms straight at least within posts, if not between them. Make up your mind; is your unnecessary 'fog' the infinite irreducibility of x, or x itself? What are the possible values of k, x and n?

EDIT:

k and n are placeholders for fixed values (known also as sums or local numbers).

x is a placeholder for non-fixed values (known also as fogs or non-local numers).

For example x is a placeholder for fogs S=(0.9+0.09+0.009+0.0009+...[base 10]) or 0.000...1[base 10]

k is a placeholder for some sum < some fog kept by x placeholder.

n is a placeholder for some sum > some fog kept by x placeholder.

What do you mean by: unnecessary 'fog'?

 

[zooterkin]

What do you mean by: unnecessary 'fog'?

Because, as far as I can tell, you are using 'fog' to stand for something that doesn't exist.

1 - 0.999... = 0

Where is the need for your fog?