Deeper than primes

[Complexity]

Such a straight line, but no, I'll be good....

I'm a gay straight man. How peculiar!

 

[doronshadmi]

No the set of the dimensions of, or coordinates in, a 0 dimensional space would be empty, but the set of its label need not be. Just as the empty set has no elements, but a set of the number of elements in the empty set (more specifically the cardinality of the empty set) would have one element, 0.

We can't expect much from a person that his "profound" reasoning is something like: " … a label just means a label"

You simply can't follow this simple and consistent reasoning:

0-space (an isolated point) has sum 0 labels.

1-space (a connected point by 1-space element, like a line) has sum 1 labels.

2-space (a connected point by 2-space element, like an area) has sum 2 labels.

3-space (a connected point by 3-space element, like a sphere) has sum 3 labels.

…

n-space (a connected point by n-space element) has sum n labels.

…

∞-space (a connected point by ∞-space element) has fog ∞ labels.

Once again your method of dealing with infinite regress by just making up nonsensical gibberish like “infinite irreducibility and\or infinite non-increaseability” is to simply ignore the definitive aspects that would result in an infinite regress.

Are you claiming that your “infinite irreducibility” is reducible, but just not to an infinite extent? If so what is the limit of that reducibility, and why that specific limit? If not than you are simply talking about something that can not be reduced and your inclusion of “infinite” is simply superfluous.

Are you claiming that your “infinite non-increaseability” can be increased, but just not to an infinite extent? If so what is the limit of that increasing, and why that specific limit? If not than you are simply talking about something that can not be increased and your inclusion of “infinite” is simply superfluous.

Anyway:

Standard reasoning does not have the needed understanding of the totally finite (that has no predecessor) known also as Locality, and the total infinity (that has no successor) known also as Non-locality.

Non-locality and Locality are the true limits of The Mathematical Science, which enable to deal with Infinite Regress and the natural incompleteness of any infinite complexity, exactly because it is a direct result of the infinite irreducibility of Non-locality to Locality and/or the infinite non-increaseability of Locality to Non-locality, under Non-locality/Locality Linkage.

The Man it is clear now that you have no chance to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5812024&postcount=9408.

I wish you happy sum.

 

[The Man]

We can't expect much from a person that his "profound" reasoning is something like: " … a label just means a label"

You simply can't follow this simple and consistent reasoning:

0-space (an isolated point) has sum 0 labels.

1-space (a connected point by 1-space element, like a line) has sum 1 labels.

2-space (a connected point by 2-space element, like an area) has sum 2 labels.

3-space (a connected point by 3-space element, like a sphere) has sum 3 labels.

…

n-space (a connected point by n-space element) has sum n labels.

…

∞-space (a connected point by ∞-space element) has fog ∞ labels.

Unfortunately, simply repeating your old same nonsense is exactly what we have come to expect for you. One interesting thing to note though is that all your above statements contain the refferance “a connected point”. So all of your so called ‘spaces’ are defined by points. Watch out Doron you may actually learn some of that dreaded “Standard Math” yet. By the way what the heck is a “sum 1”, “2” or “3 labels”?

Anyway:

Standard reasoning does not have the needed understanding of the totally finite (that has no predecessor) known also as Locality, and the total infinity (that has no successor) known also as Non-locality.

Anyway, you’re the only one that thinks you need, or anyone needs, your “understanding”.

Non-locality and Locality are the true limits of The Mathematical Science, which enable to deal with Infinite Regress and the natural incompleteness of any infinite complexity, exactly because it is a direct result of the infinite irreducibility of Non-locality to Locality and/or the infinite non-increaseability of Locality to Non-locality, under Non-locality/Locality Linkage.

What “limits” are you referring to? You have certainly never limited yourself to the restrictions of your own assertions, not to mention that you have specifically decried the application of limits in what you call “Standard Math”.

The Man it is clear now that you have no chance to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5812024&postcount=9408.

Well I asked what the limits were on your “reducibility” and ‘increasing’, if you don’t actually know then it is obviously mainly you that does not get his own posts.

I wish you happy sum.

Why thank you, I whish you a happy “sum” as well.

Funny though my calendar doesn’t show today as ‘sumday’.

 

[doronshadmi]

Unfortunately, simply repeating your old same nonsense is exactly what we have come to expect for you.

The only nonsense here is entirely your contribution to this dialog, because you are basically using an aggressive attitude about the content of my posts, which naturally prevents from you to really get what you read.

It is quite simple to demonstrate how you miss what I write, for example:

My argument is about the minimal number of labels that a given point has with respect to a given space.

By following this argument you clearly get the following:

The minimal number of labels that a given point has with respect to 0-space is 0 labels (can be notated as {}).

The minimal number of labels that a given point has with respect to 1-space is 1 labels (can be notated as {x}).

The minimal number of labels that a given point has with respect to 2-space is 2 labels (can be notated as {x,y}).

The minimal number of labels that a given point has with respect to 3-space is 3 labels (can be notated as {x,y,z}).

...

The minimal number of labels that a given point has with respect to n-space is n labels (can be notated as {x,y,z,...,n}).

...

The minimal number of labels that a given point has with respect to ∞-space is ∞ labels (can be notated as {x,y,z,... }).


Your " … a label just means a label" reasoning, leads to the following:

According to you The Man, you count the minimal numbers of points (and not the minimal number of labels of a given point) that exist under a given space, as follows:

0-space has at most 1 point.

1-space has at least 2 points.

2-space has at least 2 points.

3-space has at least 2 points.

...

n-space has at least 2 points.

...

∞-space has at least 2 points.


Do you see the difference between my argument an your argument?

Your argument has nothing to do with my argument, but since you are so aggressive you block yourself and do not get other’s arguments.

So please calm down, reduce your aggression, which, I believe, will let you to get other’s arguments better.

 

[doronshadmi]

What “limits” are you referring to? You have certainly never limited yourself to the restrictions of your own assertions, not to mention that you have specifically decried the application of limits in what you call “Standard Math”.

What is not clear in the following?

Standard reasoning does not have the needed understanding of the totally finite (that has no predecessor) known also as Locality, and the total infinity (that has no successor) known also as Non-locality.

Non-locality and Locality are the true limits of The Mathematical Science, which enable to deal with Infinite Regress and the natural incompleteness of any infinite complexity, exactly because it is a direct result of the infinite irreducibility of Non-locality to Locality and/or the infinite non-increaseability of Locality to Non-locality, under Non-locality/Locality Linkage.

Anyway, you’re the only one that thinks you need, or anyone needs, your “understanding”.

Since when the number of people that do not agree with a consistent argument, determine its validity or necessity w.r.t a given framework?

 

[doronshadmi]

By the way what the heck is a “sum 1”, “2” or “3 labels”?

So first you attack, and then you ask.

By changing your aggressive attitude, you may get the difference between sums and fogs, and then you will get my argument.

 

[doronshadmi]

So all of your so called ‘spaces’ are defined by points.

Wrong The Man.

A space is defined without the need of any point or collection of points.

A space is measured by using points, where the numbers of measured values (labels) that are related to a given point is in direct ratio with the degree of the given space.

 

[doronshadmi]

A line entirely along an axis called X is only one location along a perpendicular axis perhaps called Y.

In that case we do not care about the non-local property of X but only about the local property of X with respect to Y upon some surface, which is non-local w.r.t both X and Y axis.

You simply do not get it The Man, only a point is a local-only element.

Elements of higher spaces can be local or non-local w.r.t to other elements, but you totally ignore their non-local property and care only about their local property.

By using this limited reasoning, there is no wonder that you do not get Non-locality.

Furthermore, by using your “X axis is local w.r.t Y axis” you miss the additional view that X axis is both on AND not on Y axis, which is a non-local property that no point on Y axis has.

 

[doronshadmi]

Just because they are not mutually exclusive and the two of them do not create a dichotomy (as you would like to think), does not make them disjoint.

“not mutually exclusive” means that there is no XOR connective between them.

In that case they are sharable (both true) under a one framework, and OM is some effort to develop such a framework.

On the contrary you are doing your best in order to save Ethics and Logics as two concepts that can’t share a one framework.

Why is that The Man? (after all if they are not disjoint, so they can share common things that may help us to develop them under a one framework).

Again:

Let me share with you my reasoning about the concept of Complexity.

One of the most powerful tools that our civilization uses is the mathematical science.

One of the main reasons of the efficiency of this science is the universal principles that stand at its foundations.

Because of these universal principles our civilization achieved its current technology, but the motivations and use of these technologies are not based on universal principles.

In my opinion non-universal principles that are fragmented to different cultures, religions, nations etc… + technology that is derived from universal principles is a very dangerous cocktail that may lead us to self-made destruction.

In my opinion one of the ways to reduce the chance of self-made destruction is to define a universal framework that may be used as a common base ground for both Ethics and Logical reasoning.

For the past 30 years I am trying to develop such a framework, and this goal is definitely beyond the abilities of a single person.

Anyway, I wish to share with you some of my last results (and please forgive me about my English (my language is Hebrew)) which draw some sketches of this universal framework.

I call this framework Organic Mathematics, or OM.

OM ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/17039028/OMDP ) demonstrates Direct Perception as the common foundation of both Intuition and Logical reasoning. Furthermore, Direct Perception is actually the base ground of any mantel activity, whether it is expressed by senses, emotions, or logical reasoning.

Direct Perception is actually the silent presence of any mantel activity, which enables to bridge our ethical aspects with our logical\technological aspects under a one framework.

The luck of Direct Perception as the base ground of a powerful language like the mathematical science, can easily lead us to manipulate deeper forces of Nature, which are not balanced by universal ethical principles (universal ethical principles must not be limited to any particular religion, culture or civilization).

In my opinion if our species will not learn very soon how to develop the universal bridge between Ethics and Logics under a one comprehensive framework, we shell not survive further manipulations of Nature's forces.

Please look at:

Mathematics As a Tool For Survival:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM

and http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE

for clearer representation of my argument (and again, sorry about my English).


More comprehensive papers abut this subject are:

Zeno's Achilles\Tortoise Race and Reconsiderations of Some Mathematical Paradigms

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21967511/TOC-NEW2


Organic Mathematics (A Non-formal Introduction):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT


ORGANIC MATHEMATICS, Proposing a way to solve Hilbert's 6th Problem:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18453171/IJPAMOM [1]

[1] Moshe Klein, Doron Shadmi : Organic Mathematics, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, volume 49 No. 3 2008, 329-340


Sorry about this long post, but from my experience of the past 7 years no peer reviewed journal (except one) or scholars that work in the fields of exact sciences have shown any interesting in this kind of project, and I hope that you will find this kind of project important.

 

[Complexity]

Let me share with you my reasoning about the concept of Complexity.

I warned you!

You are not to mention my name (you are unworthy).

You are not to mention mathematics (you are unworthy).

Be gone, demon!

We really need a rite of exorcism for bad memes.

A real one. One that is scientifically based, effective, and aimed at something that really exists.

Not at all like that of the silly catlicks.

 

[jsfisher]

I warned you!

You are not to mention my name (you are unworthy).

You are not to mention mathematics (you are unworthy)....

Fear not! While he is unworthy, he is also unable.

 

[Complexity]

Fear not! While he is unworthy, he is also unable.

Ha!

I'm not afraid, it's just that he's standing in front of the goodlooking guys.

I'm jonesing for eye-candy.

 

[The Man]

The only nonsense here is entirely your contribution to this dialog, because you are basically using an aggressive attitude about the content of my posts, which naturally prevents from you to really get what you read.

Well since you apparently have never aggressively or critically examined your own assertions, my timidly and simply accepting your nonsense would hardly be of any use to anyone (though that is obviously what you would like and insist upon).

It is quite simple to demonstrate how you miss what I write, for example:

My argument is about the minimal number of labels that a given point has with respect to a given space.

By following this argument you clearly get the following:

The minimal number of labels that a given point has with respect to 0-space is 0 labels (can be notated as {}).

A zero dimensional space would have just one point and again you could label that whatever you want.

The minimal number of labels that a given point has with respect to 1-space is 1 labels (can be notated as {x}).

The minimal number of labels that a given point has with respect to 2-space is 2 labels (can be notated as {x,y}).

The minimal number of labels that a given point has with respect to 3-space is 3 labels (can be notated as {x,y,z}).

...

The minimal number of labels that a given point has with respect to n-space is n labels (can be notated as {x,y,z,...,n}).

...

The minimal number of labels that a given point has with respect to ∞-space is ∞ labels (can be notated as {x,y,z,... }).

A 1 or multidimensional space would have an infinite number of points and again you could label them whatever you want or not at all. As I said before it often helps to label them in accordance with their ordering (coordinates). However when dealing with and particularly comparing different coordinate systems it is more productive to label them with something other then the coordinates of any one of those systems (usually a variable like “point A”).

Above you are specifically talking about the labeling of dimensions “{x,y,z,... }” and using “a given point” to establish the dimensions of your “spaces”.

Your " … a label just means a label" reasoning, leads to the following:

According to you The Man, you count the minimal numbers of points (and not the minimal number of labels of a given point) that exist under a given space, as follows:

0-space has at most 1 point.

1-space has at least 2 points.

2-space has at least 2 points.

3-space has at least 2 points.

...

n-space has at least 2 points.

...

∞-space has at least 2 points.

I am far better suited to explain my own reasoning than you, so see above.

Do you see the difference between my argument an your argument?

Do you now see the similarity of your “argument” and the informal definition of dimension?

Your argument has nothing to do with my argument, but since you are so aggressive you block yourself and do not get other’s arguments.

My assertions have everything to do with your “argument”, but since you are just so willing to timidly and simply accept anything you like to think (especially something ‘foggy’) you block yourself and do not get that.

So please calm down, reduce your aggression, which, I believe, will let you to get other’s arguments better.

First calm yourself down, then you will feel less inclined to project your agitation onto others. Second aggressively and critically attack and question your own notions and assertions, then others will feel less inclined to have to do it for you.

What is not clear in the following?

What I speficaly asked about it...

What “limits” are you referring to? You have certainly never limited yourself to the restrictions of your own assertions, not to mention that you have specifically decried the application of limits in what you call “Standard Math”.

The “limits” you’re referring to, particularly considering your expressed and apprent distain for, well, limits.

Since when the number of people that do not agree with a consistent argument, determine its validity or necessity w.r.t a given framework?

I said nothing about “the number of people that do not agree with a consistent argument”. Since when does the fact that no one but you needs your notions and assertions infer anything about people agreeing or disagreeing? Since when does a direct self-contradiction like “belongs to AND does not belong to” in any way constitute a “consistent argument” (unless of course you meant consistently self-inconsistent).

So first you attack, and then you ask.

Exactly what you should be doing Doron, aggressively and critically attacking and questioning your own notions and assertions. If you can show that you are actually doing that, I don’t think anyone would care what particular order you did that in. Having obviously abdicated that particular responsibility yourself, it then falls to others to do so in your stead.

By changing your aggressive attitude, you may get the difference between sums and fogs, and then you will get my argument.

I’ve gotten your argument Doron, you deliberately choose to live in your own “fog”, how ,well, ‘foggy’ for you.

Wrong The Man.

A space is defined without the need of any point or collection of points.

A space is measured by using points, where the numbers of measured values (labels) that are related to a given point is in direct ratio with the degree of the given space.

Look at your first post quoted in this post and the quote just above, oops your using points to define your ‘spaces’ again.

In that case we do not care about the non-local property of X but only about the local property of X with respect to Y upon some surface, which is non-local w.r.t both X and Y axis.

Who is this “we”? The fact of the matter remains that your “non-local” line can be specifically “local” in all dimensions but one, as well as your “non-local” ascription being simply self-contradictory.

You simply do not get it The Man, only a point is a local-only element.

Elements of higher spaces can be local or non-local w.r.t to other elements, but you totally ignore their non-local property and care only about their local property.

By using this limited reasoning, there is no wonder that you do not get Non-locality.

Furthermore, by using your “X axis is local w.r.t Y axis” you miss the additional view that X axis is both on AND not on Y axis, which is a non-local property that no point on Y axis has.

You still simply do not get that your “non-local” line is only a point in any orthogonal dimension or space. So not only do you have your self-contradictory “belongs to AND does not belong to” ascription of “non-local” you are now going to add the ridiculous and self-contradictory assertion that “X axis is both on AND not on Y axis”. You do so enjoy your “fog”.

“not mutually exclusive” means that there is no XOR connective between them.

No it just means that each of the concepts does not necessarily exclude the other. It in no way infers that one will not and/or can not make a choice between an action or decision they find to be logical XOR another they find to be ethical.

In that case they are sharable (both true) under a one framework, and OM is some effort to develop such a framework.

Yes they do not restrict some action or decision from being considered both logical AND ethical. However your OM has no such "framework", based on its “non-local” ascription some action or decision could “belong to AND not belong to” something considered ethical AND logical. So your OM ethics and logic is just a dodge to posit whatever you want as being “non-locally” ethical and logical. (as this thread has clearly shown).

On the contrary you are doing your best in order to save Ethics and Logics as two concepts that can’t share a one framework.

As I said they are not mutually exclusive, so considering something as both logical AND ethical is not inherently problematic. However they are not mutually inclusive either. Something considered ethical does not automatically confer logic (particularly binary logic) and something being logical does not constitute it being ethical.

Why is that The Man? (after all if they are not disjoint, so they can share common things that may help us to develop them under a one framework).

Because they are not mutually inclusive. However ethics unfettered by logic is by definition irrational and ethics entirely constrained by logic (particularly binary logic) tends to be uncompassionate. Your OM “framework” is highly questionable and suspect both logically and ethically as are your obviously paranoid motivations and stated reasons for positing it, as you repeat in the post I just quoted from. Had you actually studied history you would have found (as I have told you already) that the imposition of a singular (generally binary) logical (with us XOR against us) and particularly ethical (good XOR bad) framework has been the hallmark of tyrants throughout the ages.

Again:

<subsequent nonsense snipped>

Doron your notions and assertions about logic and ethics are at best uninformed, misguided and naive, at worst they are just illogical and unethical.

 

[Complexity]

Doron your notions and assertions about logic and ethics are at best uninformed, misguided and naive, at worst they are just illogical and unethical.

I concur.

 

[The Man]

Thanks, I now feel strangely and complexly worthy.


I do have to remark though that in a dissertation titled “Mathematics As a Tool For Survival” opening with the comparative ethics of Dirty Harry in “Magnum Force” one would think that he couldn’t go anywhere but up from there, I guess not.

 

[Complexity]

Thanks, I now feel strangely and complexly worthy.


I do have to remark though that in a dissertation titled “Mathematics As a Tool For Survival” opening with the comparative ethics of Dirty Harry in “Magnum Force” one would think that he couldn’t go anywhere but up from there, I guess not.

You are, aptly named, The Man.

 

[Skeptic]

Thanks, I now feel strangely and complexly worthy.

"People on Top Floor Feel Vaguely Superior to Others in Building" -- The Onion headline.

 

[doronshadmi]

A zero dimensional space would have just one point and again you could label that whatever you want.

In that case you are not following the consistent reasoning that is based on the minimal number of labels that a given point has with respect to a given space.

Furthermore, even if we are following your reasoning, then a point in 0-space has at most one label, where in the case of a segment (closed or opened) a point may have more than a one label (in the case of a closed segment) or a one label of an endpoint which is different than the label of the other endpoint (in the case of an opened segment).

So also by following your reasoning, S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X because S is the result of the projection of all infinitely many bended versions of Koch's fracal of constant sum X>0 upon the non-bended version of constant sum X>0, where X>0 can have more than two labels, and the limit (which is a point of an 0-space) has at most one label.

By understanding this fundamental difference, the value of the limit is not one of the added values of S and as a result there is an unclosed gap between S and X (= fog 0.000...3/4), which is based on the inability of a space that has more than one label (which is related to one of more points that are related to it) to be reduced into a space that has at most one label of the given point of that space.

In other words The Man, your continuous aggressive and rough attitude about this fine subject prevents from you to get a fine proof without words like http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5795672&postcount=9323 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5799260&postcount=9332 .

 

[doronshadmi]

A 1 or multidimensional space would have an infinite number of points and again you could label them whatever you want or not at all.

Above you are specifically talking about the labeling of dimensions “{x,y,z,... }” and using “a given point” to establish the dimensions of your “spaces”.

Your reasoning is not developed beyond the local-only view (based on a collection of points) of the considered subject, so let me help you.

A 1 or multidimensional space does not need any point in order to be defined, since it is non-local by its very own nature, exactly as 0-space is local by its vary own nature, and these notions are axiomatic.

You simply can't get the following:

n= 1 to ∞

k= 0 to n-1

k-space is local w.r.t n-space, and n-space is non-local w.r.t k-space.

No elements of that spaces are needed here.

 

[doronshadmi]

I am far better suited to explain my own reasoning than you, so see above.

Not even close, as clearly demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5816833&postcount=9438 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5816889&postcount=9439.