• 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:
You have no idea what mutual independence is.

You have no idea what Non-locality is.

Yoy have no idea what atomic self-state is (that has no id, which is the source of any id's form).
Click to expand...


Neither do you.

You're just making this stuff up, and doing it very badly.
 
Skeptic said:
I see.

Crap, everybody in the world except Doron had been doing math wrong for the last 400 years!
Click to expand...

Indeed. And this comes from someone who claims we don't understand infinity. He sees himself as the Einstein of Math. What he does not realize is that Einstein is actually the Cantor of Physics...
 
Apathia said:
Thanks Doron. I'm delighted. (if not enlightened).



Yup! That's a part of what I've contended all along. Numbers have no inherent, ontological existence.
This includes traditional mathematical infinity as an infinite quantity.
It is a concept, not a metaphysical reality.

But of course you find it an unacceptable concept because you work from qualitative Infinity, where you point out that no quantity can have the quality of Infinity. Quantity is derived from Qualitative Infinity and Qualitative Finitude.

I'm glad that my first impression was the correct one.
I think I got lost when I was trying to understand your special modes of organic Number.
Now I can return to those and ask you their purpose or application (apart from just an exercise in Memory/Object Linkage).
Click to expand...

Please start from self responsibility as a fundamental term of any application that is derived from the mathematical science, which by OM is the science of Complexity's development.
 
The Man said:
This is specifically due to NOT A being the negation of A. You still don’t understand negation.
Click to expand...
You still do not understand that you are using a one-id reasoning, where A has simultaneously one and only one id, called True, False or whatever.

A non-one-id reasoning deals with the simultaneity of being more than a one id, which is a contradiction only if it is understood in terms of a one-id reasoning.

Both one-id and non-one-id reasonings are derived form that has no id, which is the "transparent" base ground that enables the full expression of any given "color", where a "color" can be a one-id reasoning or a non-one-id reasoning, in this case.

You may claim: one-id reasoning AND non-one-id reasoning, is a contradiction (always False in your language).

By doing that you are simply using a one-id reasoning in order to conclude something about
one-id reasoning AND non-one-id reasoning, and get a contradiction (always False in your language), which is a must have result of a one-id reasoning, where A has simultaneously one and only one id, called True, False or whatever.

By taking a one-id reasoning as the one and only one valid reasoning, you simply miss the non-one-id reasoning and the base ground of any reasoning that has no id.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Please start from self responsibility as a fundamental term of any application that is derived from the mathematical science, which by OM is the science of Complexity's development.
Click to expand...

I should have added that the way you express things is often strongly confusing.
Any mathematical application does not have self responsibility as a property of itself.
It's simply that your Organic Number generation by bridging between parallel and serial perspectives illustrates the active choice of whoever is doing the counting.
Three oranges may be just two oranges, because I might decide to exclude one from the count. And I'm involved in identifying them as each being oranges.

The point of it all is that Mathematics is an act of creativity.

More fundamentally it arises from the decisive act of contrasting and separating one space from another, and then bridging back and forth between them.

Or in another way its a shifting of perspectives.
You count the number of trees in the forest by shifting between a collective view of forest and an individual tree view.

Come to think of it this thing of contrasting and crossing the contrasts is the most basic component of counting.
 
Apathia said:
Any mathematical application does not have self responsibility as a property of itself.
Click to expand...
Again, the mathematical science is a tool and not a goal.

This tool has to be developed by using self responsibility of the user during real time mathematical activity, which is aware of the possible results of this activity on Simplicity\Complexity Linkage reinforcing.

Furthermore, by using ON's (http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT pages 18-19 and in particular pages 31-35) I provide a model that explains why Mathematics actually works in what is called, the real life.

This time please try to get the connection between pages 18-19 and pages 31-35.
 
Complexity said:
Neither do you.

You're just making this stuff up, and doing it very badly.
Click to expand...

- W. Somerset Maugham said:
It is a great nuisance that knowledge can only be acquired by hard work."
Click to expand...

Where is your detailed hard work that supports your statment? Or maybe it is a great nuisance for you?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Again, the mathematical science is a tool and not a goal.

This tool has to be developed by using self responsibility of the user during real time mathematical activity, which is aware of the possible results of this activity on Simplicity\Complexity Linkage reinforcing.

Furthermore, by using ON's (http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT pages 18-19 and in particular pages 31-35) I provide a model that explains why Mathematics actually works in what is called, the real life.

This time please try to get the connection between pages 18-19 and pages 31-35.
Click to expand...


I see you are again recycling the same junk mathematics that resulted in Moshe leaving these fora in disgrace. If you can't get things right on page 1, why should anyone look beyond that and expect to find anything less wrong on pages 18?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Again, the mathematical science is a tool and not a goal.

This tool has to be developed by using self responsibility of the user during real time mathematical activity, which is aware of the possible results of this activity on Simplicity\Complexity Linkage reinforcing.

Furthermore, by using ON's (http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT pages 18-19 and in particular pages 31-35) I provide a model that explains why Mathematics actually works in what is called, the real life.

This time please try to get the connection between pages 18-19 and pages 31-35.
Click to expand...

On no. The Cybernetic Kernals again!
Maybe in another year's time I'll figure out what they are and why you use them.
In the meantime, just trying to read that derails my train of thought on this subject, covers my mouth with duct tape, and condemns me to mixed metaphors.
 
jsfisher said:
I see you are again recycling the same junk mathematics that resulted in Moshe leaving these fora in disgrace. If you can't get things right on page 1, why should anyone look beyond that and expect to find anything less wrong on pages 18?
Click to expand...

Things are there right from page 1.

EDIT: Cybernetic Kernels are discussed in pages 18-19 and 31-35.
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
On no. The Cybernetic Kernals again!
Maybe in another year's time I'll figure out what they are and why you use them.
In the meantime, just trying to read that derails my train of thought on this subject, covers my mouth with duct tape, and condemns me to mixed metaphors.
Click to expand...
Try pages 31-35.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom