• 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 - It is quite apparent that jsfisher understands this better than you do.

You're having fun playing with a curiosity.

What is its value? Why should it be regarded as important?

Why the hell have you wasted nearly 10,000 posts on this fluff?
 
doronshadmi said:
Read the end of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5958767&postcount=9924 .
Click to expand...


No. Write a short explanation, no more than 100 words, no pictures.

Answer those questions to my satisfaction and I'll work to understand what you're up to. Otherwise, this is all an utter waste of time.

If you do attempt to answer those questions, please do so using fairly conventional English without any grandiose claims, without links, and without fog of any kind.

Clarity, brevity, and responsiveness will get your reply read.
 
Complexity said:
I never follow any of your links, doron.

See post #9941 for the reason.
Click to expand...

If you never follow any of my link (or in other words, ignore my posts) you can't conclude that:
Complexity said:
doronshadmi - It is quite apparent that jsfisher understands this better than you do.
Click to expand...

Maybe you mean that you understand jsfisher's posts better than my posts.
 
Last edited:
You may wonder where I get off making demands.

You have been obtuse and demanding for nearly 10,000 posts.

You obviously want to be understood and to have your work appreciated.

Join the club.

If you want intelligent readers who are prepared to work through the verbal thicket that you have erected around your work, you are going to have to meet us more than half-way.

I've given you my demands, and I'll add one more. Do not use any private jargon in your response to me. Only use words whose meanings can be looked up and found in dictionary.com.
 
doronshadmi said:
If you never follow any of my link (or in other words, ignore my posts) you can't conclude that:

Maybe you mean that you understand jsfisher's posts better than my posts.
Click to expand...


I've read many of your posts since rejoining the JREF community a few months ago.

I didn't (and won't) follow links in your posts. If you have a point to make, make it, don't simply point to a post that obviously didn't achieve communications in the past and is very unlikely to do so this time around.

I have an idea what this entire mess is about. jsfisher seems to have a good handle on it, if I'm not mistaken. He is also able to communicate about it well if he wants to invest the time and effort to do so.

As far as I can tell, your undertanding of your own work is patchy and your communication skills really suck.

If you want an informed readership, you're going to have to work a lot harder for it.
 
doronshadmi said:
You missed the understanding of it.
Click to expand...

Odd that you'd say that, since the rest of your post demonstrates you don't understand it.

jsfisher, I can strip of all the nonsense you insist on adding when using unordered 2-tuples, by using a 1-tuple (0-Uncertainty x 0-Redundancy) where each element is one of ten symbols (which is, by the way, the particular case of F (1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0) under 10x10 tree):
...
for 2x2 tree, so?
Click to expand...

Yep, you could do that. It wouldn't address the original question, though, now would it?

You keep forgetting what the original question was, don't you? It was a simple question of "how many." I showed that your question could be converted to another, equivalent question, a question for which there was a simple answer.

Answering your question yourself is something you continue to be unable to do. Your little excursion into self-deception and confusion, above, does not end up with the answer to the question; it starts with it. What good is that?

In other word, by ignoring Uncertainty or Redundancy you are not dealing with k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy trees.
Click to expand...

Never said I was. I was just answering your question, correctly, by the way.

I annoys you that those uncertain and redundant properties aren't significant to the question you posed, doesn't it?
 
I'm still waiting.


There are six responses:
  1. Explain, clearly and coherently and merciful brevity why your work is of important, of value, and worth someone's time.
  2. Do any of the above but not all of it.
  3. Emit fog and incoherent nonsense (i.e. none of it)
  4. Admit that it is important, etc., but that you don't know how to explain why
  5. Admit that it isn't important, etc.
  6. Do nothing, which is equivalent to 4 and/or 5 depending upon my whim
My whim is tired of this stuff and very inclined towards: 6 => 5

Hop to it.
 
doronshadmi said:
By using a notation to represent variable or constant you are unable to distinguish between the different types of information.
Click to expand...

"By using a notation to represent variable or constant" you (and I mean just you) may be "unable to distinguish between the different types of information" and I seriously doubt your inability has anything to do with the "notation". Guess what, your "AB" is a notation for your "uncertainty".

doronshadmi said:
For example: 2 can be amount or order, but it is also used as a distinction tool for uncertainty or redundancy.
Click to expand...

No it isn't since your "uncertainty or redundancy" still remain distinctly undefined.

doronshadmi said:
This is exactly what Organic Numbers are, they have amount and distinction (uncertainty and redundancy) in a one framework (where order is based on amount and distinction).
Click to expand...

Again no they are not as your "uncertainty or redundancy" still remain distinctly undefined.

For your information Doron “amounts” (or numbers) are already ‘distinct’ from other “amounts” (or numbers) so they have “amount and distinction” already.

doronshadmi said:
Things are not changed if you are using a variable, because a variable is nothing but a certain notation that helps you to point on some data, but it does not provide you any information about the amount, order or distinction of that data.
Click to expand...

Sure they are changed, a variable is useful while your notions are not. Again Doron try using some math and you will find that a vast amount of information can be obtained by using a variable, while you can’t even use or define your terms “distinction (uncertainty and redundancy)” in a self consistent fashion.

doronshadmi said:
Exactly the opposite, by using Z I have no idea what it represents (amount, order distinction) except the fact that Z is a certain notation.
Click to expand...

Again what it represents is variable that is what makes it a, well, variable.

doronshadmi said:
On the contrary, AB is exactly an uncertain notation.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, your "AB" is just a notation that you ascribe to your “uncertainty” that you referred to as a “superposition” while claiming you “do not use” superposition. Again your primary uncertainty is simply about your own notions and somehow you think that must be imbued in your notations.
 
The man said:
On the contrary, your "AB" is just a notation that you ascribe to your “uncertainty” that you referred to as a “superposition” while claiming you “do not use” superposition.
Click to expand...

The Man "superposition" can't be defined among a single thing.

For example by taking AB as a single thing like Z variable = AB superposition, you actually look at a superposition as a certain or distinct thing.

By doing that you are loosing the superposition among more than a single thing, that is notated at least as AB.

Another failure of you is that you do not understand that (AB,AB) represents 0-Uncertainty x 1-Redundancy exactly because you ignore AB superposition and uncertainty (you take AB as a one thing, and there is no superposition among a one thing).

Another misunderstanding of you is derived from you inability to grasp that 2-Uncertanty x 2-Redundancy tree is a parallel/Serial form where all its DS are in simultaneous relations under the "room" of this tree.

All you get is the serial aspect of the DS under a given tree, exactly because by your method everything is based on a serial step-by-step reasoning of the observed.
 
jsfisher said:
I annoys you that those uncertain and redundant properties aren't significant to the question you posed, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
That is the whole idea here, jsfisher, "how many?" is a too weak question that can't answer to questions where Uncertainty and Redundancy are involved, simply because an exact amount (or sum, if you wish) can't deal with real Complexity, where in real Complexity Uncertainty and Redundancy are significant and not some "white noise" that has to be eliminated, in order to discover your partial case of distinct things.


You simply can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5958767&postcount=9924 post, for example, this part:
doronshadmi said:
5) Furthermore, even the algorithm (where your method is a part of it) that is used to draw the DS of a given of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, is nothing but a serial-only tool that draws the DS, but it can't be used in order to understand the Complexity of a given k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, because this complexity is not less than both parallel/serial form (where each part of it is both local AND global case of it) which can't be understood by parallel-only or serial-only reasoning.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Still waiting for you to fix your 3X3 presentation...or will you just leave that blundered and broken?
 
Still waiting, doron.

Explain, clearly, coherently, and with merciful brevity why your work is important, of value, and worth someone's time.

No links, personal jargon, or uses or words that aren't in accord with www.Dictionary.com.

The universe is waiting.
 
doronshadmi said:
The Man "superposition" can't be defined among a single thing.
Click to expand...

I expect your "superposition" simply can’t or won’t be defined by you in any self-consistent fashion. If you’re talking about actual superposition then that it just a linear addition of something with itself or something else. Even for quantum superposition (again based on the superposition principle) a single photon does interfere (a superposition of phase differences) with itself (see single photon double slit experiments)

doronshadmi said:
For example by taking AB as a single thing like Z variable = AB superposition, you actually look at a superposition as a certain or distinct thing.
Click to expand...

Again superposition is a certain distinct thing, a linear addition. Your “superposition” however, apparently even you do not know what that is and it simply appears to be you being uncertain about some value.

doronshadmi said:
By doing that you are loosing the superposition among more than a single thing, that is notated at least as AB.
Click to expand...

Your “superposition” is already lost Doron as it is just some way for you to say you are uncertain about some value. Apparently you just like to call that a “superposition”, I guess because you think it sounds important, perhaps you think others do not actually understand superposition and that it somehow brings a quantum aspect to your notions. Regardless, you claim that you “do not use” superposition in your “superposition” so the loss remains simply yours.

doronshadmi said:
Another failure of you is that you do not understand that (AB,AB) represents 0-Uncertainty x 1-Redundancy exactly because you ignore AB superposition and uncertainty (you take AB as a one thing, and there is no superposition among a one thing).
Click to expand...

Again, by your own assertions, there is no superposition in your “superposition”.

Your “direct perception” fails you again as do your own assertions.


doronshadmi said:
(2,2) = (AB,AB) has 2-uncertainty x 2-redundancy

<snip>
Form now on let us take this as the right expression of k-uncertainty x k-redundancy tree.
Click to expand...


doronshadmi said:
F (2,2) = (AB,AB) has 2-uncertainty x 2-redundancy, and also a "room" for the DS of F (0,0) , F (1,0) , F (1,1) and F (2,1).
Click to expand...


The ignorance and contradictions again remain simply yours.

doronshadmi said:
Another misunderstanding of you is derived from you inability to grasp that 2-Uncertanty x 2-Redundancy tree is a parallel/Serial form where all its DS are in simultaneous relations under the "room" of this tree.
Click to expand...

Ah your old “parallel/Serial form” claim that you apparently think mitigates you claiming whatever self-contradictory nonsense that comes to your mind as being some great insight.

doronshadmi said:
All you get is the serial aspect of the DS under a given tree, exactly because by your method everything is based on a serial step-by-step reasoning of the observed.
Click to expand...

Ah back to the old standard label again I see with your “serial step-by-step reasoning” ascription. What happen, did you get tired of your new labels, don’t feel like inventing another (it’s about that time) or you just felt like reminiscing for old times sake?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom