Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

oppsss...

 

[jsfisher]

Call the function whatever you like, it does not change the fact that we are dealing here with a complementary relation between position (location, or locality) and momentum (non-location, or non-locality.

Well, that may be how you choose to view things, Doron, but the rest of us don't. Moreover, you view is completely irrelevant. Heisenberg was in no way handicapped for his failure to apply Doronetic principles.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle remains, un-phased by its ignorance of OM. And, even more telling, you add nothing when you try to force your notions on it.

So, not only is Doronetics ill-defined, contradictory, and inconsistent. It also has no mathematical value. It adds nothing.

 

[doronshadmi]

I will add to my list of stupid things Doron says and believes that words and meaning have nothing to do with language.

Does "Stupid" (English) or "Tippesh" (Hebrew) are two different things because they are expressed by different languages?

 

[doronshadmi]

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle remains

Like any religious, dogmatic and anti-evolutionist (avoiding mutations of already existing system) attitude, jsfisher rejects any novel view of already accepted thingsall along this thread, because it does not fit to his limited local/serial-only reasoning, which indeed gets non-local/parallel reasoning as a contradiction from his particular limited local/serial-only reasoning.

 

[jsfisher]

Like any religious, dogmatic and anti-evolutionist (avoiding mutations of already existing system) attitude, jsfisher rejects any novel view of already accepted thingsall along this thread, because it does not fit to his limited local/serial-only reasoning, which indeed gets non-local/parallel reasoning as a contradiction from his particular limited local/serial-only reasoning.

Nope. I reject your fantasies because they are ill-defined, contradictory, inconsistent, and irrelevant. What part of that was unclear?

 

[Apathia]

Doron,

Since The Man replied to my post of questions to you,
I'll take your reply to The Man as containng your answer to me.

What Traditional Mathematics can't stomach is Non-locality, Superposition of ids (real uncertainty), parallel reasoning, incompetence, etc… exactly because it is based on local\serial-only reasoning of the researched.

"Non-Locality":
That which enables elements to be gathered together in a common class identity, or on the other hand to stand "Parallel" in their distinct, individual identity.

"Superposition of IDs" in "uncertainty":
Individual elements singled out, though they don't have a clear and fixed common class.
My desk again: It's covered with various objects that have little in common to answer how many blahs.

Reading glasses,
Cat key chain that says meow when you push a button,
A rock that by chance looks like a hand giving the finger,
A toenail,
a sphere of malachite,
and so on.

But actually I can give these the serial treatment, and will inescapably do so if I count them.
5 items on my desk.
The Redundancies are
5 items on my desk
5 items I counted
5 Items

Summoning quantity, I can't help but deal in some common, defining class.
So where's the "parallel" that the ordinary concept of number ignores?
How does number escape "seriality?"
Unless you mean that you can use numbers simply designate items:
The First, The Second, so on.

What I get is a list.
And I suppose you might mean "Uncertainty" in the sense that the list of items on my desk is of uncertain quantity, for I can just keep tacking items on to the list indefinitely.

Or they don't have a certain identity of how many what.

But we do deal with a what.
what is on my desk

Of course you can talk about what independent of number.
"What have I got in my pocket?
Something exists in Bilbo's pocket, but the quantity of it is irrelevant.
"Cardinality as a "measure of existence," has nothing to do with this question.
We don't even have to give it the nominative designation of "One."

So, I'm still a bit confused about what a "superposition of IDs" has to do with quantity and number.
OK, you've got a matrix where both the nominative and quantitative uses of number words are set out next to each other.
Well, it can't get beyond that, since mathematical formulas have only to do with number in the quantitative sense or what you call "seriality."

Since Math does not deal with superposition of ids, it can't really deal with Uncertainty.

Of course. Math immediately starts counting items of a common class.
It only counts what "counts" as a member of the class of things being counted.
And it doesn't want to be burdened with the inclusion in the count of all the myriad of things that aren't of the assumed and designated class. So it naturally ignores what is "non-local" to the a designated collection.

It's method of inclusion is to expand the boundary or cast a wider net with a more general class.

In OM, boundaries are to be breached, except when they are in the narrow, "asymmetric" case of usage.

There is certainly something positive to be said about the way non-linear thinking transcends narrow class bound thoughts.
I see your intent to make a space for that in the discipline of Mathematics.
Though I wonder if you can really spell out the rules for something that is probably lawless.

"incompetence?"
Yeah, mathematicians don't much stomach that.

 

[doronshadmi]

Nope. I reject your fantasies because they are ill-defined, contradictory, inconsistent, and irrelevant. What part of that was unclear?

Really?

For example:

You define a line segment by a collection of two localities like [0,1].

By doing that you are missing the non-local property of that segment.


You define Uncertainty by using ordered degrees of probability between 0 and 1, that are based on (A,B) form.

By doing that you are missing the superposition of ids ( (AB) form ) as the real state of Uncertainty.


You define an infinite convergent long addition in terms of a sum.

By doing that you are missing fogs and the incompleteness of infinite interpolation.


In general your reasoning is limited to local/serial-only reasoning.

By doing that you are missing the non-local/parallel aspect of reasoning.


Etc… etc…

 

[jsfisher]

Really?

For example:

You define a line segment by a collection of two localities like [0,1].

No, I don't.

By doing that you are missing the non-local property of that segment.

...which adds nothing to the discussion except ill-defined terms, contradiction, inconsistency, and irrelevance.

You define Uncertainty by using ordered degrees of probability between 0 and 1, that are based on (A,B) form.

No, I don't.

By doing that you are missing the superposition of ids ( (AB) form ) as the real state of Uncertainty.

...which adds nothing to the discussion except ill-defined terms, contradiction, inconsistency, and irrelevance.

You define an infinite convergent long addition in terms of a sum.

No, I don't.

By doing that you are missing fogs and the incompleteness of infinite interpolation.

...which adds nothing to the discussion except ill-defined terms, contradiction, inconsistency, and irrelevance.

In general your reasoning is limited to local/serial-only reasoning.

By doing that you are missing the non-local/parallel aspect of reasoning.

...which adds nothing to the discussion except ill-defined terms, contradiction, inconsistency, and irrelevance.


By the way, since you have given up trying to correct your 3X3 tree thing, and you have failed to correct your misrepresentation of Heisenberg, perhaps you can focus all of your efforts on exhibiting an actual result of Doronetics?

 

[sympathic]

No, I don't.



...which adds nothing to the discussion except ill-defined terms, contradiction, inconsistency, and irrelevance.



No, I don't.



...which adds nothing to the discussion except ill-defined terms, contradiction, inconsistency, and irrelevance.



No, I don't.



...which adds nothing to the discussion except ill-defined terms, contradiction, inconsistency, and irrelevance.



...which adds nothing to the discussion except ill-defined terms, contradiction, inconsistency, and irrelevance.


By the way, since you have given up trying to correct your 3X3 tree thing, and you have failed to correct your misrepresentation of Heisenberg, perhaps you can focus all of your efforts on exhibiting an actual result of Doronetics?

An actual result of OM are the 256 pages of this thread.

 

[doronshadmi]

No, I don't.



...which adds nothing to the discussion except ill-defined terms, contradiction, inconsistency, and irrelevance.



No, I don't.



...which adds nothing to the discussion except ill-defined terms, contradiction, inconsistency, and irrelevance.



No, I don't.



...which adds nothing to the discussion except ill-defined terms, contradiction, inconsistency, and irrelevance.



...which adds nothing to the discussion except ill-defined terms, contradiction, inconsistency, and irrelevance.


By the way, since you have given up trying to correct your 3X3 tree thing, and you have failed to correct your misrepresentation of Heisenberg, perhaps you can focus all of your efforts on exhibiting an actual result of Doronetics?

What a vacuous reply.

 

[Kopji]

This IS, as far as I can tell, an argument to bring back the kittens.

 

[The Man]

Call the function whatever you like, it does not change the fact that we are dealing here with a complementary relation between position (location, or locality) and momentum (non-location, or non-locality).

Doron it is specifically the relation of the wave functions that make it a “complementary relation between position” “and momentum”. Again the uncertainty in position specifically derives from wavelength, which is dependent on momentum.

Again the complementary relation is between the uncertainty in position and the uncertainty in momentum, exactly because they are mutually independent…

Absolutely false if they were mutually independent a change in momentum would not result in a change in wavelength and a change in wavelength would not result in a change in momentum. That is mutual independence that a change in one aspect does not result in a change in the other aspect.

(the simultaneous accurate result among them is avoided exactly because position and momentum save their independency under mutual measurement) and this fact that simply makes your "mutual dependency" a load of nonsense that has wrong understanding of the reseached.

No Doron if they had “independency under mutual measurement” we could measure them both to any arbitrary degree of accuracy. The fact that our uncertainty of one is dependent on our uncertainty of the other is specifically why we can not measure both to any arbitrary degree of accuracy. Once again you clearly demonstrate that your notions are not only completely unsupported by the evidence, they are completely contradicted by the evidence.

by your own assertions your “superposition” does not “use” superposition of ids, which is the real state of superposition.

Stop lying Doron, I have certainly never made any such assertion. That was your assertion before just as it is still simply your assertion now. My response likewise is the same now as it was before. Who cares? Why should anyone care what you claim “does not “use”” your “superposition of ids” when you claim your “superposition of ids” simply does not use, well, superposition?

Still can't get the difference between (AB) and (A,B) and how they are particular cases of ON, isn't it The Man?

Sure I can, one is not your “superposition of ids”, “(A,B)”, and the other is your “superposition of ids”, “(AB)” that does not use superposition. Again who cares? As you obviously do not care yourself, otherwise you would use both the word superposition and its meaning. Other than simply using the word and claiming you specifically do not use its meaning or you would find a word, or define a new word, that actually represents whatever it is you are trying to represent.

What Traditional Mathematics can't stomach is Non-locality, Superposition of ids (real uncertainty), parallel reasoning, incompetence, etc… exactly because it is based on local\serial-only reasoning of the researched.

Well I must say you’ve certainly seem to have that “incompetence” part nailed down pretty well. If your notions have a competence/incompetence “linkage” you might want to consider focusing on the former rather than that latter.

Since Math does not deal with superposition of ids, it can't really deal with Uncertainty.

Again who care what you claim “does not deal with” your “superposition of ids” which you claim does not use superposition. Math deals with uncertainty and the specific relationship between the uncertainty of position and momentum has already been given to you, deal with it Doron. Oops that’s right your ON’s can’t deal with math so you just have to make up some self-contradictory nonsense like “superposition of ids” without superposition.

 

[doronshadmi]

Apathia,

First of all I which to thank you about your real efforts to get my non-standard ideas, and believe me that I am doing my best in order to express notions that are not covered by the current traditional view of the considered subjects.

Though I wonder if you can really spell out the rules for something that is probably lawless

Apathia, the rules are the linkage among the qualitative aspects that enable the quantitative aspect of Math.

I am rigorous about these qualities by using NXOR/XOR reasoning as a one logical comprehensive framework, that enables the symmetry of superposition of ids and the asymmetry of strict ids, as two aspects of a one comprehensive (and I would say Organic) framework.

If one tries to get the NXOR aspect in terms of XOR , or XOR aspect in terms of NXOR aspect of NXOR/XOR reasoning he always gets a contradiction.

Jsfisher and The Man get NXOR as a contradiction because they are forcing the XOR aspect of NXOR/XOR reasoning in order to get its NXOR aspect.

There is also the contradiction that is based on forcing NXOR on XOR but jsfisher and The Man can’t get this, because all they get is XOR (the logical reasoning of Locality).

Uncertainty of ids means that if the system is finite, then the quantitative aspect (the cardinality) of this superposition is clearly known, but the involved ids under a given quantity (cardinality) is uncertain.

This is the symmetric aspect under a given cardinality, and it is the result of the parallel view that is derived from the non-local (line-like) aspect of the considered system. But there is also the asymmetric aspect under a given cardinality, and it is the result of the serial view that is derived from the local (point-like) aspect of the considered system.

OM is the comprehensive framework of both symmetric and asymmetric aspects, where Traditional Math uses only the asymmetrical rules of it.

Furthermore, since Non-locality is not a fundamental qualitative property of Traditional Math and its traditional local-only reasoning, it has no ability to get “fogs” or “incompleteness” as normal properties of any framework that really deals with non-trivial Complexity.

This inability clearly seen when Traditional Math forces it local-only reasoning on infinite collections, by claiming that they have accurate cardinality (Cantor’s transfinite system) or accurate sum (the limit of a convergent series).

Along this thread another aspect (which is social by nature) was discovered.

Traditional mathematicians like jsfisher and The Man have clear approach of a religious-like dogma about their expertise, which actually prevents any meaningful communication with persons that do not follow with their agreed dogma.

This dogmatic behaviour is anti-evolutionist by nature because it does not allow changes (mutations) in already agreed terms, and as a result things must be put side by side under disjoint context-dependent frameworks.

A general view of this demand gives us fragmented isolated closed areas that speck with each other only by “happy accidents”, and as a result no deep understanding is developed among this fragments.

Organic Mathematics fundamentally changes this approach by asserting that there is a common “trunk” to these fragments, and only then they can really considered as “branches” of a one organic body of knowledge.

 

[jsfisher]

An actual result of OM are the 256 pages of this thread.

...which has been riddled with ill-defined terms, contradiction, inconsistency, and irrelevance championed by the OP.

What a vacuous reply.

If it were so vacuous, why did you need to reply twice? No matter.

Were it truly vacuous, it would be extremely easy for you, Doron, to discount my post: Simply exhibit just one real result produced by Doronetics. Not an existing result you've twisted into your fantasy math, and not an assertion that has no consequence.

Come on, let's see it: One real result.

 

[doronshadmi]

Absolutely false if they were mutually independent a change in momentum would not result in a change in wavelength and a change in wavelength would not result in a change in momentum.

You still get mutually-independent in terms of independent-only exactly because you are using your local-only view of any considered subject.

The rest of your post collapsed under this limitation, and as a result you have no meaningful thing to say about the considered subject.

 

[The Man]

<Preceding nonesense snipped>
If one tries to get the NXOR aspect in terms of XOR , or XOR aspect in terms of NXOR aspect of NXOR/XOR reasoning he always gets a contradiction.

Jsfisher and The Man get NXOR as a contradiction because they are forcing the XOR aspect of NXOR/XOR reasoning in order to get its NXOR aspect.

There is also the contradiction that is based on forcing NXOR on XOR but jsfisher and The Man can’t get this, because all they get is XOR (the logical reasoning of Locality).

<Subsequent nonsense snipped>

Absolutely false, again A XOR NOT A is always TRUE (a tautology) while A NXOR NOT A is always FALSE (a contradiction). The only one that is “forcing NXOR on XOR” is you and then you simply try to ascribe your own “forcing” to jsfisher and myself.

 

[The Man]

You still get mutually-independent in terms of independent-only exactly because you are using your local-only view of any considered subject.

What? As I clearly stated mutual independence is dependent on neither aspect affecting the other. So in whatever “terms” you want to put it, even in terms of dependence, you are still demonstrably wrong.

The rest of your post collapsed under this limitation, and as a result you have no meaningful thing to say about the considered subject.

Once again the purported limitation is entirely yours Doron and thus so too is the lack of any “meaningful thing to say about the considered subject”.

 

[jsfisher]

You still get mutually-independent in terms of independent-only exactly because you are using your local-only view of any considered subject.

The rest of your post collapsed under this limitation, and as a result you have no meaningful thing to say about the considered subject.

Here, let me translate this gibberish for everyone. Doron is saying:

You have to use my meanings for terms like "mutually-independent". I won't tell you those meanings because they frequently change. Moreover, since my meanings bear little similarity to standard usage, you will always be wrong in your use.

I'm right, and you're wrong, by definition. QED

 

[The Man]

Unfortunately I just can’t let this piece of subsequent nonsense pass unabated.

This is the symmetric aspect under a given cardinality, and it is the result of the parallel view that is derived from the non-local (line-like) aspect of the considered system.

So now your “parallel view” and “non-local” “aspect of the considered system“ are in fact linear “(line-like)”?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/linear

lin•e•ar
   ˈlɪn i ərShow Spelled[lin-ee-er] Show IPA
–adjective

1. of, consisting of, or using lines: linear design.

2. pertaining to or represented by lines: linear dimensions.

3. extended or arranged in a line: a linear series.

4. involving measurement in one dimension only; pertaining to length: linear measure.

5. of or pertaining to the characteristics of a work of art in which forms and rhythms are defined chiefly in terms of line.

6. having the form of or resembling a line: linear nebulae.

7. Mathematics .

a. consisting of, involving, or describable by terms of the first degree.

b. having the same effect on a sum as on each of the summands: a linear operation.

 

[Apathia]

Uncertainty of ids means that if the system is finite, then the quantitative aspect (the cardinality) of this superposition is clearly known, but the involved ids under a given quantity (cardinality) is uncertain.

I take that to mean that I have
my paper clip,
my pen,
my toenail,
my malachite sphere,
my bottle of ibuprofen,
my "the finger" rock.
All with definite cardinaity of six.

What I don't have, what is uncertain here, is how many of whats, quantities of common identity (or class). There's not much "redundancy" for this list, but lots of "uncertainty."

So that's what OM wishes to include that ordnary math ignores.
That is quantity independent of identities or common properties to make up classes of things counted as belonging to said clases.

The difficulty I'm having with this is that when I count the items listed above and arrive at the quantity six, I nevertheless use a common ID to gather them together.

"Items," or "Things on my desk,' or "items of a list."
What happens to the parallel-only, superposition-only cardinalty then?

I have to run now, but thinks for paying attention to my n00b questions.