Deeper than primes

[The Man]

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

Definitely.

 

[epix]

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

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

Let Euclidian non-conformity R (i) become non-local to its polygonal bound S (ii). Due to Deveroux theorem, R is a subvector T, determinably transferable (iii).

Proof:

i

ii

iii

 

[The Man]

A fine serial presentation of unparalleled parallel, epix.

 

[Apathia]

A fine serial presentation of unparalleled parallel, epix.

Ditto!

 

[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.

To my faulty memory, it seemed that the point about elements in mere "parallel" "superposition" was that they didn't add up to a sum.
It's just a 1 and another 1, and then another just 1.

So my desk is covered with one after another unique things that don't make up a sum unless I ascribed to them some common, countable identity.
At least things on my desk.

And even saying that some thing is one of its kind assumes thingness as a class.

So, strictly speaking, things that aren't counted, aren't numbered.
Number has nothing to do with those "parallel" items, unless they are numbered.
And that numbering always involves your "redundancy" "bridging."

Here are some items:

@ * & .

If I count them under the class of items, using that ID for my "Redundancy,"
There are 4.

Now lets use symbols used in web addresses as the ID.
There are 2.

Now here's what seems to be the unique thing:

OM looks at this

@ * & .

and says "4."

And it looks at this

@ .

and in the context of the above, it says

"Organic Number 4."

If you say "2,"
that's "context dependent thinking."

 

[Apathia]

@ * & .

What do we realy have here?

The Organic Number 4?
The Organic Number 6?
The organic Number 713?

But to get right to what I keep finding difficult in your OM:
It seems you want to offer a "cardinality" or quantity that is independent from or doesn't necessarily involve a sum (a how many).

This is blatantly contradictory to the meaning of quantity.

Perhaps you only mean to have uncertain quantities and sums, and as above, uncertain number.
That would be more in harmony with what most languages mean by quantity.

Previously I tried to understand your "parallel" aspect of number as number in a nomnitive meaning.
You weren't keen with that.
Your replies indicated that you wanted number in both "parallel" and "serial" to be quantitative, or at least give the quantity aspect of ordinal numbers.
(Ordinal third implies at least three, but how many or the sum remains unknown or uncertain.)

This is why I'm so focused on trying to understand your "fog."
It's what you are offering in your Organic Numbers that isn't such a feature in ordinary mathematics.

And ordinary math tries to arrive at a definite figure or a probable one.
While OM seems to want to keep some things in a fog of uncertainty.

Alas! I'm in a fog of uncertainty over just what number means in OM.

 

[doronshadmi]

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


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

After more than 250 pages, you still can't get that your definition of line by a collection of localities, is not my definition of a line as the non-local aspect of the atomic self-state.

What a poor reasoning you are using.

Absolutely false, again A XOR NOT A is always TRUE (a tautology) while A NXOR NOT A is always FALSE (a contradiction).

Wrong:

The truth table of XOR is: 0110
00 --> 0 (Non-locality)
01 --> 1 (Locality)
10 --> 1 (Locality)
11 --> 0 (Non-locality)

The truth table of NXOR is: 1001
00 --> 1 (Non-locality)
01 --> 0 (Locality)
10 --> 0 (Locality)
11 --> 1 (Non-locality)

If you try to get 1001 in terms of 0110 you get a contradiction, and this is exactly what you are doing all along this thread.

A XOR not_A is the logic of Locality.

A NXOR not_A is the logic of Non-locality, but since you are forcing XOR on NXOR you are missing it all along this thread.

 

[doronshadmi]

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.".

No, there is exactly 0-Uncertainty x 0-Redundancy in the above collection of distinct objects, which is based on (A,B,C,D,E,F) ON's form.

Number has nothing to do with those "parallel" items, unless they are numbered.

I see that you are able to get the concept of Number only in terms of (A,B,C,D,E,F,...) asymmetric form.

 

[doronshadmi]

Absolutely not true, as noted before math deals quite well with uncertainty, ranges of values, variables and even degrees of error.

“Ranges of values, variables and even degrees of error” are all the particular case of (A,B,C,...) form (where order can also be ignored in some of the cases).

You still do not get the notion of superposition of ids, which can be superposition of variables, constants, functions, any other thinkable things or any mixture of them.

In all these cases only the mount is clearly known if it is a finite superposition, and in the case of an infinite superposition also the amount is unknown.

 

[epix]

Absolutely false, again A XOR NOT A is always TRUE (a tautology) while A NXOR NOT A is always FALSE (a contradiction)

You better check Reply #10247 where you were found "wrong" pertaining to the above. He effectively flunked 1+1=2, right there. I knew it would happen one day.

 

[doronshadmi]

You better check Reply #10247 where you were found "wrong" pertaining to the above. He effectively flunked 1+1=2, right there. I knew it would happen one day.

...flunked 1+1=2 ??

What are you talking about?

A XOR NOT A is always TRUE (a tautology) while A NXOR NOT A is always FALSE (a contradiction)

The Man is focused only on the local aspect of NXOR connective (where the examined values are different, for example: A,not_A or 0,1 etc...) which is indeed always False, for example:

The truth table of NXOR is: 1001
00 --> 1 (Non-locality) (True)
01 --> 0 (Locality) (False)
10 --> 0 (Locality) (False)
11 --> 1 (Non-locality) (True)

By doing that he misses the true value of Non-locality.

 

[doronshadmi]

If membership is logically examined then:

Member = !

Not a member = ?

Non-locality as expressed by NXOR:

! ?
---
0 0 --> 1 (Non-locality) (True)
0 1 --> 0 (Locality) (False)
1 0 --> 0 (Locality) (False)
1 1 --> 1 (Non-locality) (True)

 

[jsfisher]

If membership is logically examined then:

Member = !

Not a member = ?

Non-locality as expressed by NXOR:

! ?
---
0 0 --> 1 (Non-locality) (True)
0 1 --> 0 (Locality) (False)
1 0 --> 0 (Locality) (False)
1 1 --> 1 (Non-locality) (True)

Oh, Doron, you confuse things so...intentionally, too.

You introduce new symbols to conceal, not to explain. Your "?" is identical to "NOT !", so you didn't need to introduce "?". Moreover, since "! = membership" you didn't need to introduce "!", either. You also obscure the fact "membership" is a dyadic function. Your truth table makes no sense without being clear what the function arguments are.

Why not just say that in Doron's world NOT doesn't mean what it means to normal people. In Doron's world, membership can be ambiguous or undecided.

Unfortunately, there is no utility in your convoluted view of things, only contradiction, inconsistency, and irrelevance.

 

[doronshadmi]

You introduce new symbols to conceal, not to explain. Your "?" is identical to "NOT !", so you didn't need to introduce "?". Moreover, since "! = membership" you didn't need to introduce "!", either.

! or ? are just a short way of representation.

You also obscure the fact "membership" is a dyadic function

And it has local or non-local aspects w.r.t the considered element.

For example: A point is local according to it and a line is non-local according to it.

Why not just say that in Doron's world NOT doesn't mean what it means to normal people.

Why not just say that in jsfisher's world NOT is forced to be unary, and in this case it has -for example- no opposite, which is false?

Again, NOT X is anything but X, where one of the possible cases is the opposite of X.

Your local-only reasoning simply can't comprehend it.

Unfortunately, there is no utility in your convoluted view of things, only contradiction, inconsistency, and irrelevance.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what you are able to get by your local-only reasoning.

 

[jsfisher]

! or ? are just a short way of representation.

No, it is an unnecessary obfuscation.

And it has local or non-local aspects w.r.t the considered element.

For example: A point is local according to it and a line is non-local according to it.

Non sequitur. Membership is dyadic.

Why not just say that in jsfisher's world NOT is forced to be unary

Forced? NOT is defined a certain way. Is that forcing it to be something it shouldn't?

...and in this case it has -for example- no opposite, which is false?

Can you rephrase that without the gibberish?

Again, NOT X is anything but X, where one of the possible cases is the opposite of X.

Opposite? You used that word before. What does opposite have to do with NOT?

 

[Apathia]

Originally Posted by doronshadmi:

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.

Originally Posted by Apathia:

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."

.

No, there is exactly 0-Uncertainty x 0-Redundancy in the above collection of distinct objects, which is based on (A,B,C,D,E,F) ON's form.

Originally Posted by Apathia:

Number has nothing to do with those "parallel" items, unless they are numbered.

Doron:

I see that you are able to get the concept of Number only in terms of (A,B,C,D,E,F,...) asymmetric form.

It looks like you are saying that even when there is no uncertainty and no redundancy, that is when the objects in the list are not gathered into a count, but just there, there is cardinality and quantity.

I thought that maybe your idea in the above was something like at 0-uncertainty and 0-redundancy there's not cardinality but ordinality.
But it seems you insist that there is nevertheless some kind of quantity but not a sum.

An uncertain quantity. That's the best I can make of it.
But I see from you most recent reply to me, I'm wrong about that too.

I have completely misunderstood what you mean by these terms, "Redundancy" and "Uncertainty."
One way I was taking it that is not your meaning is that I thought the more redundancy you have the less uncertainty , and vice versa.
Obviously not.
Whatever these terms are supposed to mean, you can have 0% Uncertainty and 0% Redundancy and you can have 100% Uncertainty and 100& Redundancy.

Which just goes to show, I don't in the least know what these terms mean.
I have to chuck all of my attempt to understand them in terms of classes of identification.

It's clear that these words,
"Uncertainty"
"Redundancy"
"Identity"
"Number"
"Cardinality"
"Parallel"
"Serial"
and so on
do not mean anything like what an English speaking person would get from a dictionary.
But I'm at a total loss at understanding what you mean by them, because the words and phrases you use to try to explain your meaning are also not what they would ordinarily mean.

So, I am totally at a loss of making any sense of even the most basic part of what you mean by number.

In the English language, there are four ways we use numbers:

1) Cardinally: Numbers are used to count items. the count obtained is called the sum.

2) Ordinally: Numbers are used to designate place in order: the first, the second, and so on.

3)Nominatively: Numbers can be used to name an item. The Romans used ordinals to name their sons. Tertius (the Third) for example. But that's not English. A contemporary English examples might be "Seven of Nine" or "Number Six."

4. Adjectivally: Numbers are used in an adjectival qualitative sort of way.
"second hand," "first rate."

But now you have some other use of number.
I wish I had some idea what that was.

I see that you are able to get the concept of Number only in terms of (A,B,C,D,E,F,...) asymmetric form.

You can add "asymmetric" to that list of words of which I have no understanding.

This has been like bobbing in a barrel of eels.
I can't get a hold on all these slippery, slick words.
So I thought I could at least get what sort of barrel they're in.
I assumed there at least was a somewhat coherent container.

But unless you can find a way to show me what this concept of number is and how it contrasts with the traditional concepts of number,
for my own sanity, I'm going to put this thread on hide and stay away from it.

It seemed fun when I thought I was getting somewhere in understanding you.
But the eels slip out of my grasp. And the barrel rolls away.
The other participants in this thread point and laugh and say, "We told you so. He's just spouting a lot of confused nonsense. And your a dup for thinking there might be something in it."

This comedy routine is getting stale.

 

[Apathia]

Let's try another joke.

paper clip,
pen,
toenail,
malachite sphere,
bottle of ibuprofen,
"the finger" rock.

Here there is no "Uncertainty" because every item has a definite identity.
Here there is no "Redundancy" because none are of the same class of items.

But I can have a quantity. Six items (Oops, "items" is a kind of Redundancy.)

paper clip,
paper clip,
paper clip,
paper clip,
paperclip,
paper clip

Here there is no "Uncertainty," because every item has a definite identity.
Here there is total "Redundancy," because all of them ate of the same class of items.

But I can have a quantity: six paper clips (or six items).

X,
X,
X,
X,
X,
X

Here there is total "Uncertainty," because none of the items have a known or definite identity.
Here there is no "Redundancy," because we don't know what these things are to be able to group them in classes.

But here I can have a quantity of six unknowns or unknown items.

(Oopsers. there is a "Redundancy" of unknowns. It's a total "Uncertainty" and a total "Redundancy.")

paper clip,
paper clip,
paperclip,
toenail,
finger rock,
pen

Here there's no "Uncertainty," but some "redundancy."
I can have quantities. Three paper clips. Six items.

Now what's the OM point?
Undoubtedly I have lost it, because by counting them, I've gone "serial" and lost the "parallel" "element-only" level.

Or is it that OM wants to show simultaneously that on one level of group identity there are six and on another three?

Then there's this:

paper clip,
paper clip,
finger rock,
X,
pen,
X

Here there's some "Uncertainty" and some "Redundancy."
What a fine complex of quantities we get there!
six items, two paper clips, one finger rock, two unknowns.

Again what is the point of OM?
Is it to mark down that there are simultaneously different quantities on different levels of class discourse?

Or is it to mark down that there are "asymmetric," "serial" quantities and "symmetric," "parallel" quantities"
(and I have no idea what a parallel quantity is in contrast to a serial one, if parallel quantities are no-sum, no-count "quantities.")

Or is it to include undecided or uncertain quantities?
This falls apart too under close examination of your statements.

Well, that exercise didn't help.
It just becomes a more confusing mess.

 

[epix]

By doing that he misses the true value of Non-locality.

There is no such thing as "the true value of Non-locality." But I would accept otherwise, if you provide a link to an external (non-local?) subject article where this property of Non-locality is mentioned exactly the way you wrote it. Meantime, you better stay away from editing the content of your computer registry . . .

 

[doronshadmi]

Opposite? You used that word before. What does opposite have to do with NOT?

Use your poor imagination (Hint: the opposite of NOPE is YEP http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6046213&postcount=10185).

 

[doronshadmi]

There is no such thing as "the true value of Non-locality." But I would accept otherwise, if you provide a link to an external (non-local?) subject article where this property of Non-locality is mentioned exactly the way you wrote it.

This is the whole idea, it is a novel notion. You will not find it in any "external" article, because traditional Math gets Non-locality in terns of a collection of localities.