Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
You still miss the use of Direct perception as a tool for fundamental questions.

Again you are looking at the symbols without understand what I write, because "what enables me to already understand?" is not a fundamental question of your reasoning.


Perhaps, then, you should have asked that question directly rather than the badly phrased, "What you already understand (before using some expression (formal or not))?"

No matter. Time to move on. Make a point if you have one.
 
Perhaps, then, you should have asked that question directly rather than the badly phrased, "What you already understand (before using some expression (formal or not))?"

No matter. Time to move on. Make a point if you have one.

So you have missed: "what enables me to already understand?" is not a fundamental question of your reasoning.
 
No, not at all you missed my response to it.

If you have a point, please move to it.
Well I see that we can't jump on baby steps in your case.

"what enables me to already understand?" is not a fundamental question of your reasoning.
 
I will ask this one last time: If you have a point to make, please move to it. Your sophomoric attempts at cleverness still bore me.
"what enables me to already understand?" is not a fundamental question of your reasoning, is an argument and you did not reply to it.
 
"(A = A) if and only if (A ~= ~A)"


Obviously, Father Totti wasn't aware of many things including the simple concatenation of Albert Einstein's initials that returns another vowel, letter O -- a letter whose shape is very similar to the shape of the circle and number zero. But even if he were through rather difficult "God doesn't play dice with the universe," that wouldn't help him to modify GOD into G0D, which is an indispensable catalyst in forming the theory explaining the mysterious burning of the negation Venn diagram.

He didn't mention anything about Revelation 22:13 to Father Luciani. He had good reasons not to. Both priests occasionally discussed the paranormal event that took place in the monastery in a general manner, and, on one occasion, Father Totti instilled an idea in Father Luciani's mind while discussing a rather small number of official miracles of the 20th century. Father Totti pretentiously viewed this state as very positive: God is surely aware of the high degree of faith in Him and so there is no reason for Him to further support the belief in His existence by initiating multitude of plainly observable phenomena of a religious character. That pleased far less liberal Father Luciani who decided to make this a subject for his next essay. He couldn't finish his previous writing on theism and atheism due to the "advice" of bishop Cannavari who became intuitively protective and decided to draw a precautionary line between Father Luciano's activities and the mysterious burning of the copy of the Venn diagram.

Father Totti was more analytic in concluding that the mysterious burning of the Venn diagram could be somewhat connected with Father Luciani's essay for which he made a copy of the diagram. The diagram included variable A where the symbol '~' negated whatever value was assigned to A. Father Totti wasn't mentally blind though; he knew that given the circumstance, the "whatever value" could have been restricted to

Ateo
~Ateo

where ~Ateo didn't have any other option but to join the population of theists.

But unrelated coincidences do happen frequently and there were no other arguments in the plain view that would tie the knot between Father Luciani's essay and the mysterious burning, which turned also A and ~A into ashes. The idea that God tossed the match just to say that He disapproves the occasional bickering between theists and atheists -- an idea likely to be born in the head of a cardinal -- didn't even cross Father Totti's mind. God's mind could have worked "mysterious ways," but in Father Totti's eyes, the real God was an intelligent person.

But this all didn't concern the Heavens that much. The Heavens had a job to do. Namely, to create the circumstances under which Father Totti would be able to modify GOD into G0D in non-arbitrary way. The modification was particular in solving the mystery of the burning copy of the Venn diagram. The type of solution will satisfy to some extent Father Totti, but he will never know the true reason why the copy of the Venn diagram went up in smoke, coz the reason involved realities that were, are, and will remain unknown to mankind forever and ever. Actually there is nothing super mysterious in what the Heavens wanted to do. The turning of GOD into G0D and the following transformations of other related symbols involves a brain performance that the Heavens needed to monitor.


Next: Before you switch it on . . .
 
Little 10 Toes said:
You no talk right. He show you wrong talk. You learn use English. You go back when you done.

Your command of maths is matched only by your facility with the English language.

So, "Whet enables me to understand?" is not a fundamantal question also in your case.


This one is just so ironically amazing, I just had to preserve it before Doron feels compelled to edit it.
 
This one is just so ironically amazing, I just had to preserve it before Doron feels compelled to edit it.

Jsfisher, it does not need any editing , "Whet enables me to understand?" is not a fundamental question of your reasoning.

As a result you have a vary limited understanding of real mathematical science.
 
The Man thank you for supporting again my claim about your local only reasoning, that can get “meaning” only under context-dependent isolated frameworks, that have nothing in common, and indeed your “universal” principle is “context-dependent isolated frameworks”.

Doron thank you again for showing that lacking any “support” for your “claim” you will simply claim support for your “claim”.

As a result you can’t get real Universality, which it’s meaning is exactly “not limited to any particular context“ that represents it.

Then it doesn’t ‘represent’ “it”. Once again you claim that the “meaning” of your “Universality” is “exactly” that it is meaningless. Again you simply can’t get that you just claiming “Universality” does not imbue or demonstrate any “Universality” and your “not limited to any particular context“ that represents it” is just a poor excuse for you simply inserting whatever nonsense suits you at that time.
 
No. By OM one knows what enables him to get something as the basis of any definition.


EDIT:

Let us take for example The Man's claim that (A ~= ~A) = (A = A).

By using The Man's reasoning-by-definition, we say:

"(A ~= ~A) if and only if (A = A)"

or

"(A = A) if and only if (A ~= ~A)"

The Man looking only on A and ignores ~, = and ~=

As a result he totally misses this fact:

A = T

~A = ~T = F

(we can use A = F ; ~A = ~F = T, but it does not matter)

[qimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2554/4149358437_87f574fa79_o.jpg[/qimg]

T = T or F = F are ture self referential comparisons, where T ≠ F is a true non self referential comparison.

(we can use also false self referential comparisons like T ≠ T , F ≠ F or false non self referential comparison like T = F:
[qimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2731/4153069414_3abcabc22e_o.jpg[/qimg]
, but it does not matter)



By using his "bla bla bla ..." reasoning, The Man simply can't get this Direct perception fact.

Still trying to force your “Direct perception fact” nonsense onto others, even though you claim…

Direct perception can't be forced.

Again stop trying to force your lack of reasoning and purported “Direct perception” onto others.
 
The Man said:
Once again you claim that the “meaning” of your “Universality” is “exactly” that it is meaningless.
Once again you show that your meaning is context dependent.

For example: a particular kind of plant represents ground's fruitfulness, but ground's fruitfulness is not limited to any particular kind of plant.

Furthermore, the meaning to the word "context" is based on two words: "connection" and "text", so Non-locality (connector, or memory)\Locality (connected, or text) Linkage is the foundation of "context".

See http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/context :

Main Entry: con-text
Pronunciation: \ˈkän-ˌtekst\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, weaving together of words, from Latin contextus connection of words
 
Still trying to force your “Direct perception fact” nonsense onto others, even though you claim…



Again stop trying to force your lack of reasoning and purported “Direct perception” onto others.

Direct perception is the most basic state of mind, and therefore can't be forced.

On the contrary "bla bla bla ..." reasoning is not the most basic state of mind, and when some context dependent "bla bla bla ..." reasoning is taken as Universality, then we really get a forced reasoning.

The sad joke in your case, The Man, is that you even do not understand the universal principle that enables you to use a word like "context".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom