Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

No. I will not play your game. Make a new post.

So do not play it (he avoids editd posts like http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6175028&postcount=10835), I don't care.

 

[doronshadmi]

But wait, if a carrot cannot distinguish itself from a rabbit, does a rabbit eat it? No, since according to your logic, the carrot eats the rabbit. Why? The rabbit is A and you just said ~A eats A.

A or ~A are not limited to any particular example, again you are using local-only "bla bla bla …" reasoning , by not distinguish between particular example and generalization.

 

[doronshadmi]

Show how mathematics are moral.

Done in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6174709&postcount=10830 .

 

[The Man]

In other words, under no time condition you miss the difference between singular comparison as the building-block of serial observation (which is local), and non-singular comparison as the building-block of parallel observation (which is non-local).

In the same words as I used before, there is not, nor can there be, anything “serial” in or about your “serial observation” (as you described it), but there can be a serial aspect or aspects in your “parallel observation” (as you described it). If you just mean “singular comparison” and “non-singular comparison” then just call them that.

The property of the building-block of serial observation is clearly the one and only basis of your reasoning, because you get only A=A (singular comparison) and ignore the building-block of non-serial observation, which is represented as A ~= ~A (non-singular comparison).

Again, don’t try to posit your simple lack of reasoning on to others. Doron, the “building-block ” of anything serial is ordering.

Your misunderstanding of the difference between the building-blocks is clearly exposed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6158689&postcount=10770 , and demonstrates the weakness of your reasoning.

The lack of anything “serial” in your “serial observation” is clearly exposed in your description of your “serial observation” and again demonstrates that you simply have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[doronshadmi]

If you just mean “singular comparison” and “non-singular comparison” then just call them that.

The Man, singular comparison is self-referential and non-singular comparison is non self-referential, as clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6158689&postcount=10770 .

The logical reasoning that is used by you, can't distinguish between them.

Singular comparison like (A = A), (A ≠ A), (~A = ~A), (~A ≠ ~A) is fundamentally different than Non singular comparison like (A ≠ ~A), (A = ~A), and it does not matter if these expressions are True or False.

The considered framework is based on both serial and parallel observations, which are based on both singular and non singular comparisons.

Under serial observation (focused on Singular comparisons) we get anti-symmetric collection of certain ids.

Under parallel observation (focused on Non singular comparisons) we get symmetric collection of uncertain ids.

Each observed case (including intermediate states between parallel and serial observations) is both particular and general form of the observed system.

Serial-only observation simply can't get that Mutuality (connectivity among ids) and Independency (ids) are aspects of the same complex framework.

 

[epix]

Actually, if you carefully research the fundamental condition of any axiomatic framework, you find that mutuality (connectivity)\independency (isolation) linkage plays the main role. Just try to avoid it and you do not get the minimal condition to compare between axioms in order to realize if they do not contradict each other (which is the fundamental condition for consistent framework, whether it is formal or not).

I'm not that good in following verbal explanation of math/logic related issues. Can you please symbolize the following axioms, so I would understand your reply better?

1. Things which equal the same thing also equal one another.

2. If equals are added to equals, then the wholes are equal.

3. If equals are subtracted from equals, then the remainders are equal.

4. Things which coincide with one another equal one another.

5. The whole is greater than the part.

 

[jsfisher]

The "con" part of the word "context" is derived form the word "connection"

I see you are still making stuff up. Why this insistence on always being wrong, Doron? It is not that hard to look something up, then be able to say something that isn't so laughable.

The prefix, con-, is in no way derived from the word, connection.

...and "text" is derived from "words" ( "text" = "textus" = "words" in Latin), which are "a coherent set of symbols that transmits some kind of informative message" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_(literary_theory)).

More invention, I see. The word, text, does indeed come from the Late Latin, textus, meaning a written account, but text is most certainly not derived from the word, words. That part you simply made up. Such a statement by you is just dumb.

Was that your goal?

 

[epix]

Doronetics too hard . . .

is that, them circles?

 

[doronshadmi]

The prefix, con-, is in no way derived from the word, connection.

It is derived from the word "together" and in the case of con-text, we are talking about the proprty that puts text together, or in other words, define the conection among text, where text is "a coherent set of symbols that transmits some kind of informative message" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_(literary_theory))

In other words, con-text has a meaning only if text is put together (symbols are connected coherently).

So without the connection of text no meaning can be defind.

I see

You don't see.

 

[doronshadmi]

In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6175451&postcount=10845 this is an example of how context is based on connection among text, which enables serial\parallel observation under a one form.

By serial-only observation one can't get, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6016109&postcount=10078.

Again,

Traditional Math does its job very well, by calculate the amount of a partial case of k-Uncertainty x K-Redundancy tree.

The main thing here is not the "how many?" question, but what actually enables the terms to ask that question.

Since ONs are a linkage between Non-local and Local qualities, it is the fundamental term that enables Quantity, where Quantity is the basis of the "how many?" question.

"How many?" question is usually based on distinction between different ids that are added to each other in order to define a sum, which is a certain size.

But Non-locality\Locality Linkage is not limited to distinct ids, and in this case the "How many?" question is extended beyond the different ids that are added to each other in order to define a sum.

By this extension the "How many?" question can't capture the complexity of the parallel/serial linkage of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, where each part of it is both global AND local case of it, because of the qualitative principle that stands at the basis of Quantity.

k-Uncertainty x k- Redundancy are nothing but finite cases of a one and only one complex ∞-Uncertainty x ∞-Redundancy tree, yet they are based on the same principle of the ∞-Uncertainty x ∞-Redundancy tree, where this principle is the qualitative linkage between Non-locality and Locality.

The reasoning of the past 3,500 did not develop the understanding of the qualitative principle that stands at the basis of Quantity.

Organic Mathematics does exactly this, it discovers the qualitative foundations of Quantity, and step-by-step reasoning can't get that, because a step-by-step reasoning takes Quantity as a fundamental term for its development (by avoiding the understanding of its qualitative foundations) .

This is exactly the reason why Superposition is understood, for example as the sum over histories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation) of the paths of a quantum element from position A to position B, and by doing that it totally misses the qualitative linkage between Non-locality and Locality, that actually enables this sum, because a sum (which is caused by linear addition of each stimulus individually (see "serial observation" in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6175451&postcount=10845)) is nothing but some partial case of a framework that also deals with fogs and any possible mixture of sums/fogs.

This is also exactly the reason why infinite convergent elements are taken as sums and not as fogs, and this is how words like Superposition or Limit are used without any understanding (where the understanding here is exactly the qualitative foundations of Quantitiy).

 

[jsfisher]

It is derived from the word "together"

Why do you keep making stuff up? None of this agrees with reality. Is it your goal to post as many wrong things as you possibly can in every post?

The prefix, con-, comes from the Latin, cum, which means with.

Please stop covering your ignorance with more, willful ignorance. If you try even just a little bit you should be able to post something that isn't 100% wrong.

 

[doronshadmi]

The prefix, con-, comes from the Latin, cum, which means with.

Look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_prefixes

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/con-

You will find that also "together" and "joint" (see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/con- ) are used in the case of "con-" prefix.

If you try even just a little bit you should be able to post something that isn't 100% wrong.

If you try even just a little bit you should be able to realize that your are an expert of partial observations of the considered subjects.

 

[jsfisher]

The prefix, con-, comes from the Latin, cum, which means with.

Look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_prefixes

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/con-

Yes, let's do that:

Etymology 1

From the Latin prefix con-, from cum (“with”).

Gee, it comes, is derived from the word, cum, which means with. Didn't someone already say that?

Doron, important tip: If you want to make a point, don't provide references that contradict it. Con- is not derived from "together".

 

[doronshadmi]

Yes, let's do that:




Gee, it comes, is derived from the word, cum, which means with. Didn't someone already say that?

Doron, important tip: If you want to make a point, don't provide references that contradict it. Con- is not derived from "together".

Jsfisher, important tip: In order to realize that you are an expert of partial observations please read all of what is written about con- in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_prefixes

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/con-

before you reply.

EDIT:

You are right about one thing, con- is not derived from "together", "con-" has the same meaning as "together" in the case of con-text, and this is the important thing here.

 

[jsfisher]

Jsfisher, important tip: In order to realize that you are an expert of partial observations please read all of what is written about con- in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_prefixes

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/con-

before you reply.

I did read it. And I actually understood the words. Why didn't you?

Perhaps you should look up the meanings of the words, derived (as in derived from) and means. You seem to have those confused.

 

[doronshadmi]

I did read it. And I actually understood the words. Why didn't you?

Perhaps you should look up the meanings of the words, derived (as in derived from) and means. You seem to have those confused.

Let us put it this way.

You are right about one thing, con- is not derived from "together", "con-" has the same meaning as "together" in the case of con-text, and this is the important thing here, which you can't get because of your partial observation of this subject.

 

[jsfisher]

Let us put it this way.

You are right about one thing, con- is not derived from "together"

More important is that you were wrong. You keep insisting otherwise, but you stuck to a bizarrely incorrect position--and obviously incorrect position--because, once again, you didn't understand the simple words you were using.

"con-" has the same meaning as "together" in the case of con-text, and this is the important thing here.

Can have the same meaning. Can. There are other possibilities, but the exact meaning depends on the word in which con- is a prefix.

And, no, it is not really important here. You are strangely trying to invent some significance in English language etymology to Doronetics, mostly by getting in wrong. Given that Mathematics (or its foundational philosophical underpinning) and natural language have so few parallels, your insistence on trying to force correlations is truly strange.

Please stop just making stuff up.

 

[epix]

Let us put it this way.

You are right about one thing, con- is not derived from "together", "con-" has the same meaning as "together" in the case of con-text, and this is the important thing here, which you can't get because of your partial observation of this subject.

What do you expect, if you write "con-" and leave the rest to the mice? A partially written word forces a partial observation. Just stop writing incomplete words, so we can go back to the full serial observation of words stuffed with dubious meaning.

Btw, con-brio means, "If you gonna play off key, I shall burn your violin." Composers used this expression in sheet music given to the orchestra players. I'm not kidding you. Just check it out:
http://www.all-music-sheets.com/images/BeethovenSymphonyNo5.jpg

 

[epix]

In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6175451&postcount=10845 this is an example of how context is based on connection among text, which enables serial\parallel observation under a one form.

[qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4016/4618125873_6a57de20d4_o.jpg[/qimg]

I tell you what, Doron. Let that OM take on the permutations and let's see some real results. Just take the whole alphabet and make the consonants line up in all possible ways. That makes about 3.36*(10^24) permutations. Do you think that the fancy multi-D manifolds can solve the problem of getting to a particular permutation faster by skipping parts of the generating algorithm?
I bet you that OM can't do that. You need to count 1, 2, 3 . . . like you need to count the order of primes, but permutations are "deeper than primes," coz they include the factorial (!):

31 is the 11th prime, but 31! = about 8.22*(10^33).

(That Orgasmic Mathematics is kind of weird; it doesn't compute anything; it just talks.)

 

[The Man]

The Man, singular comparison is self-referential and non-singular comparison is non self-referential, as clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6158689&postcount=10770 .

Nope, and we have already been over your “self-referential” nonsense before.

The logical reasoning that is used by you, can't distinguish between them.

Again don’t try positing your simply lack of reasoning onto others.

Singular comparison like (A = A), (A ≠ A), (~A = ~A), (~A ≠ ~A) is fundamentally different than Non singular comparison like (A ≠ ~A), (A = ~A), and it does not matter if these expressions are True or False.

Well, as simple statements of equality (or the lack thereof) and not a “comparison”, they are not “fundamentally different” even though the variables involved can be. However simply equating something with it self is just trivial. While not equating something with it self just demolishes any possible consistency. It is in equating or not equating something with something else that such statements can become practical and can maintain some consistency.

The considered framework is based on both serial and parallel observations, which are based on both singular and non singular comparisons.

Again…

In the same words as I used before, there is not, nor can there be, anything “serial” in or about your “serial observation” (as you described it), but there can be a serial aspect or aspects in your “parallel observation” (as you described it).

So your “serial observation” is still just superfluous nonsense.

Under serial observation (focused on Singular comparisons) we get anti-symmetric collection of certain ids.

Nope, under your “Singular comparisons” you just get a trivial statement that something equals it self or the self-inconsistent statement that it does not. As both sides of those statements must be the same (by your own requirement) they must always be symmetrical.

Under parallel observation (focused on Non singular comparisons) we get symmetric collection of uncertain ids.

Nope, under your “Non singular comparisons” you just get statements of equality or inequality between something and something else. Although such statements can be practical and maintain consistency there is nothing inherently “symmetric” about them. Particularly in statements of inequality, which as a result of that inequality must be asymmetrical (not the same on both sides).

Each observed case (including intermediate states between parallel and serial observations) is both particular and general form of the observed system.

Serial-only observation simply can't get that Mutuality (connectivity among ids) and Independency (ids) are aspects of the same complex framework.

Again…

In the same words as I used before, there is not, nor can there be, anything “serial” in or about your “serial observation” (as you described it), but there can be a serial aspect or aspects in your “parallel observation” (as you described it).

So your “Serial-only observation simply can't get” anything that is, well, serial.