Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apathia said:
But the devil of confusion is always in the detail of how this is supposed to fit together.
Click to expand...

OM asks: "What enables the "How many?" question?"

OM asks: "What enables questions?"

OM's answer: "The Linkage among Non-local and Local qualities!"
 
doronshadmi said:
OM asks: "What enables the "How many?" question?"

OM asks: "What enables questions?"

OM's answer: "The Linkage among Non-local and Local qualities!"
Click to expand...


Your answer falls short of useful. It is figurative, not descriptive. It does not explain; it merely conflates.

Be that as it may, the questions may have some meta-physical significance, but none for Mathematics, to the answer you provided doesn't matter anyway.
 
doronshadmi said:
If X is all one gets, then ~X is undefined.
Click to expand...

Nope, you just defined it as, well, “~X”

doronshadmi said:
So what enables to get both X and ~X?
Click to expand...

Once again “~X” defines “X” (by the exclusion of “~X”, ~~X = X), just as “X” defines “~X” (by the exclusion of X, ~X=~X) that you simply don’t get that (or definition in general) does not make either undefined by the fact that it excludes the other. Again it is mutual dependence not your imaginary ‘mutual independence’.
 
doronshadmi said:
OM asks: "What enables the "How many?" question?"

OM asks: "What enables questions?"

OM's answer: "The Linkage among Non-local and Local qualities!"
Click to expand...

You'd think I had fully realized by now that I'm wrong in searching for that kind of rational coherence in OM.
Om isn't based upon the relation of classifying concepts but complexes of capricious juxtapositions of local-like/non-local-like qualities.

A = {1,2,3,4,5}
B = {1,3,5}
C = {2,4}

What's the relation of B and C?
Both subsets of A?
That's an acceptable answer, but it's not OM (or at least not the essence of it.)
Their essential relation in OM is that A, B, and C are all partial manifestations of the Local/Non-Local Complex where they are all on the same footing.
 
The Man said:
Again it is mutual dependence not your imaginary ‘mutual independence’.
Click to expand...

Worng The Man.

Mutuality and Dependency a synonyms, so if there are different things in the same system, then we are based on not less than mutual independency, exactly as two axioms are mutual independent w.r.t each other.
 
Apathia said:
You'd think I had fully realized by now that I'm wrong in searching for that kind of rational coherence in OM.
Om isn't based upon the relation of classifying concepts but complexes of capricious juxtapositions of local-like/non-local-like qualities.

A = {1,2,3,4,5}
B = {1,3,5}
C = {2,4}

What's the relation of B and C?
Both subsets of A?
That's an acceptable answer, but it's not OM (or at least not the essence of it.)
Their essential relation in OM is that A, B, and C are all partial manifestations of the Local/Non-Local Complex where they are all on the same footing.
Click to expand...

A = {1,2,3,4,5} = 1,2,3,4,5

B = {1,3,5} = 1,3,5

C = {2,4} = 2,4

So A,B and C are based on the same principle of Non-locality\Locality Linkage.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
No. If one gets X, then ~X is everything that one doesn't get.
Click to expand...

You have missed it.

The right one is: "If X is all one gets".

In that case one can't know the he can't get ~X.

The one who says: "If one gets X, then ~X is everything that one doesn't get" gets things beyond "the one who gets only X".

Getting things beyond only X in not less than X___~X.
 
So, what did you learn, Apathia? That's right, you need to underline your answers to get full credit!

doronshadmi said:
A = {1,2,3,4,5} = 1,2,3,4,5

B = {1,3,5} = 1,3,5

C = {2,4} = 2,4

So A,B and C are based on the same principle of Non-locality\Locality Linkage.
Click to expand...


And just to show you that I've learned, too: Answer: Safeway.
 
epix said:
Doron, can you check on that Time___Place local linkage? Today date is 8-3, and 8 - 3 = 5. If the place is the USA, then 5 means Connecticut, coz it is the 5th State of the Union. See, the date 8-3 is special due to the symmetry of the numbers: if you cut 8 vertically and take the right part away then you get 3. I know that there has been some problem with symmetry and asymmetry in your work, and that could cause a problem in the core processor. Can you check on the news coming from Connecticut, if there is any? The core processor becomes unstable under a certain condition and can negatively affect reasoning of the members that are linked to it.
Click to expand...

Are your eyes failing you, Doron? Or are you trying to run once again away from 1+1=2?

What is OM? What question does it ask? OM______?

OM____? = OMAR S. THORTON
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/nyregion/05shooting.html?src=mv

O(MAR S) THORTON.

Yep. The core processor that messes yours and other heads is located on the red planet. It's not easy to troubleshoot, coz it denies the fact that 1+1=2 -- meaning you can't reason with it. The only way is to "trap it." But that's a fancy procedure -- only a few can do it.
 
doronshadmi said:
You have missed it.

The right one is: "If X is all one gets".

In that case one can't know the he can't get ~X.

The one who says: "If one gets X, then ~X is everything that one doesn't get" gets things beyond "the one who gets only X".

Getting things beyond only X in not less than X___~X.
Click to expand...
Your answer doesn't match the question.

You said: If X is all one gets, then ~X is undefined.
I replied:If one gets X, then ~X is everything that one doesn't get.

What is "[t]he right one"?

All the things that I know are X. All the things I don't know are ~X. I know I don't know how many atoms there are in the Sun. Number of atoms in the Sun is ~X. The fact that I know "I don't know the number of atoms in the Sun" is X.

Remind us, what does ____ mean in X___~X?

Remind us, what does local mean?
 
jsfisher said:
So, what did you learn, Apathia? That's right, you need to underline your answers to get full credit!

And just to show you that I've learned, too: Answer: Safeway.
Click to expand...

I'll never learn. I was just at Albertson's again.

The underline is our old friend The Line as representative of the qualitative, principle of Non-Locality.
Each number on the line is a separate, definite Locality.
So you know the deal.
Together they form a "complex."
Each of those "sets" is a "complex."

Doron's organizing principle for relation of complex to complex isn't common class identity, but being in the matrix (Epix's going to run with this.) of the conjunctive relation of Locality and Non-Locality.
But as an organizing principle, of itself alone, it merely gives us amorphous complexity, which isn't very useful.

Doron asserts that Local/Non-Local Linkage generates not just complexes of uncertain group identity, but ordinary groups and sub-groups of common classifications.
I have been totally unsuccesful in figuring out how this is supposed to happen, or how it's supposed to create the concept of counting and numbers.
Needless to say, Doron's expositions do not fit together. He makes a leap.
As I said before, It's like the jump of a chess knight. It turns a corner before it lands on the board.

Doron wishes to present a way of thinking with complexes (or fogs). He even offers a "logic" of such, though it fails to exhibit any rules or procedures.

I've offered a sense of "The Complex" I understand when I suspend analytic thinking and relate to my environment as presences in their own light that include me.
However this kind of consciousness is not what Doron is trying to present.
He wants something "scientific" and to some extent a quantifiable metaphysic. So is Organic Numbers that attempt to give measurability to the "Complex."

I base all this on the most repeated things he says, though there are always some statements that contradict and undercut these ideas.

If this isn't what he's about, then no one can have any idea of what's going on in his head.
But I dare say it's his a-ha that explains everything.
Alas to have a vision that no one else can understand. :wackysad:
 
Little 10 Toes said:
All the things that I know are X. All the things I don't know are ~X.
Click to expand...

In that case you have a meta-view of X and ~X, which is not limited by any one of them (it is non-local w.r.t X or ~X).

This is not the case if X is all one gets.


Little 10 Toes said:
Remind us, what does ____ mean in X___~X?

Remind us, what does local mean?
Click to expand...

1) If Y belongs NXOR ~belongs w.r.t X, then Y is Non-local w.r.t X

2) If Y belongs XOR ~belongs w.r.t X, then Y is Local w.r.t X

According to (1) and (2) definitions, X or ~X are local w.r.t ___, and ___ is non-local w.r.t X or ~X.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Counting is not a process.

If you get that, you are opened to OM.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Doron. Either we aren't speaking the same language, or you are terribly deluded.
I won't quibble with you over the meaning of the word "process."
I know that will get nowhere.
I don't know what you mean by this or why you are saying it.
And since trying to sus that always comes to a dead end, I wish you a good night.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom