Deeper than primes

[Apathia]

Using the exact phrases with quotes, I get "Returned no results,"
Which is a little bit surprising, because I expected at least one url leading to you.

concept of number

concept of quantity

These yield much more and a history of thought about numbers and counting.

A lot of that is too academically deep for me, at least without a foundation.

As for your approach (the Local/Non-Local Linkage), I keep trying to understand how that works, how that yields the concepts of number and quantity. And also how it's supposed to be the foundation of cognition.

In all your verbage, I'm not finding the how.

Imagine that I'm a child and show me. I need a concrete demonstration.

 

[doronshadmi]

Using the exact phrases with quotes, I get "Returned no results,"
Which is a little bit surprising, because I expected at least one url leading to you.

concept of number

concept of quantity

These yield much more and a history of thought about numbers and counting.

A lot of that is too academically deep for me, at least without a foundation.

As for your approach (the Local/Non-Local Linkage), I keep trying to understand how that works, how that yields the concepts of number and quantity. And also how it's supposed to be the foundation of cognition.

In all your verbage, I'm not finding the how.

Imagine that I'm a child and show me. I need a concrete demonstration.

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

Two basic divisions of quantity, magnitude and multitude, imply the principal distinction between continuity (continuum) and discontinuity.

...

In mathematics, magnitudes and multitudes are not only two kinds of quantity but they are also commensurable with each other.

How magnitudes and multitudes are also commensurable with each other?

 

[doronshadmi]

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

Quantity in logic and semantics

In respect to quantity, propositions are grouped as universal and particular, applying to the whole subject or a part of the subject to be predicated. Accordingly, there are existential and universal quantifiers. In relation to the meaning of a construct, quantity involves two semantic dimensions: 1. extension or extent (determining the specific classes or individual instances indicated by the construct) 2. intension (content or comprehension or definition) measuring all the implications (relationships and associations involved in a construct, its intrinsic, inherent, internal, built-in, and constitutional implicit meanings and relations).

How do we know that the two semantic dimensions are involved under a one framework, called Logic ?

 

[doronshadmi]

As for your approach (the Local/Non-Local Linkage), I keep trying to understand how that works, how that yields the concepts of number and quantity.

Try http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6201867&postcount=10979.

 

[Apathia]

Nevermind.
I can't do the graphic I wanted.

 

[doronshadmi]

Nevermind.
I can't do the graphic I wanted.

Non-locality\Locality Linkage notion is not limited to any particular representation, graphical or symbolic.

 

[doronshadmi]

Some important correction of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6201867&postcount=10979.

In order to think general you open your mind to the represented idea (or notion) and not to the particular tools (diagrams or strings of notations) that represent it.

If you really do that, then:

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

2) If A belongs XOR ~belongs w.r.t B, then A is Local w.r.t B

The correction of definition (3):

3) Linkage is the manifested complex result of (1) (2) definitions ( (3) is possible because (1) or (2) are different aspects of the un-manifested atomic self-state).

X___~X is (3) example, where X or ~X represent (1) and ___ represent (2).

X or ~X are the local aspects of X___~X linkage, which are located at the ends of ___, where ___ is the non-local aspect of X___~X linkage, which extends X location or ~X location (which is a property that X or ~X do not have w.r.t ___, under X___~X linkage).

The same notion that is represented above by strings of notations, is represented by the following diagram:

 

[Little 10 Toes]

No.

You can't get basic questions and basic answers of basic ideas because you do not think general.


In order to think general you open your mind to the represented idea (or notion) and not to the particular tools (diagrams or strings of notations) that represent it.

If you really do that, then:

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

2) If A belongs XOR ~belongs w.r.t B, then A is Local w.r.t B

3) Linkage is the result of (1) (2) definitions.

X___~X is (3) example, where X or ~X represent (1) and ___ represent (2).

X or ~X are the local aspects of X___~X linkage, which are located at the ends of ___, where ___ is the non-local aspect of X___~X linkage, which extends X location or ~X location (which is a property that X or ~X do not have w.r.t ___, under X___~X linkage).

But you can't even define what "belongs" mean. You invent "~belongs". You can't define what A, B, X, and ~X are. You can't even keep your variable names constant. If you're using A and B in examples 1 and 2, where do X and ~X come in? You won't acknowledge, let alone answer, someone asking if you use a layman's definition of NXOR or XOR.

If you don't want to, or can't, explain your ideas clearly, then perhaps you should stop, look over your notes, and come back after you've organized your thoughts.

 

[epix]

Originally Posted by epix
Before: G, o, d
After: G, o_d

Non-locality is included NXOR excluded w.r.t a given domain.

Locality is included XOR excluded w.r.t a given domain.

Do you get the qualitative difference?

In order to grasp the qualitative difference, I need to understand the aspect of quantity first. Your comparison construct is made of three opposites:

1) Locality and Non-locality
2) XOR and NXOR
3) Included and Excluded

There are two options to make a change from the separating comma to the underscore that symbolizes "more in common," whereas the comma symbolizes "less in common":

A)
From: 1, 2, 3
To: 1_2, 3

B)
From: 1, 2, 3
To: 1, 2_3

Do Locality and Non-Locality and XOR and NXOR
relate better than XOR and NXOR and Included and Excluded?

The choice between (A) and (B) depends on the above question. But the question is very difficult, and so another solution strategy must be employed: Just find someone who can see the difference if you can't, right? But who?

Well, your construct is made of three opposites, so I need to find someone who is an expert on three opposites. Like this guy:

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
Revelation 22:13


So what's the difference, Heavenly Father? Should I chose (A) or (B)?

And I say onto you that I don't have the slightest idea.

What do you mean? The whole Roman Catholic Church regards you as an omniscient being.

Yeah, that was the truth before Doron was born. But I can do this:
From: R, C, C
To: R, C_C and not to R_C, C

And I can spit farther than you can.

No, you can't.

Of course I can.

I betya you can't. See that three in the distance.

You mean the tree?

Yep. I can spit as far as there. Watch . . .


Well, here goes your favorite afternoon shade, Heavenly Father. You'll surely hear from the squirrels. LOL.

 

[jsfisher]

If you don't want to, or can't, explain your ideas clearly, then perhaps you should stop, look over your notes, and come back after you've organized your thoughts.

If he were to do that, he'd only discover his fantastic ideas are nothing more than metaphysical trivia and/or gibberish. Either would be unbearable for him, so he won't even try.

The mere fact he can't seem to coax a result, any sort of conclusion, out of all that grandeur should have forewarned him he was working in the landfill and not at the foundation of some extravagant high-rise.

 

[Skeptic]

To paraphrase De Morgan, contrary to appearances, Doron is not insane. The insane reason rightly from wrong premises (e.g., if they were actually super-secret agents, it would make sense to be scared of everybody as a potential enemy). Doron reasons wrongly based on no premises at all.

 

[The Man]

EDIT:

You may say that by knowing A one knows also ~A, but in that case one know both A and ~A of a given realm (abstract or not).

This is possible if both Mutuality (the ability of getting more than a single thing) AND Independency (the ability of getting a single thing) are the linked qualitative foundations of a given realm (abstract or not).

Nope, it is simply a result of the fact that A defines ~A as ~A defines A. Again they are mutually exclusive and mutually dependent (by that mutual exclusion). Again mutual just means “shared” and independent simply refers to a lack of dependence (shared or not). This “Mutuality (the ability of getting more than a single thing) AND Independency (the ability of getting a single thing)” is again just your imaginary “mutual independence”. Your professed “ability of getting more than a single thing” would in fact require “the ability of getting a single thing” (an ability you have yet to demonstrate). If you are positing them as limits as in ‘the ability of getting no less than more than a single thing’ “AND” ‘the ability of getting only a single thing’ then your assertion is simply self contradictory.

What you call "mutual dependency" is "two things that depend on each other".

What you call "mutual independency" is "two things that are not depend on each other".

That is what those phrases mean, though they are not limited to just “two things”.

But first you have to ask yourself: "What enables two things?"

No I don’t, but since your apparently “have to ask yourself: ”, in the case of the Venn diagram examples before it is the separating boundary that “enables two things”. Again a boundary can be part of one of those two things or even considered as a third domain, depending on how those domains are defined.

Traditional Mathematics does not ask this question, and as a result it does not understand Mutuality (the ability of getting more than a single thing) AND Independency (the ability of getting a single thing) as the linked qualitative foundations of a given realm (abstract or not).

Doron in “Traditional Mathematics” that question is trivial as the answer is just part of the definition of those domains in the Venn diagram. Again you simply demonstrate that it is you who “does not understand Mutuality” (something shared) “AND Independency” (a lack of dependence).

 

[doronshadmi]

Again a boundary can be part of one of those two things or even considered as a third domain, depending on how those domains are defined.

If the boundary can be part of one of those two things, then the other thing is totally isolated form that one thing and there are no two things.

If the boundary is considered as a third domain, then there are three totally isolated things.

More than a one thing is possible only if there is non-locality w.r.t any given thing, which is used as a connector among them.

 

[doronshadmi]

But you can't even define what "belongs" mean. You invent "~belongs". You can't define what A, B, X, and ~X are. You can't even keep your variable names constant. If you're using A and B in examples 1 and 2, where do X and ~X come in? You won't acknowledge, let alone answer, someone asking if you use a layman's definition of NXOR or XOR.

If you don't want to, or can't, explain your ideas clearly, then perhaps you should stop, look over your notes, and come back after you've organized your thoughts.

You simply can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6202461&postcount=10987, because you have no generalization skills.

 

[doronshadmi]

Your professed “ability of getting more than a single thing” would in fact require “the ability of getting a single thing”

Exactly, we need both Mutuality (getting more than a single thing) AND Independency (getting a single thing) under the same framework.

That's why the considered framework is Mutually-Independent.

it is simply a result of the fact that A defines ~A as ~A defines A.

It can be done only by Mutually-Independent framework, where ~A,A are different but connected.

Doron in “Traditional Mathematics” that question is trivial

No, it is fudamental and profound question, which you do not ask exactly because think it is trivial by taking things obviously, without understand their must-have foundations.

That's why you fail all along this thead.

 

[doronshadmi]

To paraphrase De Morgan, contrary to appearances, Doron is not insane. The insane reason rightly from wrong premises (e.g., if they were actually super-secret agents, it would make sense to be scared of everybody as a potential enemy). Doron reasons wrongly based on no premises at all.

I do better, I ask fundamental questions like "What enables Quantity?"

 

[doronshadmi]

If he were to do that, he'd only discover his fantastic ideas are nothing more than metaphysical trivia and/or gibberish. Either would be unbearable for him, so he won't even try.

The mere fact he can't seem to coax a result, any sort of conclusion, out of all that grandeur should have forewarned him he was working in the landfill and not at the foundation of some extravagant high-rise.

jsfisher "What enables Quantity?"

 

[Little 10 Toes]

You simply can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6202461&postcount=10987, because you have no generalization skills.

No. I don't get it because you speak gibberish. How can one get things when you can't define them. "~belongs"? How is one to know what A and B are? If A is the number of deaths from the Bubonic Plague in England between 1348 - 1350, how is it local to the class of sub-atomic particles found in the 1950's? What linkage is there?

 

[Little 10 Toes]

No. I don't get it because you speak gibberish. How can one get things when you can't define them. "~belongs"? How is one to know what A and B are? If A is the number of deaths from the Bubonic Plague in England between 1348 - 1350, how is it local to the class of sub-atomic particles found in the 1950's? What linkage is there?

Better yet doronshadmi, if I'm using the above examples of A = "number of deaths from the Bubonic Plague in England between 1348 - 1350" and B = "the class of sub-atomic particles found in the 1950's", please tell me if A is local to B, and explain how. If A is non-local to A, please explain how.

 

[jsfisher]

jsfisher "What enables Quantity?"

Doron, as I have stated before, more than once, I have no interest in your philosophic ramblings between the trivial and gibberish. If you ever come up with a competent and interesting statement about Mathematics, then I'll likely be interested.

So, enjoy your landfill, but don't expect me to join in.