Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

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.

Little 10 Toes, by your system, A and B only "~belongs" w.r.t each other.

This is the case of Locality, because "belongs" is prevented by XOR connective, according to your example.

Here is the definition of Locality:

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

If A is Line and B is point, then line belongs NXOR ~belongs w.r.t point, according to definition (1):

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

 

[doronshadmi]

... more than once ...

What enables you to know that?

 

[doronshadmi]

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.

An example of Local-only reasoning.

 

[jsfisher]

What enables you to know that?

I see your reading comprehension has gotten a little worse. Have you considered any sort of remedial courses to help with that?

 

[doronshadmi]

I see your ...

You see only your box

 

[jsfisher]

You see only your box

I'll let my statements stand on their own merit. The evidence is on my side. You non sequiturs, illogical statements, and out-right gibberish does not serve your cause.

 

[doronshadmi]

I'll let my statements stand on their own merit. The evidence is on my side.

Exactly, all you get is your

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Little 10 Toes, by your system, A and B only "~belongs" w.r.t each other.

This is the case of Locality, because "belongs" is prevented by XOR connective, according to your example.

Here is the definition of Locality:

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

If A is Line and B is point, then line belongs NXOR ~belongs w.r.t point, according to definition (1):

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

And yet you can't explain what "belongs" means. You can't even comment about a layman's definition of XNOR or XOR.

What good is your idea if you can't explain it?

 

[doronshadmi]

And yet you can't explain what "belongs" means.

Sharing a given domain.

 

[epix]

What enables you to know that?

That's much better than "What enables Quantity?". The question should go on and include preposition to for the phrase to gain some meaning. Here are some Google search clues that start with "what enables":

What enables a person to see depth?
What enabled Jackson to win the presidency?
What enables you to smell?
What enables birds to fly?
What enables us to see? (roll'em, mamma)
What enables a bird to fly?
What enabled the Spanish to defeat the Aztecs?
What enables a shape to tessellate?
What enables you to connect to the Internet?

What enables Quantity to . . .

Can you complete it to add some meaning to your scribble, or have you been using some non-local phraseology particular to the Organic Mathematics?

 

[epix]

Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes
And yet you can't explain what "belongs" means.

Sharing a given domain.

That "belongs" and its negation "~belongs" have NXOR function in the middle, like 'belongs NXOR ~belongs', and that makes the word a proposition variable. But if 'belongs = sharing a given domain', then '~belongs = does not share a given domain'. Doron got some A and B (formerly X and Y) going before and after the belongs and ~belongs, so I'm not sure how this sharing and no sharing affects A and B, for which there were no explanation given regarding their function or purpose.

Don't despair though. I know a dude drom star system Zeta Reticuli who can figure the opposites out.

 

[doronshadmi]

That "belongs" and its negation "~belongs" have NXOR function in the middle, like 'belongs NXOR ~belongs', and that makes the word a proposition variable. But if 'belongs = sharing a given domain', then '~belongs = does not share a given domain'. Doron got some A and B (formerly X and Y) going before and after the belongs and ~belongs, so I'm not sure how this sharing and no sharing affects A and B, for which there were no explanation given regarding their function or purpose.

Don't despair though. I know a dude drom star system Zeta Reticuli who can figure the opposites out.

Let us make it clearer:

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

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

 

[doronshadmi]

As for magnitudes:

By traditional Mathematics:

http://publish.uwo.ca/~jbell/chap3.pdf

Note that, in claiming that division can always be carried out, no matter how large n may be, we are implicitly assuming that our magnitudes—in this case, line segments— are continuous, that is, have no “smallest” parts which are incapable of being further divided.

OM says: "Infinitely many divisions of a line segment are not reducible into a single point, because a line and a point have different magnitudes".

As a result any collection of points along a given segment, do not have the magnitude of the given segment.

 

[The Man]

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.

Again this is just your, apparently deliberate, misinterpretation of the word “mutual” and the word “independent” which of course is the foundation of your “considered framework” aimed, again apparently deliberately, at just misinterpreting everything.

As you responded in the affirmative to my statement you quoted then your “Mutuality (getting more than a single thing) AND Independency (getting a single thing)” is simply redundant as “(getting more than a single thing)” requires “(getting a single thing)”. So all you need is “(getting more than a single thing)” as “(getting a single thing)” is an essential requirement thereof. Also the cave example demonstrates how “getting a single thing” (the light reflected off the wall) can also give you “more than a single thing” (the shadows as well) when everything is not just that “single thing”.

Again if you simply mean ‘(getting more than a single thing) AND (getting a single thing)’. Then simply just say that instead of deliberately misusing words like “mutual” and “independent” that do not mean what you claim you want to say, even redundantly.

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

Absolutely incorrect the “framework” is specifically that ~A and A are mutually exclusive thus mutually dependent (by that mutual exclusion). So again it is specifically a mutually exclusive, mutually dependent “framework”. This “It can be done only by Mutually-Independent framework” is just one of your fantasy assumptions and based entirely on your deliberate misuse of the words “mutual” and “independent” to simply claim that you are “(getting more than a single thing)”.

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.

To you perhaps it is a “fudamental and profound question” and again they are only your “must-have foundations”. They limit no one but you and obviously obscure nothing for anyone but you. It is this apparently deliberate obfuscation of yours that seems to have convinced you that the obviously trivial is, at least for you, “fudamental and profound”.

“That's why you fail all along this thead.”

 

[The Man]

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.

Wait, so you’re claiming “there are no two things” because “the other thing is totally isolated form that one thing”. So your claim, in typical doronics, is that because there are two “totally isolated” “things” “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.

Mutual exclusion does infer that elements are “isolated” (segregated) into separated domains, however this does not infer that those domain are “totally isolated things” as they are dependent on each other by that mutual exclusion. Again Doron the “connector among them” (in this particular case) is mutual exclusion. Which may be considered to “isolate” them to some degree (that they have no common elements), but still makes them mutually dependent (as what is excluded from one must be included in one of the others). That there is, as you put it, “a connector among them” expressly asserts that they are not “totally isolated things”. Doron you should at least try to make some semblance of an effort not to directly contradict yourself in your own statements

 

[epix]

Let us make it clearer:

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

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

At this point, it doesn't matter what is local or non local. The mystery remains the same and concerns the functionality and the syntax of the terms you used.

We know that if '+' looks to its left and to its right in the land of Algebra, it finds itself in most cases to be flanked by some single variables such as 'x' and 'y', for example. The same goes for logical functions such as XOR. It likes a particular company too, and the basic configuration looks like this:

P XOR Q

In your rendition, P=belongs and Q= ~belongs. That means 'belongs' and its negation '~belongs' are proposition variables. You confirmed that by disclosing to Toes that you assigned a value to the variable 'belongs':

belongs = sharing a given domain

That assignment automatically defines the second variable.

~belongs = not sharing a given domain

But they are still the letters A and B to be accounted for - those letters that extend the whole term.

A (sharing a given domain) XOR (not sharing a given domain) B.

How do you call these letters? Are they extended variables or something? Or does it go like this?

A = belongs = sharing a given domain
B = ~belongs = not sharing a given domain

where 'A XOR B' follows?

In any rate, you still defy the fact that when XOR tries to evaluate A=does and B=doesn't as both True or False, the function wouldn't hand this contradiction to the only function that can handle the contradiction, and the function is NEGATION. You are still trying to explain the local and non-local relations using a machine that is broken due to the contradiction. That means you need to build a different axiomatic base under which the contradiction would disappear. That, of course, is a piece of cake for you.

Anyway . . . I have something here for the Org. Math to figure. It regards the elusive Hilderberg Conjecture. Imagine two objects as variables apart from each other

@.............................................@

in such a way that @(left)=ONE and @(right)=ONE

Now the objects start to move toward each other

......@....................................@.....
..............@....................@.............

There is a moment where @@ = TWO, and the distance between both @'s is called the Hilderberg Line

......................@__@......................

the length of which is thought to be indeterminable, but the conjecture cannot be proven.

You can think of it as the difference between O, R and OR. When O and R are sufficiently apart, O and R belong to the class called "letters," but as they move closer to each other, there will be a point in time where O and R will belong to a new class called "words."

Can Organic Mathematics prove the Hilderberg Conjecture?

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Let us make it clearer:

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

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

If you were going to make it clearer, you could have written this:

1) If the result of A sharing a given domain NXOR not sharing a given domain with regard to B is TRUE, then A is non-local with regard to B.

2) If the result of A is sharing a given domain XOR not is sharing a given domain with regard to B is TRUE, then A is local with regard to B.

Now what about A and B? Are they elements/atoms? Would you agree that a simple definition of XOR could be "one or the other but not both"? Would you agree that a simple definition of XNOR could be "both or neither"?

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Sharing a given domain.

Sorry I didn't quote your message with my previous message.

Please define your usage of the word domain.

 

[doronshadmi]

Again Doron the “connector among them” (in this particular case) is mutual exclusion. Which may be considered to “isolate” them to some degree (that they have no common elements), but still makes them mutually dependent (as what is excluded from one must be included in one of the others).

By using Logical connectives, things are related to themselves or to each other.

It is possible only if there is a common and non-common principles among things, where the common principle is Mutuality and the non-common principle is Independency.

Mutual exclusion (XOR connective) is simply the case where a given thing can’t be simultaneously in more than one state w.r.t another thing, and this is exactly the reason why

(... what is excluded from one must be included in one of the others)

which is exactly the property of a local thing.

NXOR connective is simply the case where a given thing must be simultaneously in more than one state w.r.t another thing, such that it is excluded NXOR included w.r.t it, which is exactly the property of non-local thing.

Also this case is possible only if there is a common and non-common principles among things, where the common principle is Mutuality and the non-common principle is Independency.

 

[The Man]

By using Logical connectives, things are related to themselves or to each other.

Again the Logical connective in this case is negation (~), or complementation if you prefer, which specifically relates A with ~A as mutually exclusive and mutually dependent (by that exclusion).

It is possible only if there is a common and non-common principles among things, where the common principle is Mutuality and the non-common principle is Independency.

Again that “Independency” is as you put it “the non-common principle” is simply your fantasy assumption. In mutual independence, that independency is specifically “the common principle” that is shared between them. Just as in mutual dependence that dependency is “the common principle”. A “non-common principle is”, well, not common to them and thus is not mutual to them.

Mutual exclusion (XOR connective) is simply the case where a given thing can’t be simultaneously in more than one state w.r.t another thing, and this is exactly the reason why

Again as “simultaneously in more than one state w.r.t another thing” is evidently simply a representation of your own apparently deliberate ignorance. It too is required by and restrictive of no one but you.

which is exactly the property of a local thing.

Nope, exclusion is not restricted to any particular location and mutual exclusion is again specifically an exclusion that is shared.

NXOR connective is simply the case where a given thing must be simultaneously in more than one state w.r.t another thing, such that it is excluded NXOR included w.r.t it, which is exactly the property of non-local thing.

Nope “NXOR” is simply the negation of “XOR” and certainly does not infer or require that some “given thing must be simultaneously in more than one state w.r.t another thing”. Again these are your fantasies and requirements, they restrict no one but you.

Again “excluded NXOR included” in the same domain is always FALSE, as including in that domain excludes excluding from that domain or “in other words” what excluding from that domain excludes is including in that domain. However, and again, “excluded XOR included” in the same domain is always TRUE, as they are mutualy exclusive.