Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
You still get inclusion only in terms of inclusion XOR exclusion, which is a local-only reasoning of Membership concept.

Non-local (NXOR) Membership is essentially different then Local (XOR) Membership, which is a notion that you can't grasp, exactly because you get things only in terms of Local-only reasoning.
Click to expand...
Logical functions are open to any variables A, B, C ... There is no need for a membership card.

How can anyone get something that you just invented?
 
doronshadmi said:
You still get inclusion only in terms of inclusion XOR exclusion, which is a local-only reasoning of Membership concept.
Click to expand...

No Doron it is again just your “local-only reasoning of Membership concept” which you try to posit on others. To anyone else “inclusion XOR exclusion” in some membership is just a statement that is always TRUE (a tautology)

doronshadmi said:
Non-local (NXOR) Membership is essentially different then Local (XOR) Membership, which is a notion that you can't grasp, exactly because you get things only in terms of Local-only reasoning.
Click to expand...

Doron we all (evidently except you) grasp the difference between NXOR and XOR, as well as the fact that inclusion NXOR exclusion in some membership is just a statement that is always FALSE (a contradiction). Even though your “Local (XOR) Membership” you want to ascribe to others is a tautology while your “Non-local (NXOR) Membership is a contradiction, this does not change the fact that this “Local-only reasoning” of yours is just some particular aspect of your own obviously failed reasoning that you simply want to ascribe to others. Stop trying to posit portions of your own failed reasoning onto others.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The Man, you are the one who looks only on the non-composed aspect of OM (as expressed by A\B non-composed aspects) and claim that it is a limitation,
Click to expand...

It is a limitation Doron, and simply your limitation, it limits A, B or your “line” from being, well, “composed”.

doronshadmi said:
exactly because you ignore the composed aspect of OM, which is the result of A\B Linkage.
Click to expand...

No Doron you simply want ignore your own requirement for “non-composed aspects”.

doronshadmi said:
So OM's "limitation" is entirely the result of your partial interpretation of it.
Click to expand...

No Doron it is a result of what you specifically claim and limit to be “non-composed”. You want to ignore this limitation by simply being unspecific about what you require to be “non-composed” and referring instead to what you claim to be composed, your “Linkage”. Again Doron that you might have some “composed aspect” does not change that your specifically “non-composed aspects” are limited, by only you, from being “composed”.
 
Last edited:
epix said:
there are no points on that straight line
Click to expand...

There are points on the straight line, but not as its sub-things.

The inclusion and exclusion among non-composed things is defined by different kinds of non-composition, such that no one of the different kinds is the sub-thing of the other kind.

For example:

A line is included NXOR excluded w.r.t a point, without being (even partially) a sub-thing of a point.

A point is included XOR excluded w.r.t a line, without being a sub-thing of a line.


On the contrary, composed results of the linkage among the two kinds of atoms, are sub-things of more complex and composed results.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
It is a limitation Doron, and simply your limitation, it limits A, B or your “line” from being, well, “composed”.
Click to expand...

A line is the non-local and non-composed aspect of a segment, where a segement (or collection of segements) is a composed result of A\B Linkage, where A or B are different kinds of non-composed things.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
No Doron it is again just your “local-only reasoning of Membership concept” which you try to posit on others. To anyone else “inclusion XOR exclusion” in some membership is just a statement that is always TRUE (a tautology)
Click to expand...
It is always TRUE (a tautology), but it does not change the fact that it is also a local-only TRUE.
 
doronshadmi said:
There are points on the straight line, but not as its sub-things.
Click to expand...
Sub-things? Can't you at least muster something close to "sub-components," or anything else that wouldn't make your line look like a mason stick? Doron, Doron . . . *sigh*
:)

At least you're doing better in other aspects. Three years ago, you couldn't tell the difference between XOR and implication. Remember?

In Classical Mathematics:

If X is True, then it cannot be also False.

If X is False, then it cannot be also True.

XOR between T F and their negations:

If F then not F → F
If F then not T → T (and prevents contratiction)
If T then not F → T (and prevents contratiction)
If T then not T → F
Click to expand...

That's your handwritting, isn't it?
 
Requesting for the third time to answer my questions:

doronshadmi said:
From first look (1) and (2) are valid definitions of Non-locality and Locality.

A or B are non-composed things that have different qualities w.r.t each other.

If they are linked, then the result is a composed complexity.

Yes, this is a valid expression of Exclusive OR.

NXOR is NOR ( 0 0 --> 1) + AND ( 1 1 --> 1)
Click to expand...

Little 10 Toes said:
Thank you for finally agreeing what local and non local mean. Now let's define what A and B, or X and Y since you change them, are.

What are "non-composed things"? What qualities are we examining? What is "linked"? What "result"?

If you took the time to understand "AND ( 1 1 --> 1)" you would see that it does mean both. If you took the time to understand "NOR ( 0 0 --> 1)" you would see that it means neither. It's that what I said? "Both or neither."
Click to expand...
 
The Man said:
“{}” can include no content just as a zero dimensional element can include no dimensional elements.
Click to expand...
If we are talking about elements, then they have at least zero dimension.

But this is not the case, because we are talking about the concept of dimension.

No dimension is anything but dimension, where zero dimension is a dimension, exactly as the difference between A and ~A.
 
epix said:
At least you're doing better in other aspects. Three years ago, you couldn't tell the difference between XOR and implication. Remember?

That's your handwritting, isn't it?
Click to expand...

It is about the similarity of the results between XOR and implication (If ... Then ...) under T\F comparison.

If F then not F → F
If F then not T → T (and prevents contratiction)
If T then not F → T (and prevents contratiction)
If T then not T → F

or

T XOR F
--------------
F XOR F --> F
F XOR T --> T
T XOR F --> T
T XOR T --> F

have the same results, exactly as 2+1 or 1+1+1 operations are resulted by 3, so?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
A line is the non-local and non-composed aspect of a segment, where a segement (or collection of segements) is a composed result of A\B Linkage, where A or B are different kinds of non-composed things.
Click to expand...

Once again this "non-composed" limitation (for your "line", A or B) is simply your limitation. No one but you needs your "non-composed” limitation nor your contrivance of some “composed result of A\B Linkage” to introduce some semblance of composition back into your result of your own deliberate limitation.



doronshadmi said:
It is always TRUE (a tautology), but it does not change the fact that it is also a local-only TRUE.
Click to expand...

“always TRUE” means “always TRUE” that you want to limit it to some “local-only TRUE” means that your assertion “It is always TRUE” is simply false by your own assertion. Once again this “local-only” is just some particular aspect of your own failed reasoning, so this “local-only TRUE” is just your own limitation that is in direct contradiction with your own assertion that “It is always TRUE (a tautology)”.
 
doronshadmi said:
If we are talking about elements, then they have at least zero dimension.
Click to expand...

No, if the element is a line (thus one dimensional) “then they have at least” one “dimension”.

doronshadmi said:
But this is not the case, because we are talking about the concept of dimension.
Click to expand...

As well as the concept of zero, which makes “zero dimension”(s) in fact “the case” when talking about zero dimensional elements.

doronshadmi said:
No dimension is anything but dimension, where zero dimension is a dimension, exactly as the difference between A and ~A.
Click to expand...

Doron “a dimension” would be at least one dimension. Zero dimensional is specifically a lack of any (even one) dimension. You seem to be confusing, again I think deliberately, zero dimensional with some fantasy “zero dimension” of your own making. Again simply demonstrating that “the concept of dimension”(s) is just something you do not comprehend.
 
The Man said:
No, if the element is a line (thus one dimensional) “then they have at least” one “dimension”.



As well as the concept of zero, which makes “zero dimension”(s) in fact “the case” when talking about zero dimensional elements.



Doron “a dimension” would be at least one dimension. Zero dimensional is specifically a lack of any (even one) dimension. You seem to be confusing, again I think deliberately, zero dimensional with some fantasy “zero dimension” of your own making. Again simply demonstrating that “the concept of dimension”(s) is just something you do not comprehend.
Click to expand...

In other words, A (for example: dimension) and ~A (for example: no dimension) are the same by your reasoning.

Say no more.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
“always TRUE” means “always TRUE” that you want to limit it to some “local-only TRUE” means that your assertion “It is always TRUE” is simply false by your own assertion.
Click to expand...
No The Man, I simply show that your "always TRUE” is not Universal Truth, because it is limited to Local-only framework, where elements are excluded w.r.t each other domains.

You are the one that asserts that your "always TRUE” is universal, so your assertion is indeed false assertion.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Once again this "non-composed" limitation (for your "line", A or B) is simply your limitation.
Click to expand...

Only if you ignore the composed result of the linkage among A\B non-composed elements, and this is exactly what you are doing, you ignore the fact that your reasoning can't deal with the non-composed, and you also ignore the fact that OM deals both with the non-composed and the composed.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
If we are talking about elements, then they have at least zero dimension.
The Man said:
No, if the element is a line (thus one dimensional) “then they have at least” one “dimension”.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This is another example of your inability to get notions by generalization.
 
The Man said:
Doron “a dimension” would be at least one dimension.
Click to expand...
Nope.

It would be at least "zero dimension", and a point is a perfect example of "zero dimensional" element.

"No dimension" is not even a point.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom