Deeper than primes

[epix]

Originally Posted by epix
That's the idea: there is only one parametric change necessary to draw multitude of distinct circles to demonstrate the single dimensionality of a circle. The first point drawn is shared by the multitude of the drawn circles.

According to this reasoning, also a ball has a single dimensionality.

No, it doesn't, coz the idea of only one parametric change to proof an object 1-dimensional is wrong, as I found out later.

 

[epix]

Just for clarification, technically a circle is one dimensional because by definition the radius is constant.

The circle -- as a one-dimensional object -- is not created the way multidimensional objects are by definition. If you drag a 0-dimensional point in one direction, you create a (0+1)-dimensional object other then the circle --the result of the dragging has to be the straight line (the first co-ordinate). In other words We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all 1-D objects are not created equal . . .

 

[epix]

1) Please define "immediate" and surrounding.

Okay, I'll do it within the context: I mean by "immediate surrounding" a situation similar to the one which concerns the atom. It's nucleus is immediately surrounded by electrons. Since the nucleus consist of neutrons and positively charged protons, the local influnce means that protons and negatively charged electrons attract and that's what holds the atom together.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

So after asking eight times over eight pages, I finally get answers from you doronshadmi. I'll press my luck and ask you a question a second time. In the definitions that you agreed upon of local and non-local, and that I have expanded upon:

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

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

Please define your usage of the word domain.

 

[doronshadmi]

No, it doesn't, coz the idea of only one parametric change to proof an object 1-dimensional is wrong, as I found out later.

The "flower" is also 1-dimensional, and the single paramenter is called scale, which works on any dimension > 0.

 

[doronshadmi]

It is quite obvious that you simply do not understand it, dimension or a “strawman”. Though K-Y is an appropriate designation for that nonsense you strewed about above, since you are just using it to jerk yourself around.

Let us see if your claim is Strew Man or not.

n=1 to ∞
k=0 to n-1

X = "Dimensional space"

Y = "Dimensional element"

k_X - k_Y = 0 amount of coordinates that are used to determine k_Y location w.r.t k_X.

We get 0 amount of coordinates even if k > 0, so there are no coordinates even if the dimensional space and the dimensional element > 0.

In other words, your indication of 0 amount of coordinates does not necessarily imply 0-dimension (or as you call it: "No-dimension").

All we need is that the magnitudes of the dimensional space and the dimensional element will be the same, no matter if k = or > 0.

In other words, your "No-dimension" claim about 0_X - 0_Y case is indeed a Strew Man and you indeed jerk yourself around.

 

[jsfisher]

Let us see if your claim is Strew Man or not.

Strew Man?

No matter. I see we are in a tight loop of doronetics gibberish, meaningless notation and diagrams, and the ever-popular fall-back, "you just don't get it". That all begs the question, "What good is it?"

Doron, you have still failed to show us any result, any conclusion, anything meaningful at all. Got anything yet, or are you perfectly content to not get anywhere with your brainchild?

 

[epix]

The "flower" is also 1-dimensional, and the single paramenter is called scale, which works on any dimension > 0.

No, it's not 1-dimensional so is not any circle and any straight line. I try to explain it. Since jsfisher stopped by, he and The Man can look at it, if it's any good.

 

[doronshadmi]

I see

No, you don't.

 

[jsfisher]

No, you don't.

Evasion noted.

 

[doronshadmi]

So after asking eight times over eight pages, I finally get answers from you doronshadmi. I'll press my luck and ask you a question a second time. In the definitions that you agreed upon of local and non-local, and that I have expanded upon:


Please define your usage of the word domain.

The researched.

 

[doronshadmi]

Evasion noted.

No notion have been notad in your reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6250762&postcount=11246.

you have still failed to show us

No, your reasoning is simply local-only one, therefore you can't see.

Evasion noted form Non-locality all along this thread.

"What good is it?"

This is a waste of time to explain to a blind man what is the value "to see".

 

[jsfisher]

No notion have been notad in your reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6250762&postcount=11246.



No, your reasoning is simply local-only one, therefore you can't see.

Evasion noted form non-locality.

And you continue to evade the point. No surprise. You have no result, so you may as well to the best you can to avoid the embarrassment.

 

[doronshadmi]

And you continue to evade the point. No surprise. You have no result, so you may as well to the best you can to avoid the embarrassment.

The result is Complexity, which is not context dependent, but you don't get it, because your reasoning can't get its qualitative building-blocks.

For example, your reasoning can't get the following:

Some natural law is non-local w.r.t any given space-time zones of several laboratories that discover it by well established scientific experiments.

Nevertheless the discovered natural law and the space-time zones of several laboratories that discover it, are vanished within a black-hole.

The big-bang is actually a white bulge, where the natural law and the given space-time zones of several laboratories that discover it, are derive from.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

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

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

Clarifications added

Please define your usage of the word domain.

The researched.

The researched what?

 

[doronshadmi]

The researched what?

Domain is "that is researched".

 

[doronshadmi]

Okay, I'll do it within the context: I mean by "immediate surrounding" a situation similar to the one which concerns the atom. It's nucleus is immediately surrounded by electrons. Since the nucleus consist of neutrons and positively charged protons, the local influnce means that protons and negatively charged electrons attract and that's what holds the atom together.

Take the hydrogen atom, it has one proton and one electron, where the glue among them is a photon.

In other words, the photon is non-local w.r.t the proton or the electron, where the proton and the electron are local w.r.t the photon (the glue).

 

[jsfisher]

The result is Complexity, which is not context dependent, but you don't get it, because your reasoning can't get its qualitative building-blocks.

No, what you don't get is that it isn't a result; it isn't even defined. It is just a word you toss around without worrying about what it means. And even if you did manage somehow to do the so-far impossible, define it, it still wouldn't be a result.

You don't distinguish between your assumptions and your conclusions, doron. And with good reason, since they are all the former.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Domain is "that is researched".

What is researched?

Define researched.

 

[The Man]

Again your local-only reasoning airs its limited view, and now it is done about the concept of dimension.

Again your attempts to simply ascribe some aspect of your own failed reasoning onto others, well, fails.

EDIT:
Look how the number of values (the multitude) that are needed in order to define the exact location of 0 dimesional element (which is local w.r.t any given dimension > 0) is a direct result of magnitude > 0 - magnitude 0, or in other words, the multitude is based on the magnitude, in this case.

See how the number of values, by counting them, that are needed in order to define the exact location of 0 dimensional element in some space is a direct result of that counting? As even you resorted to counting just after trying to chastise me for, well, counting.

If you accept the notion that No dimension is still a dimension, then we agree with each other.

If you accept the notion that no apple is still an apple then you can simply never have no apple. Similarly your assertion that “No dimension is still a dimension” is just your usual self contradictory nonsense. Once again Doron you simply do not agree with yourself.

Let us see if your claim is Strew Man or not.

n=1 to ∞
k=0 to n-1

X = "Dimensional space"

Y = "Dimensional element"

k_X - k_Y = 0 amount of coordinates that are used to determine k_Y location w.r.t k_X.

We get 0 amount of coordinates even if k > 0, so there are no coordinates even if the dimensional space and the dimensional element > 0.

In other words, your indication of 0 amount of coordinates does not necessarily imply 0-dimension (or as you call it: "No-dimension").

All we need is that the magnitudes of the dimensional space and the dimensional element will be the same, no matter if k = or > 0.

No Doron it simply shows that your ridiculous K-Y assertions are just, well, ridiculous and has nothing to do with the dimensionality of an object or space, since you don’t get the correct answer (and deliberately so).

In other words, your "No-dimension" claim about 0_X - 0_Y case is indeed a Strew Man and you indeed jerk yourself around.

Doron your own failed calculation giving you a wrong result is still just you jerking yourself around with your K-Y nonsense. So your “Strew Man” is still entirely yours