Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

Learn how to do ratios. 2:1 does not equal "100% 1 and 100% 0". Another math failure.

Let us correct something about probability and superposition of ids.

If we care only about Cardinality , where Cardinality is "the magnitude of existence" of the considered concept, then Emptiness has Cardinality 0 and Fullness has Cardinality ∞.

In the case of, for example, 2:1 we work in the universe of the "intermediate magnitude of existence", which is > 0 and < ∞.

In that universe, if we generalize the existing things to the number of ids, then we get, for example, the following forms:

A= some id (for example: "100% T")
B= another id (for example: "-23.567% F")

This form represents non-locality among superposition of ids (symmetry):

A   A 
B   B 
|___|

This form represents non-locality among ids (asymmetry):

A   B 
|___| 
|

The current mathematical science is based only on the second form.

 

[doronshadmi]

What? So you were answering some question in your head instead of what was asked?

Doron, most of us here have gotten your propensity for that quite early on.



Oh, so now “"+" and "-" are distinct.” in spite of what you have been claiming for pages.

Do you ever agree with yourself Doron?





“You simply can't get things”, evidently even just in your own fiat-land.

Still can't grap the notion of σ Cardinality as non-strict id, isn't it The Man?

 

[The Man]

Let us correct something about probability and superposition of ids.

If we care only about Cardinality , where Cardinality is "the magnitude of existence" of the considered concept, then Emptiness has Cardinality 0 and Fullness has Cardinality ∞.

In the case of, for example, 2:1 we work in the universe of the "intermediate magnitude of existence", which is > 0 and < ∞.

In that universe, if we generalize the existing things to the number of ids, then we get, for example, the following forms:

A= some id (for example: "100% T")
B= another id (for example: "-23.567% F")

This form represents non-locality among superposition of ids (symmetry):

A   A 
B   B 
|___|

This form represents non-locality among ids (asymmetry):

A   B 
|___| 
|

The current mathematical science is based only on the second form

Simply repeating your nonsense with additional supplementary (even negative percentage) nonsense just makes it more nonsensical.

Again stop just running around ‘extending’ any bit of nonsense you have any which way you can and sit down and get your notions into at least some semblance of a self-consistent and well defined form. Until you do that you will remain the biggest opponent of your own notions.

 

[doronshadmi]

Where was I using an example of "25% T and 25% F" and what was it specifically identified to be an example of?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6373064&postcount=11735 it was acctually "25% 1 and 25% 1" be it is equivalent to "25% T and 25% F", so plase answer the question: "what is the rest of 50%"?

Oh, so you’re just talking about your “extended” nonsense again. Who could have guessed? Doron you still haven’t established what your "magnitude of existence" is (other than very loosely associating it to cardinality) nor have you established how this “measurement” of yours is accomplished. So you go run off and extend anything you think you need to, but until you definitively establish it first you’re just extending your nonsense, again.

You simple can't grasp the notion of 0 < x < ∞ in terms of "magnitude of existence" that are expressed by Cardinality or by extension to any possible value from 0 to 1.

So first try to grap 0 < x < ∞ in terms of "magnitude of existence" that are expressed by Cardinality.

Without this first step, you simply have nothing to say, accsept

Nonsense

 

[doronshadmi]

Simply repeating your nonsense with additional supplementary (even negative percentage) nonsense just makes it more nonsensical.

So now negative probability is not an option anymore, The Man?

the total probability of having an outcome is always 1, which can be the sum of any combination of probabilities including negative probabilities and probability amplitudes (which is why some particle decay modes are suppressed).

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron you still haven’t established what your "magnitude of existence" is

Here it is in terms of Cardinality: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6372664&postcount=11731 .

 

[jsfisher]

Here it is in terms of Cardinality: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6372664&postcount=11731 .

No, it isn't. You waste a lot of words in that post, but you don't define "magnitude of existence". The only thing you really do is assert properties of things you fail to define.

 

[doronshadmi]

No, it isn't.

Please demonstrate your claim in details.

 

[The Man]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6373064&postcount=11735 it was acctually "25% 1 and 25% 1" be it is equivalent to "25% T and 25% F", so plase answer the question: "what is the rest of 50%"?

As I said read the whole post.

Sure, as would your “100% 1 and 100% 0” or 25% 1 and 25% 0 and it is not my “reasoning” it is just the result of the values and ratio being expressed.

However, none of these variants represent a probability distribution totaling 100% while “50% 1 and 50% 0” does. To try to put it in simpler terms for you Doron it simply means the proposition P has an equal probability of evaluation to TRUE as it does to FALSE.

I've bolded the relevent part in case you keep missing it.

You simple can't grasp the notion of 0 < x < ∞ in terms of "magnitude of existence" that are expressed by Cardinality or by extension to any possible value from 0 to 1.

You simply can’t grasp that it is just your as yet undefined notion and your own limitation.

So first try to grap 0 < x < ∞ in terms of "magnitude of existence" that are expressed by Cardinality.

Try to first define your “magnitude of existence” and to grasp that your “0 < x < ∞” limitation limits only you.

Without this first step, you simply have nothing to say, accsept

And nonsense is all you have without first some self-consistent definitions.

So now negative probability is not an option anymore, The Man?

Where did I ever say that? Stop just making crap up Doron and then trying to ascribe it to someone else.

Here it is in terms of Cardinality: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6372664&postcount=11731 .

No, it isn't. You waste a lot of words in that post, but you don't define "magnitude of existence". The only thing you really do is assert properties of things you fail to define.

jsfisher beat me to it.

 

[doronshadmi]

jsfisher beat me to it.

No The Man, you beat each other on it.

Anyway, if one can't immediately get the notion that Emptiness has the minimal magnitude of existence and Fullness has the maximal magnitude of existence, there is no use to continue the dialog with him\her on that subject.

By ignoring your built-in inability about this subject, I continue to develop OM:

0 Dimensional space has Emptiness as its predecessor.

1 Dimensional space has 0 Dimensional space and Emptiness as its predecessors.

…

n Dimensional space has n-1 Dimensional space to Emptiness as its predecessors.

...

∞ Dimensional space has ∞-1 Dimensional space to ∞-∞ Dimensional space as its predecessors, where ∞ is non-strict.

 

[doronshadmi]

However, none of these variants represent a probability distribution totaling 100% while “50% 1 and 50% 0” does.

However your notion of probability is limited to distinct things that are summed to 100%.

I had no choice but to provided the answer, since you can't get it because of the limitations of your reasoning about the concept of Probability, for example:

proposition P has an equal probability of evaluation to TRUE as it does to FALSE.

In other words, distinct proposition P has an equal chance to be TRUE as it does to FALSE.

 

[doronshadmi]

Try to first define your “magnitude of existence” and to grasp that your “0 < x < ∞” limitation limits only you.

So from one hand you don't know what “magnitude of existence” is , but on the other hand it does not prevent from you
to conclude that “0 < x < ∞” is a limited framework.

How poor The Man, how low you go.

Where did I ever say that?

Problems to understand what you wrote in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6375883&postcount=11765?

Simply repeating your nonsense with additional supplementary (even negative percentage) nonsense just makes it more nonsensical.

As you know negative percentage is equivalent to negative probability.

 

[The Man]

No The Man, you beat each other on it.

Anyway, if one can't immediately get the notion that Emptiness has the minimal magnitude of existence and Fullness has the maximal magnitude of existence, there is no use to continue the dialog with him\her on that subject.

You can stop responding to my posts anytime you want,


or can you?

By ignoring your built-in inability about this subject, I continue to develop OM:

Heck, you’ve ignored just about everything else, including your own assertion, so why stop now.

0 Dimensional space has Emptiness as its predecessor.

1 Dimensional space has 0 Dimensional space and Emptiness as its predecessors.

…

n Dimensional space has n-1 Dimensional space to Emptiness as its predecessors.

...

∞ Dimensional space has ∞-1 Dimensional space to ∞-∞ Dimensional space as its predecessors, where ∞ is non-strict.

Yep, looks like there’s no stopping your ignorance, even in an empty space.

However your notion of probability is limited to distinct things that are summed to 100%.

Well when you find a 110% probability, you be sure to let us know what you do with the other 10%.

I had no choice but to provided the answer, since you can't get it because of the limitations of your reasoning about the concept of Probability, for example:

Just what “answer” do you think you “provided”?

In other words, distinct proposition P has an equal chance to be TRUE as it does to FALSE.

In the exact words I used “proposition P has an equal probability of evaluation to TRUE as it does to FALSE”. Had I needed “other words”, I would have used other words.

So from one hand you don't know what “magnitude of existence” is , but on the other hand it does not prevent from you
to conclude that “0 < x < ∞” is a limited framework.

See those symbols on either side of your “x”? They limit the values of your “x”, in case you didn’t realize it. Or is that just something else you’re ignoring?

How poor The Man, how low you go.

Why, down to zero…

, even in cardinality, but your “x” can’t because of your limits.

Problems to understand what you wrote in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6375883&postcount=11765?

Still imaging just what you would have preferred that I had written, the problems once again Doron remains entirely yours.

Your “direct perception” as well as reading comprehension has failed you yet again.

Not only did the section you quoted not even mention negative probabilities in any way, it did not even assert that negative percentages were “not an option” as you put it. It simply asserted, as I will do now again, that what you were claiming (even with your inclusion of a negative percentage) was just nonsense.

I hope at least that makes you less confused.

As you know negative percentage is equivalent to negative probability.

One can speak of and note probabilities in terms of percentages, but percentages aren’t always probabilities. In case you didn’t know.

 

[jsfisher]

Please demonstrate your claim in details.

No, that's not how it works, and you know it. You made a claim; the burden falls to you to demonstrate your claim in detail.

Please, proceed: Show us where in your referenced post you define "magnitude of existence". We are all anxious to see where you broke your perfect record of never defining any of the made-up terminology you use.

 

[epix]

epix, it is not about the concept "ratio".

It is about your claim that I do not alert the reader about non-standard treatment.

Please read again the provided links in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6372784&postcount=11733 , and you will find that your claim is wrong.

If you had explained the way you handle ratios beforehand, you wouldn't have experienced a profoundly embarrasing fall from Mt. Reason.

What is this?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT

For example, the Organic Numbers (their introduction in this article is based on partial but consistent example) are an extension to the Partition functionPr(n ) (see pages 6,7), where Distinction is their first-order property. The Organic SequenceOr (n ) : 1, 2, 3, 9, 24, 76, 236, … is the serial observation of Organic Numbers, as follows:

First we observe the partitions of numbern>2: Γ (partition+0 is ignored)

Did you get the Euler's Gamma Function in there going, or did you just decide that you will define the way you will do the partitions with Greek letter Gamma? Just answer YES or NO.

The devil (666) is in the details . . .
Since 6+6+6=18, we must partition number 18, such as a_i<= a_i+1

1+1+16
1+2+15
1+3+14
1+4+13
1+5+12
1+6+11
1+7+10
1+8+9
2+2+14
2+3+13
2+4+12
2+5+11
2+6+10
2+7+9
2+8+8
3+3+12
3+4+11
3+5+10
3+6+9
3+7+8
4+4+10
4+5+9
4+6+8
4+7+7
5+5+8
5+6+7
6+6+6

There are 27 partitions, and since the 27th book of The New Testament is Revelation where the devil is defined, you should learn from His Infinite Omniscience and Prognosticator Supreme God the Lord PhD how to alert readers what to expect.

The Unclean copulates your head -- I can see it right there in your "organic partitions."
Oh, maaaan . . . LOL.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

No, that's not how it works, and you know it. You made a claim; the burden falls to you to demonstrate your claim in detail.

Please, proceed: Show us where in your referenced post you define "magnitude of existence". We are all anxious to see where you broke your perfect record of never defining any of the made-up terminology you use.

Heck, I'm still waiting for him to prove that I'm not Jehovah, since he made that claim.

 

[doronshadmi]

No, that's not how it works, and you know it. You made a claim; the burden falls to you to demonstrate your claim in detail.

Please, proceed: Show us where in your referenced post you define "magnitude of existence". We are all anxious to see where you broke your perfect record of never defining any of the made-up terminology you use.

Definition A: That has no predecessor has "the minimal magnitude of existence".

Example: Emptiness has "the minimal magnitude of existence".


Definition B: That has no successor has "the maximal magnitude of existence".

Example: Fullness (the opposite of Emptiness) has "the maximal magnitude of existence".



If one can't immediately get the notion that Emptiness has the minimal magnitude of existence and Fullness (its opposite, which has no successor) has the maximal magnitude of existence, there is no use to continue the dialog with him\her on that subject.

You, jsfisher, is such one.

 

[doronshadmi]

See those symbols on either side of your “x”? They limit the values of your “x”, in case you didn’t realize it.

See those symbols on either side of my “x”? They are the totalities that enable x as a relative existence between them, such that x is an ever developed relative existence, which does not suffer from Russell's paradox and does not need the garbage can of proper classes.

Furthermore, if x magnitude of existence is extended beyond cardinality to any possible value that has both predecessor AND successor, then 0 < x < ∞ means that x is defined as that has infinite interpolation or infinite extrapolation, which is a clear signature that x is an ever developed existence, that is not limited by 0 or ∞, simply because they are its building-bocks (because x has 0 as its predecessor AND ∞ as its successor).

your 0 < x framework is limited because one of its building-blocks (∞) is missing.

As a result it suffers from Russell's paradox (ad hoc treatments are used in order to avoid it) and needs the garbage can of proper classes.

 

[doronshadmi]

Heck, I'm still waiting for him to prove that I'm not Jehovah, since he made that claim.

You are misleading:

Here you claim that you are not-Jehovah or Jehovah (where or is different than xor):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6293447&postcount=11417

Since one of your options is that you are Jehovah, I asked you "Who is Jehovah?":
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6294370&postcount=11422

Here you demonstrate that you do not distinguish between "Who" and "What" by providing an answer is based on "What", where I asked you a question that is based on "Who":
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6294881&postcount=11424

According to the fact that you are not Jehovah, I asked you "Who is "Little 10 Toes" which is also "I"?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6295064&postcount=11425

Here you claim, that I claim that you are Jehovah, but this is a false claim, because in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6295064&postcount=11425
I explicitly say that you are not Jehovah, and in this case you have to answer only to this question: "Who is "Little 10 Toes" which is also "I"?:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6295076&postcount=11426

Here we see that you chose to be Jehovah, by ignoring my claim about the fact that you are not Jehovah. Since you, and not me, claim that you are Jehovah, I show you that your claim that you are Jehovah is false, because if you are Jehova then: "you are able to answer to this question, without any tools like books etc...":
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6295096&postcount=11427

 

[The Man]

See those symbols on either side of my “x”? They are the totalities that enable x as a relative existence between them, such that x is an ever developed relative existence, which does not suffer from Russell's paradox and does not need the garbage can of proper classes.

So you just don’t see those symbols that assert some limitations on your “x”? Here is what they look like “<”, now see if you can find them.

Furthermore, if x magnitude of existence is extended beyond cardinality to any possible value that has both predecessor AND successor, then 0 < x < ∞ means that x is defined as that has infinite interpolation or infinite extrapolation, which is a clear signature that x is an ever developed existence, that is not limited by 0 or ∞, simply because they are its building-bocks (because x has 0 as its predecessor AND ∞ as its successor).

Doron your “x” is limited by “0 or ∞” and even, by those “<” symbols you just can’t seem to find, limited from being “0 or ∞”

your 0 < x framework is limited because one of its building-blocks (∞) is missing.

Once again Doron, no one has asserted “0 < x” as their “framework” other then you, so it remains just your “framework”.

Stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning or what you might naively assert as one of your ‘frameworks’ on to others.

As a result it suffers from Russell's paradox (ad hoc treatments are used in order to avoid it) and needs the garbage can of proper classes.

Again Doron it is still just your own “framework”, so if you think it “suffers” then it is just your fault.