Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

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 ∞”

x has both predecessor AND successor, which exists relatively to that has no predecessor (0) or that has no successor (∞).

x is related to relativity, where 0 or ∞ are related to totality, where the framework has both properties, so there is no limitation of any kind here.

On the contrary, your 0 < x is relative only, because it does not understand 0 as the cardinality of totality like Emptiness, and starts by relative-only things like the concept of the empty set, which is an existing thing that has a predecessor (Emptiness), that is not understood by the relative-only notion.

 

[doronshadmi]

Not only did the section you quoted not even mention negative probabilities in any way,

The following part was taken from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6375173&postcount=11754 :

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).

Say no more.

 

[epix]

You are misleading:

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...":

As far as the Crafty One is concerned, "Jehovah" is a personal noun, and so the word starts with "big" letter J. 'J' is the 10th letter of the alphabet, or J=10, but the name of your opponent starts with "Little 10..." That's the same as "Little J..." But J is not "little" -- it's upper-case. So Little 10 Toes is not Jehovah, but jehovah. Since "jehovah" starts with "little" 'j', the word is just a common noun, and since the word isn't in the dictionary, there is no meaning to the word, as much there is no meaning to anything that was, is, and will be, as we scroll and troll through the Park of Tubular Moon heading for the galleria.
Totallyyyyyyyyyyy.

 

[jsfisher]

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

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

Great! Thing A is also a minimal version of Thing B.

So, now, where is that long awaited, much extolled definition of Thing B? You know, that "magnitude of existence" thing.


Another fail for you, Doron. You make a claim, but it proves out empty. Care to try again? What is the definition of "magnitude of existence"?

 

[doronshadmi]

Another fail for you, Doron. You make a claim, but it proves out empty.

Another fail of you, jsfisher. You have failed to understand your own words, because:

Definition A does exactly this: It enters to the game Emptiness as a valid player as "that has no predecessor".

Definition B does exactly this: It enters to the game Fullness as a valid player as "that has no successor".

You make a claim, but it proves out your reasoning's limitations.

Care to try again?

 

[epix]

Care to try again?

I did. But no matter what, I always find your opening salvo contradictory:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT

n
∑ i‧a_i = n
i=1

Can you expand the summands for at least n=5? Maybe you interpret the Sigma function differently and have failed to inform about it beforehand.

 

[doronshadmi]

I did. But no matter what, I always find your opening salvo contradictory:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT

n
∑ i‧a_i = n
i=1

Can you expand the summands for at least n=5? Maybe you interpret the Sigma function differently and have failed to inform about it beforehand.

You have missed the part which says that "(their introduction in this article is based on partial but consistent example)".

This function is not used anymore as the general function of ON's distinct forms, for example:

For n=2, we have 10 distinct forms:

(AB,AB) (AB,A)  (AB,B)  (AB)    (A,A)   (B,B)   (A,B)   (A)     (B)     ()

A * *   A * *   A * .   A * .   A * *   A . .   A * .   A * .   A . .   A . .
  | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |
B *_*   B *_.   B *_*   B *_.   B ._.   B *_*   B ._*   B ._.   B *_.   B ._.

(2,2) = (AB,AB)
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)
(2,0)=  (AB)
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)
(1,0)=  (A),(B)
(0,0)=  ()

where by the pervious calc. we have 2 distinct forms.

I already told you in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6329946&postcount=11526 what you have to do, before you deal with this stuff.

These kinds of replies http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6332623&postcount=11541 will not help you to deal with this stuff.

 

[doronshadmi]

Let us continue to develop OM.


The concept of Zero is defined by at least two different notions.

In terms of Cardinality as the magnitude of existence, Zero is the cardinality of that has no predecessor.


But Zero can be understood also as the equilibrium between opposite values, for example: the equilibrium between x and –x.

In that case Zero has both predecessor AND successor.


In order to distinguish between the two notions, let us notate Zero in terms of Cardinality by 0 (0 < x < ∞), and zero in terms of equilibrium by Θ.

For example: Θ + 1 = +1 , Θ - 1 = -1, where -1 is the predecessor of Θ, +1 is the successor of Θ, and Θ is the equilibrium of -1 and +1.

 

[The Man]

x has both predecessor AND successor, which exists relatively to that has no predecessor (0) or that has no successor (∞).

x is related to relativity, where 0 or ∞ are related to totality, where the framework has both properties, so there is no limitation of any kind here.

Fine, so now your “x” can be “0 or ∞” or would you like to reassert your limits on your “x” again?

On the contrary, your 0 < x is relative only, because it does not understand 0 as the cardinality of totality like Emptiness, and starts by relative-only things like the concept of the empty set, which is an existing thing that has a predecessor (Emptiness), that is not understood by the relative-only notion.

On the contrary, Doron, your “0 < x” remains still just, well, yours.

 

[The Man]

The following part was taken from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6375173&postcount=11754 :

So what? Where does that post say…

…negative probability is not an option anymore,

Say no more.

Oh, by all means, please, you first.

 

[jsfisher]

Another fail of you, jsfisher. You have failed to understand your own words, because:

Definition A does exactly this: It enters to the game Emptiness as a valid player as "that has no predecessor".

Definition B does exactly this: It enters to the game Fullness as a valid player as "that has no successor".

You make a claim, but it proves out your reasoning's limitations.

Your confusion and befuddlement never ceases to amaze, Doron. The subject is the definition "magnitude of existence" and yet you write about other things. Your pseudo-definition for emptiness is in no way a definition for the term at hand.

Focus. M-a-g-n-i-t-u-d-e---o-f---e-x-i-s-t-e-n-c-e.

Again, I invite you to define "magnitude of existence". It may help to put it in the form, "Magnitude of existence means ...". Just make sure everything after the word "means" are terms with common, well-defined meanings.

Care to try again?

My thoughts exactly, but history has shown you are incapable.

 

[The Man]

Let us continue to develop OM.

Say here’s an idea, why don’t you actually start “to develop OM” by defining your notions and making them self-consistent?

The concept of Zero is defined by at least two different notions.

Oh perhaps, to at least some extent anyway, but I doubt your “different notions” of zero will be, well, different notions of zero.

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

In terms of Cardinality as the magnitude of existence, Zero is the cardinality of that has no predecessor.

No Doron, “In terms of Cardinality” zero is the cardinality of the empty set. The empty set has no predecessor in cardinality simply because the set of all cardinal numbers excludes negative values.

But Zero can be understood also as the equilibrium between opposite values, for example: the equilibrium between x and –x.

Sorry Doron, but that is not a different notion of zero, it is just that now you include negative values in the set you are considering the same notion of zero as a member. In other words (since you like them so much) it is simply that the set you are considering the notion of zero in is now symmetrical about zero.

In that case Zero has both predecessor AND successor.

As it does in the set of all real numbers and the set of all integers, though it has no predecessor in the set of all non-negative integers, one of the sets considered to be the natural numbers (the set of all positive integers being the other, which does not include zero).

In order to distinguish between the two notions, let us notate Zero in terms of Cardinality by 0 (0 < x < ∞), and zero in terms of equilibrium by Θ.

Nope, you’re not distinguishing between two notions of zero just between two different sets that include just one notion of zero. One set includes negative numbers and the other does not. Once again your “0 < x < ∞” limitation does not even let your “x” be zero, so the set of all your values for your “x” does not even include zero.

For example: Θ + 1 = +1 , Θ - 1 = -1, where -1 is the predecessor of Θ, +1 is the successor of Θ, and Θ is the equilibrium of -1 and +1.

Nope, you just using two different symbols for the same notion of zero in different sets does not make your notion of zero, well, different.

 

[epix]

You have missed the part which says that "(their introduction in this article is based on partial but consistent example)".

This function is not used anymore as the general function of ON's distinct forms, for example:

"Their introduction in this article is based on partial but consistent example," is not decidedly the equivalent to this notice.

The result of the Sigma function is particular to the rest of your attempt to "define" the organic numbers. If you say that "the function is not used anymore," then kindly stop using the links to the Organic Mathematics (A Non-formal Introduction) as some support for your attempt to destroy the universe by driving it silly. The universe is based on the standard interpretation of the ratios, such as the 2:1 that you altered without giving prior notice, the same way you discontinued the usage of the Sigma function.

God completed the heavens and the earth. What is the ratio between the completed and the "completer."

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
Genesis 2:1

That's right. The ratio is 2:1.
You should keep godly order in your mathematics and reject the advances of The Unclean Spirit (formerly the devil) that commands you to reorganize the denominators insane.

 

[doronshadmi]

Your confusion and befuddlement never ceases to amaze, Doron. The subject is the definition "magnitude of existence" and yet you write about other things. Your pseudo-definition for emptiness is in no way a definition for the term at hand.

Focus. M-a-g-n-i-t-u-d-e---o-f---e-x-i-s-t-e-n-c-e.

Again, I invite you to define "magnitude of existence". It may help to put it in the form, "Magnitude of existence means ...". Just make sure everything after the word "means" are terms with common, well-defined meanings.



My thoughts exactly, but history has shown you are incapable.

Magnitude of existence means: "The measurement value that is related to the ability to be, not to be, or any level between to be or not to be."

 

[doronshadmi]

Fine, so now your “x” can be “0 or ∞” or would you like to reassert your limits on your “x” again?

No, The Man, you have a problem to distinguish between the relative and the total:

The totals are: That has no predecessor or that has no successor.

The relative is: That has predecessor AND successor.

Exercise: Find the differences.

 

[doronshadmi]

No Doron, “In terms of Cardinality” zero is the cardinality of the empty set. The empty set has no predecessor in cardinality simply because the set of all cardinal numbers excludes negative values.

I write:

"In terms of Cardinality as the magnitude of existence"

You write:

"In terms of Cardinality"


Exercise: Find the differences.

 

[doronshadmi]

The result of the Sigma function is particular to the rest of your attempt to "define" the organic numbers.

Not at all, this old Sigma function simply demonstrates a partial but consistent case of recursion over the partition function p.

The important notion here is the recursion, whether it is demonstrated partially or not.


By understanding this, please read http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT.

 

[doronshadmi]

0 Dimensional space has Emptiness as its predecessor.

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

Yep, looks like there’s no limit to your ignorance, even in Emptiness.

 

[The Man]

No, The Man, you have a problem to distinguish between the relative and the total:

The totals are: That has no predecessor or that has no successor.

The relative is: That has predecessor AND successor.

Exercise: Find the differences.

No Doron you have a problem identifying your own chosen limitations.

I write:

"In terms of Cardinality as the magnitude of existence"

You write:

"In terms of Cardinality"


Exercise: Find the differences.

Cardinality is not “magnitude of existence” and if you are claiming it is, as your statement above alludes to, there is no difference.

Yep, looks like there’s no limit to your ignorance, even in Emptiness.

Doron, “Emptiness” is limiting. However, by your OM you still just try to fill it with ignorance.

 

[doronshadmi]

The result of the Sigma function is particular to the rest of your attempt to "define" the organic numbers.

Not at all, this old Sigma function simply demonstrates a partial but consistent case of recursion over the partition function p.

The important notion here is the recursion, whether it is demonstrated partially or not.

Cardinality is not “magnitude of existence” and if you are claiming it is, as your statement above alludes to, there is no difference.

There is no difference under you limited reasoning, your limitation, your problem.

Doron, “Emptiness” is limiting. However, by your OM you still just try to fill it with ignorance.

“Emptiness” is totality exactly as "Fullness" is totality.

If linked they are able the existence of that has predecessor AND successor.

I was too generous to your reasoning's abilities by say that your reasoning gets "0 < x" expression.

Actually your reasoning is x-only (relative-only), such that there is no awareness to the total building-blocs that actually enable that has cardinality x.

Your relative-only reasoning is indeed total loss (a loss of totality).