Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

A better version of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6386427&postcount=11794 :

Magnitude of existence means:

"The measurement value that is related to the ability of totally be, totally not be, or to any level between totally be or totally not be."

In terms of dimensional spaces:

{

{} is 0 dimensional space

{{}} is 1 dimensional space

{{{}}} is 2 dimensional space

...

...{...}... is ∞ dimensional space


}

 

[epix]

Magnitude of existence means:

"The measurement value that is related to the ability of totally be, totally not be, or to any level between totally be or totally not be."

That's what I call a DEFINITION . . .

Playing in movie theaters everywhere: Hamlet meets the Valley Girl.

 

[jsfisher]

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."

Shakespeare said it much better in Hamlet. Moreover, what he wrote wasn't gibberish.

If you want to make any sense at all out of your pseudo-definition, you will need to tell us what you mean by measurement value and how it is determined, what is it's relationship to the ability to be, not to be, or any level in between, and what it means to be, not to be, or any level in between.

Otherwise, you are again just connecting together words in ways that don't mean anything, and your attempt to define "magnitude of existence" remains a solid fail.

 

[Robin]

A better version of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6386427&postcount=11794 :

Magnitude of existence means:

"The measurement value that is related to the ability of totally be, totally not be, or to any level between totally be or totally not be."

That could, like, totally replace Rudolf Carnap on my sig line

In terms of dimensional spaces:

{

{} is 0 dimensional space

{{}} is 1 dimensional space

{{{}}} is 2 dimensional space

...

...{...}... is ∞ dimensional space


}

There is a perfectly good way of representing n dimensional space in maths already.

 

[epix]

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.

It's not the Sigma function where some recursion is claimed to take place, but the product function. Read again what you wrote in your seminal work: "Every Partitionα defines different Organic Numbers D(alpha) that are calculated by the recursion."
Right bellow is the product function that generates Organic Numbers, but not their value. That comes next . . .

You did a "great job" by choosing the variants and the font: letter 'a' is very hard to distinguish from lower-case Greek Alpha.

I know that you won't be able to list the values of the first 20 Organic Numbers, coz you don't know how. The only way to prove me wrong is to list them. But if you do it, then I show you how important the Organic Numbers are.

I forgot to ask you about this. It's fairly important: Does the year of 1981 hold any importance to you?

 

[jsfisher]

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.

The problem is that since Doron has trouble expressing complete thoughts, it is easy to miss that Doron is using a non-obvious encoding for a partition. For example, here are the partitions for 5, and there encoding in Doronese.

1+1+1+1+1 ==> (5,0,0,0,0)
2+1+1+1 ==> (3,1,0,0,0)
2+2+1 ==> (1,2,0,0,0)
3+1+1 ==> (2,0,1,0,0)
3+2 ==> (0,1,1,0,0)
4+1 ==> (1,0,0,1,0)
5 ==>(0,0,0,0,1)

I may have left out one or two partitions.

 

[epix]

The problem is that since Doron has trouble expressing complete thoughts, it is easy to miss that Doron is using a non-obvious encoding for a partition. For example, here are the partitions for 5, and there encoding in Doronese.

1+1+1+1+1 ==> (5,0,0,0,0)
2+1+1+1 ==> (3,1,0,0,0)
2+2+1 ==> (1,2,0,0,0)
3+1+1 ==> (2,0,1,0,0)
3+2 ==> (0,1,1,0,0)
4+1 ==> (1,0,0,1,0)
5 ==>(0,0,0,0,1)

I may have left out one or two partitions.

Doron got very defensive upon reading that his Sigma function suffered from a contradiction and said that the function was not that important. He never asked about the nature of the contradiction and never made the attempt to expand the summands. He didn't fight well enough.

Just for the heck of it:

31 = (7 + 6 + 6 + 4 + 3 + 3 + 2) = (a₁ + 2a₂ + 3a₃ + 4a₄ + ... + 30a₃₀ + 31a₃₁)

I tried and tried but to no avail -- the solution eluded me. Maybe it would remain hidden to you as well, but that doesn't matter, coz we can always ask Doron who is the formula inventor, and he kindly shows us the solution.

 

[doronshadmi]

Shakespeare said it much better in Hamlet. Moreover, what he wrote wasn't gibberish.

If you want to make any sense at all out of your pseudo-definition, you will need to tell us what you mean by measurement value and how it is determined, what is it's relationship to the ability to be, not to be, or any level in between, and what it means to be, not to be, or any level in between.

Otherwise, you are again just connecting together words in ways that don't mean anything, and your attempt to define "magnitude of existence" remains a solid fail.

In other words, you have missed http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6387661&postcount=11801 .

 

[doronshadmi]

There is a perfectly good way of representing n dimensional space in maths already.

Not exactly.

You have missed the outer "{" "}" for Fullness (that has no successor)

{

}

,which its magnitude of existence is ∞

and you also have missed Emptiness (that has no predecessor)
,which its magnitude of existence is 0.


{

{} is the weakest thing that has predecessor AND successor, which is known as Point.

{{}} is a things that has predecessor AND successor, which is known as Line.

{{{}}} is a things that has predecessor AND successor, which is known as Plane.

...

...{...}... is a things that has predecessor AND successor, which is known as non-strict demensional space.

}

 

[doronshadmi]

It's not the Sigma function where some recursion is claimed to take place, but the product function. Read again what you wrote in your seminal work: "Every Partitionα defines different Organic Numbers D(alpha) that are calculated by the recursion."
Right bellow is the product function that generates Organic Numbers, but not their value. That comes next . . .

You did a "great job" by choosing the variants and the font: letter 'a' is very hard to distinguish from lower-case Greek Alpha.

I know that you won't be able to list the values of the first 20 Organic Numbers, coz you don't know how. The only way to prove me wrong is to list them. But if you do it, then I show you how important the Organic Numbers are.

I forgot to ask you about this. It's fairly important: Does the year of 1981 hold any importance to you?

Epix, you take a dead end street, but then I am not with you in this voyage.

Again, the important notion here is the extension of p by recursion, where Distinction is essential property of that extension.

This notion does not stand or falls by any calculation of the number of distinct-only forms, and you still miss the extension of p by recursion, where Distinction is essential property of that extension.

You are still missing http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6176489&postcount=10850.

Why you ignored http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6199545&postcount=10963 ?

Do you get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5569905&postcount=8290 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5660394&postcount=8824 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5685853&postcount=8905 ?

 

[doronshadmi]

What? That “(1/2+1/4+1/8+…) - (1/2+1/4+1/8+…) = 0” is a key element of the proof that such a convergent series has a sum.

( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5693834&postcount=8930 )

The Man, your naïve approach of infinite collections does not let you to understand that (1/2+1/4+1/8+…) - (1/2+1/4+1/8+…) = Θ , where Θ is an equilibrium between values, whether they are strict (sums) of non-strict (fogs).

Also your naïve approach of infinite collections can't grasp http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5749148&postcount=9183 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5735873&postcount=9169 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5723113&postcount=9127.

Also your your naïve approach of Distinction can't grasp http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5961667&postcount=9954.

 

[The Man]

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

No Doron it’s your "magnitude of existence" so it is still just your problem. You want to define it differently than cardinality, fine do so and stop trying to use cardinality as your "magnitude of existence".

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

And both are totally limiting.

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

Nonsense.

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

Doron I’m sure everyone here gets the expression, it is just that you’re the only one claiming it as a “framework” and then trying to pawn it off onto others as their “framework”.

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).

Again stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.

 

[epix]

Epix, you take a dead end street, but then I am not with you in this voyage.

Again, the important notion here is the extension of p by recursion, where Distinction is essential property of that extension.

This notion does not stand or falls by any calculation of the number of distinct-only forms, and you still miss the extension of p by recursion, where Distinction is essential property of that extension.

The bottom line is that you can't list the first 20 Organic Numbers, as I suspected, coz you don't have the slightest idea how to do it. You don't understand all the formulas that you think are particular to the creation of the sequence. For example, you listed a combination formula with parameter 'b', but you never defined it.

It's a very interesting case of automatic writing. Some folks have been compelled to write stuff down that they had only a partial understanding of. Some of them got concerned about the sudden compulsion and made an appointment with a psychiatrist. The scribbles were never examined properly, but by some "sheer luck," a method has emerged that can see what is running in the background. I don't think it's all done yet, but I know that specific formula examples is a big no-no in your case: that is the proof of you not being able to follow stuff that you claim is yours -- a proof that you might be able to understand. That might stop you dead in putting out additional info.

 

[The Man]

( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5693834&postcount=8930 )

The Man, your naïve approach of infinite collections does not let you to understand that (1/2+1/4+1/8+…) - (1/2+1/4+1/8+…) = Θ , where Θ is an equilibrium between values, whether they are strict (sums) of non-strict (fogs).

Also your naïve approach of infinite collections can't grasp http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5749148&postcount=9183 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5735873&postcount=9169 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5723113&postcount=9127.

Also your your naïve approach of Distinction can't grasp http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5961667&postcount=9954.

Doron, adding a new symbol “Θ” for zero to your nonsense does not make you any less wrong then you were before.

 

[doronshadmi]

Nonsense.

This is your best, I know.

 

[The Man]

This is your best, I know.

Well Doron, it's your nonsense and while I seriously doubt it is the best you can do, it is certainly all you have done (so far) lo, these many (what 20) years now.

 

[epix]

( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5693834&postcount=8930 )

The Man, your naïve approach of infinite collections does not let you to understand that (1/2+1/4+1/8+…) - (1/2+1/4+1/8+…) = Θ , where Θ is an equilibrium between values, whether they are strict (sums) of non-strict (fogs).

If Θ is a symbol for equilibrium between values, aren't you compelled to adjust the look of '=' as well? It makes the 'DΘRΘN = s' equation too unsophisticated a case.

'Θ', formerly '='.

Aha.

 

[doronshadmi]

The bottom line is that you can't list the first 20 Organic Numbers, .

The bottom line is that in this informal version of OM http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT it does not matter how many distinct forms a given Organic Number has.

Since you are trapped by Moshe's formula , I have changed this informal version of OM, and now there is no formula or anything that is related to it, in this informal version of OM.

Now if you wish, then please read http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well Doron, it's your nonsense and while I seriously doubt it is the best you can do, it is certainly all you have done (so far) lo, these many (what 20) years now.

Well, The Man, so far you can't grasp something like http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6390389&postcount=11809 while I seriously doubt it is the best you can do (as you did all along this thread in the past 2 years).

 

[doronshadmi]

If Θ is a symbol for equilibrium between values, aren't you compelled to adjust the look of '=' as well? It makes the 'DΘRΘN = s' equation too unsophisticated a case.

'Θ', formerly '='.

Aha.

You don't like "equilibrium" (which is different than "equality"), then use "balance" instead.