jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
No, not at all. That suffers the same flaw. I still await a definition. Got one?
Deeper than primes
- Thread starter doronshadmi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- deeper than primes
- Status
No, not at all. That suffers the same flaw. I still await a definition. Got one?
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
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.
Doron has hauled out the same nonsense before. It is riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies, but he persists. For the most part, he dismisses the objections as unimportant. When pressed, it becomes obvious he doesn't understand any of the functions, so he cannot possibly appreciate the objections let alone mastermind any corrections.
In summary, the entire document is a major fail.
The bridging plays a big part in this remarkable communication.
There is no need to bridge OM, coz M is the successor of O, which is the predecessor of M. But when the magnitude of existence is '-n+', then both objects can't see each other, coz O exists in a different plane of existence then M. It's like when your upper torso is in 3D physical and your lower torso is in 4D physical. In that case you miss the toilet, which is in 3D physical. The symbolic rendition of OM being in two different states of existence is rendered this way:
O__________M
You need to bridge the gap to bring O and M to a full awareness of unity. In this particular case, the bridging problem can be solved. There is a place in Poland that has name that starts with O and ends with M. Just think about what you did to Moshe's formulas when they became undesirable, and you get that bridging done in a sec.
In this particular case of inter-dimensional separation due to a strong gravitational imbalance, 'M' remained fixed and 'O' "travelled" changing its magnitude of existence '-n' due to the materialization of attractant 'ehs':
OM
? <--------- O___M
ehs <---O_______M
That means the value of the first 20 Organic Numbers can be recovered, but the proof of it arrives only when they are really recovered. It's like the mysteries of the universe and its mind-boggling physical transformations that makes some think in terms of determinism being a fantasy.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Since when totalities are flaw?
Got one?
Let us start by Emptiness.
Please demonstrate its flaw.
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Ho, and jsfisher,
After you demonstrate that Emptiness flaws, you are invited to prove that S = X.
The form below is a proof without words ( http://books.google.com/books?id=cy...m=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false ) that the bended forms of constant X>0 (which stand at the basis of the projected S = (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) upon the non-bended constant X>0) are irreducible to 0 size, and as a result there is an invariant unclosed gap between S and constant X>0, which its value is 0.000…3/4 > 0, where 3/4 is the invariance among infinitely many bended forms of constant X>0 that are projected upon the non-bended form of constant X>0 (Infinite interpolation is True).
Analytical thinking, which is based on non-visual thinking, can't deal with the anomaly that is exposed by
This part was taken from the back cover of http://books.google.com/books?id=cy...m=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
As a result the mathematical science of the past 3000 years is considered as non-visual science, just because is was developed during the years by people that are skillful by analytical thinking, which is non-visual by nature.
After you demonstrate that Emptiness flaws, you are invited to prove that S = X.
The form below is a proof without words ( http://books.google.com/books?id=cy...m=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false ) that the bended forms of constant X>0 (which stand at the basis of the projected S = (2a+2b+2c+2d+...) upon the non-bended constant X>0) are irreducible to 0 size, and as a result there is an invariant unclosed gap between S and constant X>0, which its value is 0.000…3/4 > 0, where 3/4 is the invariance among infinitely many bended forms of constant X>0 that are projected upon the non-bended form of constant X>0 (Infinite interpolation is True).
Analytical thinking, which is based on non-visual thinking, can't deal with the anomaly that is exposed by
This part was taken from the back cover of http://books.google.com/books?id=cy...m=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
,which demostrates that most mathematicians are unable to grasp visual thinking.
As a result the mathematical science of the past 3000 years is considered as non-visual science, just because is was developed during the years by people that are skillful by analytical thinking, which is non-visual by nature.
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Your reading comprehension hasn't improved.
The flaw is now and continues to be that you haven't yet presented a definition for magnitude of existence. Instead you have thrown around other terms in meaningless ways.
You did at one point start with "Magnitude of existence means...". That was good, but you didn't follow it with something intelligent and constructive.
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Doron, are you really so vacant and vacuous that the best you can do is recycle old crap that has already been discussed and dismissed?
Please, just focus on that task at hand: Define "magnitude of existence". Stop flittering from topic to topic without addressing any of them. Let's stay on just this one. Can you constrain your attention long enough for that?
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Your reasoning comprehension hasn't improved.
Let us do it in baby steps.
Magnitude of existence means:
"The measurement unit of totally be, totally not be, or to any level between totally be and totally not be."
"Totally not be" means: Emptiness.
"Totally be" means: Fullness.
The measurement unit of Emptiness is 0 , it has no predecessor and no notation.
The measurement unit of Fullness is ∞ , it has no successor and its notation is the outer "{" "}" .
If only Emptiness and Fullness are considered, then the notation is:
{
}
Any thing that has predecessor AND successor, its measurement unit > 0 and < ∞.
Some examples of things that have predecessor AND successor:
{
0 dimensional space, known as point and notated as {}, has measurement unit 1.
1 dimensional space, known as line and notated as {{}}, has measurement unit 2.
2 dimensional space, known as plane and notated as {{{}}}, has measurement unit 3.
...
In general, any n dimensional space, notated as {...{}...}, has measurement unit n+1.
...
∞ dimensional space, notated as ...{...}... , has non-strict measurement unit.
}
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
This "old crap" is another evidence of the weakness of your reasoning abilities, and since in both cases your reasoning fails, then both subjects are relevant.
So after you read http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6394776&postcount=11828, then demonstrate how totality like Emptiness flaws.
After this demonstration please prove that S=X ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6393884&postcount=11825 ).
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Then why did you say it was?
So which is the lie Doron, your former assertion or your latter?
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Well, you can always surprise me, unless there are no surprises in a Black\White reasoning, where anything is T or F and your best is F.
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
It is a measurement unit. Really? You haven't used it as such. Did you really mean unit, like ohm are kilometer are units?
And apparently it is a unit of being, ranging from "totally be [sic]" to "totally not be [sic]".
This, of course, raises the questions of (1) what does it mean to be or not be (totally) or fall somewhere in between and (2) how does one measure "being", total or otherwise?
Great! Now, what does emptiness mean?
Ditto, fullness.
The number 0 is not a unit of anything; it is, well, a number.
You contradict yourself. Thanks to the arabs of long ago, we have a very convenient notation for zero. As for predecessor, well, that would depend on the meaning of the term, and since you, Doron, seldom use accepted terminology, the question would be, "What do you mean by predecessor?"
Again, not a unit.
Notation has never been a substitute for definition. Define first; you can notate later.
So, let's summarize:
Given the simple task of defining what you mean by "magnitude of existence" you have failed, yet again, to do that, but instead have falsely claimed it to be a unit of measure instead of a measure, you have made ignorant statements about zero and absolute infinity being units, and you have thrown in a few additional undefined terms just for distraction.
Would an example help? Here's an informal definition for cardinality of a set.
Cardinality of a set a measure of set "size" based on the number of members the set has.
It is not a mathematically precise definition, but it is a good basis for understanding the term and for further discussion. Why can't you do the same for magnitude of existence?
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Exactly Cardinality, which is the measurement unit of the size (or magnitude) of existence.jsfisher said:
Nope.jsfisher said:
Cardinality 0 is the measurement unit of Emptiness, where Emptiness has no notation.
I believe that you have no problems to get the notion of the existing thing, called The empty set, where one of its notations is: {}.
By looking at {} you see that there is no notation to Emptiness (that is between "{" "}" ), nevertheless the measurement unit of Emptiness is Cardinality 0.
Well, in this case, this number is the measurement unit of the existence (the cardinality) of Emptiness, where Emptiness has no notation (as shown above).jsfisher said:
jsfisher said:
That has no predecessor, and Fullness is that has no successor, which its cardinality is ∞, and its notation is the outer "{" "}".
If only Emptiness and Fullness are considered, then the notation is:
{
}
All done, the definition, the notation (or no notation), and the measurement unit (Cardinality) of the defined.jsfisher said:
So, let's summarize:
You have failed to understand the definition of Emptiness and Fullness, and the measurement unit (Cardinality) of the defined.
Would an example help?
Cardinality is the measurement unit of Emptiness (that has no predecessor), Fullness (that has no successor) or that has predecessor AND successor.
Any thing that has predecessor AND successor, its cardinality > 0 and < ∞.
Some examples of things that have predecessor AND successor:
{
0 dimensional space, known as point and notated as {}, has measurement unit (cardinality) 1.
1 dimensional space, known as line and notated as {{}}, has measurement unit (cardinality) 2.
2 dimensional space, known as plane and notated as {{{}}}, has measurement unit (cardinality) 3.
...
In general, any n dimensional space, notated as {...{}...}, has measurement unit (cardinality) n+1.
...
∞ dimensional space, notated as ...{...}... , has non-strict measurement unit (cardinality).
}
Last edited:
Doron, I said that there is a place in Poland that starts with O and ends with M, (O_______M), where you sent Moshe Klein's formulas, coz you found them no good for your own purpose. Did I ask to solve S_____I?
Yes, Sierpinski was a Polish mathematician but his name doesn't start and end with O and M (formerly "Organic Mathematics").
Your phantasmagoria excursion doesn't have a problem to solve -- it doesn't follow the natural development of mathematics, which is a particular problem-solving method. But in the background, it does: it's the Organic Number sequence. You listed the beginning of the sequence -- the first seven numbers that no longer exist, coz you deleted the text with all Moshe Klein's formulas. That's too late, coz the problem has been identified. As a matter of fact, it's the Organic Number #18 that matters. The sequence follows a pretty tight exponential development, as I found out by doing a regression analysis on the first seven terms.
Now there are only the first 7 numbers, and the task is to derive the rest with no Moshe Klein's generating formula. Do you think that your "Total Fulness, Emptiness be-or-not-to-be-that's-the-question" could contribute to the Final Solution of the Mystery of Organic Number #18?
I give you a little clue why that number matters, coz Father Totti broke through:
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
Revelation 22:13
The first is A and the last is Z. And so
(O_____M) = (A_____Z)
Aren't you curious how many and why, Doron?
Yes, Sierpinski was a Polish mathematician but his name doesn't start and end with O and M (formerly "Organic Mathematics").
Your phantasmagoria excursion doesn't have a problem to solve -- it doesn't follow the natural development of mathematics, which is a particular problem-solving method. But in the background, it does: it's the Organic Number sequence. You listed the beginning of the sequence -- the first seven numbers that no longer exist, coz you deleted the text with all Moshe Klein's formulas. That's too late, coz the problem has been identified. As a matter of fact, it's the Organic Number #18 that matters. The sequence follows a pretty tight exponential development, as I found out by doing a regression analysis on the first seven terms.
Now there are only the first 7 numbers, and the task is to derive the rest with no Moshe Klein's generating formula. Do you think that your "Total Fulness, Emptiness be-or-not-to-be-that's-the-question" could contribute to the Final Solution of the Mystery of Organic Number #18?
I give you a little clue why that number matters, coz Father Totti broke through:
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
Revelation 22:13
The first is A and the last is Z. And so
(O_____M) = (A_____Z)
Aren't you curious how many and why, Doron?
Suppose that the side of the equilateral triangle is 1. Based on the drawing, you presented the sum S = 2(a + b + c + d + ...). And I say that under no circumstances you'll be able to substitute a, b, c, and d with numeric values based on the given condition. Not because they don't exist (duh), but because you can't figure them out.
There is a prerequisite for the substitution to be correct: practice by substituting "non-bended constant" with a form that includes the word "inflection." Such an inclusion will lesser the chances nailed to the impression that you are just joking by mentioning an "invariant unclosed gap" frivolously roaming the eq. triangle.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
If S = contant X>0, then contant X > AND = 0.
Since "contant X > AND = 0" is always false, then S must be ≠ contant X>0.
Indeed S is a non-local number < contant X>0, which its complement to constant X>0 is the non-local number 0.000...3/4 > 0.
Q.E.D
Last edited:
'S' is the length of the side of the triangle minus 'z' where lim. z --> 0. There is no need for "constant X."
In case S = 1, the length of a particular line segment is |ai - ai+1| = t minus z where lim. z --> 0.
What is AND? The drawing doesn't include any AND.
Mathematicians have only problem visualizing thing that you have drawn, coz a half of the terms that you come up with later are not included in your drawings.
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Ok, add unit to the list of words and concepts Doron doesn't understand.
No, Doron. Cardinality is not a unit just like length is not a unit. Length is a measure; meter is a unit of length (as are Angstrom, furlong, and parsec).
For once, Doron, please learn from your mistake and not simply repeat your blunder again and again after you think people have forgotten.
1 doron = 6.6 absurds (Both units are proposed to measure the magnitude of futility.)
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
"Length" is not a unit exactly as "Size (or magnitude) of existence" is not a unit.
Cardinality is a measurement unit of the "size (or magnitude) of existence", exactly as Meter is a measurement unit of "Length".
jsfisher, you still miss http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6397061&postcount=11833.
Last edited:
- Status