Deeper than primes

[jsfisher]

Speculate all you like, it is you that is completely unable to understand the issue.

For example, this part is beyond your formal reasoning:

What is it about that particular quotation you find important and applicable to this thread?

 

[doronshadmi]

What is it about that particular quotation you find important and applicable to this thread?

The inability of Math to deal with real complexity needs an urgent development of cross-contexts frameworks in order to deal, for example, with Logic AND Ethics under one comprehensive framework.

EDIT: The understanding of this need leads to questions about the development of the Technology of the Consciousness.

 

[jsfisher]

The inability of Math to deal with real complexity needs an urgent development of cross-contexts frameworks in order to deal, for example, with Logic AND Ethics under one comprehensive framework.

That's what you say, your latest in tangled attempts to claim relevance. That isn't what the wikipedia article says.

EDIT: The understanding of this need leads to questions about the development of the Technology of the Consciousness.

And yet, you with all your understanding of this cannot find even one useful application.

"Technology of the Consciousness" -- is that your latest nonsense catch-phrase?

 

[doronshadmi]

That isn't what the wikipedia article says.

The question of importance is derived from what the wikipedia article says.

As usual, you are a collector of what has been written, without any ability to
air your view about what you have collected.

In other words, talking to you and talking with a vacuum cleaner has the same effect, both of them collect objects, and that's all they can do.

And yet, you with all your understanding of this cannot find even one useful application.

Well the collector can't comprehend "Technology of the Consciousness".

 

[jsfisher]

The question of importance is derived from what the wikipedia article says.

You went well beyond anything the wikipedia article said or implied. As with so many other articles you have failed to understand, you simply substituted the result you wanted for what it actually said.

At some point, Doron, the chef needs to stop expounding about how delicious the soup will be and start ladling it into bowls.

 

[The Man]

The unnecessary limitation is your inability to get cross-contexts elements, which are non-local and atomic by nature, otherwise they are closed under a given context.

Nope, the “non-local” is just you own self–contradictory nonsense ascription and the “atomic by nature” requirement is again just your own self-imposed and unnecessary “indivisible” limitation.

So Doron do you actually have a self-consistent and generally consistent criteria for your "at" such that your " B is at" "A" as well as your "A is at" "B" both use that same criteria and your "at AND not at" is that criteria AND its negation?

No The Man, only a cross-contexts element is at AND not at a given context.

" B is at" "A" as well as "A is at" "B" is closed under a given context.

Once again your limited mind airs its view.

So you don’t actually have a self-consistent and generally consistent criteria for your "at" designation, how surprising.

Once again Doron the limitations are all yours, self-imposed, self-contradictory and unnecessary. That you evidently simply don’t like them and attempt to employ self-contradiction and self inconsistency in order to escape them, is no ones problem but yours.

 

[The Man]

The Man, I hope the you will get the following:

1 is a positive existence, -1 is a negative existence and no one of them is the "content" of {}, where this "content" is Emptiness (or non-existence, if you like).

Doron, I hope you will get, and actually try to answer this time, the following:

Who ever claimed that “1” or “-1” “is the "content" of {},”?

Stop simply trying to address whatever nonsense you would have liked other people to have claimed and address instead what was specifically and actually asked.

So Again…

...why do you simply not consider negative "existence"? Is it just so you can claim your “Emptiness” has no “predecessor” in some particular ordering?

 

[doronshadmi]

So Again…

There is no again.

-2 and -345635345453/5675675868.34587349 are examples of negative existence.

Yet |{-2 , -345635345453/5675675868.34587349}| = 2 and |{}| = 0 exactly because what is between {} has no predecessor in terms of magnitude of existence.

 

[doronshadmi]

So you don’t actually have a self-consistent and generally consistent criteria for your "at" designation, how surprising.

No, you simply can't grasp cross-context atomic form and therefore can't distinguish between it and some context-dependent form.

 

[epix]

No they don't, for example quantum tunneling, which is a fundamental term of advanced integrated electronics, does not obey your hypothetical notion of Limits (barriers), and it is developed exactly because quantum phenomenon exists simultaneously at both sides of your deductive-only hypothetical notion of Limit (barrier). .

You are mixing mathematical concepts with observed phenomena. Physical limits are quite different than abstract limits. For example, the mechanics and biology of your body imposes limits on your performance. Suppose that you can't swim faster than 2 MPH. But that doesn't mean that you can't swim faster and go over the limit without making adjustments to your body. Simply switch from swimming in the pond to the river-swimming -- direction downstream. That's the simplest concept of quantum tunneling.

One way involving the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is central to our conceptual understanding of Quantum Mechanics. It defines a theoretical limit on how precisely we can know both the position and the momentum or the energy and time of a particle. This idea is often used to explain the phenomena of tunnelling. The uncertainty principle predicts that for a small amount of time the particle might 'borrow' energy from the system so that it can 'jump' over a mountain. That is, since there is a limit on how precisely we can theoretically know the particle's energy, it might have a higher energy than we would expect it to, allowing it to cross the barrier.

When you are swimming downstream, your body is borrowing energy from gravity propelled mass of water.

There are limits that are not that easy to overcome. The Neanderthals came to existence, moved to the caves, and after some 200,000 years, they were still in there.

Imagine this problem to solve: There is a step pyramid. How many step does it take to get on the top of the pyramid?

The limit that prevents to uniquely solve the problem is that there is not enough data to deduct the solution. But the formulation of the problem never mentions any unique solution -- the stereotype acquired in schools does. So when you break the limiting stereotype, you can either use arbitrary solution or non-arbitrary one. The latter is far more desirable.

There are many non-arbitrary solutions. One strategy is based on switching from hypothetical to imaginary/real. Just imagine that there is a real step pyramid. So you go up and count the steps. Now when you reach the top, you need to go back to tell the guy who asked you about the height of the pyramid your finding. So there is this double movement up and down and there are also two points where you no longer climb or descend. It follows that the shortest pyramid is 2 steps tall and looks like this:

121

The higher pyramid looks like this:

12321

And the higher pyramid looks like this:

1234321

Is there any limit to the progression?

The limit must be some change, like

GO is to COMPOSITE as STOP is to PRIME:

121 = composite
12321 = composite
1234321 = composite
123454321 = composite
12345654321 = composite
1234567654321 = composite
123456787654321 = composite
12345678987654321 = composite
12345678910987654321 = prime

And so if you chose a non-arbitrary solution and say that the pyramid is 10 steps tall, then it is up to the demon who gave you the puzzle to figure out the non-arbitrary means of solution.

Which option is correct?

1) GOD doesn't exist.
2) G0D doesn't exist.

1) GOD doesn't exist.
2) G0D doesn't exist.


That would please your English teacher, but vould make His Omniscience climb the walls in well-rehearsed dispair.

 

[doronshadmi]

At some point, Doron, the chef needs to stop expounding about how delicious the soup will be and start ladling it into bowls.

Exactly, it is about time for you get out of your so let us see how you are doing it by using this wiki article.

I am all ears.

 

[The Man]

There is no again.

There was before and there will be again since you fail to simply answer the question asked…

...why do you simply not consider negative "existence"? Is it just so you can claim your “Emptiness” has no “predecessor” in some particular ordering?

-2 and -345635345453/5675675868.34587349 are examples of negative existence.

Yet |{-2 , -345635345453/5675675868.34587349}| = 2 and |{}| = 0 exactly because what is between {} has no predecessor in terms of magnitude of existence.

Are you now claiming that your “magnitude of existence” is limited to only sets or collections as you refer to above and before…

I an talking about predecessor and successor in terms of magnitude of existence, such that Emptiness has no predecessor and Fullness has no successor. Your limited notion gets predecessor and successor only at the level of existing collections of negative, positive, imaginary etc. ids.

?

Are you claiming that your “magnitude of existence” is just the cardinality of a set as your notations above would indicate?

If cardinality is not your “magnitude of existence” then define your ”magnitude of existence” and specifically how you quantify that “magnitude”.

 

[The Man]

No, you simply can't grasp cross-context atomic form and therefore can't distinguish between it and some context-dependent form.

Well, by all means then present your self-consistent and generally consistent criteria for your "at" such that your " B is at" "A" as well as your "A is at" "B" both use that same criteria and your "at AND not at" is that criteria AND its negation. We’re all ears (or eyes in this case).

It’s very simple Doron either you have such a criteria and can present it or you simply don’t. You can blather on about all the “cross-context atomic” nonsense you want, but if you had a criteria, any criteria even a self-contradictory and inconsistent criteria, you could present it. That you simply choose to blather on about your “cross-context atomic” nonsense seems to be indicative of the fact that you have no criteria at all for designating what you consider to be “at” what.


“cross-context atomic form”? That would be the “form” where you just directly contradict yourself, yep we’ve grasped plenty of that.

 

[jsfisher]

Exactly, it is about time for you get out of your so let us see how you are doing it by using this wiki article.

I am all ears.

It's that reading comprehension thing again, isn't it, or just your fascination with non sequiturs?

 

[epix]

No they don't, for example quantum tunneling, which is a fundamental term of advanced integrated electronics, does not obey your hypothetical notion of Limits (barriers), and it is developed exactly because quantum phenomenon exists simultaneously at both sides of your deductive-only hypothetical notion of Limit (barrier)

Aah, the Limitless Joy of Quantum Computing . . .

Quantum computers do not allow the computation of functions that are not theoretically computable by classical computers, i.e. they do not alter the Church–Turing thesis.

 

[epix]

Exactly, it is about time for you get out of your so let us see how you are doing it by using this wiki article.

I am all ears.

Well, that's kind of trivial, isn't it?

The post is directed to jsfisher and the cardinality is

{J,S,F,I,S,H,E,R} = 8

That means the box is a cube with dimensions 2x2x2.

Haldegard, you better worry about your teaching position. There have been just a few who made it out of Doron's head relatively sane.

 

[HatRack]

You are missing the fact that practical application are not based only on deductive-only reasoning, because deductive-only reasoning has nothing to do with experiments' results, that change the deductive results by inductive results.

Quantum tunnelling is a consequence ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling ) (and not a a deductive-only prediction) of the wave-particle duality of matter (based on experiments' results) and is often explained using the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, so sell your "traditional mathematical underpinnings PREDICTS quantum tunneling" to your ingorent community.

Now we see that you do not understand the linkage between deductive and inductive reasoning in order to get a real life result.

In your case you are not aware of your "Dodge noted".

EDIT:


Yes, your deductive-only reasoning can predict the form of the ballistic curve of dead bird thrown in the air, but it has no way to predict the path of a living bird thrown in the air.


Another demonstration of the traditional mathematics reasoning.

Your limited community can't deal with cross-contexts reasoning, which is non-local by nature.

Another round of foolishness. Quantum mechanics is based on a set of axioms along with the standard axioms of mathematics. It is a formal deductive system by definition, and that particular deductive system has led to profound new understandings in fields that deal with more complex systems such as biology and chemistry. Once again, you are foolishly trying to argue with definitions, only to have yet another round of gibberish fall onto deaf ears.

 

[doronshadmi]

Another round of foolishness. Quantum mechanics is based on a set of axioms along with the standard axioms of mathematics.

Nonsense, the profound results are derive from theory (deduction) and experiments (induction).

 

[doronshadmi]

It's that reading comprehension thing again, isn't it, or just your fascination with non sequiturs?

At some point, jsfisher, you need to stop expounding about how delicious the soup is and start ladling it into bowls, simply by stop running in circles around http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreasonable_ineffectiveness_of_mathematics and demonstrate that you actually understand it.

So please air your view about it, I'm all ears.

 

[zooterkin]

At some point, jsfisher, you need to stop expounding about how delicious the soup is and start ladling it into bowls, simply by stop running in circles around http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreasonable_ineffectiveness_of_mathematics and demonstrate that you actually understand it.

So please air your view about it, I'm all ears.

Are you by any chance parroting something that was said to you?

ETA: It seems you are. The difference is, Doron, mathematics works. You've yet to demonstrate a single thing you can do with OM, let alone something that OM can do which maths can't.