Deeper than primes

[jsfisher]

It does no work that way.

Oh, but it does. My stuff works; yours doesn't.

 

[doronshadmi]

And why should I answer your questions in any detail when you never answer even the simplest ones of mine? This question, which is directed at the root of your madness, has been dodged three times now:

A complete answer to your question was given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6690286&postcount=13453.

You chose to ignore it exactly because you are unable to answer in details to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6690286&postcount=13453, and you continued to expose your inability to answer to my questions also in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6690619&postcount=13458.

 

[HatRack]

A complete answer to your question was given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6690286&postcount=13453.

Nope, not even a partial answer was given.

You chose to ignore it exactly because you are unable to answer in details to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6690286&postcount=13453

I did not choose to ignore it, an answer to my question as given by you is at this point non-existent.

and you continued to expose your inability to answer to my questions also in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6690619&postcount=13458.

Me answering your questions is contingent on you correcting the errors in your posts in which you ask those questions. You've still yet to correct those formulas which have been pointed out as not well-formed many times now. Why should I respond to anything else when you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge even the most trivial of errors on your part and you won't answer a question that you have been asked first?

 

[doronshadmi]

You are living in a fantasy world, your stuff can't handle with Gödel's incompleteness theorems, such that the really interesting mathematical frameworks are incomplete by using the formal deductive-only framework ( Hilbert's program failed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_program ).

Cotemporary Physics has to build its own mathematics in order to support theories like String theories, exactly because your stuff does not have common foundations anymore (the phrase "branches of mathematics" is misleading, because there is no fundamental connection (cross-contexts term) between context-dependent mathematical frameworks).

Your stuff can't handle with real complexity as discussed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreasonable_ineffectiveness_of_mathematics and indeed you are unable to discuss on that subject exactly because your stuff does not work, when real complexity gets on stage.

 

[doronshadmi]

Why should I respond to anything else when you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge even the most trivial of errors on your part and you won't answer a question that you have been asked first?

You are invited to explain in details the errors of the following expressions:

[latex]$$$
\exists z \, \forall (x \ne x) \, (x \ne x) \rightarrow ((x \ne x) \in z)$$$[/latex]​

[latex]$$$
\exists z \, \forall (x = x) \, (x = x) \rightarrow ((x = x) \notin z)$$$[/latex]​

Please see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6664014&postcount=13310 before you answer.

 

[jsfisher]

You are living in a fantasy world, your stuff can't handle with Gödel's incompleteness theorems, such that the really interesting mathematical frameworks are incomplete by using the formal deductive-only framework ( Hilbert's program failed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_program ).

What are you on about now? You claim Mathematics can't handle Mathematics because it includes Mathematics?

Cotemporary Physics has to build its own mathematics in order to support theories like String theories, exactly because your stuff does not have common foundations anymore (the phrase "branches of mathematics" is misleading, because there is no fundamental connection (cross-contexts term) between context-dependent mathematical frameworks).

More stuff you don't understand, so you just make crap up. Physics doesn't have its own private physics math. It's all Mathematics.

Your stuff can't handle with real complexity as discussed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreasonable_ineffectiveness_of_mathematics and indeed you are unable to discuss on that subject exactly because your stuff does not work, when real complexity gets on stage.

As has been demonstrated so often, you project.

 

[doronshadmi]

What are you on about now? You claim Mathematics can't handle Mathematics because it includes Mathematics?

No, mathematics is not a deductive-only framework, which is a fact beyond your deductive-only reasoning.

More stuff you don't understand, so you just make crap up. Physics doesn't have its own private physics math. It's all Mathematics.

It is not a deductive-only reasoning.

As has been demonstrated so often, you project.

As has been demonstrated so often, you avoid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreasonable_ineffectiveness_of_mathematics .

 

[jsfisher]

No, mathematics is not a deductive-only framework, which is a fact beyond your deductive-only reasoning.

You are the only one I know that ever said it was. Is there nothing you understand correctly?

 

[doronshadmi]

You are the only one I know that ever said it was. Is there nothing you understand correctly?

In that case you do not know yourself, because given any deductive-only context-dependent axiomatic framework, there is a cross-context level at and beyond it, which is not deductive-only (getting out of the box of some deductive-only context-dependent axiomatic framework is also the nature of the mathematical science, which is a non-local property that your deductive-only context-dependent axiomatic framework reasoning simply can't comprehend).

 

[doronshadmi]

Let us improve p,q propositions:


(X≠X) means: "X fails to exist"

(X=X) means : "X successfully exists"


p case:

[latex]$$$
\exists z \, \forall (x \ne x) \, (x \ne x) \rightarrow ((x \ne x) \in z)$$$[/latex]​

In p case z exists as empty set only if the non-existing belongs to it, but then p case does not cover the case of the existing things that do not belong to z.


q case:

[latex]$$$
\exists z \, \forall (x = x) \, (x = x) \rightarrow ((x = x) \notin z)$$$[/latex]​

In q case z exists as empty set only if the existing things do not belong to it, but then z is one of the exiting things that are used to define the existence of z, which is a circular reasoning.

 

[HatRack]

Let us improve p,q propositions:


(X≠X) means: "X fails to exist"

(X=X) means : "X successfully exists"


p case:

[latex]$$$
\exists z \, \forall (x \ne x) \, (x \ne x) \rightarrow ((x \ne x) \in z)$$$[/latex]​

In p case z exists as empty set only if the non-existing belongs to it, but then p case does not cover the case of the existing things that do not belong to z.


q case:

[latex]$$$
\exists z \, \forall (x = x) \, (x = x) \rightarrow ((x = x) \notin z)$$$[/latex]​

In q case z exists as empty set only if the existing things do not belong to it, but then z is one of the exiting things that are used to define the existence of z, which is a circular reasoning.

These are still not valid logical propositions. Perhaps you should do some research on proper use of the universal quantifier and the set membership operator? And don't redefine already agreed upon definitions (equality/nonequality), we've been over why that is stupid and pointless already.

 

[dlorde]

(X≠X) means: "X fails to exist"

(X=X) means : "X successfully exists"

Oh Good Grief, more qualifiers... so what might be an 'unsuccessful' existence - besides that of your pet creation, OM ?

 

[jsfisher]

In that case you do not know yourself, because given any deductive-only context-dependent axiomatic framework, there is a cross-context level at and beyond it, which is not deductive-only (getting out of the box of some deductive-only context-dependent axiomatic framework is also the nature of the mathematical science, which is a non-local property that your deductive-only context-dependent axiomatic framework reasoning simply can't comprehend).

Gibberish.

 

[doronshadmi]

Oh Good Grief, more qualifiers... so what might be an 'unsuccessful' existence ... ?

Emptiness.

 

[doronshadmi]

Gibberish.

In-Out of the ignorence.

 

[doronshadmi]

These are still not valid logical propositions. Perhaps you should do some research on proper use of the universal quantifier and the set membership operator? And don't redefine already agreed upon definitions (equality/nonequality), we've been over why that is stupid and pointless already.

We have been over and over and over ... your inability to get out of your , so?

Do you really think that your "These are still not valid logical propositions" is valid because it is based on a 3,500 years old convention?

Perhaps you should do some research on proper use of the universal quantifier

All we get by this "research" is the convention about universal quantifier, so?

 

[jsfisher]

In-Out of the ignorence.

How about instead of more feeble attempts at dismissive insult, you present something useful? Mathematics continues to work, providing useful results. Doronetics continues to fail, and produces nothing. Why is that?

 

[laca]

We have been over and over and over ... your inability to get out of your , so?

No, it's about your utter incompetence in just about every topic that came up in this thread. And there have been quite a few...

Do you really think that your "These are still not valid logical propositions" is valid because it is based on a 3,500 years old convention?

Why yes, of course! If you don't like the existing, agreed upon convention of the language describing first-order logic, please go right ahead and define your own. Formally. Good luck!

 

[doronshadmi]

Doronetics continues to fail, and produces nothing. Why is that?

OM does its first steps in an environment that is dominated by context-dependent thinkers for the past 3,500 years.

It develops the bridge between fundamental properties of the human mind which are Ethics and Logic, such that both Ethics and Logic are researched and understood according evolutionary scale, by using also cross-contexts relations in addition to context-dependent relations.

Cross-contexts relations is a paradigm-shift of the Mathematical Science and a lot of work has to be done in order to get many useful applications (which will be usefull also at the biological and cognitive levels), as were found by the tradition of 3,500 years long of physical-only development.

There are very clear signs that the tradition of 3,500 years long can't deal with real complexity as it is found among biological systems, whether this complexity is at the physical level or at the abstract cognitive level (where Ethics (according evolutionary scale) is one its fundamental properties).

You are a member of a community that does its best in order to ignore signs like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreasonable_ineffectiveness_of_mathematics , and you
currently have the power to keep your minds inside your context-dependent boxes.

I am sure that I will not be alone in the very near future because the need for cross-contexts relations in addition to context-dependent relations is going to air its view, in order to deal with real complexity, whether your context-dependent community will do its best in order to shut it down, or not.

Cybernetic kernels, Non-local Numbers, Emptiness, Fullness, Collection as an intermediate existence between Emptiness and Fullness, the non-locality of cross-contexts relations between context-dependent frameworks, the bridging between Ethics and Logic, mutations of already agreed terms, all these novel things (and more) are going to play a main role in the development of the Mathematical Science, and your context-dependent-only reasoning can't do anything in order to comprehend it.

 

[jsfisher]

I am sure that I will not be alone in the very near future because the need for cross-contexts relations in addition to context-dependent relations is going to air its view, in order to deal with real complexity, whether your context-dependent community will do its best in order to shut it down, or not.

How near? You have been at this, what?, twenty plus years now, and you have no following and no result. The one person that seemed interested you insulted and chased away.

You claim all these grandiose concepts, but you cannot describe them without contradiction, and you have no result. Twenty years; no result. Even this thing that seems most fundamental to your thinking, that of "non-local", you cannot describe. You throw words together, then when pushed back because your words are gibberish, you substitute other words without meaning and think you have moved forward.

If Doronetics is so well developed and well understood by you, why do you have to change it so often?