Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
EDIT:

jsfisher said:
How near?
Click to expand...
I think for the next 100 years.


jsfisher said:
You claim all these grandiose concepts, but you cannot describe them without contradiction, and you have no result.
Click to expand...

jsfisher, you are totally blind to cross-contexts relations between context-depended frameworks, and from this blindness you have no choice but to get OM's cross-contexts paradigm-shift as inconsistency and\or contradiction.

How can you get results of cross-contexts relations between context-depended frameworks, if all you can get is context-dependent frameworks?

jsfisher said:
If Doronetics is so well developed and well understood by you, why do you have to change it so often?
Click to expand...
jsfisher, you can add "development" to the list of words that you can't comprehend.

As for changes, some of them are the process of development of new notions, and some of them is my efforts to use different representations for better explanation of well developed notions.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I think for the next 100 years.
Click to expand...

Who will champion your cause after your death? Certainly, not iScribe.

jsfisher, you are totally blind to cross-contexts relations between context-depended frameworks, and from this blindness you have no choice but to get OM's cross-contexts paradigm-shift as inconsistency and\or contradiction.
Click to expand...

The blindness is entirely yours. You convince yourself your convoluted gibberish has meaning, even though you can't show it to have any meaning.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
The blindness is entirely yours. You convince yourself your convoluted gibberish has meaning, even though you can't show it to have any meaning.
Click to expand...
You are not in any position to know it because from your context-dependent view you can't comprehend any result of cross-contexts relations.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You are not in any possition to know it because from your context-dependent view you can't comprehened any result of cross-contexts relations.
Click to expand...


Come on, Doron. Just one actual result. Surely there must be something that can be derived only with Doronetics.
 
jsfisher said:
Come on, Doron. Just one actual result. Surely there must be something that can be derived only with Doronetics.
Click to expand...
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.


Come on, jsfisher, do your step and look also out of your box.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...


Those are not results. Those are merely nonsense you have invented to pretend Doronetics has content. I can make the same claims for oatmeal with equal validity. And the reason no one comprehends your inventions is because you cannot explain them in any non-contradictory, gibberish-free way.

Still plenty of meaningless, empty claims. Still no results.
 
Last edited:
The size of the set of all different orders of the set of all distinct things > size of the set of all distinct things (each distinct thing is represented by natural number) :

Code: 
{   {
 1 ↔ {2,1043,1,12,...}
 ,   ,
 2 ↔ {2,1243,1,12,...}
 ,   , 
 3 ↔ {23,177,1,12,...}
 ,   ,
 4 ↔ {8,1043,5,12,...}
 ,   ,
 ...  ...
}   }
For example: member {3,8,109,13,...} of the set of all different orders of the set of all distinct things, is beyond the ↔ of {1,2,3,4,...}, which is the set of all distinct things.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
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?

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

It is not about convention, it is about communication. The "propositions" you keep giving do not make sense to anyone. We have formal languages in the first place because they are precise. No matter what you have to say, it can be transcribed into formal logic.

You choose not to use language in a way that makes sense to others. No one else in the world has any idea what you are saying, because it looks like gibberish to the rest of us. Thus, you are actually the one who is "boxed in" :boxedin:.
 
HatRack said:
It is not about convention, it is about communication. The "propositions" you keep giving do not make sense to anyone. We have formal languages in the first place because they are precise. No matter what you have to say, it can be transcribed into formal logic.

You choose not to use language in a way that makes sense to others. No one else in the world has any idea what you are saying, because it looks like gibberish to the rest of us. Thus, you are actually the one who is "boxed in" :boxedin:.
Click to expand...

Again, a community that refuses to use cross-contexts relations between context-dependent frameworks, is closed under context-dependent frameworks. Cross-contexts relations are non-local, and they understood as inconsistent and\or contradiction form context-dependent view.

HatRack, as long as you refuse to get also cross-contexts relations in addition to context-dependent relations, there cannot be any communication between us.
 
doronshadmi said:
Again, a community that refuses to use cross-contexts relations between context-dependent frameworks, is closed under context-dependent frameworks. Cross-contexts relations are non-local, and they understood as inconsistent and\or contradiction form context-dependent view.

HatRack, as long as you refuse to get also cross-contexts relations in addition to context-dependent relations, there cannot be any communication between us.
Click to expand...

http://school.maths.uwa.edu.au/~berwin/humour/invalid.proofs.html

Add: proof by lack of communication
 
The size of the set of all different orders of the set of all distinct things > itself (each distinct thing is represented by natural number) :
Code: 
{    
 {2,1043,1,12,...}
 ,   
 {2,1243,1,12,...}
 ,   
 {23,177,1,12,...}
 , 
 {8,1043,5,12,...}
 ,  
 ... 
}
For example: member {3,8,109,13,...} of the set of all different orders of the set of all distinct things, is beyond the ↔ of {{2,1043,1,12,...}, {2,1243,1,12,...}, {23,177,1,12,...}, {8,1043,5,12,...},...}, which is the set of all different orders of the set of all distinct things.
 
doronshadmi said:
Again, a community that refuses to use cross-contexts relations between context-dependent frameworks, is closed under context-dependent frameworks. Cross-contexts relations are non-local, and they understood as inconsistent and\or contradiction form context-dependent view.
Click to expand...

Poor Doron, boxed in :boxedin: by a world of his own gibberish.
 
The size of the set of all distinct irrational numbers > itself :
Code: 
{    
 0.1011...
 ,   
 0.1101...
 ,   
 0.1001...
 , 
 0.0010...
 ,  
 ... 
}
For example: member 0.0011... is beyond the ↔ of {0.1011..., 0.1101..., 0.1001..., 0.0010..., ...}, which is the set of all distinct irrational numbers.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
A typical response from :boxedin: observer.
Click to expand...

Alright, let's see an actual application of Doronetics. Using traditional mathematics, I can calculate the area under a parabola:

[latex]$$\int_{0}^{1}x^2 dx = \frac{1^3-0^3}{3}=\frac{1}{3}$$[/latex]​

The wonderful definite integral of traditional mathematics can do this and much more. Let's see how Doronetics solves the area under the curve problem.
 
HatRack said:
Alright, let's see an actual application of Doronetics. Using traditional mathematics, I can calculate the area under a parabola:

[latex]$$\int_{0}^{1}x^2 dx = \frac{1^3-0^3}{3}=\frac{1}{3}$$[/latex]​

The wonderful definite integral of traditional mathematics can do this and much more. Let's see how Doronetics solves the area under the curve problem.
Click to expand...
The area is exactly 1/3 only if the given parabola is totally smooth (no points are found along it).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom