Deeper than primes

[epix]

X = n>2

Any X/2 can't be a prime number , because a prime number can be divided only by 1 or by itself (A prime number (or a prime) is a natural number that has exactly two distinct natural number divisors: 1 and itself. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number )).

Geezezflord, isn't it so that 10/2 = 5 where 5 is prime, or 14/2 = 7 where 7 is prime? What do you mean by "Any X/2 can't be a prime number?" And where does that X come from, anyway? There is no expression like "X = n>2"; it lacks any meaning. I think you are advancing the science of mathematics the wrong way. LOL.

Let us concentrate . . .

(n/2)*(n + 1) = r

n=2: (2/2)*(2 + 1) = 3 = 1 + 2 [3 is prime]
n=3: (3/2)*(3 + 1) = 6 = 1 + 2 + 3
n=4: (4/2)*(4 + 1) = 10 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4
n=5: (5/2)*(5 + 1) = 15 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5
n=6: (6/2)*(6 + 1) = 21 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6
.
.
.

No more primes. 3 is the only prime in the sequence and has no prime successor. So 3 = Fullness, or Foolness -- the way things have been going.

 

[doronshadmi]

What do you mean by "Any X/2 can't be a prime number?"

You are right, I mean "any X can't be a prime, but X/2 can be a prime".

 

[doronshadmi]

When you are ready to talk about Mathematics, do let us know. As for Doronetics, you have failed to show it being anything but fantastically useless, so it continues to not interest me.

jsfisher, it is not new that you can't get nothing (Emptiness) as a meaningful concept, and so is the case with Fullness.

 

[The Man]

No. One's brain is a physical tool for mental activity, where both mental activity and its physical tool are born from the source of any expression, which is not itself an expression.

The rest of your post is the limited "If I do" reasoning.

Ones brain is still the source of one's thoughts. By all means please show how ones brain or any "physical tool" is " born from the source of any expression" and what exactly you think that " source of any expression" might be.

Try reading what you write, especially your "no" answer to your actual TM practice (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6721689&postcount=13769).

I read everything I write Doron. It's called proof reading, try it sometime.

Your "If I do" reasoning is no more than "white noise" about this fine and actual subject.

Doron your "without any thoughts about it" reasoning is no more than just nonsense and undoubtedly why you spew such nonsense about any subject .

 

[zooterkin]

You are right, I mean "any X can't be a prime, but X/2 can be a prime".

7.5 is a prime?

 

[doronshadmi]

Ones brain is still the source of one's thoughts. By all means please show how ones brain or any "physical tool" is " born from the source of any expression" and what exactly you think that " source of any expression" might be.

 

[doronshadmi]

7.5 is a prime?

I wrote "can be" not "must be".

 

[realpaladin]

http://maharishi-india.org/image/i3-uf_theory.gif

http://www.invincibleireland.org/images/physics1large.jpg

http://www.invincibleireland.org/images/physics2large.jpg

Doron, you *know* that TM is bunk, don't you? Ask Mr. Paul Gelderloos, heir to the 'empire' of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (the bearded guy in your pics).

But... to me it seems we say from one side to another without you showing anything, ANYTHING that is more than a variant of 'you do not get it', whilst in the process making error upon error upon error.

Let me give you a tip: Yogic flying is nothing more than spasms of the hip and legs...

 

[zooterkin]

I wrote "can be" not "must be".

So what exactly were you trying to convey? That all prime numbers greater than 2 are odd?

 

[doronshadmi]

oppsss...

 

[doronshadmi]

Let me give you a tip: Yogic flying is nothing more than spasms of the hip and legs...

Let me give you a tip, no yogi is flying and it does not change the fact that the simplest state of awareness is not a property of any organization.

Furthermore, there are persons that enable to get the simplest state of awareness without TM practice, for example:

http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMMetaphysical/APersonalView/index.cfm

 

[HatRack]

Well now that it's been revealed that the true intention of this thread is to push the technique of "transcendental meditation" and not to discuss a new mathematical theory, I've suddenly lost all interest. Don't get me wrong Doron, it was fun watching you run around in mental circles trying to disprove the empty set and everything. But, I'm afraid I must now sign off, due to the weirdness and irrelevance of the stuff which you now put forward.

Perhaps if you could just show us just *one* application of all this, things would be different. Unfortunately, after 2+ years and 346 pages on this forum alone, you have failed to do so. But, it's time to excuse myself. If I need a good laugh in the future, maybe I'll stop by. I'm sure this thread has the potential to continue for another 2 years.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well now that it's been revealed that the true intention of this thread is to push the technique of "transcendental meditation" and not to discuss a new mathematical theory, I've suddenly lost all interest. Don't get me wrong Doron, it was fun watching you run around in mental circles trying to disprove the empty set and everything. But, I'm afraid I must now sign off, due to the weirdness and irrelevance of the stuff which you now put forward.

Perhaps if you could just show us just *one* application of all this, things would be different. Unfortunately, after 2+ years and 346 pages on this forum alone, you have failed to do so. But, it's time to excuse myself. If I need a good laugh in the future, maybe I'll stop by. I'm sure this thread has the potential to continue for another 2 years.

Again HatRack,

I know that your Logic deals only with existent things at the level of collections ( for example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6717098&postcount=13724 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6717681&postcount=13748 ) and as a result can't get this:

All members of {} are <>, where <> means exactly that one can't <insert anything here> .

Since you don't get Emptiness, you also unable to get its opposite, which is Fullness.

A set exists at the level of collections and your reasoning is limited to this level.

As a result you don't have any ability to deal with Emptiness, which is "below" collections, and Fullness, which is "above" collections.

Whether you get it or not, your reasoning is a direct reflection of your mind, and in your case your mind is limited to the level of collections of thoughts, which in turn expresses itself only by collections.

"Transcendental Meditation" discusses about a new mathematical theory, which is a reflection of one's mind that transcends the level of collections of thoughts and get also what is "below" and "above" collections.

EDIT:

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 that is limited to the level of collections, does not do anything in order to comprehend it.

 

[doronshadmi]

Since primes can't have one of their factors larger than 1 when the other factor is the prime number itself, the conjecture is proven by the simplest mean in the realm of mathematics.

Well, any expression that violets the definition of prime numbers, can't be a prime number, but you are the one who defined what prime numbers are, so you find what you have cooked.

 

[jsfisher]

jsfisher, it is not new that you can't get nothing (Emptiness) as a meaningful concept, and so is the case with Fullness.

You have yet to demonstrate any utility for either your emptiness or fullness. The ball is in your court, Doron.

 

[epix]

Originally Posted by epix
Since primes can't have one of their factors larger than 1 when the other factor is the prime number itself, the conjecture is proven by the simplest mean in the realm of mathematics.

Well, any expression that violets the definition of prime numbers, can't be a prime number, but you are the one who defined what prime numbers are, so you find what you have cooked.

Doron, prime numbers can have only two factors p and q where p is the prime number itself, and so q has to equal to 1.

5 = 5*1
7 = 7*1
11= 11*1
13 = 13*1

and so on.

If you now read again what I wrote, you see there is no violation.

How about using your talent in the science of finances? You know what I mean? Like when your creditors ask you after some two years for that 20% interest that your innovative methods of investment can bring in, as you claimed, you give them TM -- Transcendental Money.

You have reached Deeper Than Primes Financial Services. No one is currently available to answer your call. Our offices are open locally from x to y on Emptiness and Foolness.

 

[doronshadmi]

If you now read again what I wrote, you see there is no violation.[/i]

Again, you find what you have cooked.

 

[epix]

[qimg]http://maharishi-india.org/image/i3-uf_theory.gif[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.invincibleireland.org/images/physics1large.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.invincibleireland.org/images/physics2large.jpg[/qimg]

What is the difference between TRANSCENCENTAL and TRANSCENDENTAL?

Do you know that the set of invincible numbers has a subset called transcendental numbers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_number

Though only a few classes of transcendental numbers are known (in part, because it can be extremely difficult to show that a given number is transcendental) transcendental numbers are not rare.

See? The non-OM mathematicians are again experiencing difficulties.

 

[doronshadmi]

You have yet to demonstrate any utility for either your emptiness or fullness. The ball is in your court, Doron.

Here is the ball:

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.

Try to get out of your context-dependent-only reasoning that is limited to the level of collections, in order to play with this ball.

 

[jsfisher]

Here is the ball:

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.

These are just more examples of useless things you've introduced into Doronetics. They serve no purpose; they provide no advantage. Mathematics continues to work unburdened by your semantic gibberish and inconsistencies.