Deeper than primes

[epix]

Some suggestions for future dichotomist expressions as you never seem to get your fill.

Left/Right
Up/Down
Heads/Tails
Start/Stop
On/Off
Asleep/Awake
Employer/Employee
Eating/Fasting
Weak/Strong
Fat/Thin
Consolable/Inconsolable
Drunk/Sober
Sick/Healthy
Continent/Incontinent
Flatulent/Non-flatulent

Left/Right 1010111010101010010101
Up/Down 10101010100010101010
Heads/Tails 1010101010101010100
Start/Stop 10000000000010101010
On/Off 00000010101010001000
Asleep/Awake 01010100000101010100
Employer/Employee 1010100000000101010
Eating/Fasting 1000101010101010101010
Weak/Strong 101010101010101010100010
Fat/Thin 100001000000101010101000
Consolable/Inconsolable 001010000001010101010
Drunk/Sober 01111111111010100001010
Sick/Healthy 01010000000001011111111110
Continent/Incontinent 000000000000000111111
Flatulent/Non-flatulent 01010101010101010101010

The OM inverse diagonal^TM identified one missing item from the set: Complete/Incomplete.

 

[The Man]

Left/Right 1010111010101010010101
Up/Down 10101010100010101010
Heads/Tails 1010101010101010100
Start/Stop 10000000000010101010
On/Off 00000010101010001000
Asleep/Awake 01010100000101010100
Employer/Employee 1010100000000101010
Eating/Fasting 1000101010101010101010
Weak/Strong 101010101010101010100010
Fat/Thin 100001000000101010101000
Consolable/Inconsolable 001010000001010101010
Drunk/Sober 01111111111010100001010
Sick/Healthy 01010000000001011111111110
Continent/Incontinent 000000000000000111111
Flatulent/Non-flatulent 01010101010101010101010

The OM inverse diagonal^TM identified one missing item from the set: Complete/Incomplete.

Oops, sorry, I forgot to include collections "of <0,1> forms" as well as the Complete/Incomplete dichotomist expression.

Thanks epix.

Say epix, it looks like your getting more use out of OM than Doron is. Perhaps you should have him license you the first franchise for some naturally undefined price. That way you’ll be all set when that invaluably indefinite “Technology of consciousness” train comes rolling in on those tracks of self-contradictory nonsense laid by the “naturally undefined“.

 

[epix]

Some suggestions for future dichotomist expressions as you never seem to get your fill.

Left/Right
Up/Down
Heads/Tails
Start/Stop
On/Off
Asleep/Awake
Employer/Employee
Eating/Fasting
Weak/Strong
Fat/Thin
Consolable/Inconsolable
Drunk/Sober
Sick/Healthy
Continent/Incontinent
Flatulent/Non-flatulent

The OM Dichotomy Mechanic^TM found 2 invalid entries and made necessary corrections:

Left/Right
Up/Down
Heads/Tails
Start/Stop
On/Off
Asleep/Awake
Employer/Employee
------------------> Eating/Fasting
Weak/Strong
Fat/Thin
Consolable/Inconsolable
Drunk/Sober
Sick/Healthy
-------------------> Continent/Incontinent
Flatulent/Non-flatulent



Selfcorrect.

<option value="HLGN" >
Slowing/Fasting

<option value="HGNN" >
Continent/Ocean

 

[The Man]

The OM Dichotomy Mechanic^TM found 2 invalid entries and made necessary corrections:

Left/Right
Up/Down
Heads/Tails
Start/Stop
On/Off
Asleep/Awake
Employer/Employee
------------------> Eating/Fasting
Weak/Strong
Fat/Thin
Consolable/Inconsolable
Drunk/Sober
Sick/Healthy
-------------------> Continent/Incontinent
Flatulent/Non-flatulent



Selfcorrect.

<option value="HLGN" >
Slowing/Fasting

<option value="HGNN" >
Continent/Ocean

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fasting

fast

–verb (used without object)

1.
to abstain from all food.

2.
to eat only sparingly or of certain kinds of food, especially as a religious observance.
–verb (used with object)

3.
to cause to abstain entirely from or limit food; put on a fast: to fast a patient for a day before surgery.

–noun

4.
an abstinence from food, or a limiting of one's food, especially when voluntary and as a religious observance; fasting.

5.
a day or period of fasting.

The first meal of the day is called ‘breakfast’ because that is when you break your overnight (while sleeping) fast. Unless of course you're taking one of those sleep aid drugs that makes you cook, eat and perhaps drive, among other things, while sleeping.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incontinent

in•con•ti•nent
   [in-kon-tn-uh nt]

–adjective
1.
unable to restrain natural discharges or evacuations of urine or feces.

2.
unable to contain or retain (usually followed by of ): incontinent of temper.

3.
lacking in moderation or self-control, especially of sexual desire.

4.
unceasing or unrestrained: an incontinent flow of talk.
________________________________________
Origin:
1350–1400; Middle English < Latin incontinent- (stem of incontinēns ). See in-3 , continent (adj.)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/continent

con•ti•nent
   [kon-tn-uh nt]

–adjective

7.
exercising or characterized by restraint in relation to the desires or passions and especially to sexual desires; temperate.

8.
able to control urinary and fecal discharge.

9.
Obsolete . containing; being a container; capacious.

10.
Obsolete . restraining or restrictive.

11.
Obsolete . continuous; forming an uninterrupted tract, as land.

It seems your “OM Dichotomy Mechanic^TM”, much like Doron, simply needs a better dictionary.



ETA:
I should point out that the ‘Continent/Incontinent’ expression was specifically chosen due to peoples usual association of ‘Continent’ to a land mass in the hopes that those unfamiliar with the other definition might actually look it up. I never thought the ‘Eating/Fasting’ association might likewise be unfamiliar to some.

 

[epix]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fasting



The first meal of the day is called ‘breakfast’ because that is when you break your overnight (while sleeping) fast. Unless of course you're taking one of those sleep aid drugs that makes you cook, eat and perhaps drive, among other things, while sleeping.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incontinent




http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/continent





It seems your “OM Dichotomy Mechanic^TM”, much like Doron, simply needs a better dictionary.



ETA:
I should point out that the ‘Continent/Incontinent’ expression was specifically chosen due to peoples usual association of ‘Continent’ to a land mass in the hopes that those unfamiliar with the other definition might actually look it up. I never thought the ‘Eating/Fasting’ association might likewise be unfamiliar to some.

I didn't design "OM Dichotomy Mechanic" -- OM is Doron's invention. I just tested it to see what OM can do in the area of dichotomial entertainment. There is "dichotomy" and there is "dichotOMy."

 

[The Man]

I didn't design "OM Dichotomy Mechanic" -- OM is Doron's invention. I just tested it to see what OM can do in the area of dichotomial entertainment. There is "dichotomy" and there is "dichotOMy."

Well that would explain it. I apologize for my OMission of that position and not implying you were relying on the dichotOMy of an OM lobotOMy

 

[epix]

Well that would explain it. I apologize for my OMission of that position and not implying you were relying on the dichotOMy of an OM lobotOMy

... is not cOMplete.

The folks of sodOM and gOMorrah wrote on a papyrus that when OM reappears again just before 2012 AD, then a catastrophe of super-biblical proportions engulfs this planet.

Doron and his cOMpulsion. He is The Messenger of doOM. We must pray now to the Holy Squirrel of Algebra and Calculus to try to avert the prophesied catastrophe.

 

[doronshadmi]

So you’ve just added another of your dichotomist expressions. Guess you just can’t get enough.

Let’s see we have (just off the top of my head)

Local/Non-local
Serial (sometimes ‘step by step‘)/Parallel
Element/Relation
Parts/Whole

And now…

headlining this month….


Variant/Invariant


Some suggestions for future dichotomist expressions as you never seem to get your fill.

Left/Right
Up/Down
Heads/Tails
Start/Stop
On/Off
Asleep/Awake
Employer/Employee
Eating/Fasting
Weak/Strong
Fat/Thin
Consolable/Inconsolable
Drunk/Sober
Sick/Healthy
Continent/Incontinent
Flatulent/Non-flatulent




I’m sure you can come up with all sorts of self-contradictory nonsense that you can simply associate to the above expressions. More than enough to keep you wasting your time for decades to come.


Conversely you could simply stop all of your foolishness learn some actual math, science, even philosophy, whatever suits your fancy and who knows perhaps even come up with some new developments.


Unfortunately the former seems more likely than the latter.

Mr. flatland, you have forgot Defined\Undefined.

What shell we do with you?

A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts, meaning it is a procedure in which a whole is divided into two parts, or in half. It is a partition of a whole (or a set) into two parts (subsets) that are:

* jointly exhaustive: everything must belong to one part or the other, and
* mutually exclusive: nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy )

The Organic approach also accepts things that simultaneously belongs to both parts, exactly because they are non-local w.r.t the parts, where the parts are local w.r.t to them.

The non-local aspect is the whole and the local aspect is the parts, but your flat reasoning can't simultaneously comprehend both aspect as complementarity of each other under a one framework, and this is exactly the reason why your flat reasoning gets only the surface of these non-trivial relations, and from this flat interpretation one gets only dichotomy (everything must belong to one part or the other) and contradiction (nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts).

By your flatland reasoning you even unable to pass the mirror experiment, (where the intelligence of some creature is measured by its ability to recognize its own reflection in the mirror) because you can't get simultaneously yourself and your reflection.

Conversely you could simply stop all of your foolishness learn some actual math, science, even philosophy, whatever suits your fancy and who knows perhaps even come up with some new developments.

Mr. flat, your reasoning can't comprehend any development, which is not done under flatland.

Keep going with your boring mumbling within your

 

[doronshadmi]

I thought that when a ballon is full of hot air, it's very unlikely to "float upon the wavy surface of the ocean."

So things are even worse in your case.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well that would explain it. I apologize for my OMission of that position and not implying you were relying on the dichotOMy of an OM lobotOMy

Mr. flat, your flatland case is actually Polychotomy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychotomy ).

Poly·choto·my (päl′i kät′ə mē), noun pl. polychotomies -·mies, or polychotomous pol′y·chot′o·mous (-məs) adjective, is a division or separation into many parts, classes, etc. which are static and not temporally dependent due to evolution. Polychotomy can be thought of as a generalization of dichotomy, which is a polychotomy of exactly two parts.

Your Polychotomy prevents any understanding of the following:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6834699&postcount=14208

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6834859&postcount=14209

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6857531&postcount=14257

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6853830&postcount=14240


It is about time to open your mind to the Undefined in addition to the Defined, as a one framework.

Until this very moment you can't understand that since you are not actually aware of the simplest state of awareness all you get is http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6732080&postcount=13816 .

 

[The Man]

It seems Doron would prefer now to simply converse with his own fantasy posters. If you want your posts replied to Doron by the people you intend them for then you should address them properly. I for one will not read nor reply to any post intentionally misaddressed by Doron.

 

[doronshadmi]

It seems Doron would prefer now to simply converse with his own fantasy posters. If you want your posts replied to Doron by the people you intend them for then you should address them properly. I for one will not read nor reply to any post intentionally misaddressed by Doron.

I address you properly The Man, according to your reasoning you are Mr. flatland.

Mr. flatland can't comprehend any connection between Reasoning and Ethics, because his awareness (by his own testimony) can't directly get the simplest state of awareness, which is the unified field to both of them.

Mr. flatland (which prefers to non-silently call himself "The Man") really believes that his title "The Man" is really what he is, and therefore he will not reply to anything that is not defined by the title "The Man".

This is another example of how creatures that are not aware of the simplest state of awareness (which is the source of any possible definition, name, etc.) do not recognize themselves if some defined expression is changed (like changing names from "The Man" to "Mr. flatland" which are actually different and limited expressions of the same simplest state of awareness as the silence (the Naturally Undefined) that sands at the basis of any defined framework (where in this particular case, the framework is a collection of names like "The Man" or "Mr. flatland").

"The Man" you explicitly said that you did not practice TM (you have no actual experience of TM) , but it does not stop your arrogant reply by mumbling:

“directly aware” “without any thoughts about it.”? This is just your usual self contradictory nonsense as well as your propensity to try to pawn off your own thoughts onto something or someone other then just you. Once again your thoughts about your “total state of Silence” and the “simplest state of your mind” that occurred to you while you were engaged in some TDM (where you’re suppose to clear your self of thoughts) only demonstrate that you were doing even just that wrong. However rather than just accept that you were still thinking during such meditations you have invented this whole fantasy about saving our civilization with your “OM” and have wasted decades of your life when you actually could have been making at least some difference in the real world. That is the saddest part Doron, not that you fantasize about saving civilization (there are worse thing to fantasize about) but that you let this fantasy consume you and expect others to do the same.

"The Man" you still get Silence relatively.

As long as you are not Silent in the total sense, Silence is relatively understood by your thoughts as "the absence of any expression", including your thoughts about it (which is still a thought about the absence of thoughts).

When your mind is directly aware of Silence (the simplest state of awareness) it is done without any thoughts about it.

Only then you are able to get the total state of Silence, which is actually the simplest state of your mind, where thoughts are born from and expressed as senses, notions, emotions, intuition, analysis, definitions or any other mental activity that can be further expressed by words, notations, actions, reactions, which are found in every aspect of our life.

When this awareness is developed, it is aware also of the fact that the simplest state is also the natural source of other living creatures (you is that).

A further development of this awareness is opened to the fact that it is the simplest source of any physical phenomena (all is that).

"That" is the unified field of any possible expression, abstract or non-abstract, and a direct awareness of it is the natural state of Peace (in the practical and concrete meaning of that concept).

The illusion of naturally partial expressions like definitions, as the foundations of our realm, is naturally vanished when the natural source of any possible definition, is actually opened to one's awareness.

From this natural awareness, any definition is like a wave upon the calmness of the unified field.

Definitions came and go upon the calmness of the unified field, and this is the real fulfillment of Peace.

 

[epix]

So things are even worse in your case.

I can fix it, but you can't. Are you running WindowsXP SP2? If so, go to the Temp folder and you see those BIN files with different languages. Delete them, but they show up again on each reboot. And I tell you why . . .

I know how to get rid of those BIN files for good, but I say onto you that I won't tell you. Take your <0,1> flat balloons and do the figuring for yourself, when you are so OMniscient. Ahahahaha....

 

[doronshadmi]

I can fix it

I know, but instead you prefer not to confront with real things by flying above them with your hot air balloon.

Take your <0,1> flat balloons

It can't be done because given any collection (finite or not, powerset or not) of <0,1> forms, we explicitly define an <0,1> form that is not in the range of that collection.

We do not need more than that in order to conclude that any given arbitrary collection is incomplete.

And being incomplete means that there is always a realm beyond any given framework, so <0,1> can't be flat because it is an ever developed realm.

Furthermore, P(N) has {} minimal member (0000... <0,1> form) and {1,2,3,...} maximal member (1111... <0,1> form) and any given P(N) member between {} and {1,2,3,...} P(N) members is also translatable to <0,1> form.

Yet, the inverse of the diagonal of P(N) is not in the range of P(N), so the notion of countable and non-countable collections is simply an illusion, because incompleteness is an essential property of any collection, exactly because no collection of parts is the whole (and the diagonal argument explicitly demonstrates it).

jsfisher and The Man, you ask me to show an object that has the properties of a given collection but it is not in the range of the given collection. I explicitly provide such an object (the inverse of the diagonal of any given collection that is translatable to <0,1> forms) but you ignore this simple fact.

In other words, you will do anything in order to keep your misleading reasoning, no matter what the facts are, and in this case your behavior is not different than any member of some fanatic sect.

 

[The Man]

jsfisher and The Man, you ask me to show an object that has the properties of a given collection but it is not in the range of the given collection. I explicitly provide such an object (the inverse of the diagonal of any given collection that is translatable to <0,1> forms) but you ignore this simple fact.

In other words, you will do anything in order to keep your misleading reasoning, no matter what the facts are, and in this case your behavior is not different than any member of some fanatic sect.

Show exactly where either of us have asked you to do what you claim above or stop lying about what was asked of you. Again unless you can show what member of a set is not a member of that set, then you can not show that set, as defined, to be incomplete. That there may be "an object" that is not a member of that set in no way makes that set, as defined, incomplete. As has already been explained to you Doron you are simply trying to use "an object" that even you claim is not a member of the set (as you assert "it is not in the range of the given collection") to claim the set is incomplete. To try to put it more succinctly for you Doron "it is not in the range of the given collection" because it is not a member of that collection. The set is complete without your "object" and in spite of your entirely futile and self-contradictory objection to the fact that the set does not include what even you claim it, well, does not include.

In other words you will do anything to simply deceive yourself and expect others to simply be similarly beguiled.

 

[jsfisher]

jsfisher and The Man, you ask me to show an object that has the properties of a given collection but it is not in the range of the given collection. I explicitly provide such an object (the inverse of the diagonal of any given collection that is translatable to <0,1> forms) but you ignore this simple fact.

Don't lie. You did no such thing. For three possibilities, you demanded that the bit maps all be of the form xxx00000 so you could get 8 bits in each of the 8 possibilities. You, very literally, excluded anything with 1's after the first three bits. Why, then, are you surprised values you explicitly excluded aren't in the collection?

Praise Allah!! Doron again promotes the trivial as inspired.

 

[doronshadmi]

Again unless you can show what member of a set is not a member of that set, then you can not show that set, as defined, to be incomplete. That there may be "an object" that is not a member of that set in no way makes that set, as defined, incomplete.

<0,1> is the minimal needed form in order to translate any given object of a given collection into a unique code.

By doing this we are able to show a universal property of any given collection, which can't be seen form the level of each collection separately (The Man calls this separation "as defined" or in other words, he can't get the notion of cross-context level among context-dependent levels).

<0,1> form is used as the universal code for any given collection, as follows:

1) Each <0,1> form is an infinitely long unique code between 00000.... and 11111... , where 00000.... and 11111... are also unique codes.

2) We read each unique code from left to right.

Don't lie. You did no such thing. For three possibilities, you demanded that the bit maps all be of the form xxx00000 so you could get 8 bits in each of the 8 possibilities. You, very literally, excluded anything with 1's after the first three bits. Why, then, are you surprised values you explicitly excluded aren't in the collection?

Please read (1) above, in order to realize that you are wrong.


----------------------


Some examples of <0,1> translations:


A) Natural numbers (notated as N) <0,1> translation (where by Peano axioms, 0 is a natural number ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms )):

00000000000... ↔ 0
10000000000... ↔ 1
01000000000... ↔ 2
00100000000... ↔ 3
00010000000... ↔ 4
00001000000... ↔ 5

etc. ad infinitum ...

B) The power set of N ( notated as P(N) ) that includes {},{1,2,3,...} and any object between {} and {1,2,3,...}, is translatable to <0,1> form, for example:

{
00000000000... ↔ { },
11000000000... ↔ {1,2},
10000000000... ↔ {1},
10101010100... ↔ odd numbers {1,3,5,...},
10100000000... ↔ {1,3},
01010101010... ↔ even numbers {2,4,6,...},
01000000000... ↔ {2},
01100000000... ↔ {2,3},
00100000000... ↔ {3},
11111111111... ↔ N numbers {1,2,3,...},
...
}

etc. ad infinitum ...


C) The power set of P(N) ( notated as P(P(N)) ) that includes {} , {{},{{}},{1},{2},{3},{4},{5},{6},...} and any object between {} and {{},{{}},{1},{2},{3},{4},{5},{6},...}, is translatable to <0,1> form, for example:

{
000000000000... ↔ {},
100000000000... ↔ {{}},
010000000000... ↔ {{1}},
001000000000... ↔ {{2}},
000100000000... ↔ {{3}},
110000000000... ↔ {{},{1}},
101000000000... ↔ {{},{2}},
100100000000... ↔ {{},{3}},
111111111111... ↔ {{},{{}},{1},{2},{3},{4},{5},{6},{7},{8},{9},...},
...
}

etc. ad infinitum ...


A,B,C,... <0,1> translation is true by induction.

Given X, P(X), P(P(X)), ... , ...P(P(P(X)))... that are translatable to <0,1> collections of unique forms, it is shown that the inverse of the diagonal of the collection of the <0,1> unique forms, is not in the range of the given collection.

Since the inverse of the diagonal of the collection of the <0,1> unique forms has the same property of the unique forms of the given collection AND it is not in the range of the given collection, we conclude that any given collection of <0,1> unique forms is incomplete.

----------------------

EDIT:

Some examples (by universality only the <0,1> unique forms are significant):

00000000000...
10000000000...
01000000000...
00100000000...
00010000000...
00001000000...

where the <0,1> distinct form that is not in the range starts with 1111111..., in this case.


{
00000000000...
11000000000...
10000000000...
10101010100...
10100000000...
01010101010...
01000000000...
01100000000...
00100000000...
11111111111...
...
}

where the <0,1> distinct form that is not in the range starts with 1011101110..., in this case.

{
00000000000...
10000000000...
01000000000...
00100000000...
00010000000...
11000000000...
10100000000...
10010000000...
11111111111...
...
}

where the <0,1> distinct form that is not in the range starts with 111111110..., in this case.

-----------------------

jsfisher and The Man still can't grasp the incompleteness of any given collection, which is translatable to <0,1> unique forms.


EDIT:

Again The Man:

You still can't get the beauty of the complementarity of the invariat and the variant under a one framework.

For example: If you change the order of some collection of <0,1> unique forms, you get different <0,1> inverse form of the diagonal of that collection, which is not in the range of that given collection.

Yet, not being in the range is invariant w.r.t any ordered case of collections of <0,1> forms.

Actually given any defined formula, it is invariant w.r.t any particular solution of it.

 

[jsfisher]

Please read (1) above, in order to realize that you are wrong.

Give it up, Doron. Your nonsense doesn't work for any finite case, so why embarrass yourself pretending it works for anything infinite? All you have is hand-waving, contradiction, and a heavy dose of hidden assumption.

Let us not forget, you are still unable to describe exactly how one constructs one of your bitmap collections, let alone one of those diagonals . If you cannot do that simple task, then all the rest of your spewage is gibberish.

 

[doronshadmi]

Give it up, Doron. Your nonsense doesn't work for any finite case, so why embarrass yourself pretending it works for anything infinite? All you have is hand-waving, contradiction, and a heavy dose of hidden assumption.

Let us not forget, you are still unable to describe exactly how one constructs one of your bitmap collections, let alone one of those diagonals . If you cannot do that simple task, then all the rest of your spewage is gibberish.

jsfisher, the nonsense that you get is a direct result of your inablity to get the universality of <0,1> forms.

For example you can't get the following:

<0,1> form is used as the universal code for any given collection, as follows:

1) Each <0,1> form is an infinitely long unique code between 00000.... and 11111... , where 00000.... and 11111... are also unique codes.

2) We read each unique code from left to right.

It does not matter if the collection of <0,1> infinitely long unique forms is finite or not, the inverse of the diagonal of that collection is not in the range of that collction, for example:

1000...
0000...
0010...

and in this case 0100... is not in the range of that collection.

 

[jsfisher]

the inverse of the diagonal of that collection is not in the range of that collction

Prove it.

Stop waving your hands. Stop assuming things that are not true. Stop spewing gibberish. Just formally prove it.