Deeper than primes

[zooterkin]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7236473&postcount=15536

Did you think we were lacking examples of what I was talking about?

 

[doronshadmi]

Did you think we were lacking examples of what I was talking about?

What do you mean?

Do you wish to say that you can't start by real-line's fundamental research, which is based on the irreducibility of 1-dimensional element into 0-dimensional element, and the non-extendability of 0-dimensional into 1-dimensional element, under co-existence?

 

[zooterkin]

What do you mean?

Do you wish to say that you can't start by real-line's fundamental research, which is based on the irreducibility of 1-dimensional element into 0-dimensional element, and the non-extendability of 0-dimensional into 1-dimensional element, under co-existence?

No. Oddly enough, and I can understand it if you have difficulty grasping the concept, what I said was what I meant to say.

 

[doronshadmi]

No. Oddly enough, and I can understand it if you have difficulty grasping the concept, what I said was what I meant to say.

And what you meant to say if you can't research the real-line as 1-dim;0-dim co-existence (this is a fundamental research, so it can't be odd, such that if you grasp it you can deal with more complex stuff) ?

EDIT:

You still can't have any meaningful thing to say about the considered subject, as clearly can be seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7211050&postcount=15493 .

 

[epix]

Wrong, the points in 2-dimensional space have two coordinates each, and there is 0 distance between 2 points only of there is actually a one pair of coordinates, or in other words, only a one point.

For example, by set theory {(1,3),(1,3)}={(1,3)} where (1,3) is a single point in a 2-dimensional space.

It is amazing that you can't get such a simple fact.

You are definitely lost to Reason. What do you think that the word "pseudo" means? In the case of the eclipse, the 2-dim viewing space is a pseudo-space to the 3-dim space where the points were actually drawn into.

Since you dislike anything "pseudo-" excepting your attempt to run over the math world with your locOMobile, you are free to trash the following computation of the pseudo-range.

In which line does the bug crawl along?

 

[epix]

What do you mean?

Do you wish to say that you can't start by real-line's fundamental research, which is based on the irreducibility of 1-dimensional element into 0-dimensional element, and the non-extendability of 0-dimensional into 1-dimensional element, under co-existence?

Since you can't extend 0-dim object into 1-dim object, you can't increase the magnitude of a 1-dim object.

The line segment

A__________B

can't be extended to

A______________________B'

coz you can't drag 0-dim point B to the right.

It follows that the axiomatic framework of the OM allows only shuffling objects of a constant magnitude around. In case of the size in general, the OM is bound to go extinct due to the obstacle in breeding -- no enlargement happening. Good.

 

[zooterkin]

And what you meant to say if you can't research the real-line as 1-dim;0-dim co-existence (this is a fundamental research, so it can't be odd, such that if you grasp it you can deal with more complex stuff) ?

Write that out again in English, and I'll have a go at understanding what you're on about.

EDIT:

You still can't have any meaningful thing to say about the considered subject, as clearly can be seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7211050&postcount=15493 .

Now you're linking to a post which just has a link to another post...

Please state plainly just one useful thing that has been done with OM.

 

[jsfisher]

Another typical reply of jsfisher, which avoids detailed replies to:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7233789&postcount=15527

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7233941&postcount=15529

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7234231&postcount=15530

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7234821&postcount=15531

Repeatedly posting links to some of your silliest posts doesn't challenge in any way the substance of my post: You mis-assume what I know and understand of your fantastical OM. You fail to demonstrate any relevance for your fantastical OM.

 

[The Man]

Let's make it simple for you:

"stretched 0-dim" is "different than 0-dim".

"totally reduced 1-dim" is "different than 1-dim".

Let me make this simple for you:

That just makes your "stretched 0-dim" not “0-dim”. So how many “dim”s does it have now?

Also it it just makes your "totally reduced 1-dim" not “1-dim”. So how many “dim”s does it have now.

Trying to sweep your assertions that your "stretched 0-dim" becomes your “1-dim” and your "totally reduced 1-dim" becomes your “0-dim" under the carpet as hidden assumptions isn’t going to help you.

The difference is saved under co-existence and prevents homeomorphism between 0-dim and 1-dim spaces.

Then perhaps you shouldn’t have been claiming that your "stretched 0-dim" becomes your “1-dim” and your "totally reduced 1-dim" becomes your “0-dim".

Therefore under co-existence there is always 1-dimensional space between more than one 0-dimensional element, which prevents the existence of more than one 0-dimensional element in the same 0-dimensional space.

Nope not in a descrete space.

Let's generalize it:

Let’s correct it:

1) 0-dimension is the smallest existing dimensional space.

Again 0 dimensions isn’t a dimensional space.

2) x = 0 approaching ∞ and x<y, where y approaching ∞.

“0” isn’t “approaching” anything (even 0) it is just, well 0. If you wanted to say that x is value approcing infinity and that “x<y, you could have just said it..

3) There is always y-dimensional space between more than one x-dimensional element, which prevents the existence of more than one x-dimensional element in the same x-dimensional space.

There is no space between the intervals [3,5) and [5,6) in the reals and the intervals [3,5] and [4,6] overlap each other and the interval [4,5].

As usual you are just spouting nonsensical gibberish.

Since 0-dimensional element (known as a point) is an existing thing, it can't be used as the negation of the existence of Dimension.

It isn’t, the lack of dimension is used to define a point.

In other words, the assertion that a point is the negation of Dimension is equivalent to the assertion that an existing thing is the negation of Existence.

Nope, “the negation of Dimension” negates, well, dimension while the “negation of Existence” negates existence

It is a different version of “Hilbert's Hotel”. Do you have some problems to understand the word different?

Again its not any “version of “Hilbert's Hotel”” because you just don’t understand and deliberately ignore the details of “Hilbert's Hotel”

Actuality is not limited to existing things, for example:

The actuality of nothing can be considered as the negation of Existence.

Since now your claiming your “nothing” does not exist, that would mean that there is always something.

Since you have problems to get the actuality of nothing, you can't comprehend assertions like "There is nothing between A and B".

Well since you have just asserted your that your “nothing” does not exist, that would mean that there is something “between A and B”. Well what is it?

 

[The Man]

You are definitely lost to Reason. What do you think that the word "pseudo" means? In the case of the eclipse, the 2-dim viewing space is a pseudo-space to the 3-dim space where the points were actually drawn into.

Since you dislike anything "pseudo-" excepting your attempt to run over the math world with your locOMobile, you are free to trash the following computation of the pseudo-range.

[qimg]http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/pseudo-range.gif[/qimg]

In which line does the bug crawl along?

Thanks epix, I was wondering how I was going to calculate my wet and dry obliquity factors.

 

[epix]

The actuality of nothing can be considered as the negation of Existence.

The actuality of nothing? What kind of kitchen talk is that? You're not peeling potatoes; you are in the process of submerging yourself into the deep philosophical waters where existence and non-existence dwells and that requires all the rigor available. Out of my undying kindness and love for OM, I help you this time to reformulate your thought, but then you are on your own.

1) There exists nothing.
2) Nothing is the negation of existence.
3) Therefore nothing doesn't exist.

A necessary at the most but not the least corollary: (1) contradicts (3) and therefore (1) must be reformulated to negate the contradiction to preserve the truthfulness of your relation. My recommendation is

M) There exists non-existence.
A) Non-existence is the negation of existence.
E) Therefore non-existence doesn't exist in the presence of non-existence.
D) Therefore non-existence does exist in the presence of non-existence.

It's all very simple. Just learn to elucidate your thoughts with proper expressive means as shown in M, A, E and D.

 

[epix]

Thanks epix, I was wondering how I was going to calculate my wet and dry obliquity factors.

Actually if you look at the formulae (note the educated plural I use ), both factors are reciprocal to the unit semi-circle, which is f(x) = Sqr(1 - x²). In those formulae (there is no language like the Latin language) there is a bunch of parameters substituting for x. Maybe the semi-circle is some kind of pseudo-sunset where the visible semicircle is "dry" and the one under the horizon line is "wet," when you watch it from your patio situated west of the Pacific Coast Highway.

 

[doronshadmi]

You are definitely lost to Reason.

Well, this is exactly your problem about this subject.

What do you think that the word "pseudo" means?

"Pseudo" means that Y looks like X but actually it is not X.

In this case X = "metric".

In metric space it is reasonable to use concepts like distanceand point , which are meaningless as a generalization in the case of pseudo-metric space, so the use of concepts like points is misleading, because points are the most accurate expression of position or location of some given space.

In order to avoid confusion, concepts like distance and point must first be replaced by more general concepts like samenesss and difference.

By using this generalization, a given point is the smallest existing thing that naturally has 0 distance as an essential property of the id of its existence (0 distance is actually its identification or its sameness).

So pseudo-metric space can't use D((a,b),(a,c)) (where D() is a notation of distance) by defining a,b,c in terms of distance without leading to confusion.

In order to avoid confusing, distance has to be replaced by samenesss and difference (where distance and point are some particular case of this generalization).

Now let's give some general examples:

A={(a,b),(a,c)}, where a is the sameness of A members and b,c are the difference of A members.

Be aware of the fact that in terms of sameness at most one notation is used (a), and in terms of difference at least two notations (b,c) are used.

By understanding the co-existence of sameness AND difference, the following contradiction (points are indistinguishable AND distinct) as given by

points in a pseudometric space need not be distinguishable; that is, one may have d(x,y) = 0 for distinct values x≠y ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudometric_space )

is simply avoided, because the used concepts (sameness;difference) are a generalization of concepts like distance and point.

Let's see how the particular cases of points and distance are used by pseudo metric space without deriving into contradiction:

Let A={(a,b),(a,c)}, such that D((a,b),(a,c)) (where D() is a notation of distance), where a is a point and b,c is time.

So, we get the same point in different times (time b, or time c).

By using the generalization of the co-existence of sameness AND difference a can be the same time in different points (point b, or point c).

Under special circumstances, when both points appear in the local 2-dim viewing frame, the distance between both points can become zero, otherwise there is no eclipse.

All you did is to ignore b,c difference, which leads to partial understanding of what is really going on.

By following your reasoning, we are living in a flat universe.

By not ignoring a,b,c, a is sameness b,c is difference such that "points (a,b),(a,c) are distinct" AND "there is no 0 distance between them".

 

[doronshadmi]

1) There exists nothing.

(1) is contradiction.

In other words, you do not get (yet) the actuality of nothing, because you get actuality as a synonym of existence.

 

[doronshadmi]

Please state plainly just one useful thing that has been done with OM.

Please give an example of what you call "useful".

 

[zooterkin]

Doron, what can you do with OM?

 

[doronshadmi]

Actually if you look at the formulae (note the educated plural I use ), both factors are reciprocal to the unit semi-circle, which is f(x) = Sqr(1 - x²). In those formulae (there is no language like the Latin language) there is a bunch of parameters substituting for x. Maybe the semi-circle is some kind of pseudo-sunset where the visible semicircle is "dry" and the one under the horizon line is "wet," when you watch it from your patio situated west of the Pacific Coast Highway.

Nice epix, your "dry" "wet" sun fits to your pseudo metric flat universe.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron, what can you do with OM?

I can develop the mathematical science, such that the term "mathematical branches" gets its actual meaning.

In can be achieved only of both cross-contexts reasoning AND context-dependent reasoning are used.

 

[epix]

By following your reasoning, we are living in a flat universe.

You are incapable of generating one near-rational thought given your natural resistance to do so. Our universe, especially the Milky Way, can be viewed locally as 2-dim space when it is desirable for a purpose and it has been done so. Gravitational lensing can be detected only through 2-dim viewing, for example. In the abstract domain, in order to investigate the nature of a 1-dim object, namely the length, 2-dim arrangement needs to be taken into a consideration, like in the case of the Pythagorean theorem. You can muse over the length of the hypotenuse ad infinitum your style, but unless you expand and include 2-dim objects, you won't figure the length.

See the colored areas? These are 2-dim objects.

 

[doronshadmi]

Let me make this simple for you:

That just makes your "stretched 0-dim" not “0-dim”. So how many “dim”s does it have now?

Also it it just makes your "totally reduced 1-dim" not “1-dim”. So how many “dim”s does it have now.

In both cases you have at least two dimensional spaces, where the smaller dimension is local w.r.t the greater dimension and the greater dimension is non-local w.r.t to the smaller dimension.

Nope not in a descrete space.

There is no more then one element if there is no co-existence between at least two different dimensional spaces.

You still do not comprehend the result of actuality of nothing between A and B.

Again 0 dimensions isn’t a dimensional space.

Yes I know, it is actually a pink snail.

“0” isn’t “approaching” anything (even 0) it is just, well 0. If you wanted to say that x is value approcing infinity and that “x<y, you could have just said it..

What I actually say is that there is a domain starting with 0 and approaching infinity, where there are x and y variables in that domain, such that x<y.

There is no space between the intervals [3,5) and [5,6) in the reals and the intervals [3,5] and [4,6] overlap each other and the interval [4,5].

x<y are not limited to the real-line so your reply has nothing to do with the fact that x<y and y-dimensional space exists between x-dimensional elements, where x and y approaching infinity.

It isn’t, the lack of dimension is used to define a point.

In that case "dimension has nothing to do with points", which is a false proposition based on your "reasoning".

Nope, “the negation of Dimension” negates, well, dimension while the “negation of Existence” negates existence

Only if one can't generalize what he\she reads.

Again its not any “version of “Hilbert's Hotel”” because you just don’t understand and deliberately ignore the details of “Hilbert's Hotel”

Once again, you demonstrate your inability the understand the proposition "different version".

Since now your claiming your “nothing” does not exist, that would mean that there is always something.

If something is considered as the negation of nothing, then without the actuality of nothing, something can't be defined.

Be aware that actual and existence are not synonyms.

Well since you have just asserted your that your “nothing” does not exist, that would mean that there is something “between A and B”. Well what is it?

You still do not get the actuality of nothing, and as a result you can't comprehend the difference of the following:

1) nothing between A and B, is resulted by at most one thing.

2) something between A and B, is resulted by at least two things.