• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
For The Man and other posters:

A = (that has no predecessor) AND (that has no successor)

B = (that has no successor) AND (that has no predecessor)

((A AND B) is the same as (B AND A)) is unordered.

((A AND B) is different than (B AND A)) is ordered.
Click to expand...


For what? To simply show that you still have no comprehension of ordering? I don’t think anyone here has any doubts of that, but thanks for clearly demonstrating it again.


Oh, and you should probably look up the commutative property of “AND”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction#Properties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commutativity


To try to put it more succinctly for you Doron…

“(A AND B)” is a different ordering than “(B AND A)” but since “AND” has the property of Commutativity such changes in ordering do not change the results so “(A AND B)” gives the same results as “(B AND A)”. The orderings are different but the results are not.
 
The Man said:
See, I as I suspected, you could "air OM's view about Cybernetic and Robotics" by totally ignoring "Cybernetic and Robotics".

So no real results, just some esoteric goals, after, what, 20 years at it now, how unfortunate.
Click to expand...

The Man, according to your last several replies about this subject you have no view about the current and future development of Cybernetic and Robotics, so your criticism has no value what so ever.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
For what? To simply show that you still have no comprehension of ordering? I don’t think anyone here has any doubts of that, but thanks for clearly demonstrating it again.


Oh, and you should probably look up the commutative property of “AND”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction#Properties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commutativity


To try to put it more succinctly for you Doron…

“(A AND B)” is a different ordering than “(B AND A)” but since “AND” has the property of Commutativity such changes in ordering do not change the results so “(A AND B)” gives the same results as “(B AND A)”. The orderings are different but the results are not.
Click to expand...
The Man, it is not about Commutativity or Non-commutativity.

((A AND B) is the same as (B AND A)) is resulted by the unordered and symmetrical form
Code: 
B     B
A [I]AND[/I] A
that has both redundancy and uncertainty with superposition of A;B ids.


((A AND B) is different than (B AND A)) is resulted by the ordered form and non-symmetrical form

(A AND B) OR (B AND A) that have 0 redundancy or uncertainty without superposition of A;B ids.


Your limited serial-only (and therefore ordered-only and non-symmetrical-only) reasoning fails again, similarly to your inability to grasp cross-contexts reasoning by using only context-dependent reasoning.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The Man, according to your last several replies about this subject you have no view about the current and future development of Cybernetic and Robotics, so your criticism has no value.
Click to expand...

Doron, according to all you posts in this tread you still have no real results, just some esoteric goals, after, what, 20 years at it now. Again, how unfortunate.
 
doronshadmi said:
The Man, it is not about Commutativity or Non-commutativity.
Click to expand...

So just something else you’re just going to deliberately ignore, color me unsurprised.


doronshadmi said:
((A AND B) is the same as (B AND A)) is resulted by the unordered and symmetrical form
Code: 
B     B
A [I]AND[/I] A
that has both redundancy and uncertainty with superposition of A;B ids.


((A AND B) is different than (B AND A)) is resulted by the ordered form and non-symmetrical form

(A AND B) OR (B AND A) that have 0 redundancy or uncertainty without superposition of A;B ids.
Click to expand...

Nope, exactly as I stated due to the property of commutatively for the logical conjunction “AND” the ordering can be different but the results are still the same.

“unordered and symmetrical form”?

Does ‘(A B AND)’ mean the same thing?

How about ‘(B DNA A)’?

The “form” is ordered and certainly not symmetrical.

Again it is just that changing the ordering of the variables (A and B in this case) about the logical conjunction does not change the result of the logical conjunction because that conjunction is commutative.


“superposition”? This would be your “superposition” again which you claimed “does not involve the principle of superposition”, right?

doronshadmi said:
Your limited serial-only (and therefore ordered-only and non-symmetrical-only) reasoning fails again, similarly to your inability to grasp cross-contexts reasoning by using only context-dependent reasoning.
Click to expand...

Again, stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Doron, according to all you posts in this tread you still have no real results, just some esoteric goals, after, what, 20 years at it now. Again, how unfortunate.
Click to expand...
Indeed no results are known by your blind reasoning, which also unable to air its view about current and future development of Robotics.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Nope, exactly as I stated due to the property of commutatively for the logical conjunction “AND” the ordering can be different but the results are still the same.
Click to expand...
In other words, you do not get my last post.

The Man said:
“unordered and symmetrical form”?
Click to expand...
Yes, and you can't get it as clearly seen in
The Man said:
Does ‘(A B AND)’ mean the same thing?

How about ‘(B DNA A)’?

The “form” is ordered and certainly not symmetrical.
Click to expand...
You simply get only the ordered and non-symmetrical, because of your serial-only reasoning.

The Man said:
Again it is just that changing the ordering of the variables (A and B in this case) about the logical conjunction does not change the result of the logical conjunction because that conjunction is commutative.
Click to expand...
Once again (it is like talking to a wall) it is not about Commutativity or Non-commutativity, but as usual your serial-only reasoning can't get that.

The Man said:
“superposition”? This would be your “superposition” again which you claimed “does not involve the principle of superposition”, right?
Click to expand...
It is exactly the superposition of symmetrical ids, which your serial-only (and therefore non-symmetrical) reasoning simply can't comprehend.


The Man said:
Again, stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.
Click to expand...
You do not need me, you posit aspects of your own serial-only (and therefore non-symmetrical) reasoning onto yourself, and as a result What You See Is What You Get.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In other words, you do not get my last post.
Click to expand...


Again in exactly the words I used…

“…as I stated due to the property of commutatively for the logical conjunction “AND” the ordering can be different but the results are still the same.”


doronshadmi said:
Yes, and you can't get it as clearly seen in

You simply get only the ordered and non-symmetrical, because of your serial-only reasoning.
Click to expand...

You simply and deliberately did not answer the questions.



doronshadmi said:
Once again (it is like talking to a wall) it is not about Commutativity or Non-commutativity, but as usual your serial-only reasoning can't get that.
Click to expand...

So again you just want to claim that “it is not about Commutativity or Non-commutativity” when you couch statements deliberately invoking the commutative property of “AND”…


doronshadmi said:
A = (that has no predecessor) AND (that has no successor)

B = (that has no successor) AND (that has no predecessor)
Click to expand...

Within a statement that is also deliberately invokes the commutative property of “AND”

doronshadmi said:
((A AND B) is the same as (B AND A)) is unordered.
Click to expand...

And then profess “that “it is not about Commutativity or Non-commutativity” which really just demonstrates how deliberate and contrived your ignorance actually is.


Your “wall” Doron remains your simple and deliberate ignorance


doronshadmi said:
It is exactly the superposition of symmetrical ids, which your serial-only (and therefore non-symmetrical) reasoning simply can't comprehend.
Click to expand...

Doron the stated “ids” aren’t “symmetrical” and by your own assertions your “superposition” does not involve, well, superposition. So you’re just wrong on all counts as usual, including your continued attempts to simply posit some aspect of your own failed reasoning onto others.


doronshadmi said:
You do not need me, you posit aspects of your own serial-only (and therefore non-symmetrical) reasoning onto yourself, and as a result What You See Is What You Get.
Click to expand...

“serial-only (and therefore non-symmetrical)” are only your ascriptions Doron, so you fail once again by virtue of your own deliberate ignorance of what are only your own assertions.
 
doronshadmi said:
[qimg]http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/1343/drawing2l.png[/qimg]
.................--------X--------

If h*X = (pi*r2) then h = (pi*r2)/X
Click to expand...

Well, OM didn't pass the test designed to see if it can handle "classic" geometry problems. And so we must test it again to see if it can solve a geOMetry problem.

R = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...}
B = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...}
G = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...}

There is only one set of positive integers, so the triple above doesn't make kind of sense, but if R, B, and G stand for Red, Blue, and Green, then it kind of make sense.

The members of each set are positive integers and define the length of color plastic spaghetti-like strands.

Suppose for a moment the the sets are finite with the same cardinality. At each instance, you pick randomly one strand from each set and attempt to position those three strands in such a way that your choice would form a triangle. Sometimes you succeed; sometimes you don't. If your random choice is r=7, b=7, and g=2, for example, you can assemble an isosceles triangle; but if the random choice returns r=12, b=3, and g=5, no triangle can be assembled.

Since R, B, and G are infinite sets, your random choice can be only defined as strand r, strand b, and strand g. What are the chances that r, b, and g would form a triangle? If their length is hypothetically favorable to forming a triangle, what are the chances that the triangle would be equilateral, isosceles, or scalene?

You can start meditating upon the works when I say "crimage."



Crimage.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Again in exactly the words I used…

“…as I stated due to the property of commutatively for the logical conjunction “AND” the ordering can be different but the results are still the same.”
Click to expand...
It is not about the commutativity of AND logical connective.

In order to define the the commutativity of AND logical connective, the input values must have well-defined ids.

A = (that has no predecessor) AND (that has no successor)

B = (that has no successor) AND (that has no predecessor)

This is not the case with the form

Code: 
B     B
A [I]AND[/I] A

where its input ids are in superposition ((A AND B) is the same as (B AND A)).

If the input ids are not in superposition ((A AND B) is different than (B AND A)), then A and B have well-defined ids, and only in this case commutativity is used, for example:

Y*X=X*Y (we get the same result) only if X AND Y have well-defined ids.

But in

Code: 
Y     Y
X [I]AND[/I] X

case, the inputs have no well-defined ids so commutativity can't be used.

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

In other words, you are looking for the result but missing the properties of the inputs, which enable (or not) the result.
 
Last edited:
epix said:
Well, OM didn't pass the test designed to see if it can handle "classic" geometry problems. And so we must test it again to see if it can solve a geOMetry problem.

R = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...}
B = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...}
G = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...}

There is only one set of positive integers, so the triple above doesn't make kind of sense, but if R, B, and G stand for Red, Blue, and Green, then it kind of make sense.

The members of each set are positive integers and define the length of color plastic spaghetti-like strands.

Suppose for a moment the the sets are finite with the same cardinality. At each instance, you pick randomly one strand from each set and attempt to position those three strands in such a way that your choice would form a triangle. Sometimes you succeed; sometimes you don't. If your random choice is r=7, b=7, and g=2, for example, you can assemble an isosceles triangle; but if the random choice returns r=12, b=3, and g=5, no triangle can be assembled.

Since R, B, and G are infinite sets, your random choice can be only defined as strand r, strand b, and strand g. What are the chances that r, b, and g would form a triangle? If their length is hypothetically favorable to forming a triangle, what are the chances that the triangle would be equilateral, isosceles, or scalene?

You can start meditating upon the works when I say "crimage."



Crimage.
Click to expand...

epix, it is not about particular examples (tests or whatever) of mathematical problems.

You simply don't get OM's aims, as written, for example, in:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7243778&postcount=15576

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7255966&postcount=15594

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7258971&postcount=15606
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
All you have is to omit "potential infinity", and read it again ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity ).
Click to expand...
It looks like someone edited that nonsense in Wiki.

So let's read further . . .

Georg Cantor is the most significant mathematician who defended actual infinities, equating the Absolute Infinite with God.
Click to expand...

How about hitting the board with the proof that God exists? LOL.

Your view clearly spells "finite infinity," but that's not what actual infinity is all about.
 
doronshadmi said:
epix, it is not about particular examples (tests or whatever) of mathematical problems.

You simply don't get OM's aims, as written, for example, in:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7243778&postcount=15576

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7255966&postcount=15594

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7258971&postcount=15606
Click to expand...
Particular examples are important to tell apart the potential from the actual. If you solve a problem using whatever OM is aiming at and the road to the solution is better to walk along, then there is some evidence to support your philosophies. If the solution is a twin to the traditional approach, then OM has nothing to improve. But if OM cannot face infinity at all in the real situation, then it means OM stands for something else . . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom