Deeper than primes

[The Man]

It is not about the commutativity of AND logical connective.

Rally, well then try your nonsense with an operation or connective that is not commutative.

What you will find is that changes in the ordering of the variables can now change the results. However with a commutative connective such as “AND” changing the ordering of the variables simply can not change the results.

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

No they don’t, again look up the definition of commutativity. It doesn’t matter what the “input values” “ids” are, changing the ordering of those “Ids” doesn’t change the results.

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

B     B
A [I]AND[/I] A

Again it does not matter “A = (that has no predecessor) AND (that has no successor)” is the same result as “B = (that has no successor) AND (that has no predecessor)” that they have different ordering is irrelevant because “AND” is commutative.

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

Wrong again “((A AND B) is the same as (B AND A))” because “AND” is commutative so the difference in ordering is irrelevant to the results.

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:

Once again Doron by your own assertions your “superposition” is not even a superposition. “AND” is commutative regardless of how or how well you define your “ids”.

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

But in

Y     Y
X [I]AND[/I] X

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

So you are claiming that changing the ordering of your ill-defined “ids” around the “AND” conjunction changes the results? Guess what, it can’t because “AND” is commutative regardless of how poorly you just want to define your “ids”. You do understand that a variable is, well, variable right? So your ill-defined Y over X “superposition” (that isn’t a superposition by your own assertions) is no different than any other variable. It does not change the fact that the logical conjunction “AND” is commutative. The fact of the matter is since your ill-defined Y over X “superposition” (that isn’t a superposition by your own assertions) is on both sides of that conjunction changing the ordering of your ill-defined “ids” around the “AND” wouldn’t make a difference even if “AND” wasn’t commutative. So you’re just all kinds of wrong no matter how you slice it here.

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

In other words, you are looking for the result but missing the properties of the inputs, which enable (or not) the result.

In the same words again “AND” is commutative regardless of how poorly you just want to define your “ids”. Since you keep missing it Doron, commutativity is a property of the operator and/or connective not of the inputs or results. Again try your nonsense with an operator and/or connective that is not commutative and see what you get.

 

[The Man]

Evidently you avoid any view of current and future development of Robotics.

Not such evidence has been presented nor have your presented any “view of current and future development of Robotics”. Again because you simply and deliberately ignored current and future developments in robotics and instead just expounded the same old “OM’ fantasies you just want to apply to everything.

Let’s try it some different ways…

Say transportation…



Let us start by at least two aspects that, in my opinion, are important to current and future development of transportation.

In my opinion a responsible current and future development of transportation has to carefully define the non-trivial dynamic balance between greater degrees of a vehicle’s capabilities to carry passengers and greater symbiosis with them.

Responsibility is developed only if we express our awareness abilities by non-destructive ways, such that any scientific development is derived from
the non-subjective state of mind, which is the natural source of any possible expression, including our mental and physical realm.

So in order to wisely use Cybernetics responsibly in the field of transportation, we first have to develop the Cybernetics between our subjective and non-subjective aspects.

This is exactly the aim of Organic Mathematics, as briefly illustrated, for example, in:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=15576

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=15594


How about sports…

Let us start by at least two aspects that, in my opinion, are important to current and future development of sports.

In my opinion a responsible current and future development of sports has to carefully define the non-trivial dynamic balance between greater degrees of a player’s individual abilities and greater symbiosis with the team.

Responsibility is developed only if we express our awareness abilities by non-destructive ways, such that any scientific development is derived from
the non-subjective state of mind, which is the natural source of any possible expression, including our mental and physical realm.

So in order to wisely use Cybernetics responsibly in the field of sports, we first have to develop the Cybernetics between our subjective and non-subjective aspects.

This is exactly the aim of Organic Mathematics, as briefly illustrated, for example, in:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=15576

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=15594

Or even furniture..

Let us start by at least two aspects that, in my opinion, are important to current and future development of furniture.

In my opinion a responsible current and future development of furniture has to carefully define the non-trivial dynamic balance between greater degrees of the furniture’s functionality and greater symbiosis of style with the surroundings.

Responsibility is developed only if we express our awareness abilities by non-destructive ways, such that any scientific development is derived from
the non-subjective state of mind, which is the natural source of any possible expression, including our mental and physical realm.

So in order to wisely use Cybernetics responsibly in the field of furniture, we first have to develop the Cybernetics between our subjective and non-subjective aspects.

This is exactly the aim of Organic Mathematics, as briefly illustrated, for example, in:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=15576

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=15594


Just boiler plate nonsense word salad with a few buzzwords peppered in is not a view of anything, Doron, but your same old “OM” fantasies that you just want to apply to everything.

 

[jsfisher]

Evidently you avoid any view of current and future development of Robotics.

It is clear to all you are just looking for someone else to provide something you can argue against. You and your fantastical OM are bankrupt of any originality. The best you can do is misrepresent and wrongfully discredit something already established.

 

[doronshadmi]

Rally, well then try your nonsense with an operation or connective that is not commutative.

What you will find is that changes in the ordering of the variables can now change the results. However with a commutative connective such as “AND” changing the ordering of the variables simply can not change the results.



No they don’t, again look up the definition of commutativity. It doesn’t matter what the “input values” “ids” are, changing the ordering of those “Ids” doesn’t change the results.



Again it does not matter “A = (that has no predecessor) AND (that has no successor)” is the same result as “B = (that has no successor) AND (that has no predecessor)” that they have different ordering is irrelevant because “AND” is commutative.





Wrong again “((A AND B) is the same as (B AND A))” because “AND” is commutative so the difference in ordering is irrelevant to the results.



Once again Doron by your own assertions your “superposition” is not even a superposition. “AND” is commutative regardless of how or how well you define your “ids”.





So you are claiming that changing the ordering of your ill-defined “ids” around the “AND” conjunction changes the results? Guess what, it can’t because “AND” is commutative regardless of how poorly you just want to define your “ids”. You do understand that a variable is, well, variable right? So your ill-defined Y over X “superposition” (that isn’t a superposition by your own assertions) is no different than any other variable. It does not change the fact that the logical conjunction “AND” is commutative. The fact of the matter is since your ill-defined Y over X “superposition” (that isn’t a superposition by your own assertions) is on both sides of that conjunction changing the ordering of your ill-defined “ids” around the “AND” wouldn’t make a difference even if “AND” wasn’t commutative. So you’re just all kinds of wrong no matter how you slice it here.



In the same words again “AND” is commutative regardless of how poorly you just want to define your “ids”. Since you keep missing it Doron, commutativity is a property of the operator and/or connective not of the inputs or results. Again try your nonsense with an operator and/or connective that is not commutative and see what you get.

Let's simplify it for you.

A = FALSE
B = TRUE

Form

B     B
A [I]AND[/I] A

is a superposition of ids, and because of that superposition the id of the inputs of AND connective are not well-defined, and no clear result can be given.

A clear result can be given only if there is no superposition of ids among AND connective inputs, and only then the commutative property of AND connective can be used, for example, commutativity is used in the following cases:

A AND A, A AND B, B AND A, B AND B

and it can't be used in the following superposition case:

B     B
A [I]AND[/I] A

exactly because the inputs are not well-defined under id's superposition.

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

There is another thing about your reply, which is:

It can be clearly seen how you reply separately to each part of my post, according to the particular order of how it was written, and you don't first read all of the post in order to understand it, before you reply to some part of it.

This kind of behavior is typical to auditory\sequential-only learners, which prevent from them to get the whole picture, before they reply to some part of it.

 

[doronshadmi]

Not such evidence has been presented nor have your presented any “view of current and future development of Robotics”. Again because you simply and deliberately ignored current and future developments in robotics and instead just expounded the same old “OM’ fantasies you just want to apply to everything.

Let’s try it some different ways…

Say transportation…



Let us start by at least two aspects that, in my opinion, are important to current and future development of transportation.

In my opinion a responsible current and future development of transportation has to carefully define the non-trivial dynamic balance between greater degrees of a vehicle’s capabilities to carry passengers and greater symbiosis with them.

Responsibility is developed only if we express our awareness abilities by non-destructive ways, such that any scientific development is derived from
the non-subjective state of mind, which is the natural source of any possible expression, including our mental and physical realm.

So in order to wisely use Cybernetics responsibly in the field of transportation, we first have to develop the Cybernetics between our subjective and non-subjective aspects.

This is exactly the aim of Organic Mathematics, as briefly illustrated, for example, in:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=15576

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=15594


How about sports…

Let us start by at least two aspects that, in my opinion, are important to current and future development of sports.

In my opinion a responsible current and future development of sports has to carefully define the non-trivial dynamic balance between greater degrees of a player’s individual abilities and greater symbiosis with the team.

Responsibility is developed only if we express our awareness abilities by non-destructive ways, such that any scientific development is derived from
the non-subjective state of mind, which is the natural source of any possible expression, including our mental and physical realm.

So in order to wisely use Cybernetics responsibly in the field of sports, we first have to develop the Cybernetics between our subjective and non-subjective aspects.

This is exactly the aim of Organic Mathematics, as briefly illustrated, for example, in:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=15576

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=15594

Or even furniture..

Let us start by at least two aspects that, in my opinion, are important to current and future development of furniture.

In my opinion a responsible current and future development of furniture has to carefully define the non-trivial dynamic balance between greater degrees of the furniture’s functionality and greater symbiosis of style with the surroundings.

Responsibility is developed only if we express our awareness abilities by non-destructive ways, such that any scientific development is derived from
the non-subjective state of mind, which is the natural source of any possible expression, including our mental and physical realm.

So in order to wisely use Cybernetics responsibly in the field of furniture, we first have to develop the Cybernetics between our subjective and non-subjective aspects.

This is exactly the aim of Organic Mathematics, as briefly illustrated, for example, in:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=15576

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=15594


Just boiler plate nonsense word salad with a few buzzwords peppered in is not a view of anything, Doron, but your same old “OM” fantasies that you just want to apply to everything.

An excellent post that demonstrates your poor understanding of Cybernetics and Robotics, exactly because you so ignorantly replaced robots with things that are not necessarily involved with Cybernetics.

The Man, until this very moment you did not show some reply, which is relevant to your ability you air your view about current and future development of Cybernetics and\or Robotics.

It is even worse, you have failed to understand that

Let us start by at least two aspects that, in my opinion, are important to current and future development of Robotics.
In my opinion a responsible current and future development of Robotics has to carefully define the non-trivial dynamic balance between greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them.

is no more that a brief starting point for further and more detailed discussion on that subject, which you actually fail to do.

Again because you simply and deliberately ignored current and future developments in robotics and instead just expounded the same old “OM’ fantasies you just want to apply to everything.

The cybernetic development between the subjective and non-subjective state of mind, is the natural basis for technology's development, where cybernetics plays a main role, and Robotics is defiantly such a technology.

 

[doronshadmi]

It looks like someone edited that nonsense in Wiki.

So let's read further . . .

Yes I know, it does not fit to your poor understanding of that subject.

Your view clearly spells "finite infinity," but that's not what actual infinity is all about.

You are not in any position to say any meaningful thing about my view of infinity, simply because you are ignorant about this subject including ignorance about the Cantorean (and currently accepted) view of this profound subject.

Once again you ignored http://www.sewanee.edu/philosophy/Journal/Archives/2005/Compton.htm#_ftnref28 or http://scielo.unam.mx/pdf/rhfi/v39n117/v39n117a4.pdf.

Why do you ignore these links epix?

 

[doronshadmi]

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 . . .

OM's first aim is to provide the comprehensive framework of the mathematical science, such that any given result will not be used for destruction, exactly as can be found among particular organs of a one organisms.

This aim can't be achieved without an actual development of the mathematician's awareness, which fulfills both his\her subjective and non-subjective aspects by developing a one comprehensive and organic realm.

Traditional Mathematics is currently based of context-dependent frameworks, and by using also Cross-contexts reasoning, OM defines the needed conditions in order to actually develop an actual organic realm, where different organs at least do not destroy each other under co-existence.

 

[doronshadmi]

It is clear to all you are just looking for someone else to provide something you can argue against. You and your fantastical OM are bankrupt of any originality. The best you can do is misrepresent and wrongfully discredit something already established.

You are not in any position to speak about originality.

Furthermore, please provide some link to your original mathematical paper.

Actually exactly because of your lack of any original ability, you are unable to get http://ijpam.eu/contents/2008-49-3/5/5.pdf .

 

[jsfisher]

You are not in any position to speak about originality.

Furthermore, please provide some link to your original mathematical paper.

I note that even your attempt at rebuff is just a reflection of what someone else has said. No originality to be found anywhere with you, Doron.

Be that as it may, my work is not the topic of this thread. Your request is yet more diversion away from your own inabilities.

 

[zooterkin]

OM's first aim is to provide the comprehensive framework of the mathematical science, such that any given result will not be used for destruction, exactly as can be found among particular organs of a one organisms.

This aim can't be achieved without an actual development of the mathematician's awareness, which fulfills both his\her subjective and non-subjective aspects by developing a one comprehensive and organic realm.

Traditional Mathematics is currently based of context-dependent frameworks, and by using also Cross-contexts reasoning, OM defines the needed conditions in order to actually develop an actual organic realm, where different organs at least do not destroy each other under co-existence.

So, enough about the aims. What has anyone actually achieved by using OM?

 

[doronshadmi]

I note that even your attempt at rebuff is just a reflection of what someone else has said.

Please support your claim, for example, according to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7207963&postcount=15484 .


EDIT:

Actually you will do a great service for me if you find a professional mathematician that claims what I say in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7207963&postcount=15484 .

Anyway, since when rebuffing a given subject is considered as a typical signature of non-originality?

 

[doronshadmi]

So, enough about the aims. What has anyone actually achieved by using OM?

OM is a paradigm-shift of the current formal agreement of the mathematical science.

In other words, it has to actually be used by mathematicians in order to show its actual achievements.

Until now no professional mathematician even tried to do the needed paradigm-shift, exactly because mathematician's awareness is not an aspect of traditional mathematics.

As long as mathematician's awareness is out of the scope of the mathematical science, OM will not become actual.

 

[doronshadmi]

Be that as it may, my work is not the topic of this thread. Your request is yet more diversion away from your own inabilities.

jsfisher, you are the one that started to speak about originality (my originality, in this case) as follows:

You and your fantastical OM are bankrupt of any originality.

Since the originality of mathematical work is defiantly a topic of that thread, then this time please provide some original mathematical work of you, in order to demonstrate a real work, which is not a fantasy.

I hope that you are not going to be non-original like The Man, by his refusal to share his view of current and future development of Robotics.

 

[jsfisher]

Please support your claim, for example, according to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7207963&postcount=15484 .

The remark was supported by the very post it cited. Please stop evading the issue at hand.

Anyway, since when rebuffing a given subject is considered as a typical signature of non-originality?

Your reading comprehension skills are still limited, I see.

Still, please stop evading the issue at head. You need to support your claim about OM with respect to robotics.

 

[jsfisher]

jsfisher, you are the one that started to speak about originality (my originality, in this case) as follows:

Be clear: your complete lack of originality.

Since the originality of mathematical work is defiantly a topic of that thread, then this time please provide some original mathematical work of you, in order to demonstrate a real work, which is not a fantasy.

Still you evade. No surprise.

I hope that you are not going to be non-original like The Man, by his refusal to share his view of current and future development of Robotics.

Still you evade. No surprise.

 

[doronshadmi]

The remark was supported by the very post it cited.

I see, your context-dependent-only reasoning can't see beyond the border it marks, so forget about an open discussion about originality, it is beyond your context-dependent-only reasoning ability.

Let's play your limited context-dependent-only game:

The best you can do is misrepresent and wrongfully discredit something already established.

The best you can do is misrepresent and wrongfully discredit something that is under further development, like Cybernetics and Robotics, where the researcher's awareness development is a significant factor of it.

There is no such thing like "already established" in actual scientific development, only dogmatic context-dependent-only reasoners like you wishes to put everything in "already established" titled boxes.

 

[epix]

This is exactly the aim of Organic Mathematics, as briefly illustrated, for example, in:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=15576

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=15594[/I]

Or even furniture..

Your unwarranted criticism of OM and your refusal to accept it as the key that opens the door to the future is a position that you will come to regret, for OM draws the horizon line the sharpest. The nature is not able to create plastics, for example, yet look around yourself to see this material aplenty. If OM had existed some five hundred years ago, it would have offered a hypothetical look into atom binding. To let such mundane things as the furniture walk toward the future is a sign of a context-dependent-only reasoning that may support the present well, but it's impotent to bring about the future.

The progressive future is altered present, otherwise the future becomes stagnating present inherited from the past. It is OM that lifts the lid on the pot of opportunities that no one would even dare to dream of; it is OM that can dress all tabus and impossibilities for the appointment with the wonders of the future. Here is an example of a bold move toward the future that only OM can make.

We can take the ribonucleic acid, RNA, and change its biochemistry the way nature couldn't accomplish even in trillion years; we can change RNA into RNI and introduce the molecule into a present organism through gene slicing and recombination:

(RNA => RNI) and (FUTURE /splice => F U - - - T U R E)

Now we insert the modified molecule into the symbolic organism called "future." Ta-daaaa . . .

FURNITURE



I think it's an Organic Massage bed -- something that would relegate back-pains into medieval history.

 

[doronshadmi]

You need to support your claim about OM with respect to robotics.

As I have said, the researcher's awareness development is deeply involved in Cybernetics and Robotics development.

Your inability to get that is a direct result of your tagged-boxes reasoning style.


Like The Man and epix, you can't comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7266088&postcount=15629 .

 

[doronshadmi]

We can take the ribonucleic acid, RNA, and change its biochemistry the way nature couldn't accomplish even in trillion years;

Who is this "We"?


How this "We" avoids self-destruction by further manipulations of Nature's forces?


Why this "We" things that it beyond Nature?


What is Nature for this "We"?


In other words, you don't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7266088&postcount=15629 .

 

[jsfisher]

I see, your context-dependent-only reasoning can't see beyond the border it marks, so forget about an open discussion about originality, it is beyond your context-dependent-only reasoning ability.

Let's play your limited context-dependent-only game:

The best you can do is misrepresent and wrongfully discredit something that is under further development, like Cybernetics and Robotics, where the researcher's awareness development is a significant factor of it.

There is no such thing like "already established" in actual scientific development, only dogmatic context-dependent-only reasoners like you wishes to put everything in "already established" titled boxes.

You continued lack of originality in your retorts is noted. Now, can you please address the issue you have been so clumsy at evading?

Prediction: "Clumsy" will soon be an addition to Doron's rhetoric.