• 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:
So what, it is consistent with my fundamental notion of cross-contexts\context-dependent reasoning.
Click to expand...


Well, at least you admit you make it up as you go along.

As for being consistent, that's an empty claim since the very act of you defining then redefining things on a whim emphasizes just how inconsistent your notions and your reasoning are.
 
jsfisher said:
Well, at least you admit you make it up as you go along.

As for being consistent, that's an empty claim since the very act of you defining then redefining things on a whim emphasizes just how inconsistent your notions and your reasoning are.
Click to expand...
What you say is a complete nonsense.

I have figured out that I made a mistake, I corrected it, and now it is consistent with Cross-contexts\Context-dependent reasoning.

Your two previous replies demonstrate again that your Context-dependent-only reasoning can't get anything of what you read.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
What you say is a complete nonsense.

I have figured out that I made a mistake, I corrected it, and now it is consistent with Cross-contexts\Context-dependent reasoning.
Click to expand...


No, you didn't make a mistake. You are just willing to be completely fluid in how you tie together your nonsense.

This is why you cannot define much of anything with any rigor. This is why "direct perception" is a cornerstone of your mythology. There are merely tools to give you complete independence of anything that might contradict your imaginarium.

You just make it up to as you go along.

You substitute notation for meaning, then you claim the empty notation is proof.


But prove me wrong. Do tell us what are the rules for standard arithmetic in Doronetics. Show how it is all consistent and and maybe even, heart be still, useful.
 
doronshadmi said:
Your associative property (ab)c = a(bc) is not a general rule, but you can't get it, jsfisher, because there is no such a thing like non-local numbers in your word (for example: 1=0.999...[base 10] in your word) so you can't get that A - (B + C) is not the same as (A - B) - C (the associative property (ab)c = a(bc) is not a general rule).
Click to expand...

No, it's not a "general rule;" it's something else that concerns R:

Operation Axioms

(@ = "for all")

For all x, y, and z
1. Associative laws:
@x@y@z [(x + y) + z = x + (y + z) and (x · y) · z = x · (y · z)]

2. Commutative laws:
@x@y [x + y = y + x and x · y = y · x]

3. Distributive law:
@x@y@z [x · (y + z) = x · y + x · z]

Suppose there exists (A + B) + C where A=8/5, B=pi and C=0.999... Can you use the associative law applicable for all x in R so that (8/5 + pi) + 0.999... = 8/5 + (pi + 0.999...)?

You didn't ponder enough the reason why I once posted a quote which said that some authors prohibit the use of numbers with decimal part comprised of boudless string of 9's.

We know that 8/5 lives in Q, pi lives in R, but where does 0.999... live? You need to found out before applying the law of association. We don't say that mathematics is consistent; we show that it actually is. If you think it over right, then you can show that "traditional mathematics" is not that consistent and divinely omniscient as conveniently asserted, pseudo-proved or accepted due to the appeal to authority.

If you hint that there is a special circumstance where the operation axioms of R may not be applicable due to the reason of mathematical rigor, then your intuition may be right, but you won't be able to push your hunch further than it is now and that's like 0.000...1 decimal places from the integer part.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
No, you didn't make a mistake.
Click to expand...
Well, you are wrong, again, the problem is that you can't get the correction of it because you are unable to get Cross-contexts\Context-dependent reasoning.

Furthermore, you are not aware of the consistency of the agreed mathematical framework about Non-associative Addition ( examples are seen at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q="non-associative+addition"&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 ) exactly because you categorically claim that if Addition of some framework (and in this case it is my framework) is non-associative, then it must be inconsistent.

Here are your categorical words about this subject:
jsfisher said:
Addition in Doronetics is non-associative. That makes it inconsistent and useless.
Click to expand...
so go sell your nonsense in other places.

jsfisher said:
But prove me wrong. Do tell us what are the rules for standard arithmetic in Doronetics. Show how it is all consistent and and maybe even, heart be still, useful.
Click to expand...
jsfisher, you can't get infinite interpolation, you can't get Hilbert's open-space model, you can't get non-local numbers, you can't get Non-locality\Locality co-existence, you can't get Cross-contexts\Context-dependent reasoning, etc... atc..., or in other words: YOU CAN'T GET OM.

The reason: your mind is tuned to get only Locality and Context-dependent-only "death by entropy" reasoning.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Please stop projecting onto others the failings that are exclusively yours.
Click to expand...
jsfisher, the failure is a direct result of the limited projection of your mind on itself, which is naturally resulted by your inability to be aware of it.
 
epix said:
but you won't be able to push your hunch further than it is now and that's like 0.000...1 decimal places from the integer part.
Click to expand...
epix, this is only the very beginning of Cross-contexts\Context-dependent reasoning development.

Until 2002 it was done by extremely "slow motion" only by myself.

During 2002 I started to work on OM together with my relative Yaron, which has a bachelor's degree in computer science.

He tried to get it in terms of Context-dependent-only reasoning (as was thought in the university) and of course it did not work.

In 2003 we met Moshe Klein, Yaron left and I continued to share my notions with Moshe.

After more than 4 years Moshe (he has a master's degree in Mathematics) agreed that a line can't fully be covered by points, but it was very hard for him to contribute his own original work that is based on this agreement. All along this time the original work was mostly done by me.

2 years ago during a dialog in this thread I decided to stop the collaboration with Moshe because of what is written above.

Actually, jsfisher and The Man are the best stimulants, which actually enable me to develop OM in the past 3.5 years, and they are doing a great job, by expose the ignorance of Traditional Math about Cross-contexts\Context-dependent reasoning (which is actually the mathematician's ignorance of the non-subjective and non-local calm state of contentiousness).

There are also a lot of other persons over the internet for the past 9 years, which helped me to develop Cross-contexts\Context-dependent reasoning, and most of them are like jsfisher and The Man.

So, after intensive 9 years I am still alone in this work and I continue to develop it because I am fully aware of its importance as a main tool of what I call The Technology Of The Contentiousness , where both Logic AND Ethics are shared under a one comprehensive framework (some examples on this direction can be seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7289466&postcount=15706 , http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7241076&postcount=15569 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7255966&postcount=15594 )

epix, this time please to not ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7371159&postcount=15939 .
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Well, you are wrong, again, the problem is that you can't get the correction of it because you are unable to get Cross-contexts\Context-dependent reasoning.
Click to expand...

It was not a correction. It was a complete change. You did this before with your silly menorah diagram formula, and you did it with the same sequence of dodges for the most part. In that case, you finally "resolved" by saying it didn't matter at all what the generator function was, anything would do. That of course exposed your nonsense for the obvious silliness it was, so you simply dropped the subject only to resurrect it in its original, still broken form once you thought everyone had forgotten.

So, here we are. You started with a bogus claim of standard Mathematics being wrong. You substitute gibberish for reason without ever defining your terms or justifying your position. You have done nothing but argue in circles that 0.999... and 1 represent different numbers.

You attempt to cover your contradictions with special just-for-the-occasion rules which aren't real Mathematics at all. But in the end, your bogus claim remains unsupported.

What's it been, Doron, 22 years of wasted investment of your time, and yet you still can get the basic details of how your nonsense works straight?

No foundation, no definitions, no consistency, no constancy, and no result. What a marvelous set of notions you have.


Prove me wrong, though. Tell us how standard arithmetic should work. It would seem Peano was confused.
 
doronshadmi said:
My superposition is not your linear superposition, but you are unable to get it ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7325618&postcount=15816 )
Click to expand...


So again your “superposition” is not a superposition, got that the first time you claimed it Doron. Would you now like to actually define your “superposition”? Because so far you simply claim (other than that it is not a superposition) that it is “indeterminate” which any variable can be.

I must say that I still find quite amusing the absolute distain you apparently have for the word linear yet claim a line (thus linearity) to be the epitome of your “non-locality”.
 
doronshadmi said:
In 2003 we met Moshe Klein, Yaron left and I continued to share my notions with Moshe.

After more than 4 years Moshe (he has a master's degree in Mathematics) agreed that a line can't fully be covered by points, but it was very hard for him to contribute his own original work that is based on this agreement.
Click to expand...
Was Moshe the one who came up with both the generating formula for the organic numbers sequence and the idea, or was the idea of organic numbers entirely yours and you told him about it?
 
epix said:
Was Moshe the one who came up with both the generating formula for the organic numbers sequence and the idea, or was the idea of organic numbers entirely yours and you told him about it?
Click to expand...
Organic numbers as a parallel\serial Uncertainty x Redundancy matrix, where each form of that matrix is both global\local form of the matrix, is my original idea.

Mosh used this idea in order to define the formula that calculates the number of the different forms under a given Uncertainty x Redundancy matrix, which are closed under F(1,1,1,...,1) (about Uncertainty x Redundancy matrix, please see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7292132&postcount=15710).

His formula deals only with the anti-symmetric case of distinct forms of some given Uncertainty x Redundancy matrix, and as a result it deals only with the context-dependent aspect of this matrix.

Traditional Mathematics is exactly the framework that is limited only to the anti-symmetric case of this matrix, so Moshe's work is not developed beyond the context-depend-only reasoning.

Because of this limitation, I decided to stop working with him on OM development.

I must say that jsfisher helped me to develop Uncertainty x Redundancy matrix much more than Moshe exactly because he recognized the limitations of its first version and I thank him for his fruitful criticism.

Also Moshe has two versions of his formula, one version calculates the anti-symmetric forms of ON limited version (and was fruitfully criticized by jsfisher in this thread), and the other formula calculates the the anti-symmetric forms of ON non-limited version, but Moshe does not wish to share this version with other people (yet) because he currently works on a paper, which is based on this formula.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
It was not a correction. It was a complete change. You did this before with your silly menorah diagram formula, and you did it with the same sequence of dodges for the most part. In that case, you finally "resolved" by saying it didn't matter at all what the generator function was, anything would do. That of course exposed your nonsense for the obvious silliness it was, so you simply dropped the subject only to resurrect it in its original, still broken form once you thought everyone had forgotten.

So, here we are. You started with a bogus claim of standard Mathematics being wrong. You substitute gibberish for reason without ever defining your terms or justifying your position. You have done nothing but argue in circles that 0.999... and 1 represent different numbers.

You attempt to cover your contradictions with special just-for-the-occasion rules which aren't real Mathematics at all. But in the end, your bogus claim remains unsupported.

What's it been, Doron, 22 years of wasted investment of your time, and yet you still can get the basic details of how your nonsense works straight?

No foundation, no definitions, no consistency, no constancy, and no result. What a marvelous set of notions you have.


Prove me wrong, though. Tell us how standard arithmetic should work. It would seem Peano was confused.
Click to expand...
jsfisher your context-dependent-only reasoning is closed under its own loop.
 
jsfisher said:
Again, Doron, you project onto others the failings that are uniquely yours. If you, Doron, actually "got" OM, you would not need to keep changing things around.
Click to expand...
Nonsense jsfisher, get OM is to get Cross-contexts\Context-dependent reasoning.

During detailed development with this reasoning mistakes are done and corrected.

Actually real developed is naturally involved with correcting mistakes.

If you are unaware of this fact, it simply shows that you are not involved with real development, which is based on understanding fundamental principles that guide the developer during his work, including re-consideration of the fundamental principles themselves.

This is exactly the framework of anti-entropic ream, which is open to re-consideration at any given level, including the fundamental level.

As long as a given realm is closed under entropy, mistakes are done and their corrections lead to non-entropic realm.

Cross-contexts\Context-dependent reasoning is the right reasoning to achieve this goal, because openness is its natural property.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
It was not a correction. It was a complete change.
Click to expand...

Let us use once again associative property ( a(bc) = (ab)c ).

Case a:
1 - 0.99 =
1 - (0.9 - 0.09) =
(1 - 0.9) - 0.09 =
0.1 - 0.09 = 0.01

Case b:
10 - 9.9 =
10 - (9 - 0.9) =
(10 - 9) - 0.9 =
1 - 0.9 = 0.1

Case a ≠ Case b if only finite interpolation is used.

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

Case c:
1 - 0.999... =
1 - (0.9 - 0.0999...) =
(1 - 0.9) - 0.0999... =
0.1 - 0.0999... = 0.000...1

Case d:
10 - 9.999... =
10 - (9 - 0.999...) =
(10 - 9) - 0.999... =
1 - 0.999... = 0.000...1

Case c = Case d if also infinite interpolation is used.

As we see by the provided example, associative property is too weak in order to distinguish between 10 - 9.999..., 1 - 0.999... and 0.1 - 0.0999... exactly because all these expressions are resulted by 0.000...1

Conclusion:

Associative property is too weak in order to deal with infinite interpolation.

The real thing is this:

1 - 0.999... = 0.000...1

10*(1 - 0.999...) = 10*(0.000...1) = 0.000...10
 
Last edited:
As you can see, my previous post is wrong (I wrote - instead of + in some places), let's correct it.

Let us use once again associative property ( a(bc) = (ab)c ).

Case a:
1 - 0.99 =
1 - (0.9 + 0.09) =
(1 - 0.9) - 0.09 =
0.1 - 0.09 = 0.01

Case b:
10 - 9.9 =
10 - (9 + 0.9) =
(10 - 9) - 0.9 =
1 - 0.9 = 0.1

Case a ≠ Case b if only finite interpolation is used.

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

Case c:
1 - 0.999... =
1 - (0.9 + 0.0999...) =
(1 - 0.9) - 0.0999... =
0.1 - 0.0999... = 0.000...1

Case d:
10 - 9.999... =
10 - (9 + 0.999...) =
(10 - 9) - 0.999... =
1 - 0.999... = 0.000...1

Case c = Case d if also infinite interpolation is used.

As we see by the provided example, associative property is too weak in order to distinguish between 10 - 9.999..., 1 - 0.999... and 0.1 - 0.0999... exactly because all these expressions are resulted by 0.000...1

Conclusion:

Associative property is too weak in order to deal with infinite interpolation.

The real thing is this:

0.1*(1 - 0.999...) = 0.1*(0.000...1) = 0.000...0.1

1 - 0.999... = 0.000...1

10*(1 - 0.999...) = 10*(0.000...1) = 0.000...10
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
So again your “superposition” is not a superposition, got that the first time you claimed it Doron. Would you now like to actually define your “superposition”? Because so far you simply claim (other than that it is not a superposition) that it is “indeterminate” which any variable can be.
Click to expand...
You still can try to grasp what is written in:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7325618&postcount=15816

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7318785&postcount=15807

The Man said:
I must say that I still find quite amusing the absolute distain you apparently have for the word linear yet claim a line (thus linearity) to be the epitome of your “non-locality”.
Click to expand...
You still can try to grasp 1-dimensional space as a non-composed thing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom