Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

Wrong.

The same way that the effects of poor eyesight can be canceled with the help of corrective lenses, the effects of imbalanced mind can be corrected through basic geometry that specifies where the adjustment must be made. You never fall off again whilst reaching for the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.

Thank you for supporting my claim about the need to use right (visual\spatial) AND left (verbal\sequential) brain's hemispheres, in order to actually do Math.

For more details, please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7423058&postcount=16138.

 

[epix]

epix, your post is a good example of a mind which uses only its left hemisphere (the verbal\sequential one) in order to wrongly define left/right balance.

It doesn't define it without a proof:

Too bad that your well-balanced, double-action hemisphere thinking cannot see the difference, not to speak of a remote possibility that you ever find the bug in the procedure.

 

[The Man]

Not even in your dreams.

All you are doing is wasting energy by running in loops in your closed box.

They’re not even my “dreams” Doron, just yours (along with your assertions).

Here is the post again as you seem to have had some difficultly reading past the first three words.

Did that already, but you still just couldn't agree with yourself. So are the restriction you asserted for your “AB” by claiming “AB means that "A=bottom and B=top" is indeterminate so we can't determine if it is "bottom", "top" or some intermediate state between them.” valid or not? Again until you can at least agree with just yourself no one else can even possibly agree with you.

 

[doronshadmi]

It doesn't define it without a proof:

[qimg]http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/6237/nines.jpg[/qimg]

This is not a formal proof by Traditional Mathematics exactly because it does not use also the right-hemisphere of the brain (as done, for example, in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7391825&postcount=16028 )

So by Traditional Mathematics all we see here is that 0.999...₁₀ is some numeral that represents number 1.

Too bad that your well-balanced, double-action hemisphere thinking cannot see the difference, not to speak of a remote possibility that you ever find the bug in the procedure.

There in no bug here, your imbalanced brain that uses left-only hemisphere in order to do Math, simply can't comprehend that 0.999...₁₀ is an example of a non-local number < local number 1 by non-local number 0.000...1₁₀

 

[doronshadmi]

They’re not even my “dreams” Doron, just yours (along with your assertions).

Here is the post again as you seem to have had some difficultly reading past the first three words.

Here is the post again ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7405615&postcount=16077 ) as you seem to have present continuous difficultly to get it.

 

[epix]

There in no bug here, your imbalanced brain that uses left-only hemisphere in order to do Math, simply can't comprehend that 0.999...₁₀ is an example of a non-local number < local number 1 by non-local number 0.000...1₁₀

You just repeat the same line repainted in blue that the religious folks use to convince the atheists that there is God; that is, the atheists simply can't comprehend that there is the Bible and so if there is, then there must be God.

You say that there is no bug in the equation that proves 0.999... = 1 and at the same time you say that 0.999... is different from 1. That means your celebrated celebral two-way neural traffic allows False=True, which seems to be the Super-Axiom of Doronetics.

 

[The Man]

Here is the post again ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7405615&postcount=16077 ) as you seem to have present continuous difficultly to get it.

Nope, no difficulty on my part, however still no direct answers on your part to the questions asked.

So here it is again…

Did that already, but you still just couldn't agree with yourself. So are the restriction you asserted for your “AB” by claiming “AB means that "A=bottom and B=top" is indeterminate so we can't determine if it is "bottom", "top" or some intermediate state between them.” valid or not? Again until you can at least agree with just yourself no one else can even possibly agree with you.

I expect you will continue to run around in circles attempting to avoid a direct answer (substituting your purported “translation” instead) as that is deliberate on your part.

 

[doronshadmi]

Nope, no difficulty on my part, however still no direct answers on your part to the questions asked.

So here it is again…





I expect you will continue to run around in circles attempting to avoid a direct answer (substituting your purported “translation” instead) as that is deliberate on your part.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7423434&postcount=16145 is a direct answer to your running in circles.

 

[epix]

Strictly non-strictly restrictive
is strict non-strictness,
which is non-strictness.

In other words,
you have no case.

Wrong. It doesn't go like that.


strictly non-strictly restrictive
is strictly restrictive non-strictness
alcohol can be strictly addictive
non-strictly testing your fitness

in other words
and strictly speaking
there are no birds
that you are seeking

there are no swallows
only Nature's darlings
and what Nature strictly allows
is a flock of tired starlings
(and a couple of restless diesels living in the white room by the station.)

Just ask THEM about it:

 

[doronshadmi]

You say that there is no bug in the equation that proves 0.999... = 1

There is no bug by the traditional view since 0999...₁₀ is a numeral that represents number 1, so there is no traditional formal proof here.

and at the same time you say that 0.999... is different from 1.

By using both brain's hemispheres in order to do Math, it is shown that 0999...₁₀ is a non-local number, where 1 is a local number.

Your left-only-hemisphere reasoning simply can't get that.

That means your celebrated celebral two-way neural traffic allows False=True, which seems to be the Super-Axiom of Doronetics.

It means that you do not understand what you read.

Furthermore, you are talking nonsense by Traditional AND OM frameworks.

 

[The Man]

You just repeat the same line repainted in blue that the religious folks use to convince the atheists that there is God; that is, the atheists simply can't comprehend that there is the Bible and so if there is, then there must be God.

You say that there is no bug in the equation that proves 0.999... = 1 and at the same time you say that 0.999... is different from 1. That means your celebrated celebral two-way neural traffic allows False=True, which seems to be the Super-Axiom of Doronetics.

That seems to be the gist of it epix. While most would consider the principle of explosion to be a detriment and thus contradictions being considered TRUE an aspect to be avoided. Doron seems to take it as a benefit making all things (as he has asserted before, communication with a virus or blowing up a star with ones mind) possible, even the impossible. Again the problem comes down to whenever anyone tries to give structure to Dialetheism as the very structure that permits something to be simultaneously both TRUE and FALSE also insists that structure itself must likewise be as FALSE as it is TRUE. Essentially it has its own built in and expressly asserted reason for having to disregard it. So one ends up going nowhere and as evidenced by Doron must flat out contradict or deliberately obfuscate any structure that even he has asserted. Hence even after some 20 odd years by his own accounts he can’t even, and dare not, answer a simple and direct question about restrictions he asserted himself on his “AB” as they would limit his (by his own hands) possibilities.

 

[doronshadmi]

strictly restrictive non-strictness

Is non-strictness,
which is funnier
than your humorless

 

[doronshadmi]

That seems to be the gist of it epix. While most would consider the principle of explosion to be a detriment and thus contradictions being considered TRUE an aspect to be avoided. Doron seems to take it as a benefit making all things (as he has asserted before, communication with a virus or blowing up a star with ones mind) possible, even the impossible. Again the problem comes down to whenever anyone tries to give structure to Dialetheism as the very structure that permits something to be simultaneously both TRUE and FALSE also insists that structure itself must likewise be as FALSE as it is TRUE. Essentially it has its own built in and expressly asserted reason for having to disregard it. So one ends up going nowhere and as evidenced by Doron must flat out contradict or deliberately obfuscate any structure that even he has asserted. Hence even after some 20 odd years by his own accounts he can’t even, and dare not, answer a simple and direct question about restrictions he asserted himself on his “AB” as they would limit his (by his own hands) possibilities.

The Man's "running in circles inside a closed box" reasoning simply can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7318785&postcount=15807 .

"False AND True" is a contradiction because False is stict and so is True.

"False True Superposition" is not a contradiction, because under superposition "False True" are non-strict.

The Man can't grasp the difference between "AB" non-strictness and "A,B" strictness because his reasoning is limited only to "A,B" strictness.

 

[The Man]

The Man's "running in circles inside a closed box" reasoning simply can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7318785&postcount=15807 .

"False AND True" is a contradiction because False is stict and so is True.

"False True Superposition" is not a contradiction, because under superposition "False True" are non-strict.

The Man can't grasp the difference between "AB" non-strictness and "A,B" strictness because his reasoning is limited only to "A,B" strictness.

Again by your own assertion your “Superposition” does not involve superposition.

“False AND True” is just an expression that evaluates to FALSE. While a contradiction would be ‘A AND NOT A’ as that evaluates to FALSE regardless of the truth value of “A” (we have been over what constitutes a contradiction before). So your claim of “False AND True" is a contradiction because False is stict and so is True” is demonstrably, well, FALSE.

Doron it is just you “can’t grasp the difference between "AB" non-strictness and "A,B" strictness because” you can’t even directly affirm your own assertions.

Again…

Did that already, but you still just couldn't agree with yourself. So are the restriction you asserted for your “AB” by claiming “AB means that "A=bottom and B=top" is indeterminate so we can't determine if it is "bottom", "top" or some intermediate state between them.” valid or not? Again until you can at least agree with just yourself no one else can even possibly agree with you.

Let try it as the TRUE FALSE you state above, so by your assertion…

“AB means that "A=TRUE and B=FALSE" is indeterminate so we can't determine if it is "TRUE", "FALSE" or some intermediate state between them.” Is that restriction on your “AB” valid or not?

 

[epix]

Again the problem comes down to whenever anyone tries to give structure to Dialetheism as the very structure that permits something to be simultaneously both TRUE and FALSE...

I have a "left-hemisphere-only" software that I borrowed and illegally copied, which automatically highlights all contradictions in the text, even those contradictions that are hidden. Check this out:

Graham Priest, of the University of Melbourne and the CUNY Graduate Center, is dialetheism's most prominent contemporary champion. He defines Dialetheism as the view that there are true contradictions.

Here it how it works:

IF
(Priest = most prominent contemporary champion of Dialetheism) and (true contradiction = dialetheism)

THEN
Priest = dialetheism

which is a true contradiction, coz

p r i e s t = d i a l e t h e i s m

Ain't that somethin'?

You cannot use it efficiently on speeches made by politicians though -- it often freezes. I used it with the 0.999... = 1 question and it found the contradiction right away -- it's a classic case of dialetheism.

There is also a feature that can identify other folks who use dialetheism as a way to justify their conclusions:

enter [DIALETHEISM]

select using () [(DIA)LET(H)EI(SM)]

isolate selected [DIAHSM]

create well-ordered set [SHADMI]


Ain't that somethin'?


Out of curiosity I also ran the other part of "Dialetheism": diale-THEISM.

find caSE [diale-THEISM]

output [Rev. 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.]


You cannot be both the first and the last at the same time, or be A and Z at the same time -- unless you are anything-goes God who allegedly wrote the contradiction-detecting software.

 

[epix]

By using your example, AB means that "A=bottom and B=top" is indeterminate so we can't determine if it is "bottom", "top" or some intermediate state between them. Because of this non-determination AB is not a contradiction.

My example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_superposition clearly shows where is the top and where is the bottom. Too bad that your "well-balanced, left/right hemisphere reasoning" can't figure it from the pic, coz it causes a state of indetermination in both hemispheres and consequently calls for repainting the ceiling of your bathroom whenever you use the toilet. May I suggest this lovely hue

so you can skip doing the necessary here and there?

 

[doronshadmi]

Again by your own assertion your “Superposition” does not involve superposition.

"AB" is actual superposition.

Let's look at some example, which demonstrates the difference between "A,B" strict and "AB" non-strict:

One example of a two-state quantum system is the polarization of a single photon: here the two states are vertical polarisation and horizontal polarisation. In a classical system, a bit would have to be in one state or the other, but quantum mechanics allows the qubit to be in a superposition of both states at the same time, a property which is fundamental to quantum computing.

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

"A,B" is strict relation of bits, where "AB" is non-strict relation of a qubit.

“AB means that "A=TRUE and B=FALSE" is indeterminate so we can't determine if it is "TRUE", "FALSE" or some intermediate state between them.” Is that restriction on your “AB” valid or not?

"AB" is exactly what it is, the inability to determine if it is X or not-X (where X is some strict value).

In other words, "AB" is non-strict, and it is different than "A,B" strict.

Your "A,B" strict-only reasoning can't get "AB" non-strict.

For example, your question

Is that restriction on your “AB” valid or not?

is closed under "A,B" strict.

 

[doronshadmi]

My example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_superposition

This is not quantum superposition ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition ).

 

[doronshadmi]

Again the problem comes down to whenever anyone tries to give structure to Dialetheism as the very structure that permits something to be simultaneously both TRUE and FALSE also insists that structure itself must likewise be as FALSE as it is TRUE.

Dialetheism may accurately model human reasoning

Ambiguous situations may cause humans to affirm both a proposition and its negation. For example, if John stands in the doorway to a room, it may seem reasonable both to affirm that John is in the room and to affirm that John is not in the room. Critics argue that this merely reflects an ambiguity in our language rather than a dialetheic quality in our thoughts; if we replace the given statement with one that is less ambiguous (such as "John is halfway in the room" or "John is in the doorway"), the contradiction disappears.

It seems that so long as we accept that space is extended (is not a point), "John is in the room" when John is standing in the doorway does not seem to lend support to nor against the idea that our actual thinking is dialetheic.

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

In other words "AB" is non-local, where "A,B" is local.

A = "in"
B = "out"

By "AB" non-locality "john is A AND B of the room" is the natural state of non-locality, so there is no contradiction.

By "A,B" locality "john is A AND B of the room" is not the natural state of locality, so there is contradiction.

The Man's reasoning is closed under "A,B" local.

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

"A,B" local is resulted by "A,B" strict (there is no superposition among "A" strict and "B" strict).

"AB" non-local is resulted by "AB" non-strict (there is superposition among "A" strict and "B" strict).

 

[doronshadmi]

Some update of the last part of my previous post:

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

"A,B" local is resulted by "A,B" strict (there is no superposition among "A" strict and "B" strict, which saves their strictness).

"AB" non-local is resulted by "AB" non-strict (there is superposition among "A" strict and "B" strict, which does not save their strictness).

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

In other words, The Man, your "A,B" reasoning can't comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7294686&postcount=15740.

Superposition is naturally unordered exactly because non-strict values can't be ordered.

Again since “A = True” “then AB AND A or AB AND A” simply and strictly evaluates to just your “AB”.

Yet "AB" is non-strict, and the result of "non-strict strictness" (AB AND A) or "strict non-strictness" (A AND AB) is "AB" non-strict, where the commutativity of AND connective has no influence on "AB" non-strict result.

Your trivial "A,B" limited reasoning simply can't get that.