• 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 - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7719349&postcount=58 verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't distinguish between curved and straight lines (where the line is cross-contexts state and curved or straight states are different and context-dependent expressions of the line, such that no curved line is a straight line and vice versa).

The same case can be seen as follows:

The line is cross-contexts state and approached curves or reached straight state are different and context-dependent expressions of the line, such that no approached curved line is the reached straight line and vice versa.

But, as usual, verbal-only_skill(ers) can't get the Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent comprehensive framework (the partial use of their potential skills is limited only to Context-dependent frameworks, and therefore they can't get a post like http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7719349&postcount=58, as follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature
curvature is the amount by which a geometric object deviates from being flat, or straight in the case of a line, but this is defined in different ways depending on the context.
Click to expand...

As can be seen, verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) use the dependency on context (where each context has its own definitions) in order to claim that there can be a context that according to it "curvature is the amount by which a geometric object does not deviate from being flat, or straight in the case of a line". This is exactly the meaning of "but this is defined in different ways depending on the context" as understood by verbal_symbolic_only Context-dependent_only skill(ers).

Acctually the following quote:
jsfisher said:
Second off, "approaches" does not mean "can't actually reach". Learn the meanings of words.

Third off, the whole thing is a definition. Learn to comprehend.
Click to expand...
completely supports my claim as represented above, because by this quote there can be a context that according to it ""approaches" does not mean "can't actually reach"". In other words, by using context-dependent_only framework, there can be some context, where "approaches" and "reaches" are the same).
 
Last edited:
In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7720195&postcount=61 in has to be stressed that (according to verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers)) definitions are considered as such only if they are expressed by verbal_symbolic_only skills, and this limitation is one of the factors that shape the current mathematical science as a collection of context-dependent frameworks (no cross-contexts attitude is developed in addition to the context-dependent attitude, and so is the case about the development of verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, as a one comprehensive framework of the mathematical science).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In addition to [useless link to previous doronshadmi post] verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't distinguish between curved and straight lines (where the line is cross-contexts state and curved or straight states are different and context-dependent expressions of the line, such that no curved line is a straight line and vice versa).
Click to expand...

Even your favorite source of information for you to misrepresent disagrees. Wikipedia has this to say about curves:
Wikipedia said:
In mathematics, a curve (also called a curved line in older texts) is, generally speaking, an object similar to a line but which is not required to be straight. This entails that a line is a special case of curve, namely a curve with null curvature.
Click to expand...

It is only in the muddled world of doronetics that reality is lost and words have no fixed meaning except for what you choose at any give moment.
 
Again, if only 1-dimesional space is considered, then it is the Unity among (for example) "all curved lines" and a straight line, even if a straight line (whether it is called "finer than all curved lines" or "finest with respect to all curved lines") is excluded from all curved lines, in terms of curvatures, as can be understood by the following diagram:

[qimg]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3296/5721561558_c5b78c3152_b.jpg[/qimg]

This is the beauty of a non-trivial realm, it is Unified AND has entropy-free different expressions, which are changeable by mutations (this realm is developed according to evolutionary principles), but verbal_symbolic skill(ers) can't get this beauty, because their reasoning is only context-dependent framework of verbal_symbolic expressions (the visual_spatial expressions are ignored).

The result of such ignorance is verbal_symbolic nonsense like: "a line is a special case of curve".

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills a line is the Unified form of curved AND straight states, where curved or straight states are its special (and distinguished from each other) expressions.

It is about time to stop the idiotic definitions of the form: "X with null X (namely a curve with null curvature)" and start by understanding Unity and its possible expressions, which are an amplitude between superposition of identities and strict identities (where curved or straight states are special cases of strict identities).

URDT-2 is such amplitude, as follows:

A="curved"
B="straight"

Code: 
(AB,AB) (AB,A)  (AB,B)  (AB)    (A,A)   (B,B)   (A,B)   (A)     (B)     ()

A * *   A * *   A * .   A * .   A * *   A . .   A * .   A * .   A . .   A . .
  | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |
B *_*   B *_.   B *_*   B *_.   B ._.   B *_*   B ._*   B ._.   B *_.   B ._.

(2,2) = (AB,AB)
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)
(2,0)=  (AB)
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)
(1,0)=  (A),(B)
(0,0)=  ()
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Again, if only 1-dimesional space is considered, then it is the Unity among (for example) "all curved lines" and a straight line, even if a straight line (whether it is called "finer than all curved lines" or "finest with respect to all curved lines") is excluded from all curved lines, in terms of curvatures....
Click to expand...

Add "1-dimensional space" to the list of things beyond Doron's comprehension.
 
Unity is beyond the comprehension of a person, which gets it in terms of some special expression of it.

Furthermore, even an analogy about this subject is beyond the comprehension of such person.
 
Last edited:
the PC apeman said:
No it's not. I introduced the word and you can't have it. Sorry. Redefine your own words.
Click to expand...

Not his style. He redefines everyone else's terms, but never discloses what he means by them. It's much simpler for him to maintain a defensible position that way.
 
doronshadmi said:
URDT-2 is such amplitude, as follows:

A="curved"
B="straight"
Click to expand...
Another, taller monument of self-deception. This topic has been already covered by others.

Poirino homoglobal zero curvature theorem: Stau = exp (lambda peron)x - mtv

where m is the first La Magnione moment and tv is any non-negative parameter.

Visual_spacial_only skills version of the theorem:
A = "curved"
B = "straight"
 
doronshadmi said:
In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7719349&postcount=58 verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't distinguish between curved and straight lines (where the line is cross-contexts state and curved or straight states are different and context-dependent expressions of the line, such that no curved line is a straight line and vice versa).

The same case can be seen as follows:

The line is cross-contexts state and approached curves or reached straight state are different and context-dependent expressions of the line, such that no approached curved line is the reached straight line and vice versa.

But, as usual, verbal-only_skill(ers) can't get the Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent comprehensive framework (the partial use of their potential skills is limited only to Context-dependent frameworks, and therefore they can't get a post like http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7719349&postcount=58, as follows:

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


As can be seen, verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) use the dependency on context (where each context has its own definitions) in order to claim that there can be a context that according to it "curvature is the amount by which a geometric object does not deviate from being flat, or straight in the case of a line". This is exactly the meaning of "but this is defined in different ways depending on the context" as understood by verbal_symbolic_only Context-dependent_only skill(ers).

Acctually the following quote:

completely supports my claim as represented above, because by this quote there can be a context that according to it ""approaches" does not mean "can't actually reach"". In other words, by using context-dependent_only framework, there can be some context, where "approaches" and "reaches" are the same).
Click to expand...





Ah, so now you’ve changed your tune and agree that meaning and definition is dependent upon context, though as we already know you simply prefer your own personal context. While, as already noted many times before a limit does not have to be a member of a set. Or to put it in your current preferred vernacular simply approaching some limit does not mean that it can be reached. However, reaching a limit (as you assert) does infer that it was approached and thusly reached (implicitly and explicitly respectively). You still seem to have problems understanding that your personal language is not going to be effective at relating anything to anyone, particularly when you simply change tunes at your whim. ‘Reach’ carries the implication of traveling or moving as opposed to something simply being “at” some location (which does not imply any motion or “reaching” the location). So while all poodles are dogs not all dogs are poodles. Similarly all limits reached can be approached but not all limits approached are reached (or even reachable). You apparently simply want to claim that your personal “poodle” (reached limit) is not a dog (approachable).
 
Verbal_symbolic_only context-dependent_only skill(ers) can't comprehend that http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7720195&postcount=61 is an argument that explicitly adds Cross-contexts in additional to Context-dependent, such that it does not agree with the Context-dependent_only reasoning.

This is another concrete example of the inability of Verbal_symbolic_only context-dependent_only skill(ers) to comprehend the Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent one comprehensive framework.

Furthermore, Verbal_symbolic_only context-dependent_only skill(ers) can't comprehend that "approach" and "reach" are not processes, but they are distinct states that are defined w.r.t to each other exactly because they are not the same.

Once again, by using the analogy of 1-dimesional space, it is the Unity among "approach" and "reach", where "approach" and "reach" are some special (and distinct from each other) expressions of it.

Since "approach" and "reach" are not processes (they are permanent states, where time is not involved), then an expression like "that is reached can be approached, but not all that is approached can be reached" is an asymmetric nonsense (again, this is nonsense because no process is involved here (time is not involved)).

Again, the problem is derived from the attempt to know X in terms of some special expression of it.

For example: "A non-empty set with null non-emptiness" is nonsense exactly as "X with null X (namely a curve with null curvature)" is nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Another example: while all poodles or terriers are dogs, no terrier is a poodle (and vice versa).

Another one: while all curved lines or straight lines are lines, no curved line is a straight line (and vice versa).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Another example: while all poodles or terriers are dogs, no terrier is a poodle (and vice versa).

Another one: while all curved lines or straight lines are lines, no curved line is a straight line (and vice versa).
Click to expand...

Yes, I was surprised to see someone hinting that a curved line can be a straight line, if it happens to have no curvature.

I can see flat earthers raising their heads above the horizon now.
 
punshhh said:
Yes, I was surprised to see someone hinting that a curved line can be a straight line, if it happens to have no curvature.

I can see flat earthers raising their heads above the horizon now.
Click to expand...
Such one can't get the Cross-context state of being a line and the Context-dependent state of being curved line or straight line.

As a result he\she defines Context-dependent state of being curved line in terms of Context-dependent state of being a straight line (namely a curve with null curvature).
 
Last edited:
the PC apeman said:
By your use of "can't" (which I redefine as "can") I declare victory. Thank you.
Click to expand...
You can declare victory, but still it is limited only to verbal_symbolic_only context-dependent_only realm (no visual-spatial skills are involved).
 
doronshadmi said:
You can declare victory, but still it is limited only to verbal_symbolic_only context-dependent_only realm (no visual-spatial skills are involved).
Click to expand...
You have your solipsistic dictionary and I now have my own. In mine, the above translates into complete and utter submission. Please, get up off your knees. It's embarrassing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom