Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

[CriticalThanking]

The predicted result is Unity consciousness among human beings in daily life, exactly because my mathematical framework is inseparable of our brain, and our brain is inseparable of reality as already briefly explained in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11700724&postcount=2342.

I apologize. I should have been more specific. Is there a specific numerical result that differs from standard mathematics as a result of your approach? Is there some currently unsolved mathematical problem for which your mathematics provides a solution?

If the only thing your mathematics does is predict Unity Consciousness(tm), then your thread is truly in the correct subforum and I shall give it the attention it deserves here.

 

[doronshadmi]

I apologize. I should have been more specific. Is there a specific numerical result that differs from standard mathematics as a result of your approach? Is there some currently unsolved mathematical problem for which your mathematics provides a solution?

The agreements that are based on standard mathematics can't deal with the real nature of endless larger or endless smaller things (where numbers are some particular case of such things) exactly because it defines the endless larger or endless smaller in terms of fixed values.

 

[CriticalThanking]

That would be a "no", then.

Thanks for the response.

 

[doronshadmi]

That would be a "no", then.

Thanks for the response.

For you and any other person that defines endless larger or endless smaller things by fixed values, and as a result he\she does not understand the non-composed substance of them.

More details are already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11700724&postcount=2342, but you simply ignore them, exactly because you get open mathematical challenges in terms of symbolic-only reasoning, where my mathematical framework is based on at least visual AND symbolic brain skills (which is a fundamental term that your seek after symbolic-only solutions simply can't comprehend).

Take, for example, the fundamental concept of set as defined by using visual AND symbolic brain skills ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11706920&postcount=2438).

Standard Mathematics can't actually comprehend this fundamental concept exactly because its reasoning is based on symbolic-only bran skills.

 

[jsfisher]

For you and any other person that defines endless larger or endless smaller things by fixed values, and as a result he\she does not understand the non-composed substance of them.

That would be Mathematics you are talking about. It works. It tends to be consistent. You don't like it. We get that.

More details are already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11700724&postcount=2342, but you simply ignore them, exactly because you get open mathematical challenges in terms of symbolic-only reasoning, where my mathematical framework is based on at least visual AND symbolic brain skills (which is a fundamental term that your seek after symbolic-only solutions simply can't comprehend).

You and details are strangers. The link you provide is more evidence. However, as for your "mathematical framework", you seem content to continually tell us how Mathematics is wrong, but you never say what would be right (according to your framework). You post negatives, and you define nothing.

One would suspect it is because you have nothing.

 

[doronshadmi]

However, as for your "mathematical framework", you seem content to continually tell us how Mathematics is wrong, but you never say what would be right (according to your framework). You post negatives, and you define nothing.

Your argument has no basis.

In order to realize it, all is needed is to observe http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11728204&postcount=2564 inducing all the attached links.

 

[jsfisher]

Your argument has no basis.

Others would disagree.

In order to realize it, all is needed is to observe http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11728204&postcount=2564 inducing all the attached links.

One post at a time, please.

In the linked post, you begin with:

For you and any other person that defines endless larger or endless smaller things by fixed values, and as a result he\she does not understand the non-composed substance of them.

That's riddled with negativity.

Then you conclude with:

Standard Mathematics can't actually comprehend this fundamental concept exactly because its reasoning is based on symbolic-only bran skills.

That's telling us that Mathematics is wrong.

So, yeah, my post is not baseless at all. You even provided a fine example to support my post.

 

[doronshadmi]

That's telling us that Mathematics is wrong.

No. That tells us that Mathematics is based on partial brain skills (symbolic-only brain skills, in the considered cases) is wrong.

But this is only a part of what I observe in my posts. The rest of these posts explicitly explain and the demonstrate mathematical work that is based on visual AND symbolic brain skills.

You, jsfisher, choose to ignore it and put your focus only on the reasoned criticism about using only symbolic-only during mathematical work, by totally ignore the benefits of using both visual AND symbolic brain skills during mathematical work, all along this thread.

So negativity is mostly in "your yard" all along this thread.

Others would disagree.

Those who have mathematical agreements that are based on symbolic-only | visual-only brain skills, and they insist not to use both their visual AND symbolic brain skills as the basis of their mathematical agreements, indeed would disagree with any mathematical agreement that is based on using both our visual AND symbolic brain skills as the basis of their mathematical agreements.

One post at a time, please.

A concrete example of step-by-step thinking style, known also as symbolic-only reasoning.

At the moment that you observe http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11728204&postcount=2564 by using your parallel AND step-by-step brain skills, then and only then you are able to understand all of its links not only in terms of my criticism about mathematical agreements that are based on partially using our brain skills.

 

[doronshadmi]

More about your negativity, jsfisher:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11342271&postcount=1804 is an example of defining the concept of set by using visual AND symbolic brain skills.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11342367&postcount=1806 is a concrete example of your symbolic-only built-in negativity about it.

 

[Hevneren]

More about your negativity, jsfisher:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11342271&postcount=1804 is an example of defining the concept of set by using visual AND symbolic brain skills.

I can't see you defining the concept of set there. Please explain.

 

[doronshadmi]

I can't see you defining the concept of set there. Please explain.

Exactly as http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11706920&postcount=2438 can't be known by using symbolic-only | visual-only brain skills.

 

[jsfisher]

Exactly as http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11706920&postcount=2438 can't be known by using symbolic-only | visual-only brain skills.

Your argument would be far more convincing if someone other than you had these special reasoning skills. It would be helpful, too, if your special reasoning skills did not continually lead you to wrong conclusions. (Well, wrong to everyone except you with your special reasoning skills.)

 

[doronshadmi]

Your argument would be far more convincing if someone other than you had these special reasoning skills.

I definitely do not have any special reasoning skills.

Every human being with healthy brain skills naturally enables to use his\her visual AND symbolic brain skills during mathematical work, in order to easily understand with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11706920&postcount=2438.

 

[CriticalThanking]

doron, are you the only person in the world that understands and agrees with your framwork? Is anyone doing research with it? Extending it? Revising it?

 

[doronshadmi]

Is there a specific numerical result that differs from standard mathematics as a result of your approach?

doron, are you the only person in the world that understands and agrees with your framwork? Is anyone doing research with it? Extending it? Revising it?

CriticalThanking, are you aware of the fact that according to scientific human brain researches, the concept of number is known by using both visual AND symbolic brain skills (please observe, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11713929&postcount=2466 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11716498&postcount=2467)?

As for your first question, because the substance of numbers is non-composed, from one hand they are logically limited by contradiction and tautology (where this limitation can't be put on the non-composed substance, since it is the cause of contradiction and tautology but not vise versa) and on the other hand they are rooted in the non-composed as their substance. The Axiom Of Mathematics (that is known both visually (at once) AND symbolically (step-by-step)) is:

Given X (the non-composed substance), no sub-X (its composed expressions (including contradiction and tautology which are the limit aspect of numbers)), is X (the non-composed substance).

Some concrete example:

The endless-larger number 0.999...₁₀ < fixed number 1 by the endless-smaller number 0.000...1₁₀, where the ...1 part defines the inability of infinitely many sub-X (the composed) to completely cover X (the non-composed).

Currently http://www.ijpam.eu/contents/2008-49-3/5/5.pdf is the one and only one article that appears in a mathematical journal, and it does not contain further developments that were done by me since 2008.

 

[Hevneren]

CriticalThanking, are you aware of the fact that according to scientific human brain researches, the concept of number is known by using both visual AND symbolic brain skills (please observe, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11713929&postcount=2466 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11716498&postcount=2467) ?

I checked out you links. They don't support your claim that

the concept of number is known by using both visual AND symbolic brain skills

Here is a quote from the last paper:

The results confirm the hypothesis that quantity is represented by a common mechanism for both symbolic and nonsymbolic stimuli in IPS.

So there's a common mechanism for both types of stimuli. Nothing about one having to use two different kind of skills combined in order to "get it".

I don't think you've read the papers you're linking to. Two of them talk about the common mechanism, the others stress the importance of "visual math". More likely you've googled for your favourite keywords (visual_spatial, symbolic etc.) and posted the first six hits.

 

[doronshadmi]

I checked out you links. They don't support your claim that

Here is a quote from the last paper:So there's a common mechanism for both types of stimuli. Nothing about one having to use two different kind of skills combined in order to "get it".

Common mechanism is the exact description of actually using both symbolic AND non-symbolic (visual) brain skills during mathematical work.

Your symbolic-only | visual-only dichotomy ("two different kind of skills", as defined by this article) prevents the understanding that Common mechanism is "symbolic AND non-symbolic".

Hevneren, no matter what you observe, your current understating is clearly closed under your symbolic-only | visual-only dichotomy, as clearly demonstrated all along your posts in this thread.

 

[Hevneren]

Common mechanism is the exact description of actually using both symbolic AND non-symbolic (visual) brain skills during mathematical work.

Maybe I'm beginning to understand what you're trying to say now. Do you mean that we have ONE set of skills, that are both symbolic and visual at the same time? Is that what "both symbolic AND non-symbolic (visual) brain skills" means? I've always thought you meant that we have two kinds of skills, and that we have to use both.

 

[CriticalThanking]

CriticalThanking, are you aware of the fact that according to scientific human brain researches, the concept of number is known by using both visual AND symbolic brain skills (please observe, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11713929&postcount=2466 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11716498&postcount=2467)?

[SNIP]

Currently http://www.ijpam.eu/contents/2008-49-3/5/5.pdf is the one and only one articles that appears in a mathematical journal, and it those not contain further developments that were done by me since 2008.

That's a lot of words to say "no, there is no one else who understands and agrees with my work". I read your paper from that pay-to-play journal. I would love to see the challenges you were given by their reviewer. No one has cited, extended, or formally (via publication) altered your work.

As Hevneren notes, the abstract of the neuroscience paper neither cites not supports your work. It says there are multiple brain regions involved, not that certain mathematical concepts are only understandable by "different ways of thinking". Have you solved math problems multiple ways and seen which parts of the brain are involved.

As I said, I'll go back to lurking for a few more years.

 

[doronshadmi]

As Hevneren notes, the abstract of the neuroscience paper neither cites not supports your work.

Hevneren notes are based on his\her dichotomy between his\her symbolic-only | visual-only brain skills.

The considered neuroscience paper does not have to cite my work, in order to observe Common mechanism of simultaneous (visual AND symbolic) brain activity during mathematical work.