Deeper than primes - Continuation

[doronshadmi]

I bet you cannot define such things.

It can't be done by using verbal_symbolic-only reasoning.

You still do not understand this simple fact.

 

[laca]

You're the champ of lameness, doron. You know what? You don't have to explain anything, just show some result. Any result will do. Anything at all. You had your chance to start making sense. I think 40 years is plenty. The time for words is gone. It's now time to show what you've got.

 

[realpaladin]

realpaladin, as long as you avoid any understanding of non-entropic realms (as explicitly given by posts like http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9807561&postcount=3453, including the links and the links of the links) you don't have any meaningful thing to say about my suggested framework, and so is the case about zooterkin and jsfisher.

You verbal_symbolic-only reasoning determines your misunderstanding of non-entropic realms (including their practical day-by-day use) all along this thread.

A longwinded way of saying "I, Doron Shadmi, am unable to provide such an example."

 

[doronshadmi]

A longwinded way of saying "I, Doron Shadmi, am unable to provide such an example."

Wrong realpaladin and the rest of your verbal_symbolic-only friends.

For example, the following links

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9808629&postcount=3457

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9793529&postcount=3411

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9794292&postcount=3418

are not at the scope of your verbal_symbolic-only reasoning, and you are actually the practical example of the need of verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning as soon as possible.

 

[jsfisher]

Wrong realpaladin and the rest of your verbal_symbolic-only friends.

For example, the following links

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9808629&postcount=3457

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9793529&postcount=3411

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9794292&postcount=3418

are not at the scope of your verbal_symbolic-only reasoning, and you are actually the practical example of the need of verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning as soon as possible.

Many young children have invisible friends. You know, someone or something they image to be there but really isn't. Most out-growth such things.

Doronetics is Doron's invisible friend. Too bad, too, because reality is much more interesting.

 

[doronshadmi]

reality is much more interesting.

I agree with you, it is much more interesting than your verbal_symbolic-only reasoning.

 

[realpaladin]

Wrong realpaladin and the rest of your verbal_symbolic-only friends.

For example, the following links

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9808629&postcount=3457

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9793529&postcount=3411

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9794292&postcount=3418

are not at the scope of your verbal_symbolic-only reasoning, and you are actually the practical example of the need of verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning as soon as possible.

This is just corroboration that you, Doron Shadmi, are unable to provide a practical example. *Practical* meaning that it has a practice, an application.

You have not shown this, and no matter how you dress it, your words do not mean anything unless you can show it.

 

[doronshadmi]

*Practical* meaning that it has a practice, an application

The application is changing verbal_symbolic-only reasoning into verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning.

As long as you do not practice it, you have no application, and indeed in your case there is no day-by-day application.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

But it is worthless. How can something that can't even understand that three sets are equal to each other be useful?

Where are the ethics in 1+1=2? Why should there even be ethics in math? Is 1+1 good while 1+2 evil? Is 0+0 neutral? Should we be on a crusade to stamp out y=mx+b? Will I be sent to jail if I teach the FOIL method? Since I'm not Greek, will I be able to use Pythagorus as a role model? Will your plan be able to answer all these questions?

More importantly, will anyone care?

Don't go into the visual/verbal reasoning junk that you spout. That's not going to be able to answer my questions.

 

[realpaladin]

The application is changing verbal_symbolic-only reasoning into verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning.

As long as you do not practice it, you have no application, and indeed in your case there is no day-by-day application.

Doron Shadmi, this is not about me, or what I practice or what any traditional mathematician practices.

This is about your definitions, your work, your realms, your whatever-you-want.

And in nothing of *your* work has any practical application. Even the simplest framework has basic tests and if it is being developed, basic regression tests.

You have no tests in the real world, in reality, hence your work has no value in the real world, in reality.

Maybe, instead of acting like a 6 year old on the playground saying "that is what you are, but what am I?", maybe, just maybe, you could put your intellect to work on showing something practical.

If that is not possible; you can not show a prediction or an explanation of an observation which then can be used to predict something hitherto unknown (which can be verified independently afterwards), then you have shown (and shown something for the first time), then your work has no value except for passing some time and honing of sarcasm skills.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron Shadmi, this is not about me, or what I practice or what any traditional mathematician practices.

It is exactly about you, me or what any traditional mathematician practices.

maybe, just maybe, you could put your intellect to work on showing something practical.

Practice 1: Use your visual_spatial reasoning in addition to your verbal_symbolic reasoning, during your mathematical research.

 

[doronshadmi]

But it is worthless. How can something that can't even understand that three sets are equal to each other be useful?

This is one of the options of the realm of collections with unbounded amount of objects.

In order to know these options, verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning has to be used.

 

[laca]

Practice 1: Use your visual_spatial reasoning in addition to your verbal_symbolic reasoning, during your mathematical research.

No, doron, NO! YOU use your whatever reasoning during your mathematical research and show us your RESULTS.

While it's perfectly fine to expect your audience to do some work, we've been trying to do that for years now. You have utterly failed not only to show any result whatsoever, but you have also failed at the most basic task of MAKING ANY SENSE. So, no, you cannot expect any of us to use your seemingly idiotic, inconsistent and useless gibberish. If you want us, or anyone for that matter, to take you seriously, YOU will have to show something. Something other than gibberish-generating skills.

 

[doronshadmi]

Nice visual_spatial reply. All you need is to add also your verbal_symbolic skills during your observation of mathematical expressions.

 

[laca]

Come on doron, since you're the only - admittedly self-appointed - possessor of both visual_spatial and verbal_symbolic skills, surely you must be able to amaze us poor earthlings with your awesome new results. If you also add your moronic_gibberish skills to the mix, the sky's the limit.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

This is one of the options of the realm of collections with unbounded amount of objects.

In order to know these options, verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning has to be used.

Any particular reason why you did not quote the rest of the post? Any reason why you did not answer the ethics portion of the post? Any reason why you ignored the request at the bottom of the post?

Anyways, if your "math" can't see that three sets are the same, why should anyone use it?

 

[realpaladin]

It is exactly about you, me or what any traditional mathematician practices.

Exactly. And since you make a claim, all the others are exempted from providing anything.

And since you, Doron Shadmi, are unable to substantiate your claim, you, Doron Shadmi, prove that it is worthless.

Doron Shadmi, your claims are not better than the following:

"I claim that Doron Shadmi is not able to farsnoogle his worshuck over his obloodabam whenever the Elberm bammels bup."

 

[doronshadmi]

Exactly. And since you make a claim, all the others are exempted from providing anything.

EDIT:

Not at all, in order to be able to understand my claims, you have to use verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning.

In other words, you are an active participator and an essential factor of what I have to suggest.

The last concrete deduction, which is based on verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning (as given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9794292&postcount=3418 and (without loss of generality) in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9793529&postcount=3411 is a function with no inverse, which has a fundamental novel impact on the understanding of collections with unbounded amount of objects, as clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9794314&postcount=3420 by anyone who really uses verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning.

I can't do anything about your choices, the best I can do is to suggest you to use verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning, which is the only way to be aware of what I have to offer.

Since you chose to deduce only by verbal_symbolic reasoning, there is no communication between us on the discussed subject.

A long as you demand to reduce verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning into verbal_symbolic-only reasoning, there is no use to continue the discussion on the given subjects.

This post is written to any poster that demands to reduce verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning into verbal_symbolic-only reasoning.

 

[Kid Eager]

Not at all, in order to be able to understand my claims, you have to use verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning.

The last concrete deduction, which is based on verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning (as given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9794292&postcount=3418 and (without loss of generality) in forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=9793529&postcount=3411 is a function with no inverse, which has a fundamental novel impact on the understanding of collections with unbounded amount of objects as clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9794314&postcount=3420 by anyone who really uses verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning.

You can't do anything about your choices, the best I can do is to suggest you to use verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning, which is the only way to be aware of what I have to offer.

Since you chose to deduce only by verbal_symbolic reasoning, there is no communication between us on the discussed subject.

A song as you demand to reduce verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning into verbal_symbolic-only reasoning, there is no use to continue the discussion on the given subjects.

This post is written to any poster that demands to reduce verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning into verbal_symbolic-only reasoning.

So, this is all about an imaginary quality of something that can't be demonstrated, measured, translated, nor explained - and has no known use?

 

[doronshadmi]

So, this is all about an imaginary quality of something that can't be demonstrated, measured, translated, nor explained - and has no known use?

Hi Kid Edgar,

Did you carefully read all of what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9814240&postcount=3478 (including the links), as the basis of your question?

If your answer is no, then your question is probably a rhetoric question.