Deeper than primes - Continuation

[realpaladin]

As for your question about island A and B, the discoverer will notice that the diversity of complex relations among the phenomena in island A is derived from one non-local principle, which enables the harmonious conditions at any given scale level of these complex relations.

"Goddamn hippies!" would probably be his first words...

Isn't it time you realise that *your* decision not to move anything beyond the current accepted paradigm of the discussed subject, is a factor of your misunderstanding of OM?

Probably, my life, and that of the people around me is so much the better for it!

Things are really changed first of all from within, and this is exactly the reason of why OM must passes through the entropic realm of the current mathematical paradigm.

No short-cut or by-pass can cause the paradigm-shift, and going through the current paradigm in order to change it from within takes time and it is defiantly not an easy task.

I predict that no paradigm shift will occur, that nobody will give a hootenanny about OM after you have withered and passed away and that 'traditional' mathematics will help humanity towards bigger, better and more beautiful things in the future.

 

[realpaladin]

Let's carefully analyze the following:

<snip>

In the case of sets with unbounded amount of members, we do no get the same results as the traditional one.

Be careful! Doron is anglerfishing again!

I could call those kind of posts trolling, and I will alert a mod, if he ever does that again.

 

[doronshadmi]

Be careful! Doron is anglerfishing again!

realpaladin, get out of your

I could call those kind of posts trolling, and I will alert a mod, if he ever does that again.

I could call those kind of replies as a fear of one to get out of his

 

[doronshadmi]

I predict that no paradigm shift will occur, that nobody will give a hootenanny about OM after you have withered and passed away and that 'traditional' mathematics will help humanity towards bigger, better and more beautiful things in the future.

Prediction about OM that is done form one's , is worthless.

 

[doronshadmi]

Probably, my life, and that of the people around me is so much the better for it!

What can we say to a person that finds as warm and comfortable place?

 

[realpaladin]

Hilarious, Doron.

But it will not help you at all.

Btw, there is another logic mistake you made with the islands:

- Either the discoverer sees no difference because he also can not get OM

or

- You have been lying and there *are* visible results, but you can not show them.

What is it?

 

[laca]

Look, how cute, he found the box smilie! Did you use direct perception to find it, doron?

 

[doronshadmi]

Hilarious, Doron.

But it will not help you at all.

Btw, there is another logic mistake you made with the islands:

- Either the discoverer sees no difference because he also can not get OM

or

- You have been lying and there *are* visible results, but you can not show them.

What is it?

The key word is *discoverer*.

He/she has no problem to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9821082&postcount=3535 , unlike you and your friends here, which are stuck in their and crying "!"

 

[Kid Eager]

Hmmm.... much as I would like to join the discussion in a more fruitful way, I still haven't received an explanation of what Doron's definition of "visual-spatial reasoning" is, and why it matters.

TO make matters worse, my brain shut down when it tried to make sense of this statement:

2. If two sets are identical (which means that they have the same members) it does not necessarily follows that the amount of their members is the same, in case that they have unbounded amount of members.

How can you arbitrary redefine the word "identical" to mean "mostly the same but with differences"?

 

[doronshadmi]

How can you arbitrary redefine the word "identical" to mean "mostly the same but with differences"?

I do not redefine the word "identical".

What I show in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9821061&postcount=3534 that in the case of sets with unbounded amount of members, their size is not well-defined, and this property is one of the aspects of of the identity of sets with unbounded amount of members.

 

[doronshadmi]

I still haven't received an explanation of what Doron's definition of "visual-spatial reasoning" is, and why it matters.

N = {1,2,3,...}

|{1,2,3,4,5,...}|
  ↓ ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
  |{1,2,3,4,...}|

is an example of visual_spatial reasoning that can be translated into verbal_symbolic reasoning |N| > |N| and vise versa.

As you can see, we are dealing with one and only one set, and by using also visual_spatial reasoning on that set, we are able to understand that since it has unbounded amount of members, this property prevents the accurate value of its size (unlike the case of sets with bounded amount of members, which their size is accurate).

The definition of visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning, is given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9821061&postcount=3534.

You can't define visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning by using only verbal_symbolic reasoning or only visual_spatial reasoning.

People like jsfisher wish to define visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning only in terms of verbal_symbolic reasoning, and as a result they simply miss definitions of visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning, as given, for example, in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9821061&postcount=3534.

In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9814916&postcount=3488 BenjaminTR thinks that we are unable to deal with the properties of one and only one set, exactly because he does not use visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning in its abstract sense (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9821061&postcount=3534 is an example of how to use visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning in its abstract sense).

For example:

It has not split or reproduced itself into a domain and a separate codomain.

In this abstract expression

|{1,2,3,4,5,...}|
  ↓ ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
  |{1,2,3,4,...}|

there is no separation between domain and codomain

exactly as there is no separation between domain and codomain in the following abstract expression

|{1,2,3,4,...}|
  ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
|{1,2,3,4,...}|

but BenjaminTR simply misses it in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9814916&postcount=3488.

Again, the new thing here (that is not used by traditional mathematics) is a function without inverse, whether it is used on the same set, or not on the same set.

 

[realpaladin]

The key word is *discoverer*.

He/she has no problem to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9821082&postcount=3535 , unlike you and your friends here, which are stuck in their and crying "!"

A longwinded way of saying "Doron Shadmi is a liar and he admits it."

 

[realpaladin]

N = {1,2,3,...}

|{1,2,3,4,5,...}|
  ↓ ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
  |{1,2,3,4,...}|

is an example of visual_spatial reasoning that can be translated into verbal_symbolic reasoning |N| > |N| and vise versa.

<HYSTERIC VERBIAGE DELETED FOR BREVITY>

visual_spatial reasoning and as a result he misses the abstract aspect of visual_spatial reasoning (he thinks that by using visual_spatial reasoning we are unable to deal with the properties of one and only one set).

What he actually is saying:

- By 'drawing stuff' and 'shifting stuff to the right' you 'obviously' see that there is a gap.
- The 'obviousness' is the same 'obviousness' in that you draw a 'human being' by drawing a stick-figure.
- Visual-spatial reasoning is just visually moving things about and then saying 'it is clearly shown', but completely ignoring that you now have added unspecified and undefined relations (i.e. the relative positions, distances etc...)

Doron is clearly unaware that by actually doing anything like that, he creates implicit relations and rules that can be described by traditional mathematics and which... *oh gasp* still prove him wrong in the exact same way had he not used visual-spatial reasoning.

He uses his 'drawing' to 'prove' stuff, much like the overunity nutcases use low-friction setups that run for days to 'prove' that perpetuum mobile machines are possible.

Doron Shadmi 'the liar' falls in that same category.

 

[doronshadmi]

A longwinded way of saying "Doron Shadmi is a liar and he admits it."

realpaladin =

 

[Little 10 Toes]

N = {1,2,3,...}

|{1,2,3,4,5,...}|
  ↓ ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
  |{1,2,3,4,...}|

is an example of visual_spatial reasoning that can be translated into verbal_symbolic reasoning |N| > |N| and vise versa.

And here is an example of visual_spatial reasoning that can be translated into verbal_symbolic reasoning |N| = |N|

|{1,2,3,4,5,...}|
  ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
|{1,2,3,4,5,...}|

Wow. It's so easy to point out errors and fix them.

 

[doronshadmi]

What he actually is saying:

- By 'drawing stuff' and 'shifting stuff to the right' you 'obviously' see that there is a gap.
- The 'obviousness' is the same 'obviousness' in that you draw a 'human being' by drawing a stick-figure.
- Visual-spatial reasoning is just visually moving things about and then saying 'it is clearly shown', but completely ignoring that you now have added unspecified and undefined relations (i.e. the relative positions, distances etc...)

Doron is clearly unaware that by actually doing anything like that, he creates implicit relations and rules that can be described by traditional mathematics and which... *oh gasp* still prove him wrong in the exact same way had he not used visual-spatial reasoning.

He uses his 'drawing' to 'prove' stuff, much like the overunity nutcases use low-friction setups that run for days to 'prove' that perpetuum mobile machines are possible.

Doron Shadmi 'the liar' falls in that same category.

Another post of realpaladin which demonstrates his inability to think abstract in terms of visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning.

Here is some concrete example of his inability to think abstract in terms of visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning:

- Visual-spatial reasoning is just visually moving things about and then saying 'it is clearly shown', but completely ignoring that you now have added unspecified and undefined relations (i.e. the relative positions, distances etc...)

Once , always (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9823008&postcount=3551 is beyond his ).

 

[doronshadmi]

And here is an example of visual_spatial reasoning that can be translated into verbal_symbolic reasoning |N| = |N|

|{1,2,3,4,5,...}|
  ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
|{1,2,3,4,5,...}|

Wow. It's so easy to point out errors and fix them.

You are still missing my it.

|N| = OR not= |N|, or in other words, |N| is not well-defined.

 

[realpaladin]

You are still missing my it.

|N| = OR not= |N|, or in other words, |N| is not well-defined.

Neato! This about sums it up! All the skillz of Doron in one post.

Doron, you are missing your your it...

 

[realpaladin]

Another post of realpaladin which demonstrates his inability to think abstract in terms of visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning.

Here is some concrete example of his inability to think abstract in terms of visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning:


Once , always .

Who gives a flying fark about what you say Doron?

7 years, 10k+ posts, abandoned by sidekicks like Moshe, every little semblance of rigour destroyed by your own posts...

And the best you can come up with is playground texts and things like "you don't get it."

"Error hath a name, it is Doron Shadmi"

 

[doronshadmi]

Who gives a flying fark about what you say Doron?

7 years, 10k+ posts, abandoned by sidekicks like Moshe, every little semblance of rigour destroyed by your own posts...

And the best you can come up with is playground texts and things like "you don't get it."

"Error hath a name, it is Doron Shadmi"

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9823008&postcount=3551 is beyond your (= realpaladin playground).