Deeper than primes - Continuation

[doronshadmi]

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) may claim this:

"That's just supreme silliness. The difference between 3 and 4 is notated as |3 - 4|."

This claim clearly shows that they simply can't associate verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills as a one comprehensive framework.

Let's look at this:

"However, difference between does not have the same meaning as between, so you have again demonstrated your weakness in reading comprehension. Please try again."

Anyone who claims such a thing, gets everything only in terms of Reading comprehension, which is actually based only on verbal_symbolic skills (but verbal_symbolic-only skill(er) is not aware of his\her own limitation).

But the truth is that the number line is not less than the association among different mathematical or physical spaces, such that the lower space can't completely cover the higher space.

 

[jsfisher]

Don't give up, Doron. You may eventually get it right.

 

[doronshadmi]

Okay then. I have a number line made up of integers. What is between 3 and 4?

Whether it is known as number line, or any other possible collection, the objects of any possible collection can't be extended beyond Cardinality 1 if at least two spaces (mathematical or physical) are not associated with each other in terms of "Host"\"Hosted" states, such that they are defined but not made of each other (actually, this is the exact meaning of being "Host"\"Hosted" spaces (mathematical or physical) w.r.t each other).

Since the "host" space is defined but not made of "hosted" spaces, no Cardinality of "hosted" spaces has the power of the continuum of the "host" space.

In order to be aware of this fact, the mind has no choice but to use at least its verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, where again, visual_spatial skills are not limited to Geometry.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

No, thanks. I'm on a word-salad-free diet. Try using words that have definitions other than those that you only assign to them.

 

[doronshadmi]

No, thanks. I'm on a word-salad-free diet. Try using words that have definitions other than those that you only assign to them.

My words are easily defined if verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills are used.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

No they're not. Please spend some time and clearly define "your" words. Maybe even post them here.

 

[doronshadmi]

No they're not. Please spend some time and clearly define "your" words. Maybe even post them here.

Please spend some time to use your verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills in order to get the considered subject.

 

[jsfisher]

Please spend some time to use your verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills in order to get the considered subject.

Translation: Nanner, nanner, pooh-pooh.

 

[doronshadmi]

"pooh-shmoo" or any other verbal-symbolic_only nonsense simply can't change the fact that no amount of "hosted" (mathematical or physical) spaces or subspaces of a given "host" (mathematical or physical) space, have the power of the continuum of the "host" (mathematical or physical) space.

Once again, "Host"\"Hosted" spaces are defined but not made of each other.

This is the exact meaning of being "Host"\"Hosted" spaces (mathematical or physical) w.r.t each other, and it is known only if verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills are actually used in one's mind.

 

[jsfisher]

"pooh-shmoo" or any other verbal-symbolic_only nonsense simply can't change the fact that no amount of "hosted" (mathematical or physical) spaces or subspaces of a given "host" (mathematical or physical) space, have the power of the continuum of the "host" (mathematical or physical) space.

Once again, "Host"\"Hosted" spaces are defined but not made of each other.

This is the exact meaning of being "Host"\"Hosted" spaces (mathematical or physical) w.r.t each other, and it is known only if verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills are actually used in one's mind.

Now, click you heels together three times....

Don't forget Toto.

 

[doronshadmi]

No, thanks. I'm on a word-salad-free diet. Try using words that have definitions other than those that you only assign to them.

Nothing between A and B means that A and B are variables of the same thing.

This simple notion fits also your word-salad-free diet.

In the case of natural numbers, if there is nothing between variable A and B, then A and B are actually the same natural number.

What holds among natural numbers holds among any possible number system.

 

[zooterkin]

Nothing between A and B means that A and B are variables of the same thing.

This simple notion fits also your word-salad-free diet.

In the case of natural numbers, if there is nothing between variable A and B, then A and B are actually the same natural number.

What holds among natural numbers holds among any possible number system.

So, dealing with integers, what is between 3 and 4?

 

[doronshadmi]

So, dealing with integers, what is between 3 and 4?

Their difference w.r.t each other.

If it was nothing, then 3=4, which is false.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

So, dealing with integers, what is between 3 and 4?

Their difference w.r.t each other.

If it was nothing, then 3=4, which is false.

Try again.

The question is "what is between 3 and 4?"

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Nothing between A and B means that A and B are variables of the same thing.

This simple notion fits also your word-salad-free diet.

In the case of natural numbers, if there is nothing between variable A and B, then A and B are actually the same natural number.

What holds among natural numbers holds among any possible number system.

No. You are wrong.

Please review the definition of Natural Numbers. You'll then see that there is nothing between two natural numbers. And then you'll realize that your statement of "What holds among natural numbers holds among any possible number system" is wrong as well.

 

[doronshadmi]

No. You are wrong.

Please review the definition of Natural Numbers. You'll then see that there is nothing between two natural numbers. And then you'll realize that your statement of "What holds among natural numbers holds among any possible number system" is wrong as well.

You are wrong Little 10 Toes.

If there is nothing between considered things (numbers or whatever) then there is actually one and only one thing, for example:

There is an endless straight line, which is actually one and only one thing.

Now, there is a point which is located along it, end as a result we are able to distinguish between, for example, left and right rays w.r.t the considered point, even if the point has 0 dimensional space, so 0 dimensional space is not nothing, because if it is omitted, we get a single endless straight line.

But it is also known that a 1 dimensional space (whether it is a ray or an endless straight line) is not reducible to 0 dimensional space, such that it is located AND not located at the location of some arbitrary point (0 dimensional space) along it.

The irreducibility of some higher space to some lower space defines the "host"\"hosted" state of these (mathematical or physical) spaces w.r.t each other, such that they are defined but not made of each other (end this is exactly the meaning of being "host"\"hosted" w.r.t each other).

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

If the term Number is considered, then it is distinguished according Quantity and\or Size and\or Order differences, which is defiantly not Nothing.

So by using Distinction as a fundamental term among Number systems, if there is Nothing between them, then their different objects are not known.

It is also has to be stressed that superposition of ids among things (including numbers) is still distinguished according to Uncertainty x Redundancy Distinction Trees (URDT) ( more details about URDT are seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7721309&postcount=64 ).

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

The motivation of this thread is given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7676943&postcount=5 .

 

[Mudcat]

I have been kinda lurking on this thread for sometime now, hoping that it would start making sense. Could someone maybe explain it to me in simple, easy to understand terms along with how it wound up in th RnP section?

Thanks in advance.

 

[doronshadmi]

I have been kinda lurking on this thread for sometime now, hoping that it would start making sense. Could someone maybe explain it to me in simple, easy to understand terms along with how it wound up in th RnP section?

Thanks in advance.

EDIT: Hi Mudcat,

My goal in this thread is to represent the first sketches of a new framework, which develops Mathematics beyond its current formal paradigm, in order to develop practical method that may enable to extend human consciousness, in order to define the harmony among its subjective and objective aspects.

The current paradigm of the mathematical science is based on context-dependent frameworks, such that each framework has its own consistent rules.

The new paradigm of this science (called Organic Mathematics) is based on Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent rules that if carefully developed, may achieve the considered goal.

One of the main principles of this development is to use verbal_symbolic AND visual-spatial brain's skills (the current development of the mathematical science is based mostly on verbal_symbolic brain's skills).

 

[Mudcat]

Hi Mutcat Mudcat

Made your first mistake here. Don't worry, I fixed it for you.

My goal in this thread is to represent the first sketches of a new framework, which develops Mathematics beyond its current formal paradigm, in order to develop practical method that may enable to extend human consciousness, in order to define the harmony among its subjective and objective aspects.

The current paradigm of the mathematical science is based on context-dependent frameworks, such that each framework has its own consistent rules.

What part of "simple and easy to understand" don't you get? You say you want develop a practical method, but fail to provide in what way is it of practical use.

That would be a good way to start.

The new paradigm of this science (called Organic Mathematics) is based on Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent rules that if carefully developed, may achieve the considered goal.

I see the word science in there, but nothing that adheres to time honored scientific practices, and I suspect you think it means something it does not.

 

[doronshadmi]

Made your first mistake here. Don't worry, I fixed it for you.

What part of "simple and easy to understand" don't you get? You say you want develop a practical method, but fail to provide in what way is it of practical use.

That would be a good way to start.



I see the word science in there, but nothing that adheres to time honored scientific practices, and I suspect you think it means something it does not.

Please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583 .