Deeper than primes - Continuation

[Little 10 Toes]

Let's improve the formal novel system:

No need to even use a novel system. Cardinality doesn't care about anything other than the number of items in a set.

By the way, you can't even agree on your own definitions. Proof you may ask?

Here:

Being aware of SOMEthing (YESthing) is an awareness at least at the level of Dichotomy, where in this case the opposite of SOMEthing is NOthing.

EVERYthing is many SOMEthings, so the amount does no change the fact the both cases are the opposite of NOthing.

So what is the opposite?

 

[sympathic]

[/I]Little 10 Toes;8080443]No need to even use a novel system. Cardinality doesn't care about anything other than the number of items in a set.

By the way, you can't even agree on your own definitions. Proof you may ask?

Here:




So what is the opposite?

LITTLE-BITthing

 

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by doronshadmi
Being aware of SOMEthing (YESthing) is an awareness at least at the level of Dichotomy, where in this case the opposite of SOMEthing is NOthing

Originally Posted by doronshadmi
EVERYthing is many SOMEthings, so the amount does no change the fact the both cases are the opposite of NOthing.


Punshhh is at Unity with Doron so no doubt he can explain that to us.

 

[doronshadmi]

No need to even use a novel system. Cardinality doesn't care about anything other than the number of items in a set.

This is the concept of Cardinality under the limitations of Traditional Mathematics, so?

Organic Mathematics concept of Cardinality is novel.

By the way, you can't even agree on your own definitions. Proof you may ask?

Here:




So what is the opposite?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8079828&postcount=596 is an essential improvement of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8061757&postcount=490, such that YESthing is defined has that has no successor, which is the opposite of NOthing, which is that has no predecessor.

SOMEthing or EVERYthing are intermediate states where SOMEthing is not reducible into NOthing, which is that has no predecessor, and EVERYthing is not extensible into YESthing, which is that has no successor.

Unity (the thing) is beyond Polychotomy, where NOthing, SOMEthing, EVERYthing and YESthing are closed under Polychotomy.

Please follow after improvements from now on.

 

[realpaladin]

This is the concept of Cardinality under the limitations of Traditional Mathematics, so?

Organic Mathematics concept of Cardinality is novel.

Good. Explain it from scratch, the way you would with students in the first class of the first semester of the first year.

Also, it means there is no need to point to traditional maths anymore to say what is 'wrong' there.

Let's just stick to OM.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8079828&postcount=596 is an essential improvement of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8061757&postcount=490, such that YESthing is defined has that has no successor, which is the opposite of NOthing, which is that has no predecessor.

SOMEthing or EVERYthing are intermediate states where SOMEthing is not reducible into NOthing, which is that has no predecessor, and EVERYthing is not extensible into YESthing, which is that has no successor.

Unity (the thing) is beyond Polychotomy, where NOthing, SOMEthing, EVERYthing and YESthing are closed under Polychotomy.

Please follow after improvements from now on.

The wording suggests this is predicate logic....

Highlighting mine: is that a mutually exclusive or, or is at an indeterminate or (i.e. 'we don't know, but either this one *or* that one must be it). Or is it an artefact of language?

Now, what does all of that *mean*? What does it *do*?

Can we predict something with it? Or explain something?

 

[doronshadmi]

Good. Explain it from scratch, the way you would with students in the first class of the first semester of the first year.

Already done at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8079828&postcount=596 .

Also, it means there is no need to point to traditional maths anymore to say what is 'wrong' there.

Let's just stick to OM.

You can't rid of the context-dependent-only paradigm.

Or is it an artefact of language?

Informal or.

I notate formal OR by italic upper case.

Now, what does all of that *mean*? What does it *do*?

Can we predict something with it? Or explain something?

We understand mathematical spaces ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8079828&postcount=596 ).

More details are found in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8077918&postcount=589 .

 

[realpaladin]

Already done at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8079828&postcount=596 .

Really? That is how you would teach freshmen pupils?

You can't rid of the context-dependent-only paradigm.

Like them branching math thingies... right?

We understand mathematical spaces ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8079828&postcount=596 ).

More details are found in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8077918&postcount=589 .

I just pasted all these links below, so I can peruse them at leisure, but also for the benefit of others.

Let's improve the formal novel system:

;||; = the cardinality of NOthing (that has no predecessor).

|;;| = the cardinality of YESthing (that has no successor).

Beyond these states there is the thing, which is the Unity beyond polychotomy.

The power of continuum is defined as the ability of a given space to be at AND beyond (not at) the domain of given lower space(s) or sub-space(s) (where sub-space(s) is\are a mixture of a given space and lower spaces, associated by Unity (by the thing)).

;|c₀|; = the cardinality of 0-space does not have the power of the continuum.

;|c₁,c₀|; = the cardinality of 1-space has the power of the continuum, but the cardinality of 0-spaces on it do not have the power of the continuum.

;|c₂,c₁,c₀|; = the cardinality of 2-space has the power of the continuum, but the cardinality of 1-spaces and 0-spaces on it do not have the power of the continuum.

;|c₃,c₂,c₁,c₀|; = the cardinality of 3-space has the power of the continuum, but the cardinality of 2-spaces,1-spaces and 0-spaces on it do not have the power of the continuum.

...

etc. ad infinitum ... where no space > 0 has the power of the continuum of YESthing (that has no successor).

In general, no collection of lower spaces or sub-spaces, has the power of the continuum of a given space.

The subject at hand is that the power of the continuum is not satisfied in terms of collection, and this knowledge is deeper than the knowledge about primes, because it has a direct influence on our understanding of the concept of Entropy (the inability of collection of lower spaces or sub-spaces to completely cover a given space > 0, is resulted by non-entropic and therefore ever-developed (abstract or physical) realm).

As for you, you can't get, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8059077&postcount=473 .

Forces of nature are manifestations of Unity (including one's awareness), so in order to harmonically manipulate them, the manipulator must have Unity awareness. The development of The Technology of The Consciousness is exactly the development of Science, simply because real Science is not less than the harmoniums association among the developed, the developer and the used tools for development.

Wrong, the gap is actually the "host" (mathematical or physical) space, which enables "hosted" spaces or subspaces to be gathered into one organism and still leave a "room" for further complexity's development.

Once again, the "host" (mathematical or physical) space exists even if no "hosted" collection of lower spaces or subspaces exist on it.


Harmony among "hosted" (mathematical or physical) spaces.


There is no "we" without "host"\"hosted" association.


We shell not survive as ever developed responsible communicators between Simplicity and Complexity.

It is already shown in http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE

and

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3489/5842425568_4e4e18f7ee_b.jpg

 

[doronshadmi]

Let's look closely at some possible relations among mathematical spaces:

A given space > 0 is non-local w.r.t to lower spaces or sub-spaces (which are associated results among a given space > 0 and lower spaces) if 0 space is involved as one of the lower spaces (for example: given 1-space, it is 1-space at X-axis, but it is 0-space at Y-axis. In general, given n-space, where n>0, it has 0-space at (n+1)-axis)).

For example: a given line segment is non-local (at AND not at) the domain of a given circle (which is a sub-space of 2-space) because the line segment is at AND not at the location of the intersection point (the intersection point is 0-space at (1+1)-axis of the circle's circumference 1-space) on the circle's circumference (which defines the domain of the sub-space (the circle) on a given 2-space).

 

[dafydd]

My Twoness theory is the correct one.

 

[doronshadmi]

Some correction my previous post:

EDIT: no correction is needed.

 

[doronshadmi]

My Twoness theory is the correct one.

Twothings are undefined without the thing.

 

[dafydd]

Twothings is undefined without the thing[/COLOR].

The Thing. That was a bad movie. Every positive number has a negative counterpart and vice versa so Twoness is the thing.

 

[dafydd]

Some correction of the previous post:

... (the intersection point is 0-space at (2+1)-axis of the circle's circumference 1-space, which defines the domain of the sub-space (the circle) on a given 2-space).

As if that makes any difference.

 

[doronshadmi]

Every positive number has a negative counterpart and vice versa so Twoness is the thing.

What enables -x x to be comparable, and be gathered as Twothings?

 

[doronshadmi]

As if that makes any difference.

EDIT: I re-examined it, no correction is needed after all.

 

[realpaladin]

The Thing. That was a bad movie. Every positive number has a negative counterpart and vice versa so Twoness is the thing.

But the color version was better.

 

[realpaladin]

What enables -x x to be comparable, and be gathered as Twothings?

Don't tell me you have realised that there is a center point???

 

[realpaladin]

EDIT: I re-examined it, no correction is needed after all.

That entirely depends on the context specific paradigm; now, if I were to make brownies, it would need an awful lot of correction....

 

[dafydd]

What enables -x x to be comparable, and be gathered as Twothings?

The fact that they are two things.

 

[doronshadmi]

Don't tell me you have realised that there is a center point???

The thing is beyond polychotomy.

Some analogy: The trunk enables the polychotomy of branches AND it is beyond branches.

Some center point is an additional branch, under the polychotomy of branches.