Deeper than primes - Continuation

[epix]

So, say what you like, but it would be nice if Doron would at least adopt the conventional vocabulary and attempt to communicate rationally instead of obfuscate then hide behind his "you can't get it" shield.

That would be a continuous disaster for Doron, an example of which follows:

The equation of a circle is X² + Y² = R², where X,Y is the circle's center coordinate and R is the size of the circle's radius.

According to Doronetics, X and Y are the coordinates of the circle's center.

There is naturally the other option that treats X as the independent and Y as the dependent variables:

X² + Y² = R²
Y² = R² - X²
Y = f(x) = SQR(R² - X²)

The function simply draws a semicircle. The equation for a full circle is given by the implicit form, coz there are actually two functions employed to draw a full circle. (Cartesian coordinates.)

But Doron has a different mission for X and Y. It's a monument to his total ignorance of anything which is even slightly scented with rationality and high school math, as "prophesied" in the OP.

BUT....! Considering the circle equation from the grossly_crossly_context_dependency_locality_spacial_glacial_only prospect, X and Y are indeed the coordinates of the circle's center and also are the coordinates of the centroid of every galactic dust. But only top thinkers can comprehend that.

 

[doronshadmi]

Some verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) play with their verbal_symbolic-only expressions, but it does not change the fact that http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7731016&postcount=98 is not understood by them ( and so is http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583 ).

Their manipulations with symbols can't get, for example, the difference between a line (whether it is curved or straight) and a point.

 

[The Man]

In that case the line is defined by a piecewise function.



(There is no single function that can draw a curve as well as a straight line - but only when we look at it w.r.t. cross_context_dependent_only_non-local viewing.)

While I was aware of the latter I was not of the former, thank for the link epix.

 

[The Man]

Context-dependent-only skill(ers) are unable to get X, unless it is classified by one (or more) of its possible partial expressions (only the method of verbal_symbolic classified boxes is used).

For example, they are ague that: "some parts of a line can have non-zero curvature while other parts do not."

This argument is a perfect example of how Context-dependent-only skill(ers) can't get Line, unless it is classified by one (or more) of its possible partial expressions ( only the method of verbal_symbolic classified boxes is used, so there is no wonder why they can't comprehend, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7617572&postcount=16472 ).

By being limited only to the method of verbal_symbolic classified boxes, there is no wonder why they can't get X (Line, for example) as "that belongs AND does not belong" to a given domain.

So again which is it, are you being deliberately self-contradictory or just deliberately self-inconsistent? Indications are still to the latter. Evidently it is just still you and your imaginary “Context-dependent-only skill(ers)” that haven’t got it yet. If you are having problems with your imaginary “Context-dependent-only skill(ers)” then I suggest you come up with a less troublesome fantasy.

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, one easily know that, for example, a line is Cross-contexts ("belongs AND does not belong" to a given domain) AND Context-dependent (it is classified by one (or more) of its possible partial expressions).


For the past 9 years of Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework development over the internet, I am aware more and more of the inability verbal_symbolic_only context-dependent_only skill(ers) to comprehend it.

punshhh becomes aware of this inability, and he does not hesitate to argue about it.

So you just don’t know or just won’t say what different contexts you are using the word "line" within when you refer to a "curved or straight line"?

Either all those words are dependent on the inferred context of geometry or you have some other context(s) you are applying or attempting to apply.


That you simply can not or will not express what that other context might be is indicative of the probability that there just isn’t any “Cross-contexts” aspect to your pervious assertion. Not to worry Doron given your history I don’t think anyone expected anything to cross contexts in your “Cross-contexts”.

 

[doronshadmi]

Once again.

Context-dependent-only skill(ers) are unable to get X, unless it is classified by one (or more) of its possible partial expressions (only the skills of verbal_symbolic classified boxes is used, where visual_spatial skills are ignored).

For example, being a line is Cross-contexts among context-dependent classifications like curved or straight, such that line is the unity among the context-dependent (and therefore special) classifications known as curved or straight, but Context-dependent-only skill(ers) are unable to get Cross-contexts in addition to Context-dependent, because they try to fit Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework to some classified Context-dependent box.

This subject is discussed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583 and this is my last post on this subject to Context-dependent-only skill(ers).

They are indeed closed cases of their own context-dependent (and therefore special) classifications, and get only what is defined in terms of their closed boxes.

punshhh, you did not fall into one of their closed boxes.

 

[epix]

While I was aware of the latter I was not of the former, thank for the link epix.

Since I missed this pic that shows it all,

I included that "verbal_symbolic_only" video.

 

[doronshadmi]

People that define, for example, a line only in terms of its special cases (like curved or straight) are doing it exactly because they are using only their verbal_symbolic skills (they can't get the Cross-contexts factor of the definition (which enables to get a line beyond its special cases) simply because their visual_spatial skills are not used as inseparable factor of the definition).

Only by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills one enables to get also the Cross-contexts factor of a given definition.

 

[doronshadmi]

Let re-examine X² + Y² = R² (the circle's equation), which is a verbal_symbolic skill, to comprehend and use geometric forms.

By using this skill such that the essential property of the geometric form is a curve, X² + Y² = 0 has an infinite curvature, known as point,
where X² + Y² = ∞ has 0 curvature, known as a straight line.

So, by using only verbal_symbolic skills in order to get visual_spatial forms (where a visual_special case of a line, known as curve, wrongly used as its essential property) we realize that the verbal_symbolic skill fails to distinguish between the non-locality of a line (whether it is curved or straight) and the locality of a point.

By using the visual_spatial skills AND the verbal_symbolic skills, one easily knows that a line (whether it is curved or straight) can be at AND not at point's given location, where a point can't be but at XOR not at line's given location (it has a strict location w.r.t a given curved or straight line, where the line's given location can be also non-strict w.r.t a given point on it).

 

[doronshadmi]

A better version of the previous post:

Let's re-examine how X² + Y² = R² (the circle's equation), which is a verbal_symbolic skill, is used to comprehend visual_spatial forms.

By using this skill such that the essential property of the visual_spatial form is a curve, X² + Y² = 0 has an infinite curvature, known as a point, where X² + Y² = ∞ has 0 curvature, known as a straight line.

So, by using only verbal_symbolic skills in order to get visual_spatial forms (where a visual_special case of a line, known as curve, wrongly used as its essential property) we realize that the verbal_symbolic skill fails to distinguish between the non-locality of a line (whether it is curved or straight) and the locality of a point.

By using the visual_spatial skills AND the verbal_symbolic skills, one easily knows that a line (whether it is curved or straight) can be at AND not at point's given location, where a point can't be but at XOR not at line's given location (it has a strict location w.r.t a given curved or straight line, where the line's given location can be also non-strict w.r.t a given point on it).

 

[epix]

Let re-examine X² + Y² = R² (the circle's equation), which is a verbal_symbolic skill, to comprehend and use geometric forms.

By using this skill such that the essential property of the geometric form is a curve, X² + Y² = 0 has an infinite curvature, known as point,
where X² + Y² = ∞ has 0 curvature, known as a straight line.

So, by using only verbal_symbolic skills in order to get visual_spatial forms (where a visual_special case of a line, known as curve, wrongly used as its essential property) we realize that the verbal_symbolic skill fails to distinguish between the non-locality of a line (whether it is curved or straight) and the locality of a point.

Doron's consistency in making wrong statements is simply amazing.

Exhibit 1: "X² + Y² = 0 has an infinite curvature, known as point."

The equation doesn't have a real solution for both X and Y. Since the equation for a circle drawn on the complex plane is different, Doron keeps on sodomizing geometric figures of various kind.

Exhibit 2: "X² + Y² = ∞ has 0 curvature, known as a straight line."

Here, two issues on display: Since he can't grasp the concept of limits, Doron treats ∞ as a number. Then he comes with the idea that the equation can actually describe a straight line. That's not possible, coz for any equation that describes a straight line, there exists a variable exponent that equals either 1 or 0. The presence of other values in the exponent result in equations that describe curves, and we know that curves are lines where at every point the curvature is different from zero.

 

[The Man]

Once again.

Context-dependent-only skill(ers) are unable to get X, unless it is classified by one (or more) of its possible partial expressions (only the skills of verbal_symbolic classified boxes is used, where visual_spatial skills are ignored).

We are more than well aware, Doron, of your inclination to simply profess that you “get X” by not expressing any aspect of it at all.

For example, being a line is Cross-contexts among context-dependent classifications like curved or straight, such that line is the unity among the context-dependent (and therefore special) classifications known as curved or straight, but Context-dependent-only skill(ers) are unable to get Cross-contexts in addition to Context-dependent, because they try to fit Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework to some classified Context-dependent box.

Once again where does the word “line” cross contexts in your purported “Cross-contexts”? Just what the heck do you think is so “special” about being “curved or straight”, particularly in reference to a line? By all means please tell us what describes a line that is neither “curved” nor “straight”? Are you deliberately or simply erroneously confusing different descriptions (”curved”, “straight” and “line”) within a singular context (geometry) as somehow crossing contexts? As expected there is simply nothing that crosses any contexts in your purported “Cross-contexts”. Just for your own edification Doron using a word or words in different contexts (crossing contexts) has been a staple of comedy for centuries.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pun

Homonymic puns, another common type, arise from the exploitation of words which are both homographs and homophones. The statement "Being in politics is just like playing golf: you are trapped in one bad lie after another" puns on the two meanings of the word lie as "a deliberate untruth" and as "the position in which something rests". An adaptation of a joke repeated by Isaac Asimov gives us "Did you hear about the little moron who strained himself while running into the screen door?", playing on 'strained' as "to give much effort" and "to filter".[7] A homonymic pun may also be polysemic, in which the words must be homonymic and also possess related meanings, a condition which is often subjective. However, lexicographers define polysemes as listed under a single dictionary lemma (a unique numbered meaning) while homonyms are treated in separate lemmata.

This subject is discussed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583 and this is my last post on this subject to Context-dependent-only skill(ers).


They are indeed closed cases of their own context-dependent (and therefore special) classifications, and get only what is defined in terms of their closed boxes.

punshhh, you did not fall into one of their closed boxes.

Once again if your fantasy “skill(ers)” give you trouble I would recommend you having fantasies that are more appealing to you. Though it would seem that simply imagining most others as somehow deficient is as appealing to you, if not more so, as anything else.

 

[jsfisher]

Let re-examine X² + Y² = R² (the circle's equation)...

No, it's not. It only applies to circles centered at the origin. There are considerably more circles on the cartesian plane than that.

where X² + Y² = ∞ has 0 curvature, known as a straight line.

Even if we were to give your silly expression some sort of reasonable interpretation, it still wouldn't be an equation for any line, straight or otherwise.

Once again, Doron, with you unique skills, you get everything wrong.

 

[epix]

Even if we were to give your silly expression some sort of reasonable interpretation, it still wouldn't be an equation for any line, straight or otherwise.

Doron won't stop believing that if the length of the radius of a circle keeps getting longer without bound (or is heading toward infinity), the curvature of the circumference wouldn't respond in kind and wouldn't be heading toward its limit which is zero. That's very clear by his clumsy equation and comment

where X^2 + Y^2 = ∞ has 0 curvature, known as a straight line.

He believes that if R^2 "equals" infinity, then both end-points of the drawn semi-circle with the center point at [0,0] will never intersect the X axis. This is a classic example of wrong premise --> wrong conclusion. There is no point in proving the wrongness, coz Doron either can't grasp the concept of limits and infinity involved in the premise no matter what, or he deliberately rejects it in order to bathe in his mathematical phantasmagoria. I would bet on the former horse though leaving the effect of the latter to the necessity.

 

[doronshadmi]

Let us take for example the following diagram:

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, one knows that a line is the essential (cross-context) form of its spacial (context-dependent) curved or straight expressions.

So the line is the "host" (non-local) state w.r.t its "hosted" (local) states, and this "host"\"hosted" linkage is actually the essence of the mathematical science, which is not less than a one comprehensive Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework, known by actually using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) can't get ∞ as a number, exactly because their visual_spatial skills are not used in additions to their verbal_symbolic skills (they get Number only in terms of strict values that are defined by verbal_symbolic-only skills).

Also using arguments like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pun is a concrete example of the inability of verbal_symbolic skill(ers) to use also their visual_spatial skills as a one comprehensive framework.

It has to stressed that my argument about forcing Curvature as an essential property of a line by verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers), holds whether X² + Y² = R² or (X-a)² + (Y-b)² = R² verbal_symbolic expressions are used.

 

[jsfisher]

It has to stressed that my argument about forcing Curvature as an essential property of a line by verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers)....

The only person "forcing curvature" is you, Doron.

Be that as it may, I see you are still trying to disprove definitions. Good luck with that.

 

[epix]

Also using arguments like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pun is a concrete example of the inability of verbal_symbolic skill(ers) to use also their visual_spatial skills as a one comprehensive framework.

Wiki " "

In computing, esoteric programming languages (EPLs) are based in or contain what may be regarded as conceptual puns, as they typically misuse common programming concepts in ways which are absurd, or functionally useless. Some EPL puns may be obvious, such as in the usage of text images, while other puns are highly conceptual and understandable to experts only.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bird_converted_to_ASCII_characters.png <-----------------

just another fall from grace
zipping through a verbal_space
like icarus' bogged down flight
nothing ever gets done right

 

[doronshadmi]

Infinite is not in finite.

Finite is in finite.

In this case the pun is the difference between the verbal (sound) aspect and the symbolic aspect.

 

[punshhh]

Wiki " "


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bird_converted_to_ASCII_characters.png <-----------------

just another fall from grace
zipping through a verbal_space
like icarus' bogged down flight
nothing ever gets done right

Are you dissecting my name now?

Puns...shhh.

 

[punshhh]

Would that be a curved or un-curved plug hole?

Its all about spinning, the greater the curvature the faster the spin.

When it reaches a point you will be spinning at an infinite rate.

 

[punshhh]

Lets put the maths to one side now and use pure thought.

Lets say we have an infinitely large circle, is the line around the edge of the circle curved or straight?