Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

No. This thread is not at all about foundations of math; it's about, a.o., entropy of multisets, as witnessed in the OP. Your "off topic" reaction is a case of the pot blaming the kettle.

Moreover, by your own reasoning - that this thread is about foundations of math - TMiguel's post is most appropriate. His post is namely not about Trig, but about proof theory, and his case of a Trig theorem is just a particular instance of that.

Your corpus of posts shows such a profound lack of understanding of mathematics, that, IMHO, TMiguel's little test to see if you can write up a proof of such a simple theorem is more than warranted. In fact, I'll give you a little test below.


A nonsensical remark in this context, and then I'm being nice.

My test:

Prove the Theorem of Pythagoras.

Hint: draw a square with side a+b, where a and b are the lengths of the legs of the right triangle.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4098340&postcount=198

 

[doronshadmi]

TMiguel's post is most appropriate. His post is namely not about Trig, but about proof theory, and his case of a Trig theorem is just a particular instance of that

And I am talking about a research of our abilities to do Math, which is a pre-axiomatic research (its aim is to understand why and how axioms are agreed statements).

Entropy is just some particular case to deal with this subject.

Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_information_theory .

 

[jsfisher]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4098340&postcount=198

Repeating a bogus claim does not make it any less bogus. The topic of this thread is established in Post #1.

 

[jsfisher]

And I am talking about a research of our abilities to do Math, which is a pre-axiomatic research (its aim is to understand why and how axioms are agreed statements).

Entropy is just some particular case to deal with this subject.

Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_information_theory .

Here's an idea: If you want to discuss that sort of thing, why not open a thread on just that topic?

Wacky, I know, but it just might work.

 

[doronshadmi]

Here's an idea: If you want to discuss that sort of thing, why not open a thread on just that topic?

Wacky, I know, but it just might work.

Because my notions about entropy are deeply related to pre-axiomatic research.

 

[catbasket]

Because my notions about entropy are deeply related to pre-axiomatic research.

Prove it.

Philosophy is in a different sub-forum.

 

[nathan]

Doron, why is that that you're unable to answer simple questions about maths? One might reasonably conclude that you are ignorant. Your continued avoidance of answering such questions does nothing to dispel that particular notion.

 

[GreyICE]

Because my notions about entropy are deeply related to pre-axiomatic research.

Well there's no chance this is a made up concept.

 

[jsfisher]

Because my notions about entropy are deeply related to pre-axiomatic research.

Your logic is inverted.

You fixed this thread to a narrow topic: Doron's non-standard version of entropy. That's the topic. Live with it. If you want to discuss something much, much broader, start a new thread.

However, since your entropy notions are ill-formed, contradictory, and without merit, a doubt your pre-axiomatic research has much going for it, either.

 

[doronshadmi]

I other words perception is how our brains process the data they are fed by our sensory organs.

No.

Perception is not less than the relations between internal (abstract) data and external (sensory organs) data.

 

[doronshadmi]

Prove it.

Philosophy is in a different sub-forum.

Axioms do not need any proof, and I am talking about pre-axiomatic level.

You can easily see that people here are using Philosophy at this fundamental level.

For example:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4097096&postcount=183

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4097186&postcount=186

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4097210&postcount=187

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4097250&postcount=191

As you see, Mathematics is based on agreed beliefs, or in other words, the human factor is an inherent property of this science.

I simply do not ignore it, as ddt and his friends do.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well there's no chance this is a made up concept.

Like any new fundamental idea.

 

[ddt]

And I am talking about a research of our abilities to do Math, which is a pre-axiomatic research (its aim is to understand why and how axioms are agreed statements).

Entropy is just some particular case to deal with this subject.

It's clear you won't answer my question, nor TMiguel's question. It's also clear why you won't answer these questions: because you can't. You can't even produce such simple proofs, because your grasp of mathematics is non-existent. (Remember also those simple set theory theorems I asked you to prove in the previous thread?)

I'm out of here, and I'd encourage other members also to refrain from posting. Your nonsensical posts are worse for the sanity than a Call of Cthulhu game. I'll be happy to point out to the moderators that your "pre-axiomatic research" is no mathematics, but philosophy at best.

 

[doronshadmi]

It's clear you won't answer my question, nor TMiguel's question. It's also clear why you won't answer these questions: because you can't. You can't even produce such simple proofs, because your grasp of mathematics is non-existent. (Remember also those simple set theory theorems I asked you to prove in the previous thread?)

I'm out of here, and I'd encourage other members also to refrain from posting. Your nonsensical posts are worse for the sanity than a Call of Cthulhu game. I'll be happy to point out to the moderators that your "pre-axiomatic research" is no mathematics, but philosophy at best.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4098467&postcount=211

 

[Reality Check]

Please define Distinction.

 

[doronshadmi]

Please define Distinction.

Let us research what enables us to define Distinction as an inseparable factor of Math.

For example:

Ddt and some of his friends claim that there is asymmetry of how us as human beings are doing Math.

Math, by the asymmetric viewpoint, changes our understanding but our understanding has no feedback influence on Math.

In other words, Math is an absolute knowledge and we are no more than objective reporters of this knowledge.

By using Distinction as a first-order property of the mathematical science, it is easy to see that this "no feedback influence on Math" is nothing but the particular case of asymmetry that naturally manifests itself as agreed fundamental terms that are based on asymmetry as the general paradigm of the Mathematical science.

If Distinction is used as a first-order property of the mathematical science, then there is also a feedback influence between the mathematical knowledge and the users of this knowledge.

In other words, if Distinction is a first-order property of the mathematical science, then there are particular cases of asymmetry (Math is not influenced by its users) and also there are particular cases that there is symmetry (Math is influenced by its users).

First-order property means that the mathematical science is not limited to any particular case of this property, and this notion holds about Distinction as a first-order property of the mathematical science (if it does not hold, then the mathematical science is nothing but the particular case of asymmetric knowledge. In that case nothing is universal by this science and cannot be considered as an absolute knowledge).

 

[TMiguel]

This thread is about the foundations of the mathematical science, and not about any particular branch of it

Oh I’m Sorry, I kind of had the feeling that this had something to do about PRIME NUMBERS. Due to the title and then first post. Yeah sorry.

Futhermore, I am talking about a research that its aim is to undestand how we are able to get axioms, in the first place.

As we know, axioms are not provable (they are agreed true statements), and I am talking about a pre-axiomatic research.

You mean like the axioms that we need in the first place to allow you to define what the heck is a number in the first place? Or to define what is an operand? Or what is

partitions

,

Entropy

,

repetitions

,

n > 1

(order),

Prime

,

half circles

,

straight-line

,

frequency

,

dense part

,

non-locality and locality

,

domain

,

symmetry

,

asymmetry

,

identity

,

superposition

,

NXOR\XOR

,

isolated

,

dimensions

,

fractal-like structure

,

parallel

,

finite/non-finite

,

fraction

,

bases

,

variant

,

sum

,

distinction

,

complete

,

maximum

,

minimum

,

continuous

,

transformation

,

=

,

Permutation

,

multiplicity

,

cardinal

and

non-trivial relation

?

Sorry I must be totally of here.

 

[nathan]

It's clear you won't answer my question, nor TMiguel's question. It's also clear why you won't answer these questions: because you can't.

Heck, Doron won't even disprove my theory of his ignorance. It'd be so easy to disprove, were it false.

 

[doronshadmi]

Oh I’m Sorry, I kind of had the feeling that this had something to do about PRIME NUMBERS.

No, the title is "Deeper than Primes".

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4099460&postcount=216

 

[Reality Check]

Let us research what enables us to define Distinction as an inseparable factor of Math.

For example:

Ddt and some of his friends claim that there is asymmetry of how us as human beings are doing Math.

Math, by the asymmetric viewpoint, changes our understanding but our understanding has no feedback influence on Math.

In other words, Math is an absolute knowledge and we are no more than objective reporters of this knowledge.

By using Distinction as a first-order property of the mathematical science, it is easy to see that this "no feedback influence on Math" is nothing but the particular case of asymmetry that naturally manifests itself as agreed fundamental terms that are based on asymmetry as the general paradigm of the Mathematical science.

If Distinction is used as a first-order property of the mathematical science, then there is also a feedback influence between the mathematical knowledge and the users of this knowledge.

In other words, if Distinction is a first-order property of the mathematical science, then there are particular cases of asymmetry (Math is not influenced by its users) and also there are particular cases that there is symmetry (Math is influenced by its users).

First-order property means that the mathematical science is not limited to any particular case of this property, and this notion holds about Distinction as a first-order property of the mathematical science (if it does not hold, then the mathematical science is nothing but the particular case of asymmetric knowledge. In that case nothing is universal by this science and cannot be considered as an absolute knowledge).

Where in this is Distinction defined? All you say is that you think that it exists due to other undefined terms.

A definition would be: "Given an arbitary multiset this is how you calculate the Distinction of each member". Or maybe the Distinction of the multiset as a whole. Or maybe the Distinction of bits of the multiset.

Otherwise please give the Distinction for every possible multiset. Start with [0], [1], [2], etc. (these are the multisets containing the first partition of every integer - the integer itself which you seem to have ignored in your OP). Then go onto all of the multisets containing the second partition of every integer (all the ways that the integer can be partition into 2 parts). Then go onto all of the multisets containing the third partition of every integer (all the ways that the integer can be partition into 3 parts). Continue until you get the the last possible partition.
This may take you awhile.