jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Deeper than primes
- Thread starter doronshadmi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- deeper than primes
- Status
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Yes, you are a self-cheater ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4537770&postcount=2258 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4537681&postcount=2254 ).
Again you seek for the majority instead of really open you mind to new ideas.
Jsfisher, REI is the fundamental form that stands at the basis of any string of symbols, whether they are WFF or not, you simply do not get the following:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4512946&postcount=2153
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4499795&postcount=2058
because your school of thought is based on trivial understanding of its own foundations.
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
So your ‘REI’ only holds if you deliberately insert ‘is’ and then duplicate the P, x, y, True or False on the other side of your unnecessary and trivial ‘is’? Thanks Doron, for directly asserting that your ‘REI’ is simply unnecessary.
No P is the predicate name wile x and y are variables. You do not get to redefine some other language to turn it into your self-contradictory, trivial and ill defined ‘REI’ language. How do you define a predicate name as a ‘relation’ in your ‘REI’ or for that matter how do you define any ‘relation’ within your ‘REI’, since your ‘REI’ can only ‘relate’ ‘elements’ where you claim ‘elements and ‘relations’ are ‘mutually independent’ as the ‘relater’ and the ‘related’ which of course makes them, well, mutually dependent as ‘relater’ and the ‘related’.
In both cases you had to go out of your way to insert an unneeded and trivial ‘is’ so you can call it a 'relation' for your ‘REI’. Oh wait since your ‘REI’ can only 'relate' 'elements' then nothing ‘is’ defined as a 'relation' in your ‘REI’, not even ‘is’, so you have just wasted your time inserting an ‘is’ that even in your ‘REI’ can not define itself as a 'relation'.
Try looking up the language and grammar that was being applied, it was First Order Predicate Logic and not your trivial contradictory ‘REI’, if you do not recall. Oh but that would require you to do some actual research which your ‘framework of everything researchable’ does not seem to enable you to do.
Again asserting that a ‘relation’ can not refer to itself as a ‘relation’ thus making the ‘relations’ your ‘REI’ requires indefinable and nonexistent in your ‘REI’.
That 'is' it Doron just keep cheating yourself by trying to label people instead of addressing the inadequacies and inconsistencies of your notions.
No Doron I used English in that quote, another language and grammar you should consider researching, if your notions would only permit it.
No, Doron your ‘REI’ is inevitably self contradictory unless you can show how ‘is’ can reference itself as a ‘relation’ in your ‘REI’. If you can not then ‘is’ is not definable as a ‘relation’ but only as an ‘element’ in your ‘REI’. However, if you can show ‘is’ ‘self-referenced’ as a ‘relation’ then you show that your ‘REI’ is not required.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Except of course a string of symbols all representing ‘relations’ like ‘= is relation’
No, Doron you do not ‘get them’ which is why you continually contradict yourself trying to assert them.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
REI is the basis of any language, formal or informal.
No, any string of symbols, even if they have no meaning, is based on Relation Element Interaction, for example:
= is relation or & a @i)) Jn @!~~ ` both of tham are REI, where the symbols are elements and _____ is the relation.
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
More of your ‘Wildly Fictitious Fantasies’ Dorn and resorting back to your ameba paradigm? No wonder you do not bother having self consistent notions Doron you just claim your notions as the basis of everything. Fortunately English is a self-consistent language and thus not dependent on your contradictory ‘REI’. In fact English can do what your ‘REI’ can not, have a string of symbols all representing ‘relations’ like ‘equals and ‘is’ are relations’.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
= = = = = = = = = is REI where each = is an Element and ________ is Relation.
Your poor abstruction ability can't get this fundamental form that stands at the basis of any language.
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
So now you are inventing your own symbols ‘=’ in order to asserts your contradictory claims. Guess what, you just asserted again that ‘=’ is not a ‘relation’ in your ‘REI’ and “_” is in fact the relation. Your assertion of “________ is Relation” demonstrates that your ‘REI’ is not required, unless you’re now going to backpedal again and claim ‘_________’ is ‘element’, which again would assert that you have no ‘relations’ in your ‘REI’.
Your poor language and reasoning abilities coupled with your superior ignorance are what permit you to believe that your contradictory ‘REI’, which can not even demonstrate its own ‘relations’ as ‘relations’, is the basis of anything but your fantasies.
To be fair to Doron, from the context ("notated AT LEAST as") it seems he means not that {2} means "2 is a member of a set", but rather that {2} is the smallest set that includes 2 as an element.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
You are right about that.
But it does not change the fact that 2 and {2} are two abstract existing things.
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Countless times his gibberish has been met by a simple "did you really mean this?" only to be countered by his trademarked "you're too stupid to understand my brilliance" or some twisted attempt to morph reality by redefining everything.
Doron's insistence that the constructs of "A if B" and "A only if B" and "A if and only if B" were all exactly equivalent is a classic example. The latest example that "A by itself" really means "A=A" is among the more contorted.
Attempting to interpret what Doron seems to mean has never been productive. The current example is no exception. The sub-text to it is a statement Doron has made that 2 is not a member of {2}. Somehow, in Doronetics, 2 just sitting there all naked is completely different from the 2 that's managed to get itself captured between those two bracey things.
So, I have tired for trying to guess what Doron may have meant that might actually approximate a sensible statement. None of his statements are sensible, and they are best addressed head-on.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
You look for notations and names, I look for notions that are expressed as fundamental forms that stand at the basis of notations and names.
Without the notion of __ any . is totally isolated of any other . , therefore the least researchable form is _._ , which is the interaction of . with __
Now you can give any name to _ or . , but is does not change the fact that __ alone or . alone are too weak (card(.)=0) or
too strong (card(__)=∞) for research.
It does not mean that they are not defined; it means that they are not researchable separately of each other.
And this is exactly the meaning of to be mutual independent, __ and . are independent under interaction.
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
No, Doron I look for consistency in definitions, names and specifically in notions when applied to themselves. Your notions lack all of these so you are just looking to make baseless assertions.
Once aging you claim they “they are not researchable separately of each other” based on the independent property of “totally isolated of any other” that you claim is “not researchable”. Your continuing claims to have conducted research and made determinations such as “too weak” or “too strong” for isolated conditions that you claim are “not researchable” comes as a surprise to no one on this thread.
Thanks again Doron since you claim it “means that they are not researchable separately of each other” and “It does not mean that they are not defined” it does mean that those “mutually independent” definitions of yours (whatever they are) are based on research you claim you can not do.
No, Doron mutual independence means that they do not depend on one another. Any ‘interaction’ as you put it that requires both makes them… wait for it …. mutually dependent on each other ‘under’ that ‘interaction’. Since you also assert this interaction as the basis of any ‘definition’ you also assert them as … wait for it …. mutually dependent in your definitions (whatever they might happen to be). The only independence you assert is one that you claim is “not researchable” so you assert no independence.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
The researchable is Mutual AND Independent.
The non-researchable is Mutual-only OR Independent-only, and in both cases I used REI where the logical connective is a form of Relation and Mutual, Independent are forms of Element(s).
Mutual independence is at least mutual AND independent, or in other words both connectivity (mutuality) AND isolation (independency) defines the same researchable universe, which is stronger than isolation-only (independency-only) and weaker than connectivity-only (mutuality-only).
These extremes are too weak or too strong for any attempt to research them.
If you can't get . or __ I'll represent them as {} = . and {_}_ = __ , where |{}|=0 and |{_}_|=∞
That has cardinal=0 or cardinal=∞ is not researchable, and this is exactly the definition of the totally weak (Emptiness) and the totally strong (Fullness), they are the non-researchable.
I invite you to research the emptiness of . or the fullness of __ , please show us what you find at Total Emptiness or Total Fullness that is researchable.
I really tried to find something (abstract or not) at Total Emptiness or Total Fullness that is researchable, but I failed.
Maybe you can show us how it can be done.
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Are there no English dictionaries in Israel?
As you see jsfisher, the basic form that is used in any written language is at least related symbols with relator ___________ (memory).
This is the essence of any form, whether it is formal, informal, meaningful or meaningless.
This fundamental and beautiful simplicity is beyond your complicated notions.
As you see jsfisher, the basic form that is used in any written language is at least related symbols with relator ___________ (memory).
This is the essence of any form, whether it is formal, informal, meaningful or meaningless.
This fundamental and beautiful simplicity is beyond your complicated notions.
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Again Doron do some freak’in research, mutual independence has a specific meaning simply put that one aspect does not affect the other or that their independence from one another is, well, mutual. The only “connection” they have as mutually independent is that they are, well, not connected to each other or their lack of connection is mutual. The best example is any given roll of a pair of dice. The outcome of each roll is mutually independent of that of the rolls preceding or those following that roll as neither are dependent on the other.
So again you make determinations of “too strong” or “too weak” about “extremes” you claim you can not even “attempt to research”. Doron continuing to claim that your assertions are baseless or without supporting research simply because your assertions insist that, well, your assertions are ‘not researchable’ does not bode well for supporting your assertions.
While we continue to invite you to show “the emptiness” or “the fullness” of what you claim is “not researchable”. If you can then that would demonstrate that those extreme conditions are (at least to some extent) researchable. If not then you continue to assert that what you claim is simply baseless or without any supporting research.
We are still waiting.
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
You use the wrong equation:
Non-definable = Non-researchable
The right equation in this case is:
Emptiness = too weak for research (the definition of Emptiness).
Fullness = too strong for research (the definition of Fullness).
You simply show us that Emptiness or Fullness are beyond your abstract perception.
If set is a form of domain, then the cardinal of Empty domain = |{}| = |.| = 0 and the cardinal of Full domain = |{_}_| = |__| = ∞.
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
“Memory” of what Doron, the definitions and syntax of that language, those have already been pointed out to you as the basis of any language. Tell us Doron what good is memory with respect to any language if there are no definitions and syntax to remember? How useful is a language where the definitions and syntax keep changing? One could remember the meaning and structure of the symbols as used before but that would have no bearing on how they might be used again (much like in your notions). For someone who claims to be looking for the “fundamental forms that stand at the basis of notations and names” you keep missing the ‘fundamental’ boat when it comes to language.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
At this thread I am talking about the form that enables syntax or definitions, in the first place.
This form is at least symbols (Elements) AND memory (Relation).
Look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4538485&postcount=2265 .
Last edited:
- Status