• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reality Check said:
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".
Click to expand...
And the result is again nothing but the particular case of asymmetry (each object's id is clearly distinct, and we again closed under the particular case of asymmetry, as if it is the general property of the researched framework).
 
doronshadmi said:
And the result is again nothing but the particular case of asymmetry (each object's id is clearly distinct, and we again closed under the particular case of asymmetry, as if it is the general property of the researched framework).
Click to expand...
So your definition is: If the multiset is asymetrical then it is distinctive (has the property of Distinction). Other wise the multiset does not have Distinction.

Is that correct?

Remember that a multiset does not have any order (you know that is part of the definition of a multiset and have stated it in several posts). So a multiset can be asymmetrical in one representation, the members can be swapped and it will be symmetrical. This is a basic property of multisets. I can even give you your own example:
[a, a, b] is "asymmetrical" (but maybe you have yet again your own definition of asymmetrical). Exactly the same multiset is [a, b, a] and exactly the same multiset is "symmetrical" (but maybe you have yet again your own definition of symmetrical).
 
Reality Check said:
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".
Click to expand...
And the result is again nothing but the particular case of asymmetry (each object's id is clearly distinct, and we again closed under the particular case of asymmetry, as if it is the general property of the researched framework).

It is correct and also the particular case where clear distinction is used to distinguish between itself and non-clear distinction.

Another particular case that must not ignored is an unclear distinction that is used to not distinguish between itself and a clear distinction.

In the first particular case, each thing has a clear id.

In the second particular case, there is a superposition of ids.

(The last two cases are also some particular case of clear id, if compared with each other).

Reality Check said:
Remember that a multiset does not have any order (you know that is part of the definition of a multiset and have stated it in several posts). So a multiset can be asymmetrical in one representation, the members can be swapped and it will be symmetrical. This is a basic property of multisets. I can even give you your own example:
[a, a, b] is "asymmetrical" (but maybe you have yet again your own definition of asymmetrical). Exactly the same multiset is [a, b, a] and exactly the same multiset is "symmetrical" (but maybe you have yet again your own definition of symmetrical).
Click to expand...

Again Distinction is not based on any particular order. It means that {a,a,b} and {a,b,a} have the same partial asymmetry (order is not important for Distinction).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Let us research what enables us to define Distinction as an inseparable factor of Math.
Click to expand...


Let's not.

Let's go back to the opening post and make sense of it. You used several words there in ways that just aren't standard.

In that first post, you told us entropy was a number, but later in the same post you used it as a tri-state property.

In that first post, you told us entropy was a property of multi-sets, but later in the same post you told us it was a property of numbers.

In a later post, you told us [1] had "no entropy", but in another post you indicated it had "full entropy".

Clearly, you have no firm idea what you, yourself, mean by entropy. There is no point, therefore, "research[ing] what enables us to define" anything, since you are incapable of defining anything.

In other words, since nothing enables you to define things; there is nothing to research.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Let's not.

Let's go back to the opening post and make sense of it. You used several words there in ways that just aren't standard.

In that first post, you told us entropy was a number, but later in the same post you used it as a tri-state property.

In that first post, you told us entropy was a property of multi-sets, but later in the same post you told us it was a property of numbers.

In a later post, you told us [1] had "no entropy", but in another post you indicated it had "full entropy".

Clearly, you have no firm idea what you, yourself, mean by entropy. There is no point, therefore, "research[ing] what enables us to define" anything, since you are incapable of defining anything.

In other words, since nothing enables you to define things; there is nothing to research.
Click to expand...

No.

Entropy and Distinction are in Inverse Proportion. It means that more entropy means less distinction and vice versa. Symmetry is used as the measurement tool of this Inverse Proportion.

The current paradigm of Math is nothing but the particular case of asymmetry (no entropy and clear distinction as the first-order general state of the mathematical science).

jsfisher said:
In a later post, you told us [1] had "no entropy", but in another post you indicated it had "full entropy".
Click to expand...
doronshadmi said:
Let us examine the partitions that exist within any given n > 1

{x} = Full entropy
{x} = Intermediate entropy
{x} = No entropy
Click to expand...

x, in this case, is not a singleton but a general way to notate any muti-set of more than one element (as can be found at the beginning of post 1 ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4083359&postcount=1 )).

{1} has no entropy.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No.
Click to expand...

You say "no" regarding my condemnation of your ability to define anything, but then you provide further proof of my allegation:

Entropy and Distinction are in Inverse Proportion. It means that more entropy means less distinction and vice versa. Symmetry is used as the measurement tool of this Inverse Proportion.
Click to expand...

Now, even though entropy, distinction, and symmetry remain doronismsTM (where definitions are unimportant), it is clear you have returned to an "entropy is a number" version. Is this temporary or permanent?

The current paradigm of Math is nothing but the particular case of asymmetry (no entropy and clear distinction as the first-order general state of the mathematical science).
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

x, in this case, is not a singleton but a general way to notate any muti-set of more than one element (as can be found at the beginning of post 1 ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4083359&postcount=1 )).
Click to expand...

Wrong (and for too many reasons to describe here).

{1} has no entropy.
Click to expand...

Yes, you have said that before. You have also indicated it had "full entropy".

Why not just provide a full definition for entropy and resolve all these contradictions and inconsistencies?
 
doronshadmi said:
And the result is again nothing but the particular case of asymmetry (each object's id is clearly distinct, and we again closed under the particular case of asymmetry, as if it is the general property of the researched framework).

It is correct and also the particular case where clear distinction is used to distinguish between itself and non-clear distinction.

Another particular case that must not ignored is an unclear distinction that is used to not distinguish between itself and a clear distinction.

In the first particular case, each thing has a clear id.

In the second particular case, there is a superposition of ids.

(The last two cases are also some particular case of clear id, if compared with each other).
Click to expand...
Again where is the definition?
You seem to be saying that there are just 2 distinctions. - one with 'each thing has a clear id" and another with "there is a superposition of ids". So there is just some sort of binbary logic. Nothing to do with Symmetry or Enthropy.

doronshadmi said:
Again Distinction is not based on any particular order. It means that {a,a,b} and {a,b,a} have the same partial asymmetry (order is not important for Distinction).
Click to expand...
You do have your own definition of asymmetry that includes "partial asymmetry"! Please provide it.

P.S. Please state the operation under which {a,a,b} and {a,b,a} are partially asymmetry. Is it reflection or rotation or all operations.
 
I see that this thread is now in the appropriate forum - Religion and Philosophy. This is not my area so I will leave it here.
 
nathan said:
Heck, Doron won't even disprove my theory of his ignorance. It'd be so easy to disprove, were it false.
Click to expand...
1472 posts and waiting for one that shows mathematical insight. Every other post by Doron reinforces my conviction your theory is right.

Reality Check said:
I see that this thread is now in the appropriate forum - Religion and Philosophy. This is not my area so I will leave it here.
Click to expand...

Me too.
 
I was tempted to get involved again, seeing the thread has been moved.
I thought I had some inkling of understanding what Doron's Distinction is.
But I see after his responses to other's questions, that I don't really have a clue.

My understanding would come from what I thought I understood about his Organic Numbers. But again, upon closer examination, what I thought doesn't fit what Doron makes of them.

Farewell.
 
If our framework is limited to clear distinction of the researched subjects, then:

Given some cardinal (notated as C), Entropy (notated as E) is in inverse proportion with Distinction degree (notated as D) where 0 =< D =< 1.

E = C/D and this fromula is the limited case of clear distinction of the reseached subject (where clear distinction is used as the general paradigm of the mathematical science, for the past 2500 years).
 
Entropy and distinct distinction

If our framework is limited to clear distinction of the researched subjects, then:

Given some cardinal (notated as C), Entropy (notated as E) is in inverse proportion with Distinction degree (notated as D) where 0 =< D =< 1.

E = C/D and this fromula is the limited case of clear distinction of the reseached subject (where clear distinction is used as the general paradigm of the mathematical science, for the past 2500 years).
 
This should go start to the Religion and Philosophy section since it is just his "Deeper than primes" musings again.
It can return here once doron gives the mathematical definitions of:
cardinal
Entropy
Distinction degree

And some idea of what the reseached subject is (set theory, calculus, number theory, topology, something else?) would be nice.
 
Reality Check said:
This should go start to the Religion and Philosophy section since it is just his "Deeper than primes" musings again.
It can return here once doron gives the mathematical definitions of:
cardinal
Entropy
Distinction degree

And some idea of what the reseached subject is (set theory, calculus, number theory, topology, something else?) would be nice.
Click to expand...

E=C/D where C is any given Cardinal and D is any R member of [0,1].

Please play with it.
 
It is easy to learn by http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4098467&postcount=211 that what is currently known as Mathematics, is nothing but agreed beliefs that are based on asymmetric form of the fundamental terms, as if this asymmetric form is the only possibility of formalization.

The current community of mathematicians is not different from any other religious community that avoids any change of their agreed paradigms.

The current community of mathematicians is doomed to this fanatic attitude, because deduction is a closed method that is not influenced by anything that is not within its borders.

And these borders are a direct result of mathematicians' agreed beliefs.
 
Last edited:
No you are the one perceiving it has a religion. You can't even make sense out of yourself, you never seen how math is made, you never seen a mathematical paper, you never seen how a mathematical theorem is proven.
And if you think that mathematics has anything to do whit belief, Then I dare you to prove me that 1+1 isn’t 2.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom