Deeper than primes

[jsfisher]

[x,y) = [x ]y

The immediate successor of any local element in [ ] is __ ( and so is the case of [x,y] that is = [x y] )

I see, doron, that you continue to substitute meaningless notation for any substantive ideas. Notation is to be used as a convenience, a shorthand. You use it as an excuse to not think.

 

[doronshadmi]

So unlike standard math, even in the case of integers, Doron can not “define the exact element which is the” “ the successor of y in the case of (y,z]” since his ‘immediate successor’ is both y and y+1.

So unlike standard math that totally ignores the exact notion of +1 (which is the non-local element between local y and local z) , where z value is based on local y value and +1 non-local value.

By the way – or + determines the direction of the non-local element from one local element to another local element.

Moreover, there is a non-local element between any given pair of any collection, which can be used in at least two ways:

{12, -pi, 14, 7, 8}

Example 1: Order has no significance

In this case the non-local element is used to simply notate the fact that each local element has a different value, for example:

12 -pi 14 7 8

Example 1: Order has significance

In this case the non-local element is used to notate the exact difference and direction between different local values, for example:

-pi_____7_8__12__14


Furthermore, by ignoring the exact value of each local element, we are able to show (by using Non-locality\Locality bridging) exactly how a collection is a Non-local\Local mathematical object of superposition\non superposition of ids.

Standard Math has no ability to get that because it is closed under Locality (and uses Non-locality (for example: +1) as its hidden assumption).

By your own assertions Not red is blue. Thus in the example I gave with the closed intervals [x,y] is red and [y,z] is blue (or not red by your ascriptions) the point ‘y’ is both in red and not in red (or blue by your own assertions). The only difference Doron is self-consistency, standard math has it while your notions do not.

First let us observe an ordered collection:

A color is possible iff the given element has a direction.

A point itself has no direction and therefore no color.

A line segment has a direction and therefore color.


Now, let us observe an unordered collection:

A point indirectly has a color iff it is observed through a line segment which actually gather transparent (colorless) local elements by a specific color, where this color notates the simultaneous bi-directional parallel property of the non-local element.

Standard Math has no ability to research this universe.

What, so you can’t define any of the ‘infinitely many examples’ in your notions?

The Organic Numbers.

The fact that it is not included makes it the successor and predecessor to those intervals, as jsfisher also noted.

Nonsense.

It does not matter if we deal with [x,y] or [x,y), in both cases y is not the immediate successor of any given local element.

Only a non-local element is the immediate successor or predecessor of local elements.

--------------------------------------

The Man and jsfisher continue to lie to themselves because they have no clue with what they are dealing.

--------------------------------------

Generally, any immediate successor or predecessor must be a non-local element, and it does not matter if we deal with ordered or unordered collections.

 

[jsfisher]

Moreover, there is a non-local element between any given pair of any collection

Blatantly false. Consider, for example, the collection of the color blue, the number seventeen, and the continent of Antarctica.

 

[jsfisher]

It does not matter if we deal with [x,y] or [x,y), in both cases y is not the immediate successor of any given local element.

You have moved the goal posts, I see. You have also failed to comprehend what others have written.

Assuming X < Y < Z, and any reasonable definition for "immediate successor", then, like it or not, doron, Y is in fact an immediate successor to [X,Y). So is [Y,Z]. So is ....

And it does matter if we deal with [X,Y] or [X,Y).

Only a non-local element is the immediate successor or predecessor of local elements.

In the psychotic world of doronetics perhaps, and as has been shown repeatedly, doronetics is just a convoluted collection of unnecessary notions that are contradictory and inconsistent and lead no where.

 

[doronshadmi]

Moreover, there is a non-local element between any given pair of any collection

Blatantly false. Consider, for example, the collection of the color blue, the number seventeen, and the continent of Antarctica.

No problem:

a=color blue
b=the number seventeen
c=continent of Antarctica

a b c = a c b = b c a = b a c = c b a = c a b

 

[doronshadmi]

You have moved the goal posts, I see. You have also failed to comprehend what others have written.

Assuming X < Y < Z, and any reasonable definition for "immediate successor", then, like it or not, doron, Y is in fact an immediate successor to [X,Y). So is [Y,Z]. So is ....

And it does matter if we deal with [X,Y] or [X,Y).

Since you do not get that a successor or a predecessor is only a non-local element, you can't get that for any given immediate successor of some collection that its cardinal > 1 there must be an immediate predecessor, and for any given immediate predecessor of some collection that its cardinal > 1 there must be an immediate successor.

Since you can't show it, your reasoning is nothing but an illusion that does not hold water.

On the contrary by show that any successor or predecessor is a non-local element it is easy to show how it is an immediate successor or predecessor of any given value.

In the psychotic world of doronetics perhaps, and as has been shown repeatedly, doronetics is just a convoluted collection of unnecessary notions that are contradictory and inconsistent and lead no where.

In the psychotic world of Cantor and his followers, we can clearly see that they have no clue what a successor or a predecessor really are.

For the past 130 they sell to the world a defective merchandise that is based on lies and hidden assumptions.

 

[jsfisher]

No problem:

a=color blue
b=the number seventeen
c=continent of Antarctica

a b c

Setting your meaningless glyphs one side, what are you alleging is between blue and Antarctica.

Simple question: What's between blue and Antarctica?

 

[jsfisher]

Since you do not get that a successor or a predecessor is only a non-local element...

I understand successor and predecessor just fine. You, however, clearly do not, so you have imaged some bizarre alternate. Don't fault me for not accepting your contradictions and inconsistencies as fact.

you can't get that any immediate successor of some collection that its cardinal > 1...

I don't suppose it would be possible to get you to stop abusing that term. Catholics have cardinals, not collections. It really looks bad for you if you can't even get these simple things correct.

there must be an immediate predecessor, and any immediate predecessor of some collection that its cardinal > 1 there must be an immediate successors.

Why must there be? This is just something you have decided must be true yet you have no basis for that belief. Your wants and desires about what you'd like Mathematics to be aren't relevant.

Since you can't show it, your reasoning is nothing but an illusion that does not hold water.

It's your fantasy; the obligation falls to you to "show it". So far, though, you haven't.

In the psychotic world of Cantor and his followers, we can clearly see that they have no clue what is really a successor or a predecessor.

For the past 130 they sell to the world a defective merchandise that is based on lies and hidden assumptions.

And yet, you can't point out any defects, lies, or hidden assumptions. You can only claim they are there with no proof.

 

[doronshadmi]

Setting your meaningless glyphs one side, what are you alleging is between blue and Antarctica.

Simple question: What's between blue and Antarctica?

The thing that gathers them into a collection.

 

[doronshadmi]

I understand successor and predecessor just fine. You, however, clearly do not, so you have imaged some bizarre alternate.

No you don't, as long as you do not get non-locality.

And yet, you can't point out any defects, lies, or hidden assumptions. You can only claim they are there with no proof.

jsfisher , please show us how you define a line by dragging a point.

 

[jsfisher]

Setting your meaningless glyphs one side, what are you alleging is between blue and Antarctica.

Simple question: What's between blue and Antarctica?

The thing that gathers them into a collection.

You are evading the question, not answering it. Moreover, there was no collection involved in this question, just a pair of elements taken from a collection.

So, try again, please. A direct, specific answer would be appreciated: What's between blue and Antarctica?

 

[Apathia]

The thing that gathers them into a collection.

Ah, one of those very telling moments.
What's between blue, Antarctica, and the Thing that gathers them together?

 

[jsfisher]

I understand successor and predecessor just fine. You, however, clearly do not, so you have imaged some bizarre alternate.

No you don't, as long as you do not get non-locality.

I understand the terms just fine. Perhaps, though, if you actually understood them, you might realize that the inconsistent, contradictory alternate reality you've concocted was totally unnecessary.

And yet, you can't point out any defects, lies, or hidden assumptions. You can only claim they are there with no proof.

jsfisher , please show us how you define a line by dragging a point.

I fail to see how my statement and your response are related. Moreover, I have never made any claims about dragging points to define lines.

Be that as it may, if you'd like to discuss the definition of line in the Euclidean sense because you think you can identify some flaw, we can do that. But be forewarned, the line is defined in Geometry implicitly by its properties. The rest tend to be figurative statements meant to help convey the concept.

 

[doronshadmi]

Ah, one of those very telling moments.
What's between blue, Antarctica, and the Thing that gathers them together?

Hi Apathia,

If you look at the Thing that gathers them together at the same level of the gathered things then:

A= blue
B= Antarctica
C= the thing the gathers them together = --

And you get A B C = A B --

If C is not at the same level of A or B than C = __ , and we get A B (C is simply itself).

 

[doronshadmi]

I understand the terms just fine.

No, you don't.

Furthermore, you don't have a clue of how much you don't.

I fail to see how my statement and your response are related. Moreover, I have never made any claims about dragging points to define lines.

Good so you and me disagree with The Man, that claims that a given dimension is defined by a lower dimension.

Be that as it may, if you'd like to discuss the definition of line in the Euclidean sense because you think you can identify some flaw, we can do that. But be forewarned, the line is defined in Geometry implicitly by its properties. The rest tend to be figurative statements meant to help convey the concept.

1) Non-locality is not limited to Geometry.

2) If we limit ourselves to Geometry, then the existence of a line is not determined by any collection of points.

This is an utter nonesense to claim such a silly statment.

Since you do not get that a successor or a predecessor is only a non-local element, you can't get that for any given immediate successor of some collection that its cardinal > 1 there must be an immediate predecessor, and for any given immediate predecessor of some collection that its cardinal > 1 there must be an immediate successor.

Why must there be? This is just something you have decided must be true yet you have no basis for that belief.

No, it is derived directly form the must have property of any collection of all distinct objects (the standard mathematical notion).

 

[doronshadmi]

You are evading the question

You are evading the answer.

A= blue
B= Antarctica


A B

 

[Apathia]

Hi Apathia,

If you look at the Thing that gathers them together at the same level of the gathered things then:

A= blue
B= Antarctica
C= the thing the gathers them together = --

And you get A B C = A B --

If C is not at the same level of A or B than C = __ , and we get A B (C is simply itself).

Then "C" is local also?

"Same level"
Is "B" at one level local and another non-local?

Shuffling levels: "C" as itself becomes a non-local level?

 

[The Man]

Hi Apathia,

If you look at the Thing that gathers them together at the same level of the gathered things then:

A= blue
B= Antarctica
C= the thing the gathers them together = --

And you get A B C = A B --

If C is not at the same level of A or B than C = __ , and we get A B (C is simply itself).

Ah yes the epitome of Doron’s notions that ‘thing’ ‘that gathers them together’ which may or may not ‘be on the same level’. Another one of those very telling moments Apathia, Doron seems to have this fixation with underlining things as if it makes them more significant, ascribing to that ‘line’ the very function of ‘gathering’ those ‘things’ above it. So much so is this graphical fixation that he takes his own notions of ‘level’ quite literally. When his ‘thing’ is “at the same level” he represents it as – at the same ‘level’ as the letters and I might surmise that he considers it just another of the ‘gathered things’. When he claims it is “not at the same level” then ‘C’ becomes the underline itself and Doron refer to it as “(C is simply itself)”. Of course Doron also underlined his notation when ‘C’ was at the same ‘level’ “And you get A B C = A B --”. So in typical Doronics I might surmise that it is intended to be ‘itself’ (the underline) and ‘not itself’ (just another element of the ‘gathered things’ being ‘gathered’ by that underline). Basically it all comes down to Doron’s magical amorphous anthropomorphic underlining ‘thing’ that does his ‘gathering’, unfortunately it did not bother to gather better or at least self-consistent notions for him.

 

[jsfisher]

I understand the terms just fine.

No, you don't.

Furthermore, you don't have a clue of how much you don't.

You meant to say I don't understand it the same way you do. Your understanding is whatever you have invented to fill the void in your knowledge of mathematics.

I fail to see how my statement and your response are related. Moreover, I have never made any claims about dragging points to define lines.

Good so you and me disagree with The Man, that claims that a given dimension is defined by a lower dimension.

You are wrong again.

Be that as it may, if you'd like to discuss the definition of line in the Euclidean sense because you think you can identify some flaw, we can do that. But be forewarned, the line is defined in Geometry implicitly by its properties. The rest tend to be figurative statements meant to help convey the concept.

1) Non-locality is not limited to Geometry.

You have shifted topics, again. Please try to say focused.

We were discussing the fact you have repeatedly alleged Mathematics has flaws but you have never demonstrated any. It seemed like you wanted now to explore lines to expose what you think is a flaw. Guess not.

2) If we limit ourselves to Geometry, then the existence of a line is not determined by any collection of points.

Are you trying to make a point by this statement? You seem to be in a stream of consciousness mode right now, blurting out unconnected statements.

This is an utter nonesense to claim such a silly statment.

What statement are you claiming is silly?

Since you do not get that a successor or a predecessor is only a non-local element, you can't get that for any given immediate successor of some collection that its cardinal > 1 there must be an immediate predecessor, and for any given immediate predecessor of some collection that its cardinal > 1 there must be an immediate successor.

Why must there be? This is just something you have decided must be true yet you have no basis for that belief.

No, it is derived directly form the must have property of any collection of all distinct objects (the standard mathematical notion).

What property of any collection would that be?

 

[doronshadmi]

Ah yes the epitome of Doron’s notions that ‘thing’ ‘that gathers them together’ which may or may not ‘be on the same level’. Another one of those very telling moments Apathia, Doron seems to have this fixation with underlining things as if it makes them more significant, ascribing to that ‘line’ the very function of ‘gathering’ those ‘things’ above it. So much so is this graphical fixation that he takes his own notions of ‘level’ quite literally. When his ‘thing’ is “at the same level” he represents it as – at the same ‘level’ as the letters and I might surmise that he considers it just another of the ‘gathered things’. When he claims it is “not at the same level” then ‘C’ becomes the underline itself and Doron refer to it as “(C is simply itself)”. Of course Doron also underlined his notation when ‘C’ was at the same ‘level’ “And you get A B C = A B --”. So in typical Doronics I might surmise that it is intended to be ‘itself’ (the underline) and ‘not itself’ (just another element of the ‘gathered things’ being ‘gathered’ by that underline). Basically it all comes down to Doron’s magical amorphous anthropomorphic underlining ‘thing’ that does his ‘gathering’, unfortunately it did not bother to gather better or at least self-consistent notions for him.

What a low level of abstraction.

The insider can't get that the thing that gathers things is permanently not one of those things.

So if we ask "what’s between the thing that gathers things and the gathered things", we have these options:

This thing is observed by this question as one of the gathered things (it is on the same level of the gathered things, and there is a thing in another level that gathers them into some collection, for example A B –

Another option is that that this question is equivalent to the question of "what exists northern to the north pole?" .

Since the question is meaningless, then the answer is that __ is between A B.

Then "C" is local also?

"Same level"
Is "B" at one level local and another non-local?

Shuffling levels: "C" as itself becomes a non-local level?

You do not get the idea.

At the momnet that you ask "what's between bla bla bla" this "bla bla bla" is local w.r.t "what's between the bla bla bla" and "what's between the bla bla bla" is non-local w.r.t "the bla bla bla".

Some analogy:

This is like the horizon, each time new things are not the horizon as long as you go to the horizon, but the line of the horizon is always there in a different level, and it is not made of the things that are gathered by it.

For better understanding, please see page 10 at http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf .