Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

Yeah “the” parts that you claim are not part of 'the' whole or “its” parts. So Doron your notions must be a "non-standard strong emergence" property of compost heaps since compost heaps are one of ‘the’ parts (of organic gardening) that are not any of ‘its’ (meaning your notions) parts, although arguments have and can been made that you are in fact full of it. So which is it Doron are you full of it and ‘the’ parts mentioned are ‘its’ (your notions) parts or are ‘the’ parts not ‘its’ parts and your notions just a “non-standard strong emergence” property of compost heaps?

No, in the case of infinity the Whole is a non-finite fruitfulness (following you compost analogy) which is greater than the non-finite parts that partially express it.

Parts are always partial w.r.t the Whole, according to non-standard strong emergence.

Again you fail by counting the Whole as one of the Parts, or by define it as the sum of the Parts.

In my garden there is always a room for new things.

Your garden is the sum of its grave yards, and no compost is needed.

 

[jsfisher]

jsfisher do you really not get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4895440&postcount=5000 as the building-block of Quantum Machine?

Don't forget teleportation, warp engines, and, of course, sonic screwdrivers.

 

[doronshadmi]

Don't forget teleportation, warp engines, and, of course, sonic screwdrivers.

You forgot the most important thing, to take the dog out for doing its needs.

 

[The Man]

Leads does not mean defines, because Non-locality is not defined by Locality and Locality is not defined by Non-locality.

What is changed is the ids, such that if the system is leaded form Non-locality to locality we get clear ids, and if the system is leaded form Locality to Non-locality we get superposition of ids.

But also this leading case is nothing but serial observation of the n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy Tree.

So you still agree with the bidirectional argument. What makes you think leads would infer defined? Chasing Strawman are you?

However under common usage local and non-local are mutually dependent so whatever one defines as local does in fact define what is non-local just as what one defines as non-local defines what constitutes local, but then your usages of terminology are rarely common if not simply contradictory.


Oh by the way the past participle of lead would be led not leaded, just for your info.

 

[The Man]

No, in the case of infinity the Whole is a non-finite fruitfulness (following you compost analogy) which is greater than the non-finite parts that partially express it.

So the compost is part of your organic tree.

Parts are always partial w.r.t the Whole, according to non-standard strong emergence.

What, so these are not whole parts but just parts of parts?

Again you fail by counting the Whole as one of the Parts, or by define it as the sum of the Parts.

Again you fail since you are now claiming your parts are part of your whole.

In my garden there is always a room for new things.

Particularly it seems new compost.

Your garden is the sum of its grave yards, and no compost is needed.

Just where do you think compost comes from?

 

[MosheKlein]

Wait-a-minute here! A week ago, you proposed to me to write a paper about the calculation of those numbers. Now it's not important anymore?

I ask you if you want to write a paper with me on : 1,2,3,9,24,76,236,...
since you made the algorithm with a computer and there is similarity to one of the A560..etc you said no – have you change your mind ?

 

[MosheKlein]

MosheKlein,
I still await your response to the following post.

Cantor use the diagonal method to prove that the continuum is inaccessible by infinite sequences. From OM line of view it is clear as the groundbase so Doron develope a new way to deal with infinity in OM using the notion of @ instead of א1

Moshe

p.s : I don't want to go ito my @ notion ( 30 years ago..) but you force me now:

log(x^log)=log(x)*log(Y)
log(y^(log(x)=logy*log(x)

so

x^log=y^(log(x)

 

[MosheKlein]

jsfisher do you really not get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4895440&postcount=5000 as the building-block of Quantum Machine?

let's wait now to Jsfisher next breakthrough in OM
after the extension of distinction from On to the entire tree --> TOD

 

[jsfisher]

p.s : I don't want to go ito my @ notion but you force me so :

log(x^log)=log(x)*log(Y)
log(y^(log(x)=logy*log(x)

so

x^log=y^(log(x)

Oh, really? Try X=-1 and Y=1.

As presented by you, your @ operator is defined over the real numbers. The log function doesn't fulfill that requirement, nor is X^log Y equivalent to Y^log X unless you explicitly restrict the domain.

Sloppy thinking on your part. You want a particular result, and you never really check that you got that result legitimately.

 

[MosheKlein]

Oh, really? Try X=-1 and Y=1.

As presented by you, your @ operator is defined over the real numbers. The log function doesn't fulfill that requirement, nor is X^log Y equivalent to Y^log X unless you explicitly restrict the domain.

Sloppy thinking on your part. You want a particular result, and you never really check that you got that result legitimately.

In standart Mathematics: א1 =1 + א1

In OM @ + 1 > @

Moshe

ok thanks.
so x@y=y@x for x,y >0.

 

[doronshadmi]

So the compost is part of your organic tree.

No it is the Whole that is greater than any sum of the parts of that tree.

Look how you fail to get this simplr notion, because you are closed under the Sum concept.

What, so these are not whole parts but just parts of parts?

And you fail again by your inability to get Whole > Sum.

Again you fail since you are now claiming your parts are part of your whole.

And you fail again by your inability to get Whole > Sum.

Particularly it seems new compost.

And you fail again by your inability to get Whole > Sum.

Just where do you think compost comes from?

And you fail again by your inability to get Whole > Sum.

It can be reduced to your inablity to get that 1-dim element cannot fully be covered by any non-finite amount of 0-dim elements.

By the way, I think that no one here agree with you about your claim that a 1-dim element can be fully covered by non-finite amount of 0-dim elements.

 

[doronshadmi]

So you still agree with the bidirectional argument. What makes you think leads would infer defined?

What exactly is your problem around 'bidirectional'?

However under common usage ...

There is no common usege here.

All you do is to force Whole = Sum on Whole > Sum.

As long as you continue this forcing style you can't get Whole > Sum.

 

[doronshadmi]

The Man,

You have made a mistake ( as clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4897227&postcount=5055 ).

Do you think that you are honest enough in order to admit it?

 

[realpaladin]

*MARK*

It is nice from you that you share OM with one of your college
Maybe it's a first step for collaboration with us.

L. Lovasaz IMU president ( Microsoft) think that it is very important to find today a bridge between continuity and discreetness.

I do not give a hootenanny about what M.S. thinks. They also think their O.S. is wonderful.

M.S. is just zis company you know?

Well, what is your attitude to solve this challenge ?

Designing and building supercomps/clusters for the last 5 years.

And yours? Flollopping about?

The distinction is simply the praxis that open the mind of the researcher to a new dimension of thinking. ( Parralel&Serial) OM certainly reject the attitude of Kolmogorov to Probability theory
Yes, to built Turing machine with OM is today..the Billion Dollars challenge !

Building a (approaching) Turing machine is kind of trivial, don't you think?

But talking of Turing machines... we need infinity for that... what was the stance of OM again on that?

And there is not a single answer in that whole post.

I have been out for the weekend, so I have to thank you for providing me with some meat for the coming arguments. I will start reading from the above quoted post and will start hacking my way up to here. Ok?

/me grinds the meatcleaver.

 

[jsfisher]

ok thanks.
so x@y=y@x for x,y >0.

I see you are moving the goal posts. It seems like you and Doron do that a lot. You make a claim...it is proven wrong...so you modify everything and pretend you never made the original claim.

Nonetheless, X and Y > 0 were not a restriction in your original statements about the @-operator.

 

[zooterkin]

jsfisher do you really not get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4895440&postcount=5000 as the building-block of Quantum Machine?

How about you explain it for us? In what way that post the basis for a Quantum Machine?

Or, if you can't manage that, please provide any other real-world application of OM.

 

[The Man]

Cantor use the diagonal method to prove that the continuum is inaccessible by infinite sequences. From OM line of view it is clear as the groundbase so Doron develope a new way to deal with infinity in OM using the notion of @ instead of א1

Moshe

Oh so now your @ is relevant to OM?

p.s : I don't want to go ito my @ notion ( 30 years ago..) but you force me now:

log(x^log)=log(x)*log(Y)
log(y^(log(x)=logy*log(x)

so

x^log=y^(log(x)

Well if you didn’t want to go into it you should not have introduced it here.

 

[The Man]

What exactly is your problem around 'bidirectional'?

What exactly is your problem? If I have a problem with something on this thread I will clearly and consisely express that problem.

There is no common usege here.

Well certainly not by you and that is quite obvious

All you do is to force Whole = Sum on Whole > Sum.

As long as you continue this forcing style you can't get Whole > Sum.

No Doron you are the only one trying to force your assertions as the claims of others. How can one “force Whole = Sum on Whole > Sum” when you can’t even make up your mind what parts you are talking about and claim ‘the’ parts are specifically not ‘its’ (meaning the whole’s) parts

 

[The Man]

No it is the Whole that is greater than any sum of the parts of that tree.

Look how you fail to get this simplr notion, because you are closed under the Sum concept.




And you fail again by your inability to get Whole > Sum.



And you fail again by your inability to get Whole > Sum.


And you fail again by your inability to get Whole > Sum.


And you fail again by your inability to get Whole > Sum.

"Whole >" what sum? The sum of 'the' parts that you claim are specifically not ‘its’ (the whole’s) parts?

It can be reduced to your inablity to get that 1-dim element cannot fully be covered by any non-finite amount of 0-dim elements.

By the way, I think that no one here agree with you about your claim that a 1-dim element can be fully covered by non-finite amount of 0-dim elements.

Again you just make up claims you would like other people to say and then ascribe them to others since you can not deal with what they have said. Please show where I have made that claim.

 

[realpaladin]

It can be reduced to your inablity to get that 1-dim element cannot fully be covered by any non-finite amount of 0-dim elements.

By the way, I think that no one here agree with you about your claim that a 1-dim element can be fully covered by non-finite amount of 0-dim elements.

Just as an appetizer...

Doron, if you can show me 1 point on your 1-dim element that is NOT covered by a 0-dim element, you might have a case.

I say, you can not do that.