Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
jsfisher said:
Your use of the word, impeccable, in this context is strange and unknown to me.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I was referring exclusively to the spelling, grammar, & syntax, rather than the content - which is even weirder when written grammatically...
 
dlorde said:
None - congratulations, you've found someone to translate for you - and very well. The English is impeccable. Unfortunately, what she has translated is nonsensical word-salad... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, it is rather dry. It could use a good dressing. :p

dlorde said:
Sorry, I was referring exclusively to the spelling, grammar, & syntax, rather than the content - which is even weirder when written grammatically...
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with you there, for as far as I read, about half a page. I could use a Tylenol now, though.
 
dlorde said:
I readily admit to not understanding much of the detail in those articles - partly because of the poor English
Click to expand...
-------------------------------------------
doronshadmi said:
What poor English you find in http://www.scribd.com/doc/17504323/WZATRP8 ?
Click to expand...
dlorde said:
None - congratulations, you've found someone to translate for you - and very well. The English is impeccable. Unfortunately, what she has translated is nonsensical word-salad... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
doronshadmi said:
The word-salad is a direct result of your limited understanding, so?
Click to expand...
dlorde said:
My limited understanding is a direct result of your word-salad (failure to communicate effectively), so?
Click to expand...
-------------------------------------------
As clearly seen by your first post on this subject, you are not consistent with your own posts, so?
 
doronshadmi said:
As clearly seen by your first post on this subject, you are not consistent with your own posts, so?
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Wrong again. As a past master of inconsistency yourself, you should know better - read my first post again - it says 'articles'. You may now have had one (or more) translated into grammatical English, but I had the misfortune to read the original, untranslated, error-strewn versions. In case you have forgotten, it's on record that we spent some time pointing out the linguistic errors to you shortly after you posted the original links.

Grammatical nonsense is still nonsense - ask Edward Lear.

BTW, you still haven't explained how OM is in any way related to the NASA technician's articles on the mathematical signature of life and intelligence.
 
dlorde said:
:rolleyes: Wrong again. As a past master of inconsistency yourself, you should know better - read my first post again - it says 'articles'. You may now have had one (or more) translated into grammatical English, but I had the misfortune to read the original, untranslated, error-strewn versions. In case you have forgotten, it's on record that we spent some time pointing out the linguistic errors to you shortly after you posted the original links.

Grammatical nonsense is still nonsense - ask Edward Lear.

BTW, you still haven't explained how OM is in any way related to the NASA technician's articles on the mathematical signature of life and intelligence.
Click to expand...
dlorde, my English mistakes are not at a level that prevents from anyone to understand OM, you simply do not get it and use the English "severe problems" in order to cover your ignorance about this subject.

For example http://www.scribd.com/doc/17039028/OMDP is not edited, still you are unable to get it simply because you have no knowledge about this subject, so sell your stories to others, not to me.

BTW, you still did not read any of my articles in order to understand them because if you really did that you were able to find by yourself the connections between the NASA technician's articles and OM.

It is up to you, I am not going to do the job for you.

All what I have to say is written in the links of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5038268&postcount=5907 and I am not going to repeat on it.

Take it or leave it, I really do not care about lazy posters like you.
 
Last edited:
Then why are you still here? This thread is just one giant headache, both for people like dlorde and yourself. If you're so convinced as to the infallibility of OM, then submit it to a peer-reviewed journal or some such. Go to some professional mathematicians. Change the world for the better! Then come back and make fun of everyone that doubted you!
 
The Man said:
I have ever claimed “that a line does not exist unless a point is dragged”.
Click to expand...

Here it is The Man: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4340862&postcount=1465 and you agree with this part, taken from wikipedia:

"By dragging a 0-dimensional object in some direction, one obtains a 1-dimensional object."

This sentence, which you agree with, actually says that a higher-dimension exists as a result of dragging lower-dimension.

This is an utter nonsense simply because no lower-dimension can be dragged unless the higher dimension already exists.

If now you claim that you disagree with the dragging model, then let's go for it.

Do you agree that a line exists even if points do not exist?

Do you agree that a point exist even if a line does not exist?

Please do not sell again your "a line is defined by points" story because we are talking here about the existence of things and not how they are indirectly described by verbal bla bla bla … maneuvers, that have no impact on the existence of things.
 
Last edited:
Pure_Argent said:
Then why are you still here? This thread is just one giant headache, both for people like dlorde and yourself. If you're so convinced as to the infallibility of OM, then submit it to a peer-reviewed journal or some such. Go to some professional mathematicians. Change the world for the better! Then come back and make fun of everyone that doubted you!
Click to expand...

It can't be done by a single person, exactly as I wrote in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5008114&postcount=5726 .
 
doronshadmi said:
Let's go for it.

Do you agree that a line exists even if points do not exist?

Do you agree that a point exist even if a line do not exist?
Click to expand...

Go for what, you trying to worm your way out of asserting that you only have “difficulty” with a claim that I never made?

Again…

The Man said:
Stop purporting your fantasies as facts and just show where I have ever claimed “that a line does not exist unless a point is dragged”.
Click to expand...
 
doronshadmi said:
dlorde, my English mistakes are not at a level that prevents from anyone to understand OM, you simply do not get it and use the English "severe problems" in order to cover your ignorance about this subject.
Click to expand...
Didn't I just tell you that nonsense is nonsense however correct the English?

It is up to you, I am not going to do the job for you.
...
Take it or leave it, I really do not care about lazy posters like you.
Click to expand...
Well OK, but I thought you were here to explain your great idea. If not that, why are you here?

No, wait... didn't I already ask that ?
 
The Man said:
Go for what, you trying to worm your way out of asserting that you only have “difficulty” with a claim that I never made?

Again…
Click to expand...

Again!

Here it is The Man: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4340862&postcount=1465 and you agree with this part, taken from wikipedia:

"By dragging a 0-dimensional object in some direction, one obtains a 1-dimensional object."

This sentence, which you agree with, actually says that a higher-dimension exists as a result of dragging lower-dimension.

This is an utter nonsense simply because no lower-dimension can be dragged unless the higher dimension already exists.

If now you claim that you disagree with the dragging model, then let's go for it.

Do you agree that a line exists even if points do not exist?

Do you agree that a point exist even if a line does not exist?

Please do not sell again your "a line is defined by points" story because we are talking here about the existence of things and not how they are indirectly described by verbal bla bla bla … maneuvers, that have no impact on the existence of things.
 
doronshadmi said:
It can't be done by a single person, exactly as I wrote in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5008114&postcount=5726 .
Click to expand...
So where's Moshe? Is two enough?

No, wait - he got fed up and left, didn't he?

So it can't be done by a single person, but there's no-one else on the planet who can understand the special message that everyone needs to understand in order to save the planet - doesn't that strike you as odd? Can't you see the pattern?

How is this going to work? Seriously, how?
 
Last edited:
Pure_Argent said:
Then why are you still here?
Click to expand...
That was directed at Doron, but it's a question I've been asking myself recently ...

I dunno. Previously I've learned quite a bit from the replies to Doron, but if we're heading back to discuss the same old same old yet again (post 1465 was January!) ... it's probably time for me to waste spend some time in more interesting threads.

So, a quick thank you to you guys'n'gals (far too many of you to name) who have helped reawaken my interest in Maths, and to Apathia for the attempts to understand and explain OM from a more philosophical angle. Some of the jokes and wise-cracks were good enough for TLA Pith nomination, if only they would have made sense to anyone outside this thread!

PS - Santa changed his plans back in December, but "Engineering Mathematics 5th ed: Programmes and Problems" by K.A. Stroud is on order and should be arriving in a day or two :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom