Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
It uses Interactions between Relations and Elements, and this is not a proof but the Minimal Accepted Form that enables to define some interesting axiomatic system, in the first place.

MAF is a pre-axiomatic form where also Relations (unlike in axiomatic systems) have no meaning of their own (in addition to Elements).

By asking about a proof you simply show that you (still) do not get axiomatic of pre-axiomatic frameworks.
Click to expand...
So you cannot prove your statement? Then it is an assumption. And since it has absolutely no consequences then it is useless.
 
As about "invent" or "discover":

"Invent" is to define some framework by using primitive things and develop it according to certain arbitrary (but consistent) rules.

"discover" is to find an already develop framework that is already developed by certain rules where the current developed degree is the best guarantee of the consistency of the rules.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
So you cannot prove your statement? Then it is an assumption. And since it has absolutely no consequences then it is useless.
Click to expand...
Again, MAF is not a statement, but it is the meaningless form that enables us to define meaningful statements, where we as researchers, are a significant factor of the meaning of the statments.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Again, MAF is not a statement, but it is the meaningless form that enables us to define meaningful statements, where we as researchers, are a significant factor of the meaning of the statments.
Click to expand...

If it is meaningless it is also useless.
 
doronshadmi said:
Again, MAF is not a statement, but it is the meaningless form that enables us to define meaningful statements, where we as researchers, are a significant factor of the meaning of the statments.
Click to expand...

And how can MAF help us distinguish meaningful from meaningless statements? (For is you can define them you can discern the difference)

Please offer us a demonstration:

Meaningful statement:

"The sun is shining."

Meaningless statement:

"Green dreams sleep furiously."
 
Phaedrus74 said:
And how can MAF help us distinguish meaningful from meaningless statements? (For is you can define them you can discern the difference)

Please offer us a demonstration:

Meaningful statement:

"The sun is shining."

Meaningless statement:

"Green dreams sleep furiously."
Click to expand...
MAF is the simplest state of some researchable framework, where the meaning of it is given according to Relation\Element Interactions.

You, as a researcher provide the meaning of the interaction between what is considered by you as Relations and what is considered by you as Elements.

Your first example is based on already established framework that is based on the agreed element called "sun", the agreed relation "is" (where the element has some property called "shining")

Your second example is not yet an agreed framework.
 
doronshadmi said:
MAF is the simplest state of some researchable framework, where the meaning of it is given according to Relation\Element Interactions.

You, as a researcher provide the meaning of the interaction between what is considered by you as Relations and what is considered by you as Elements.

Your first example is based on already established framework that is based on the agreed element called "sun", the agreed relation "is" (where the element has some property called "shining")

Your second example is not yet an agreed framework.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Please show us how MAF defines meaningful statements.
 
doronshadmi said:
Dear Aphatia,

MAF is simply the Minimal Accepted Form that is used to define the minimal terms of some researchable framework.

You, as a mathematician use MAF in order to define your game.

If this game is interesting, more persons will play with it and develop it.

In other words, you as a mathematician have the ability to define some interesting (researchable) framework (you are a significant factor of any given game).
Click to expand...

There's a form.
It's formless.
I'm lost.

I thought I was on your trail, but I was only chasing my tail.

This is like a game of snakes and ladders in wich every snake has its tail on square one. No, there's a sanke that has its tail off the game board. my little dog token has landed on that snake.
His game is over.

I don't follow your MAF at all. This is beyond me.
I'm putting my tail between my legs and running away as fast as I can.
 
Apathia said:
I don't follow your MAF at all. This is beyond me.
Click to expand...


No, quite the opposite. Doron is enamored with the pathetically trivial. If you got stuff, and you want to talk about the stuff, you need stuff to talk about.

The first stuff is his asterisk. The second stuff is more of the same. The third stuff is an underbar. Gee, I think I can go more minimal than Doron's minimal. Since everything is stuff, can't I just go with * (**, ***, ...)?

Someone cue Carl Sagan....
 
Apathia said:
There's a form.
It's formless.
I'm lost.

I thought I was on your trail, but I was only chasing my tail.

This is like a game of snakes and ladders in wich every snake has its tail on square one. No, there's a sanke that has its tail off the game board. my little dog token has landed on that snake.
His game is over.

I don't follow your MAF at all. This is beyond me.
I'm putting my tail between my legs and running away as fast as I can.
Click to expand...

No.

There is a form; it is meaningless (but researchable).

You give it its meaning.

If more persons think that what you did is interesting, a community will be born and some framework will be developed.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/TOUM.pdf
Click to expand...

No, sorry doron this will not do.

I have put to you questions regarding the UR.pdf sketch which you have not answered yet. And I am not going to read two papers in which I have little faith.

Explain, in (at most) two sentences how MAF defines meaningful sentences.

And please properly define your concepts this time.
 
Phaedrus74 said:
No, sorry doron this will not do.

I have put to you questions regarding the UR.pdf sketch which you have not answered yet. And I am not going to read two papers in which I have little faith.

Explain, in (at most) two sentences how MAF defines meaningful sentences.

And please properly define your concepts this time.
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125220

1(element) +(relation) 1(element) =(relation) 2(element)

EDIT: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4125070&postcount=505
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125220

1(element) +(relation) 1(element) =(relation) 2(element)

EDIT: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4125070&postcount=505
Click to expand...

That is not satisfactory.

First, it is an example, not an explanation (as requested).

Second, the terms are still not defined.

In particular, what distinguishes

1(element) +(relation) 1(element) =(relation) 2(element)

as a "meaningful" statement from

Colorless(element) green(relation) ideas (element) sleep(relation) furiously(element)

... which is not.
 
drkitten said:
Colorless(element) green(relation) ideas (element) sleep(relation) furiously(element)
Click to expand...

Colorless(element's property) green(element's property) ideas (no element exists, contradiction of properties) sleep(relation) furiously(relation's property).

Since only relation is considered, nothing is researchable.
 
Oh well, we're back to business as normal with Doron. Answers from Doron are either a reference to one of his PDFs, or to a previous post, or evasive or incomprehensible. Doron doesn't answer the regulars from this and previous threads (drkitten, jsfisher, nathan, The Man, TMiguel, me) - e.g., my debunking of Doron's claim about "mathematics as part of western thought" goes unchallenged (let's consider that the upside).

So much for Apathia's experiment, who obviously also has given up on his hope there was some useful kernel in Doron's writings. I hope the new respondents are fast learners.

ETA. I see drkitten gets a response... that's not fair! :)
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Colorless(element's property) green(element's property) ideas (no element exists, contradiction of properties) sleep(relation) furiously(relation's property).
Click to expand...

Why do you assume that colorless is not and cannot be an element?

And where did "properties" come into this? You've been talking about elements and relations as a binary opposition. Now you're talking about elements, relations, and properties?

Again, your response to a query about the definition of a term is not to define the term, but to introduce a new undefined term to hide behind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom