Deeper than primes

[TMiguel]

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.

That is called L-a-n-g-u-a-g-e. It has nothing to do with the fact that 1+1=2.

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

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

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

Documents presented to many times, and they are meaningless.

No, this time please explain why it does not answer your question?

Let me explain you.
1+1=2
1: Ent also called the neutral element of multiplication from the axiom: there is an element “a” from R that for any element “b”: a×b=b
Then we prove that “a” has to be unique and we call that “1”.

+: Operand

=: Statement that tells that what is on the left is the same to what is on the right
2: Ent that by definition is 1+1. From the axioms “1” is different from “0” and the axiom of order (a>b <=> b-a Є R-; a>b <=> c+a>c+b) then we prove by
assuming 1+1=1+0 => 1=0 because of axiom 1≠0 1+1≠1 (only restating that 0 is the unique element whit the property 0+b=b) , because 1>0 then 1+1>1 and we call this new number 2.

Let’s prove that 2+2=4, by definition 4 = 1+1+1+1 (by extending the previous demonstration up until 4) then 2+2=(1+1)+(1+1)=1+1+1+1=4.
Wow, you just learned something today. Now you can tell that you can prove that 2+2=4
But has you can see, element operant, whatever comes after you define whit what you are working whit, NEVER BEFORE!!!

 

[TMiguel]

Since Doron has stopped commenting me. I think that PWNED! Doesn’t quite say what has been happening here.
Besides this is getting too repetitive for me, and the old jokes eventually die out. It is not even funny to comment Doron anymore.

 

[Phaedrus74]

No, this time please explain why it does not answer your question?

Firstly: no clearly defined concepts "element" and "relation"

Secondly: As drkitten pointed out: an example does not constitute a definition

If you want constructive feedback on your writings you need to be much more meticulous in defining and describing the concepts you use, because (as should be clear to you by now) you do not use these concepts in the sense they are commonly used.

 

[ddt]

No, this time please explain why it does not answer your question?

In general, you've been pointed out ad nauseam that regurgitating old posts doesn't answer questions about them.

And are you planning on addressing any of my points? Or are you running away again?

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 

[The Man]

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.

What English is not “an agreed framework”?


By the way “Relations” are just “Elements” that, well, relate “Elements” including “Relations”.

“Similarities as well as differences are both ways of relating things”

 

[Apathia]

What English is not “an agreed framework”?


By the way “Relations” are just “Elements” that, well, relate “Elements” including “Relations”.

“Similarities as well as differences are both ways of relating things”

Yes.
I can't but comment because this brings me to this simple rewording of Doron's favorite question:

What is the ultimate relation that enables all relations between all elements and all relations?

An examination of this question sweeps away pages and pages of confusion.

 

[ddt]

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

I'm beating a dead horse, I know, but the above is obviously wrong in various ways.

+ is not a relation, it is a function. + applied to arguments 1 and 1 yields 2, in formula:

+(1, 1) = 2​

Of course, any function is a relation (in set theory), but then + is not a relation between a pair of numbers, but between a triple of numbers, and you'd have to write

(1, 1, 2) \in +​

and the above notation of Doron precludes that.

Then there's the question what 1 + 1 = 2 exactly means. I mean, we know it really means

(1 + 1) = 2​

but Doron has never specified where the parentheses should go. And as we all know, in Doron's universe everything is slightly different (never mind never defined either).

This whole idea of Doron's MAF is really ludicrous. It consists of 3 elements and 2 relations, but he never says which of the elements are part of which relations - as shown by the ambiguity above.

And it's superfluous. Why do you need two relations? One suffices. You can reduce it to one relation relating three elements. And while we're at it, why not one relation relating one element - surely, a triple of three elements is an element itself, isn't it? (it is in set theory). And well, a relation on one element really is nothing more than a subset of the set the relation is defined on.

So, MAF - as far as it makes sense - can be fully described by set theory. Nothing new here. Tune in tomorrow for the proof that any set can be described by a MAF in a trivial way.

 

[Apathia]

Slightly rewording my stupid question:

What is the ultimate relationship that enables all relationships between all elements and all relations?

 

[jsfisher]

So, MAF - as far as it makes sense - can be fully described by set theory. Nothing new here. Tune in tomorrow for the proof that any set can be described by a MAF in a trivial way.

The trivial part doron just doesn't get. He's struggling to say something he thinks is important; he's tripping over his own inabilities to reason and attend to detail; and ultimately he cannot see how trivial his points are.

Consider:

E => E + T
E => T
T => T * F
T => F
F => ( E )
F => a

...where + * ( ) are all symbols with the normal meaning in mathematical expressions involving addition and subtraction, and "a" represents any possible number or variable.

Pretty basic stuff. This context-free language may seem to be an almost trivial abstraction for expressions. And so it would be, except it also conveys a structure and precedence for the arithmetic operations. This simple abstraction led directly to improvements in parsing of computer languages and compilation into executable computer code. Prior to this development in formal languages and automata theory, computer langauge translation involved very ad hoc, make-shift methods.

The abstraction adds value.

MAF's, on the other hand, trivialize. They don't reveal structure or hidden meaning. They do the opposite, in fact. But doron's eyes are closed.

 

[Skeptic]

The trivial part doron just doesn't get. He's struggling to say something he thinks is important; he's tripping over his own inabilities to reason and attend to detail; and ultimately he cannot see how trivial his points are.

Of course, Doron -- like many cranks -- wrongly equates "difficult to calculate and undestand" with "deep and important". That's because crank's incredibly cumbersome and vague notation makes the most trivial point difficult to undestand, and the simplest proof difficult to calculate. A good rule of thumb here, to distinguish real importance from sham, is the one used by Charles Babbage: no man's heterodox mathematical work is worth looking at unless he used it, succesfully, to solve a difficult open mathematical problem. (And vague blather about "uniting mathematics" or "changing the paradigm" don't count.)

But there is another, unrelated reason why cranks think their idea is so important, when in fact it's between the meaningless and the trivial. Isaac Asimov used to regularly get letters from would-be writers, with the usual suggestion: they'll give him a "great idea for a story", he'll write it up, they'll share the credit. He complained to his editor, Joseph Campbell: "Why do they expect me to do all the work? Why do they think the idea is so important?" Campbell replied: "Did it occur to you, Isaac, that it's the only idea they ever had, or are likely to have? Naturaly, they overestimate its importance."

Like most cranks and would-be "great idea" authors, Doron is a case of a small, dud mind obsessed with large, dud idea.

 

[doronshadmi]

Firstly: no clearly defined concepts "element" and "relation"

Secondly: As drkitten pointed out: an example does not constitute a definition

If you want constructive feedback on your writings you need to be much more meticulous in defining and describing the concepts you use, because (as should be clear to you by now) you do not use these concepts in the sense they are commonly used.

By Universal Reasoning, any researchable framework is at least an interaction between Relation and Element.

The Interaction is at least Extrapolation and Integration.

Given a researchable framework, Extrapolation is its outer interaction (Relation).

Given a researchable framework, Interpolation is its inner interaction (Element).

The meaning of REI (Relation\Element Interaction) is given by some consistent axiomatic system, but by using UR we have the trunk that enables different branches (where each branch has a particular meaning) to stay connected during differentiation of meanings.

By using UR, Distinction is a first-order property and the researcher is a significant factor (cannot be used as a hidden assumption) of the researched framework.

By using this notion, you may able to get the beauty of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4083359&postcount=1 .

Again:

In my opinion, meaningful frameworks exist as long as there is a difference between X-model and X (which is also a positive interpretation of Gödel's work), where X-model has a particular maning and X has no meaning of its own.

Slightly rewording my stupid question:

What is the ultimate relationship that enables all relationships between all elements and all relations?

That has no meaning of its own.

Take for example http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4148437&postcount=629 .

Jsfisher truly believes that a meaningful game has an objective status of its own without any influence of the researchers that determinate its meaning.

By using UR this illusion is immediately exposed.

 

[TMiguel]

By Universal Reasoning, any researchable framework is at least an interaction between Relation and Element.

The Interaction is at least Extrapolation and Integration.

Nonsense.

Given a researchable framework, Extrapolation is its outer interaction (Relation).

Extrapolation is a numerical approximation, similar to the interpolation whit the difference that it is out of the comfort zone (comfort zone - for which we believe there is a solution whiting a given interval).

Given a researchable framework, Interpolation is its inner interaction (Element).

Interpolation is a numerical approximation, either whit one or several recursive steps depending of the method.

The meaning of REI (Relation\Element Interaction) is given by some consistent axiomatic system, but by using UR we have the trunk that enables different branches (where each branch has a particular meaning) to stay connected during differentiation of meanings.

Relation, Element and Interaction are 3 independent and different words that can be used together, but each on the way they are have no meaning.
Universal Reasoning is another set of words, what they mean does not in any way imply what your are claiming.

By using UR, Distinction is a first-order property and the researcher is a significant factor (cannot be used as a hidden assumption) of the researched framework.

I will put into other words to enlighten you how ridiculous this is.
By using a method of thinking, the difference between things is the main property, and the one doing the reasoning can screw everything up.
Does this make sense to you? Do you think that we believe that mathematics to absolute certainty and that some how we let something as trivial as ourselves to screw everything up?

By using this notion, you may able to get the beauty of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4083359&postcount=1 .

There is no beauty, there is nothing but nonsense.

In my opinion, meaningful frameworks exist as long as there is a difference between X-model and X (which is also a positive interpretation of Gödel's work), where X-model has a particular maning and X has no meaning of its own.

Math has nothing to do whit the real world (so you have been told several times), we create models of the world, we do not create models of mathematics models and make mathematics out of it.

Jsfisher truly believes that a meaningful game has an objective status of its own without any influence of the researchers that determinate its meaning.

First of all mathematics is not a game. You can sometimes make games out of it.
Although the person discovering the mathematical relations play a significant role in increasing the knowledge, they do not at any stage able to transform it at their will.
A common example was the discovery that the root of 2 was not a rational number, they tried to discard it because it was against their view of a perfect world, they tried everything to find a mistake, but no more they could ignore the proof and what it implies.
If you have any reason to believe that man makes math instead of just finding it. Then you won’t have any trouble of giving an example of it or to be able to prove wrong any already established theorems.

By using UR this illusion is immediately exposed.

Has they say, don’t worry, you just missed it by 180º

 

[Phaedrus74]

By Universal Reasoning, any researchable framework is at least an interaction between Relation and Element.

And by framework you mean conceptual framework I presume?

What do you mean by "interaction"?

The Interaction is at least Extrapolation and Integration.

Given a researchable framework, Extrapolation is its outer interaction (Relation).

Given a researchable framework, Interpolation is its inner interaction (Element).

Until you have clarified your notion of "interaction" I can't respond to this.

The meaning of REI (Relation\Element Interaction) is given by some consistent axiomatic system, but by using UR we have the trunk that enables different branches (where each branch has a particular meaning) to stay connected during differentiation of meanings.

What would be the pupose to show that different researchable frameworks are connected at a "trunk"? [I'm not sure this question makes sense, since I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.]

By using UR, Distinction is a first-order property and the researcher is a significant factor (cannot be used as a hidden assumption) of the researched framework.

Distinction is a first order property of what exactly? [You really need to be more precise in your formulations!]
Also distinction in relation to what? Distinction is a two-place predicate (to put it this way).

The anthropological aspect that you cannot fully abstract away the researcher (despite the latters best efforts), is a given. (Again I hope I understand you correctly).

By using this notion, you may able to get the beauty of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4083359&postcount=1 .

I am sorry but this makes no sense to me, I will admit my interest was peaked mainly by Universal Reasoning, so I'm willing to chalk this up as a shortcoming on my behalf.

Again:

In my opinion, meaningful frameworks exist as long as there is a difference between X-model and X (which is also a positive interpretation of Gödel's work), where X-model has a particular maning and X has no meaning of its own.
<snip answer to someone else's question>

If I understand you correctly I cannot see how X-model and X are necessarily anything other than different (assuming that by X-model you mean a model of X). So that would be tautological and leads me to suspect that I am mistaken in my assumptions.

 

[doronshadmi]

If I understand you correctly I cannot see how X-model and X are necessarily anything other than different (assuming that by X-model you mean a model of X). So that would be tautological and leads me to suspect that I am mistaken in my assumptions.

Any definition has some meaning and any model of X has a particular meaning given by the researcher.

Since X itself has no particular meaning it is the best platform for any meaning, exactly as transparency is the best platform for any given color (meaning).

 

[Phaedrus74]

Any definition has some meaning and any model of X has a particular meaning given by the researcher.

Since X itself has no particular meaning it is the best platform for any meaning, exactly as transparency is the best platform for any given color (meaning).

This doesn't make it any clearer for me. What is "X"?

 

[Apathia]

Well Doron, in the world of all that's researchable (conceptual) there are elements and relations, and they interact.
But this statement as it is is entirely trivial and does not give an MAF or any form of significance.

However the replies you give and the pdfs you continue to cite do have an MAF of sorts. When you first came to this forum, you spoke of it as an "x/y complementation." You've ditched that now for an "element/relation interaction."

From the original post of this thread, your trademark idea is still with us.
Your MAF is still that of the form of a pair interaction where the x-element and the y-relation can have any manings for x and y, but they are bound to their special pair realtionship or interaction.

You've changed the words you use a bit, but your trademark MAF is still there.
And that's not bad.
Because if all you have is there are some relaltions and some elements and some interactions between them, it's as trivial and
uninteresting as saying a sentence has a subject and an object.
Your MAF is manifestly (right there in the OP) more than that.

If you are telling me you don't have a fundamental structure after all, but insisting you do have a mininimal form, it's like saying, "No, this is not water ice. It's frozen water."

 

[The Man]

Any definition has some meaning and any model of X has a particular meaning given by the researcher.

Since X itself has no particular meaning it is the best platform for any meaning, exactly as transparency is the best platform for any given color (meaning).

This doesn't make it any clearer for me. What is "X"?

I think Doron is using “X” to refer to anything that we might give meaning to by definition or modeling. He considers “X” to have no meaning on its own, so the only meaning it can have is what we ascribe to it. Much like Doron’s notions, meaningless on their own and the only meaning they have is what he ascribes to them and only for him. Certainly, some concepts or notions do not have meaning on their own but only gain meaning from our definitions of them, like language. However, other concepts like color, as in Doron’s example, do in fact have meaning other then what we might choose to ascribe to them (specifically wavelength or a combination of wavelengths). In this case it is not our ascription that gives it meaning but that inherent meaning, on its own, that we must use to make our ascriptions useful. If Doron is just limiting his consideration to those “X”s that do not have meaning on their own, then I do not think there is much of an issue. However since he specifically refers to color as an example (something that does have meaning on its own) the limitation I mentioned above does not seem to be his consideration.

By the way transparency is not the “best platform for any given color (meaning)”, in and of itself, since it does not alter the attributes of color or make those attributes meaningfully apparent. A prism can do that which, although transparent, alters the refractive angle of the various wavelengths of a given color making them meaningfully apparent (spectrum).

 

[TMiguel]

This inevitably doomed to go around in circles without getting any where.

Here is what I purpose, if what Doron says is right, then he should be able to give an example of case where his point is correct where the classical isn’t. If as Doron says that the mathematician builds the mathematics instead of just finding it, Then he should be able to come up whit a proof that at least one of the currently proved theorems is wrong.
Any is enough, anything at all.

I personally advise for the rest of the community to pressure Doron whit an answer (not to post here until he actually answers it), because this topic has passed his utility.

 

[jsfisher]

...he should be able to come up whit a proof...

Doron has already proven an inability to follow even the simplest of proof...or even the simple inference that gets you to a set is not the union of its members.

 

[doronshadmi]

If you are telling me you don't have a fundamental structure after all, but insisting you do have a mininimal form, it's like saying, "No, this is not water ice. It's frozen water."

Dear Apathia,

There must be some kind of interaction, which enables us to research; otherwise we are at Singularity (going beyond any interaction) which is a non-comparable (and non-researchable) state. The interaction is between Relation and Element, and we, as researchers, are a significant factor of this interaction, because we give it its meaning.

So MAF (which is not Singularity) is the "must have" state of any researchable framework.

By using it we get a "nice to have" researchable framework, which has some particular meaning given by the researcher.

For example:

By using MAF *__* one can give some meaning to MAF *__* by define * as Element and __ as Relation.

By using Distinction as MAF's first-order property we get:

* id is *, __            * id is __  
|                and     |                   
* id is *, __            * id is *

As can be seen, the meaning is related always to the Elements, where the Relation enables us to compare between the Elements and arrive to some conclusions according to certain rules given by us.

In this particular case MAF *__* (that has no particular meaning of its own) is used in order to research itself, where we, as researchers give it this particular meaning.

Some claims that, for example, by using MAF *__* in order to research itself, we are using a circular reasoning. This is not the case because by giving MAF a meaning we are no longer at the "trunk" state, but we are at the "branch" state (where MAF has some particular meaning).

Actually MAF *__* can get any wished meaning of any two comparable Elements, for example:

* id is True, False            * id is True  
|                      and     |                   
* id is True, False            * id is False

In both cases MAF *__* (that has no meaning of its own, until we give it its meaning) is used.

By using some MAF one gets the natural trunk for infinitely many branches (where each branch has its particular meaning), which helps him to stay tuned and not get some branch (some particular meaning) as if it is the only possibility.