Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
sympathic said:
I will not, because you can not accept the possibility that OM has no foundation and no utility. I was right this effort was worthless.

Mathematics is not your private realm and is not open to interpretations. While some mathematical works are truly works of art, maths is not liberal art, it is not philosophy either. This is why math departments in every university (even the ones you think accept your OM) are always part of the exact sciences faculty and not the arts faculty (as philosophy). While some of your ideas may seem philosophical, they have no mathematical foundation.

You are an artist Doron Shadmi, your nice drawings clearly show this. You are not a mathematician (not even an amateur one) and probably never will be.

The internet is swamped with evidence for your lack of understanding in maths, and reluctance to learn maths. No one will ever take you seriously - even after you are long gone.

You are wasting your time if you wish to contribute in any way to maths.
Click to expand...
In other words, you have nothing but some trivial viewpoint about the mathematical science; therefore you can't support your argument.

Mathematics is first of all The Art of Abstraction.

Some abstractions are used in order to develop physical technologies, and some are not (at least not in the near future).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Please give a concrete example.

Without it your post does not hold water.
Click to expand...

1. 1 / 3 = 0.(3)
2. 0.(3) * 3 = 0.(9)
3. 1 / 3 * 3 = 1

Conclusion of any sane person: 0.(9) = 1

Your conclusion: 1 = 0.(9) + 0.(0)1 because of some ill-defined concepts like locality/non-locality and random gibberish.

Concrete enough for you, doron?

Your theory is so full of holes, it not only does not hold water, it doesn't even hold a Boeing 747.
 
doronshadmi said:
Mathematics is first of all The Art of Abstraction.
Click to expand...

I would not go as far as that. After all Combinatorics is part of maths (last time I checked), and has very little if at all to do with abstraction. Oh, but I forget, you are not really interested in what math is. All you care about is what YOU think math is.

I am with you that some areas of maths are abstract, and require a great deal of abstraction thinking abilities in order to be understood.

With that said, if you claim that math is the art of abstraction, then why do you use so many drawings and obscure characterizations in order to communicate your ideas? do you even know what abstraction means? surely it has very little to do with "abstract art" which may be a proper description for your drawings. In that sense (drawing abstract art pictures) I can relate to the fact that YOU believe you are doing math.
 
Last edited:
sympathic said:
With that said, if you claim that math is the art of abstraction, then why do you use so many drawings and obscure characterizations in order to communicate your ideas?
Click to expand...
Abstraction is the ability to generalize our input (no matter if it is given by pictures, symbols, physical objects or abstract thoughts) such that it will be used to reinforce the linkage between the simple and the complex in our abstract and non-abstract daily life.
 
Last edited:
laca said:
1. 1 / 3 = 0.(3)
2. 0.(3) * 3 = 0.(9)
3. 1 / 3 * 3 = 1

Conclusion of any sane person: 0.(9) = 1

Your conclusion: 1 = 0.(9) + 0.(0)1 because of some ill-defined concepts like locality/non-locality and random gibberish.

Concrete enough for you, doron?

Your theory is so full of holes, it not only does not hold water, it doesn't even hold a Boeing 747.
Click to expand...
zooterkin said:
Not to mention:

1 - 0.(9) = 0.(0)
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5246903&postcount=6333 and it has logical foundations http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5254385&postcount=6394 (also see http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT page 11).

In other words, you have no concrete argument against OM.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Abstraction is the ability to generalize our input (no matter if it is given by pictures, symbols, physical objects or abstract thoughts) such that it will be use to reinforce the linkage between the simple and the complex in our abstract and non-abstract daily life.
Click to expand...

since you like wikipedia:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

In computer science, the mechanism and practice of abstraction reduce and factor out details so that one can focus on a few concepts at a time.

The following English definition of abstraction helps to understand how this term applies to computer science, IT and objects:

abstraction - a concept or idea not associated with any specific instance[1]

The concept originated by analogy with abstraction in mathematics. The mathematical technique of abstraction begins with mathematical definitions; this has the fortunate effect of finessing some of the vexing philosophical issues of abstraction. For example, in both computing and in mathematics, numbers are concepts in the programming languages, as founded in mathematics. Implementation details depend on the hardware and software, but this is not a restriction because the computing concept of number is still based on the mathematical concept.
 
doronshadmi said:
Abstraction is the ability to generalize our input (no matter if it is given by pictures, symbols, physical objects or abstract thoughts) such that it will be use to reinforce the linkage between the simple and the complex in our abstract and non-abstract daily life.
Click to expand...

re-inventing definitions as to fit your own agenda again? how convenient. no wonder you have no formal education.

As for my original question: what would make you come to the conclusion that OM is without foundation?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
sympathic, try to be honest with yourself: what making you realize that OM has no mathematical foundations?

Why don't you just answer the question I asked? is that your defense mechanism again? - not a very healthy symptom also.

Please relpy in details to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5254385&postcount=6394.
Click to expand...

are you a monkey? why are you spitting everything back at me?

Also I answered your question. Memory issues - another symptom for that same disorder.

I asked first.
 
sympathic said:
are you a monkey? why are you spitting everything back at me?

Also I answered your question. Memory issues - another symptom for that same disorder.

I asked first.
Click to expand...

sympathic, no detailed arguments against OM, no answer.

That's the deal, take it or leave it.
 
doronshadmi said:
sympathic, no detailed arguments against OM, no answer.

That's the deal, take it or leave it.
Click to expand...

I said it was a worthless try. Anyhow now all of us have a better understanding of your issues and incompetencies.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Please provide the details that support your argument.
Click to expand...

Well, there's these truth tables, for a start:

[TABLE=head]A | NOT A || A AND NOT A
XOR | NXOR || F
NXOR | XOR || F[/table]

By this table we get the logical basis of the independency of the Non-local atomic state from the Local atomic state, and vice versa.


[TABLE=head]A | NOT A || A AND NOT A
XOR | NXOR || T
NXOR | XOR || T[/table]

By this table we get the logical basis of the existence of (for example) a segment, which is not totally Local AND non totally Non-local.
Click to expand...

You've got operators rather than values in the A and NOT A columns, and then different answers for the same inputs in the two tables.
 
zooterkin said:
Well, there's these truth tables, for a start:



You've got operators rather than values in the A and NOT A columns, and then different answers for the same inputs in the two tables.
Click to expand...
NXOR(the logical base of Non-locality) and XOR(the logical base of Locality) are values as well .

These values are interpreted differently if we deal with total results (the first table) or non-total results (the second table).

The total and the non-total are clearly distingueshed by OM's reasoning.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom