Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
jsfisher said:
Ho?

Also, I noticed the rest of your post didn't support your position at all. Shall we just agree that 2+2=5 and continue from there?
Click to expand...
EDIT:

Also according to your view, if it is not useful for both of us, we have an agreement about 2+2=5.

In this particular case we both agree that 2+2=5 is not useful, so there is an agreement between us, after all.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
EDIT:

Also according to your view, if it is not useful for both of us, we have an agreement about 2+2=5.

In this particular case we both agree that 2+2=5 is not useful, so there is an agreement between us, after all.
Click to expand...


Does this total lack of facility comprehending written language account for your abysmal knowledge of Mathematics?
 
jsfisher said:
Does this total lack of facility comprehending written language account for your abysmal knowledge of Mathematics?
Click to expand...

I think this is just another attempt to hijack the conversation to his ideas. He does that all the time.
 
Doron,

In some of your posts it seems to my reading that you are saying that a quantity in memory is non-local.
For example, I'm doing old style pen and paper addition and I have a ten to carry and add to the next column. I hold that in memory till I add it in the process of arriving at the sum of a given column.
Is it while still in memory "non-local?"

My difficulty with this is that it is simply and totally a quantity (not a quality), and it's merely in an off-site location, so to speak, and not in some state or realm of non-locality quality.

Are you saying that it's in a mental realm and therefore qualitative?
That doesn't make much sense, because a mere quantity is also a mental construct.

There is an aspect of any given Organic Number that is merely quantitative.
And such is used in conventional arithmatic.
But there are aspects of a given Organic Number that are in part (in one of which is in toto) that are to some extent qualitative.

How is the qualitative aspect of 3 used in cognition?
Could you gave an example?
 
jsfisher said:
Does this total lack of facility comprehending written language account for your abysmal knowledge of Mathematics?
Click to expand...
You have to ask yourself this question, because you clearly demonstrate here a total lack of facility comprehending written language.
 
sympathic said:
I think this is just another attempt to hijack the conversation to his ideas. He does that all the time.
Click to expand...
Another example of a person that has a dogmatic view about some subject.

Any notion that does not follow the dogma is automatically interpreted as some attempt to hijack the conversation to frontiers that do not follow the agreed dogma.
 
Apathia said:
I hold that in memory till I add it in the process of arriving at the sum of a given column.
Click to expand...

1) You describe only the linear step-by-step use of Memory\Elements Interaction.

2) Memory is also the simultaneity of the connection of more than a one element.

3) Time is not necessarily involved here, so concepts like “process” are not fundamentals of Memory\Elements Interaction.

4) Again, please think again about the String\Beads analogy, the amount of elements is a simultaneous result of the String(Non-locality)\Bead(Locality) Interaction, which is independent of any step-by-step linear addition.

5) Usually addition is taken as a linear form because of the representation style that is based of x+y+z+... form.

6) But addition is independent of this particular representation, for example, by using Lisp programming language, addition is represented as
(+ x y z ...) where + is equivalent to the String and x y z ... are equivalent to Elements in String\Elements analogy.

7) In other words, please follow the notion and not any particular representation of it.
 
doronshadmi said:
You have to ask yourself this question, because you clearly demonstrate here a total lack of facility comprehending written language.
Click to expand...

You have demonstrated many times that merely writing something down does not automatically make it comprehensible.
 
doronshadmi said:
1) You describe only the linear step-by-step use of Memory\Elements Interaction.

2) Memory is also the simultaneity of the connection of more than a one element.

3) Time is not necessarily involved here, so concepts like “process” are not fundamentals of Memory\Elements Interaction.

4) Again, please think again about the String\Beads analogy, the amount of elements is a simultaneous result of the String(Non-locality)\Bead(Locality) Interaction, which is independent of any step-by-step linear addition.

5) Usually addition is taken as a linear form because of the representation style that is based of x+y+z+... form.

6) But addition is independent of this particular representation, for example, by using Lisp programming language, addition is represented as
(+ x y z ...) where + is equivalent to the String and x y z ... are equivalent to Elements in String\Elements analogy.

7) In other words, please follow the notion and not any particular representation of it.
Click to expand...

?????

I suppose I shouldn't have used the example I did.
My question was completly lost and not addressed.

Maybe I can salvage from it that number usage is a "Memory/Element Interaction" and is therefore non-linear.
And whatever is non-linear is non-local.
All words in the form of the phrase Word/Some Other Word Interaction are synomyms or restatements of the same thing.

A number is always a quality and a quantity, because it's of the Quantity/Quality Interaction.
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
How is the qualitative aspect of 3 used in cognition?
Could you gave an example?
Click to expand...

I suppose that the full answer to this question would be that 3 is a result of a Qualitative/Quantitative Interaction.
This could all be very interesting if there were more to it than merely that.
 
doronshadmi said:
What do you mean by "more to it than merely that"?
Click to expand...

The Organic Number Complex 3 intends to map out the forms of 3 in linear and non-linear thinking.
Could you please give a concrete example of how 3 is used in non-linear cognition.
Show how it works.

Merely repeating that an Organic Number is both elemental and relational, however fundamental that is to your approach to number, does not show how a complex works in application and in thinking.
 
doronshadmi said:
It was addressed.

No, a numerical value (accurate or not) is both quantity (elements) AND quality (relation).
Click to expand...

Fortunately I was able to cobble that together out of your oblique reply.

I want to see the circumstance when a number is used qualitative relationally, as opposed to the usual local only, element, quantity.
 
doronshadmi said:
No, the expression “0.000...1[base 2]” is incomplete and therefore smaller (it does not have an accurate value exactly as 0+1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16... (which is actually 0.1111...[base 2]) does not have an accurate value.

EDIT:

An expression like "0.000...1[base 2] is not understood in terms of "smaller than ..." but in terms of "permanently in a state of being smaller (can't be smallest)).

A local-only paradigm can't get that.
Click to expand...


“permanently in a state of being smaller” would make it the “smallest” in your notions. Are you claiming there is something smaller in your notions?


doronshadmi said:
All you did is to multiply values, where each one of them is accurate.
Click to expand...

What I (or more specifically Archimedes) did was multiply the series 1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16… by 2 meaning just adding it to itself.


doronshadmi said:
It does not mean that a collection of infinitely many accurate values that are added to each other is resulted by an accurate value (known as an accurate sum), exactly as 1+1+1+… form has no sum even if each added value is accurate.
Click to expand...

Again 1+1+1+1 is not a convergent series it is divergent. It demonstrates conclusively that you just don’t know (or apparently care) what you’re talking about. The relationships described by Archimedes conclusively demonstrate that the infinite convergent series 1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16… has a finite sum of 1. All you are doing is continuing to assert that the sum is not “an accurate value” yet you can not prove that assertion, while that infinite convergent series having a finite sum was proven some 2,300 years ago.



doronshadmi said:
A beautiful example of a non-scientific dogmatic paradigm, which like any religious approach actually says:

“Never re-search the past’s agreed knowledge, only pass it to the next generations as it is”.
Click to expand...


Doron you’re not researching anything you’re just making up crap and pretending it has some validity, yours is “A beautiful example of a non-scientific dogmatic paradigm”. If you had actually researched mathematics you would have found that it has changed quite extensively over the millennia. The fact that an infinite convergent geometric series has a demonstrable finite sum was just one of those changes. Again if you had actually bothered doing any research you might have know that, but instead you just prefer to operate under the delusion that you just making things up and assuming they are correct somehow constitutes research.
 
Last edited:
Doron,

At some point after you tire of mumbling the same mantra, will you have anything actually useful to show us? So far it has just been "You don't get it," "Cantor was wrong," and your mindless repetition of contradiction and inconsistency.

Why can't you show us something with real utility?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom