Deeper than primes

[jsfisher]

No, you did not because for you ___ is made of sub-elements.

Assuming by your symbolic gibberish you meant 'line segment', no. A line segment is not made of sub-elements. These are not construction projects where someone assembles these things from other, more basic components.

A line segment is a line segment. It does contain a variety of other elements, points and other line segments, but it is not made from them.

 

[The Man]

No, you did not because for you ___ is made of sub-elements.

The rest of your post is based on this premise.

Ah, your typical observer and perspective based conclusion. The inclusion of a logical connective such as “AND” creates a compound proposition or a proposition comprised of other propositions or “sub-elements”. If you do not what “sub-elements” in your defining conclusion of “Non-local” then do not require them in that conclusion yourself.

 

[The Man]

Yeh,

Like you, using coordinates as a point of view to determine a line segment, isn't it?

As I said one can choose whatever origin or coordinate system one whishes, being objective the line segment is independent of that selection.

You have as yet to assert how you distinguish between any pair of given points or any pair of given line segments without using some coordinate system. Coordinate systems are not “a point of view” but how one defines any given point of view and ensures that conclusions are not dependent only on that point of view. Of course this is of no concern to you as you are only interested in conclusions from your own exclusive point of view while ascribing some singular and opposing point of view to others.

 

[ddt]

Though it probably will lead nowhere, I have some questions about your UR "paper" too. Let's start with the begin of page 2. First of all, I note that the content of page 2 is radically different of nature than the content of page 1, so you really should have made this a new section or subsection.

A set (usually notated by "{" and "}") is a collection of distinct elements, where their order has no significance.
Example: {a,b,c}={b,a,c} , {a,a,b}={a,b}={b,a}, etc...

What use is it to (try to) define what a set is? Probably, the reader has a much better command of what a set is in mathematics than you have yourself, considering the many misconceptions you've shown here.

= relation is equal to ...
≠ relation is not equal to ...
< relation is smaller than ...
> relation is greater than ...

Again, what use is it to belabor the obvious? Unless you mean something entirely different with these relations than usual - in which case, you should have rigorously defined them in the first place.

Object=Member=Element

Why use three different words for the same concept? The only reason I can think of is in order to confound issues on purpose. Is that your aim?

| is a 1-1 mapping between objects.

What use is this? You only use it in informal diagrams. It is by no means an official notation. Moreover, it is wrong. A 1-1 mapping is a mapping between sets. You use the | in diagrams to show which elements are mapped to which by a particular mapping and as part of that mapping. In the case of the example below Definition 2, this mapping isn't even a 1-1 mapping.

REI is Relation\Element Interaction.

Nobody heard of this before. You don't define what it means.

w.r.t is "with respect to ..."

Everyone in your readership knows this. Everyone in your readership has a fine command of English - at least much better than yours, as you're showing with every posting here.

Cardinal (notated by "|" and "|") is the number of the members of a set.

Apart from the very clumsy description of the notation - why again belabor the obvious? Anyone with some mathematical education knows what cardinality is.

Definition 1: B is a proper subset of A if any object of B is an object of A, but there is an object of A that is not an object of B

Again, people with some mathematical education know what a (proper) subset is. And why do you use the word "object" instead of element, which is the usual definition?

 

[doronshadmi]

A line segment is a line segment. It does contain a variety of other elements, points and other line segments, but it is not made from them.

Great,

In this case, given any domain [], ___ is in AND out of it [_]_(in addition of in [ ___ ] OR out [ ] ___ of it.

Now do it by using a point.

A is A is not enough, in order to get these notions.

 

[jsfisher]

5. You did not show that you understand the basic notions of this thread; therefore you cannot say any meaningful thing about it.

This is a lie. I and others have have shown far more insight into what you have been saying in this thread than you, yourself, have. You put forth poorly conceived notions as absolute truths only to have them revealed to be contradictory nonsense or trivia buried in gibberish that they actually are.

And since you are incapable of framing a logical argument, your ultimate response is that everyone else is at fault for not understanding your brilliance.

Truth is your ideas are transparent.

I did my best in order to communicate with you, you did not do anything to communicate with me, because you cannot get things beyond the analytic serial\local-only observation.

The second part is a repeat of the lie, and if that was your best attempt at communication, how embarrassing for you.

As I said, you are nothing but a community of people that are using an exclusive observation of the researched things.

By using this excusive observation a line segment is determined by sub-elements, and you are totally blind to any other alternative.

Furthermore this exclusive blindness is used by the members of your community to determine what Mathematics is or what Mathematics is not.

As The Man has pointed out to you, you are very exclusive about your observations being the only correct ones. Too bad your "exclusive observations" require some much of Mathematics be contradicted. That pesky set-membership concept being a good example.

Here. Let's try some of these again:

1. Is 2 a member of the set {2} ?
2. Is a set equal to the union of its members?
3. Are 1/4 and 0.25 different numbers?
4. Are sets, maps, and functions all the same thing?
5. Is Geometry a very weak branch of Mathematics?
6. Is the construct A if B equivalent to A only if B?
7. Is there no such thing as a number in standard Mathematics?

 

[doronshadmi]

Coordinate systems are not “a point of view” but how one defines any given point of view and ensures that conclusions are not dependent only on that point of view.

You did not demonstrate such a thing.

On the contrary, by your point of view a line is determined by points.

In order to demonstrate such a thing you have to show how a line segment has properties that a point does not have.

Only by doing that, a line segment is independent of a point.

This independency can be understood only by observation.

In that case any observation must not be exclusive, otherwise the objects and their relations are understood only by this exclusive point of view.

You are definitely a community of people that their agreed body of knowledge is based on exclusive point of view of the researched objects.

I simply expose this exclusive agreement, whether you like it or not.

 

[doronshadmi]

This is a lie. I and others have have shown far more insight into what you have been saying in this thread than you, yourself, have. You put forth poorly conceived notions as absolute truths only to have them revealed to be contradictory nonsense or trivia buried in gibberish that they actually are.

And since you are incapable of framing a logical argument, your ultimate response is that everyone else is at fault for not understanding your brilliance.

Truth is your ideas are transparent.



The second part is a repeat of the lie, and if that was your best attempt at communication, how embarrassing for you.



As The Man has pointed out to you, you are very exclusive about your observations being the only correct ones. Too bad your "exclusive observations" require some much of Mathematics be contradicted. That pesky set-membership concept being a good example.

Here. Let's try some of these again:

1. Is 2 a member of the set {2} ?
2. Is a set equal to the union of its members?
3. Are 1/4 and 0.25 different numbers?
4. Are sets, maps, and functions all the same thing?
5. Is Geometry a very weak branch of Mathematics?
6. Is the construct A if B equivalent to A only if B?
7. Is there no such thing as a number in standard Mathematics?

Your exclusive observation of anything gives you the illusion that your agreement anything about 1 to 7 has one and only one interpretation.

 

[jsfisher]

In this case, given any domain [], ___ is in AND out of it [_]_(in addition of in [ ___ ] OR out [ ] ___ of it.

You are using meanings of 'in' and 'out' private to you. In any sort of conventional usage of these words, your statement is patently false. You also have jumped away from your failed attempts to define locality and non-locality. Is that because you cannot focus on one thing for very long, or is this digression somehow going to unify everything?

Either way, you'd need to define your two relations (in and out) and what it means to say a line segment is in or out of a domain. History says you won't be able to do this. Prove history wrong.

 

[The Man]

You did not demonstrate such a thing.

On the contrary, by your point of view a line is determined by points.

Actually a line segment is defined by points, I am still waiting for your explanation of how you would define and distinguish between line segments.

In order to demonstrate such a thing you have to show how a line segment has properties that a point does not have.

Only by doing that, a line segment is independent of a point.

No problem, it is a fundamental aspect of basic geometry that most people comprehend in the first minute or two. A point has no theoretical extents in any dimension while a line has theoretical extents in just one dimension. Consider it demonstrated and thus your ‘point’ conceded (while you will undoubtedly remain conceited).

This independency can be understood only by observation.

Technically that “independency” is determined by definition although it can be apparent by observation. You keep trying to limit things to just your biased “observational” perspective.

In that case any observation must not be exclusive, otherwise the objects and their relations are understood only by this exclusive point of view.

You mean as opposed to you what do by claiming your “< AND >” conclusion can only be understood by your “parallel observation”, or as you just asserted “This independency can be understood only by observation”, how contradictory of you.

You are definitely a community of people that their agreed body of knowledge is based on exclusive point of view of the researched objects.

While you are just a single persons who can not even agree with himself about his “exclusive point of view of the researched objects”

I simply expose this exclusive agreement, whether you like it or not.

Yet you continue to resist exposing yourself to your own exclusive disagreement, simply because you do not like it.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Avoidance of posts defining words that you use uniquely noted. Since you won't answer questions, I feel that you are a fanatic of your own ideas and aren't open to using common terms. How can you share your "ideas" without a common language?

Your shalmerflik is so getuy of werlug, I'm klutairq that you can yiwl without hiltnerbrafing all over your reezlents!! You tell me what I said and I'll tell you if you're right.

 

[nathan]

Your exclusive observation of anything gives you the illusion that your agreement anything about 1 to 7 has one and only one interpretation.

You are still evading those questions.

 

[calebprime]

Your shalmerflik is so getuy of werlug, I'm klutairq that you can yiwl without hiltnerbrafing all over your reezlents!! You tell me what I said and I'll tell you if you're right.

Your [shawl] is so [full] of [weevils], I'm [wagering] that you can (not) [balance on a barrel floating in water] without [barfing] all over your [relatives*].


* here scholars are divided. Some think the word means weasels, others contend it might mean cheese doodles.

 

[doronshadmi]

The objectivity of mathematical objects is discovered by non-exclusive observations.

It means that different conclusions of the same object are discovered by different observations.

As a result our body of knowledge is sufficient enough in order to understand the interaction between different results, which are based on different observations of the same objects.

For example: a point properties or a line properties are discovered by different observations.

Then we are able to define more interesting relations between these objects, which enrich our body of knowledge about them.

By observing a point we define that a one relation with another object is enough in order to define the interaction with the other object.

This is not the case about a line segment because by using different observation we define that there are cases where a one relation with another object is not enough in order to define the interaction with the other object.

By using these results a point, a line and their possible interactions are not entirely determined by any particular observation of them.

The organic natural numbers are exactly the result of interactions that are based on different observations of objects like a point or a line segment.

Please pay attention that the concept of relation itself is inherently non-local and does not depend on observations.

This is not the case about objects. Their properties are discovered by observations.

A point has no theoretical extents in any dimension while a line has theoretical extents in just one dimension.

Great,

As a result any object that has "theoretical extents" w.r.t to other objects, can be non-local w.r.t to these objects.

A line segment is the simplest case of such an object.

This is not the case with any object that has no "theoretical extents" w.r.t to other objects.

A point is the simplest case of such an object.

The interaction between these simplest cases is one of the ways to get the organic natural numbers.


EDIT:

Technically that “independency” is determined by definition although it can be apparent by observation. You keep trying to limit things to just your biased “observational” perspective.

No, our undertanding can be based on direct immediate and parallel observation of the researched object, a step-by-step observation of it or any possible interaction of Parallel\Serial observations.

A definition (as currently understood) is nothing but the result of a serial step-by-step observation.

The current community of mathematicians is nothing but a group of people which are skilful to get things only if they are defined by a serial step-by-step observation.

Furthermore, over the past 2500 years the mathematical science itself was recognized by this particular observation.

The aim of my work is to show that the mathematical science is not the result of any particular observation.

Actually a line segment is defined by points, I am still waiting for your explanation of how you would define and distinguish between line segments.

No,

If a line segment is defined by a serial observation, then it is determined and distinguished by points.

This is not the case if a line segment is defined by parallel observation.

In that case objects like points or coordinates are not used in order to distinguish between different line segments and the non-local property of a line segment is considered in order to distinguish between line-segments, for example:

x = ____

y = ____


x < and = y (example: _____)

or

y > and = x (example: _____)

 

[doronshadmi]

Anoter example of distinction between line-segments, without using points (a point is 0 = . and it is a local atom):

1 = ______

2 = ____________

3 = ___________________

.5 = ___

pi = _____________________

Each line segment in this example is a non-local atom.

The name of each non-local atom is determined by its proportion to some arbitrary line-segment, called 1, which is used as the common unit measurement.

 

[jsfisher]

The objectivity of mathematical objects is discovered by non-exclusive observations.

It means that different conclusions of the same object are discovered by different observations.

Wrong.

...<stuff founded on false premise>...

 

[doronshadmi]

Wrong.

Right,

but not by the current paradigm that is based on a one and only one
observation's type (the serial step-by-step observation).

 

[jsfisher]

Right,

but not by the current paradigm that is based on a one and only one
observation's type (the serial step-by-step observation).

No, still wrong. Mathematics is not observation-based. It is defined by rules, definitions, and axioms. Nothing is left to viewpoint, observation, or (in your case) gross misunderstanding.

Despite your protestations, a point in Euclidean geometry, for example, has a set of properties determined by Euclidean geometry and not by your unique powers of observation.

If you'd like points with different properties, you'll need a different branch of Mathematics. You don't get to redefine Euclid.

 

[doronshadmi]

No, still wrong. Mathematics is not observation-based. It is defined by rules, definitions, and axioms.

These rules, definitions and axioms depends on observations and I am not talking about sensual observations of physical stuff but about the fundamental ability get a knowledge whether it is abstract or not.

Your community is ignorant about it because it is limited to one and only one observation type (the serial step-by-step one, which is also called analytic) and as a result any rule, definition or axiom is nothing but the outcome of this particular observation.

This thread is a very good example of my arguments about the community of mathematicians that shaped the mathematical science by a single observation's type.

 

[ddt]

Though it probably will lead nowhere, I have some questions about your UR "paper" too. Let's start with the begin of page 2. First of all, I note that the content of page 2 is radically different of nature than the content of page 1, so you really should have made this a new section or subsection.

A set (usually notated by "{" and "}") is a collection of distinct elements, where their order has no significance.
Example: {a,b,c}={b,a,c} , {a,a,b}={a,b}={b,a}, etc...

What use is it to (try to) define what a set is? Probably, the reader has a much better command of what a set is in mathematics than you have yourself, considering the many misconceptions you've shown here.

= relation is equal to ...
≠ relation is not equal to ...
< relation is smaller than ...
> relation is greater than ...

Again, what use is it to belabor the obvious? Unless you mean something entirely different with these relations than usual - in which case, you should have rigorously defined them in the first place.

Object=Member=Element

Why use three different words for the same concept? The only reason I can think of is in order to confound issues on purpose. Is that your aim?

| is a 1-1 mapping between objects.

What use is this? You only use it in informal diagrams. It is by no means an official notation. Moreover, it is wrong. A 1-1 mapping is a mapping between sets. You use the | in diagrams to show which elements are mapped to which by a particular mapping and as part of that mapping. In the case of the example below Definition 2, this mapping isn't even a 1-1 mapping.

REI is Relation\Element Interaction.

Nobody heard of this before. You don't define what it means.

w.r.t is "with respect to ..."

Everyone in your readership knows this. Everyone in your readership has a fine command of English - at least much better than yours, as you're showing with every posting here.

Cardinal (notated by "|" and "|") is the number of the members of a set.

Apart from the very clumsy description of the notation - why again belabor the obvious? Anyone with some mathematical education knows what cardinality is.

Definition 1: B is a proper subset of A if any object of B is an object of A, but there is an object of A that is not an object of B

Again, people with some mathematical education know what a (proper) subset is. And why do you use the word "object" instead of element, which is the usual definition?

Bump.