Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

Even for quantum superposition (again based on the superposition principle) a single photon does interfere (a superposition of phase differences) with itself (see single photon double slit experiments)

A quantum phenomena is not a single and certain object, as we get it in the macro level.

For example, the momentum AND place of a macro level object are well known (certainly known).

This is not the case with a quantum phenomena, where momentum AND place are in a superposition that has to collapse in order to get one and only one certain result (momentum or place, but never simultaneously both of them).

Your "single photon does interfere (a superposition of phase differences) with itself" is based on the wrong model of macro objects, where the certain momentum AND place are simultaneously well known (certainly known).

In other words, you do not understand superposition and how it is related to uncertain information.

Organic Numbers are exactly the mathematical tool that defines the linkage among uncertain AND certain information under a one comprehensive model, by providing the included middle forms between uncertainty and certainty, which enable to define the linkage between micro and macro levels of a given complex.

 

[jsfisher]

In order to demonstrate the weakness of a serial-only quantitative-only approach, approach to capture the real Complexity of k-Uncertainty x-Redundancy tree.

Even in your backpedaling, you fail.


How are those corrections coming for the 3X3 case?

 

[doronshadmi]

Still waiting for you to fix your 3X3 presentation...

Please tell us why do I have to fix my 3x3 presentation.

 

[doronshadmi]

How are those corrections coming for the 3X3 case?

By using frames F (k,...) to F (0,...) in order to reduce the room for Uncertainty/Redundancy forms, which is nothing but a serial representation of Organic Numbers.

 

[jsfisher]

Please tell us why do I have to fix my 3x3 presentation.

"Us"? Every except you knows why: Um, because it has multiple errors in it. Don't you think your position would benefit by having fewer blunders? Why should we take what you post as even a little bit important when it is riddled with such obvious wrongness?

 

[jsfisher]

Just for emphasis of the point, in response to me asking him why he'd asked a question if it was the wrong question, Doron wrote:

In order to demonstrate the weakness of a serial-only quantitative-only approach, approach to capture the real Complexity of k-Uncertainty x-Redundancy tree.

The original question follows. Doron's weak attempt to rewrite history is obvious. He asked the question because he does not know the answer, nothing more, and certainly not to demonstrate anything.

By following 0x0,1x1 and 2x2 detailed examples, can you define 3x3 and 4x4 and then the general formula that returns the number of any KxK where K=0 to n, where n is a natural number?

 

[The Man]

A quantum phenomena is not a single and certain object, as we get it in the macro level.

Doron a “quantum phenomena” is not anything other than just a couple of words you stuck together apparently without even understanding the meaning of either.

For example, the momentum AND place of a macro level object are well known (certainly known).

Nope, the uncertainty principle still applies. It is just that the change in momentum and/or location can be negligible compare to the size and total momentum of the “object”

This is not the case with a quantum phenomena, where momentum AND place are in a superposition that has to collapse in order to get one and only one certain result (momentum or place, but never simultaneously both of them).

Doron it wasn’t the case with your “macro level object” either. Would this be your “superposition” where you claim you “do not use” superposition or an actual superposition?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

In quantum physics, a particle is described by a wave packet, which gives rise to this phenomenon. Consider the measurement of the absolute position of a particle. It could be anywhere the particle's wave packet has non-zero amplitude, meaning the position is uncertain – it could be almost anywhere along the wave packet. To obtain an accurate reading of position, this wave packet must be 'compressed' as much as possible,meaning it must be made up of increasing numbers of sine waves added together. The momentum of the particle is proportional to the wavelength of one of these waves, but it could be any of them. So a more accurate position measurement–by adding together more waves–means the momentum measurement becomes less accurate (and vice versa).
The only kind of wave with a definite position is concentrated at one point, and such a wave has an indefinite wavelength (and therefore an indefinite momentum). Conversely, the only kind of wave with a definite wavelength is an infinite regular periodic oscillation over all space, which has no definite position. So in quantum mechanics, there can be no states that describe a particle with both a definite position and a definite momentum. The more precise the position, the less precise the momentum.
The uncertainty principle can be restated in terms of measurements, which involves collapse of the wavefunction. When the position is measured, the wavefunction collapses to a narrow bump near the measured value, and the momentum wavefunction becomes spread out. The particle's momentum is left uncertain by an amount inversely proportional to the accuracy of the position measurement. The amount of left-over uncertainty can never be reduced below the limit set by the uncertainty principle, no matter what the measurement process.

Bolding added

Too bad Doron, quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle actually uses superposition which is something you claim you “do not use” in your “superposition”.

Your "single photon does interfere (a superposition of phase differences) with itself" is based on the wrong model of macro objects, where the certain momentum AND place are simultaneously well known (certainly known).

No Doron it is based on actual experimentation. Try looking up the Path integral formulation to see just how wrong you are.

In other words, you do not understand superposition and how it is related to uncertain information.

Sure I do, the uncertainty of your information has got entirely confused about quantum mechanics and has you claiming that in your “superposition” you “do not use” superposition.

Organic Numbers are exactly the mathematical tool that defines the linkage among uncertain AND certain information under a one comprehensive model, by providing the included middle forms between uncertainty and certainty, which enable to define the linkage between micro and macro levels of a given complex.

Nope, as clearly demonstrated above you have no idea what you are talking about and just string words together that you think sound important without realizing that others actually understand those words and the subjects they relate to. The sad part is Doron that you could understand them as well, but you simply do not seem interested in anything but your own imagination.

 

[Complexity]

Doronshadmi - I've given you sufficient time to answer and you have declined to do so.

As you were warned, your failure to respond has resulted in your choice being made for you.

Your work has no importance, not even to you, and no one should waste another moment on it.

I won't visit this thread again, or any other thread that you start.

Thank you for having wasted 9968 posts.

 

[sympathic]

Doronshadmi - I've given you sufficient time to answer and you have declined to do so.

As you were warned, your failure to respond has resulted in your choice being made for you.

Your work has no importance, not even to you, and no one should waste another moment on it.

I won't visit this thread again, or any other thread that you start.

Thank you for having wasted 9968 posts.

His work is important to him because he has been spending more than 20 years on it, to an extent that it had become an inseparable being within him. It is true that his work has very little mathematical substance. His "revelations" are in fact trivial to anyone with basic mathematical skills. He is desperately trying to ascribe a higher meaning to trivial arithmetic properties of natural numbers.

The reason we are all tuned in is probably because we want to witness that glorious moment when he admits his ramblings are not math; that his understanding of mathematical concepts as limit, infinity, sets, etc is seriously flawed, and that he is actually willing to learn math or abandon it altogether. I am willing to bet this moment will never arrive but deep down hoping it will.

 

[doronshadmi]

Nope, the uncertainty principle still applies. It is just that the change in momentum and/or location can be negligible compare to the size and total momentum of the “object”

Uncertainty and Certainty are two opposite aspects of the same measured framework, or in other words, they are mutual independent of each other, where mutuality is characterized by the simultaneity of more than a one identity, known as a superposition of identities, and independency is characterized by the simultaneity of no more than a one identity, known as a uniqueness of identities.

AB is a notation for a superposition of identities.

A,B is a notation for a uniqueness of identities.

Another state is Redundancy which can be found among several superpositions of identities (for example (AB,AB)) or among several unique identities (for example (A,A) or (B,B)).

(AB,AB) is the room for (AB,A),(AB,B),(AB),(A,A),(B,B),(A,B),(A),(B),() where this room, with all of its forms can be taken simultaneously (in parallel), linearly (in serial or step-by-step), or in any possible mixture of parallel/serial linkage.

Linear measurement of given identities (A,B,C,D), is not a simultaneous measurement of more than one identity (ABCD).

Additivity (also called Superposition property by Standard Math) which is a fundamental property of Linear measurement, is represented, for example, by Algebra (f(x + y) = f(x) + f) or Number theory (f(a∙b) = f(a) + f(b)) , where no simultaneity of more than a one identity is used (no real superposition of ids is used).

So we see again how Standard Math uses words (Superposition, in this case) without any real understanding of their real meaning.

We, can add this wrong use of "Superposition" that is related to distinct ids, to the wrong use of "Limit" that is related to infinite collections.

So a more accurate position measurement–by adding together more waves–means the momentum measurement becomes less accurate (and vice versa).

In other words, any attempt to summaries (adding together) ids, is actually the attempting to localize the measured phenomena by reducing it into a unique position (a unique id).

On the contrary, any attempt to get momentum , is actually the attempting to not localize the measured phenomena by allowing it to be in a non unique position (a non unique id).

The Man, you simply have no clue with what you are dealing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse is not so trivial, as you try to represent it (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoherence).

No Doron it is based on actual experimentation.

No experiment helps to someone that does not have the understanding of its results.

Since you are using the word "Superposition" without understanding it, you can't understand the results where real superposition is involved.

 

[doronshadmi]

Just for emphasis of the point, in response to me asking him why he'd asked a question if it was the wrong question, Doron wrote:



The original question follows. Doron's weak attempt to rewrite history is obvious. He asked the question because he does not know the answer, nothing more, and certainly not to demonstrate anything.

jsfisher, as I said in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5930007&postcount=9808 Moshe already wrote a general formula do define the amount of DS of some k-Uncertanty x k-Redundancy tree.

I asked you to find such a formula exactly because I wished to show that the answer to "how many?" question is too weak in order to deal with ONs complexity.

 

[The Man]

Uncertainty and Certainty are two opposite aspects of the same measured framework, or in other words, they are mutual independent of each other, where mutuality is characterized by the simultaneity of more than a one identity, known as a superposition of identities, and independency is characterized by the simultaneity of no more than a one identity, known as a uniqueness of identities.

AB is a notation for a superposition of identities.

A,B is a notation for a uniqueness of identities.

Another state is Redundancy which can be found among several superpositions of identities (for example (AB,AB)) or among several unique identities (for example (A,A) or (B,B)).

(AB,AB) is the room for (AB,A),(AB,B),(AB),(A,A),(B,B),(A,B),(A),(B),() where this room, with all of its forms can be taken simultaneously (in parallel), linearly (in serial or step-by-step), or in any possible mixture of parallel/serial linkage.

Linear measurement of given identities (A,B,C,D), is not a simultaneous measurement of more than one identity (ABCD).

Did anyone here order this word salad?

Additivity (also called Superposition property by Standard Math) which is a fundamental property of Linear measurement, is represented, for example, by f(x + y) = f(x) + f or f(ab) = f(a) + f(b) , where no simultaneity of more than a one identity is used (no real superposition of ids is used).

Would that be your “real superposition” where you claim you “do not use” superposition? Please show the time dependent relation to support your claim of “no simultaneity”. Is it actually your ridiculous and demonstrably wrong argument that the superposition principle refers to results separated in time?


Again from the article on the superposition principle.

The net response at a given place and time caused by two or more stimuli is the sum of the responses which would have been caused by each stimulus individually.

*Bolding added

Once again your “direct perception” has failed you again, where simply reading the article cited and quote given before clearly demonstrate your error.

So we see again how Standard Math uses words (Superposition, in this case) without any real understanding of their real meaning.

We, can add this wrong use of "Superposition" that is related to distinct ids, to the wrong use of "Limit" that is related to infinite collections.

No Doron once again the lack of understanding is entirely yours. We have already added “Superposition” to the list of words you deliberately misrepresent.

In other words, any attempt to summaries (adding together) ids, is actually the attempting to localize the measured phenomena by reducing it into a unique position (a unique id).

On the contrary, any attempt to get momentum , is actually the attempting to not localize the measured phenomena by allowing it to be in a non unique position (a non unique id).

The Man, you simply have no clue with what you are dealing.

In the same words used time and time again Doron it is demonstrably you that has no clue what you are talking and that is exactly what I am, and everyone else here is, dealing with.

Learn the meaning of the words and concepts Doron, just trying to substitute your own personal inferences is a poor excuse for you not actually understanding those words and concepts. Complexity’s request was spot on target in this regard, your use or words should be...

….in accord with www.Dictionary.com.

 

[doronshadmi]

Is it actually your ridiculous and demonstrably wrong argument that the superposition principle refers to results separated in time?

No, it is not less than Non-locality(momentum)/Locality(place).

at a given place and time

PlaceTime is exactly a framework where the measured phenomena is not individual-only, as your poor Math forces by sum.

 

[jsfisher]

jsfisher, as I said in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5930007&postcount=9808 Moshe already wrote a general formula do define the amount of DS of some k-Uncertanty x k-Redundancy tree.

As I already mentioned, this whole current thread derail is a retread of year-old material. Just as you have forgotten about the same blunders you made back then, you have forgotten, too, that Moshe's formula was a medley of mistakes.

You really, really should learn from your mistakes.

I asked you to find such a formula exactly because I wished to show that the answer to "how many?" question is too weak in order to deal with ONs complexity.

Keep on backpedaling. No matter how unlikely, maybe someone will believe you. Still, the facts remain that (1) you didn't and still don't know "how many", and (2) you have failed to show any such thing.


By the way, now are those 3X3 corrections coming?

 

[The Man]

PlaceTime is exactly a framework where the measured phenomena is not individual-only, as your poor Math forces by sum.

No, again it is just you sticking two words together as poor substitute for your non-existent “math”.

 

[doronshadmi]

As I already mentioned, this whole current thread derail is a retread of year-old material. Just as you have forgotten about the same blunders you made back then, you have forgotten, too, that Moshe's formula was a medley of mistakes.

You really, really should learn from your mistakes.

You really have to learn to read all the post befor you reply, becuse yuo have missed this:

Moshe has another generator that defines the amount of ONs that is based on your correction

 

[doronshadmi]

No, again it is just you sticking two words together as poor substitute for your non-existent “math”.

Your trivial Math can't deal with this:

The Man, you simply have no clue with what you are dealing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse is not so trivial, as you try to represent it (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoherence).

 

[The Man]

Your trivial Math can't deal with this:

The Man, you simply have no clue with what you are dealing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse is not so trivial, as you try to represent it (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoherence).

Doron I’m quite familiar with those topics. You should try actually reading and understanding those articles, but you will find they actually involve math and the superposition principle. Aspects you can not escape simply by stringing words you apparently do not understand together and deliberately misrepresenting concepts.

Got that time dependent relation yet to support your claim of “no simultaneity”?

 

[jsfisher]

You really have to learn to read all the post befor you reply, becuse yuo have missed this:

Moshe has another generator that defines the amount of ONs that is based on your correction

Nope, wrong again, still, perpetually, doron. I didn't miss it. Moshe's revised generator didn't pass review, either. He left in disgrace right after, too.



How are those corrections coming?

 

[doronshadmi]

“no simultaneity”

No simultaneity is anything that is based on serial (step-by-step or linear) reasoning.

In "Pure" Math, where time is not involved, a step-by-step form is characterized by certain distinction and/or certain order of distinct things.

These cases are distinct forms of Frame (1,…) of ON (0-Uncertanty x 0-Redendancy, which is notated as (A,B,C,D,…)).

Simultaneity is anything that is based on parallel reasoning.

In "Pure" Math, where time is not involved, a parallel form is characterized by uncertain distinction (Uncertainty) and/or uncertain order of distinct things (Redundancy).

These cases are non-distinct forms of Frames like F (2,…) of ON (for example:1-Uncertanty x 0-Redendancy, which is notated as (AB,…)) and/or non-distinct forms of Frames like F (1,…) of ON (for example: 0-Uncertanty x 1-Redendancy, which is notated as (A,A,…)).

In general Frame F (k,…) of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree (where k>0) is the room for both parallel and serial forms, and any mixture of them.

Now back to PlaceTime framework:

The single silt case of the the double-slit experiment is derived from the distinct form of Frame F (1,…) of ON (0-Uncertanty x 0-Redendancy, which is notated as (A,B,C,D,…)).

The double-slit case of the the double-slit experiment is derived from the non-distinct forms of Frames like F (2,…) of ON (for example:1-Uncertanty x 0-Redendancy, which is notated as (AB,…)) and/or non-distinct forms of Frames like F (1,…) of ON (for example: 0-Uncertanty x 1-Redendancy, which is notated as (A,A,…)).

By gradually change the energy (which is actually a serial case of ON) of the photons that are used to measure the photons that passed the double-slit barrier, we actually moving between non-distinct forms of Frames and the particular case of the distinct form of Frame F (1,…) of ON (0-Uncertanty x 0-Redendancy).

Organic Numbers are Non-locality(momentum)\Locality(place or position) linkage, which is the complex manifestation of that has no id.