• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
It does not change as long as all you get is the amuont of distinct collections.
Click to expand...

...and it does not change if some narrow-minded individual only sees it as some uncertainty/redundancy tree thingy. It does not change.

k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree's complexity is irreducible to distinct collections, which is something beyond your serial-only reasoning.
Click to expand...

And yet it can be by a very simple transform, a bi-directional transform at that, which is something beyond your inconsistent, contradictory reasoning.
 
jsfisher said:
...and it does not change if some narrow-minded individual only sees it as some uncertainty/redundancy tree thingy. It does not change.



And yet it can be by a very simple transform, a bi-directional transform at that, which is something beyond your inconsistent, contradictory reasoning.
Click to expand...

Again, pay attention that what was rejected by you in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4859277&postcount=4201 is now used in the basis of your method, which demonstrates your serial-only undertanding of Distinction, but even under your limited serial-only view you are unable to provide the general formula for your Redundancy-only method.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
It is typical to the rest of your post. You are like a religious person that read the holly scripts of his religion, instead of using your mind in order to get things beyond what is written.

For example: you say "it is called an interference pattern for a reason" where this reason is nothing but a step-by-step reasoning, which at its best, enables to deal with no more then “replacement under redundancy” among certain ids (for example: Wheeler–Feynman Time-Symmetric theory, which is based on ((A,B),(B,A)) “symmetry of certainty”) and can't deal with “symmetry of uncertainty” (Symmetry of superposition of ids (AB), known as Uncertainty).

Your "Nope, just more of your word salad Doron" demonstrates your religious attitude of the articles that you read.


This is another example of your asymmetric-only step-by-step only reasoning.

From a symmetrical view there is no impact on “replacement under redundancy” as observed in Interference Only (does not have a single silt envelope) if "in" and "out" are exchanged.
Click to expand...

Doron this is your religion and you are just making up your “holly scripts” by stringing words together as you go and pretending that your religion gives them some significance.
 
doronshadmi said:
Again, pay attention that what was rejected by you in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4859277&postcount=4201 is now used in the basis of your method, which demonstrates your serial-only undertanding of Distinction, but even under your limited serial-only view you are unable to provide the general formula for your Redundancy-only method.
Click to expand...

What are you babbling about now? The post you cited isn't now, and certainly wasn't then, my basis for the generation for your trivial kXk collections.

The post you cited is merely one of many posts pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions in how you used your sacred term, distinction.

You really, really need to work on your reading skills. Here is what I wrote:

No. That would violate the definition laid out [by you] for distinction. I know you don't worry about consistency, but it is one of those important aspects fo Mathematics.
Click to expand...
 
jsfisher said:
What are you babbling about now? The post you cited isn't now, and certainly wasn't then, my basis for the generation for your trivial kXk collections.

The post you cited is merely one of many posts pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions in how you used your sacred term, distinction.

You really, really need to work on your reading skills. Here is what I wrote:
Click to expand...

Distinction is a general name for certain distinction, redundant distinction or uncertain distinction, so the one who babbling here is you.
 
So, how are those corrections coming, then? Still can't figure out what's wrong, can you? Still can't even figure out how many cases you should have, can you?

Something so trivial, and you can't figure it out at all. That must really suck.
 
jsfisher said:
No. That would violate the definition laid out [by you] for distinction.
Click to expand...

You sill do not understand my definition of Distinction.

Distinction is a general name for certain distinction, redundant distinction or uncertain distinction which is also refers to the amount of the distinct levels of a thing (see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4856162&postcount=4165), but all you get is the amount of one and only one level, the level of certain distinction, an by doing that you are missing my definition of Distinction, which is parallel and serial.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
So, how are those corrections coming, then?
Click to expand...

Where is your formula that is nothing but a partial case of the algorithm that draws the Distinct States of a given k-Uncertainty x K-redundancy tree?

When are you going to demonstrate your easy method, by drawing all the distinct cases of 4x4, which are actually a partial case of
F (1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0) of 16x16 tree?


Do you need other to do your job, as I did in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5957646&postcount=9921?
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Doron this is your religion and you are just making up your “holly scripts” by stringing words together as you go and pretending that your religion gives them some significance.
Click to expand...
The Man, serial-only reasoning is your religion, and probably that all you are going to get for the rest of your life.
 
doronshadmi said:
Where is your formula that is nothing but a partial case of the algorithm that draws the Distinct States of a given k-Uncertainty x K-redundancy tree?
Click to expand...

I've already presented how to calculate the number of cases for your kXk collections.

And why are you so focused on this claim of yours it is "nothing but a partial case" of something else? Whether it is or not aside, why does it matter as long as it produces the correct result?

When are you going to demonstrate your easy method, by drawing all the distinct cases of 4x4, which are actually a partial case of
F (1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0) of 16x16 tree?
Click to expand...

You still have no concept of how many there are, do you? Be that as it may, I've already presented an easy method to generate all the cases for your kXk collections.

And why are you so focused on this claim of yours it is "actually a partial case" of something else? Whether it is or not aside, why does it matter as long as it produces the correct result?
 
jsfisher said:
And why are you so focused on this claim of yours it is "actually a partial case" of something else? Whether it is or not aside, why does it matter as long as it produces the correct result?
Click to expand...

Because a correct result of a partial case, is, well, partial, and in this case, a partial case of the amout of distinct forms of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy trees (which are based also on redundancy only as internal property, and by ignoring uncertainty both as internal and external (global) property) , and there is no something else here!
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Because a correct result of a partial case, is, well, partial, and in this case, a partial case of the amout of distinct forms of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy trees (which are based also on redundancy only as internal property, and by ignoring uncertainty both as internal and external property) , and there is no something else here!
Click to expand...


You didn't come even close to answering the question.

You have rejected a way to calculate something only because you don't like the method. So what? The result it produces is still correct whether you approve or not.
 
jsfisher said:
I am not responsible for correcting your blunders.
Click to expand...

So you are actually don't know if they are wrong or not.

In that case you can't also know if your method is correct or not, because there must be a 1-to-1 correspondence between my DS and your partial DS of greater kxk tree.

What a poor mathematician you are, and I mean poor according to your own definiton of right and wrong, that is based on serial-only reasoning.
 
doronshadmi said:
The Man, serial-only reasoning is your religion, and probably that all you are going to get for the rest of your life.
Click to expand...


Doron, I have no religion, while your "direct perception" religion has failed you yet again as it has done for the past 20 years and will continue to fail you "for the rest of your life".


Have you found that “additional experiment” you referred to before?

doronshadmi said:
The Man said:
there are no other "photons that are used to define from what silt the measured photon passes the barrier
Click to expand...

This is an additional experiment that uses the double slit experiment.

Aagain, by this experiment the wave patterns of the detector are changed into a single silt pattern. We can gradually use more energetic photons, and by doing that we can move between the wave pattern and the non-wave (the single silt) pattern.
Click to expand...
 
The Man said:
Doron, I have no religion, [iquote]
Ho, yes you have. It is called a serial-only reasoning.

Have you found that “additional experiment” you referred to before?
Click to expand...

I am going for a 10 days vacation.

If you are really interested in an experiment that tries to find through what silt some photon passes before it hits the screen detector -by using other photons, with different levels of energy- and how the different levels of energy change the pattern on the screen detector, you can find it in the internet.

Bye.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom