Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

A popular use of foggy numbers:

How many donuts do you have in that bag?

a dozenish.

-ish is frequently used in especially British English as an aproximizer.

Of course the OM idea is a bit more ishy, because the bag contains not just donuts identified as such but objects of different and indefinite identity.

OM is so ishy!

And while we're here, let's not forget our favorite painting of the ishiness of time:
http://h1.ripway.com/Apathia/40268~The-Persistence-of-Memory-c-1931-Posters.jpg

Sums is a particular case of OM.

You continue to use only the fogs XOR sums view of OM (as a result your last post is focused only on the fogs aspect) but OM has NXOR/XOR rasoning.

 

[jsfisher]

You seem to miss that Dependency is already given by Mutuality (in this case the common environment) among Individuals.

Evasion noted. The issue is your claim mutual and dependent are synonyms in English. They aren't, and no amount of wishful thinking on your part will change that.

 

[jsfisher]

Build all the foundations you like. When you can generate a result from them, do let us know.

You still miss it jsfisher.

Fogs or sums are both the results of the linkage of these qualities.

So you say, but still no result. All you have done is build a contradictory and inconsistent collection of notions. Claiming one of those useless ideas is the consequence of another of those useless ideas doesn't make it a result. It is just compounded fantasy.

A result needs to be outside your box of nonsense.

Since you have claimed OM is aligned with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, show us the novel and compelling way OM would express the principle. Don't just tell us how much your twisted concepts are like what you think the uncertainty principle is; present some real formulation of the principle. That would be an interesting result.

Already done.

You simply can't get the difference between (AB) and (A,B) because your reasoning is closed under (A,B).

I understand just fine what you mean by (AB) and (A,B). You have failed to produce a result from it. And you absolutely have not formulated anything resembling Heisenberg, yet.

Again, according to The Uncertainty Principle (ABC…) and (A,B,C…) complement each other, such that if the system is measured in terms of (ABC…) it can't be also be measured in terms (A,B,C…) and vice versa.

It says nothing of the kind. Now you are just lying. You made that up, but it is not Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

 

[Apathia]

Sums is a particular case of OM.

You continue to use only the fogs XOR sums view of OM (as a result your last post is focused only on the fogs aspect) but OM has NXOR/XOR rasoning.

Yes. Thank you!

It's just that the "Fog" aspect is the interesting part.
And the aspect that everyone else would rather ignore.
So I bring it up front for a clear view.

 

[doronshadmi]

Evasion noted. The issue is your claim mutual and dependent are synonyms in English. They aren't, and no amount of wishful thinking on your part will change that.

Ignorance noted. Mutual and Dependent are synonyms w.r.t Mutual-Independency, and this notion is not limited to any particular language.

 

[jsfisher]

Ignorance noted. Mutual and Dependent are synonyms w.r.t Mutual-Independency, and this notion is not limited to any particular language.

Too bad nobody bothered to get you that much-needed English dictionary for Chanukah.

 

[doronshadmi]

A result needs to be outside your box of nonsense.

A result is not limited to your serial-only reasoning.

I understand just fine what you mean by (AB) and (A,B).

Not even in your dreams, which are also closed under serial-only reasoning.

It says nothing of the kind. Now you are just lying.

You are lying to youself, becuse all you use is the serial (XOR) aspect of NXOR/XOR reasoning.

 

[zooterkin]

Well, I know this will be fruitless, having tried several times before, but just for form's sake let's try again...

One of the results is called a fog, which is derived from infinite interpolation/extrapolation that your sum-only view can't comprehend.

Go on, then, give a worked example with actual numbers.

 

[doronshadmi]

Too bad nobody bothered to get you that much-needed English dictionary for Chanukah.

It is not a matter of English, but it is a matter of the linkage among concepts, no matter what language is used.

You simply can't get the meaning of Mutual-Independency.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well, I know this will be fruitless, having tried several times before, but just for form's sake let's try again...

Go on, then, give a worked example with actual numbers.

What is "actual numbers" and what is "worked example"?

 

[jsfisher]

You are lying to youself, becuse all you use is the serial (XOR) aspect of NXOR/XOR reasoning.

Ok, Doron, since you are so convinced you are presenting the Heisenberg uncertainty principle correctly, prove it. Provide some reliable reference the supports your inane belief.

Your claim; you support it.

And when you can't, take comfort in yet another Doron failure.

 

[jsfisher]

It is not a matter of English, but it is a matter of the linkage among concepts, no matter what language is used.

I will add to my list of stupid things Doron says and believes that words and meaning have nothing to do with language.

 

[Apathia]

Sums is a particular case of OM.

You continue to use only the fogs XOR sums view of OM (as a result your last post is focused only on the fogs aspect) but OM has NXOR/XOR rasoning.

Indeed. Edit of your post agknowledged as well.

Your complaint with Mathematics as is known and taught is that its
"sums-only," redundancy-only," "serial-only," and "context dependednt."

OM includes serial summation as a particular case.
So mathematical formulas as jsfisher is asking of you are tolerable to some extent, as long as it's agknowledged they are intended to produce definite sums and not the wider qualitative environment.

But OM also severly pairs back, or even guts, what sum only mathematics is allowed to do. Numbers math treats as definite quantities are "fogs" instead.
Complete infinite sets (Quantitative) aren't allowed.
And OM is pre-cartesian without Analytic Geometry (Since point and line have an entirely different meaning and usage in OM.)

So the question is: how much of modern Mathematics can be tolerated?
Can the Mathematics of Quantum Theory and Relativity be accepted in a limoted sphere, or must all that be thrown on the scrap heap for a new way of doing sums?

If OM can't stomach these formulas (since they Involve bad stuff.), can it produce new formulas?
Or can it do no more than matricies of complementary properties?

 

[zooterkin]

What is "actual numbers" and what is "worked example"?

Give a real example of a fog, as a result of "infinite interpolation/extrapolation" of some starting value.

 

[The Man]

Since Mutuality and Dependency are synonym there cannot be any complementary relation between them.

What dictionary are you using (if any) that shows “Mutuality and Dependency” as synonymous? Not all dependencies are mutual (as has been explained to you before). Again the complementary relation is between the uncertainty in position and the uncertainty in momentum, since they are mutually dependent that simply makes your assertion above demonstrable nonsense.

In other words, you can't get the complementary relation between Mutuality (Non-Locality) and Independency (Locality).

Again it is position and momentum (which are mutually dependent) not “Mutuality (Non-Locality) and Independency (Locality)”. So your “complementary relation between Mutuality (Non-Locality) and Independency (Locality)” simply has no application.

Here is where you fail.

Your perception has no ability to get superposition of ids.

No Doron the failure remains simply yours, by your own assertions your “superposition of ids” does not “use” superposition. You are deliberately using a word (superposition) the meaning of which you assert does not apply to your usage. Your failure remains entirely deliberate and entirely yours.

 

[The Man]

At this stage I wish to add more fuel to the flames of your ignorance of ONs.

The notion of Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is derived from a tradition of measurement that is based on Local-only perception of the measured.

As a result the accurate measured results of the non-local (wave) aspect of a given wavicle prevent the accurate measured results of the local (particle) aspect of that wavicle (and vice versa) and we generally get a serial system of distinct measurements that are ordered between the wave aspect of the wavicle and the particle aspect of the wavicle.

But according to OM this is nothing but a serial step-by-step perception of a wavicle, and a wavicle can be also taken in parallel perception.

By doing this the distinct forms of a given Organic Number are taken at-once, and the measured result is exactly the simultaneity of the distinct forms, which gives an accurate result of parallel measurement of a given wavicle, which is exactly what it is at-once, a wavicle.

A wavicle is taken as a logical strange fruit, exactly because it is measured only by serial reasoning.

Absolutely wrong as noted before both the position and momentum are wave functions and a “wavicle” is simply an outdated term. Again “The notion of Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is derived” specifically from the relation of momentum to wavelength (or the circular wave number as given before). The only “logical strange fruit” remains in your head Doron and the only flames of ignorance you’re fueling are your own.

 

[The Man]

Indeed. Edit of your post agknowledged as well.

Your complaint with Mathematics as is known and taught is that its
"sums-only," redundancy-only," "serial-only," and "context dependednt."

No Apathia his "complaint with Mathematics" is simply that it is a "fog" to him so by his "direct perception” it must be a "fog" to everyone else as well.

OM includes serial summation as a particular case.
So mathematical formulas as jsfisher is asking of you are tolerable to some extent, as long as it's agknowledged they are intended to produce definite sums and not the wider qualitative environment.

Absolutely not true, as noted before math deals quite well with uncertainty, ranges of values, variables and even degrees of error.

But OM also severly pairs back, or even guts, what sum only mathematics is allowed to do. Numbers math treats as definite quantities are "fogs" instead.
Complete infinite sets (Quantitative) aren't allowed.
And OM is pre-cartesian without Analytic Geometry (Since point and line have an entirely different meaning and usage in OM.)

So the question is: how much of modern Mathematics can be tolerated?
Can the Mathematics of Quantum Theory and Relativity be accepted in a limoted sphere, or must all that be thrown on the scrap heap for a new way of doing sums?

It will all be tolerated Apathia as long as Doron gets to claim it just “as a particular case” of his OM. Which of course is all he can do, claim it.

If OM can't stomach these formulas (since they Involve bad stuff.), can it produce new formulas?
Or can it do no more than matricies of complementary properties?

What OM simply can’t stomach is consistency Apathia, because that is where it consistently fails.

 

[zooterkin]

What OM simply can’t stomach is consistency Apathia, because that is where it consistently fails.

Yes, it is consistently inconsistent, as well as consistently wrong.

 

[doronshadmi]

Absolutely wrong as noted before both the position and momentum are wave functions

Call the function whatever you like, it does not change the fact that we are dealing here with a complementary relation between position (location, or locality) and momentum (non-location, or non-locality).

Again the complementary relation is between the uncertainty in position and the uncertainty in momentum, since they are mutually dependent that simply makes your assertion above demonstrable nonsense.

Again the complementary relation is between the uncertainty in position and the uncertainty in momentum, exactly because they are mutually independent (the simultaneous accurate result among them is avoided exactly because position and momentum save their independency under mutual measurement) and this fact that simply makes your "mutual dependency" a load of nonsense that has wrong understanding of the reseached.

by your own assertions your “superposition of ids” does not “use” superposition.

by your own assertions your “superposition” does not “use” superposition of ids, which is the real state of superposition.

It will all be tolerated Apathia as long as Doron gets to claim it just “as a particular case” of his OM. Which of course is all he can do, claim it.

Still can't get the difference between (AB) and (A,B) and how they are particular cases of ON, isn't it The Man?

What OM simply can’t stomach is consistency Apathia, because that is where it consistently fails.

What Traditional Mathematics can't stomach is Non-locality, Superposition of ids (real uncertainty), parallel reasoning, incompetence, etc… exactly because it is based on local\serial-only reasoning of the researched.

Absolutely not true, as noted before math deals quite well with uncertainty, ranges of values, variables and even degrees of error.

Since Math does not deal with superposition of ids, it can't really deal with Uncertainty.

 

[dafydd]

Call the function whatever you like, it does not change the fact that we are dealing here with a complementary relation between position (location, or locality) and momentum (non-location, or non-locality.



Again the complementary relation is between the uncertainty in position and the uncertainty in momentum, exactly because they are mutually independent (the simultaneous accurate result among them is avoided exactly because position and momentum save their independency under mutual measurement) and this fact that simply makes your "mutual dependency" a load of nonsense that has wrong understanding of the reseached.

Are you related to Sir Humphrey Appleby?