Deeper than primes

[Little 10 Toes]

Answering your posts in no particular order:

Please refresh your screen and read it again.

No. I will not play your game. Make a new post.

So do not play it (he avoids editd posts like http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=10835), I don't care.

You have a history of totally re-editing a post after several people have posted. I'm in the same boat as The Man. We're both getting tired of your "go back and refresh" game. I will not avoid your post. In fact, I typically wait for the 2hour limit to pass so you can't change your posts.

Like you did to 10835 and 10850. Very bad etiquette.

I already answered the unedited 10835 post at 10836, and the unmarked 1st edited portion at 10838.

You claim here:

Just try to avoid the difference between A=A and A ~= ~A and you don't have the minimal conditions to survive as a complex system, whether the complexity is physical or moral.

For example: By reducing A ~= ~A to A = A complex system rabbit=A cannot distinguish between itself and complex system fox=~A.

As a result ~A eats A, and A does no have of springs.

I asked that you define "complex system". You haven't. If rabbit = A then fox *and* carrot = ~A. So the carrot eats the rabbit?

I asked:

Please show that a fox and a rabbit can do logical statements. [snip] There is no morality in math. Counting the dead, whether it be humans, bugs, or flowers, is no different then counting newborns, gold ingots, or concepts that you try to force people to accept as true.

You replied to the two statements:

They do better, they are using the logical reasoning of survival, which does not depent on "bla bla bla ...". [snip] Again a reasoning of disjoint domains is used.

Great, so rabbits and foxes are using logical reasoning. Proof? Just saying they do, which you did in post #10843 is not proof. Which disjoint domains is used to show math has morality. Again, just saying it does isn't proof.

In regards to the word context, which you "defined" in post 10798, it was shown that you don't understand it in posts 10801, 10809, 10815, 10828, 10847, 10851,

You first asked where your error in using context was in post 10830

You even used a different meanings in 10812, 10833, 10854, 10855.

I'm sure there are things that I could have responded to or things that I missed, but I've taken way too long to respond, I'm tired, and I need to reboot.

PS: What about that clear definition of local and/or non-local that you still can't provide?

 

[doronshadmi]

More important is that you were wrong.

More important is that you are focused on insignificant details and miss the significant details about con- and specially its use in con-text, as can clearly see here (the bolded is mine):


1) http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/context

Main Entry: con-text

Pronunciation: \ˈkän-ˌtekst\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, weaving together of words, from Latin contextus connection of words, coherence, from contexere to weave together,
from com- + texere to weave

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_prefixes

|          Prefix         |     Meaning      |
|-------------------------|------------------|
| Con-/com-/col-/cor-/co- | [B]together[/B] or [B]with[/B] |

3) http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/con-

Prefix

con-

1. used with certain words to add a notion similar to those conveyed by with, together, or joint

Please stop just making stuff up.

Please stop forcing your narrow reasoning, in this case.

 

[doronshadmi]

Nope, and we have already been over your “self-referential” nonsense before.



Again don’t try positing your simply lack of reasoning onto others.



Well, as simple statements of equality (or the lack thereof) and not a “comparison”, they are not “fundamentally different” even though the variables involved can be. However simply equating something with it self is just trivial. While not equating something with it self just demolishes any possible consistency. It is in equating or not equating something with something else that such statements can become practical and can maintain some consistency.



Again…



So your “serial observation” is still just superfluous nonsense.



Nope, under your “Singular comparisons” you just get a trivial statement that something equals it self or the self-inconsistent statement that it does not. As both sides of those statements must be the same (by your own requirement) they must always be symmetrical.



Nope, under your “Non singular comparisons” you just get statements of equality or inequality between something and something else. Although such statements can be practical and maintain consistency there is nothing inherently “symmetric” about them. Particularly in statements of inequality, which as a result of that inequality must be asymmetrical (not the same on both sides).





Again…




So your “Serial-only observation simply can't get” anything that is, well, serial.

The Man, you simply can't get the difference between building-blocks and their use by collections.

Self-reference (whether it is True or False) is the building-block of certain ids, because it is the simultaneity of no more than one value.

Non self-reference (whether it is True or False) is the building-block of uncertain ids because it is the simultaneity of more than one value.

Since the considered framework is at least the linkage of Self-reference AND Non Self-reference, we get these different states:

a) A collection (which is actually based on both building-blocks) has an asymmetrical character if we are focused on the certain id's aspect (the simultaneity of no more than one value) of the linkage (we are able to define direction that is based on some order among certain id's).

b) A collection (which is actually based on both building-blocks) has symmetrical character if we are focused on the uncertain id's aspect (the simultaneity of more than one value) of the linkage (we are unable to define direction that is based on some order among uncertain id's, which is exactly the uncertainty of id's superposition).

c) A collection (which is actually based on both building-blocks) has several symmetrical degrees between Symmetry (superposition of ids) and Asymmetry (non superposition of ids)

d) Any given form is both global AND local state of the considered framework, for example:

Jsfisher and you clearly demonstrate that the number of given things cannot fully capture the non-trivial meaning of what Number is, simply because the traditional meaning of Number is based only on clear distinction of the involved.

By using Non-locality/Locality linkage as the qualitative foundation of Number, clear distinction is simply one of the options, for example:

Quantity 2 (and it does not matter if it is a whole number or two places of some 0.xx fraction) can't be used unless there is at least connector/connected linkage, where the connector has non-local quality and the connected has local quality.

From this qualitative foundation, Uncertainty and Redundancy are the fabric of the mathematical space that enables:

1) Strong symmetric observation of the linkage, which is resulted by superposition of identities (uncertain ids, for example: (AB)).

2) Weak symmetric observation, which is resulted by non-distinct replacement among clear ids (redundant ids, for example: (A,A), (B,B), (AB,AB) (in the last case AB superposition is ignored and taken as 'AB' notation for clear id of superposition representation)).

3) Asymmetric observation, which is resulted by clear ids (for example: (A,B))

By the way, the ( 1) , 2) , 3) ) explanation above uses the Asymmetric observation (3), but again, no one of the options above has any privilege and we as participators (and not only observers) of this mathematical universe actually design it for our purpose.

The coherence of this mathematical universe is guaranteed by its Non-local/Local linkage qualitative foundation, where Non-locality and Locality complement each other into a one fabric.

Nope, under your “Singular comparisons” you just get a trivial statement that something equals it self or the self-inconsistent statement that it does not. As both sides of those statements must be the same (by your own requirement) they must always be symmetrical.

Yep, your "bla bla ..." reasoning simply can't get Symmetry and Asymmetry as observed in the following diagram:

 

[jsfisher]

More important is that you are focused on insignificant details and miss the significant details about con- and specially its use in con-text, as can clearly see here (the bolded is mine):

I focus on what you say, Doron. Words have meaning, and you use words very incorrectly. And almost invariably, it is from insignificant details that you attempt to derive (invariably incorrectly) ridiculous conclusions.

So, yes, your insignificant details come under scrutiny, as they should.

Unfortunately for you, on this whole "context" interlude, you have had no significant details. Neither the meaning of context nor its etymology provides any basis for Doronetics.

And your extended insistence through misrepresentation that it does only reinforces the conclusion Doronetics is without substance, basis, or result.

 

[doronshadmi]

I focus on what you say, Doron. Words have meaning, and you use words very incorrectly.

No jsfishr, your post is nothing but ingoring the facts, as clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6178705&postcount=10862 .

You have no case.

 

[jsfisher]

No jsfishr, you are the one that doing is, as clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6178705&postcount=10862 .

Be specific, please. I was very specific with you; can you not return the courtesy? You completely misused the phrase "derived from".

Which words did I misuse?

 

[epix]

More important is that you are focused on insignificant details and miss the significant details about con- and specially its use in con-text, as can clearly see here (the bolded is mine):

1) http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/context

Etymology: Middle English, weaving together of words, from Latin contextus connection of words, coherence, from contexere to weave together, from com- + texere to weave

The word "con" is still used in modern languages as a preposition. In Italian, for example, "con" means the same as it meant in Latin - it means "with." But the two main influences on the development of English obscure the consistency of the meaning. If you split "control" on "con-trol" and regard the prefix as the clue to the etymology of the word, then your soup is outside the bowl, coz "control" splits on "cont" and "rol" where the first part derives from "count" and "rol" derives from "roll," like "payroll."

It's too bad that your limited serial observations missed the origin of the idea to weave special T-shirts, where 'T' stands for True, coz a T-shirt is the only true logical text-ile.

Do you have any idea what con-trolling the topic means?

 

[The Man]

The Man, you simply can't get the difference between building-blocks and their use by collections.

Doron you simply can not get that your “building-blocks” are used only by your fantasies. As exemplified below.

Self-reference (whether it is True or False) is the building-block of certain ids, because it is the simultaneity of no more than one value.

Non self-reference (whether it is True or False) is the building-block of uncertain ids because it is the simultaneity of more than one value.

Since the considered framework is at least the linkage of Self-reference AND Non Self-reference, we get these different states:

a) A collection (which is actually based on both building-blocks) has an asymmetrical character if we are focused on the certain id's aspect (the simultaneity of no more than one value) of the linkage (we are able to define direction that is based on some order among certain id's).

b) A collection (which is actually based on both building-blocks) has symmetrical character if we are focused on the uncertain id's aspect (the simultaneity of more than one value) of the linkage (we are unable to define direction that is based on some order among uncertain id's, which is exactly the uncertainty of id's superposition).

c) A collection (which is actually based on both building-blocks) has several symmetrical degrees between Symmetry (superposition of ids) and Asymmetry (non superposition of ids)

d) Any given form is both global AND local state of the considered framework, for example:

Jsfisher and you clearly demonstrate that the number of given things cannot fully capture the non-trivial meaning of what Number is, simply because the traditional meaning of Number is based only on clear distinction of the involved.

By using Non-locality/Locality linkage as the qualitative foundation of Number, clear distinction is simply one of the options, for example:

Quantity 2 (and it does not matter if it is a whole number or two places of some 0.xx fraction) can't be used unless there is at least connector/connected linkage, where the connector has non-local quality and the connected has local quality.

From this qualitative foundation, Uncertainty and Redundancy are the fabric of the mathematical space that enables:

1) Strong symmetric observation of the linkage, which is resulted by superposition of identities (uncertain ids, for example: (AB)).

2) Weak symmetric observation, which is resulted by non-distinct replacement among clear ids (redundant ids, for example: (A,A), (B,B), (AB,AB) (in the last case AB superposition is ignored and taken as 'AB' notation for clear id of superposition representation)).

3) Asymmetric observation, which is resulted by clear ids (for example: (A,B))

By the way, the ( 1) , 2) , 3) ) explanation above uses the Asymmetric observation (3), but again, no one of the options above has any privilege and we as participators (and not only observers) of this mathematical universe actually design it for our purpose.

The coherence of this mathematical universe is guaranteed by its Non-local/Local linkage qualitative foundation, where Non-locality and Locality complement each other into a one fabric.


Yep, your "bla bla ..." reasoning simply can't get Symmetry and Asymmetry as observed in the following diagram:

[qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4068/4711080643_d71d687fc4_b.jpg[/qimg]

It has been obvious for quite some time that you simply do not understand the meaning of “Symmetry and Asymmetry” as well as a lot of other very basic concepts.

 

[doronshadmi]

Be specific, please. I was very specific with you; can you not return the courtesy? You completely misused the phrase "derived from".

Which words did I misuse?

Jsfisher, it is typical for you be stucked in irrelevant corners.

We already agreed that con- is derived from the Latin word cum ("with"), but con- has also the same meaning of the words "together" and "joint".

Furthermore, let us use con- as "with".

"Text X with text Y" means that X and Y share the same framework, where the shared property is not X or Y but something among them.

So also by "with" case we get the same result, which is derived form Non-locality("with)\Locality(text X,text Y) Linkage.

 

[doronshadmi]

Do you have any idea what con-trolling the topic means?

Very funny, ha ha.

Now pay attention to the fact that con-text has a meaning and con-trol does not have a meaining.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron you simply can not get that your “building-blocks” are used only by your fantasies. As exemplified below.



It has been obvious for quite some time that you simply do not understand the meaning of “Symmetry and Asymmetry” as well as a lot of other very basic concepts.

It has been obvious for quite some time that you simply do not understand anything beyond your local-only asymmetric serial (step-by-step) reasoning.

 

[jsfisher]

Jsfisher, it is typical for you be stucked in irrelevant corners.

You accused me of misusing English words. Can you provide examples or not? You have a long history of making stuff up, and that extends to more than just your own pseudo-mathematics. I will assume, once again, you were lying.

We already agreed that con- is derived from the Latin word cum ("with"), but con- has also the same meaning of the words "together" and "joint".

I see you still don't understand the difference between "derived from" and "can mean". Oh, well.

Yes, the English prefix, con-. is derived from the Latin, cum. As a prefix, it can modify the meaning of the root to include a concept of "together" or "joint" or "with" or it can suggest intensity.

Which of the things the prefix does, if any, depends on the word and not your fantasy reverse-engineering.

Furthermore, let us use con- as "with".

You don't get to arbitrarily decide its meaning separate from actual usage. For example, the word, context, comes from the Late Latin, contextus. The word may begin with con, but it is not derived from the prefix, con-, appended to some root. In particular, it is not con+text, as you have asserted.

"Text X with text Y" means that X and Y share the same framework, where the shared property is not X or Y but something among them.

No, it doesn't, no more than "idea K with idea L" requires K and L share a framework.

And what does this have to do with your misuse and misunderstanding of the word, context, and the prefix, con-?

Why do you continue (oh, look, another instance of con- that is not a prefix) with these absurd asides? If you have a point that can be made, please just make it directly. There's not point showing off all the other things you don't understand.

 

[doronshadmi]

You accused me of misusing English words. Can you provide examples or not? You have a long history of making stuff up, and that extends to more than just your own pseudo-mathematics. I will assume, once again, you were lying.



I see you still don't understand the difference between "derived from" and "can mean". Oh, well.

Yes, the English prefix, con-. is derived from the Latin, cum. As a prefix, it can modify the meaning of the root to include a concept of "together" or "joint" or "with" or it can suggest intensity.

Which of the things the prefix does, if any, depends on the word and not your fantasy reverse-engineering.

No, it doesn't, no more than "idea K with idea L" requires K and L share a framework.



You don't get to arbitrarily decide its meaning separate from actual usage. For example, the word, context, comes from the Late Latin, contextus. The word may begin with con, but it is not derived from the prefix, con-, appended to some root. In particular, it is not con+text, as you have asserted.



And what does this have to do with your misuse and misunderstanding of the word, context, and the prefix, con-?

Why do you continue (oh, look, another instance of con- that is not a prefix) with these absurd asides? If you have a point that can be made, please just make it directly. There's not point showing off all the other things you don't understand.

Jsfisher, you are talking nonsense.

Look at http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/context:

Context is form the Latin word contextus and its meaning is: Connection of words.

But we do not stop there because contextus is from contexere and its meaning is: to weave together, but we do not stop there because contexere is from com- + texere and its meaning is: to weave.

Now look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_prefixes and you will find that Com- and Con- have the same meaning.

No, it doesn't, no more than "idea K with idea L" requires K and L share a framework.

Idea K and Idea L are expressed by Text X and Text Y, so "with" does the same job by connecting them into a one framework.

If you do not understand what I say the please use "without" instead of "with" among them.

 

[jsfisher]

Jsfisher, you are talking nonsense.

You are lying still. We've come to expect that, though. You have made it a habit.

Look at http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/context:

Context is form the Latin word contextus and its meaning is: Connection of words.

I see you continue to confuse etymology and meaning. Yes, the Late Latin, contextus, meant "connection of words." So, what's your point? The English word, context, means something else, something more detailed.

But we do not stop there because contextus is from contexere and its meaning is: to weave together, but we do not stop there because contexere is from com- + texere and its meaning is: to weave.

Yes, so? Contextus was derived from contexere which in turn was derived from com+texere. Etymology is a wonderful thing. What's your point? Context does not mean to weave together.

Now look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_prefixes and you will find that Com- and Con- have the same meaning.

Can have the same meaning. Can. You made this same mistake before. And where are you trying to go with this point?

Idea K and Idea L are expressed by Text X and Text Y, so "with" does the same job by connecting them into a one framework.

No, idea K with idea L is not expressed by text X with text Y. And there is not implicit or explicit requirement for any of them to share a framework. You have failed to establish any need for a common framework by the mere inclusion of the word, with.

If you do not understand what I say the please use "without" instead of "with" among them.

What is it you expect that to show?

 

[The Man]

It has been obvious for quite some time that you simply do not understand anything beyond your local-only asymmetric serial (step-by-step) reasoning.

Doron you still simply do not understand and apparently refuse to accept that your “local-only asymmetric serial (step-by-step) reasoning” is, well, just yours. Again, do not try to posit your simple lack of reasoning onto others. So evidently you prefer simply labeling people with some aspect of your own failed reasoning as opposed to actually addressing the facts that, by your own assertions, your “superposition” does not involve superposition, your “serial observation” can observe nothing serial or serially and the related "asymmetry" of which your speak is required by you to be specifically, well, symmetrical. Once again you are the staunchest opponent of your own claims and notions.

 

[doronshadmi]

What is it you expect that to show?

You indeed have to ask yourself this question.

Maybe you still Can help yourself sometime.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron you still simply do not understand and apparently refuse to accept that your “local-only asymmetric serial (step-by-step) reasoning” is, well, just yours. Again, do not try to posit your simple lack of reasoning onto others. So evidently you prefer simply labeling people with some aspect of your own failed reasoning as opposed to actually addressing the facts that, by your own assertions, your “superposition” does not involve superposition, your “serial observation” can observe nothing serial or serially and the related "asymmetry" of which your speak is required by you to be specifically, well, symmetrical. Once again you are the staunchest opponent of your own claims and notions.

The Man in Plato's cave sees only the shadows on the wall.
http://www.thehamletenigma.com/images/cave04.jpg

 

[jsfisher]

You indeed have to ask yourself this question.

Maybe you still Can help yourself sometime.

Doron, this current aside into the realm of etymology is all of your doing. Do you really expect me to tell you what confusion drove you to this thread arc? It is clear from this last remark you haven't a clue what you were expecting to accomplish or what point you were trying to make.

Yet, again, Doron bounces from nonsense to nonsense without purpose or plan. Please let us know when you are finally about to make a point.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron, this current aside into the realm of etymology is all of your doing. Do you really expect me to tell you what confusion drove you to this thread arc? It is clear from this last remark you haven't a clue what you were expecting to accomplish or what point you were trying to make.

Yet, again, Doron bounces from nonsense to nonsense without purpose or plan. Please let us know when you are finally about to make a point.

All you get is a point.

But this quality is not the whole story.

 

[jsfisher]

All you get is a point.

Yes, and when you finally present one, I am sure I will get it, too.

But this quality is not the whole story.

So far, you have dealt entirely with quantity in the absolute absence of quality. Doronetics is inconsistent, undefined, contradictory, and without purpose or result. Change any one of these characteristics and you will have improved things.