Deeper than primes

[The Man]

The Man, by your "in the same domain" nonesense, domain A is forced to be in domain B.

Not at all, your direct perception has failed you again. The simple fact that you just don’t want to be specific, again apparently deliberately, about how A relates to B, even partially, does not make A both excluded from and included in B.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron you simply can’t seem to understand that it is specifically your “non-composed things” that requires you try to imagine all this self-contradictory and unspecific OM nonsense. Again that requirement as a result of your own deliberate “non-composed” limitation is still simply just yours, as is the nonsense.

There is no limitation here because line segments are divisible because they are composed results of two qualitative atomic aspects, which your composed-only reasoning can't grasp.

 

[doronshadmi]

Not at all, your direct perception has failed you again. The simple fact that you just don’t want to be specific, again apparently deliberately, about how A relates to B, even partially, does not make A both excluded from and included in B.

I am very specific:

If domain A is "included NXOR excluded" w.r.t domain B , then domain A is (logically) Non-local w.r.t domain B.

If domain A is "included XOR excluded" w.r.t domain B , then domain A is (logically) Local w.r.t domain B.

You simply can't grasp that the A and B are related w.r.t each other because they are different qualitative aspects of the atomic state, exactly as two different and non-composed branches have a common and non-composed trunk.

Since all you get is compositions, you can't get the beauty of Y

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Doron uses that to mean some sort of atomic entity. (Unfortunately, he usually insists on using examples which aren't atomic even within his very examples, but what of that.) In some versions of set theory, this would be a ur-element (another term Doron abuses).

Thanks for the info jsfisher, but I'd like to hear the words from doron himself so he can't say "I didn't say that" or "that's not what I said".

So doronshadmi, since you are able to answer other people's posts, how about mine?

Thank you for finally agreeing what local and non local mean. Now let's define what A and B, or X and Y since you change them, are.

What are "non-composed things"? What qualities are we examining? What is "linked"? What "result"?

If you took the time to understand "AND ( 1 1 --> 1)" you would see that it does mean both. If you took the time to understand "NOR ( 0 0 --> 1)" you would see that it means neither. It's that what I said? "Both or neither."

 

[The Man]

There is no limitation here because line segments are divisible because they are composed results of two qualitative atomic aspects,

Doron your assertion was that I “simply can't grasp the notion of A or B as non-composed things” that limits “A or B”, by you, from being well “composed”.


Your assertion now is that evidently your were not considering “A or B as non-composed things” but as your “line segments” that “are composed results”.


So your claim is simply that “There is no limitation here” because you are now not referring to “or B as non-composed things” as you specifically were before.

which your composed-only reasoning can't grasp.

Well other than your above obvious inability to “grasp the notion of A or B as non-composed things” by your own assertions. You again try to posit your own failed reasoning onto other, as already pointed out to you several times before nothing prevents anyone from considering a line, line segment or anything else as a whole. So this “composed-only reasoning” limitation of yours is just another of your fantasies. However “the notion of A or B as non-composed things” does place specific limits on the consideration of A or B as composed things, and likewise that limitation is entirely yours.

 

[The Man]

I am very specific:

No you are not, or you would be specific about the relationshisp you are reffering to and apply them consistently.

If domain A is "included NXOR excluded" w.r.t domain B , then domain A is (logically) Non-local w.r.t domain B.

Again "included” in domain B “NXOR excluded" from domain B is always FALSE. ""included NXOR excluded" w.r.t domain B" is just unspecific nonsense so you can try to claim that some line or line segment is “"included NXOR excluded" w.r.t” some point.

If domain A is "included XOR excluded" w.r.t domain B , then domain A is (logically) Local w.r.t domain B.

Again "included” in domain B “XOR excluded" from domain B is always TRUE. ""included XOR excluded" w.r.t domain B" is just unspecific nonsense so you can try to claim that some point “is (logically) Local w.r.t” some line or line segment.

You simply can't grasp that the A and B are related w.r.t each other because they are different qualitative aspects of the atomic state, exactly as two different and non-composed branches have a common and non-composed trunk.

Since all you get is compositions, you can't get the beauty of Y

You simply can’t grasp that your “w.r.t” is just unspecific nonsense just as your “beauty of Y” is.

 

[doronshadmi]

Actually it is the same thing, that “the cardinality of {} (=0)” is representative of the fact that “{}” has no content (contains no elements).

The cardinality of {} is not the same as the "content" of {}, exactly as a representation of X is not the same as X.

 

[epix]

Nope.

A tangent line is a composition of two kinds or atomic aspects, the Non-local aspect and the Local aspect.

Well, I guess the "Local aspect" could refer to the point which the tangent line shares with the curve. But that's a contradiction, coz when the curve is "atomic" it's not composed of points and therefore no tangent line to the curve can be drawn. Other, perhaps one of the "Non-local aspect" of "atomic line" is that it cannot be described by a function. Atomic straight line seems to be a strand of spaghetti frozen in time.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron your assertion was that I “simply can't grasp the notion of A or B as non-composed things” that limits “A or B”, by you, from being well “composed”.

The result of A\B Linkage is composed, but A or B are non-composed, and as you see there is no limitation here, because the linked framework has composed AND non-composed properties, which your composed-only reasoning can't grasp.

 

[epix]

A line segment is a composed result of two non-composed things, which are the non-local quality of a line and the local quality of a point.

Welcome to the world of Doronetics, Non-Local Quality.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well, I guess the "Local aspect" could refer to the point which the tangent line shares with the curve. But that's a contradiction, coz when the curve is "atomic" it's not composed of points and therefore no tangent line to the curve can be drawn. Other, perhaps one of the "Non-local aspect" of "atomic line" is that it cannot be described by a function. Atomic straight line seems to be a strand of spaghetti frozen in time.

A curve with a point along it is a composed result of non-local AND non-straight atomic aspect\ Local atomic aspect Linkage.

 

[The Man]

The result of A\B Linkage is composed, but A or B are non-composed, and as you see there is no limitation here, because the linked framework has composed AND non-composed properties,

Agian the limitation, which is entirely yours, is that "A or B are non-composed" once again we see that “You simply can't grasp the notion of A or B as non-composed things”.

which your composed-only reasoning can't grasp.

Again simply your own failed reasoning and another of your limitations that you just want to posit onto others.

 

[doronshadmi]

You simply can’t grasp that your “w.r.t” is just unspecific nonsense just as your “beauty of Y” is.

You simply can’t grasp that your "just unspecific" is your Local-only framework that tries to get a framework, which is a composed result of the Linkage among Non-local and Local non-composed elements.

 

[doronshadmi]

Agian the limitation, which is entirely yours, is that "A or B are non-composed" once again we see that “You simply can't grasp the notion of A or B as non-composed things”.

The Man, OM's framework deals with both composed and non-composed things.

Your framework deals only with composed things.

 

[The Man]

You simply can’t grasp that your "just unspecific" is your Local-only framework that tries to get a framework, which is a composed result of the Linkage among Non-local and Local non-composed elements.

Again it is just your "Local-only framework", so stop simply trying to posit some portion of your own failed reasoning onto others.

 

[epix]

The result of A\B Linkage is composed, but A or B are non-composed, and as you see there is no limitation here, because the linked framework has composed AND non-composed properties, which your composed-only reasoning can't grasp.

Composed-only reasoning is a consequence of the hardware that enables us to reason and which is composed. It's a composition of neurons, axons, synapses, and all that local linkage. It's impossible for human beings to figure out stuff that requires non-composed reasoning. Only we are up to that task. Right, class?

Yeah.

 

[The Man]

The Man, OM's framework deals with both composed and non-composed things.

Doron just because you can not be specific does not mean no one else can. You specifically referred to your "A or B are non-composed" just as you consider your “line” as “non-composed”. These limitations are specifically yours, that you may consider some other ‘composed things’ like your “line segment” that you referred to before does not change your limitations on your “non-composed things”

Your framework deals only with composed things.

Again absolutely false, as has been explained to you many times before this “only with composed things” is some fantasy of yours that you feel you need to posit onto others.

 

[epix]

That added straight line cannot be a part of the diagram, coz, as atomic, it cannot intersect the circle. As non-composed thing, there are no points on that straight line and so there can't be any point of intersection. That means the line is hovering above the diagram and cannot connect the red and white parts. The inclusion of the line is therefore . . . well, pointless.

 

[doronshadmi]

"{}" can include no content just as a zero dimensional element can include no dimensional elements.

You still get inclusion only in terms of inclusion XOR exclusion, which is a local-only reasoning of Membership concept.

Non-local (NXOR) Membership is essentially different then Local (XOR) Membership, which is a notion that you can't grasp, exactly because you get things only in terms of Local-only reasoning.

 

[doronshadmi]

Again it is just your "Local-only framework", so stop simply trying to posit some portion of your own failed reasoning onto others.

The Man, you are the one who looks only on the non-composed aspect of OM (as expressed by A\B non-composed aspects) and claim that it is a limitation, exactly because you ignore the composed aspect of OM, which is the result of A\B Linkage.

So OM's "limitation" is entirely the result of your partial interpretation of it.