Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

Once again Doron you simply, and evidently deliberately, ignore that you’re A,B or “line” are by your own limitation “non-composed elements”. Then foolishly assert your own “composed result of the linkage among A\B non-composed elements” which still specifically requires them to be “non-composed elements”




Once again this is simply your own failed reasoning that you insist on positing upon others. Nothing restricts one from considering something as a whole, however you specifically limit you’re A, B and “line” from being “composed” or more specifically from being composed of sub elements. The limitation, ignorance and failure remain, again apparently deliberately, simply yours.

It is clear now that you have no case.

 

[doronshadmi]

“Peoples” like Doron, who simply do not use reasoning, can’t deal with the fact that their simply lack of reasoning is not demonstrated by everyone. As a result he feels he must posit his own lack of reasoning onto others as well as his “un-manifested” nonsense to claim his "trunk", which he deliberately divides into two “aspects” just so he can recombine them again, is as “non-composed” as his “aspects” he divides it into. So his whole contrivance is a “non-composed” “un-manifested” "trunk", that he deliberately ‘manifests’ into two “non-composed” “branches” that are not “sub-elements” of that “trunk” nor do they have “sub-elements” themselves, just so he can recombine them again into his own “composed” “linkage”. A rather long way around with his contrived nonsense just to get from his own “non-composed” “un-manifested” "trunk" to his own “composed” ‘manifested’ “linkage”, particularly considering that he asserts himself that his separate "branches" can not be “researched”, well, separately.

It is clear now that you have no case.

particularly considering that he asserts himself that his separate "branches" can not be “researched”, well, separately.

Nope, the non-local and local "branches" are defined w.r.t each other without being sub-elements of each other.

So we are dealing with at least mutual-independent framework, and not with the separated-only, independent-only, dependent-only, local-only of The Man's "framework".

The Man, you have no case because your limited reasoning can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6224634&postcount=11104.

 

[The Man]

It is clear now that you have no case.

It was quite clear before “that you have no case”.

It is clear now that you have no case.

It is still quite clear now, as it was clear before, that still “you have no case”

Exactly, the non-local and local "branches" are defined w.r.t each other without being sub-elements of each other.

Wait, so now your “"branches" are defined w.r.t each other” so they are dependent on each other (by definition) and are derived from each other (at least by definition) contrary to your previous claims that they were independent and not derived from each other. Oh and in case you haven’t realized it yet your claim that they “are defined w.r.t each other” makes them both at least “sub-elements of each” other’s, well, definition.

 

[doronshadmi]

Wait, so now your “"branches" are defined w.r.t each other” so they are dependent on each other (by definition) and are derived from each other (at least by definition) contrary to your previous claims that they were independent and not derived from each other. Oh and in case you haven’t realized it yet your claim that they “are defined w.r.t each other” makes them both at least “sub-elements of each” other’s, well, definition.

My mistake, and it was fixed, the rihgt one (which you refluse to follow) is:

Nope, the non-local and local "branches" are defined w.r.t each other without being sub-elements of each other.

So we are dealing with at least mutual-independent framework, and not with the separated-only, independent-only, dependent-only, local-only of The Man's "framework".

The Man, you have no case because your limited reasoning can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6224634&postcount=11104.

You are living in the past.

For example: you still do not get that a segment is a composed result of the linkage among the non-local and local "branches", which are defined w.r.t each other without being sub-elements of each other.

 

[The Man]

My mistake, and it was fixed, the rihgt one (which you refluse to follow) is:

Only because you still simply refuse to indicate your edits, agian, if you feel a change is not important or significant enough to you for you to indicate that change then it is certainly not important or significant enough for anyone else to read or reply to.

Nope, the non-local and local "branches" are defined w.r.t each other without being sub-elements of each other.

Well your purported ‘fix’ didn’t fix anything, you are still claiming they “are defined w.r.t each other”.

So we are dealing with at least mutual-independent framework, and not with the separated-only, independent-only, dependent-only, local-only of The Man's "framework".

The Man, you have no case because your limited reasoning can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=11104.

Once again your deliberate misuse of the words mutual and independent are still only just yours. As the rest of that “separated-only, independent-only, dependent-only, local-only” nonsense is still just ‘yours-only’. Again stop trying to posit some particular aspect of your ‘failed-only’ reasoning onto others.

You are living in the past.

You just believe that you and everyone else are living in your own self-contradictory fantasy.

For example: you still do not get that a segment is a composed result of the linkage among the non-local and local "branches", which are defined w.r.t each other without being sub-elements of each other.

Again you still do not get that the only reason you require your “linkage among the non-local and local "branches"” is because you deliberately limit your “line” form being “composed” of sub-elements like line segments. Again it is only your contrived fantasy that requires your fantasies

 

[doronshadmi]

Again you still do not get that the only reason you require your “linkage among the non-local and local "branches"” is because you deliberately limit your “line” form being “composed” of sub-elements like line segments. Again it is only your contrived fantasy that requires your fantasies

Nothing is limited at OM.

A line-segment is a composed result of line+points, where a line or a point are non-composed elements.

So both the composed and the non-composed are expressed by OM's framework, which is not like your limited reasoning that simply can't deal with the non-composed, unless it is local (and then your limited reasoning have no basis which elables their composition).


Again,

You are living in the past, because you do not get the fact that things can be defined w.r.t each other without being sub-elements of each other.

For example: you still do not get that a segment is a composed result of the linkage among the non-local and local "branches", which are defined w.r.t each other without being sub-elements of each other.


The Man, your limited reasoning has no ability to deal with the following:

There are points on the straight line, but not as its sub-things.

The inclusion and exclusion among non-composed things is defined by different kinds of non-composition, such that no one of the different kinds is the sub-thing of the other kind.

For example:

A line is included NXOR excluded w.r.t a point, without being (even partially) a sub-thing of a point.

A point is included XOR excluded w.r.t a line, without being a sub-thing of a line.


On the contrary, composed results of the linkage among the two kinds of atoms, are sub-things of more complex and composed results.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron, referring to your own post and simply repeating your own failed reasoning still does not make that the reasoning of anyone else but you.

The Man, referring to my post and simply repeating your limited reasoning still does not make your reasoning less limited.

The current fact that some valid parts of your limited reasoning is the agreed used reasoning around the planet, does not make it less limited.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron “a dimension” would be at least one dimension.

In that case there are no points along a line.

Again your limited reasoning airs its view (we go back in time, when 0 was not used).

 

[epix]

My mistake, and it was fixed, the rihgt one [...]

No way! It looks like Zilmond, the Sumerian god of mischief, is back.

 

[epix]

It is about the similarity of the results between XOR and implication (If ... Then ...) under T\F comparison.

If F then not F → F
If F then not T → T (and prevents contratiction)
If T then not F → T (and prevents contratiction)
If T then not T → F

LOL. I thought (If F then not F) --> F and you meant (If F) then (not F --> F).

How about using the standard language If F XOR not F then F? following the example of If A-B=0 then A=B? That's why I thought the way I did. Just don't divide the arguments in the premise with words or symbols that indicate conclusion or consequence -- (or people would slip under the impression that you are academically illiterate and stop reading your thesis thus missing the opportunity to learn something new.)

 

[epix]

In that case we ask: "What enables the composition of 1,2,3?"

The answer is: 123 where ___ is the non-composed and non-local aspect of 123 composed result, and 1 or 2 or 3 are the non-composed and local aspect of 123 composed result.

If you think that '____' is the catalyst that enables the elements 1, 2, 3 to form the composed organization 123, then you never tried it. But I did and this was the result:

(1, 2, 3) and (____) yields 1 2 3

The commas disappeared but the elements/digits stayed apart.

The line wasn't the catalyst but was indicative of a certain function, coz the commas disappeared. So I cut the line into two pieces and shaped them with the needle-nose pliers to this form: [ ].

Then I used the shapes to enclose the elements 1 2 3. I went to the store and asked for a natural catalyst for [1 2 3]. The sales person recommended 0 and 4. So I hammered the catalyst into the brackets

[1 2 3] ---> [01234]

Watching the catalyst to expire, I also noticed that the brackets moved toward the composite to enclose it, like this [123] So I put it into the oven, set it on 350F and baked [123] for about twenty minutes. That freed 123 from the []baking glass pan, and that was it. Yummy.

Albert Neinstein once said: "If the application of the concept of your theory wouldn't make a good soup, then your theory is probably wrong."

 

[doronshadmi]

If you think that '____' is the catalyst that enables the elements 1, 2, 3 to form the composed organization 123, then you never tried it. But I did and this was the result:

(1, 2, 3) and (____) yields 1 2 3

epix, ( ) is equivalent to ___

 

[epix]

epix, ( ) is equivalent to ___

So why do we distinguish between curves and straight lines if ( ) is equivalent to ____ ?

 

[epix]

Nothing is limited at OM.

A line-segment is a composed result of line+points, where a line or a point are non-composed elements.

If it's true, then Line and Points are distinct, such as _ _ . . _ . _ . . and you are therefore pretty close to proving the Morse Conjecture.

There is other, very simple implication coming from your proposition. It renders the catalyst redundant. You truly need just a line-segment to convert elements 1 2 3 into their composed state 123. That's because the line segment does include points, and you need exactly two vertex points to do the conversion. The concept is simple: Take a line-segment which includes two points --these are the vertex points. Then, take the needle-nose and bend a comparison:

|____| is to /___\ as 1 2 3 is to 123

You can buy software to do the non-composed/composed conversion of non-material things.

 

[The Man]

Nothing is limited at OM.

Fine so now your "line", A or B can now be "compossed things" with "sub-elements".

A line-segment is a composed result of line+points, where a line or a point are non-composed elements.

Once again your “line” remains “non-composed” and again that is simply and only your chosen limitation.

So both the composed and the non-composed are expressed by OM's framework,

Not for your “line” it is still specificly “non-compossed” by your assertions.

which is not like your limited reasoning that simply can't deal with the non-composed, unless it is local (and then your limited reasoning have no basis which elables their composition).

Again nothing constrains one from considering a line as a whole or as composed of line segments. The limitations and lack of reasoning (even that which you would like to ascribe to others) remain specifically and entirely yours.

Again,

You are living in the past, because you do not get the fact that things can be defined w.r.t each other without being sub-elements of each other.

Again

You just believe that you and everyone else are living in your own self-contradictory fantasy.

For example: you still do not get that a segment is a composed result of the linkage among the non-local and local "branches", which are defined w.r.t each other without being sub-elements of each other.

Again you still do not get that the only reason you require your “linkage among the non-local and local "branches"” is because you deliberately limit your “line” form being “composed” of sub-elements like line segments. Again it is only your contrived fantasy that requires your fantasies

The Man, your limited reasoning has no ability to deal with the following:

Again as they are simply your chosen “non-composed” limitations, you deal with them, and in fact you have constructed this entire OM fantasy of yours just so you can pretend to deal with your own self imposed limitations.

The Man, referring to my post and simply repeating your limited reasoning still does not make your reasoning less limited.

The current fact that some valid parts of your limited reasoning is the agreed used reasoning around the planet, does not make it less limited.

Doron simply repeating your failed attempts to posit your own failed reasoning onto others still does not make it anything other then just your own failed reasoning.

In that case there are no points along a line.

No, that was and still apparently is just your ridiculous assertion. Once again two points define a line segment.

Again your limited reasoning airs its view (we go back in time, when 0 was not used).

Again simply you still trying to posit your own failed reasoning onto others.

 

[epix]

Originally Posted by doronshadmi
A line-segment is a composed result of line+points, where a line or a point are non-composed elements.

Once again your “line” remains “non-composed” and again that is simply and only your chosen limitation.

Is your rendition of Doron's line-segment the same as mine?

Just for the sake of comparison, here is a symbolic rendition of the most-often defined line:
...................................

It's a collection of imaginary points and that enables you to cut it in half to the exactness that you desire.

But Doron's line is a collection of "lines+points," such as

--.------..-.-------. -----.-.-.------

Now when you want to divide Doron's line in half, you got to be lucky to stumble on the right line that happens to have a point in the middle, coz the line-segment composition includes lines that are not composed and therefore cannot be divided.

How does that square with his statement that goes like that OM doesn't have limitations and can soar like an eagle . . .

If it's not contradictory, then it's like when you need to do something that you don't really like doing. So if you complain that you need to go and cut a line-segment in half again, then OM wouldn't put any limitation on what you enjoy doing instead. We don't cut any lines in half here at OM, coz it's very awkward process. So we don't do it at all. Welcome. Make yourself comfortable.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron “a dimension” would be at least one dimension.

In that case there are no points along a line.

Again your limited reasoning airs its view (we go back in time, when 0 was not used).

No, that was and still apparently is just your ridiculous assertion. Once again two points define a line segment.

Again, a line-segment is a composed result of the linkage among two non-composed elements that are called "line" and "point".

So your reply is irrelevant.

 

[doronshadmi]

But Doron's line is a collection of "lines+points,"

Nope.

A line is not a collection, exactly as a point is not a collection.

Line-segments (where each one of them is a composed result of non-composed line and non-composed point(s)) are collections.

 

[doronshadmi]

So why do we distinguish between curves and straight lines if ( ) is equivalent to ____ ?

Follow the notion, not the notation.

 

[sympathic]

Follow the notion, not the notation.

Says he who understands neither.