Deeper than primes

[The Man]

The Man, it is clearly seen that you have no ability to get novel view of already agreed framework.

Doron, deliberate ignorance and indeteminisim are not a “novel view”, certainly not on this forum anyway.

For example, you simply can't grasp the novel notion about Membership among non-composed elements, because you can't grasp the idea of shared concept among different magnitudes that are not components of each other.

Doron “non-composed elements” can’t have members, however they can still be members. So there is absolutely nothing novel about “Membership among non-composed elements”

As a result you can't grasp the notion of dimensional spaces as non-composed elements that have different extensions of the same concept, where each extended state is not a collection of the previews extensions.

Again this “notion of dimensional spaces as non-composed elements” is your self-imposed restriction, it restricts only you.

Again, 1-D space is not a collection of 0-D spaces, because no matter how many 0-D spaces there are along it, no one of them has the extension of 1-D space.

n = 1 to ∞
k = 0 to n-1

In general, n-D space is not a collection of k-D spaces, because no matter how many k-D spaces there are, no one of them has the extension of n-D space.

Again your restrictions, restrict only you and your ‘extensions’ only extend your nonsense.

You still do not get that the "trunk" level (not composed AND not non-composed) of Y form is not defined as a collection of the "branches" level.

You still don’t get that “not composed AND not non-composed” is just your usual self-contradictory nonsense.

As for the concept of Dimension, all you get is the number of different values (known as co-ordinates) that are related to 0-dimensional space w.r.t extended and non-composed states of the concept of Dimension.

Again what “concept of Dimension” are you referring to?

By doing that you get the concept of Dimension only in terms of naturally local elements like 0-dimensional spaces, which is again a signature of your local-only reasoning that stands at the basis of any notion that is "developed" in your mind.

Again stop trying to simply posit some aspect of your own failed reasoning onto others.

For example, you define a 1-D space in terms of a collection of 0-D spaces.

Or as a collection of “1-D” object as any two of those “0-D” objects defines a “1-D” object

The Man, no direct-perception extension (whether it is infinite extrapolation or interpolation of a direct-perception) and say "bye bye" to real development.

Care to try putting that into English, please.

Looks like “extension” is your new catch word of the month.

 

[epix]

Again, 1-D space is not a collection of 0-D spaces, because no matter how many 0-D spaces there are along it, no one of them has the extension of 1-D space.

That's the issue that the Standard Model has been struggling with, namely the issue of an absence/presence relation.

We usually symbolize an object with one character, and that created the problem that even the top physicist couldn't solve. But if you chose the right representation for an object that allows a consequent definition, which is particular to a solution, you can come up with a viable theory. Here is an example:

A point can be symbolized either by the '.' (dot) or by number 0, coz a point is a 0-dimensional object, right? But that's wrong in the case of the Standard Model, which couldn't come up with a scenario describing how some particles acquired their mass. You use BOTH symbols. Here is a collection of points represented by 0:

00000000000000000000

This collection of points (0-D objects) formed a line, which is a 1-D object.

{00000000000000000000} = 1 dimension

Now set 0= dimension and absence and no mass and 1= dimension and presence and mass and ask yourself this question: How the {} acquired its mass when the elements have 0 mass; where does the 1-D come from?

There is no way to answer it, if the line has been rendered (defined) the way it was. The trick is to render it by using BOTH symbols -- zero and the dot respectively:

{0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0} = 1-D, mass is present

But the difference can hardly account for the {} becoming a 1-D object, or a set with a mass. But if you redefine the dot to stand for the symbol that is often used as a multiplication operator, you are getting closer to the solution.

That can be hardly so, coz multiplication of zeroes always yields 0 not 1. But since some particles do have mass -- that's a fact -- that 1 also clues an additional presence in the set. But what presence?

The mysterious, unseen object must have such a characteristic that enables the {} to acquire 1-D (the mass). Here is a theoretical possibility:

h^0 . h^0 . h^0 . h^0 . h^0 . h^0 . h^0 . h^0 = 1 [if h>0]

That object 'h^' stands for Higgs boson -- a theoretical particle that is responsible for creating an object property called "mass."

That's the concept Peter Higgs used to prop up the Standard Model. Of course, he wasn't thinking points and lines in particular.

The media often set Higgs boson = God's particle. From that, we can infer the true name of God, which is actually a formula that solves any problem you can imagine.

Wow! Let's go to the church -- some nice, 5-D one.
Hey, ONEANDONEISTWO! Are you there...somewhere...behind that 4-D altar?

 

[doronshadmi]

... as any two of those “0-D” objects defines a “1-D” object

No, 1-D object is actually a composition of 1-D magnitude AND 0-D magnitude, such that the magnitude of the composed object < magnitude of a 1-D element, which is non-composed.

Let us get the concept of Dimension by using the following representation:

D( 0(), 1(x), 2(x,y) , 3(x,y,z) , 4(x,y,z,w), ...)

The concept of Dimension extends any given dimensional space of certain magnitude and certain degrees of freedom.

In other words, its existence is independent of any particular magnitude or any amount of degrees of freedom.

D() extended existence is equivalent to the notion of {} extended existence, and according to this generalized notion both of them extend the existence or absence of any members, and as a result they are not defined by them.

“No Dimension” is the absence of D() (where D() represents the extended existence of the concept of Dimension), exactly as “No Set” is the absence of {} (where {} represents the extended existence of the concept of Set).

“0 dimensional space” is one of the existing magnitudes under D(), and it is notated as 0(), where 0() has 0 degrees of freedom, notated as 0().

“1 dimensional space” is one of the existing magnitudes under D(), and it is notated as 1(), where 1() has 1 degrees of freedom, notated as 1(x).

Be aware of the notion that 0() or 1() existence extend the existence or absence of any members, so 0() or 1() are not defined by them.

The degrees of freedom are placeholders that have the magnitude of 0() (“0 dimensional space” ), and these placeholders are known as (co-)ordinates.

So what we get is this:

First we have the concept of Dimension that its existence extends any dimensional space, and this notion is notated as D() .

Then we have the dimensional spaces that their existence extend any degrees of freedom, and this notion is notated as
D( 0(), 1(), 2() , 3() , 4(), ...) .

Then we have the existence of the degrees of freedom (where each degree of freedom is a placeholder of an element that has the magnitude of existence of 0() (“0 dimensional space”)), and this notion is notated as D( 0(), 1(x), 2(x,y) , 3(x,y,z) , 4(x,y,z,w), ...) .

Standard Math talks about definitions, where OM talks about the magnitudes of existence.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Sixth time asking a simple question:

Domain is "that is researched".

What is researched?

Define researched.

A measurable realm.

What is "a measurable realm"?

A realm where the measured and the measurer are interacted.

Since you want to play little games.

Your mom has an apple. She wants to know the weight of the apple. She places the apple on the scale. When she places the apple (the measured object) on the scale, it will give her a measurement. Who is the measurer?

Avoidance noted. I ask a simple question of who/what is the measurer and it's something that you can't answer.

Edit: Why does it matter who asked the question?

Still can't answer simple questions there doronshadmi?

Edit: You just said "Standard Math talks about definitions, where OM talks about the magnitudes of existence." Yes, that is totally correct. OM is not standard math. You've called it novel (like unique), but I can call it novel (like a book) since you can't even produce a clear definition of words like local/non-local, and currently I'm trying to get you to define domain so we can clear up your definition of local/non-local. Remember that? Here's your definitions so far:

From post 11001:
If A belongs XOR ~belongs w.r.t B, then A is Local w.r.t B
If A belongs NXOR ~belongs w.r.t B, then A is Non-local w.r.t B.

Which get expanded to

Post 11012:
1) If A belongs NXOR ~belongs w.r.t B is True, then A is Non-local w.r.t B
2) If A belongs XOR ~belongs w.r.t B is True, then A is Local w.r.t B

I posted that your definitions can even be expanded to this:

Post 11017:
1) If the result of A sharing a given domain NXOR not sharing a given domain with regard to B is TRUE, then A is non-local with regard to B.

2) If the result of A is sharing a given domain XOR not is sharing a given domain with regard to B is TRUE, then A is local with regard to B.

Then we started working on your definition of the word domain. (See top of this message)

 

[epix]

The concept of Dimension extends any given dimensional space of certain magnitude and certain degrees of freedom.

Any concept is dependent on the nature of the problem to be solved. The problem needs to be well-described. Then, a conceptual solution follows. The exact solution depends on the definition of the terms that enter the solution. You are trying to force a pile of definitions on, well, 0-D problem -- something that doesn't exist. You think that "An Introduction to the Theory of Something" is some rigorous formalization of a subject that has never asked a question to be answered -- a real problem to be solved.

You can have a 2-degree of freedom space with 3-D points in it:

The red points are little spheres that move simultaneously and randomly along the 2-D grid that restricts their movement, which is orthogonal. Each second, they all change their position by one unit on the coordinates. The question is, for example, what is the probability p that the first collision between two or more spheres takes place exactly between 20 and 25 seconds?

Why would anyone think of the points as 0-D objects when the description of the problem calls for 3-D objects, like spheres, especially when the dimensionality of the points doesn't enter the solution of the particular problem?

The dimension of the space where the action takes place is what really matters when the same problem is extended to the cube grid, then to the 4-D grid, 5-D grid and so on. (Do I know the solution? I don't have the slightest idea -- the problem just occurred to me.)

Your latest scribble resembles a reading from "The Book of Doron," Chapter 0, Verse 1 -- a brief introduction to the conduct of behavior for the deceased within the realm of multidimensional Heavens of Alpha Centauri.

Get a problem first, Doron.

 

[doronshadmi]

Get the problem first, Doron.

Get the universe of the challenge.

In your case you are using 3(x,y,constant) form of a 3-d space.

Any concept is dependent on the nature of the problem to be solved.

Any challenge needs a universe in order to be expressed.

 

[epix]

Sixth time asking a simple question:

?????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[SnakeTongue]

Religion and philosophy section?

I am lost or this thread is lost?

 

[The Man]

No, 1-D object is actually a composition of 1-D magnitude AND 0-D magnitude, such that the magnitude of the composed object < magnitude of a 1-D element, which is non-composed.

Again your assertion, your problem.

Exactly what “magnitude” are you referring to?

Let us get the concept of Dimension by using the following representation:

D( 0(), 1(x), 2(x,y) , 3(x,y,z) , 4(x,y,z,w), ...)

How about you just explain your “concept of Dimension” clearly and concisely without the nonsensical “representation:”?

The concept of Dimension extends any given dimensional space of certain magnitude and certain degrees of freedom.

So now your “concept of Dimension extends” while before it was an “extensions of the concept of Dimension”? Seems you have switched the ‘extendee’ to the ‘extendor‘.

In other words, its existence is independent of any particular magnitude or any amount of degrees of freedom.

“In other words”, nonsense.

D() extended existence is equivalent to the notion of {} extended existence, and according to this generalized notion both of them extend the existence or absence of any members, and as a result they are not defined by them.

Once again the empty set is specifically defined by its lack of members just as a point is specifically defined by its lack of dimension.

“No Dimension” is the absence of D() (where D() represents the extended existence of the concept of Dimension), exactly as “No Set” is the absence of {} (where {} represents the extended existence of the concept of Set).

Once again we see that all your are extending with your ‘extensions’ is your nonsense.

“0 dimensional space” is one of the existing magnitudes under D(), and it is notated as 0(), where 0() has 0 degrees of freedom, notated as 0().

“1 dimensional space” is one of the existing magnitudes under D(), and it is notated as 1(), where 1() has 1 degrees of freedom, notated as 1(x).

Be aware of the notion that 0() or 1() existence extend the existence or absence of any members, so 0() or 1() are not defined by them.

The degrees of freedom are placeholders that have the magnitude of 0() (“0 dimensional space” ), and these placeholders are known as (co-)ordinates.

So what we get is this:

So from your proceeding nonsense you get the following nonsense.

First we have the concept of Dimension that its existence extends any dimensional space, and this notion is notated as D() .

So your “concept of Dimension” “extends any dimensional space”? You do understand that a “dimensional space” is based on the concept of, well, dimension, don’t you? So your “dimensional space” just comes up short and thus your need to ‘extend’ that “dimensional space” with your “concept of Dimension” that was an aspect of that space already?

Have you been watching too much late night TV with “smilling bob”? As you seem to have a preoccupation with “extending” everything lately.

Then we have the dimensional spaces that their existence extend any degrees of freedom, and this notion is notated as
D( 0(), 1(), 2() , 3() , 4(), ...) .

No you already had “the dimensional spaces” once you had “the concept of Dimension”, Oh wait that’s right you don’t actually have a concept of dimension just some fantasy “extension”.

Then we have the existence of the degrees of freedom (where each degree of freedom is a placeholder of an element that has the magnitude of existence of 0() (“0 dimensional space”)), and this notion is notated as D( 0(), 1(x), 2(x,y) , 3(x,y,z) , 4(x,y,z,w), ...) .

Note it however you want as your “notation” is simply a “placeholder” for your extended nonsense.

Hey wait that nonsense “notation” looks familiar

Let us get the concept of Dimension by using the following representation:

D( 0(), 1(x), 2(x,y) , 3(x,y,z) , 4(x,y,z,w), ...)

Yep it just your “concept of Dimension” nonsense “notation” recycled for your “degrees of freedom”.

Standard Math talks about definitions, where OM talks about the magnitudes of existence.

It has long been understood that you and OM certainly don’t like talking about definitions.

I must say Doron as wacky as your assertions get you never fail to take it up a notch. This new “extension” trend of yours certainly sets a new bar and I think it’s going to be a ,well, extended period before you can top it.

 

[The Man]

Religion and philosophy section?

I am lost or this thread is lost?

Not to worry SnakeTongue, it’s just Doron that’s lost, but evidently he likes his “fog”. The thread in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section was closed because Doron just couldn’t keep his philosophical musings out of it.

Anyway, welcome to the thread and the forum.

 

[doronshadmi]

It has long been understood that you and OM certainly don’t like talking about definitions.

It has long been understood that you and Traditional Math certainly don’t like talking about the existence of the universe that enables definitions.

The principle of extension is fundamental to any given concept, for example, the concept of Set:

This concept extends members or their absence, or in other words, it is not identical with members or their absence.

This notion is expressed by the outer "{" "}" whether the this concept has or does not have members.

Furthermore, Russell's paradox does not hold, because there is a difference between a concept as a member and a concept as an extension which is beyond the existence or absence of members.

 

[doronshadmi]

You do understand that a “dimensional space” is based on the concept of, well, dimension,

You do understand that since D() extends 0(), 1(), 2() ... etc., then it is used as their common concept (or in your language: "a “dimensional space”" (for example 0(), 1(), 2(), ... etc.) "is based on the concept of, well, dimension," ( it is based on D() ).

 

[SnakeTongue]

Not to worry SnakeTongue, it’s just Doron that’s lost, but evidently he likes his “fog”. The thread in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section was closed because Doron just couldn’t keep his philosophical musings out of it.

Anyway, welcome to the thread and the forum.

Thank you.

I am just trying to understand anything in this thread, but my mind cannot process any information about...

It is Doron trying to create a new science, like "Psycho-history" from Isaac Asimov famous trilogy?

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Yes, doronshadmi is trying to create something, but I wouldn't call it science. The problems that he has are that he can't explain clearly how it works, what it is, what good is it, or how to use it. He keeps introducing new terms without defining them, drops old terms that he hasn't defined, use extra words when just one or two will do, and give us proper definitions. He'll use words that already have a standard definition, and use them in his own way.

With me, he has taken about 10 pages to define something. It's mainly because he won't answer me. I've had to ask the same question about seven times.

If I remember correctly, he's even killed a thread that had nothing to do with his "idea".

 

[doronshadmi]

Yes, doronshadmi is trying to create something, but I wouldn't call it science. The problems that he has are that he can't explain clearly how it works, what it is, what good is it, or how to use it. He keeps introducing new terms without defining them, drops old terms that he hasn't defined, use extra words when just one or two will do, and give us proper definitions. He'll use words that already have a standard definition, and use them in his own way.

With me, he has taken about 10 pages to define something. It's mainly because he won't answer me. I've had to ask the same question about seven times.

If I remember correctly, he's even killed a thread that had nothing to do with his "idea".

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6271554&postcount=11336

 

[zooterkin]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6271554&postcount=11336

What a very helpful link, Doron, well up to your usual standard.

 

[doronshadmi]

Thank you.

I am just trying to understand anything in this thread, but my mind cannot process any information about...

It is Doron trying to create a new science, like "Psycho-history" from Isaac Asimov famous trilogy?

Welcome SnakeTongue,

Please start here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM

 

[SnakeTongue]

Welcome SnakeTongue,

Please start here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM

Wow!



This is very interesting.

Of course I am not a scientist in the fields of numbers, so I cannot say what I saw in the content of the first link is right with the present models of our age.

My impression is really of a new model.

I sense that you are trying to develop a different concept to use numbers.

Strange to say, but that picture of the homo sapiens with where the monkey at right side saying "Fellows, when the door of the bank are open?" made me think in a whole new model of how to use numbers.

Damn banks! They machines control every digit in the large scale system which was design to limit our individual financial power.

This binary system of debit and credit will not last forever... The comprehension of numbers must change, to a more complex level.

I understand, Doron, that your are proposing a new model to interpret the use of the numbers in the most important aspects of our contemporary (or perhaps future) demands.

I cannot just understand very well the mathematics concepts. I am better with words.

So I like the way you propose those changes together with ethics. This old knowledge from the ancient Greeks is not in use as should be.

I will give a time to digest the content and maker further comments.

In mean time, I wish good will in your quest.

 

[doronshadmi]

Type theory "avoids Russell's paradox by first creating a hierarchy of types, then assigning each mathematical (and possibly other) entity to a type. Objects of a given type are built exclusively from objects of preceding types (those lower in the hierarchy), thus preventing loops." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory ).

OM does it by distinguish between the magnitude of existence of a given concept and the magnitude of existence of that concept as one of the members of that concept.

For example the magnitude of existence of the concept of dimension, notated as D(), extends the magnitude of existence of that concept as a one of the members of that concept, notated as D(D()).

 

[Little 10 Toes]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6271554&postcount=11336

And how does that answer the following questions that I am asking for the SEVENTHtime:

Domain is "that is researched".

What is researched?

Define researched.

A measurable realm.

What is "a measurable realm"?

A realm where the measured and the measurer are interacted.

{responding to "Who asks the questions? Who is that whishes to know the "interacted" definition (or any other definition)?" in post 11299}
Anyways, I want to know. Paranoid? You keep using unique definitions of words, like domain.

I ask. When your mother places an apple on a scale to determine the apple's weight, who/what is the measurer? Is it your mother or the scale?

Avoidance noted. I ask a simple question of who/what is the measurer and it's something that you can't answer.

Edit: Why does it matter who asked the question?

Please note that not only did I answer your "Who is asking" but questioned why you want to know twice. Why does it matter who asks "Who/what is the measurer"?