Deeper than primes

[the PC apeman]

Thread finally goes BOOM?

 

[HatRack]

One of the main reasons of the efficiency of this science is the universal principles that stand at its foundations.

Because of these universal principles our civilization achieved its current technology, but the motivations and use of these technologies are not based on universal principles.

And yet "Doronetics" contradicts traditional math and makes the claim that all of calculus is wrong due to its rejection of the limit. If Doronetics was useful in any way, it would encompass all of the usefulness of traditional mathematics that let us achieve this status.

In my opinion one of the ways to reduce the chance of self-made destruction is to define a universal framework that may be used as a common base ground for both Ethics and Logical reasoning.

Logic is more basic than ethics. Trying to combine the two at the same level is a recipe for disaster, as this monstrosity of a thread is a testament to.

For the past 30 years I am trying to develop such a framework, and this goal is definitely beyond the abilities of a single person.

30 years and you can't even get your axioms to be self-consistent.

I call this framework Organic Mathematics, or OM.

Because organic isn't enough of a misused buzzword nowadays.

Direct Perception is actually the silent presence of any mantel activity, which enables to bridge our ethical aspects with our logical\technological aspects under a one framework.

Direct perception AKA Doron's personally biased and so far very useless view of mathematics.

The luck of Direct Perception as the base ground of a powerful language like the mathematical science, can easily lead us to manipulate deeper forces of Nature, which are not balanced by universal ethical principles (universal ethical principles must not be limited to any particular religion, culture or civilization).

Deeper forces of nature? If you want to believe this stuff, fine. But keep out of science and mathematics.

In my opinion if our species will not learn very soon how to develop the universal bridge between Ethics and Logics under a one comprehensive framework, we shell not survive further manipulations of Nature's forces.

Ahh, so you're trying to scare us into adopting your view of mathematics. Or should I say, your religion.

This nonsense has absolutely no place in science and mathematics. You're a fraud, plain and simple, spewing your nonsense under the guise of a genuine mathematician to the unsuspecting.

ETA: But, fortunately, even the unsuspecting can see through your nonsense, as you're completely incomprehensible.

 

[HatRack]

We came to the conclusion that kindergarten children have a different way of grasping concepts and a different way of thinking than do adults.While the so-called “adult Mathematical thinking” is based mostly on Logic, children think in a way that is balanced somewhere in-between logic, intuition, emotion and imagination.We called this thought process “Organic Thinking” and tried to characterize it.

Doron, I don't know what's scarier. The prospect of you teaching this nonsense to kindergarten children, or the fact that you are basing your mathematical theory on the reasoning of kindergarten children.

ETA: Source of quote: http://www.scribd.com/doc/18453171/IJPAMOM

 

[jsfisher]

Thread finally goes BOOM?

Finally? No, no. Doron has been wallowing in contradiction for many years. We now just have a repeat of an old classic.

 

[jsfisher]

A more general one:

The axiom of Locality:
There exist y and x, such that x is at the domain of y.

It is nice to see that your axioms area so...um...flexible...that you can so readily change them thusly.

However, your latest word substitution leads quite naturally to the following word-substituted request: What is the definition for "at the domain of"?

Yes, this is the property of Non-locality, it is a contradiction only from the local point of view.

Well, if it is a contradiction from any point of view, that renders it, and all that include it, a worthless piece of dung.

At least you finally admit it's a contradiction. You've been denying that for years.

 

[HatRack]

Tell us, in detail, which ZFC axioms are wrong and why.

I will do it tommorow.

Well, "tomorrow" is almost over, and we've yet to hear one peep from you about which ZFC axiom is wrong.

 

[jsfisher]

Well, "tomorrow" is almost over, and we've yet to hear one peep from you about which ZFC axiom is wrong.

He has in the past argued that the Axiom of the Empty Set was wrong.

 

[HatRack]

He has in the past argued that the Axiom of the Empty Set was wrong.

Oh my, the empty set, really? And what do you hope to accomplish by disposing of the empty set Doron? You're going to have to eradicate specification as well if you intend for any collections to exist in your theory. But, considering you have asserted the existence of absolutely nothing so far, and have done nothing but deny the existence of things you've went out of your way to define, I guess that's not truly an issue.

But that's not the least of your problems, of course. The self-inconsistent nature of your theory so far, your plethora of hidden assumptions, your inability to grasp the traditional math which you claim is wrong, and the fact that your entire theory is based on observations of how kindergartners think does not bode well.

It's time to scratch your head and start asking yourself where the last 30 years went.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron, I don't know what's scarier. The prospect of you teaching this nonsense to kindergarten children, or the fact that you are basing your mathematical theory on the reasoning of kindergarten children.

ETA: Source of quote: http://www.scribd.com/doc/18453171/IJPAMOM

No, it came naturally from the children, they observed a stick as something which is both at AND not at the domain of a drawing circle on the floor.

We took that notion and tried to address it mathematically, and found the notion of non-locality as y which is at AND not at the domain of x.

For example: 0-dimensional space does not have this property, but 1-dimensional space has this property.

A contradiction in this framework is shown if one argues that x or y are Non-local AND local.

 

[doronshadmi]

Oh my, the empty set, really? And what do you hope to accomplish by disposing of the empty set Doron?

X is a place holder of any set.

A is a distinct set.

There is set A such that no set X is its member.

This axiom uses the hidden assumption that one of the sets that are not the members of set X, is set A.

In other words the empty set is used to define itself, which is a circular reasoning.

 

[HatRack]

X is a place holder of any set.

A is a distinct set.

There is set A such that no set X is its member.

This axiom uses the hidden assumption that one of the sets that are not the members of set X, is set A.

In other words the empty set is used to define itself, which is a circular reasoning.

Doron, this post, above all others, truly demonstrates that you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. You're getting the definition of Empty Set and the Axiom of the Empty Set confused.

Definition: The empty set is the set that has no elements.
Axiom: The empty set exists.

Nowhere in the definition of empty set do I make reference to the term empty set or any other term whose definition can be traced back to the term empty set. Hence, the definition is not circular. The only two undefined terms that are mentioned are sets and elements, and it is the purpose of the ZFC axioms in the first place to give some basic assumptions about sets and their elements, for the very reason that they are undefined terms. The only other words I use in the definition of empty set are words which can be readily translated to the formal language of first-order logic.

As for the axiom, it states nothing more than the existence of the aforementioned set. There's no need to assume its own existence in order to assume its existence like you claim. It's an axiom, that's what it's supposed to do: give a basic assumption that we can work with.

Why is this axiom, its corresponding definition, and that definition's two undefined terms superior to your "axioms"? Well, for starters, your axioms are demonstrably inconsistent. ZFC, on the other hand, has no known inconsistencies. Your axioms use many undefined terms, ZFC uses two undefined terms: sets and elements. ZFC's undefined terms are readily demonstrated intuitively, your undefined terms make absolutely no sense at all. Your attempted explanations as to what your undefined terms are supposed to accomplish make absolutely no sense at all.

And finally, last but not least, ZFC can be used to derive just about all known useful mathematics. This includes many things that have been around before ZFC itself was even around, ranging from basic arithmetic to calculus to probability and so on. You've yet to demonstrate one useful thing that your "axioms" lead to. In fact, it's quite the opposite with you, your axioms actually deny the existence of all the useful mathematics we have.

It's not looking good Doron.

 

[doronshadmi]

Logic is more basic than ethics. Trying to combine the two at the same level is a recipe for disaster,

I disagree with you, Logic and Ethics complement each other if they are combined according to universal principles, that are not limited to any particular culture.

I see that you do not grasp Evolutionary Ethics Model (EEM) ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM ) ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE ) and how parallel thinking (intuition) and serial thinking (analysis) complement each other ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/18453171/International-Journal-of-Pure-and-Applied-Mathematics-Volume-49 ) under a one framework, which is based on Direct Perception skills of the observer\participator ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/17039028/OMDP ).

 

[doronshadmi]

There's no need to assume its own existence in order to assume its existence like you claim.

I disagree with you:

ZFC axiom of the empty set ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_empty_set ):

There is a set such that no set is a member of it.

"There is a set" (A is a distinct set) "such that no set" (X is a place holder of any set) "is a member of it" (one of the sets that are not members of A must be A, otherwise {{}} is not one of the cases that are not allowed by this axiom.

So set {} is used as one of the sets that define it, which is a circular reasoning, because the defined object can't be a factor of its own terms of existence.

Furthermore, your dichotomy between Definition and Axiom is impossible, because "X exists" does not provide the terms of its existence, and without the terms of existence we can't distinguish between empty and non-empty sets, because both of them exist.

 

[HatRack]

"There is a set" (A is a distinct set) "such that no set" (X is a place holder of any set) "is a member of it" (one of the sets that are not members of A must be A, otherwise {{}} is not one of the cases that are not allowed by this axiom.

So set {} is used as one of the sets that define it, which is a circular reasoning, because the defined object can't be a factor of its own terms of existence.

Yes, {} is one of the sets that is not a member of {}. So is the set {1,2,3}, and so is the set of all pink unicorns. We don't have to assume the existence of any of these sets to establish that the set {} exists. You're essentially claiming that in order to establish that a set contains nothing, we must assume the existence of everything it doesn't contain, which is asinine.

 

[HatRack]

Furthermore, your dichotomy between Definition and Axiom is impossible, because "X exists" does not provide the terms of its existence, and without the terms of existence we can't distinguish between empty and non-empty sets, because both of them exist.

Incorrect. "X exists" certainly does provide the "terms of X's existence" because I defined X, the empty set, before I asserted its existence. Go back to the last page and read jsfisher's explanation of the difference between an axiom and a definition if you still can't get it.

 

[HatRack]

I disagree with you, Logic and Ethics complement each other if they are combined according to universal principles, that are not limited to any particular culture.

I see that you do not grasp Evolutionary Ethics Model (EEM) ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM )

Congratulations Doron. You managed to combine four unrelated topics: a Dirty Harry movie, probabilistic reasoning, the Drake equation, and a bunch of semicircles into one single nonsensical paper. Maybe the reason you can't get anything published is that the referees don't appreciate the throw crap at the wall until something sticks approach.

 

[zooterkin]

For the past 30 years I am trying to develop such a framework, and this goal is definitely beyond the abilities of a single person.

Thirty years? Thirty years? Oh, my. I knew you'd been doing it for a few years, both on this forum and elsewhere, but I had no idea it was that long. And yet, in all this time, you have yet to come up with a single, consistent, basic definition, nor show a single example of what you can do with OM that real maths cannot do.

And all this time wasted based on a trivial observation that part of a stick touches a circle while another part is not touching it? Doron, seriously, get a life.

 

[doronshadmi]

Incorrect. "X exists" certainly does provide the "terms of X's existence" because I defined X, the empty set, before I asserted its existence. Go back to the last page and read jsfisher's explanation of the difference between an axiom and a definition if you still can't get it.

Compare the axiom, "an empty set exists," to the definition, "an empty set is a set with no members."

The axiom of the empty set uses the definition of being a set with no members.

Yet one of the members must be the empty set, otherwise the case {{}} is not covered by this axiom, and the empty set does not exist (as the axiom claims).

Furthermore a set can't be a factor of its own terms of existence, and in this case the term is that {} is not a member of {}, which is a circular reasoning.

 

[doronshadmi]

And all this time wasted based on a trivial observation that part of a stick touches a circle while another part is not touching it?

No, all this time I meat closed minds like you, that no matter how many times they observe it, that can't can the non-local property of a stick, which is not less than at AND not at a given circle drown on the floor.

There are no parts here.

 

[jhutchins11]

[Patent Pending]

Using certain elements which have valence electrons equal to the first few digits of prime, I am synthesizing a new chemical, a type of super drug. Using known properties of each of these elements it is possible to dream about the possibilities which are coming once a complete synthesis of this molecule is complete.

(2), 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23

(He), Li, B, N, Na, Al, Cl, K