Deeper than primes

[The Man]

So are you actually say that you arbitrarily changed my claim about the need to face the non-trivial challenge to define the balance between "greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them", as one of the most important aspects of current and future development of Cybernetics and Robotics?

Your ridiculous behavior about this subject is even worse than what I thought.

You arbitrarily change some part of what I wrote, doing it couple of times and live the other parts unchanged, and then you claim that "It was the rest of" my "nonsense that was equivalent".

The Man, you destroy what I say by your own hands, and then conclude that what I wrote is nonsense. You have a pathetic reasoning.


The variance in the wording is your arbitrary ridicules game. You are running after your own destruction in your closed mind.

Once again here is what I did say...

Nope, I did not equate them, so why do you? It was the rest of your nonsense that was equivalent

The variance in the wording simply demonstrates the lack of specificity of your boilerplate "OM" assertions to any topic. As that is what you have evidently always intended.

Another demonstration of the inability of your poor reasoning to understand the things that are needed in order to define the non-trivial balance between "greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them."

Doron, your "OM" nonsense is not needed "in order to define the non-trivial balance between "greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them.". Similarly it is not needed in the transportation, sports and furniture examples given before. It is just superfluous nonsense of your own contrivance that you feel is relevant just because of some epiphany you apparently had while meditating. Get over it, you've wasted 20 years by your own accounts yet still let it dominate your life and feel it should dominate the lives of others as well. That is truly very sad but unfortunately there is absolutely nothing anyone else can do for you until you finally can and do get over it yourself.

After you refused couple of times to start a discussion on that subject I gave some framework to start with. Now you actually say that you are unable to do your step and contribute more details to this starting point? Do you think that I have to do whole the job for you?? just forget it, you have at least 3 options, which are:

See, I knew it would not be the "last time" as you claimed before, and you will find I have far more options than just your three.

1) To provide more details to this starting point.

Nope, once again that onus is upon you alone.

2) To admit that you have nothing to say about current and future development of Cybernetics and Robotics.

So far you have had nothing " to say about current and future development of Cybernetics and Robotics" but you just can't seem to admit that to yourself.

3) To determine the starting point about this subject in a different way, and I will join you by providing more details.

Well, if you have "more details" then by all means please provide them, that wouldn't be a bad place for you to start.

Exactly! Please choose one of the options.

Evidently not and...nope.

If you are not going to do that before I provide more details to the starting point, I am going to ignore anything that you say about Cybernetics and Robotics (if what you did until now demonstrates your best ability to discuss on that subject, then there is no chance that you have any meaningful thing to say about this subject anyway).

Doron, trying to use the threat of your deliberate ignorance is hardly compelling as it is the cornerstone of your "OM" nonsense.

 

[The Man]

Wrong.

A variable may have many values, but only one value at a time is considered.

OK, so you just don't understand how variables and algebra work, not surprising at all.

I am talking about superposition of values, such that several values are simultaneously related to a given variable.

Again having a range of values is what makes a variable, well, variable.

In this case AND connective result can't be defined, because the inputs are in a superposition.

You mean your "superposition" without superposition that evidently just means being a variable? Again a result can be a variable as well, that is what algebra is all about.

Furthermore a symmetrical state of inputs' superposition is unordered, which brings us back to the beginning of the discussion about the existence of unordered values.

Once again the ordering of the variables around a commutative operator or connective can not change the results. So once again your right back to being as wrong as you were before.

 

[The Man]

You simply unable to get generalization in terms of non-particular and non-subjective aspects, which complement the particular and subjective aspects into a one unified organic realm.

No wonder that you can't comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7243778&postcount=15576 .

I'm sure most here already 'get' that your "generalization" is deliberately intended to give your assertions no particular meaning. Well guess what, you have succeeded and your assertions still remain meaningless, congratulations.

 

[doronshadmi]

Evidently not and...nope.

From now on I am going to ignore you about the subject of Cybernetics and Robotics.

 

[doronshadmi]

You mean your "superposition" without superposition that evidently just means being a variable?

If, for example, a variable (which is used as an input for AND connective) is indeterminate because its value is a Truth\False superposition, the the result is also indeterminate (we can't conclude if the result is Truth or False, or in other words, the commutativity of AND connective "can't air its view".

Since you are unable to understand the simultaneity of superposition of a given variable, you are unable to get what I say about this subject.

Once again the ordering of the variables around a commutative operator or connective can not change the results. So once again your right back to being as wrong as you were before.

If the input is under superposition, then there is no determined result and the commutativity of AND connective "can't air its view".

This is a fact that you can't comprehend exactly because you don't understand the superposition state of a given variable that is used as an input for AND connective.

You can continue to use your ""superposition" without superposition" nonsense many times as you like, but it does not change the fact that it is nonsense.

 

[doronshadmi]

One of the OM results about Cybernetics is demonstrated by what is called Cybernetic kernels, as illustrated by the following diagram:

Furthermore, the suggested framework has no entropy exactly because no collection of lower dimensional spaces has the magnitude of higher dimensional space. For example |R| < |1-dimensional space|, where in this case R members are 0-dimensional spaces (known as points).

The following diagram illustrates |R| < |1-dimensional space| as follows:

As can be seen, the cardinality of the intersection points along the line segments with different lengths is the same, whether it is finite or infinite cardinality. So only the sets of points with the same cardinality can't provide the solution for the existence of 1-dim elements with different lengths.

This fundamental fact is exactly the incompleteness of R w.r.t 1-dimensional space, which preserves the openness of R and enables its endless further development.

The claim of Traditional Mathematics about 0-dimensional R members that completely cover a 1-dimensional space, is actually "death by entropy" of the considered framework.

 

[zooterkin]

One of the OM results about Cybernetics is demonstrated by what is called Cybernetic kernels, as illustrated by the following diagram:

Only if you redefine what 'results' means.

 

[doronshadmi]

Only if you redefine what 'results' means.

A solution that is based on open (and therefore non-entropic) realm, which enables further development of the cybernetics between the subjective and the non-subjective.

Such solutions are undefined if one is not aware of the non-entropic realm.

 

[zooterkin]

A solution that is based on open (and therefore non-entropic) realm, which enables further development of the cybernetics between the subjective and the non-subjective.

Such solutions are undefined if one is not aware of the non-entropic realm.

And what results did OM produce in this case?

 

[doronshadmi]

And what results did OM produce in this case?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7289466&postcount=15706

Also let us take, for example, the following part from http://www.scribd.com/doc/21967511/...considerations-of-Some-Mathematical-Paradigms :


Take, for example, the 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree:

(AB,AB) (AB,A)  (AB,B)  (AB)    (A,A)   (B,B)   (A,B)   (A)     (B)     ()

A * *   A * *   A * .   A * .   A * *   A . .   A * .   A * .   A . .   A . .
  | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |
B *_*   B *_.   B *_*   B *_.   B ._.   B *_*   B ._*   B ._.   B *_.   B ._.

(2,2) = (AB,AB)
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)
(2,0)=  (AB)
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)
(1,0)=  (A),(B)
(0,0)=  ()

Any appearance of that tree is called Distinction State (DS), where any DS is under a structure called Frame (F), for example: (AB ,B ) is a DS that is under (2,1) F. The order in each DS or F has no significance (similar to {a,b}={b,a}) but any DS is the basis of any possible order (similar to the concept of Set as being the basis of permutations).

The commutativity of AND connective is limited only to DS (A,A),(B,B),(A,B) under F (1,1).

 

[zooterkin]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7289466&postcount=15706

Also let us take, for example, the following part from http://www.scribd.com/doc/21967511/...considerations-of-Some-Mathematical-Paradigms :


Take, for example, the 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree:

(AB,AB) (AB,A)  (AB,B)  (AB)    (A,A)   (B,B)   (A,B)   (A)     (B)     ()

A * *   A * *   A * .   A * .   A * *   A . .   A * .   A * .   A . .   A . .
  | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |
B *_*   B *_.   B *_*   B *_.   B ._.   B *_*   B ._*   B ._.   B *_.   B ._.

(2,2) = (AB,AB)
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)
(2,0)=  (AB)
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)
(1,0)=  (A),(B)
(0,0)=  ()

Any appearance of that tree is called Distinction State (DS), where any DS is under a structure called Frame (F), for example: (AB ,B ) is a DS that is under (2,1) F. The order in each DS or F has no significance (similar to {a,b}={b,a}) but any DS is the basis of any possible order (similar to the concept of Set as being the basis of permutations).

The commutativity of AND connective is limited only to the (1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B) case of this DS.

I said results, not gibberish.

 

[doronshadmi]

I said results, not gibberish.

Let us correct the previous post:

And what results did OM produce in this case?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7289466&postcount=15706

Also let us take, for example, the following part from http://www.scribd.com/doc/21967511/...considerations-of-Some-Mathematical-Paradigms :

For example, the 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree is:

(AB,AB) (AB,A)  (AB,B)  (AB)    (A,A)   (B,B)   (A,B)   (A)     (B)     ()

A * *   A * *   A * .   A * .   A * *   A . .   A * .   A * .   A . .   A . .
  | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |
B *_*   B *_.   B *_*   B *_.   B ._.   B *_*   B ._*   B ._.   B *_.   B ._.

(2,2) = (AB,AB)
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)
(2,0)=  (AB)
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)
(1,0)=  (A),(B)
(0,0)=  ()

Any appearance of that tree is called Distinction State (DS), where any DS is under a structure called Frame (F), for example: (AB ,B ) is a DS that is under (2,1) F. The order in each DS or F has no significance (similar to {a,b}={b,a}) but any DS is the basis of any possible order (similar to the concept of Set as being the basis of permutations).

The commutativity of, for example, AND connective is limited only to DS (A,A),(B,B),(A,B) under F (1,1), so the result is a fundamental extension of the current mathematical understanding of Logic.

 

[jsfisher]

...Also let us take, for example, the following part from http://www.scribd.com/doc/21967511/...considerations-of-Some-Mathematical-Paradigms...

Curious that you would cite that particular paper, Doron. Ignoring that you continue to claim your ill-defined assumptions as conclusions, you are trying to find some tangible result for OM, and to do so you rely on one of your best examples of gibberish in which you "prove" the race imagined by Zeno never ends.

You don't see the irony, though, do you, of contradicting reality to claim a real result?

 

[doronshadmi]

Curious that you would cite that particular paper, Doron. Ignoring that you continue to claim your ill-defined assumptions as conclusions, you are trying to find some tangible result for OM, and to do so you rely on one of your best examples of gibberish in which you "prove" the race imagined by Zeno never ends.

You don't see the irony, though, do you, of contradicting reality to claim a real result?

EDIT:

jsfisher, you don't see the irony of your inability to comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7289466&postcount=15706 and my paper on Zeno race ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/21967511/...considerations-of-Some-Mathematical-Paradigms ), exactly because your mind fails to get out of his "death by entropy" box, by a paradigm-shift.

For example, your ignorance about Distinction prevents your understanding of the following ( taken from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7292205&postcount=15712 ):

The commutativity of, for example, AND connective is limited only to DS (A,A),(B,B),(A,B) under F (1,1), so the result is a fundamental extension of the current mathematical understanding of Logic.

Unfortunately, you are a reliable example of the majority of professional mathematicians around our planet, which are not aware of themselves as a significant factor of their mathematical activity and its results, exactly because they are not aware of the cybernetics between the subjective and non-subjective awareness as a one organic unity among different mathematical branches.

You and the majority of professional mathematicians do only context-dependent mathematics without any cross-contexts reasoning, and as a result you get the following as gibberish:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7243778&postcount=15576

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7255966&postcount=15594

What you call "contradicting reality" is a direct result of your context-dependent-only reasoning, when it used to comprehend the realm that is the result of the complementarity of cross-contexts AND context-dependent reasoning.

 

[jsfisher]

jsfisher, you don't see the irony of your inability to comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7289466&postcount=15706 and my paper on Zeno race.

For example, your ignorance about Distinction prevents your understanding of the following:

Please stop projecting your own failings on to others.

We are still waiting for some tangible result, by the way. Something that isn't self-referential.

 

[doronshadmi]

Please stop projecting your own failings on to others.

Please stop forcing your devastating context-dependent-only reasoning on your students' minds.

We are still waiting for some tangible result, by the way. Something that isn't self-referential.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7292565&postcount=15714 is tangible result that can't be comprehended by using context-dependent-only reasoning.

 

[doronshadmi]

We are still waiting ...

A paradigm-shift can't be done by waiting.

 

[The Man]

From now on I am going to ignore you about the subject of Cybernetics and Robotics.

Hardly surprising or compelling since so far you have simply ignored “the subject of Cybernetics and Robotics”.

 

[The Man]

If, for example, a variable (which is used as an input for AND connective) is indeterminate because its value is a Truth\False superposition, the the result is also indeterminate (we can't conclude if the result is Truth or False, or in other words, the commutativity of AND connective "can't air its view".

Once again Doron the commutative property of an operator or connective is not dependent on the variables or that some Truth\False value is indeterminate. Once again what the commutative property of such an operator or connective does determine is that changes in the ordering of the variables around that operator or connective can not change the results.

Since you are unable to understand the simultaneity of superposition of a given variable, you are unable to get what I say about this subject.

Since you are unable to understand the irrelevance of your “simultaneity of superposition of a given variable” to the commutative property of an operator or connective you are unable to get the irrelevance of what you just “say about this subject”.

If the input is under superposition, then there is no determined result and the commutativity of AND connective "can't air its view".

Doron you just said above that you determined the result to be “indeterminate” (a variable). Similarly that the “AND connective” is commutative determines that changes in ordering of the variables around that connective can not change the results. So there are two things that have been determined, one by your own assertions and one by the commutative property of the "AND connective ". With a third thing determined being that the only thing that "can't air its view" is just you and according to you.

This is a fact that you can't comprehend exactly because you don't understand the superposition state of a given variable that is used as an input for AND connective.

Actually Doron it is just a “state” that by your own assertions “you can't comprehend exactly because you” claim it does not involve superposition.

You can continue to use your ""superposition" without superposition" nonsense many times as you like, but it does not change the fact that it is nonsense.

It is your own stated nonsense Doron, if you don’t like it then stop trying to use your nonsense “superposition” without superposition.

 

[The Man]

A paradigm-shift can't be done by waiting.

It also can’t be obtained by just spouting self-contradictory nonsensical gibberish for 20 years. Perhaps you should have just waited until you actually understood mathematics before you started expounding your imaginary “paradigm-shift”. Not to worry Doron, we’ll be waiting for you whenever you decide you want to catch up.