Deeper than primes

[drkitten]

Notion #1:

If we use partitions in order to define Entropy,

... then we end up with complete gibberish.

Doron, weren't you leaving us because we were too rigid and accurate in our thinking and knew too much mathematics for your tastes?

 

[doronshadmi]

Please show an interesting discovery you have made using this framework.

This time please read my all of my first post (not part here and part there), and try to get it by using a general viewpoint that enables you to see how it can be used as a common framework to research Entropy in terms of both Thermodynamic and Information by a one framework.

 

[doronshadmi]

... then we end up with complete gibberish.

Doron, weren't you leaving us because we were too rigid and accurate in our thinking and knew too much mathematics for your tastes?

drkitten,

Nobody forces you to reply here.

 

[nathan]

By using Set\Multiset compelemntation one can systematically research Entropy in terms of both Thermodynamic and Information by a one framework.

Oh, we're back to complementation I see. Anyway, you've yet to show how your framework leads to new insights in Thermodynamics or Information theory. Care to share one of your results?

 

[nathan]

This time please read my all of my first post (not part here and part there), and try to get it by using a general viewpoint that enables you to see how it can be used as a common framework to research Entropy in terms of both Thermodynamic and Information by a one framework.

I have read it. It's rubbish. It shows no such thing.

 

[drkitten]

Nobody forces you to reply here.

Nobody forces you to make drama-queen-like fake exits complaining about the quality of mind here, either. That's the nice thing about this forum.

You're free to post woolly thinking and gibberish.
We're free to ridicule you for it.
You're free to burst into tears and run screaming home to Mummy.
We're free to ignore the histrionics.

... and the only thing that gets hurt is your credibility.

 

[TMiguel]

Please read again the beginning of my first post:

That is not a definition, nor an expression. Your point was?
(Partition of what? What does it really account for? Which of the sets have more entropy (3,2,1,1,1), (4,3,3,2,2)? how do you really account them?)
I’m guessing you don’t know what math is, much less been able to prove anything.

 

[nathan]

Nobody forces you to make drama-queen-like fake exits complaining about the quality of mind here, either.

Ahem, *multiple* drama-queen fake exits. He's done it before

 

[doronshadmi]

Nobody forces you to make drama-queen-like fake exits complaining about the quality of mind here, either. That's the nice thing about this forum.

The nice thing about this forum is a fine ability to critique things.

Rudeness or cynicism is not the best way to do it.


More to the point, please show the drama in my first post.

 

[doronshadmi]

That is not a definition, nor an expression. Your point was?
(Partition of what? What does it really account for? Which of the sets have more entropy (3,2,1,1,1), (4,3,3,2,2)? how do you really account them?)
I’m guessing you don’t know what math is, much less been able to prove anything.

(3,2,1,1,1) or (4,3,3,2,2) are not sets. First you have to know it before you reply.

 

[Reality Check]

1. Define entropy.
2. Define partitions.
3. What is the criteria that separates high, intermediate and low entropy?
4. Mathematically prove that primes have minimum entropy according to your definition. This should be easy for a genius like you.

 

[TMiguel]

(3,2,1,1,1) or (4,3,3,2,2) are not sets. First you have to know it before you reply.

I do know what I'm talking, and you havent yet answered the question.

 

[69dodge]

Rudeness or cynicism is not the best way to do it.

The best way to deal with trolling is to ignore it.

Unfortunately, that only works if everybody ignores it.

I plan to do my part, anyway.

(Have fun wasting the time of those who don't.)

 

[doronshadmi]

The best way to deal with trolling is to ignore it.

Unfortunately, that only works if everybody ignores it.

I plan to do my part, anyway.

(Have fun wasting the time of those who don't.)

In my first post I ask each one of you to help me to define notions 1 and 2 mathematically.

What I get instead is a brutal attack, which shows that you misinterpreted post 1.

So, this time please hold your horses and try to get the notions (there is a reason of why I wrote notions and not definitions, which means that I need your help (each one of you) in order to translate them to rigorous mathematical definitions).

Thank you.

 

[Reality Check]

That is incorrect. Nowhere in the original topic do you ask posters to help to translate your notions to rigorous mathematical definitions.
In order for that you still have to define your notions enough to be understandable, e.g.

1. Define entropy.
2. Define partitions.
3. Tell us what is the criteria that separates high, intermediate and low entropy?

Then someone may do your job for you and may be able to mathematically prove that primes have minimum entropy according to your definition. They may also find that primes have maximum entropy. They may also find that prime do not have any entropy.

The result will have be a conventional mathematical proof and have nothing to do with your non-locality/Organic fractions/NXOR connective/NXOR\XOR logic non-mathematics that we have seen you unable to define in other threads.

 

[Reality Check]

Let us look at your first example (note that I have replaced the { and } with [ and ] so we are not confused with the standard notation for sets):
How is [1,1] found from the number 2?
How did you determine that [1,1] has a maximum entropy given that entropy is only a "notion" and you have no definition for it?
What is the numeric value that you determined for the entropy of [1,1]?

ETA: Just had a thought: Maybe you mean the definition of partitions in number theory? But these are not sets of numbers but the different ways that a positive integer can be written as the sum of positive integers and includes the actual integer itself, e.g.

The partitions of 4 are listed below:

1. 4
2. 3 + 1
3. 2 + 2
4. 2 + 1 + 1
5. 1 + 1 + 1 + 1

Notice the + signs between the integers.

I do hope that you are not redefining a standard definition in mathematics once again.

 

[ddt]

In my first post I ask each one of you to help me to define notions 1 and 2 mathematically.

So, we're already at post #34, half a dozen or so people have pointed out your OP lacks definitions, and only now you turn around and say that you ask us to help with those definitions? Who are you kidding?

Could you point out where exactly in the OP you ask our help for those definitions? I see a definite lack of question marks, to begin with, in the OP.

And why can't you provide those definitions yourself? You're such a master at mathematics, aren't you? Hilbert was wrong, Cantor was wrong, several other renowned mathematicians were wrong, and you know everything about Logic, Set Theory, Number Theory, Topology, Calculus, etc.

What I get instead is a brutal attack, which shows that you misinterpreted post 1.

Whining is not very becoming. Nor is disingenuity.

So, this time please hold your horses and try to get the notions (there is a reason of why I wrote notions and not definitions, which means that I need your help (each one of you) in order to translate them to rigorous mathematical definitions).

Explain why you'd need our help. Over 1,300 posts, you have stated to all of us that we don't understand mathematics and you're the only one who does.

What guarantees those who indeed try to help you in this that you don't try to sneak back your own unfounded notions of "locality", "symmetry", and assorted backslash-complementations back into the discussion? In fact, you already did in this thread, which to me signifies this plea for help is dishonest.

Myself, I fondly remember about halfway your previous thread trying to help you define your notion of "locality" when you pretended to honestly accept others' help. Thanks but no thanks.

 

[TMiguel]

I wonder why people ignore my questions.

 

[cwalner]

(3,2,1,1,1) or (4,3,3,2,2) are not sets. First you have to know it before you reply.

Doron,

In your op you actually used slightly different notation you used {3,2,1,1} and {4,3}. In real mathematics we use the '{' and '}' symbols to denote elements of a set. TMiguel accidentaly changed the symbos to '(' and ')' but was responding to your OP which used clearly marked set notation.

So please explain why you are using set notation for something that is not a set? The fact that TMiguel's error of assuming that you were referring to sets was based on your initial error for using standard mathematical set notation makes your response remarkably ignorant in addition to being extremely rude.

How are we supposed to know what you mean when you use incorrect notation to propose your notions?

 

[TMiguel]

Doron,

In your op you actually used slightly different notation you used {3,2,1,1} and {4,3}. In real mathematics we use the '{' and '}' symbols to denote elements of a set. TMiguel accidentaly changed the symbos to '(' and ')' but was responding to your OP which used clearly marked set notation.

So please explain why you are using set notation for something that is not a set? The fact that TMiguel's error of assuming that you were referring to sets was based on your initial error for using standard mathematical set notation makes your response remarkably ignorant in addition to being extremely rude.

How are we supposed to know what you mean when you use incorrect notation to propose your notions?

I didn’t paid enough attention to notation (I personally tend to ignore them if you understand what it means), it is very common to change notation if you state what it means (in many areas they not only change notation and convention has it is imperative to do so), but your statement is none of the less correct.

However a (sum) partition can also be a set (and in this case is), because he represented has a group of elements independently of what they mean (of course he means to sum the elements of the group in order to reproduce the partitioned number), unless of course I miss interpreted the English word set. A miss interpretation of the question is not however the reason why he didn’t answer my questions, because he did realised what I mean.
He did not answer the question because for him to give an honest answer he is forced to conclude that he missed something very important, and that would simply invalidate what he is doing, in this case he missed a mean of quantification and a definition of order.