• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Research is not limited to applied research that is based both on theory and experiments.

Research is also "pure" and deal with abstract things.

Can you get it?
 
Last edited:
You have posted your ideas, you have already been called stupid by a professional mathematician. You failed to answer simple questions, you failed to perform even the most simplest mathematical proofs.

Answer me, What is your academic degree in the subject?
 
TMiguel said:
You have posted your ideas, you have already been called stupid by a professional mathematician. You failed to answer simple questions, you failed to perform even the most simplest mathematical proofs.

Answer me, What is your academic degree in the subject?
Click to expand...
I see that you do not get that Reaserch is also for abstract things.

If you have an academic degree, then I do not see how it helps you to get it.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I see that you do not get that Reaserch is also for abstract things.

If you have an academic degree, then I do not see how it helps you to get it.
Click to expand...

Then You don't have any problem stating what is your academic degree on the subject at hand, do you?
 
Let me help you TMiguel.

Basic research, fundamental research (sometimes pure research), is research carried out to increase understanding of fundamental principles ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_research ).

I do not have any academic title, but I get what Basic research is (something that you don't get, even if you maybe have an academic title).


The beautiful thing about fundamental principles is that no academic title is essentially needed in order to invent\discover them.
 
Last edited:
Enough of this pleasant banter.

I do note that in Doron Shadmi's latest effusion (UR.PDF), he begins with what may in fact be his most lucid sequence of sentences we've yet observed. Oddly, Doron actually defines some terms in seemingly meaningful ways. This is unprecedented and most impressive.*
Not so oddly, though, at the end of the introduction, the document slips into the confusion we have come to expect of doron. Notation is introduced without regard to meaning, and everything is reduced to a vague sequence of nonsensical symbols, viz. *_*_*_*.

I have but one question of our philosophic savant: "id"?

(...and least for now.)




*Not so oddly, these definitions are left to rot on the vine, as it were, unreferenced elsewhere in the document. That's what introductions are all about, right?
 
jsfisher said:
Enough of this pleasant banter.

I do note that in Doron Shadmi's latest effusion (UR.PDF), he begins with what may in fact be his most lucid sequence of sentences we've yet observed. Oddly, Doron actually defines some terms in seemingly meaningful ways. This is unprecedented and most impressive.*
Not so oddly, though, at the end of the introduction, the document slips into the confusion we have come to expect of doron. Notation is introduced without regard to meaning, and everything is reduced to a vague sequence of nonsensical symbols, viz. *_*_*_*.

I have but one question of our philosophic savant: "id"?

(...and least for now.)




*Not so oddly, these definitions are left to rot on the vine, as it were, unreferenced elsewhere in the document. That's what introductions are all about, right?
Click to expand...

id = identification in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf

At this paper I try to express my ideas, without using concepts like Non-Locality\Locality Complementation.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I do not have any academic title.
Click to expand...
Which means you never handled real math in you life to begin with.

In the other hand I have handled not 1 not 2 but 5 different mathematical courses plus 3 courses of pure mathematical applications in the Superior Technical Institute (Engineering school), which has one of the heaviest hardcore mathematical educations in the country. We are even more requested to give mathematical explanation then mathematicians themselves.

What do you think you could possibly hope to know about math, more then just nonsense or what I have already beaten up to death?

Just 2 weeks studying math at a real academic level is more then enough to throw everything you think you know about math out the window.

doronshadmi said:
I see that you do not get that Research is also for abstract things.
Click to expand...
doronshadmi said:
And I am talking about a research of our abilities to do Math, which is a pre-axiomatic research (its aim is to understand why and how axioms are agreed statements).
Click to expand...
There is nothing before the axioms, before you define whit what you are working whit you have nothing, no groups, no relation of order, no notion element, no addition, no operations, nothing to reason whit, there is absolutely NOTHING! So every single thing you have done worth’s absolutely NOTHING!
 
TMiguel said:
There is nothing before the axioms,
Click to expand...

There is a research, which its aim is to understand how axioms are possible, in the first place.

I call it pre-axiomatic research of Reasoning itself.

For example:

Axiom X and axiom Y are mutually-independent.

It means that they have some relation with each other, which is weak enough to save their independency of each other.

All we care at this pre-axiomatic level, is to understand the form of how X and Y are related to each other, by avoiding any meaning of X or Y.

The form that we get is not limited to any particular Order or Distinction, as explained in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
There is a research, which its aim is to understand how axioms are possible, in the first place.

I call it pre-axiomatic research of Reasoning itself.

For example:

Axiom X and axiom Y are mutually-independent.

It means that they have some relation with each other, which is weak enough to save their independency of each other.

All we care at this pre-axiomatic level, is to understand the form of how X and Y are related to each other, by avoiding any meaning of X or Y.

The form that we get is not limited to any particular Order or Distinction, as explained in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf
Click to expand...

What are the axions that describe "the form of how X and Y are related to each other, by avoiding any meaning of X or Y."?

According to your definition there are none and so you cannot describe the form (whatever that is)
 
jsfisher said:
No, it had nothing do to with getting or not getting yet another Thing-1 \ Thing-2 pairing; it had everything to do with English syntax and semantics.
Click to expand...

No, it is the reasoning of how syntax and semantics (English or not) are possible, in the first place.
 
doronshadmi said:
There is a research, which its aim is to understand how axioms are possible, in the first place.

I call it pre-axiomatic research of Reasoning itself.

For example:

Axiom X and axiom Y are mutually-independent.

It means that they have some relation with each other, which is weak enough to save their independency of each other.

All we care at this pre-axiomatic level, is to understand the form of how X and Y are related to each other, by avoiding any meaning of X or Y.

The form that we get is not limited to any particular Order or Distinction, as explained in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf
Click to expand...

You can only relate axiom X whit axiom Y, AFTER they have been established or else there is no axiom X or Y to deal whit in the first place.
 
doronshadmi said:
No, it is the reasoning of how syntax and semantics (English or not) are possible, in the first place.
Click to expand...


It's that reading comprehension thing again, isn't it? You have gone off on a sequence of non sequiturs.

The original point was (and continues to be) that your treatise has some mal-formed language constructs. It needs some editing.
 
I see Doron's essential M.O. is once again being lost in his forest of ever new undifined terms.

doronshadmi said:
All we care at this pre-axiomatic level, is to understand the form of how X and Y are related to each other, by avoiding any meaning of X or Y.
Click to expand...

It's somewhat like this (I'm never satisfied that I really get Doron's opus.)

Doron posits a fundamental, essentail association of all abstract concepts prior to whatever meanings or designations given concepts may have.
This is his "X/Y Complementation."

For any abstract concept X, there is a polar opposite concept Y.
In interactive combination (He calls it "Complementation.") they yield a matix of new concepts which in turn follow this "pre-axiomatic" rule of association.

It doesn't make any difference what the X and Y designate, they already follow the Rule.

When it comes to Logic this prior "complementation" yields the usual values of "True" and "False." but in the interactive combo of these polar opposites, he also gets the True False and the False True.

In sets, the program yields a state where completion is not the final word, but there is the incomplete complete and the complete incomplete.

In Numerology (Yes, I'm sarcastic here, because I like to call Doron's "Organic Natural Numbers" "paranormal" numbers. But this is a somewhat unfair caricature.) Doron's fundamental rule of association yields not only the familiar counting numbers, but a host of new critters such as 2-3 or 3-2 where the first number of the pair is adjectival.

Have a naughty nice day!
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
It's that reading comprehension thing again, isn't it? You have gone off on a sequence of non sequiturs.

The original point was (and continues to be) that your treatise has some mal-formed language constructs. It needs some editing.
Click to expand...

The editing of my poor English is always welcome.
 
Reality Check said:
What are the axions that describe "the form of how X and Y are related to each other, by avoiding any meaning of X or Y."?

According to your definition there are none and so you cannot describe the form (whatever that is)
Click to expand...

Form is a researchable (capable of being studied) environment without any meaning or particular description.

All we care, at this level is to understand what are the minimal conditions that enables any research, whether it is a mathematical research or not. Exhaustively

By using MAF, one determines what axiomatic system can be described.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Form is a researchable (capable of being studied) environment without any meaning or particular description.

All we care, at this level is to understand what are the minimal condition that enables any research, whether it is a mathematical research or not. Exhaustively

By using MAF, one determines what axiomatic system can be described.
Click to expand...
Here we go again, hitting on the same key.
You didn’t even know that there was such thing has an axiom before I even mentioned it.
Give an example of an axiom of mainstream mathematics, except for “1 is different from 0” cause I already given you that one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom