Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I don't have to prove you are wrong. You have to prove you are right. All I have done is shown that it is quite clear from your paper that you know very little about either philosophy, logic, or mathematics -- and that therefore, it is extremely unlikely you made an earth-shattering discovery in the philosophy of mathematical logic.

Sorry, but you did not show anything that is related to the content of my work.

You have to show that you get it, before you air your view about it, something that you did not do.

 

[doronshadmi]

This post is a bit of a derail, but as we've been all asking about Doron's credentials, I don't understand why he hasn't brought up the following.

Doron's research associate, Moshe Klein, has given a talk on "Organic Mathematics" in the Fifth International Congress in Applied Mathematics and Computing, August 2008, in Plovdiv, Bulgaria. At least, the PDF here claims so.

Let's disregard that he misspells the name of the conference ("Computation" instead of "Computing"), and that the professor who he claims invited him, Bromi Bainov, is nowhere to be found on the web but shares his last name with organizer Drumi Bainov.

With this academic break-through of one of your key theories, why do you still need to pebble your theories on such mundane fora as this?

Or is there something not quite true about the above? I couldn't find a comprehensive program for FICMAC.

Wrong PDF version is a vary preliminary (and full of mistakes) version (of the right version http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.pdf) that by mistake was published at Fifth International Congress in Applied Mathematics and Computing website.

With this academic break-through of one of your key theories, why do you still need to pebble your theories on such mundane fora as this?

There is no such a thing like academic break-through.

The important thing is always the dialog, no matter what environment is used.

This is the right way to save any scientific development from stagnation, by always listen also to "outsiders".

In my opinion, any reseachable thing (abstarct or not) is always under research, and can be re-opened again and again.

 

[doronshadmi]

No, it isn't. That's just a definition you made up.

How said it, the God of the Mahtematical Science?

 

[nathan]

How said it, the God of the Mahtematical Science?

Why are you unable to show anyone else that has agreed to that definition? (After all, the A in MAF is 'Agreed', so there must be someone other than you who agreed to your definition.)

 

[jsfisher]

Doron,

Admittedly, most of the criticism you get here is blunt, but it is also quite honest. And how do you react? You ridicule the respondent.

Are you really so naive so as to believe you'll only receive praise and adulation for a job well done? If you cannot accept honest criticism, don't ask for it, ok?

 

[drkitten]

[
This is the right way to save any scientific development from stagnation, by always listen also to "outsiders".

Not when the outsiders themselves neither listen nor learn.

Sometimes outsiders have valuable insights and useful perspectives. More often, they're simply wrong. And there's no need to listen to a nutcase tell you something a second time. If you were wrong 150 posts ago, you're still wrong.

In my opinion, any reseachable thing (abstarct or not) is always under research, and can be re-opened again and again.

Well, then, your opinion is wrong. There's a reason that we no longer study alchemy and astrology at reputable schools. Alchemy is simply wrong, and there's no need to continue to research or to re-open it.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron,

Admittedly, most of the criticism you get here is blunt, but it is also quite honest. And how do you react? You ridicule the respondent.

Are you really so naive so as to believe you'll only receive praise and adulation for a job well done? If you cannot accept honest criticism, don't ask for it, ok?

jsfisher,

Here is some example:

"An empty set" (not clearly a unique element) is essentially different than "The empty set" (clearly a unique element).

What exactly direct you to claim that this is "just" a semantic difference?

 

[jsfisher]

jsfisher,

Here is some example:

"An empty set" (not clearly a unique element) is essentially different than "The empty set" (clearly a unique element).

What exactly direct you to claim that this is "just" a semantic difference?

Geez, again with the reading comprehension thing. Your response has nothing to do with my post. You are also off topic. You also lack evidence of your claim.

 

[doronshadmi]

Alchemy is simply wrong, and there's no need to continue to research or to re-open it.

Modern Chemistry is the result of a re-search that re-opened Alchemy again and again and developed it to its current developed (so called modern) stage.

You have no guarantee that current Modern Chemistry will not be understood by future generations, in the same manner as we get Alchemy today.

 

[jsfisher]

*bump*
Doron, how about addressing this:

Doron,

In your UR.PDF, you make bizarre use of the asterisk and underbar symbols to mean, as you put it,

Let * be an element.
Let _ be a relation.​

Then you declare

An example of MAF, where three elements are related to each other:
*_*_*​

As described by you, the asterisk would be bound to a single element and the underbar to a single relation. I doubt this is what you meant. Did you in fact mean for your example MAF to be three, not one elements under a single relation?

So, your original with corrections would be:

Let x, y, and z each be an element.
Let _ be a relation.
Then x _ y _ z is an example MAF.​

I think that is more consistent with what you really meant, but it is still with problems. You use the underbar as a binary relation, so while x _ y and y _ z each are sensible formulae, the triple x _ y _ z is not.

What did you mean by x _ y _ z?

 

[doronshadmi]

Geez, again with the reading comprehension thing. Your response has nothing to do with my post. You are also off topic. You also lack evidence of your claim.

Here is the evidence: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4117701&postcount=306

It is not off topic because it is related to MAFs and Distinction as a first-order proprty.

 

[Skeptic]

Doron seems a typical mathematical crank.

1). He's more or less completely ignorant of the fields he thinks his "work" is "contributing" to.

2). He defines the most basic terms in his "theory" (such as "enthropy") in idiosyncratic, home-made, cumbubrsome way that he himself sometimes misuses, and nobody else ever uses (this follows, of course, from his ignorance).

3). His "work" is mostly simply nonsense.

4). The part that isn't nonsense is a bunch of trivial mathematical claims, made to look "deep" (e.g., difficult to undestand) simply because he uses such non-standard and cumbursome definitions it takes forever to figure out what he's going on about. Once you figure it out, however, you quickly see it wasn't worth the effort.

5). Any criticism, no matter how much to the point, is met with personal attacks on the critic.

6). Suffers from delusions of grandeur, and shows signs of paranoia.

7). Demands other prove him wrong, instead of proving himself right.

...and so on.

I'm putting him on "ignore", as there's obviously no point to any discussion. The man will be convinced of his own greatness and amazing mathematical genius to the day he dies, and none of us can do a damn thing about it.

One word, though, as someone trained in both mathematics and philosopy, to those of you struggling to undestand him: don't bother. It isn't worth the effort. There is no "there" there.

 

[ddt]

Hum, interesting. That document alone explained more about the subject, then all the rambling Doron put together, and I can tell that Doron didn’t write it himself.
Some words actually made sense, it is still mathematical nonsense, but at least is a reader friendly mathematical nonsense.

To elucidate on this: Moshe Klein is the Kindergarten teacher. Still, the paper hops to and fro in what it discusses, and never defines a thing. It is undoubtedly chock-full of factual errors too. Just glancing over it, I spotted this one:

A point for speculation is what directions our thought process can take us in if we assume that Lines and Points are two independent elements that do not derive from each other?

The answer is: they don't. You can also do geometry if you replace the words "point" and "line" with "beermat" and "table" (Hilbert).

Wrong PDF version is a vary preliminary (and full of mistakes) version (of the right version http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.pdf) that by mistake was published at Fifth International Congress in Applied Mathematics and Computing website.

First of all, it wasn't published on the FICMAC website.
Secondly, "very preliminary"??? How long have you been working on this stuff? For 20+ years, I think.
Thirdly, it's very interesting to note that this "preliminary" version has a date of Aug. 5, and carries a notice it is the talk at FICMAC and the "right" version of Sept. 28, and does not carry such a notice; while the conference was Aug. 12-18.

To be frank, I'm very wary this paper was accepted at all at the conference. Could someone who has access to such info clear this up? And if it was, tell what the deadline for submission of manuscripts is?

The important thing is always the dialog, no matter what environment is used.

This is the right way to save any scientific development from stagnation, by always listen also to "outsiders".

That's why, whenever someone asks for clarification, your only response is "you don't get it", and you don't actually explain it. I read a fine example of that in the IIDB "Deeper than Primes" thread, read on from post #182. A perfectly fine question from 'reddish' that is never answered. And look back in this thread: three definitions for "entropy" were proposed, and you commented on not one of them appropriately. In every thread you've started, you've had this same MO: when people ask relevant questions, you answer "you don't get it", but you never give an explanation.

I think it's quite clear why there is a lack of dialogue.

 

[TMiguel]

Modern Chemistry is the result of a re-search that re-opened Alchemy again and again and developed it to its current developed (so called modern) stage.

Wrong! Alchemy was simply put to dead because it was:
1. Stupid
2. Had produce no valuable knowledge, it had no method, it had nothing but nonsense.

Chemistry is based on the scientific method.
Your statement is equivalent of claiming that zoology developed originally from the bigfoot and sea monsters folkloric stories.

You have no guarantee that current Modern Chemistry will not be understood by future generations, in the same manner as we get Alchemy today.

We today can actually point out what kind of break trough can revolutionize the way we do chemistry, but that will not in any way affect the majority of the acquired knowledge, nor change anything that would make any previous research useless.

But talking Chemistry and Alchemy is getting a bit of topic. Although you very clearly showed that you are in fact trying to get the substance of physicists and mathematicians tough like the Alchemist search for gold. And dared to put on a document that you are willing to brain wash kids and deprive them from education in order to server your wimps of a delusional mathematical subjectivity. That makes me very sick, your place is in a mental hospital. Please consider on getting medical help before you harm some one.

 

[jsfisher]

To elucidate on this: Moshe Klein is the Kindergarten teacher. Still, the paper hops to and fro in what it discusses, and never defines a thing. It is undoubtedly chock-full of factual errors too.

I believe his biggest factual error, and one the Doron has repeated, is in regards to Hilbert's organic claim. Moshe and Doron would have us believe Hilbert was predicting/pleading for a unification of Mathematics. If you read Hilbert's speech, it is easy to see Hilbert meant nothing of the kind.

Not surprising, the "organic notion" that is so fundamental to Doron's discourse is 180 degrees out of phase with the rational.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron,

In your UR.PDF, you make bizarre use of the asterisk and underbar symbols to mean, as you put it,

Let * be an element.
Let _ be a relation.​

Then you declare

An example of MAF, where three elements are related to each other:
*_*_*​

As described by you, the asterisk would be bound to a single element and the underbar to a single relation. I doubt this is what you meant. Did you in fact mean for your example MAF to be three, not one elements under a single relation?

So, your original with corrections would be:

Let x, y, and z each be an element.
Let _ be a relation.
Then x _ y _ z is an example MAF.​

I think that is more consistent with what you really meant, but it is still with problems. You use the underbar as a binary relation, so while x _ y and y _ z each are sensible formulae, the triple x _ y _ z is not.

What did you mean by x _ y _ z?

*__* is a one form.

*__*__* is a one form.

*__*__*__* is a one form.

... *__* ... is a one form.

 

[doronshadmi]

Wrong! Alchemy was simply put to dead because it was:
1. Stupid
2. Had produce no valuable knowledge, it had no method, it had nothing but nonsense.

Chemistry is based on the scientific method.
Your statement is equivalent of claiming that zoology developed originally from the bigfoot and sea monsters folkloric stories.



We today can actually point out what kind of break trough can revolutionize the way we do chemistry, but that will not in any way affect the majority of the acquired knowledge, nor change anything that would make any previous research useless.

But talking Chemistry and Alchemy is getting a bit of topic. Although you very clearly showed that you are in fact trying to get the substance of physicists and mathematicians tough like the Alchemist search for gold. And dared to put on a document that you are willing to brain wash kids and deprive them from education in order to server your wimps of a delusional mathematical subjectivity. That makes me very sick, your place is in a mental hospital. Please consider on getting medical help before you harm some one.

You cannot wash kids' brains if the pedagogy of the unknown is used.

By the pedagogy of the unknown the adult and the kid are both students and teachers of each other.

 

[TMiguel]

You cannot wash kids' brains if the pedagogy of the unknown is used.

By the pedagogy of the unknown the adult and the kid are both students and teachers of each other.

I don’t think I need to say more.

 

[jsfisher]

*__* is a one form.

*__*__* is a one form.

*__*__*__* is a one form.

... *__* ... is a one form.

Not only did you fail to clean up your notation to clarify that each asterisk was meant to be independent of each other asterisk, you didn't address my question on the semantics of the underbar relation in x _ y _ z.

Permit me to expand upon my question:

For the greater-than relation, x > y > z is accepted as shorthand for the well-formed formula x > y AND y > z. On the other hand, if addition is accepted as a relation, x + y + z is accepted as shorthand for the well-formed formula (x + y) + z.

Your x _ y _ z is not a well-formed formula. It has no meaning by itself. If you meant it to be shorthand for something that is a well-formed formula, please say so and reveal the formula.

 

[ddt]

Doron got himself banned from one of these sites (the one I bolded). Apparently, being obtuse is less tolerated elsewhere than here.

That was MathHelpForum. The story is a bit more complicated. Doron made 26 posts there between 2007-08-03 and 2007-10-29 (ISO 8601^WP format). Doron visited the forum almost 4 months later, 2008-02-26. So it's highly unlikely that he was banned due to posting obtuse things.

So I wonder what then was the reason for his banning. Had he, maybe, been PM-ing inappropriate things to other forum members? That would give an interesting twist to Doron's story of the student who followed him around various fora...

BTW, Doron, could you disclose the handle this student used so we can check on your story?