• 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.
doronshadmi said:
Again you used the particular case of clear distinction as the general case of your framework.

You still do not get MAF.
Click to expand...


Absolute nonsense. Please show any concept, notion, idea, whatever you can express with your MAF notation that I cannot express with my EMAF notation.
 
doronshadmi said:
Please show us where Hibert uses the word "unify" in http://www.cs.arizona.edu/~rcs/hilbert-speech .
Click to expand...
He didn't and that's the point. You're trying to do as if he wanted to unify things.

doronshadmi said:
Now after my answer was given, please give your's:
Click to expand...
You call that an answer? You said "I don't know". That's no answer for someone who wants to overthrow all of mathematics!

doronshadmi said:
Please show how Geomtery, Logic, ZF Set Theory, Real Analysis, Number Theory, etc... can be simply and naturally connected with each other, according to Hilbert's Orgainc paradigm.
Click to expand...
A nonsensical question. First show what "Hilbert's Organic Paradigm" is - quoting only Hilbert himself, not your own whacky, deluded interpretation of it.
 
ddt said:
First show what "Hilbert's Organic Paradigm" is - quoting only Hilbert himself, not your own whacky, deluded interpretation of it.
Click to expand...

In EMAF, I can easily represent "Hilbert's Organic Paradigm" as X. Deep, eh?
 
jsfisher said:
Why are you pointing me to someone else's posts? I can't help you if you refuse to understand EMAFs. It is a very basic concept, and it unifies everything.
Click to expand...
I do not "unify" anything. "Unify" is your problem.

You still do not get "Orgainc Unity".

This is your problem that you are using MAF in a non-intersting way. Blame only yourself.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
1) Please show in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.pdf where the word "unify" is used.
Click to expand...
It isn't because of lack of English knowledge of the writers/translators. One example:
Newton tried to unite the universe by introducing the Notion of Mass and the Notion of Force as something that interacts with different masses.
Click to expand...
Huh? Did Newton try to establish a Trade Union of the Stars or some such?

In section 3, you introduce - without defining the terms - again your locality/non-locality notions as some overarching principle. That is an attempt at unifying things that cannot be unified - at least not in that way. (we've beaten that horse already thoroughly dead).

doronshadmi said:
2) Organic Unity is a state (something that you do not get).
Click to expand...
No-one gets gibberish.
 
doronshadmi said:
I do not "unify" anything. "Unify" is your problem.

You still do not get "Orgainc Unity".
Click to expand...

Wow!!! This is your worst demonstration of reading comprehension ever. You really need to work on getting at least some assemblance of relevance to the post you are quoting.

This is your problem that you are using MAF in a non-intersting way. Blame only yourself.
Click to expand...

You just don't understand EMAF. That's ok. I know how standard notatoin confuses you.

Still, if you feel there is some expressive superiority for your MAF notation, either in simplicity or in terms of "interesting", please post it. I can match it.

There is nothing my EMAF cannot express that your MAF can.
 
ddt said:
It isn't because of lack of English knowledge of the writers/translators. One example:

Huh? Did Newton try to establish a Trade Union of the Stars or some such?

In section 3, you introduce - without defining the terms - again your locality/non-locality notions as some overarching principle. That is an attempt at unifying things that cannot be unified - at least not in that way. (we've beaten that horse already thoroughly dead).


No-one gets gibberish.
Click to expand...

Good night.
 
jsfisher said:
Wow!!! This is your worst demonstration of reading comprehension ever. You really need to work on getting at least some assemblance of relevance to the post you are quoting.



You just don't understand EMAF. That's ok. I know how standard notatoin confuses you.

Still, if you feel there is some expressive superiority for your MAF notation, either in simplicity or in terms of "interesting", please post it. I can match it.

There is nothing my EMAF cannot express that your MAF can.
Click to expand...
Show some expression of EMAF that is also interesting.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Already shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4121090&postcount=402 (look at the bold leters)
Click to expand...

No you haven't. No paradigm in sight. Let's look at this portion of Hilbert's speech:
Mathe-
matical science is in my opinion an indivisible whole, an
organism whose vitality is conditioned upon the connection
of its parts. For with all the variety of mathematical
knowledge, we are still clearly conscious of the similarity
of the logical devices, the %relationship% of the %ideas% in mathe-
matics as a whole and the numerous analogies in its differ-
ent departments.
Click to expand...

He speaks of an organism, of similarities between math branches, but not of a single paradigm or a single overriding principle.

Is there a single paradigm (necessary) for the various organs of a human body to be able to interact with each other?

Is there a single paradigm (necessary) for the various parts of a car to be able to interact with each other?

Is there a single paradigm (necessary) for the various branches of mathematics to be able to interact with each other?

No, no, no.
 
doronshadmi said:
Look around you. You will find a lot of mathematical branches that do not communicate with each other.
Click to expand...


What utter nonsense!

Let's take cryptography as a modest example. I will not mention RSA and elliptic curve methods and how they span other branches. Instead I will point out IDEA encryption. Curiously, it is a very simple, elegant encryption method based on three other branches of mathematics.

No communication? Stop saying stupid things.

I asked for evidence; you came up empty. Want to try again?
 
doronshadmi said:
Look around you. You will find a lot of mathematical branches that do not communicate with each other.
Click to expand...

Says the poster who consistently has misrepresented each mathematical subject he touched upon. Where's that laughing dog when you need it? Oh, here:

:dl:


PS. Care to try a real answer to my questions:
ddt said:
I asked you before (and of course you didn't answer): what techniques are used in the (classical) proof of the Prime Number Distribution Theorem?

And what's been used in proving the Poincaré Conjecture?

And what's being used for the latest cryptographic methods?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom