Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

Great! Progress. Here's Definition 4, revision 3 again:

Definition 4: If object x = xor ≠ (where ≠ is < xor >) w.r.t object y, then object x is called Local.​

Let's parse the IF-part:

object x = xor ≠ w.r.t object y ==>
(object x = w.r.t. object y) xor (object x ≠ w.r.t object y)​

The not-equal part has it's own set of questions. I'd rather not ask them now and create more distractions, so I'll focus on just the equal part.

(object x = w.r.t. object y) ==>
Object x is the same as with respect to object y.​

Doron, do you see how your use of "w.r.t." makes nonsense out of that sentence? Either object x is the same as object y or it is not. So, now the next question that needs an answer: What do you actually mean by "object x = w.r.t. object y"?

Let us do it in this way:

"satisfies the obseravtion of y through (or by) x" means that we can conclude something about x, which is based on how it is observing y.


Definition 4: If only a one relation between x and y satisfies the obseravtion of y through x , then x is local.

An example:

x = .

y= ___

We have state _._

In this case y is obsereved by x as:

x=y (we do not need more than a one relation) and by definiton 4 we can conclude that x is Local.



Definitionn 5: If only more than a one relation between x and y satisfies the obseravtion of y through x , then x is non-local.

An example:

x = ___

y= .

We have state _._

In this case y is obsereved by x as:

x < and > y (we need more than a one relation) and by definiton 5 we can conclude that x is Non-local.



Can you address 4 and 5 by using your style?

 

[jsfisher]

Definition 4: If only a one relation between x and y satisfies the obseravtion of y through x , then x is local.

Nope, no good on two counts.

#1: You need to be precise what you mean by "observation of y through x". Points and lines, for example, do not conventionally observe each other; inanimate objects generally aren't, well, animate.

#2: You are still going to end up with the same problem you had with your original definition. Nothing will be local.

 

[doronshadmi]

Nope, no good on two counts.

#1: You need to be precise what you mean by "observation of y through x". Points and lines, for example, do not conventionally observe each other; inanimate objects generally aren't, well, animate.

Again:

"satisfies the obseravtion of y through (or by) x" means that we can conclude something about x, which is based on how it is observing y (where we are x's point of view).

Please tell me what is not clear here?

This is the whole point of my work, to observe mathematical subjects from different points of view, where no point of view is exclusive.

Nothing is animated here because in any stage we are aware of us as the observers.

#2: You are still going to end up with the same problem you had with your original definition. Nothing will be local.

Definition 4: If only a one relation between x and y satisfies the obseravtion of y through x , then x is local.

Please tell me why do you think that x is non-local according to definition 4?

Please tell me what is not clear in the examples of definitions 4 and 5 in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4222803&postcount=781 ?

Thanks

 

[jsfisher]

Again:

"satisfies the obseravtion of y through (or by) x" means that we can conclude something about x, which is based on how it is observing y (where we are x's point of view).

Please tell me what is not clear here?

I thought I did.

Take for example a point. It is simply a point. It doesn't have eyes or a sense of touch. It is just a point. So, your statement, "we can conclude something about x, which is based on how it is observing y", makes no sense.

Abstract objects don't observe other abstract objects.

 

[doronshadmi]

Abstract objects don't observe other abstract objects.

Do you aware of the fact that what you wrote in this quote is based on your observation (and so is "a point is simply a point")?

Again: Nothing is animated here because in any stage we are aware of us as the observers.


Anyway, here is another version of definitions 4 and 5:

x and y are objects.

Definition 4: If only a one relation is needed in order to define the relations from x to y, then x is local.

Definition 5: If more than a one relation is needed in order to define the relations from x to y, then x is non-local.

 

[jsfisher]

Do you aware of the fact that what you wrote in this quote is based on your observation (and so is "a point is simply a point")?

Are you aware the properties of a point are independent of my observation of them?

Be that as it may, my observation is irrelevant to your definition. You said, "something about x, which is based on how it is observing y". Clearly you have one inanimate object observing another.

Anyway, here is another version of definitions 4...:

Definition 4: If only a one relation is needed in order to define the relations of x to y, then x is local.

No good. Since multiple independent relations are always possible, you are back to nothing is local.

 

[doronshadmi]

Are you aware the properties of a point are independent of my observation of them?

Do you aware of the fact that what you wrote above depends on your observation?

Your observation is simply external to the obsereved object and it is not exclusive exactly as my internal observation through the object is not exclusive.

If you wish to be objective, you must not use any exclusive observation.

By not using exclusive observations, we may develop our understanding of the researched.

No good. Since multiple independent relations are always possible, you are back to nothing is local.

Yes good, because we don't care about the other possibilites if only a one relation is nedeed in order to define the relations from x to y.

 

[jsfisher]

Do you aware of the fact that what you wrote above depends on your observation?

Your observation is simply external to the obsereved object and it is not exclusive exactly as my internal observation through the object is not exclusive.

If you wish to be objective, you must not use any exclusive observation.

By not using exclusive observations, we may develop our understanding of the researched.

This is irrelevant to the point I raised.

Yes good, because we don't care about the other possibilites if only a one relation is nedeed in order to define the relations from x to y.

Do you know what "multiple independent relations" means? Your most recent version of Definition #4 allows nothing to be local.

 

[The Man]

<snip> An example:

x = .

y= ___

We have state _._

In this case y is obsereved by x as:

x=y (we do not need more than a one relation) and by definiton 4 we can conclude that x is Local. <snip>

But your one relation is not valid unless you are claiming..

. = ___



which would also mean

___ = .


If it takes more the one relation to relate Y to X then the same applies to the relationship of X to Y.

 

[Apathia]

This is the whole point of my work, to observe mathematical subjects from different points of view, where no point of view is exclusive.

There's a level at which I certainly aplaud your intent.
But your "mathematical" program to achieve this seems to me to leave quantity in a n indeterminate state. And you have never given clear answers and qualifications about this.

So I keep asking a stupid question in different ways.
Here it is again.
Applying your Organic Natural Number system to my bank account,
what is it that insures that everyone who keeps an account of my funds arrives at the same figure?
Or does ONN mean that the amount in my account is in a flux where different observers are summing it up to different amounts without adding or subtracing a single penny from the till?
Non-Locally I have billions in my account, don't I?
Why can't I claim them?

Indulge me please. Answer my stupid question.
What it amounts to is
Is number or quantity determinable? Can an amount be defined and even definitive till it changes?

Please do not smack me again with another link to a post or .pdf that doesn't answer my question.

 

[doronshadmi]

But your one relation is not valid unless you are claiming..

. = ___



which would also mean

___ = .


If it takes more the one relation to relate Y to X then the same applies to the relationship of X to Y.

There is state _._

From . point of view . = ___

From ___ point of view ___ < and > .

You simply used an external point of view of . and ___ relations.

I used an internal point of view of . and ___ relations.

No point of view is exclusive during research and this is the main idea of my work.

 

[doronshadmi]

There's a level at which I certainly aplaud your intent.
But your "mathematical" program to achieve this seems to me to leave quantity in a n indeterminate state. And you have never given clear answers and qualifications about this.

So I keep asking a stupid question in different ways.
Here it is again.
Applying your Organic Natural Number system to my bank account,
what is it that insures that everyone who keeps an account of my funds arrives at the same figure?
Or does ONN mean that the amount in my account is in a flux where different observers are summing it up to different amounts without adding or subtracing a single penny from the till?
Non-Locally I have billions in my account, don't I?
Why can't I claim them?

Indulge me please. Answer my stupid question.
What it amounts to is
Is number or quantity determinable? Can an amount be defined and even definitive till it changes?

Please do not smack me again with another link to a post or .pdf that doesn't answer my question.

The amount of your bank account depends on your knowledge about it, and your knowledge is changeable by observation.

If you observation is focused only on "how many"? you have to ask yourself "what observation gives this knowledge"?

I have found that this observation is not less than Relation\Element Interaction, where the relation in this case is + and the Element is some agreed unit measurement.

In this case, the order between the units is ignored and only the sum (the amount) is considered.

But this amount cannot be known unless REI is used.

I have found that Relation is always non-local where an Element can be local or non-local during REI.

 

[doronshadmi]

Do you know what "multiple independent relations" means? Your most recent version of Definition #4 allows nothing to be local.

"multiple independent relations" means that you have used + relation (which cannot be local) in order to conclude something about local elements.

In this case you have used the name "relation" in order to describe the observed elements.

For example:

* is an element (not the name "element")

__ is a relation (not the name "relation")



* name of a relation (where a name is an element w.r.t a relation)
|
* name of a relation (where a name is an element w.r.t a relation)
|
* name of a relation (where a name is an element w.r.t a relation)
|
* etc …

 

[Skeptic]

Stop the ******** with dots and lines and asterisks. Use normal notation that everyone understands.

But if he *does* do that, it will become obvious even to him that he has nothing of value to say about mathematics.

Essentially Doron's "contribution" to mathematics is (a) a new, cumbursome and unclear notation; and (b) the belief that since his notation makes even basic ideas impossible to understand, the new notation had unearthed some "deep problem" in mathematics which he alone can "solve".

 

[doronshadmi]

Quote:
Stop the ******** with dots and lines and asterisks. Use normal notation that everyone understands.

Since you are using only elements in "*******", each one of them is totally isolated, and we do not get a researchable framework.

The same holds for "__ __ __ __" because by using only relations, nothing is related and we do not get a researchable framework.

Some example:

2 34.675 pI 0 1 ... is ***** ...

/ + - ^ ... is __ __ __ __ ...

By this particular example, without REI there is no Arithmetic.

... which he alone can "solve".

Nobody can solve or "solve" things alone, because being alone is total isolation (a state of singularity) where nothing can be reseached.

Things are solved or "solved" by REI (Relation\Element Interaction).

 

[nathan]

Knowing doron's liking for venn diagrams, I think doron's trying to define:
doron_equal (a,b) := normal_equal (normal_intersection (a, b), a)

The intersection of a point and a line going through the point, is the point, so:
doron_equal (point, line-through-point) is true.

The intersection of a line and a point on the line, is not the line, so:
doron_equal (line, point-on-line) is false.

The intersection of a point and a line not though the point is neither the point nor the line, so:
doron_equal (line, point-off-line) is false
doron_equal (point, line-off-point) is false


Not really profound though, is it?

 

[doronshadmi]

Let us research _._ interaction

In this case . cannot be (in interaction) AND (not in interaction) with ___
but ___ can be (in interaction) AND (not in interaction) with .

If intersection is used, it can be understood only it terms of . (a point)

For example:

The intersection of a line and a point on the line, is not the line, so:
doron_equal (line, point-on-line) is false.

It is false because only a point of view through a point is considered.

So the term "interaction" (which enables to observe _._ from different points of view) has to be used for better conclusions.

 

[jsfisher]

"multiple independent relations" means that you have used + relation (which cannot be local) in order to conclude something about local elements.

Nope.

It refers to exactly what you don't want, but will always have, for any two objects. Your latest Definition #4 makes nothing local.

 

[doronshadmi]

Nope.

It refers to exactly what you don't want, but will always have, for any two objects. Your latest Definition #4 makes nothing local.

Yep.

It refers by relations, where any relation is non-local.

You simply uses relations between elements, where in your case the names of the elements are "relations" (as shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4225191&postcount=793 ).

You have to define your building blocks before you use them; otherwise they are used as hidden assumptions, which have an influence on the conclusions.

x and y are objects.

Definition 4: If only a one relation is needed in order to define the relations from x to y, then x is local.

An example:

x = .

y= ___

We have state _._


x=y (we do not need more than a one relation in order to define the relations from x to y) and by definiton 4 we can conclude that x is Local.


Definition 5: If more than a one relation is needed in order to define the relations from x to y, then x is non-local.

An example:

x = ___

y= .

We have state _._


x < and > y (we need more than a one relation in order to define the relations from x to y) and by definiton 5 we can conclude that x is Non-local.

x≠y (we do not need more than a one relation in order to define the relations from x to y) and by definition 4 we can conclude that x is Local (by using ≠ we do not use the simultaneity of more than a one relation (like < and >, = and < , > and = , etc ...))

 

[nathan]

Let us research _._ interaction

In this case . cannot be (in interaction) AND (not in interaction) with ___
but ___ can be (in interaction) AND (not in interaction) with .

If intersection is used, it can be understood only it terms of . (a point)

For example:


It is false because only a point of view through a point is considered.

So the term "interaction" (which enables to observe _._ from different points of view) has to be used for better conclusions.

I suspected I was merely data mining random noise. Your response to my prediction suggests I was right about that.