• 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:
Anyone how divides atoms cannot get non-locality.
Click to expand...

This is actually true, but not in the way you mean.

Since your notion of "non-locality" is total gibberish, it cannot be "gotten" by anyone at all, regardless of whether or not they divide atoms.

Even you don't "get non-locality," as is amply demonstrated by your complete inability to express what it is in a meaningful way.
 
drkitten said:
This is actually true, but not in the way you mean.

Since your notion of "non-locality" is total gibberish, it cannot be "gotten" by anyone at all, regardless of whether or not they divide atoms.

Even you don't "get non-locality," as is amply demonstrated by your complete inability to express what it is in a meaningful way.
Click to expand...

Please read the updated version of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf
 
Apathia said:
Another non-answer.
You don't even address what I'm having difficulty with.
Click to expand...
Yes I did.

You took ONNs as something that can give different results of sum or cardinality from different observations.

It is wrong, ONNs sum or cardinality are not changed under different observations.

Given identities, ONNs are the different ids that can simultaneously be found between (superpositions of ids of the observed objects) AND (distinct id of each observed object).

It can be done only by Non-locality\Locality Interaction, and ONNs are exactly the result of this interaction.

If you get Non-locality\Locality Interaction, only then you can get ONNs.

Also you ignored http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4230971&postcount=827 (which is not connected to ONNs cardinality or sum).
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
No point reading all the way to page 6. Your definitions failed on page 2, remember?
Click to expand...

Do you get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4225755&postcount=804 ?

Also you ignored http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4230971&postcount=827 .

Without them you cannot get my work.
jsfisher said:
By the way, please stop spamming this forum posting and re-posting and re-posting URL's to your website.
Click to expand...

It is not spamming because I change UR.pdf as a result of the dialog here (and in other places).
 
Last edited:
nathan said:
Did you indicate your edits?
Click to expand...
The edits are not independent of the work, exactly as no branch is independent of its tree.

Please read all of UR.pdf and only then you can ask questions about its branches (details).

Serial step-by-step observation of my work will not give the right knowledge about its content exactly as serial step-by-step observation does not give the right knowledge about Tree(whole)\Branch(part) relations.

Only reduction by analysis is the right way not to understand my work, and until now only reduction by analysis (step-by-step serial reasoning) was used by anyone of the participators that replied to my posts in this forum.

So I have to ask my self "what is the reason that only a research style that is based only on step-by-step serial reasoning is used by the participators here"?

My answer is:

Each one of them is an editorial sequential learner that has no ability to get things beyond step-by-step serial reasoning.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The edits are not independent of the work, exactly as no brach is independent of its tree.

Please read all of UR.pdf and only then you can ask questions about its branches (details).
Click to expand...

No, we're not going to play spot the difference. If you want to engage in a discussion here, you're going to have to discuss it here.
 
doronshadmi said:
Yes I did.

You took ONNs as something that can give different results of sum or cardinality from different observations.

It is wrong, ONNs sum or cardinality are not changed under different observations.

Given identities, ONNs are the different ids that can simultaneously be found between (superpositions of ids of the observed objects) AND (distinct id of each observed object).

It can be done only by Non-locality\Locality Interaction, and ONNs are exactly the result of this interaction.

If you get Non-locality\Locality Interaction, only then you can get ONNs.

Also you ignored http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4230971&postcount=827 (which is not connected to ONNs cardinality or sum).
Click to expand...

Thanks for finaly being direct about that
I was confused by some of your previous responses that seemed to indicate that cardinality was relative.

Previously I thought I understood where you got your Organic Natural Neumber in Local/Non-Local Interaction but couldn't understand what seemed like an insistance that the quantities of sets are always incomplete because elements not counted should be reckoned.

Well, I own my confusion.

I guess now that when you insist a set isn't "complete" what you mean is that it's not the final statement, last word, or exclusive configuration. A new set based on different relations or rules can replace or include it.
This is a trivial observation. It's not even hidden. We convene new collections all the time, even in ordinary mathematics.
(Though conventional Mathematics does not tag non-local, not counted elements, as your ONNs seem to do.)
With your unique usage of the word, I was expecting something out of the ordinary.

Having owned my own confusion, I ask you to be aware that your unique way of using words quickly creates misunderstandings. And they're often the same ones over and over.
I'm still guessing here. Struggling to interpret. It's very likely that I have again misundersood you.
I hope not.
 
Apathia said:
I guess now that when you insist a set isn't "complete" what you mean is that it's not the final statement, last word, or exclusive configuration. A new set based on different relations or rules can replace or include it.
Click to expand...

Not at all.

I am talking about totality (completeness) and non-totality (incompleteness).

At the moment that you understand that any cardinal is the result of at least non-locality\locality interaction, you immediately understand (without using any step-by-step serial observation) that only locality is complete and total isolation, where only-non-locality is complete and total connectivity.

At the moment that you get these complete and total opposite states you immediately understand that any result that is based on non-locality\locality interaction is stronger than total (complete) isolation and weaker than total (complete) connectivity.

If you cannot get immediately that non-locality\locality interaction cannot be total (because it is an intermediate result of opposite totalities' interaction), you cannot get it at all, and again, no step by step serial reasoning can help you here.

In other words, if you have no abilities of a visual spatial learner ( http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/Product_Marketing/UDB/udb.htm ) you have no chance to get my mathematical work, and it does not matter how many step-by-step serial efforts you are using in order to get it.

I hope that I am very clear to you now.
 
Last edited:
I am Immediately lost in the fog.
I can see some buildings, vaguely.
I think I can see how this "Totality" and "Non-Totality" pertains to your views on the Infinite.
But I still don't get how this applies to the "completeness" of a set.

You're right. I'm probably never going to get this, if i don't get it already, because our mental hardware isn't running the same software.
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
I am Immediately lost in the fog.
I can see some buildings, vaguely.
I think I can see how this "Totality" and "Non-Totality" pertains to your views on the Infinite.
But I still don't get how this applies to the "completeness" of a set.

You're right. I'm probably never going to get this, if i don't get it already, because our mental hardware isn't running the same software.
Click to expand...
If you understand that any set cannot be defined unless it is a result of non-locality\locality interaction (where this interaction cannot be but an intermediate result of opposite totalities, called total-isolation and total-connectivity) then you can understand why any set is incomplete by definition.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Do you get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4225755&postcount=804 ?

Also you ignored http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4230971&postcount=827 .

Without them you cannot get my work.
Click to expand...

Neither prior post repairs your defective definitions. Depending on which version you are currently promoting, either everything is local or nothing is. You cannot define, characterize it, or even talk about it in coherent English, so please do not attempt to shift the blame for getting it.
 
doronshadmi said:
I am probably more visual spatial learner ( http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/Product_Marketing/UDB/udb.htm ) , which may be one of the reasons of the misunderstandings between us.
Click to expand...

No, I can assure you, that's not the issue. I'm a professional teacher, and I deal with visual-spacial learners all the time.

The reasons for the misunderstandings are that you are wrong, your writings are nonsensical, and you completely fail either to recognize or adjust for that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom