Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
ddt said:
Nothing "abstract" about the word chord. It simply has two different meanings in two branches of math. And in graph theory, it is not a line segment. So you're talking out of your posterior again. But do carry on to make a fool of yourself, Doron Shadmi, CAD manager at Tahal.
Click to expand...
No ddt,

In both cases we deal with something that can be non-local w.r.t to other things.
Click to expand...
Anyone notice how the word "non-local" never occurs in my post?

Your reply is a complete non-sequitur. But that''s just your SOP, isn't it?
 
zooterkin said:
They are two separate places. They are at two different locations on the same road. That does not make the two places the same.
Click to expand...
I am talking about the road, which is non-local w.r.t A and B.

You are talking about A and B, which are local w.r.t to the road.


zooterkin said:
No. I don't think you have one of those.
Click to expand...
In that case we have nothing to talk about.
 
jsfisher said:
You can't define them, so it is my fault. Curious.
Click to expand...
Yeh,

jsfisher: "I have lost my key in the field during the football game".

doron: "So why do search it near to your home?"

jsfisher:"Because the street light in near my home".

streetlight.jpg
 
doronshadmi said:
Yeh,

jsfisher: "I have lost my key in the field during the football game".

doron: "So why do search it near to your home?"

jsfisher:"Because the street light in near my home".

[qimg]http://susanhilton.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/71/files/2008/04/streetlight.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Doron, IIRC you have previously been asked not to misquote people.

To use your analogy, if you want us to look at the football game, it would help if you used the vocabulary of football, rather than the vocabulary of street furniture.
 
doronshadmi said:
I am talking about the road, which is non-local w.r.t A and B.

You are talking about A and B, which are local w.r.t to the road.



In that case we have nothing to talk about.
Click to expand...

No, I really did mean 'notation'. What are you able to do with your notation of the red and blue lines, etc., that cannot be done by conventional maths? There must be some advantage to it, surely?
 
zooterkin said:
No, I really did mean 'notation'. What are you able to do with your notation of the red and blue lines, etc., that cannot be done by conventional maths? There must be some advantage to it, surely?
Click to expand...
To accurately represent non-local objects, and then to define the possible results that we get by non-local\local object's interactions, as can be seen by Organic Natural Numbers in post #1 ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125220 ) or in works like:


http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/TOUM.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ONN1.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ONN2.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ONN3.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/LPD.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/Eventors.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/MonadCK.pdf

and more ...
 
Last edited:
nathan said:
Doron, IIRC you have previously been asked not to misquote people.

To use your analogy, if you want us to look at the football game, it would help if you used the vocabulary of football, rather than the vocabulary of street furniture.
Click to expand...
You did not understand the analogy because observation is not used by the body of knowledge of the mathematical science for the past 3000 years.

" By using only a step-by-step observation one misses the ability get x as a result of simultaneous relation w.r.t to not-x (notated as y). In other words, elements that are defined by more than a one relation w.r.t other elements, are not understood by using only a step-by-step observation. Serial observation is the common observation of the western philosophy for the past 3000 years, and it is still used as the main reasoning for both abstract and applied sciences like Mathematics and Physics. We claim that some paradigm-shift is needed here, which will expend observation beyond serial thinking into at least Relation\Element Interaction, where we are a significant factor of it." ( http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf pages 6-7)

In other words, if you wish to find the key, you have no choice but to move from the already known (the light of the street light) and search the still unknown.

I gave you bridges to the unknown but you stick to each other under the light circle of the street light, and refuse to research the unknown.
 
Last edited:
But if the door is already unlocked, why do we need a key? And if you "give" us bridges, why can't you give clear directions? Oh, and why haven't you given us a light either? :D For the American's in the audience, why can't you define a roundabout?

Also, you still haven't defined or agreed upon the use of certain words. Why is that?
 
doronshadmi said:
... observation is not used by the body of knowledge of the mathematical science for the past 3000 years.
Click to expand...

Don't you think that might be a bit of a clue that observation is not necessary for maths? If you want to go and define something that needs obeservations, go ahead, knock yourself out. But you don't get to say maths is wrong.
 
nathan said:
Don't you think that might be a bit of a clue that observation is not necessary for maths? If you want to go and define something that needs obeservations, go ahead, knock yourself out. But you don't get to say maths is wrong.
Click to expand...

I am not talking about observation in the physical sense.

You and your friends here are closed under serial observation of the mathematical science.
 
Last edited:
By the common notion of the Limit concept elements get closer to the limit, but this is not the case when we use the proportion concept, for example, let us say that we have a sports car (where the name of the back wheels is "epsilon" and the name of the front wheels is "delta") and our mission is to cross the zero point of X,Y-axis with both "delta" and "epsilon" wheels:

SportsCar.jpg


We are seated in the car and trying to reach point zero. We realize that we are not getting any closer to the zero point, and the reason is: the faster we drive, the smaller we become (as can be seen in the picture above) and we have here a Lorentz-like transformation that has an invariant proportion along non-finite scale levels.

According to this invariant proportion, nothing gets closer to the Zero point. Strictly speaking, our mission cannot be completed, because between the "delta" front wheels and the zero point, there is a non-local and non-composed line-like element that cannot be eliminated by a non-finite collection/sequence of local elements.

In the same manner R set is an incomplete collection. Actually we reach point zero, if and only if we don’t have a car anymore but a single point, which is a phase transition that cuts the infinitely many smaller states (smaller cars), and we don’t have an incomplete collection over infinitely many scales (infinitely many cars), but a finite collection of many scales (a finite collection of sports cars).

Some claims that at non-finite speed, we get point zero.

In this case, no collection of cars (no collection of R members) is defined, and we get two extreme and non-researchable states which are total-locality (represented by a single point) and total non-locality (represented by a single line, where the single line and the single point are atoms (are not based on sub-elements).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I am not talking about observation in the physical sense.
Click to expand...

Do you have some kind of reading comprehension or deductive problem? It doesn't matter what you meant by 'observation'. That mathematics has got on quite well without it is probably a big clue.
 
doronshadmi said:
By the common notion of the Limit concept elements get closer to the limit, but this is not the case when we use the proportion concept, for example, let us say that we have a sports car (where the name of the back wheels is "epsilon" and the name of the front wheels is "delta") and our mission is to cross the zero point of X,Y-axis with both "delta" and "epsilon" wheels:
Click to expand...
I conjecture the use of the names delta and epsilon is no coincidence. It's based on miscomprehension of the definition of a continuous function, isn't it?
 
nathan said:
Do you have some kind of reading comprehension or deductive problem? It doesn't matter what you meant by 'observation'. That mathematics has got on quite well without it is probably a big clue.
Click to expand...

No,

Your mathematics is nothing but the particular result of serial observation.
 
ddt said:
I conjecture the use of the names delta and epsilon is no coincidence. It's based on miscomprehension of the definition of a continuous function, isn't it?
Click to expand...
If a set is a complete mathematical object (the magnitude of its cardinality is equal to the magnitude of total connectivity) then no function can be related to it, because this object has no distinct members (it is an atom).

Since a set has distinct members, there is a function that is related to it, but then it is an incomplete mathematical object (the magnitude of its cardinality < the magnitude of total connectivity, has found in a non-local atom).
 
ddt said:
Reported for link spamming.
Click to expand...
When you repeat again and again on the conventional observation of fundamental mathematical notions, it is also considered as a spam.

Actually, this is all you do all along your replies.
 
doronshadmi said:
If a set is a complete mathematical object (the magnitude of its cardinality is equal to the magnitude of total connectivity) then no function can be related to it, because this object has no distinct members (it is an atom).

Since a set has distinct members, there is a function that is related to it, but then it is an incomplete mathematical object (the magnitude of its cardinality < the magnitude of total connectivity, has found in a non-local atom).
Click to expand...
A non-sequitur if there ever was one.

Your Turing machine is broken. Fix it. Eliza was better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom