Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

Your measurement tool is not ‘excluded’ because that is what you are ‘measuring’ by taking its cardinality

Wrong.

If it was true then |{}| = 1 and not 0, |{a,b,c}| = 4 and not 3 , etc…

No Doron the standard notion is that the cardinality of a set is, well, the cardinality of that set, not of some subset of that set.

Call it whatever you like. The fact is that the measurement tool is excluded form the measurement results, as clearly show above.

Also not forcing the empty set to have a member you call ‘fusion’ so that it is, well, not empty.

Nothing is forced here.

By using an ontological viewpoint of the researched one enables to measure Emptiness or Fullness under the set's measurement tool.

Since you are not using an ontological viewpoint, you are unable to deal with a fusion like Fullness and as a result you are stacked on the level of collection and miss the notion of actual infinity.

As for the fusion called Emptiness, it is impossible to measure it on its own; therefore it is measured under the measurement tool called set.

In other words, you have no clue what are you talking about.

Let's not forget the oldies like 'local', 'non-local' and 'complementation' and of course my all time favorite 'mutual independence'

I do not forget.

The problem here is that you first have to remember them, but you can't because they are going beyond your mind exactly as you can't get what I wrote above.

So Doron what is you OM, “ontological value of the measured things”, ‘cardinal’ that is the “sum of the things that belong to this set” {-5,5}?

"The sum of the things" is not "the sum of their numerical values" so the result is 2 and not 0.

Again just more baseless assumptions, misunderstanding, misrepresentation and blatant falsehoods on your part, it is your typical word salad.

Another word for the list.

Nothing in your organic mathematics presentations have been rigorous by even the most generous interpretation of the word, nor have then been ontological. They have been contradictory, though, so at least you can take some credit for that. Unfortunately, the notions you attempt to conceive are unnecessary and contrived. They have no value whatsoever.

You think wrong.

You still have the foundational issue to deal with. Nothing matters after that since you have built your house of cards on a false assertion.

Come on jsfisher and The Man, please stop this cheap propaganda show and clearly provide the details that support your claims!

 

[doronshadmi]

By using an ontological viewpoint of the foundations of the mathematical science we distinguish between fusions and collections.

By using a collection as a measurement tool we research 3 levels of existence which are:

Emptiness, Intermediate, Fullness.

Since fusions like Emptiness or Fullness are not directly researchable, we are using a collection as a measurement tool, which is excluded from the measurement's results.

Since a collection is a level 2 (Intermediate) thing, then:

1) It is above the level of Emptiness ( for example: {} )

2) It is at the level of collection ( for example: {a,b,c,...} )

3) It is below the level of Fullness ( for example: {_}_ )

Some claims "there is nothing below collection".

He is right because "there is nothing" is Emptiness.

By following the same ontological notion, we get the opposite of Enptiness, called Fullness.

Some claims "there is nothing above collection".

Well this is ontologically wrong because "nothing" is below collection.

So, Some claims "there is everything above collection".

Well this is ontologically wrong because "everything" is at the level of collection.

So, Some claims "there is Fullness above collection".

This time he is ontologically right.

 

[jsfisher]

Come on jsfisher and The Man, please stop this cheap propaganda show and clearly provide the details that support your claims!

Double standard much?

Maybe you should start with a few details of your own. You know, like a few definitions of all those terms you continually invent or misuse.

 

[doronshadmi]

Double standard much?

Maybe you should start with a few details of your own. You know, like a few definitions of all those terms you continually invent or misuse.

Maybe you should refine your rough thinking.

 

[The Man]

Wrong.

If it was true then |{}| = 1 and not 0, |{a,b,c}| = 4 and not 3 , etc…

Call it whatever you like. The fact is that the measurement tool is excluded form the measurement results, as clearly show above.

Doron again the cardinality you are taking is of the set that you are calling your ‘measurement tool’, but you then apply it to some subset or your fantasy ‘fusion’ member of a set with no members and claim your ‘measurement tool is excluded’. It is nothing but a big fat lie to yourself.

Nothing is forced here.

Just you trying to cram an ‘member’ that you call ‘fusion’ into a set with no ‘memebers’.

By using an ontological viewpoint of the researched one enables to measure Emptiness or Fullness under the set's measurement tool.

Since you are not using an ontological viewpoint, you are unable to deal with a fusion like Fullness and as a result you are stacked on the level of collection and miss the notion of actual infinity.

As for the fusion called Emptiness, it is impossible to measure it on its own; therefore it is measured under the measurement tool called set.

In other words, you have no clue what are you talking about.

So now back with the labeling using words you clearly do not understand, your usual tactic Doron, when you can not argue your point you simply label the other person as thinking on some inferior or restricted level using words you clearly do not understand.

I do not forget.

The problem here is that you first have to remember them, but you can't because they are going beyond your mind exactly as you can't get what I wrote above.

Well there you go again, and since I did ‘remember them’ the only mind you seem to be ‘going beyond’ is your own.

"The sum of the things" is not "the sum of their numerical values" so the result is 2 and not 0.

So specifically what sum of what ‘things’ is it that you are referring to?

Come on jsfisher and The Man, please stop this cheap propaganda show and clearly provide the details that support your claims!

Doron it is your propaganda, your show and you are the only one trying to keep it cheap by not critically examining your own notions. We are just here to point out your regular cast of players (misunderstanding, misinterpretation and contradiction) to the audience since you try to hide them with frequent script and costume changes. However your plot remains the same and consistently maintains its inconsistent elements.

By using an ontological viewpoint of the foundations of the mathematical science we distinguish between fusions and collections.

By using a collection as a measurement tool we research 3 levels of existence which are:

Emptiness, Intermediate, Fullness.

Since fusions like Emptiness or Fullness are not directly researchable, we are using a collection as a measurement tool, which is excluded from the measurement's results.

Since a collection is a level 2 (Intermediate) thing, then:

1) It is above the level of Emptiness ( for example: {} )

2) It is at the level of collection ( for example: {a,b,c,...} )

3) It is below the level of Fullness ( for example: {_}_ )

Some claims "there is nothing below collection".

He is right because "there is nothing" is Emptiness.

By following the same ontological notion, we get the opposite of Enptiness, called Fullness.

Some claims "there is nothing above collection".

Well this is ontologically wrong because "nothing" is below collection.

So, Some claims "there is everything above collection".

Well this is ontologically wrong because "everything" is at the level of collection.

So, Some claims "there is Fullness above collection".

This time he is ontologically right.

Just your same old crap in different costumes that you are now calling ‘fusion’, ‘collection’, and ‘ontological’. What happened to your ‘local’, ‘non-local’ and ‘parallel’ thinking? Dressing up you notions in different costumes by using words, phrases and concepts you clearly do not understand does not make your notions any less of a simple pro-Doron propaganda show and a very cheap one at that.

 

[doronshadmi]

Just you trying to cram an ‘member’ that you call ‘fusion’ into a set with no ‘memebers’.

If Emptiness is measured by a set, then under this measurement it is known also as "no members" or "Empty fusion" in addition to "nothing" or "Emptiness" .

Emptiness cannot be researched directly but it defiantly researchable by using a measurement tool like set, for example {} , where the cardinal of Emptiness (notated as |{}|) is 0.

You still do not get that Empty fusion is exactly "no members" under set's measurement, and you still force on it the existence of a collection, but The Man, fusion is not a collection and you simply do not get it.

Because of the same reason you do not get the opposite of the Empty fusion (Fullness) and the profound influence that it has on the understanding of the non-finite.

Without the fundamental understading of the fact that a fusion (whether it is Emptiness or not) is reseachable under collection's framework, you have no chance to get OM.

 

[doronshadmi]

Just your same old crap

The old crap is only in your mind (the crap that tries to get the non-finite, without the understanding of the full set).

All along this thread I am using a new "crap", but you can't get it.

You did not stop your running after the old crap in your mind in order to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4657944&postcount=2562, didn't you?

 

[doronshadmi]

So specifically what sum of what ‘things’ is it that you are referring to?

In the case of {-5,5}, the set is a measurment tool of the existence of the things -5 and 5, and the result is 2.

In the case of {}, the set is a measurment tool of the "existence" of the nothing (also called Empty fusion) , and the result is 0.

 

[The Man]

The old crap is only in your mind (the crap that tries to get the non-finite, without the understanding of the full set).

All along this thread I am using a new "crap", but you can't get it.

You did not stop your running after the old crap in your mind in order to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4657944&postcount=2562, didn't you?

Well to paraphrase Shakespeare…

‘That which we call crap, by any other name would smell as crappy’.

You keep changing your names, but never your crap.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well to paraphrase Shakespeare…

‘That which we call crap, by any other name would smell as crappy’.

You keep changing your names, but never your crap.

This is your and only your old crap. You can't get it because it is in the center of your mind (the eye can't see itself).

And no, I did not change names, I used more sources that clearly supports OMs development.

 

[The Man]

In the case of {-5,5}, the set is a measurment tool of the existence of the things -5 and 5, and the result is 2.

In the case of {}, the set is a measurment tool of the "existence" of the nothings (also called Empty fusion) , and the result is 0.

Typically you did not answer the question, which in case you missed it was..

So specifically what sum of what ‘things’ is it that you are referring to?

So identify specifically what ‘things’ and what type of ‘sum’ you are referring to, because you typically do not apply generally accepted meanings of words.

 

[The Man]

If Emptiness is measured by a set, then under this measurement it is known also as "no members" or "Empty fusion" in addition to "nothing" or "Emptiness" .

Emptiness cannot be researched directly but it defiantly researchable by using a measurement tool like set, for example {} , where the cardinal of Emptiness (notated as |{}|) is 0.

You still do not get that Empty fusion is exactly "no members" under set's measurement, and you still force on it the existence of a collection, but The Man, fusion is not a collection and you simply do not get it.

Because of the same reason you do not get the opposite of the Empty fusion (Fullness) and the profound influence that it has on the understanding of the non-finite.

Without the fundamental understading of the fact that a fusion (whether it is Emptiness or not) is reseachable under collection's framework, you have no chance to get OM.

Well since the empty set is a collection that is, well, empty that “measure” of emptiness is specifically about that set or ‘collection’, thus no force is required. While you try to force your ‘fusion’ as a member of that collection (that has no members) and it is in fact you who are attempting to separate that set’s ‘emptiness’ from that set as something separate that you choose to call ‘fusions’ and limit the set as some ‘measuring’ tool. As usual you assert ‘fusion’ is not a ‘collection’ and claim that ‘fusion’ is not researchable unless it is part of a ‘collection’ there by claiming no basis for your insistence that ‘fusion’ is not a ‘collection’ and in fact inferring ‘fusion’ as a form of ‘collection’ since you claim it can only be researched ‘under collection's framework’. Again you never seem to think about your notions and continue to fall into the same traps and conundrums regardless of how you change your terminology or what window dressing you add to try and obscure them.


ETA:
Tell us Doron how do you create a ‘fusion’ of elements without ‘collecting’ them first?

{C, R, A, P} is a collection or set

‘CRAP’ is the fusion of that collection of elements into a word

{CIRCULAR, CRAP} is a collection of that fusion along with another fusion of elements

and finally ‘CIRCULAR CRAP’ is a fusion of that collection of those two fusions into a phrase.

 

[The Man]

This is your and only your old crap. You can't get it because it is in the center of your mind (the eye can't see itself).

And no, I did not change names, I used more sources that clearly supports OMs development.

‘Local’, ‘non-local’ and ‘complementation’ became ‘relation’, ‘element’ and ‘interaction’ to now being ‘fusion’, ‘collection’, and ‘measurement’.

‘Local’ or ‘non-local’ thinking, became ‘serial’ or ‘parallel’ thinking and has now become ‘ontological’ or ‘not ontological’ thinking.

The names have been changed, but your notions certainly have not ‘developed’.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well since the empty set is a collection that is, well, empty that “measure” of emptiness is specifically about that set or ‘collection’

Wrong, it is about the things that are measured by the set. And you continue to force collection on fusion.

ETA:
Tell us Doron how do you create a ‘fusion’ of elements without ‘collecting’ them first ?

An example of fusion: C, R, A, P

As example of collection {C, R, A, P}

{C, R, A, P} is a collection or set

‘CRAP’ is the fusion of that collection of elements into a word

{CIRCULAR, CRAP} is a collection of that fusion along with another fusion of elements

and finally ‘CIRCULAR CRAP’ is a fusion of that collection of those two fusions into a phrase.

No.

‘CIRCULAR CRAP’ is a collection

CIRCULAR CRAP is a fusion

This time please read Michael D. Potter's book "Set theory and its philosophy" http://books.google.com/books?id=Fx...er&source=gbs_similarbooks_r&cad=4_2#PPA21,M1

 

[doronshadmi]

‘Local’, ‘non-local’ and ‘complementation’ became ‘relation’, ‘element’ and ‘interaction’ to now being ‘fusion’, ‘collection’, and ‘measurement’.

‘Local’ or ‘non-local’ thinking, became ‘serial’ or ‘parallel’ thinking and has now become ‘ontological’ or ‘not ontological’ thinking.

The names have been changed, but your notions certainly have not ‘developed’.

Thank you for this. It clearly shows that you did not get OM.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well since the empty set is a collection that is, well, empty that “measure” of emptiness is specifically about that set or ‘collection’, thus no force is required. While you try to force your ‘fusion’ as a member of that collection (that has no members) and it is in fact you who are attempting to separate that set’s ‘emptiness’ from that set as something separate that you choose to call ‘fusions’ and limit the set as some ‘measuring’ tool. As usual you assert ‘fusion’ is not a ‘collection’ and claim that ‘fusion’ is not researchable unless it is part of a ‘collection’ there by claiming no basis for your insistence that ‘fusion’ is not a ‘collection’ and in fact inferring ‘fusion’ as a form of ‘collection’ since you claim it can only be researched ‘under collection's framework’. Again you never seem to think about your notions and continue to fall into the same traps and conundrums regardless of how you change your terminology or what window dressing you add to try and obscure them.

This is a load of pure crap.

We simply do not get the difference between a fusion and a collection, so let me help you.

a b is a fusion.

(a b) is a collection.

Let us omit b:

a is a fusion.

(a) is a collection.

Let us omit a:



( ) is a collection.

 

[The Man]

Wrong, it is about the things that are measured by the set. And you continue to force collection on fusion.

ETA:
Tell us Doron how do you create a ‘fusion’ of elements without ‘collecting’ them first ?

An example of fusion: C, R, A, P

As example of collection {C, R, A, P}

Ah, so that is your problem, you simply do not understand what is a fusion and what is a collection, how supprising.. How is “C, R, A, P” different from “{C, R, A, P}” other then simply the brackets and how is “C, R, A, P” in any way a ‘fusion’

No.

‘CIRCULAR CRAP’ is a collection

CIRCULAR CRAP is a fusion

Is that what has you confused the presence of brackets, apostrophes or commas?

This time please read Michael D. Potter's book "Set theory and its philosophy" http://books.google.com/books?id=Fx...er&source=gbs_similarbooks_r&cad=4_2#PPA21,M1

Well since you were unable to even remotely adhere to the specific statements of the one section you quoted before, it seems unlikely that anything you claim will have any resemblance at all to your own reference.

 

[The Man]

This is a load of pure crap.

We simply do not get the difference between a fusion and a collection, so let me help you.

a b is a fusion.

(a b) is a collection.

Let us omit b:

a is a fusion.

(a) is a collection.

Let us omit b:

is a fusion.

( ) is a collection.

Well thank you for at least confirming you confusion. A simple lack of brackets does not turn a collection into a fusion.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well thank you for at least confirming you confusion. A simple lack of brackets does not turn a collection into a fusion.

This is exactly the difference between fusion and collection in terms of ontology.

A collection exists independently of its content.

This is not the case about a fusion.

 

[doronshadmi]

Let us summarize it:

The Ontology of Fusions and Collections


By using an ontological viewpoint of the foundations of the mathematical science we distinguish between fusions and collections. Let us quote from Michael D. Potter's book "Set theory and its philosophy" page 21:

"But the standard cases have a tendency to obscure the distinction between two quite different ways in which it has been taken that things can be aggregated – collection and fusion. Both are formed by bundling objects together, but a fusion is no more than the sum of its parts, whereas a collection is something more."

This "something more" is exactly the ability of a collection to be available (to exist) as a measurement tool that is independent of the researched (whether it is a collection –empty or not– or a fusion –empty or not–), which is an ability of existence that a fusion does not have. An empty collection is an available measurement tool that measures nothing, For example |{}|=0. This is not the case with a fusion because an empty fusion is nothing (the measurement tool and the measured are the same, and the measurement is impossible since we have lost our measurement tool). Here is another quote from Michael D. Potter's book "Set theory and its philosophy" page 22:

"And what if we try to make something out of nothing? A container with nothing in it is still a container, and the empty collection is correspondingly a collection with no members. But a fusion of nothing is an impossibility: if we try to form a fusion when there is nothing to fuse, we obtain not a trivial object but no object at all."

By using a collection as a measurement tool "a fusion of nothing" is researchable (as shown in the case of the empty set). There are 3 levels of existence that are researchable under the collection's framework, which are: Emptiness, Intermediate, Fullness. Since a collection is a level 2 (Intermediate) thing, then:

1) It is above the level of Emptiness ( for example: {} )

2) It is at the level of collection ( for example: {a,b,c,...} )

3) It is below the level of Fullness ( for example: {_}_ )


Some claims "there is nothing below collection". He is right because "there is nothing" is Emptiness. By following the same ontological notion, we get the opposite of Emptiness, called Fullness. Some claims "there is nothing above collection". This claim is ontologically wrong because "nothing" is below collection. Some claims "there is everything above collection". This is ontologically wrong because "everything" is at the level of collection. Some claims "there is Fullness above collection". In this case he is ontologically right. It must be noticed that the measurement tool is excluded from the measurement's results, for example: |{}|=0 and not 1, |{a,b,c}|=3 and not 4, etc.