Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

All the evidence, doronshadmi, is to the contrary. The failures are entirely with you.

You have told us distinction is the first order property at the very essence of organic numbers. As it turns out, even though you can't provide any sort of operational definition of distinction, it is clear that it is not first order, it is not a property, and it is not at the very essence of organic numbers. In fact, your organic number sequence is arbitrary and inconsistent.

So, you failed.

You also told us how organic numbers answers the question, "What is a number?" From what you assert, organic numbers necessarily would need to be fundamental, along side set theory and logic. As it turns out, organic numbers are numbers only in the sense elements of the Fibonacci sequence are numbers. Moreover, the generation of the organic sequence requires a rather mature arithmatic, so they are in no way basic to anything. Also, the rules for generating the sequence are, by your own admission, arbitrary.

So, you failed.

You told us organic mathematics (whatever that really is) provides unity across all of the branchers of Mathematics. This, like so many other things you have asserted, is nothing more than a bare allegation with no substance. When pressed for even one example, you shrink from the task.

So, you failed.

You haven't a single success to your credit, Doronshadmi. You assert, you misinterpret, you argue in circles, you wallow in inconsistencies, you fathom the trivial, but you never reach a conclusion of any substance.

...and for this, you blame everyone else in the world (except possibly Mosheklein).

You can write whatever you like.

Since you are and can't get OM's direct perception ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4866938&postcount=4257 ) your criticism does not hold water, for me you are no longer exist as a person that has any meaningful thing to say in this thread. Go, zooterkin is waiting.

 

[jsfisher]

You can write whatever you like.

Since you are and can't get OM's direct perception ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4866938&postcount=4257 ) your criticism does not hold water, for me you are no longer exist as a person that has any meaningful thing to say in this thread. Go, zooterkin is waiting.

As I said, blame everyone else for your failures.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Because my example to you can't help you to understand ONs.

An inseparable requirement of understanding ONs it to provides the examples by their user\researcher.

The days of non-direct perception of the learnd subject are gone.

But all you've done is spout off "peace-love-understanding" by using OM, and now that you've been called on it, you can't give any example to us. I don't need to know the inner workings of a gun when I can kill an intruder with it.

Can MosheKlein provide us with a real example of OM usage?

 

[The Man]

have you seen my presentation in Sweden ?
I think that I explain it there.

Moshe

No.

Quite frankly I prefer to directly address questions to people as opposed to what they think they explained to someone else somewhere else.

That you “think it explains it there” certainly does not demonstrate any confidence on your part.

If you know what the explanation is you can simply give it here. Asking people to find it for themselves somewhere else simply because you ‘think it is there’ just indicates that you probably do not know what that explanation is.

It is a simple question that you should be able to simply answer. Is that not why you have come to this forum?

 

[The Man]

But all you've done is spout off "peace-love-understanding" by using OM, and now that you've been called on it, you can't give any example to us. I don't need to know the inner workings of a gun when I can kill an intruder with it.

Can MosheKlein provide us with a real example of OM usage?

Reminds me of the hippie dippy days back in the 60's and 70's everyone wanted to ‘change the world’. Some people just had the flowery rhetoric like Doron. Others actual did things, putting themselves at risk and had a significant impact not only at that time but even to now.

 

[The Man]

Utter nonsense,

The Man, by your illusion you claim that you can completely cover a 1-dim element by infinitely many 0-dim elements.

Your "dragging point" is an example of your inability to understand the difference between 0-dim element and 1-dim element.

A 0-dim element can't be dragged, because any change of a position of a 0-dim element is a disjoint 0-dim element, and this fact is invariant, no matter what scale is used.

In other words the "memory" of a "dragging point" is exactly one 0-dim and disjoint element.

So a “change of a position of a 0-dim element is a disjoint 0-dim element” Please show how a line segment or a "change of a position of a 0-dim element" by draging from 5 to 10 “is a disjoint 0-dim element”.

This is not the case with a 1-dim element. Such an element exists at-once in at least two given locations (which is a property that no 0-dim element has).

The ability of a 1-dim element to be at-once in at least two given locations, gives it its non-local property.

Again with you apparent time dependence.

The inability of you, jsfisher, ddt, zooterkin , and more posters to get the 1-dim element as an example of Non-locality, and the 0-dim element as an example of Locality, prevents from you to get the following:

1) No collection of 0-dim elements can completely cover a 1-dim element.

Please show what parts of a line segment from 5 to 10 are not included or “covered” by the points in the interval [5,10].

2) As a result no collection of 0-dim elements is complete (there are always uncovered domains along the 1-dim element, no matter how many
0-dim elements exists along the 1-dim element).

Then show these “domains” for the above stated line segment.

3) There is a universe which is the result of the bridging between Non-locality and Locality, where the results of the bridging are measured at least by n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy matrix.

Nope just your usual unsupportable CRAP which certainly does not a universe make.

Since you have no ability the get (1),(2),(3) all you do in this thread is running after your own illusionary tails and\or scratch each other's back.

Your social behavior is nice and cozy, but it makes you an ignorant community that can't get anything that is out of its .

Since you have no support for your (1),(2),(3) claims all you do on this thread is pronounce your fantasies.

Your social behavior is pompous and obtuse resulting from your self-perpetuating ignorance.

 

[The Man]

Most popular question of the week:
What does this represent?

Warning! The following is not an authorized presentation of the use of Organic Numbers!

Here's Anthony with his three shiny, newly minted quarters.
As specified before, each is minted in the same state (Let's say Alaska with the grizzly bear) and the same year, so that they look alike.

We're going to ask Anthony to count the quarters and tell us how many cents he has. (A quarter equals 25 cents.)

Now Anthony is a bright kid. He’s brilliant! He's also a deviant little brat.
(As I was!)
He's not going to regard these coins the way we'd habitually expect.
He doesn't immediately announce 75 cents, but plays with our minds.

First he points out to us that the quarters are all the same; that is they are all copies of the same thing. There's one and the one again, and the one again. Two are just copies. There’s only the single value of 25 cents.
(1, 1, 1)
The same value is presented three times.

Doron calls this "Redundancy." It comes from an interaction of two principles:
Sameness and Difference. In pure sameness, everything is the self same.
In pure difference everything is wholly different and shares nothing in common with anything else. The Non-Local Principle has seamless sameness, where there are no individual elements. The Local principle has absolute difference where each element is totally, unique and separate.
The "Redundancy above partakes of both principles in that there are separate instances of the same entity.

Next Anthony asks for a hammer. He whacks each of the quarters so they have their own individualizing dents. (Like when can tell twins apart by a dimple)
Then he counts each of them as an entity of itself.
There's quarter number one, quarter number two, and quarter number three.
(1, 2, 3)
Each has a value of 25 cents, So 1 quarter + 1 quarter + 1 quarter and the total is 75 cents.
Three unique values are presented.

Doron calls this "Uncertainty" It's uncertain if these are unique values or just flawed copies of one unique value.
The idea is that the situation is regarded as having more than one unique value.
Again this is an interaction of the Non-Local-Same and Local-Different Principles. This time difference is primary, but they are of the same sort thing to be counted together.

Redundancy has the times (*) operator.
Uncertainty has the plus (+) operator.

Doron says it takes both of these aspects to have math, especially Organic Math.
Here visualize again his colorful charts and partitions that illustrate Organic Numbers.

Organic numbers allow our Anthony to take Redundancy and Uncertainty (and with them the Non-Local) into consideration.

Redundancy! He has one value worth 25 cents.
Uncertainty! He has three values when added together are worth 75 cents.
And with the interaction of Redundancy and Uncertainty in the Organic Numerals, one of those quarters can be regarded as an indistinct, non-local (Redundant), while one of the others is a distinct local (Uncertain), so that the total can be 50 cents!

By using Organic Numbers, Anthony can exhibit the observer's contribution to the outcome. He shows how the mathematical result depends upon his own state of mind. With Organic Numbers, his humanity has a telling role in the outcome.

If he only had traditional math, all he'd have to show for his effort is just 75 cents. Instead, he can be creative with the sum!

You feel uneasy?

Remember what Doron said:
Post 4220

Seems to be the same type of observer based calculation system they were using to value mortgage based securities and resulted in the current economic problems. So I guess we do have an example of what OM can do.

 

[Apathia]

Seems to be the same type of observer based calculation system they were using to value mortgage based securities and resulted in the current economic problems. So I guess we do have an example of what OM can do.

It's a caricature, of course. (The ears are to big.)
But it does have the essence of at least one sense in which Doron's OM involves observer participation in somewhat the same sense as the classic, is it a vase, or is it two faces facing each other.

I thinik Doron's idea is that with his OM, you will cover all the figures and the ground before settling on the conventional, serial, profane sum.
I'm still wondering if that would involve a different proceedure of calculation.

It does take an axe to traditional mathematical objectivity.

 

[doronshadmi]

So a “change of a position of a 0-dim element is a disjoint 0-dim element” Please show how a line segment or a "change of a position of a 0-dim element" by draging from 5 to 10 “is a disjoint 0-dim element”.

5 and 10 are two different and disjoint 0-dim locations along a 1-dim element, which exists at-once at both locations.

Existing at-once in both locations is exactly the non-local property of a 1-dim element, that no 0-dim element like 5 or 10 has.

Your inability to get it is your blindness to the essential difference between Non-locality and Locality.

Since you are blind to this essential difference, you are using an illusion like "dragged 0-dim element", which is simply an utter nonsense.

Please show what parts of a line segment from 5 to 10 are not included or “covered” by the points in the interval [5,10]

There is a room for another 0-dim element between any two arbitrary 0-dim elements, exactly because there is always a 1-dim element that exists at-once in at least two different locations (which is a property that no 0-dim element has).

The need to explain to you again and again such a fundamental direct perception, clearly shows the damage that the classical western school of thought caused to your natural perception abilities, by teachers like jsfisher.

There is nothing to add here The Man, your brain's damage speaks for itself.

Next time think twice before you adopt head\hammer reasoning as your philosophy of life.

By the way, jsfisher is in a better position than you, in this case, because he disagree with your "dragged 0-dim element" utter nonsense.

As a result jsfisher's non-honest attitude is fully exposed, because he uses perceptions that he clearly knows that they do not hold water, but he does not have the needed integrity in order to admit that he forces a reasoning that is fundamentally wrong.

Since jsfisher is also a teacher that earns his money by teaching others wrong notions, then such a person simply makes a crime, and I mean it, a crime.

Form my experience of the past 7 years of OM's development processes in the internet, I discovered that most of the so called "educated people" belong to the category of blind persons like you (which are the victims of persons like jsfisher) or liars like jsfisher (which has the power to spread his lies just because he belongs to a community of people that have agreements that are based on lies, but since they are taken as "experts" of abstract notions nobody has the legitimacy to criticize them, and they continue to waste public's money and cause an irreversible damage to people by spreading their lies, and nobody stops them from doing these crimes).

You give me the motivation to do my best in order to reduce the number of the elements of your categories to 0.

Again, I claim that you or jsfisher (and if jsfisher gets it, then he is a liar that forces lies, which is a crime) have no abilities to get a single word of what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4866938&postcount=4257 .

Accusing someone of lying, or having brain damage does nothing to attack the arguement nor is it civil/polite.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[zooterkin]

Because my example to you can't help you to understand ONs.

Let me be the judge of that. Please give an example of the use of ONs or OM. Surely you can?

An inseparable requirement of understanding ONs it to provides the examples by their user\researcher.

So, since you claim to understand, you should be able to provide an example.

The days of non-direct perception of the learnd subject are gone.

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

 

[doronshadmi]

Split from: [Merged] Deeper than primes

Let me be the judge of that.

You are not in a position for that, exactly because:

The days of non-direct perception of the learnd subject are gone.

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

But I'll give you a direction for your example, please look at the last paragraph of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMDP.pdf :

We think that one of the first disciplines that can use direct perception as a fruitful
method is Quantum Mechanics, because Non-locality, Locality and Observation are used
as main principles of this science. In that case n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy tree can be
found as a very useful tool.

 

[MosheKlein]

No.

Quite frankly I prefer to directly address questions to people as opposed to what they think they explained to someone else somewhere else.

That you “think it explains it there” certainly does not demonstrate any confidence on your part.

If you know what the explanation is you can simply give it here. Asking people to find it for themselves somewhere else simply because you ‘think it is there’ just indicates that you probably do not know what that explanation is.

It is a simple question that you should be able to simply answer. Is that not why you have come to this forum?

Man,

I have enter to this forum mostly because I heard from Doron
that someone think that there are 10 mistakes in my formula for OM

I am sorry that you did not found yet..
the time to look on the presentation in Sweden .
well 237 people enter already to the link since last Saturday !
~ 40 views per each day !

After 4 bilion of years
somting really intersting
happend in our planet earth .

Don't you think so ?

Moshe

 

[MosheKlein]

No, you would have to use the partition 1 = 1 to get the one clear distinction. You are supposed to exclude the n=n partition, remember?

This would be some much easier if you could define what you mean by distinction. Unfortunately, what seemed to me to be the description for distinction you presented in Sweden isn't at all what you mean. Your "one clear distinction" isn't at all clear.

We are also all waiting for some demonstration of the utility of ON and OM.

I was thinking that you can learnd how to fly , Moshe

 

[MosheKlein]

Most popular question of the week:
What does this represent?

Warning! The following is not an authorized presentation of the use of Organic Numbers!

Here's Anthony with his three shiny, newly minted quarters.
As specified before, each is minted in the same state (Let's say Alaska with the grizzly bear) and the same year, so that they look alike.

We're going to ask Anthony to count the quarters and tell us how many cents he has. (A quarter equals 25 cents.)

Now Anthony is a bright kid. He’s brilliant! He's also a deviant little brat.
(As I was!)
He's not going to regard these coins the way we'd habitually expect.
He doesn't immediately announce 75 cents, but plays with our minds.

First he points out to us that the quarters are all the same; that is they are all copies of the same thing. There's one and the one again, and the one again. Two are just copies. There’s only the single value of 25 cents.
(1, 1, 1)
The same value is presented three times.

Doron calls this "Redundancy." It comes from an interaction of two principles:
Sameness and Difference. In pure sameness, everything is the self same.
In pure difference everything is wholly different and shares nothing in common with anything else. The Non-Local Principle has seamless sameness, where there are no individual elements. The Local principle has absolute difference where each element is totally, unique and separate.
The "Redundancy above partakes of both principles in that there are separate instances of the same entity.

Next Anthony asks for a hammer. He whacks each of the quarters so they have their own individualizing dents. (Like when can tell twins apart by a dimple)
Then he counts each of them as an entity of itself.
There's quarter number one, quarter number two, and quarter number three.
(1, 2, 3)
Each has a value of 25 cents, So 1 quarter + 1 quarter + 1 quarter and the total is 75 cents.
Three unique values are presented.

Doron calls this "Uncertainty" It's uncertain if these are unique values or just flawed copies of one unique value.
The idea is that the situation is regarded as having more than one unique value.
Again this is an interaction of the Non-Local-Same and Local-Different Principles. This time difference is primary, but they are of the same sort thing to be counted together.

Redundancy has the times (*) operator.
Uncertainty has the plus (+) operator.

Doron says it takes both of these aspects to have math, especially Organic Math.
Here visualize again his colorful charts and partitions that illustrate Organic Numbers.

Organic numbers allow our Anthony to take Redundancy and Uncertainty (and with them the Non-Local) into consideration.

Redundancy! He has one value worth 25 cents.
Uncertainty! He has three values when added together are worth 75 cents.
And with the interaction of Redundancy and Uncertainty in the Organic Numerals, one of those quarters can be regarded as an indistinct, non-local (Redundant), while one of the others is a distinct local (Uncertain), so that the total can be 50 cents!

By using Organic Numbers, Anthony can exhibit the observer's contribution to the outcome. He shows how the mathematical result depends upon his own state of mind. With Organic Numbers, his humanity has a telling role in the outcome.

If he only had traditional math, all he'd have to show for his effort is just 75 cents. Instead, he can be creative with the sum!

You feel uneasy?

Remember what Doron said:
Post 4220

From my personal experience
the coin in kindergarden have two size:

1- Organic Mathematics
2- pedagogy of the unknown

so who really care about distinctions..
with very young children
we need to hag them every day.

 

[Apathia]

From my personal experience
the coin in kindergarden have two size:

1- Organic Mathematics
2- pedagogy of the unknown

so who really care about distinctions..
with very young children
we need to hag them every day.

Yes, give them hugs.
I was only trying to get to what the "distinctions" represented by the parttitions actually are.
Sometimes I think I'm getting somewhere in understanding what Doron's OM is about. But then ...

 

[doronshadmi]

Some addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4868966&postcount=4269 .

The Man, the beautiful thing here is that all is needed in order to get OM, is the direct perception of the essential difference between . (0-dim element) and ___ (1-dim element).

It must be stressed that direct perception has no room for researcher's subjective manipulations, because it is directly based on the simple and fundamental notion of the essential difference between a 0-dim and 1-dim elements.

 

[jsfisher]

I was thinking that you can learnd how to fly , Moshe

Gee, and I was hoping you'd provide some clarity where Doronshadmi has failed so miserably.

You gave what seemed to be a clear definition for distinction in your Sweden presentation. But you have back away from that definition. You haven't helped anyone here understand what you are trying to say.

Maybe you can't help us understand distinction any better than Doronshadmi, but can you at least provide some examples of ON and OM have any sort of utility?

 

[doronshadmi]

Gee, and I was hoping you'd provide some clarity where Doronshadmi has failed so miserably.

You gave what seemed to be a clear definition for distinction in your Sweden presentation. But you have back away from that definition. You haven't helped anyone here understand what you are trying to say.

Maybe you can't help us understand distinction any better than Doronshadmi, but can you at least provide some examples of ON and
OM have any sort of utility?

It is clearly and simply written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4866938&postcount=4257 .

By the way, where are your 10 and more errors of Moshe's function. Until this very moment you did not show even that you undertand its consistency, as clealry given in:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4850095&postcount=4039

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4866938&postcount=4257

You have failed twice:

1) To get the consistency of my first (and partial) indroduction of ONs.

2) To get Distinction (represented by ON's) as a result of at least n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy tree ( as shown in page 1 and 2 of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMDP.pdf ).

 

[jsfisher]

Mosheklein,

I have for you a question. It has to do with the union of the members of a set. The wording of the question may be confusing, especially for a non-native speaker of English, so permit me to lead up to it.

Let S be the set {{A, B}, {B, C}, {D, E}}.

I think we can agree that the set S has three members. They are {A, B}, {B, C}, and {D, E}. Simple, right? Here is my question for you:


What is the union of the members of the set S?


You know what the set S is. You know its members. So, what, then, is the union of the members of the set S?

Just so you know where this is going, Doronshadmi claims that the union of the members of the set S is {{A,B}, {B,C}, {D,E}}, that is, the set S. Do you agree with Doronshadmi on this, or do you conclude the union of the members of S is the union of {A,B} with {B,C} with {D,E}, and that the correct answer is {A,B,C,D,E}?

Or maybe you get an entirely different answer. Which is it?

 

[doronshadmi]

Mosheklein,

I have for you a question. It has to do with the union of the members of a set. The wording of the question may be confusing, especially for a non-native speaker of English, so permit me to lead up to it.

Let S be the set {{A, B}, {B, C}, {D, E}}.

I think we can agree that the set S has three members. They are {A, B}, {B, C}, and {D, E}. Simple, right? Here is my question for you:


What is the union of the members of the set S?


You know what the set S is. You know its members. So, what, then, is the union of the members of the set S?

Just so you know where this is going, Doronshadmi claims that the union of the members of the set S is {{A,B}, {B,C}, {D,E}}, that is, the set S. Do you agree with Doronshadmi on this, or do you conclude the union of the members of S is the union of {A,B} with {B,C} with {D,E}, and that the correct answer is {A,B,C,D,E}?

Or maybe you get an entirely different answer. Which is it?

By OM the outer "{" "}" represents Non-locality ("{" "}" standard notation is "____" OM's Non-locality) so by OM S = {A,B} {B,C} {D,E}

Since you do not understand Non-locality (whether it is used as an hidden assumption "{" "}" by Standard Math , or not as a hidden assumption "____" by OM) you simply do not understand what Union is, in the first place.

In other words, no Non-locality, no Union, simple as that.

In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4868966&postcount=4269 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4868966&postcount=4269 you can learn exactly what is your "expertise" , for me.