Deeper than primes

[MosheKlein]

Moshe, yep paradigm shifts can always happen, but just as in physics, it will be hotly debated and proofs are needed.

The whole process of science is:

- Someone sets up a theory, and he (or someone who finds the theory intuitively acceptable) goes and figures out the proof.
- Some other people retest the theory and try to corroborate the proof or find new proofs.
- The theory is accepted, until something comes along that explains the observed phenomena (in the broadest sense of the word) better.

So, it is an 'inbuilt' mechanism in science to overthrow itself, if necessary.

But you will never effect a paradigm shift because you want a paradigm shift.

A paradigm shift happens, sometimes even against the grain of it's discoverer, because it explains more and has more or better proofs or evidence.

A good example in physics is String Theory... while I do not know the finer details, I do know that the maths are more elegant, but it does not explain more or better than what we already can with current other theories.

That is why String Theory is not the prevalent theory at the moment.

That is also what I tried to explain to Doron:

Even if you can defend away any criticism, it does you no good if you can not convince anyone that your theory is better.

If nobody is convinced, then the paradigm shift will not happen.

ok, thank you !

I agree with you all accept one thing..
I still think that OM is a paradigm shift. This is because it can change the most fundamental concept of mathematics which is the Number. the discovery of organic number by Doron Shadmi.

Will you be willing to help us
if you change your opinion about OM ?

Let's go now step by step
I can show you if you really want to know
how I came to OM idea in 2000.

Have you heard about the famous lecture
of David Hilbert in Paris in 1900.
this is very fundamental for my picture.


Best
Moshe

 

[catbasket]

I still think that OM is a paradigm shift.

No. A paradigm shift is certainly possible in Mathematics, but you have presented zero evidence to persuade anyone that OM is anything more than smoke and mirrors. You also, just like doron, appear totally incapable of explaining OM to anyone.

"A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share.”

If only MosheKlein and doronshadmi "get" OM ... how can it be a paradigm shift?

Maybe it's a local paradigm shift rather than a non-local one?

Any progress in finding "even one minor practical use for organic mathematics" to show us? jsfisher, myself and others would love to see one.

 

[doronshadmi]

Again! It is what I said!

Any of your 1-dim elements consists of a non-finite, or infinite number of other 1-dim elements!

1-dim element is a non-local building-block (it is an atom, and therefore consists by exactly 0 sub-elements).

The research about the difference between finite or non-finite cardinality is about the number of elements that can be along the 1-dim building-block.

So you totally have missed the whole point here.

Here is an equivalent example from Standard Math:

____ is equivalent to {} (known as the empty set).

The cardinality of {} (notated as |{}|) is 0 exactly because we do not count the empty set as its own element.

So is the case with _____ , we do not count it as its own building-block, exactly as {} is not its own element.

On top of this non-local atomic state we research the difference between the amounts of finite or non-finite elements.

An amount of finite elements along ______ has a well-known cardinality.

An amount of non-finite elements along ______ does not have a well-known cardinality, exactly because 1-dim element cannot fully covered by non-finite amount of elements (by the way, when we deal with the non-finite, the most accurate way is to use non-finite amount of 0-dim elements, so in both case (the finite case and the non-finite case) we have to use the same type of elements (0-dim, in this case) in order to get valid conclusion about the difference between finite cardinality and non-finite cardinality).

I hope that now you start to get it.

 

[doronshadmi]

If only MosheKlein and doronshadmi "get" OM ... how can it be a paradigm shift?

Because you use the level of some partial result of X in order to get X.

It cannot be done, because you can't get X by using a partial result of X.

The level of verbal definitions is nothing but a partial result of direct perception.

As long as you are not enable to use direct perception as the basis of your understanding, you can't get OM.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Moshe,

i think you still don't understand. People here are not that much interested why and how you came to OM, or why and how doron came to OM. They want to know what practical applications are there for OM. They want examples of how OM can solve things in a better/more elegant way than good old regular math.

You and doron go to great lengths to explain what you think of it, to describe things about it, but you never go forward and give any practical examples.

Look, in standard math, to get the circumference of a circle, one calculates 2 * radius * pi. To get the circular area, one calculates radius * radius * pi. Another example. If i get a bag full of the same coins, the contents bag weighs 2 kilogram, and i know that a single coin weighs 10 grams, then i can calculate 2 / 0.01 to get the number of coins in the bag.

Now, how can these examples be solved using OM? To make OM attractive, the solutions must be simpler and easier to calculate than in standard math. If it gets more complicated and awkward, no one will ever care for OM.

So, stop dancing around. Stop accusing people of not getting it or whatever. Come up with practical examples of how OM can be applied to mathematical problems, how the application of PM makes it simpler to handle these problems, and show that you get the same results that standard math would give for a given problem but by using OM instead.

Again, no one really cares how you came to it, where you heard from it, where you talk about it. If you can't come up with good examples of it's applications, it will be nothing more than crackpot numerology.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[doronshadmi]

Any ___ has an infinite amount of sets consisting of smaller ___ that cover it completely.

Wrong.

At the momnet that you deal with the non-finite you can't avoid the smallest possible elements, which are 0-dim elements.

And this is where the Non-locality\Locality story takes place, and clearly shows that no amount of 0-dim elements can fully cover a 1-dim element.

The lengths, or non-localities, will approach 0 when the finite number of that given solution approaches infinity.

Ya, when finite = non-finite, call us.

As long as finite ≠ non-finite I suggest you to keep silence.

Maybe you can learn some interesting things at the level of silence (which is not the thought "silence").

 

[MosheKlein]

No. A paradigm shift is certainly possible in Mathematics, but you have presented zero evidence to persuade anyone that OM is anything more than smoke and mirrors. You also, just like doron, appear totally incapable of explaining OM to anyone.


If only MosheKlein and doronshadmi "get" OM ... how can it be a paradigm shift?

Maybe it's a local paradigm shift rather than a non-local one?

Any progress in finding "even one minor practical use for organic mathematics" to show us? jsfisher, myself and others would love to see one.

catbasket

I came to this forum because doron ask me to do that.
To protect my algorithm for On
Which is no more relevant to OM

I am sorry but you can't have any idea which mathematician are involved in this story today.

local paradigm shift - I like it so you see you can be creative also.


Can you start to imagine the economical value
of any application that you so much
asking to share here freely ?

Moshe

 

[doronshadmi]

If nobody is convinced, then the paradigm shift will not happen.

In the case of OM the initial terms to get it are worse, because the mind must enable to use direct perception in order to be convinced of some valuable result.

I am talking here about not less than a paradigm-shift about how things are valued, in the first place.

You are using verbal-based skills that are nothing but some particular result of direct perception.

As long as people can't use direct perception as the basis of reasoning, no paradigm shift will take place.

This thread clearly shows that we are in a very preliminary state of direct perception's paradigm shift, which says nothing about what is going to happen in the future.

 

[zooterkin]

Can you start to imagine the economical value
of any application that you so much
asking to share here freely ?

Moshe

So, you're hoping to make money from OM? I would like to think that you'd need to prove that you actually have something worth selling, but there are plenty of peddlers of woo out there making a living already.

However, if you really do have a new form of mathematics, I think you may be overoptimistic if you think you'll make money from it. Can you think of any previous mathematicians who managed it?

 

[realpaladin]

1-dim element is a non-local building-block (it is an atom, and therefore consists by exactly 0 sub-elements).

An atom....
It consists of 0 sub-elements....

You can not be serious here. Seriously. You can not.

This is never going to be a paradigm-shift as it would be moving backwards in history, before the ancient Greeks.

You want to backwardify your people, huh?

 

[Little 10 Toes]

catbasket

I came to this forum because doron ask me to do that.
To protect my algorithm for On
Which is no more relevant to OM

I am sorry but you can't have any idea which mathematician are involved in this story today.

local paradigm shift - I like it so you see you can be creative also.


Can you start to imagine the economical value
of any application that you so much
asking to share here freely ?

Moshe

But MosheKlein, your algorithm has already been shown on how to get ON (or so I believe) and we aren't even asking for a specific example, we're just asking for any example.

 

[doronshadmi]

An atom....
It consists of 0 sub-elements....

You can not be serious here. Seriously. You can not.

This is never going to be a paradigm-shift as it would be moving backwards in history, before the ancient Greeks.

You want to backwardify your people, huh?

Wrong,

The paradigm shift is exactly the use of direct perception, which enables to immediately understand that our abstract and non-abstract realm is the result of the linkage between non-local atom(s) (represented at least as a 1-dim element) and local atom(s) (represented at least as 0-dim element).

You are invited to show Non-locality\Locality linkage in ancient Greeks time, and how it was developed during the years until nowadays.

Another thing that you miss is that there are a lot of ideas along the history of mankind that were forgotten during the years, and re-discovered by chance and also developed if they had been found useful.

So, time has no significance in the case of inventing, discovering, re-discovering and using\re-using fruitful notions.

 

[catbasket]

I came to this forum because doron ask me to do that.
To protect my algorithm for On
Which is no more relevant to OM

I do not want explanations why you came here. It is irrelevant.

I am sorry but you can't have any idea which mathematician are involved in this story today.

I did not ask for this information. Irrelevant.

local paradigm shift - I like it so you see you can be creative also.

I'm glad you like my joke

Can you start to imagine the economical value
of any application that you so much
asking to share here freely ?

As I have not seen "even one minor practical use for organic mathematics" I can have no idea of any possible economical value. Why do you ask? Are you looking for investors?

 

[doronshadmi]

I do not want explanations why you came here. It is irrelevant.


I did not ask for this information. Irrelevant.


I'm glad you like my joke


As I have not seen "even one minor practical use for organic mathematics" I can have no idea of any possible economical value. Why do you ask? Are you looking for investors?

Try to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4880215&postcount=4604 .

 

[realpaladin]

So... why is your 1-dim indivisible? Why is it the atom? If I look, nay stare even, at a thing with 1 dimension, it still is divisible. That is the whole nature of something having a dimension.

No paradigm shift can contradict Nature, yet you try to...

 

[realpaladin]

Wrong,

The paradigm shift is exactly the use of direct perception, which enables to immediately understand that our abstract and non-abstract realm is the result of the linkage between non-local atom(s) (represented at least as a 1-dim element) and local atom(s) (represented at least as 0-dim element).

But... but... but... Nature has proven that in the non-abstract realm you are wrong... why try to contradict it?

You are invited to show Non-locality\Locality linkage in ancient Greeks time, and how it was developed during the years until nowadays.

The name atom comes from the Greek ἄτομος/átomos, α-τεμνω, which means uncuttable, something that cannot be divided further. The concept of an atom as an indivisible component of matter was first proposed by early Indian and Greek philosophers. In the 17th and 18th centuries,

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom

Another thing that you miss is that there are a lot of ideas along the history of mankind that were forgotten during the years, and re-discovered by chance and also developed if they had been found useful.

You have yet to show it more useful than anything else that is currently out there.

So, time has no significance in the case of inventing, discovering, re-discovering and using\re-using fruitful notions.

Except for that 'magical year 1905' *sigh*

 

[doronshadmi]

But... but... but... Nature has proven that in the non-abstract realm you are wrong... why try to contradict it?

Not at all.

Non-locality\Locality linkage is exactl both abstract and non-abstract realm.

If you wish to get QM non-locality\locality linkage, this time really read http://www.livecity.co.il/image/users/112431/ftp/my_files/IJPAM-OM.pdf (last time it took 2 minutes, so this time give yourself the chance to get it).

Except for that 'magical year 1905' *sigh*

No, time is considered as the 4th dim. in E. theories.

 

[doronshadmi]

So... why is your 1-dim indivisible? Why is it the atom? If I look, nay stare even, at a thing with 1 dimension, it still is divisible. That is the whole nature of something having a dimension.

No paradigm shift can contradict Nature, yet you try to...

No, it is always a linkage between Non-locality and Locality, no matter what dimension degrees of dimansions are used.

 

[realpaladin]

No, it is always a linkage between Non-locality and Locality, no matter what dimension degrees of dimansions are used.

Does this make sense in your language? I do not understand it.

 

[MosheKlein]

Moshe,

i think you still don't understand. People here are not that much interested why and how you came to OM, or why and how doron came to OM. They want to know what practical applications are there for OM. They want examples of how OM can solve things in a better/more elegant way than good old regular math.

You and doron go to great lengths to explain what you think of it, to describe things about it, but you never go forward and give any practical examples.

Look, in standard math, to get the circumference of a circle, one calculates 2 * radius * pi. To get the circular area, one calculates radius * radius * pi. Another example. If i get a bag full of the same coins, the contents bag weighs 2 kilogram, and i know that a single coin weighs 10 grams, then i can calculate 2 / 0.01 to get the number of coins in the bag.

Now, how can these examples be solved using OM? To make OM attractive, the solutions must be simpler and easier to calculate than in standard math. If it gets more complicated and awkward, no one will ever care for OM.

So, stop dancing around. Stop accusing people of not getting it or whatever. Come up with practical examples of how OM can be applied to mathematical problems, how the application of PM makes it simpler to handle these problems, and show that you get the same results that standard math would give for a given problem but by using OM instead.

Again, no one really cares how you came to it, where you heard from it, where you talk about it. If you can't come up with good examples of it's applications, it will be nothing more than crackpot numerology.

Greetings,

Chris

Organic Mathematics is like a real organism !
In my vision it have the shape of Klein Bottle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8rifKlq5hc

From locality it have two size
From non locality it have only one size.

I can see it also as a positive demonstration to Goedel theorem.

So ,Many Many and Many ! application it can have
because the language is one of the most important
quality of the Human race.

Moshe