Deeper than primes

[dlorde]

Do not read my leaps (exactly because what I am going to write is not on the verbal bla bla bla ... level)

So I can't read what you say or write because it is non-verbal - yet words all you have provided...

You really are incapable of providing a coherent explanation of your ideas. Too bad.

 

[MosheKlein]

Was I unclear in the post of mine you quoted?

Perhaps this will help:

ok you are right and I made a typo mistake the distribute rule which is:

x@(y*z)=(x@y)*(x@z)

Does the operation x^(log) satisfy the 3 rules ?

Anyhow this is only a motivation to my search
of generalizing to traditional Mathematics.

 

[doronshadmi]

Thank you for a clear example of self-delusion. Can you produce an equally clear example of OM?

The example is called zooterkin.

 

[MosheKlein]

Moshe,

Direct perception is not any particular visual observation.

Direct perception is the base ground that enables also visual observations.

As for Benaham, I do not know, it has to carefully be researched where the researcher's aspect must not be ignored (the researcher's aspect is ignored by the Newtonian Mechanics, which is fundamentally wrong).

Doron,

It is well known that no equipment can measure the colors that the observer see in Benaham wheel. Sometime blind for color can see Benham colors !
Don't you think that this equipment can help to understand what is OM all about ?

 

[doronshadmi]

ok you are right and I hade a typo mistake the distribute rule which is:

x@(y*z)=(X@y)*(x@z)

Does the operation x^(log satisfy this rule ?

anyhow this is only a motivation to my search generalizing to traditional Mathematics.

Moshe,

If you can show how @ is OM's stuff, then it will help to explain OM better.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron,

It is well known that no equipment can measure the colors that the observer see in Benaham wheel. Sometime blind for color can see Benham colors !

Please direct us to such a result.

 

[zooterkin]

thank you !
I think that the imaginary colure in Benaham wheel
present the power of the technology of the conciseness
and what is direct perception

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/col_benham/

What do you think about this unexplained.. phenomena ?

Moshe

Ooh, shiny...

 

[jsfisher]

ok you are right and I made a typo mistake

No, it was not a simple typographic error. It was yet another example of sloppy thinking and poor communication. Your whole "algorithm" for generating the so-called organic numbers contained multiple errors, both of language and of Mathematics, and those errors have been faithfully copied and pasted from document to document without you or Doron ever actually thinking about what you present.

You don't think about what you write, and you don't think about what you say. You simply assume it to be correct, and pass off any criticism as "You just don't understand."

the distribute rule which is:

x@(y*z)=(x@y)*(x@z)

Does the operation x^(log) satisfy the 3 rules ?

No, it does not satisfy the three rules, not within the context established in your original presentation.

This continues to be an excellent example of sloppy thinking and poor communication.

 

[MosheKlein]

Moshe,

If you can show how @ is OM's stuff, then it will help to explain OM better.

I discover that there is infinit number of operatores

@1, @2, @3, @4, .....

which satisfy the folowing conditin:

@1=+
@2=*

x@ny=y@nx comutative
x@n(y@nz)=(x@ny)@nz asosiative
x@n(y@(n-1)z)=(x@ny)@(n-1)(x@nz) distibute law

so the next qustion is

is there infinit number of mathematical languge

m1,m2,m3,

m1= euclidian mathematics
m2= OM

etc..

 

[MosheKlein]

No, it was not a simple typographic error. It was yet another example of sloppy thinking and poor communication. Your whole "algorithm" for generating the so-called organic numbers contained multiple errors, both of language and of Mathematics, and those errors have been faithfully copied and pasted from document to document without you or Doron ever actually thinking about what you present.

You don't think about what you write, and you don't think about what you say. You simply assume it to be correct, and pass off any criticism as "You just don't understand."



No, it does not satisfy the three rules, not within the context established in your original presentation.

This continues to be an excellent example of sloppy thinking and poor communication.

jsfisher

If we define x@y=x^(log then:

x@y=y@x
x@(y@z)=(x@y)@z
x@(y*z)=(x@y)*(x@z)

 

[MosheKlein]

Please direct us to such a result.

I wrote that from my memory and I promise you to search the reference for that.

 

[jsfisher]

jsfisher

If we define x@y=x^(log then:

x@y=y@x
x@(y@z)=(x@y)@z
x@(y*z)=(x@y)*(x@z)

Your conclusion is incorrect. Again, you copy/paste things without thinking about what you present.

 

[doronshadmi]

I discover that there is infinit number of operatores

@1, @2, @3, @4, .....

which satisfy the folowing conditin:

@1=+
@2=*

x@ny=y@nx comutative
x@n(y@nz)=(x@ny)@nz asosiative
x@n(y@(n-1)z)=(x@ny)@(n-1)(x@nz) distibute law

so the next qustion is

is there infinit number of mathematical languge

m1,m2,m3,

m1= euclidian mathematics
m2= OM

etc..

But your question and answer is nothing but the serial case of distinct values, which is a particuler case of OM.

 

[doronshadmi]

I wrote that from my memory and I promise you to search the reference for that.

It does not work like that Moshe. If you have no reference to X you can't use X to supprt your claims.

 

[doronshadmi]

Your whole "algorithm" for generating the so-called organic numbers

As usual jsfisher, you are living in the past.

Moshe's algorithm is nothing but some particular case of Organic Numbers, which is based on certain recursion.

Furthermore, it provides only the quantitative information of this particular case.

In other words, it is nothing but some "light" example, which demonstrates Non-locality\Locality linkage, and how superposition of ids or distinct ids are global or local aspects of a one complex form.

In other words, you are nothing but a strew man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man ) all along your @ dialog with Moshe.

 

[jsfisher]

As usual jsfisher, you are living in the past.

As usual, doronshadmi, your reading comprehension is minimal, so you completely missed the point.

 

[MosheKlein]

It does not work like that Moshe. If you have no reference to X you can't use X to supprt your claims.

you are right
I am sorry for doing that !

 

[MosheKlein]

Your conclusion is incorrect. Again, you copy/paste things without thinking about what you present.

So which of the 3 rules @ is not satisfy ?

 

[doronshadmi]

As usual, doronshadmi, your reading comprehension is minimal, so you completely missed the point.

Look, Moshe is a free man, and can express his views independently.

As you can clearly see, I do not unconditionally agree with his working style, which is indeed floppy in some cases, but in other cases he is doing a beautiful job, especially if he does not express himself by writing (he has some degree of dyslexia).

You, for example, do not have dyslexia but it does not prevent from you to not get OM.

So?

 

[jsfisher]

So which of the 3 rules @ is not satisfy ?

None of them.