Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
Exact is not the opposite of improvement, as it appears in your under-formalin reasoning, so?
Click to expand...
(bolding mine)
So it's formalin, a.k.a. formaldehyde, which you're using? So you're a kind of mummy now? I don't think that will become very popular around here. Or do you have hitherto unknown applications of the stuff?

jsfisher said:
The current tangent on direct perception has devolved into bickering for which I am 50% responsible.
Click to expand...
Don't take part of the blame. Fundamentally, it's doron's lack of formal definition and his sidesteps into this "direct perception" nonsense which got the discussion there.
 
jsfisher said:
Yes, I know. That can result in yet another tangent since axioms aren't simply self-evident truths, as doron seems to want to believe. The parallel line axiom in geometry is a good example. Leave it in, you get Euclidean geometry; take it out, non-Euclidean. It doesn't matter what one perceives to be the truth; it is just a matter of choice of what sort of mathematical system is needed for whatever purpose.
Click to expand...

Well I guess Direct Perception can deal with that as well... It has to.
 
ddt said:
No, it's more like projective geometry. One point gets blown up into infinity, or some such. :)
Click to expand...
No, the existence of line has nothing do do with points, or more general:

Dim n = 1 to ∞

Dim k = 0 to n-1

n existence has noting to do with k existence.
 
jsfisher said:
Instead of providing that formal expression, doron launched out on a tangent about things that may or may not be true via direct perception, but never was there an actual formal expression given of his axiom.
Click to expand...

jsfisher,

By using Direct Perception I exposed your bogus game with sets, which form one hand does not ignore Complexity in order to distinguish between S members (S={ {{}}, {{a}}, {{a,b}}, {{b}}, ... , {{a,b,c,...}}, ...}), and on the other hand it ignores Complexity when Cardinality is measured, so?

Also by Direct Perception I show that Set's existence is independent of the existence of members, and it is true whether the set is empty or not, so?
 
sympathic said:
He will not provide you with any formal expression. He does not know how to. His excuse for covering this up is what he calls Direct Perception - he would tell you that he does not need to define it or express it formally in order for it to be.
Click to expand...

D: What is the source of your actions?

J: My mental activity.

D: What is the source of your mental activity?

J: My brain.

D: What is the source of your brain?

J: The materials that it is built from.

D: What is the source of the materials that it is built from?

J: Chemical elements.

D: Let us take the Chemical elements of your body and put them in different jars, without omitting even a single particle. Do you think that that you still able to answer to my first question (if not, then please tell us why not?)
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
Click to expand...

Formal means form, or the existence of forms (or their absence).

The standard axiom is:

There exists set X such that given any set Y (including X) Y is not a member of X.

Jsfisher, do you see this unnecessary bla bla bla …?

Instead of this idiotic maneuver, we simply state that:

There exists set (a form) that has no members (no sub-forms).
 
Last edited:
We can do even better:

There exists membership without members.


How is it possible? very simple:

1) Stage without players.

2) String without beads.

...
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Formal means form, or the existence of forms (or their absence).

The standard axiom is:

There exists set X such that given any set Y (including X) Y is not a member of X.

Jsfisher, do you see this unnecessary bla bla bla …?

Instead of this idiotic maneuver, we simply state that

There exists set that has no members.
Click to expand...


Ok, so you can't do it. We expected no more from you.
 
Sorry for not reading through 140+ pages of... well... erm... but, doron, in the past 10 months or so could you get anyone out there (scientists, publications, etc.) to get it? I assume not, or you wouldn't be still trying to convince some poor forum members... I think this says it all. You should think about this.
 
laca said:
Sorry for not reading through 140+ pages of... well... erm... but, doron, in the past 10 months or so could you get anyone out there (scientists, publications, etc.) to get it? I assume not, or you wouldn't be still trying to convince some poor forum members... I think this says it all. You should think about this.
Click to expand...


Even his one and only follower, Moshe Klein, was told by doron that he didn't get it and to shut up.
 
doronshadmi said:
No, your reasoning ddt.
Click to expand...

You might read up on what formalin aka formaldehyde is used for. And then get that it was a joke. I'm way past trying to seriously argue with you - nothing good comes out of it anyway.

And maybe you'd have the courtesy to all readers here to brush up your English; and at least use a spelling checker and if possible a grammar checker to check the posts you type before submitting them.
 
Apathia,

I wanted to comment on your post a few pages back. I think you know philosophy isn't my forte, but I do find your insights and translations fascinating.

Apathia said:
Traditional Math merely derives a quantity at the count. 3 is no more than the three items counted.
It's a set that contains only 3 items till another count is made and with it a new set.

Organic Number though has a permanent, single, ever used Set.
It has all possible quantities in membership.
Click to expand...

I'm having trouble distinguishing this Set of all possible quantities from the universe of discourse.

Traditional Math talks about, say, the set of the sum of 3 plus 2.
{5}
5 is it's sole occupant.
However, the Set in Organic Mathematics is not so limited.
It always includes any numeral, any quantity from infinitude.
You can select the 5 alone, but you do so at limitation and ignorance of all the rest of the members of The Set.
Click to expand...

I'm getting an image, here, that a set (small s) is like a slit providing a view into the Set (large S). The size and focus of the slit is a characteristic of the set so that the set of all sums of 3 and 2 puts only 5 into view. The rest of the Set is still there, but it has been put just out of sight by the limitations imposed on our set.

Another way to put this is that Organic Mathematics deals with what we might call, "Metanumerals."
They dwell in the Meta, non-local, parallel realm till a quantity is determined.

The empty set strictly serially speaking has no members.
But metanumerically it's membership is ∞.

Or you could say as a "set" it has no members, but as The Set it has all members.
Click to expand...

Ok. So far, this seems compatible with my set-slit-Set analogy.

So numerals can be in parallel or serial aspect.
A numeral in parallel aspect is in non-local locality.
Click to expand...

And, now, it is falling apart. Up until the point, I had a sense of potential versus actual membership, but it never congealed as a parallel versus serial structure.

Can we calculate metanumerically?
I don't see how.
Click to expand...

I don't, either, but I think I am now out of step with your presentation since I didn't quite get your parallel/serial distinctions.

...
It intuits from Unitary Consciousness.
Click to expand...

I'll take that as a queue to do some reading. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom