Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
In other words, all of you simply are not able to get the notion of an edgeless line as the minimal form of non-local atom, or a point as the minimal form of local atom.

Since this is the case there is no use to discuss with you anymore on this subject.
Click to expand...


Ah, yes! The standard Doron defense. Since Doron is incapable of constructive communication on a subject, and since the subject is a total fabrication, replete with inconsistency, contradiction, and lack of definition, Doron's best strategy is to stomp his feet and hold his breath.

Let's see just how blue he can turn.
 
jsfisher said:
Ah, yes! The standard Doron defense. Since Doron is incapable of constructive communication on a subject, and since the subject is a total fabrication, replete with inconsistency, contradiction, and lack of definition, Doron's best strategy is to stomp his feet and hold his breath.

Let's see just how blue he can turn.
Click to expand...
Are you able to distinguish between the actual and the potential?

Until this very momnent you can't.

As a result you can't get OM's reasoning, whether I hold or does not hold my breath.

You are simply not there jsfisher and as a result all you have to say about this subject is meaningless.

Here is some example:

jsfisher said:
So, where, exactly, along any given line of your choice is there not a point?
Click to expand...

By using the word "exactly" that is related to some location, you force your local-only reasoning on an atomic state that its very nature is non-local.

This atomic state has a minimal form that exists as an edgeless line, and it exists independently of any exact location along it.

Your inability to get this notion prevents any further discussion on this subject, with you.

Also your inability to get the notion of a point as the minimal form of actual locality that is not located on any edgeless line (including the ray’s case) , prevents from you to get OM’s reasoning, which is based on the distinction between the actual and the potential, where an edgeless line and a point are actual forms and a segment (which is the result of the linkage between the actual non-local atom AND the actual local atom) is permanently potential w.r.t to both atomic states.
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
If I have two points (0-dimensional elements) are they local or non-local to each other?
Click to expand...

In order to define two points you go beyond the actual locality of each point, and use a 1-dim element in order to get the very concept of two.

This 1-dim element is non-local w.r.t each point and only the linkage between non-locality (1-dim element) and locality (each 0-dim element) enables the existence of what you call "two" or "two points".

Non-locality\Locality linkage is not limited to Geometry, for example:

Each one of the points is some thought and the line between them is your memory, so by Memory\thought linkage the concept of Two is possible.
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
the empty set is a subset of itself. Look at wikipedia.
Click to expand...
The definition of Subset ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset ):

"If A and B are sets and every element of A is also an element of B, then A is a subset of (or is included in) B"

The empty set is an existing thing that is empty.

The definition of Subset cares only about the elements that exist (or not) in a given existing set.

Therefore it is not relevant to my argument, which says that the existing empty set must not be one of the members of the existing empty set, and this reasoning is not circular only if the empty set exists independently of the definition that uses it (the Empty set is not created by its definition).
 
Last edited:
An Atom is an existing thing, which its existence is independent of other existing things. Therefore an Atom is both an existing AND empty thing.

EDIT: An edgeless line is the minimal form of the non-local version of an Atom.

A point is the minimal form of the local version of an Atom.

A segment is the intermediate existence between the non-local and the local versions of an Atom, such that no segment is a non-local atom under infinite extrapolation, and no segment is a local atom under infinite interpolation.

The symmetry between infinite extrapolation or interpolation of a given segment changes the understanding of the concept of Collection and Real Analysis, because it enables to understand that any infinite collection is necessarily incomplete since it can’t be any of the versions of the Atom.

This simple notion enables us to clearly distinguish between the actual non-locality or locality of the atomic state, and the potential intermediate existence of a segment.

This distinction is a fundamental notion of the Organic Mathematics’ paradigm, which enables, for example, to extend the concept of Number by adding the Non-local numbers, which are used to measure the infinite interpolation or extrapolation with respect to the local or non-local versions of the atomic state.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Are you able to distinguish between the actual and the potential?

Until this very momnent you can't.

As a result you can't get OM's reasoning, whether I hold or does not hold my breath.

You are simply not there jsfisher and as a result all you have to say about this subject is meaningless.
Click to expand...

The stomping of the feet and the holding of the breath continues.

Doron, seriously, why not stop blaming the entire rest of the world for your shortcomings? Step back, think about what you are saying, and at least try to give your fanciful words some specific definition.

Here is some example:
Click to expand...

...of your ability to concatenate words into apparent sentences without regard to meaning.

By using the word "exactly" that is related to some location, you force your local-only reasoning on an atomic state that its very nature is non-local.

This atomic state has a minimal form that exists as an edgeless line, and it exists independently of any exact location along it.
Click to expand...

Excellent example, by the way. In terms of constructive composition, though, not so good.
 
doronshadmi said:
The definition of Subset....
Click to expand...


Geez, Little 10 Toes pointed out an error you'd made, and rather than correcting it or retracting it like any reasonable human being might do, you go off on this completely irrelevant work of fiction.
 
doronshadmi said:
An Atom is an existing thing, which its existence is independent of other existing things. Therefore an Atom is both an existing AND empty thing.
Click to expand...

You made this up. You also contradict yourself. (No surprise.)

A non-finite edgeless line is the minimal form of the non-local version of an Atom.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance of Mathematics is prominent at the beginning of this sentence, then you wrap it up nicely with more fabrication.

A point is the minimal form of the local version of an Atom.
Click to expand...

Nope.

A segment is the intermediate existence between the non-local and the local versions of an Atom, such that no segment is a non-local atom under infinite extrapolation, and no segment is a local atom under infinite interpolation.
Click to expand...

Nope.

The symmetry between infinite extrapolation or interpolation of a given segment changes the understanding of the concept of Collection and Real Analysis, because it enables to understand that any infinite collection is necessarily incomplete since it can’t be any of the versions of the Atom.
Click to expand...

You don't even know what you mean by those words, let along what they are supposed to mean.

This simple notion enables us to clearly distinguish between the actual non-locality or locality of the atomic state, and the potential intermediate existence of a segment.
Click to expand...

Gibberish.

This distinction is a fundamental notion of the Organic Mathematics’ paradigm, which enables, for example, to extend the concept of Number by adding the Non-local numbers, which are used to measure the infinite interpolation or extrapolation with respect to the local or non-local versions of the atomic state.
Click to expand...

Give it up. Your whole "organic number" concept has been proven to be an arbitrary collection of points and lines that have no real meaning. You, yourself, have confirmed this.
 
doronshadmi said:
Yes, for example http://www.scribd.com/doc/18453171/IJPAMOM and http://www.scribd.com/doc/17504323/WZATRP8.
Click to expand...

I'm not impressed a bit. That just shows some obscure journal published an article which you co-authored and one that is just your work. I didn't read them, but from a quick glance it resembles the stuff you're spewing out here. You'll have to do better.

doronshadmi said:
Now please show your stuff.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who is out to prove something. That would be you. So get to it.
 
jsfisher said:
Geez, Little 10 Toes pointed out an error you'd made, and rather than correcting it or retracting it like any reasonable human being might do, you go off on this completely irrelevant work of fiction.
Click to expand...

No, in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5251004&postcount=6365 I clearly show that the use of subset is irreverent to my argument.

Instead of try to understand what you read, you continue your limited reasoning trip.

jsfisher said:
You don't even know what you mean by those words,
Click to expand...
Nope.

You are the one.

jsfisher said:
You made this up. You also contradict yourself. (No surprise.)
Click to expand...

No. It is already used as {}, which is exactly an existing AND empty thing.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You are not in a possition to be impressed of anything in this subject.
Click to expand...

Does that mean I'm non-local (i.e. not in position) wrt. this subject? :rolleyes:

Also, I didn't know one has to be in some sort of position to be impressed. I would have been impressed if one of your links would have led to a reputable mathematical journal.
 
laca said:
Does that mean I'm non-local (i.e. not in position) wrt. this subject? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I mean “position” as synonym of “state” (not location).

laca said:
Also, I didn't know one has to be in some sort of position to be impressed. I would have been impressed if one of your links would have led to a reputable mathematical journal.
Click to expand...
Again, you have no skills to comprehend this subject.
 
zooterkin said:
Great, now you're only singly redundant.

You're yet to show that there's anything to get. How about an example of what you can do with OM that can't be done with conventional maths?
Click to expand...
To measure infinite interpolation, for example, by the non-local number 0.999...[base 10]
 
zooterkin said:
what need is there for this? It's the same as 1.
Click to expand...
It is not, because 1.000... is a local number and 0.999...[base 10] is a non-local number.

zooterkin said:
What can you do when you've measured your 'infinite interpolation'?
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5233102&postcount=6258 (and some correction of it in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5236713&postcount=6275) after the technology that is based on this theory will be developed (and it will not be developed as long as our mind will not be opened to the notion of infinite interpolation\extrapolation).

EDIT: All along this thread ( right from post #1 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125220 ) I try to open your minds to the important connection between Entropy and Complexity, but you, the posters of this thread, simply refuse to get anything that is beyond the edge of your nose.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom