Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
ddt said:
"Organic Mathematics (A Non-formal Introduction)".
Non-formal, because it defies being formalized.

More accurate: it's as real as the emperor's new clothes.

You've got exactly 0 subscribers on scribd. Great success thus far!
Click to expand...
Non-formal because it is not the dead form of your community.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Again we see that you limit negation only to two values.
Click to expand...

Negation operates on only one value that is why it is a unary operator.

doronshadmi said:
5 “is anything but” 3 is a wrong example of my argument, under this limitation.
Click to expand...

It is an “example” that your argument is simply wrong as well as your above assumed “limitation”.

doronshadmi said:
The right one is this: under two-valued system -3 “is anything but” 3 , and since we have exactly two values then “anything but” 3, is exactly -3, where in both cased 3 is itself (notated as =(3)) and -3 is itself (notated as =(-3)).
Click to expand...

Again you are conflating (≠) not equal to (your “is anything but”) with negation. As has already been explained to you ≠ is different from negation (~). However in a two value system where one value is the negation of the other that difference is simply not apparent. As such you are confusing yourself by your own two value limitation.

doronshadmi said:
Also in this case =(3) ≠ =(-3), where ≠ is non-local w.r.t =(3) or =(-3) and = is non-local w.r.t (3) or (-3).
Click to expand...

Your standard nonsensical gibberish

doronshadmi said:
Again we see that you do not get the ontological core of Negation, because your notion is limited only to the particular case of using two-valued system of this concept.
Click to expand...

The Man said:
5 “is anything but” 3 however the negation of 3 is -3.
Click to expand...

“is anything but” a two valued system. The limitation is simply yours.


doronshadmi said:
You are like a user that knows how to use X in some particular way, but has no understanding of what enables X in the first place.
Click to expand...

You are the poster who claims to know “what enables” research, but simply can not enable himself to actually do any, well, research.


doronshadmi said:
As a result you are closed under the illusion the that your particular use of X, is X.
Click to expand...

As a result you just make stuff up and pretend to yourself that it is profound.

doronshadmi said:
It will not change the fact that =(X) ≠ =(~X) under the limitations of two-valued system, where ≠ is non-local w.r.t =(X) or =(~X).

Also without this limitation it will not change the fact that =X ≠ =Y, where ≠ is non-local w.r.t =X or =Y.
Click to expand...

Other than your extraneous extra equal signs, that X ≠ ~X is specifically a result of that mutual dependence by negation.

doronshadmi said:
Comparing something to itself is the minimal term of Researchability, where X is compared to itself by =, where = is non-local w.r.t X.
Click to expand...

It is not the “minimal term of Researchability” as it tells you specifically nothing. Again even your own “notations” represent that particular aspect of your notions as being circular.

doronshadmi said:
Your narrow view of this subject is indeed resulted as “meaningless” under your limited notion.
Click to expand...

Your narrow ability to actually understand the concepts you base your assertions on as well as your specific limitation to your own notions, even about other notions, has resulted in your assertions being meaningless.

doronshadmi said:
You are talking about the level of using the particular case of Two-valued logic.

I am talking about the ontological core of any logic, where True or False are the concepts of the particular case of Two-valued system.
Click to expand...

No, I was talking about the specific application of the concept of value and how I certainly would agree that your “ontological core of any logic” has none.

doronshadmi said:
Your notion, which is limited to the use of the particular case of two-valued system, prevents from you to understand the ontological core of Negation, which goes beyond using two-valued system.
Click to expand...

Again you displace your own limitations and two value notions onto others. These notions I present are not mine. They have been developed over numerous years of actual research by many people. Just because you are limited to your own notions does not mean everyone else is. Negation is not limited to a two value system (as in the 5, 3, -3 example presented before), your desire to simply claim people are limiting it to a “particular case of two-valued system” does not mean they are as limited as you, you want or claim them to be. The fact is Doron your “ontological core of Negation” and your understanding in general never goes beyond your limitation to your own notions, which is itself a two valued system. As your attempts and intention to put everything in terms of your dichotomist linkages and complementations demonstrate. Stop projecting your own limitations to your own notions and that ensuing two value limitation of those notions onto others.
 
on·to·log·i·cal (nt-lj-kl)
adj.
1. Of or relating to ontology.
2. Of or relating to essence or the nature of being.
3. Of or relating to the argument for the existence of God holding that the existence of the concept of God entails the existence of God.
 
The Man said:
They have been developed over numerous years of actual research by many people.
Click to expand...
According to some paradigm that is not based on the ontological research of this subject.

What you call actual reserach was done only on the level of using the agreed paradigm, without any ontological research of it, so?
 
dafydd said:
on·to·log·i·cal (nt-lj-kl)
adj.
1. Of or relating to ontology.
2. Of or relating to essence or the nature of being.
3. Of or relating to the argument for the existence of God holding that the existence of the concept of God entails the existence of God.
Click to expand...

2.
 
The Man said:
Negation operates on only one value that is why it is a unary operator
Click to expand...
The result of I/O determines if something is unary or binary operator, and not just the Input. This is exactly where you fail to understand what a two-valued system is.

Furthermore, this is the reason of why you think that =T or =F are meaningless, because you do not get that =T is not T and =F is not F, because =T or =F is a unary connective that its I/O is the same.

T or F alone are not researchable exactly as = or ~ alone are not researchable.

For you not-researchable = meaningless exactly because you are nothing but a user of the discussed subject.
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
What does being have to do with mathematics?
Click to expand...

Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being.

Since Math is based on abstract and non-abstract things, it is important to understand the nature of their existence in order for better using.

If one avoids the ontological study of this subject, he is no more than a skilful user of already agreed system.

This is not enough for real development of any subject in general and for the the mathematical science in particular.
 
sympathic said:
Nothing. It is a fantasy much like OM.
Click to expand...

The Fantasy is the claim that unary or binary logical connective is determined only by Input.

The ontological fact is that unary or any other degree of logical connective
is determined by the relation between Input and Output.


EDIT:

It is clearly understood that http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5389770&postcount=7331 is nothing in your community, and this is the reason of why my work will not be published in one of the important journals of your community.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The Fantasy is the claim that unary or binary logical connective is determined only by Input.

The ontological fact is that unary or any other degree of logical connective
is determined by the relation between Input and Output.
Click to expand...

More gibberish.I know plenty of people who are busy being without any knowledge of mathematics,very much like yourself.
 
The Man said:
Stop projecting your own limitations to your own notions and that ensuing two value limitation of those notions onto others.
Click to expand...
The limitation is the notion that unary connective is determined only by Input.
 
doronshadmi said:
The limitation is the notion that unary connective is determined only by Input.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to set a record for how many different ways you can be wrong?

The input(s) plus the operator determine the output.

Sure, if you have all the possible inputs and the corresponding outputs, you can determine what the operator was, but that's not really relevant. The operator is already defined, you don't define it by playing with it and seeing what it does, you define the operator to do something.
 
zooterkin said:
Are you trying to set a record for how many different ways you can be wrong?

The input(s) plus the operator determine the output.

Sure, if you have all the possible inputs and the corresponding outputs, you can determine what the operator was, but that's not really relevant. The operator is already defined, you don't define it by playing with it and seeing what it does, you define the operator to do something.
Click to expand...

It is clearly not the case because when "not the case" is considered, also "the case" is considered, as seen by:

4149358437_87f574fa79_o.jpg


you can't determine what the operator is witout both input and output.

In the case of = operator the I\O is the same.

In the case of ~ operator the I\O is different.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom