Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

EDIT:

Who said anything about a coordinate system not having more then one location?

Doron “you simply do not understand that” I specifically told you that a circle is one dimensional because you only need the rotational angle to identify any location on that circle. That there is more than one location means that it is specifically not a 0 dimensional space being considered.

You simply do not get your own reasoning http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5810085&postcount=9397

Oh look two points defining a line segment.

The ability to define two points, is based on the linkage between 0-space (the minimal form of Locality) and 1-space (the minimal form of Non-locality).

A line segment is a complex result of that linkage.

 

[The Man]

No The Man, your confusion of my reply is a direct result of your inability to understand the qualitative atomic local and non-local aspects that sand at the basis of a complex like Segment.

Once again you deliberately separating your “atomic” into two aspects (local and non-local aspects) just so you can recombine them into your “complex” is simply a contrivance on your part.

Actually you are the one who claims that the dimension of some space is determined by the number of the values (labels) that are related to some point (coordinate) of that space.

A point is not a coordinate, but has coordinates in a multi dimensional space. One can use coordinates to label points in some multi dimensional space (and it is generally helpful to do so) but one does not have to. Once again the coordinates of a given point depend on the reference frame and coordinate system being used so the labeling (coordinate or otherwise) is not an intrinsic aspect of any particular location. However the number of coordinates required to identify different points in some space or of some element being considered is an intrinsic aspect of that space or element being considered and thus is an intuitive representation of the dimensions of that space or element in some space, but is not the only definition of dimension.

Here is the relevant part from Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension ):

"In mathematics and physics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it."

Well since I have provide the link to that article to you before, I have already read and understand it, I suggest you do the same.

By following this reasoning, a point in 0-space has no label at all.

Once again you can label it anything you want, but since you have only one point you only need one label. That said label does not represent any coordinates certainly dose not prevent one from labeling said point.

In order to be able to define more than a one point, you need a higher space that actually enables the transition from one point to many points. Without this higher space you have no ability to distinguish between different points (and give them different labels).

Which is what I told you before. So now you are claiming that the dimensions of a space depend upon what is required to identify different points in that space?

 

[The Man]

EDIT:



You simply do not get your own reasoning http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5810085&postcount=9397

What the heck are you talking about? None of those quotes you cited claim a coordinate system does not have more than one location.

The ability to define two points, is based on the linkage between 0-space (the minimal form of Locality) and 1-space (the minimal form of Non-locality).

No it is just based on considering different points which specifically requires the consideration of a least a one dimensional space.

A line segment is a complex result of that linkage.

No a line segment is a one dimensional element that also requires the consideration of at least a one dimensional space. Again the only “linkage” between a line segment and points is that a line segment is defined by points.

 

[Skeptic]

"Flatland" has been something I've wanted to read, but have never gotten around to actually acquiring.

There's also the wonderful Fantasia Mathematica collection of math-related fiction by Clifton Fadiman.

 

[doronshadmi]

EDIT:

Once again you deliberately separating your “atomic” into two aspects (local and non-local aspects) just so you can recombine them into your “complex” is simply a contrivance on your part.

A contrivance on my part?

Let us see:

The Man, please define a measureable framework by not link at least 0-space with 1-space.

A point is not a coordinate, but has coordinates in a multi dimensional space.

Let me help you: a point on its own does not have a measurable value, because the number of measurable values of a given point is in direct relation with the greater degree of the linkage of at least two different spaces.

Your confusion is derived from your inability to distinguish between a given name to a given space, and the number of measurable values (labels) that are related to a given 0-space element under the linkage of 0-space with some higher space degree.

For example the real-line's measurable values are in a direct relation with the linkage of 0-space with 1-space, such that each 0-space element of that linkage has at least 1 measurable value, which is the result of the higher degree of space of that linkage.

By following this consistent principle, an 0-space element in 0-space has the higher degree of exactly 0 measurable values, where a measurable value = label.

Once again you can label it anything you want, but since you have only one point you only need one label. That said label does not represent any coordinates certainly dose not prevent one from labeling said point.

A label means "a measurable value".

By following the direct relation between the higher degree of some given space and the number of measurable values, a point in only 0-space as 0 number of measurable values, where "a label" = "a measurable value".

So now you are claiming that the dimensions of a space depend upon what is required to identify different points in that space?

By your own reasoning, the number of measurable values of a given point depends on at least the higher degree of some linked spaces.

No it is just based on considering different points which specifically requires the consideration of a least a one dimensional space.

This is another way to say that each point has at least one measurable value as a direct result of the linkage of 0-space with 1-space.

No a line segment is a one dimensional element that also requires the consideration of at least a one dimensional space. Again the only “linkage” between a line segment and points is that a line segment is defined by points.

Thank you for supporting OM's reasoning about the independency of different spaces, which are measurable only if linked with each other, by saving their own properties under the linkage.

A line segment is a measurable complex, which is a result of the linkage of 0-space with 1-space, where each space saves its own property under the linkage.

Because of these saved properties under the linkage, there is an infinite irreducibility of 1-space element into a 0-space element, and there is an infinite non-increaseability of a 0-space element into a 1-space element.

Fogs are a direct results of an infinite irreducibility and/or an infinite non-increaseability.

 

[doronshadmi]

A line or a point are undefined by Hilbert's axioms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_axioms ), where these axioms are considered as the foundation for a modern treatment of Euclidean geometry , so you are simply ignorant about the modern treatment of concepts like point or line.

They are undefined primitives of that of that axiomatization…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_notion

Here is the relevant quote from this wiki link:

"In axiomatic theories, the primitive notions are sometimes said to be "defined" by one or more axioms, but this can be misleading. Formal theories cannot dispense with primitive notions, under pain of infinite regress."

The pain of infinite regress is a direct result of Standard Math to understand the result of Non-locality\Locality linkage.

Let us look at the concept of Infinite Regress as it is written in wikipadia according to the standard reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress ):

"An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P₁ requires the support of proposition P₂, and for any proposition in the series P_n, the truth of P_n requires the support of the truth of P_n+1. There would never be adequate support for P₁, because the infinite sequence needed to provide such support could not be completed."

Standard reasoning does not have the needded undertanig of the totally finite (that has no predessecor) known also as Locality, and the total infinity (that has no successor) known also as Non-locality.

Non-locality and Locality are the true limits of The Mathematical Science, which enable to deal with Infinite Regress and the natural incompleteness of any infinite complexity, exactly because it is a direct result of the infinite irreducibility of Non-locality to Locality and/or the infinite non-increaseability of Locality to Non-locality, under Non-locality/Locality Linkage.

 

[jsfisher]

Here is the relevant quote from this wiki link:

Short version: The Man's statements are supported by the reference. Doronshadmi, who is incapable of comprehending much in the way of mathematics or natural language, gets no support for his position.

 

[doronshadmi]

Short version: The Man's statements are supported by the reference. Doronshadmi, who is incapable of comprehending much in the way of mathematics or natural language, gets no support for his position.

The right version: Standard Math does not understand Non-locality\Locality Linkage, and a result it can't deal with the fact that
Non-locality and Locality are the true limits of The Mathematical Science, which enable to deal with Infinite Regress and the natural incompleteness of any infinite complexity, exactly because it is a direct result of the infinite irreducibility of Non-locality to Locality and/or the infinite non-increaseability of Locality to Non-locality, under Non-locality/Locality Linkage.

More details of this non-standard notion can be seen in:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5806151&postcount=9384

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5795672&postcount=9323

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5799260&postcount=9332

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5799988&postcount=9344

The Man and jsfisher are ignorant about the qualitative Non-local and Local atomic foundations of Complexity and Quntity.

Furthermore, they do not understand the conclusions that are derived from the consistency of their own reasoning, as clearly shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5811477&postcount=9405 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5811620&postcount=9406 .

 

[The Man]

EDIT:


A contrivance on my part?

Yes you claim your “atomic” aspects are separate, but claim you can not research them separately, just so you can put them back together again into your “complex”.

Let us see:

The Man, please define a measureable framework by not link at least 0-space with 1-space.

0 is a measure Doron, in case you simply do not understand that. Please describe your “measureable framework” by which you “measure” abstract concepts?

Let me help you: a point on its own does not have a measurable value, because the number of measurable values of a given point is in direct relation with the greater degree of the linkage of at least two different spaces.

Let me help you: mathematically a space is just a set with some added structure. No elements in the set is just the empty set. Some elements in the set, now that set is at least one dimensional. Two different but dependent types of elements in your set (basically two mutualy dependent one dimensional sets) and your set is now two dimensional (often refered to as a matrix).

Your confusion is derived from your inability to distinguish between a given name to a given space, and the number of measurable values (labels) that are related to a given 0-space element under the linkage of 0-space with some higher space degree.

Your confusion derives from your inability understand the meaning of the term space, (either as a mathematical concept or a geometrical concept). As well as apparently not understanding what the term “measurable” means. You do understand that it is the coordinate system and reference frame chosen that determines those “measurable values”, don’t you.

For example the real-line's measurable values are in a direct relation with the linkage of 0-space with 1-space, such that each 0-space element of that linkage has at least 1 measurable value, which is the result of the higher degree of space of that linkage.

No a line segments finite value is entirely determined by the points that define it.

By following this consistent principle, an 0-space element in 0-space has the higher degree of exactly 0 measurable values, where a measurable value = label.

“the higher degree of exactly 0”? Higher than what, a negative dimensional space? Where exactly is this ‘consistency’ you refer to and just what do you think a “higher space degree” is suppose to mean?

A label means "a measurable value".

No a label just means a label. We can label one point as “A” another as “B” and the line segment they define as “a”. Where are your “measurable values”?

By following the direct relation between the higher degree of some given space and the number of measurable values, a point in only 0-space as 0 number of measurable values, where "a label" = "a measurable value".

Well that’s the one advantage of you just following your own gibberish, you get to pretend that you followed it to wherever you already wanted to be.

By your own reasoning, the number of measurable values of a given point depends on at least the higher degree of some linked spaces.

Nope an actual measurable value requires exactly the dimensions of the, well, value being measured.

This is another way to say that each point has at least one measurable value as a direct result of the linkage of 0-space with 1-space.

Say it any way you like, it is still nonsensical gibberish.

Thank you for supporting OM's reasoning about the independency of different spaces, which are measurable only if linked with each other, by saving their own properties under the linkage.

Once again as a line is defined by points they are certainly not independent. Thank you once again for showing that you do not even understand you own notions by claim something that directly contradicts yours notions as supporting them.

A line segment is a measurable complex, which is a result of the linkage of 0-space with 1-space, where each space saves its own property under the linkage.

Because of these saved properties under the linkage, there is an infinite irreducibility of 1-space element into a 0-space element, and there is an infinite non-increaseability of a 0-space element into a 1-space element.

Fogs are a direct results of an infinite irreducibility and/or an infinite non-increaseability.

Once again your “fog” is simply a result of your deliberate ignorance.

 

[Complexity]

doronshadmi - Stop taking my name in vain. You are not worthy.

There is no 'standard Math' - there is only math.

You are deluded if you think that the gibberish that you spew constitutes such a significant contribution to human knowledge that a revolution in mathematics has occurred.

The emperor has no clothes.

Your work is unworthy of mention.

I'm glad you've been thinking - everyone should think on occasion - but you think rather badly and have very low standards about what is worth communicating to others.

 

[The Man]

Here is the relevant quote from this wiki link:

"In axiomatic theories, the primitive notions are sometimes said to be "defined" by one or more axioms, but this can be misleading. Formal theories cannot dispense with primitive notions, under pain of infinite regress."

The pain of infinite regress is a direct result of Standard Math to understand the result of Non-locality\Locality linkage.

No it is simply the result of formally defining the terms you use in a formal definition. Then formally defining those terms… and on… and on….

Let us look at the concept of Infinite Regress as it is written in wikipadia according to the standard reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress ):

"An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P₁ requires the support of proposition P₂, and for any proposition in the series P_n, the truth of P_n requires the support of the truth of P_n+1. There would never be adequate support for P₁, because the infinite sequence needed to provide such support could not be completed."

Standard reasoning does not have the needded undertanig of the totally finite (that has no predessecor) known also as Locality, and the total infinity (that has no successor) known also as Non-locality.

Non-locality and Locality are the true limits of The Mathematical Science, which enable to deal with Infinite Regress and the natural incompleteness of any infinite complexity, exactly because it is a direct result of the infinite irreducibility of Non-locality to Locality and/or the infinite non-increaseability of Locality to Non-locality, under Non-locality/Locality Linkage.

Doron your method of dealing with “infinite regress” is not to support your claims at all and generally just simply contradict your own claims. Again certainly a method we have seen numerous times before on this forum.

 

[doronshadmi]

No elements in the set is just the empty set.

Right, and in this case an 0-space element has no label at 0-space, if the number of labels of a given coordinate are in a direct relation with the degree of a given space.

No a label just means a label

EDIT:

Thank you The Man about the demonstration of your "profound" reasoning. Well done.

 

[Complexity]

Thank you The Man about the demostradion of your "profuond" reasoning. Well done.

doroshadmi's spelling is far superior to his reasoning.

 

[doronshadmi]

No it is simply the result of formally defining the terms you use in a formal definition.

The Man, it is a painful result because it can't deal with infinite irreducibility and\or infinite non-increaseability.

Doron your method of dealing with “infinite regress” is not to support your claims at all and generally just simply contradict your own claims.

The Man, the contradiction that you get is a direct result of forcing your Local-only reasoning on OM's reasoning which is not less than a reasoning that deals with Non-locality\Locality Linkage.

More details in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5812024&postcount=9408.

 

[jsfisher]

doroshadmi's spelling is far superior to his reasoning.

You clearly are not giving him any credit for the brilliant insight he had at the head of this thread. He discovered -- and he was kind enough to share his profuound discovery with us, the unworthy -- he discovered a previously totally unknown link between integer multiplication and repeated addition.

But wait! There's more. He was then able to tie multiplication (by way of repeated addition) to prime numbers.

I remain in awe.

 

[Complexity]

You clearly are not giving him any credit for the brilliant insight he had at the head of this thread. He discovered -- and he was kind enough to share his profuound discovery with us, the unworthy -- he discovered a previously totally unknown link between integer multiplication and repeated addition.

But wait! There's more. He was then able to tie multiplication (by way of repeated addition) to prime numbers.

I remain in awe.

I think you forgot to use a great many " ".

'awe' as in how I feel when I discover that one of my cats threw up again.

I suppose he thinks he invented sex as well.

 

[jsfisher]

I suppose he thinks he invented sex as well.

Such a straight line, but no, I'll be good....

 

[The Man]

I think you forgot to use a great many " ".

'awe' as in how I feel when I discover that one of my cats threw up again.

I suppose he thinks he invented sex as well.

Well of course, just another result of linking his local “0-space” with some non-local “1-space” (as he likes to call them).

 

[The Man]

Right, and in this case an 0-space element has no label at 0-space, if the number of labels of a given coordinate are in a direct relation with the degree of a given space.

No the set of the dimensions of, or coordinates in, a 0 dimensional space would be empty, but the set of its label need not be. Just as the empty set has no elements, but a set of the number of elements in the empty set (more specifically the cardinality of the empty set) would have one element, 0.

EDIT:

Thank you The Man about the demonstration of your "profound" reasoning. Well done.

Why thank you, you might do better though if you did not continue to think of the trivially obvious as being so profound, as you so often do.

The Man, it is a painful result because it can't deal with infinite irreducibility and\or infinite non-increaseability.

Once again your method of dealing with infinite regress by just making up nonsensical gibberish like “infinite irreducibility and\or infinite non-increaseability” is to simply ignore the definitive aspects that would result in an infinite regress.

Are you claiming that your “infinite irreducibility” is reducible, but just not to an infinite extent? If so what is the limit of that reducibility, and why that specific limit? If not than you are simply talking about something that can not be reduced and your inclusion of “infinite” is simply superfluous.

Are you claiming that your “infinite non-increaseability” can be increased, but just not to an infinite extent? If so what is the limit of that increasing, and why that specific limit? If not than you are simply talking about something that can not be increased and your inclusion of “infinite” is simply superfluous.

The Man, the contradiction that you get is a direct result of forcing your Local-only reasoning on OM's reasoning which is not less than a reasoning that deals with Non-locality\Locality Linkage.

More details in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5812024&postcount=9408.

Again with your loco-only labeling and reasoning Doron. The contradiction in your “Non-locality\Locality Linkage” is a direct result of your “belongs to AND does not belong to” requirement for your “Non-locality” ascription being directly, well, self-contradictory.

 

[doronshadmi]

But wait! There's more. He was then able to tie multiplication (by way of repeated addition) to prime numbers.

It is about Entropy and repetition under natural numbers' partitions.