Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

Nope, wrong again, still, perpetually, doron. I didn't miss it. Moshe's revised generator didn't pass review, either. He left in disgrace right after, too.

You did not see his new formula, so you have nothing to say about it.

But we can clearly say the you did not provide any formula, yet, that is based on your redundancy-only case.

 

[jsfisher]

You did not see his new formula, so you have nothing to say about it.

Oh, wow! So he has a new, new formula? Given that the first two were defective, I think we an assume this one is as well. Still, whether it is or is not, you, doron, are totally unqualified to tell.



ETA: Oh, and how are those corrections coming? You aren't going to just let your blunders stand, are you?

 

[doronshadmi]

doron, are totally unqualified to tell.

jsfisher, you are unable to get post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5958767&postcount=9924 .

And yes, I am totally qualified to tell that any formula that is used to define the amount of DS of a given k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, is nothing but ON's serial case.

 

[jsfisher]

And yes, I am totally qualified to tell...

Really? History says otherwise. Why, then, if you are "totally qualified to tell" did you bother to repost the same bogus formula from before?

Please don't go for the excuse you were just testing the rest of us. You used that one already, and it failed.

 

[epix]

Excellent evidence that highly organized and dynamic structures can arise over time with no theoretical framework as a necessary fundament is Microsoft. Bill Gates left school probably due to intuitive reasoning that illuminated a canvas showing the carnage that purely abstract reasoning can unleash in a purely practical environment. Abstract reasoning that attempts to formalize a procedure to deliver a fool-proof, theorems-driven package without receiving a go-ahead from a failure-stricken system is an unnecessary mental exercise encoded in an unimaginative, non-responsive symbolism that fills the bucket of redundancy up to the rim.
Friedrich Arnost von Burgenheim


Hi guys! How is it going?

 

[The Man]

No simultaneity is anything that is based on serial (step-by-step or linear) reasoning.

Ok so you just don’t understand the time dependence of simultaneity.

In "Pure" Math, where time is not involved, a step-by-step form is characterized by certain distinction and/or certain order of distinct things.

1:00 pm EST is followed by 1:01pm EST by one minute on the same day (1:01pm EST - 1:00pm EST = 1 minute)

Eastern Standard Time (EST) is four hours less than Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) so 1:00pm EST is simultaneous with 5:00pm UTC (1:00pm EST + (UTC-EST) = 5:00 pm UTC).

Clear examples of math involving time “certain distinction and/or certain order of distinct things” demonstrating simultaneity of 1:00pm EST with 5:00pm UTC.

As usual Doron you have no idea what you are talking about.

These cases are distinct forms of Frame (1,…) of ON (0-Uncertanty x 0-Redendancy, which is notated as (A,B,C,D,…)).

Simultaneity is anything that is based on parallel reasoning.

In "Pure" Math, where time is not involved, a parallel form is characterized by uncertain distinction (Uncertainty) and/or uncertain order of distinct things (Redundancy).

These cases are non-distinct forms of Frames like F (2,…) of ON (for example:1-Uncertanty x 0-Redendancy, which is notated as (AB,…)) and/or non-distinct forms of Frames like F (1,…) of ON (for example: 0-Uncertanty x 1-Redendancy, which is notated as (A,A,…)).

In general Frame F (k,…) of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree (where k>0) is the room for both parallel and serial forms, and any mixture of them.

No Doron your “general Frame F (k,…) of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree” is just undefined nonsense.

By the way an “uncertain order of distinct things” does not infer anything is repeated or duplicated “(Redundancy)” . While a certain “order of distinct things” can in fact be a result of a repetition and/or duplication (“Redundancy” in the particular ordering). (A,A,A,A,A…) has redundant ordering (always A after A). (A,B,A,B,A,B) and (A,B,A,A,B,B,B,A,B,A,A,B,B,B,A,B,A,A,B,B,B) also have their own redundant ordering.

Now back to PlaceTime framework:

The single silt case of the the double-slit experiment is derived from the distinct form of Frame F (1,…) of ON (0-Uncertanty x 0-Redendancy, which is notated as (A,B,C,D,…)).

Nope, it is just “derived” from there being one slit, hence the name “The single silt case”.

The double-slit case of the the double-slit experiment is derived from the non-distinct forms of Frames like F (2,…) of ON (for example:1-Uncertanty x 0-Redendancy, which is notated as (AB,…)) and/or non-distinct forms of Frames like F (1,…) of ON (for example: 0-Uncertanty x 1-Redendancy, which is notated as (A,A,…)).

Nope, again it is just “derived” from there being two slits, hence the name “the double-slit experiment”.

By gradually change the energy (which is actually a serial case of ON) of the photons that are used to measure the photons that passed the double-slit barrier, we actually moving between non-distinct forms of Frames and the particular case of the distinct form of Frame F (1,…) of ON (0-Uncertanty x 0-Redendancy).

What “photons that are used to measure the photons that passed the double-slit barrier” are you referring to? You do understand the relationship between the energy and wavelength of the photon as well as the dependence of the distance between the slits on that wavelength, don’t you? Your assertions above indicate that you simply do not understand the double-slit experiment and simply want to ascribe your imaginary undefined nonsense as being somehow related to such experiments.

Organic Numbers are Non-locality(momentum)\Locality(place or position) linkage, which is the complex manifestation of that has no id.

What? So now your “Organic Numbers” have “(momentum)”? Well it must be angular momentum as you and your ““Organic Numbers” just keep going around in circles.

 

[The Man]

Excellent evidence that highly organized and dynamic structures can arise over time with no theoretical framework as a necessary fundament is Microsoft. Bill Gates left school probably due to intuitive reasoning that illuminated a canvas showing the carnage that purely abstract reasoning can unleash in a purely practical environment. Abstract reasoning that attempts to formalize a procedure to deliver a fool-proof, theorems-driven package without receiving a go-ahead from a failure-stricken system is an unnecessary mental exercise encoded in an unimaginative, non-responsive symbolism that fills the bucket of redundancy up to the rim.
Friedrich Arnost von Burgenheim


Hi guys! How is it going?

Same as always epix.

 

[doronshadmi]

Really? History says otherwise. Why, then, if you are "totally qualified to tell" did you bother to repost the same bogus formula from before?

Please don't go for the excuse you were just testing the rest of us. You used that one already, and it failed.

The older formula did its job very well, by calculate the amount of a partial case of k-Uncertainty x K-Redundancy tree.

The main thing here is not the "how many?" question, but what actually enables the terms to ask that question.

Since ONs are a linkage between Non-local and Local qualities, it is the fundamental term that enables Quantity, where Quantity is the basis of the "how many?" question.

"How many?" question is usually based on distinction between different ids that are added to each other in order to define a sum, which answer to this question.

But Non-locality\Locality Linkage is not limited to distinct ids, and in this case the "How many?" question is extended beyond the different ids that are added to each other in order to define a sum.

By this extension the "How many?" question can't capture the complexity of the parallel/serial linkage of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, where each part of it is both global AND local case of it, because of the qualitative principle that stands at the basis of Quantity.

k-Uncertainty x k- Redundancy are nothing but finite cases of a one and only one complex ∞-Uncertainty x ∞-Redundancy tree, yet they are based on the same principle of the ∞-Uncertainty x ∞-Redundancy tree, where this principle is the qualitative linkage between Non-locality and Locality.

The reasoning of the past 3,500 did not developed the understanding of the qualitative principle that stands at the basis of Quantity.

Organic Mathematics does exactly this, it discovers the qualitative foundations of Quantity, and not step-by-step reasoning can't get that, because a step-by-step reasoning takes Quantity as a fundamental term for its development (by avoiding the understanding of its qualitative foundations) .

This is exactly the reason why Superposition is understood, for example as the sum over histories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation) of the paths of a quantum element from position A to position B, and by doing that it totally misses the qualitative linkage between Non-locality and Locality, that actually enables this sum, because a sum (which is a caused by liner addition of each stimulus individually) is nothing but some partial case of a framework that also deals with fogs and any possible mixture of sums/fogs.

This is also exactly the reason why infinite convergent elements are taken as sums and not as fogs, and this is how words like Superposition or Limit are used without any under-standing (where the under-standing is exactly the qualitative foundations of Quantitiy).

 

[doronshadmi]

No Doron your “general Frame F (k,…) of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree” is just undefined nonsense.

By the way an “uncertain order of distinct things” does not infer anything is repeated or duplicated “(Redundancy)” . While a certain “order of distinct things” can in fact be a result of a repetition and/or duplication (“Redundancy” in the particular ordering). (A,A,A,A,A…) has redundant ordering (always A after A). (A,B,A,B,A,B) and (A,B,A,A,B,B,B,A,B,A,A,B,B,B,A,B,A,A,B,B,B) also have their own redundant ordering.

Again order is a direct result of your serial reasoning among distinct ids (and redundancy is among distinct ids. For example: you take the uncertain AB as a certain element and then define the redundancy of (AB,AB), but by doing that you are missing the uncertainty of AB, which is based on parallel reasoning.

The is no order under parallel reasoning exactly because there is a superposition of ids, which is a symmetric form, that if collapsed it enables the asymmetric form of ordered distinct ids.

1:00 pm EST is followed by 1:01pm EST by one minute on the same day (1:01pm EST - 1:00pm EST = 1 minute)

Eastern Standard Time (EST) is four hours less than Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) so 1:00pm EST is simultaneous with 5:00pm UTC (1:00pm EST + (UTC-EST) = 5:00 pm UTC).

Clear examples of math involving time “certain distinction and/or certain order of distinct things” demonstrating simultaneity of 1:00pm EST with 5:00pm UTC.

You give different distinct ids to the time zone, but by doing that you are using a step-by-step asymmetric values that uses different quantities that have > or < between them, in order to get your requested "simultaneous" result.

But real simultaneity is symmetric by nature because the ids are is a superposition, which prevents any order ( < or >) that can be found only among asymmetric serial reasoning.

Real simultaneity can be found only under the parallel state of superposition of ids.

Any state that is not parallel, is less simultaneous, and less simultaneity is characterized by order (< or >) among distinct ids, like your 1:00pm EST with 5:00pm UTC.

A = 1:00pm EST

B = 5:00pm UTC.

If A=B then there is a one thing with different names, which is a simultaneity of a one thing, which is trivial.

If A≠B then there is an order (< or >) between distinct things, which is a weak and asymmetric version of simultaneity.

So real simultaneity is the AB superposition, which is parallel and no order can be found under a superposition of ids.

The simultaneity of the AB superposition is non-trivial.

 

[doronshadmi]

What “photons that are used to measure the photons that passed the double-slit barrier” are you referring to? You do understand the relationship between the energy and wavelength of the photon as well as the dependence of the distance between the slits on that wavelength, don’t you? Your assertions above indicate that you simply do not understand the double-slit experiment and simply want to ascribe your imaginary undefined nonsense as being somehow related to such experiments.

I am talking about the photons that are used to define from what silt the measured photon passes the barrier.

When this measurement is done, the wave patterns of the detector are changed into a single silt pattern. We can gradually use more energetic photons, and by doing that we can move between the wave pattern that the non-wave (the single silt) pattern.

The DS if Organic Numbers are exactly these intermediate states, that are found between superposition of wave (non-localized) patterns and non-superposition of a single silt (localized) pattern.

A single silt pattern has a statistical dispersion of localization (a particle), where a double silt pattern has a statistical dispersion of non-localization (a wave).

So Non-locality/Locality Linkage stands at the basis of QM, exactly as it stands the the basis of many measurements as seen in the macro level.

 

[epix]

Same as always epix.

bogus quotes and bogus names
just the stuff that feeds the flames
we must find the truth and prove it
otherwise nothing will rhyme

 

[jsfisher]

The older formula did its job very well, by calculate the amount of a partial case of k-Uncertainty x K-Redundancy tree.

...except it didn't. It had errors.

Speaking of errors, how are those corrections coming for your 3X3 presentation?

...
the "How many?" question can't capture the complexity of the parallel/serial linkage of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree

No, dah, Captain Obvious. The answer to the "how many" question provides the answer to the...wait for it...wait for it...the "how many" question. If you wanted an answer to a different question, well, then, perhaps you should have asked that question rather than grip about the question you did ask.


Still, you should work on fixing your blunders in the 3X3 presentation. It is a fairly simple example, and if you can't get even the simple stuff correct, how can people expect any better from you for anything complicated?

 

[jsfisher]

Any state that is not parallel, is less simultaneous, and less simultaneity is characterized by order (< or >) among distinct ids

Were there any doubt, doron has now demonstrated (again) his lack of understanding of order relationships.

 

[The Man]

Again order is a direct result of your serial reasoning among distinct ids (and redundancy is among distinct ids. For example: you take the uncertain AB as a certain element and then define the redundancy of (AB,AB), but by doing that you are missing the uncertainty of AB, which is based on parallel reasoning.

Again Doron you established “(AB,AB)” as one of your ‘redundancies’. You want me to give your quote again? That too would be redundant.

The is no order under parallel reasoning exactly because there is a superposition of ids, which is a symmetric form, that if collapsed it enables the asymmetric form of ordered distinct ids.

That would be a “superposition of ids” where you claim you “do not use” superposition? Your word salad is as wilted as usual today.

You give different distinct ids to the time zone, but by doing that you are using a step-by-step asymmetric values that uses different quantities that have > or < between them, in order to get your requested "simultaneous" result.

Are you claiming that 1:00pm EST is not simultaneous with 5:00pm UCT? If so then please show the time dependent relation to support such a claim.

But real simultaneity is symmetric by nature because the ids are is a superposition, which prevents any order ( < or >) that can be found only among asymmetric serial reasoning.

“real simultaneity”? If it’s anything like your “real superposition” then it must not involve, well, simultaneity. Again support your claims of “no simultaneity” by showing a time dependent relation. For example UCT = EST + 4 hours is a time dependent relation that shows the simultaneity between the two time zones.

Real simultaneity can be found only under the parallel state of superposition of ids.

Any state that is not parallel, is less simultaneous, and less simultaneity is characterized by order (< or >) among distinct ids, like your 1:00pm EST with 5:00pm UTC.

A = 1:00pm EST

B = 5:00pm UTC.

If A=B then there is a one thing with different names, which is a simultaneity of a one thing, which is trivial.

If A≠B then there is an order (< or >) between distinct things, which is a weak and asymmetric version of simultaneity.

So real simultaneity is the AB superposition, which is parallel and no order can be found under a superposition of ids.

The simultaneity of the AB superposition is non-trivial.

You have already asserted that you “do not use” superposition in your “superposition” and from your assertions above your “simultaneity” is anything but, well, simultaneous.

 

[The Man]

I am talking about the photons that are used to define from what silt the measured photon passes the barrier.

Those are the photons emitted on the other side of the barrier that pass through the barrier. Those are "the measured photon" of which you speak, there are no other "photons that are used to define from what silt the measured photon passes the barrier." What you are "talking about" simply demonstrate that you do not understand the double slit experiment.

When this measurement is done, the wave patterns of the detector are changed into a single silt pattern. We can gradually use more energetic photons, and by doing that we can move between the wave pattern that the non-wave (the single silt) pattern.

Nope, again you are clearly demonstrating that you have no idea what you are talking about. Again…

You do understand the relationship between the energy and wavelength of the photon as well as the dependence of the distance between the slits on that wavelength, don’t you? Your assertions above indicate that you simply do not understand the double-slit experiment and simply want to ascribe your imaginary undefined nonsense as being somehow related to such experiments.

The DS if Organic Numbers are exactly these intermediate states, that are found between superposition of wave (non-localized) patterns and non-superposition of a single silt (localized) pattern.

Again would this be your “superposition” where you claim you “do not use” superposition?

A single silt pattern has a statistical dispersion of localization (a particle), where a double silt pattern has a statistical dispersion of non-localization (a wave).

A photon always interacts as a particle. In fact an interference pattern is more localized as a photon encountering certain areas on the screen becomes less probable than other areas. To try to put in words you might understand Doron “ A single silt pattern has a statistical dispersion” that is less localized (all parts of the screen are more equally probable) than the “double silt pattern” which is localized into specific bands. Please Doron, study something other than simply your imagination.

So Non-locality/Locality Linkage stands at the basis of QM, exactly as it stands the the basis of many measurements as seen in the macro level.

Nope just your imagination and “direct perception” failing you again.

 

[The Man]

bogus quotes and bogus names
just the stuff that feeds the flames
we must find the truth and prove it
otherwise nothing will rhyme

The pretence of “simultaneity”
Gives rise to such inanity.
Based on a “Superposition”
Removed from that condition.
Proclaiming some non-Locality
Devoid of all reality.
Invoking a “redundancy”
Lacking all consistency.
To stop is now the time
Since I have no other rhyme.

 

[doronshadmi]

You have already asserted that you “do not use” superposition in your “superposition” and from your assertions above your “simultaneity” is anything but, well, simultaneous.

I have already asserted that I do not use your asymmetric simultaneity (A,B) that is weaker than the strong superposition, which is symmetric simultaneity (AB).

there are no other "photons that are used to define from what silt the measured photon passes the barrier

This is an additional experiment that uses the double slit experiment.

Aagain, by this experiment the wave patterns of the detector are changed into a single silt pattern. We can gradually use more energetic photons, and by doing that we can move between the wave pattern and the non-wave (the single silt) pattern.

The DS of Organic Numbers are exactly these intermediate patterns, that are found between superposition of wave (non-localized) patterns and non-superposition of a single silt (localized) pattern.

A single silt pattern has a statistical dispersion of localization (a particle), where a double silt pattern has a statistical dispersion of non-localization (a wave).

So Non-locality/Locality Linkage stands at the basis of QM, exactly as it stands the the basis of many measurements as seen in the macro level.

 

[doronshadmi]

Are you claiming that 1:00pm EST is not simultaneous with 5:00pm UCT? If so then please show the time dependent relation to support such a claim.

If the two time zones are in different locations, then each location is in the past time w.r.t of the other time zone, because of the constant of the speed of light.

In that case the measurement of a given time zone is Now and the other time zone is Before, which gives us the non-simultaneous Before < Now measurement.

If 1:00pm EST and 5:00pm UCT are different names of the same time zone, then we are dealing with the trivial case of a single time zone (you can add as many names as you wish, still it is the trivial case of a single time zone).

The third option is that the two different time zones are compared with the big-bang time of the universe. In this case we get the weak version of simultaneity, because there is an order (asymmetry) between two distinct time zones (A,B) that are not in a superposition of ids.

The fourth option is that the two time zones are compared with the big-bang time of the universe by superposition of ids, where no order is found because this simultaneity is symmetric, and symmetric simultaneity (AB) is stronger than asymmetric simultaneity (A,B).

Organic Numbers are the comprehensive framework of both strong symmetric simultaneity (AB) and weak asymmetric simultaneity (A,B), including any possible mixture of them.

Again Doron you established “(AB,AB)” as one of your ‘redundancies’. You want me to give your quote again? That too would be redundant.

You still do not get the difference between 0-Uncertainty/1-Redundancy view of (AB,AB) (in this case AB superposition is ignored),
and 1-Uncertainty/1-Redundancy view of (AB,AB) (in this case AB superposition is not ignored).

 

[doronshadmi]

To try to put in words you might understand Doron “ A single silt pattern has a statistical dispersion” that is less localized (all parts of the screen are more equally probable) than the “double silt pattern” which is localized into specific bands.

Here is the result of a single silt pattern experiment:

Here is the result of a double silt pattern experiment:

As clearly be seen, a single silt pattern has a localized pattern, where a double silt pattern does not have a localized pattern.

Here you can learn about Diffraction and Interference (has a single silt envelop):
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/mulslid.html#c2

Here you can learn about Interference Only (does not have a single silt envelop):
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/mulslidi.html#c2

All these cases are described by Organic Numbers, which are used as their comprehensive framework.

 

[doronshadmi]

It had errors.

Please show us these errors in http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT pages 1-2 of the formula that is used for n>2 cases.