Deeper than primes

[Apathia]

In that case I suggest you to go to the other side of the street and buy your ice-creams from the Organic Numbers truck, because it also sells ice-creams by the weak simultaneous law of (A,B). The strong simultaneous law of (AB) is also available for people that wish to be uncertain of the taste of the ice-cream during lick.

Also any possible mixture of uncertain/certain taste is available without any additional cost.

Bolding mine,

Doron, your truck beats Old Heisenberg's Quantum Ice-Cream for weirdness.
That's some flavor you've got there, that remains uncertain even when you
taste it. If it has a different taste with each lick, you've got a winner there that's going to put the old guy out of business.

But that's not what's amazing about the flavor. Time has noting to do with it.
It is both chocolate and vanilla at the same time of taste.

It's like opening Schrodinger's box and finding the cat both alive and dead at the same observation.

Perhaps what you want to market are Many Worlds Ice-Creams, instead of Time Symmetric Ice Creams.

But that's not right, isn't it?

You offer the ice-cream of uncertain and ambiguous taste to the buyer in the same world.
At least I know you're favorite "flavor" now.

Apart from that there's the flavorless variety.
(No flavor is the "Trunk.")
I'll take that in a cone
and clap for you with one hand.

 

[doronshadmi]

If it has a different taste with each lick, you've got a winner there that's going to put the old guy out of business.

Again, also any possible mixture of uncertain/certain taste is available without any additional cost (including random distinct taste ice-cream).

Perhaps what you want to market are Many Worlds Ice-Creams, instead of Time Symmetric Ice Creams.

The word "many" is meaningless if there is no linkage among things, but then the linkage is strong (AB symmetry of uncertain ids, which is parallel) or weak (A,B asymmetry of certain ids, which is serial) or any possible mixture between them, which has both parallel/serial taste.

 

[doronshadmi]

Where are A, B, C, D, E on those diagrams?

Between the minimum and maximum of any given pick.

 

[Apathia]

Again, also any possible mixture of uncertain/certain taste is available without any additional cost (including random distinct taste ice-cream).


The word "many" is meaningless if there is no linkage among things, but then the linkage is strong (AB symmetry of uncertain ids, which is parallel) or weak (A,B asymmetry of certain ids, which is serial) or any possible mixture between them, which has both parallel/serial taste.

Organic Mathematics is like a box of chocolates.
You never know.
You can never expect,
what you are going to get.

 

[doronshadmi]

Organic Mathematics is like a box of chocolates.
You never know.
You can never expect,
what you are going to get.

That what you get if you deal with real complexity.

 

[The Man]

The Man, replacement under redundancy is non-local, and this is exactly what happens in the Interference Only version of the double slit experiment (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/mulslidi.html#c2).

Doron “replacement under redundancy” and your “non-local” are just figments of your imagination. “exactly what happens in the Interference” of the double slit experiment is, well, interference (constructive interference being a superposition of waves out of phase, while destructive interference is a superposition of waves in phase).

In the single silt experiment, there is no replacement under redundancy and no superposition, so all is left is based on an ordered single pick (A<B<C<D<E>D>C>B>A), which is definitely a localized pattern, as can be seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5977280&postcount=10006 .

Doron by your own assertion there is no superposition in your “superposition”.

Your supposed “replacement under redundancy” for the double slit refers specifically to your single peak “pattern” being repeated (that is your “redundancy”) and as I have been trying to explain and show to you, what defines one peak “pattern” as being more localized than another is the slope of its sides. Again the double slit “pattern” is more highly localized into bands.

Speak for yourself The Man, you are failing to understand Non-locality all along this thread, because of your Local-only reasoning, which you call "Actual Math and Physics".

I was speaking for myself Doron and I didn’t expect that you would understand what I was saying anyway, which you have again confirmed.

The keywords hear are "different" and "same" , where "different" is based on (A,B,C,D,E,…) which is a weak simultaneity among distinct and ordered values that stand at the basis of any localized form.


"same" is based on (AB…) or (A,A,…) which is a strong simultaneity among non-distinct/distinct and unordered values that stand at the basis of any non-localized form (the simultaneity of (AB…) Uncertainty is more symmetric and therefore stronger than the simultaneity of (A,A,…) Redundancy).

No Doron the “keywords” were “a superposition of sine waves of different frequencies” and “a sine wave or a superposition of sine waves of the same frequency”. All those words are the “keywords”. Unfortunately you don’t seem to understand those words much as your assertions above indicate that you do not understand the words "different", "same", “simultaneity” and “symmetric”.

Actually you have no clue with what you are dealing here, because you "superposition" (A quote from Wiki: "In physics and systems theory, the superposition principle, also known as superposition property, states that, for all linear systems") is based on linear reasoning.



It is all based on linear reasoning, for example:

You really don’t have any idea what you are claiming, do you Doron? You were the one claiming a line as your ‘minimal representation’ of your “non-locality” thus asserting your “non-locality” as specifically being linear (which means “pertaining to or represented by lines” in case you never bother to find out). Once again you demonstrate that it is you who is the primary opponent of your own notions.

A= emitter= transmitter
B= absorber= receiver

(AB) is the strong simultaneity where A,B ids are in a superposition (the symmetry of uncertainty).

The Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory is based on the weak (A,B) simultaneity where ids are certain but their order has no significance (it is the symmetry of certainty, which is linear).

Nope, it is just based on the fact that Maxwell’s field equations have both retarded (forward time) and advanced (reverse time) solutions. That is the symmetry it refers to Doron (that solutions to Maxwell’s field equations are symmetrical in time) not your “symmetry of uncertainty” and “symmetry of certainty”. Actually try to read the articles Doron instead of just looking for words like “symmetry” and “linear” that you demonstrably do not understand.

 

[doronshadmi]

You really don’t have any idea what you are claiming, do you Doron? You were the one claiming a line as your ‘minimal representation’ of your “non-locality” thus asserting your “non-locality” as specifically being linear (which means “pertaining to or represented by lines” in case you never bother to find out). Once again you demonstrate that it is you who is the primary opponent of your own notions.

You really don’t have any idea what you are claiming, do you The Man?

Your step-by-step local understanding of a line is not my parallel non-local understanding of a line.

The rest of your post expresses your failure to get the parallel non-local understanding of a line.

Your supposed “replacement under redundancy” for the double slit refers specifically to your single peak “pattern” being repeated

No, it refers the double slit pattern, which expresses the non-local aspect of a photon also by “replacement under redundancy” (in additional to “symmetry of uncertainty”) ,whether it is constructive interference being a superposition of waves out of phase, or destructive interference of a superposition of waves in phase.

You simply can't understand the fact that the time gap between fired photons has no impact on their construction, which is exactly Non-local/Local Linkage.

The single silt pattern is an expression of the Local aspect of the Non-local/Local Linkage, where the double slit pattern is an expression of the Non-local aspect of the Non-local/Local Linkage, and how Non-local/Local Linkage is expressed as:

a) Asymmetry of no superposition of ids (A,B)(known as Certainty).

b) Symmetry of superposition of certain ids (A,A)(known as Redundancy).

c) Symmetry of superposition of ids (AB)(known as Uncertainty).

Doron by your own assertion there is no superposition in your “superposition”.

You don't get it The Man. Your superposition is limited to (b) and you have no understanding of (c).

Nope, it is just based on the fact that Maxwell’s field equations have both retarded (forward time) and advanced (reverse time) solutions. That is the symmetry it refers to Doron (that solutions to Maxwell’s field equations are symmetrical in time)

Actually read the articles and try to get “symmetry” and “linear” beyoned “replacement under redundancy”, which is limited to “symmetry of certainty” ( ((A,B),(B,A)) in this case, which is not (AB) “symmetry of uncertainty” ).

 

[jsfisher]

The formula is just as bogus as it was about a year ago.

Proove it.

Already done. There is no reason for me to repeat myself. You have this thread as reference.

Moreover, as you will admit, you didn't come up with the formulae, and you can't comprehend the formulae, so what point would there be to resurrecting the proof?

Well, actually it was probably Moshe who explained to you that I was pointing out real defects in your formula

I did not write any formula, which calculates the amount of the Distinct States of a given k-Uncertainy x k-Redundancy tree, not before and not now, so what you say is wrong.

Umm, yes, we know that, and you proved my previous comment. But that doesn't change the fact that since you didn't develop the formula, and you don't understand the formula, then it must have been someone else, Moshe in this case, who explained it to you.

We all know that you are incapable of writing any such formula and that you depended on Moshe to write the first couple of bogus versions of it. Nothing you say contradicts what I have said, here.

You never understood the formula nor what was wrong with it.

It was wrong as a general formula because in started from n>2.

The new formula starts from 0, and because of this fact it is really a general formula that enables to calculate the exact amount of all the Distinct States of a given k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, after k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree distinct representation was expanded according to your remarks.

Nonsense. It was wrong because it was wrong. It did not offer any method to calculate any case greater than 1 because it was...wrong.

Still this expansion of the Distinct States of a given k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, provides only the serial case of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, which is something that you can't comprehend, because strong simultaneity of symmetric AB superposition, is beyond your reasoning, which is stuck in the level of replacement of distinct ids under Redundancy.

Your method to calculate smaller k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy trees by using particular cases of bigger k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy trees, does not provide any information of the real complexity of a given k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, which is not limited to the amount of the Distinct States under a given tree.

And you jsfisher, can't comprehend it, because your reasoning is based on serial-only reasoning of Distinct States.

So you say, but my methods get the correct answer. Surely that must count for something, no?

Moreover, what have you accomplished so far? Well, you have derived an important generalization of your kXk whatever it is into some significant result. Hmm, no, you haven't. You have waved your hands a lot, but you have no formal generalization that expands into anything.

Sure, but you at least have the basis for a complete system. Wrong, again. You have provided only cases that you try to enumerate. There is no operation or scheme that lets us do anything with the cases other than enumerate them.

Well, at least you have provided a method to enumerate all the cases, right? No, you failed at that as evidenced by your 3X3 case.

So, why is any of this important?

Jsfisher, why do you claim that it is easy to draw by hand any DS of kxk tree?

You are invited to show your simple method that draws any DS of kxk by hand.

But be aware that even if you provide this easy method; it does not provide any information of the complexity of a k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree (known also as Organic Number).

Well, (1) I already did just that, and (2) I revealed that the claimed complexity was really vacuous.

 

[The Man]

You really don’t have any idea what you are claiming, do you The Man?

I know exactly what I am claiming Doron, that you have no idea what you are claiming which is apparently now that your “line” is not, well, linear .

Your step-by-step local understanding of a line is not my parallel non-local understanding of a line.

Your “step-by-step local” and “parallel non-local” labels are just your typical exercise of stringing words together . Given that your “parallel non-local understanding of a line” is apparently not linear it is rather fortunate that everyone else’s understanding of a line actually involves, well, a line.

The rest of your post expresses your failure to get the parallel non-local understanding of a line.

This entire thread Doron, demonstrates quite emphatically that you do not get your “parallel non-local understanding of a line” which apparently now can’t even be represented by a line since you apparently simply do not like the word linear.

No, it refers the double slit pattern, which expresses the non-local aspect of a photon also by “replacement under redundancy” (in additional to “symmetry of uncertainty”) ,whether it is constructive interference being a superposition of waves out of phase, or destructive interference of a superposition of waves in phase.

No Doron it is called an interference pattern for a reason, which is also why it is not called a “replacement under redundancy” or “symmetry of uncertainty” pattern.

Well I guess part of the error in your reply is my fault since I typed it wrong before, constructive interference is a superposition of waves in phase and destructive interference of a superposition of waves out of phase. Sorry if that confused anyone.

You simply can't understand the fact that the time gap between fired photons has no impact on their construction, which is exactly Non-local/Local Linkage.

Who said anything about “the time gap between fired photons”? Oh, by the way have you found that “additional experiment” you referred to before?

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 single silt pattern is an expression of the Local aspect of the Non-local/Local Linkage, where the double slit pattern is an expression of the Non-local aspect of the Non-local/Local Linkage, and how Non-local/Local Linkage is expressed as:

a) Asymmetry of no superposition of ids (A,B)(known as Certainty).

b) Symmetry of superposition of certain ids (A,A)(known as Redundancy).

c) Symmetry of superposition of ids (AB)(known as Uncertainty).

Nope, just more of your word salad Doron.

You don't get it The Man. Your superposition is limited to (b) and you have no understanding of (c).

No Doron, no one is limited by your nonsensical fantasy claims.

Again Doron by your own assertions your “superposition” does not use superposition so your claims about superposition are just nonsense by your own assertion.

Actually read the articles and try to get “symmetry” and “linear” beyoned “replacement under redundancy”, which is limited to “symmetry of certainty” ( ((A,B),(B,A)) in this case, which is not (AB) “symmetry of uncertainty” ).

I have read the articles Doron and there is none of your “replacement under redundancy” or “symmetry of certainty” nonsense, so it is just you who needs to get beyond your own nonsense.

 

[doronshadmi]

I have read the articles Doron and there is none of your “replacement under redundancy” or “symmetry of certainty” nonsense, so it is just you who needs to get beyond your own nonsense.

It is typical to the rest of your post. You are like a religious person that read the holly scripts of his religion, instead of using your mind in order to get things beyond what is written.

For example: you say "it is called an interference pattern for a reason" where this reason is nothing but a step-by-step reasoning, which at its best, enables to deal with no more then “replacement under redundancy” among certain ids (for example: Wheeler–Feynman Time-Symmetric theory, which is based on ((A,B),(B,A)) “symmetry of certainty”) and can't deal with “symmetry of uncertainty” (Symmetry of superposition of ids (AB), known as Uncertainty).

Your "Nope, just more of your word salad Doron" demonstrates your religious attitude of the articles that you read.

Well I guess part of the error in your reply is my fault since I typed it wrong before, constructive interference is a superposition of waves in phase and destructive interference of a superposition of waves out of phase. Sorry if that confused anyone.

This is another example of your asymmetric-only step-by-step only reasoning.

From a symmetrical view there is no impact on “replacement under redundancy” as observed in Interference Only (does not have a single silt envelope) if "in" and "out" are exchanged.

 

[doronshadmi]

So you say, but my methods get the correct answer. Surely that must count for something, no?

You don't get it, do you?

Your method ignores uncertainty.

I also showed this:

You little 2X2 collection, when stripped of all the nonsense you insist on adding, is nothing more than a set of unordered 2-tuples where each element of the pair is one of four symbols.

jsfisher, I can strip of all the nonsense you insist on adding when using unordered 2-tuples, by using a 1-tuple (0-Uncertainty x 0-Redundancy) where each element is one of ten symbols (which is, by the way, the particular case of F (1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0) under 10x10 tree):

<A> < = = > (AB,AB)
<B> < = = > (AB,A)
<C> < = = > (AB,B)
<D> < = = > (AB)
<E> < = = > (A,A)
<F> < = = > (B,B)
<G> < = = > (A,B)
<H> < = = > (A)
<I> < = = > (B)
<J> < = = > ()

for 2x2 tree, so?

In other word, by ignoring Uncertainty or Redundancy you are not dealing with k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy trees.

So we also can ignore Uncertainty and Redundancy, in order to provide the answer of "how many Distinct States (DS) there are in a given k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree?"

Again, this is the whole idea here, jsfisher, "how many?" is a too weak question that can't answer to questions where Uncertainty and Redundancy are involved, simply because an exact amount (or sum, if you wish) can't deal with real Complexity, where in real Complexity Uncertainty and Redundancy are significant and not some "white noise" that has to be eliminated, in order to discover your partial case of distinct things and their sum.

Sure, but you at least have the basis for a complete system. Wrong, again. You have provided only cases that you try to enumerate. There is no operation or scheme that lets us do anything with the cases other than enumerate them.

Now you demonstrate that the following is beyond your understanding:

a) Asymmetry of no superposition of ids (A,B)(known as Certainty).

b) Symmetry of superposition of certain ids (A,A)(known as Redundancy).

c) Symmetry of superposition of ids (AB)(known as Uncertainty).

5) Furthermore, even the algorithm (where your method is a part of it) that is used to draw the DS of a given of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, is nothing but a serial-only tool that draws the DS, but it can't be used in order to understand the Complexity of a given k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, because this complexity is not less than both parallel/serial form (where each part of it is both local AND global case of it) which can't be understood by parallel-only or serial-only reasoning.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well, (1) I already did just that,

Only for 2x2 tree by using the partial case of F (1,1,0,0) taken from 4x4 tree, so?

It was too difficult for you to define the distinct forms of your method in 3x3 case, isn't it jsfisher?

I did it for you in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5957646&postcount=9921 .

and (2) I revealed that the claimed complexity was really vacuous.

All you did is to demonstrate your blindness because:

Your method (still no general formula of your method was given by you) is a part of an algorithm that defines the DS of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, (where also the algorithm can't be used to understand the complexity of a given k x k tree) that uses F and DS of greater k x k tree in order to define the amount of DS of smaller k x k tree by ignoring uncertainty, but uncertainty appears also in the greater k x k tree and so on ... ad infinitum.

In other words, you do not understand the complexity of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy trees, exactly because all you get is the amount of the DS of these trees.

-------------

jsfisher, since your method is so easy, please write down all the distinct forms of 4x4 tree (after all, all you get is the distinct forms of k x k trees).

 

[jsfisher]

You don't get it, do you?

Your method ignores uncertainty.

Yes, and that is the point that you don't get. Your so-called uncertainty doesn't change the answer. Ignoring it doesn't matter at all.

 

[jsfisher]

Only for 2x2 tree by using the partial case of F (1,1,0,0) taken from 4x4 tree, so?

Nope. Mine was a simple, general method, good for all cases.

It was too difficult for you to define the distinct forms of your method in 3x3 case, isn't it jsfisher?

I did it for you in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5957646&postcount=9921 .

Nope. Mine was a simple, general method, good for all cases. The result you provided, on the other hand, was wrong. It is still wrong, and you refuse to correct your mistakes.

...
jsfisher, since your method is so easy, please write down all the distinct forms of 4x4 tree (after all, all you get is the distinct forms of k x k trees).

You have no concept of how many such things there are, do you? None whatsoever.

Be that as it may, it is not my job to do your work, especially when it is of a trivial nature. If the 4X4 version is of such interest to you, you enumerate all the cases. You really should fix your 3X3 thing, first, though.

 

[doronshadmi]

Yes, and that is the point that you don't get. Your so-called uncertainty doesn't change the answer. Ignoring it doesn't matter at all.

Jsfisher, here ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4857137&postcount=4175 ) you show that Moshe's formula is not general because it uses 3 initial values that are not based on the complete amount of distinct states of 1x1,2x2 and 3x3 trees.

In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4859147&postcount=4199 I asked you a question that follows the notion of the extension of ON's Distinct states.

In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4859277&postcount=4201 we can see your limited view of the extension of ON's Distinct states.

You can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4862772&postcount=4237 .

Nope. Mine was a simple, general method, good for all cases.

Only for distinct cases where Uncertainty is ignored.

You have no concept of how many such things there are, do you? None whatsoever.

In general, you can't get ONs beyond the amounts of their Distinct States, or in other words, you can't get k-Uncertainy x k-Redundancy trees.

 

[doronshadmi]

You really should fix your 3X3 thing, first, though

Since all you get is a collection of distinct things, then please show what has to be fixed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125220&page=249 .

After all you easily enable to show what is missing in the 3-Uncertainty x 3-Redundancy tree, by using your Redundancy-only distinct forms, isn't it?

Also pay attention that what was rejected by you in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4859277&postcount=4201 is now used in the basis of your method, which demonstrates your serial-only undertanding of Distinction.

 

[jsfisher]

Yes, and that is the point that you don't get. Your so-called uncertainty doesn't change the answer. Ignoring it doesn't matter at all.

Jsfisher, here ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4857137&postcount=4175 ) you show that Moshe's formula is not general because it uses 3 initial values that are not based on the complete amount of distinct states of 1x1,2x2 and 3x3 trees.

Nope. The post was about inconsistencies. You know, stuff that makes it wrong.

...additional non sequiturs snipped...

Nope. Mine was a simple, general method, good for all cases.

Only for distinct cases where Uncertainty is ignored.

No. It doesn't matter if "uncertainty is ignored" or not. The answer doesn't change.

That's the part you don't get.

You have no concept of how many such things there are, do you? None whatsoever.

In general, you can't get ONs beyond the amounts of their Distinct States, or in other words, you can't get k-Uncertainy x k-Redundancy trees.

The evidence indicates exactly the opposite.

For example, how are those corrections for the 3X3 version coming?

 

[doronshadmi]

For example, how are those corrections for the 3X3 version coming?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5981478&postcount=10036

 

[doronshadmi]

No. It doesn't matter if "uncertainty is ignored" or not. The answer doesn't change.

It does not change as long as all you get is the amuont of distinct collections.

k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree's complexity is irreducible to distinct collections, which is something beyond your serial-only reasoning.

 

[jsfisher]

For example, how are those corrections for the 3X3 version coming?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5981478&postcount=10036

Oh, so it is not going well for you. How disappointing. It's your invention, and you cannot even tell if its right or wrong, let along fix it when its wrong.


It probably would be a big help if only you knew how many cases you need to enumerate. Too bad there isn't a convenient, simple way to calculate that.