Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
epix said:
If Mr. Negation doesn't enter the stage, then X is not all that one gets.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

If X is all one gets, then ~X is beyond what one gets.

In other words, the negation of X (Mr. Negation, as you call it) does not play with X by the observer's perception, exactly because X is all he (the observer) gets.

For example: " http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6199240&postcount=10959 is beyond epix's perception. ", as clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6197768&postcount=10957.
 
Last edited:
epix said:
So there is a good chance that he cracks the mystery of the burning Venn diagram soon.
Click to expand...


4866288016_8538f2c413.jpg
 
Last edited:
Doron,

You haven't replied to my post yet. But I know you're going to find fault with the way I used the word, "serial."
Never mind that. Let me back away a bit to make it more clear what I'm asking.

I take it that the ordinary mathemmatical set is a special case of a complex.
Or so it seems you have said in the past.
Complexes are basically amorphous and "foggy." Like clouds they gather and dissolve.
But there is the special case were a complex is somewhat solidified with class identities.

It seems to me that you want to present the complex in it's degrees of mistiness to mathmatical solidity, by "bridges" or "linkages" that map out the degrees of numerical and class certainty.

The presentation so far is still unclear to me. It's unclear how you arrive at the kind of (let's say local-only-like) set that our mathematicians are familiar with. It's one end of the complex spectrum. I want to understand how you construct that special case.
I have some ideas, but I've not been able to fit them together in a way that shows me how it works, or at least fits together the pieces of your exposition.
 
Apathia said:
Doron,

You haven't replied to my post yet. But I know you're going to find fault with the way I used the word, "serial."
Never mind that. Let me back away a bit to make it more clear what I'm asking.

I take it that the ordinary mathemmatical set is a special case of a complex.
Or so it seems you have said in the past.
Complexes are basically amorphous and "foggy." Like clouds they gather and dissolve.
But there is the special case were a complex is somewhat solidified with class identities.

It seems to me that you want to present the complex in it's degrees of mistiness to mathmatical solidity, by "bridges" or "linkages" that map out the degrees of numerical and class certainty.

The presentation so far is still unclear to me. It's unclear how you arrive at the kind of (let's say local-only-like) set that our mathematicians are familiar with. It's one end of the complex spectrum. I want to understand how you construct that special case.
I have some ideas, but I've not been able to fit them together in a way that shows me how it works, or at least fits together the pieces of your exposition.
Click to expand...

Dear Apathia,

Let's get, for example:
4711080643_d71d687fc4_b.jpg

4861902179_6235c3d56c.jpg


As you can see, the fundamental state for both parallel of serial Bridging is actually the Linkage of Non-local quality with Local quality.

Non-locality\Locality Linkage enables Quantity, where Quantity is not changed under the difference of certain or uncertain ids.

As for Sums and Fogs, since the Qualitative aspects that enable Quantity are not the components of each other, then no amount of Localities is Non-locality.

In that case a finite amount of localities that are aggregated by Non-locality, has a Sum, where an infinite amount of localities that are aggregated by Non-locality, has a Fog.
 
Last edited:
:wackycry:

I'm just lost again.
I don't even get what serial and parallel bridging are or how a Local/Non-Local linkage produces a quantity.

Interesting that it's a quantity that has nothing to do with collection by classes or Set Theory.

But then again, I suggested a visual configuration type perception of number.
Though I doubt now that is of any use or relevance to OM.

I'm not getting the foundation for number as contemporary mathematicians understand number. If what you are presenting actually has anything to do with that (as the supposed "special case.").

Anyway I'm back to cluelessness again.
 
doronshadmi said:
Worng The Man.

Mutuality and Dependency a synonyms, so if there are different things in the same system, then we are based on not less than mutual independency, exactly as two axioms are mutual independent w.r.t each other.
Click to expand...

Once again Doron not all dependencies or independencies are mutual, which is why mutual dependence refers specifically to a shared dependence (changes to one result in changes to the other) and mutual independence refers specifically to a shared independence (changes to one do not result in changes to the other). "different things in the same system" are not inherently independent nor is any independency inherently mutual. Again this is simply your imaginary “mutual independency”.
 
The Man said:
Once again Doron not all dependencies or independencies are mutual, which is why mutual dependence refers specifically to a shared dependence (changes to one result in changes to the other) and mutual independence refers specifically to a shared independence (changes to one do not result in changes to the other). "different things in the same system" are not inherently independent nor is any independency inherently mutual. Again this is simply your imaginary “mutual independency”.
Click to expand...
"Shared", "mutual", "dependence" describe the connectivity aspect among things, where things are the connected aspect.
 
doronshadmi said:
"Shared", "mutual", "dependence" describe the connectivity aspect among things, where things are the connected aspect.
Click to expand...


Still does not make “Mutuality and Dependency a synonyms”. In the case of mutual dependency or mutual independency it is specifically that dependence or independence that is the “thing” that is being, well, shared.
 
Originally Posted by epix
Before: G, o, d
After: G, o_d

doronshadmi said:
Before,Now and Afrer: G,o,d
Click to expand...

There is no Before, Now and After, as much there are no lower-case, middle-case and upper-case letters used in written English.

Do you understand this change?

From: %, A, B
To: %, A_B

The change is based on

Domain: Microsoft keypad
PQ = letters
~PQ = anything else but letters
 
doronshadmi said:
:confused:


Let me help you.

The right one is: "... only within local logical constructs".
Click to expand...

Aha. When "gi" inside "logical" becomes non-local to the word (bye, bye word), then "lo--cal" fuses into "local." Sounds etymological to me.
 
doronshadmi said:
In that case you have a meta-view of X and ~X, which is not limited by any one of them (it is non-local w.r.t X or ~X).

This is not the case if X is all one gets.

1) If Y belongs NXOR ~belongs w.r.t X, then Y is Non-local w.r.t X
2) If Y belongs XOR ~belongs w.r.t X, then Y is Local w.r.t X

According to (1) and (2) definitions, X or ~X are local w.r.t ___, and ___ is non-local w.r.t X or ~X.
Click to expand...

Little 10 Toes said:
You've only given me examples, not definitions.

  1. What are X and Y? Are they sets, elements/atoms of a set or something else?
  2. What do you mean by "belongs"? (This question may be answered depending on your previous reply.
  3. Would you agree that XOR's definition basically means "one or the other, but not both"?
  4. Would you agree that NXOR (NOT XOR) definition is the opposite of XOR, meaning "either none or both"?
  5. What does ____ mean?
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
Wrong, (1) and (2) are definitions.

Aagin, definitions (1) and (2):

1) If A belongs NXOR ~belongs w.r.t B, then A is Non-local w.r.t B

2) If A belongs XOR ~belongs w.r.t B, then A is Local w.r.t B

According to (1) and (2) definitions, X or ~X are local w.r.t ___, and ___ is non-local w.r.t X or ~X. in X__~X example, which is a complex result of Non-locality\Locality Linkage.

X or ~X are the local aspects of X___~X linkage that are located at the ends of ___, where ___ is the non-local aspect of X___~X linkage, which extends X location or ~X location (which is a property that X or ~X do not have w.r.t ___, under X___~X linkage).
Click to expand...

It appears that you don't read things, you just regurgitate replies since your last few posts contain X and Y, not A and B.

Try reading my post again and answer my questions.
 
The Man said:
Still does not make “Mutuality and Dependency a synonyms”.
Click to expand...

EDIT:

You may say that by knowing A one knows also ~A, but in that case one know both A and ~A of a given realm (abstract or not).

This is possible if both Mutuality (the ability of getting more than a single thing) AND Independency (the ability of getting a single thing) are the linked qualitative foundations of a given realm (abstract or not).
 
Last edited:
epix said:
Originally Posted by epix
Before: G, o, d
After: G, o_d



There is no Before, Now and After, as much there are no lower-case, middle-case and upper-case letters used in written English.

Do you understand this change?

From: %, A, B
To: %, A_B

The change is based on

Domain: Microsoft keypad
PQ = letters
~PQ = anything else but letters
Click to expand...

Non-locality is included NXOR excluded w.r.t a given domain.

Locality is included XOR excluded w.r.t a given domain.

Do you get the qualitative difference?
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
In the case of mutual dependency or mutual independency it is specifically that dependence or independence that is the “thing” that is being, well, shared.
Click to expand...

What you call "mutual dependency" is "two things that depend on each other".

What you call "mutual independency" is "two things that are not depend on each other".

But first you have to ask yourself: "What enables two things?"

Traditional Mathematics does not ask this question, and as a result it does not understand Mutuality (the ability of getting more than a single thing) AND Independency (the ability of getting a single thing) as the linked qualitative foundations of a given realm (abstract or not).
 
Little 10 Toes said:
So then, you can't answer basic questions about your "idea". Generally.
Click to expand...
No.

You can't get basic questions and basic answers of basic ideas because you do not think general.


In order to think general you open your mind to the represented idea (or notion) and not to the particular tools (diagrams or strings of notations) that represent it.

If you really do that, then:

1) If A belongs NXOR ~belongs w.r.t B, then A is Non-local w.r.t B

2) If A belongs XOR ~belongs w.r.t B, then A is Local w.r.t B

3) Linkage is the result of (1) (2) definitions.

X___~X is (3) example, where X or ~X represent (1) and ___ represent (2).

X or ~X are the local aspects of X___~X linkage, which are located at the ends of ___, where ___ is the non-local aspect of X___~X linkage, which extends X location or ~X location (which is a property that X or ~X do not have w.r.t ___, under X___~X linkage).
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
:wackycry:

I'm just lost again.
I don't even get what serial and parallel bridging are or how a Local/Non-Local linkage produces a quantity.

Interesting that it's a quantity that has nothing to do with collection by classes or Set Theory.

But then again, I suggested a visual configuration type perception of number.
Though I doubt now that is of any use or relevance to OM.

I'm not getting the foundation for number as contemporary mathematicians understand number. If what you are presenting actually has anything to do with that (as the supposed "special case.").

Anyway I'm back to cluelessness again.
Click to expand...

Let's try this way.

In order to really develop Quantitative thinking, one at least has to ask "What enables Quantity?" or "What are the foundations of Quantitative thinking?", etc ...

I'll be glad to know that these kinds of questions are asked by mathematicians.

Please use google to search:

"The foundations of Quantitative thinking"

or

"What enables Quantity?"

or

"What are the foundations of Quantitative thinking?"

or

"What enables Quantitative thinking?"

or

"The logical foundations of Quantitative thinking"

or

"The mathematical foundations of Quantitative thinking"

etc ...

and tell me what you get.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom