Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

Again “excluded NXOR included” in the same domain is always FALSE,

Nope.

Given point X "line Y is excluded NXOR included w.r.t point X" is True, where "point X is excluded XOR included w.r.t line Y" is True.

You can't get things beyond X.

 

[epix]

It is possible only if there is a common and non-common principles among things, where the common principle is Mutuality and the non-common principle is Independency.

Your comparison defines Mutuality as Dependency:

Common is to Non-common as Mutuality is to Independence.

That's wrong, coz there are mutually exclusive terms in the premise (common and ~common) whereas "dependent" is just one of the loose synonyms to "mutual." The correct comparison due to the premise is

Common is to Non-common as Dependency is to Independence.

The numerical descriptive meaning of "mutuality" could be this, for example:

A: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
B: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

A and B can exist independently from each other (A, B), but they can co-exist as AB, but not BA due to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

When 4 and 5 is gone, where 4, 5 = mutual affection due to 4 and 5 personal properties that are not constant, it's time to sign the divorce papers.

 

[doronshadmi]

Nope, exclusion is not restricted to any particular location and mutual exclusion is again specifically an exclusion that is shared.

(as what is excluded from one must be included in one of the others)

By excluded X from one domain, X must be included in another domain, or by included X in one domain X must be excluded from another domain.

So exclusion OR inclusion alone are not shared properties among different domains, because they are limited by them, or as I call it, they are (logically) local w.r.t them.

So shared properties among different domains are possible only by Mutual-Independent framework, which is a notion that you can't grasp.

Mutual exclusion or Mutual inclusion is synonym to Mutual-Independent.

Again “excluded NXOR included” in the same domain is always FALSE,

Who is talking about the same domain?

We are talking about at least two domains w.r.t each other.

Again,

If domain A is “included NXOR excluded” w.r.t domain B, then domain A is (logically) non-local w.r.t domain B.

If domain A is “included XOR excluded” w.r.t domain B, then domain A is (logically) local w.r.t domain B.

Your limited perception of Non-locality or Locality to metric space, is one of your main blocks about OM's reasoning.

 

[doronshadmi]

You are still trying to explain the local and non-local relations using a machine that is broken due to the contradiction.

You still try to get Non-locality by using Local-only reasoning.

As a result you get "a machine that is broken due to the contradiction".

 

[doronshadmi]

You can think of it as the difference between O, R and OR. When O and R are sufficiently apart, O and R belong to the class called "letters," but as they move closer to each other, there will be a point in time where O and R will belong to a new class called "words."

Can Organic Mathematics prove the Hilderberg Conjecture?

Organic Mathematics deals with the foundations that enable the concept of "many", wether it is expressed by "Letters" or "Words".

 

[doronshadmi]

The numerical descriptive meaning of "mutuality" could be this, for example:

A: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
B: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

A and B can exist independently from each other (A, B), but they can co-exist as AB, but not BA due to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

Still you have to explain how A and B is more than a single thing, whether they are fully or partially disjoint.

 

[epix]

You still try to get Non-locality by using Local-only reasoning.

As a result you get "a machine that is broken due to the contradiction".

There is no "Local-only reasoning"; there is only sound reasoning and unsound reasoning. You condemned A= ~A, but used it once again inbelongs XOR ~belongs knowing that XOR encounters belongs=True and ~belongs=True with belongs= ~belongs being the consequence.

See, there is no problem for logical gates to handle A= ~A, coz there may be an ocassion where you want to catch and route a contradiction. You set

P = A
Q = ~A

and then you decide which logical gate to use to see the result you want. You can use the AND gate which is appropriate for routing the A, ~A instance to some subroutine labeled "True." The subroutine gets rid of the '~' that precedes A and sends the letter back to the circulation, so the next time A=A. But that doesn't apply to you attempt to define the "local and non-local" via XOR and NXOR functions.

 

[epix]

Still you have to explain how A and B is more than a single thing, whether they are fully or partially disjoint.

Just read the rest of it again. Maybe you find out that A could be a man and B a woman with personal properties 1, 2, 3, 4 . . .

 

[Little 10 Toes]

If you were going to make it clearer, you could have written this:

1) If the result of A sharing a given domain NXOR not sharing a given domain with regard to B is TRUE, then A is non-local with regard to B.

2) If the result of A is sharing a given domain XOR not is sharing a given domain with regard to B is TRUE, then A is local with regard to B.

Now what about A and B? Are they elements/atoms? Would you agree that a simple definition of XOR could be "one or the other but not both"? Would you agree that a simple definition of XNOR could be "both or neither"?

Sorry I didn't quote your message with my previous message.

Please define your usage of the word domain.

Since you're busy answering other posts, maybe you can answer mine too.

 

[The Man]

By excluded X from one domain, X must be included in another domain, or by included X in one domain X must be excluded from another domain.

No, not particularly, but ~A excludes all elements of A just as A excludes all elements of ~A (again they are mutually exclusive). If x is excluded from A it is included in ~A, if x is excluded from ~A it is included in A, as A = ~~A.

So exclusion OR inclusion alone are not shared properties among different domains, because they are limited by them, or as I call it, they are (logically) local w.r.t them.

Exclusion is “alone” the shared property of A and ~A as they share no inclusions (have no elements in common).

So shared properties among different domains are possible only by Mutual-Independent framework, which is a notion that you can't grasp.

Again absolutely false, A and ~A are a mutually exclusive and mutually dependent (by that exclusion) “framework”, demonstrating that you are wrong, “which is a notion that you” simply do not want to accept.

Mutual exclusion or Mutual inclusion is synonym to Mutual-Independent.

Well, evidently “synonym” is another word you simply do not understand.

Who is talking about the same domain?

You are.

We are talking about at least two domains w.r.t each other.

Again,

If domain A is “included NXOR excluded” w.r.t domain B, then domain A is (logically) non-local w.r.t domain B.

So “included NXOR excluded” in the same domain, “domain B” in this case.

If domain A is “included XOR excluded” w.r.t domain B, then domain A is (logically) local w.r.t domain B.

So “included XOR excluded” in the same domain, “domain B” in this case.

You do not state ‘included in one domain XOR excluded from another’ nor do you state ‘included in one domain NXOR excluded from another’. Your statements specifically refer to the same domain, “w.r.t domain B” as you put it. So again it is indeed you “Who is talking about the same domain”.

Your limited perception of Non-locality or Locality to metric space, is one of your main blocks about OM's reasoning.

Your deliberate limitation to your own perception is your main block to any reasoning.

 

[epix]

Organic Mathematics deals with the foundations that enable the concept of "many", wether it is expressed by "Letters" or "Words".

Doron, you relapsed again:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6204233&postcount=11010

The question was wheteher OM can prove the Hildeberg Conjecture true or false. "Yes" or "no" would do. Now I'm getting another confusing statement. I thought that the "concept of many" was "enabled" by Homo heidelbergensis some 300k years ago.

 

[The Man]

Nope.

Given point X "line Y is excluded NXOR included w.r.t point X" is True, where "point X is excluded XOR included w.r.t line Y" is True.

Doron, a zero dimensional element (a point) can not include a one dimensional element (or it would not be zero dimensional). However, a given one dimensional element must include XOR exclude some given zero dimensional element. So while your latter assertion is correct your former is demonstrably false.

Now if you mean “line Y” can be included in some set of lines that transverse “Given point X”, well, that is different. However, “line Y” is still either “excluded XOR included” in any given set of lines. This “w.r.t” nonsense of yours is still simply part of your endeavor, again apparently deliberately, not to be specific about the relationships you are considering. As a result you have invented this entire unspecific OM fantasy of yours. Evidently so that lack of specificity, at least to you, is not specifically yours

You can't get things beyond X.

You just can’t get things beyond your own lack of specificity.

 

[doronshadmi]

So “included NXOR excluded” in the same domain, “domain B” in this case.

...

So “included XOR excluded” in the same domain, “domain B” in this case.

Nope.

You simply force "in" ("in the same domain", which is an inclusion-only approach) on the given framework, and as a result you get only B.

The given framework is not less than A and B domains w.r.t each other.

If A domain is "included NXOR excluded" w.r.t B domain, then A domain is (logically) Non-local w.r.t B domain.

If A domain is "included XOR excluded" w.r.t B domain, then A domain is (logically) Local w.r.t B domain.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron, a zero dimensional element (a point) can not include a one dimensional element

The Man, a zero dimensional element (a point) cannot fully includ a one dimensional element.

This is the reason of why a one dimensional element is included NXOR excluded w.r.t a zero dimensional element, or in other words, it is Non-local w.r.t a zero dimensional element.

You still do not distinguish between no dimension and zero dimension (for example: the cardinality of {} (=0) is not the same
as the "content" of {} (= nothing), or in other words: {} ≠ {0}).

On the contrary, a zero dimensional element is included XOR excluded w.r.t a one dimensional element, exactly as you wrote here:

a given one dimensional element must include XOR exclude some given zero dimensional element.

and actually this is all you can get all along this thread, which is called Local-only reasoning.

 

[doronshadmi]

There is no "Local-only reasoning"; there is only sound reasoning and unsound reasoning.

As long as you don't get Non-locality (in addition to Locality), this is indeed all you can get.

 

[doronshadmi]

If you were going to make it clearer, you could have written this:

1) If the result of A sharing a given domain NXOR not sharing a given domain with regard to B is TRUE, then A is non-local with regard to B.

2) If the result of A is sharing a given domain XOR not is sharing a given domain with regard to B is TRUE, then A is local with regard to B.

Now what about A and B? Are they elements/atoms? Would you agree that a simple definition of XOR could be "one or the other but not both"? Would you agree that a simple definition of XNOR could be "both or neither"?

From first look (1) and (2) are valid definitions of Non-locality and Locality.

Now what about A and B? Are they elements/atoms?

A or B are non-composed things that have different qualities w.r.t each other.

If they are linked, then the result is a composed complexity.

Would you agree that a simple definition of XOR could be "one or the other but not both"?

Yes, this is a valid expression of Exclusive OR.

Would you agree that a simple definition of XNOR could be "both or neither"?

NXOR is NOR ( 0 0 --> 1) + AND ( 1 1 --> 1)

 

[doronshadmi]

This “w.r.t” nonsense of yours is still simply part of your endeavor …

Nope.

You simply can't grasp the notion of A or B as non-composed things that have different qualities w.r.t each other.

 

[jsfisher]

As long as you don't get Non-locality (in addition to Locality), this is indeed all you can get.

You say that as if not understanding your gibberish has negative consequences. Yet, you are unable demonstrate any result or conclusion from your doronetics that would show how wonderful it all is.

Instead, you invest your efforts these days only in telling people how they don't "get it", but with no reason why they should even bother.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

From first look (1) and (2) are valid definitions of Non-locality and Locality.

A or B are non-composed things that have different qualities w.r.t each other.

If they are linked, then the result is a composed complexity.

Yes, this is a valid expression of Exclusive OR.

NXOR is NOR ( 0 0 --> 1) + AND ( 1 1 --> 1)

Thank you for finally agreeing what local and non local mean. Now let's define what A and B, or X and Y since you change them, are.

What are "non-composed things"? What qualities are we examining? What is "linked"? What "result"?

If you took the time to understand "AND ( 1 1 --> 1)" you would see that it does mean both. If you took the time to understand "NOR ( 0 0 --> 1)" you would see that it means neither. It's that what I said? "Both or neither."

 

[jsfisher]

What are "non-composed things"?

Doron uses that to mean some sort of atomic entity. (Unfortunately, he usually insists on using examples which aren't atomic even within his very examples, but what of that.) In some versions of set theory, this would be a ur-element (another term Doron abuses).