Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

Says he who understands neither.

Says he who don't get OM.

 

[The Man]

Again, a line-segment is a composed result of the linkage among two non-composed elements that are called "line" and "point".

So your reply is irrelevant.

Once again you specifically assert your "line" as one of your “non-composed elements” so that you claim your “line-segment is a composed result” is simply irrelevant to what you do claim about the lack of composition of your “line”. Nether is it relevant to the fact that a line or line segment is at least one dimensional and thus can not be included in a zero dimensional element. Particularly a zero dimensional element that you claim yourself to be one of your “two non-composed elements”.

Please tell us specifically how your “non-composed” zero dimensional “point” “includes” one of your “lines” or “line segments”.

Though you claim your “line segment” is composed you do not claim that it can be composed of sub-elements, specifically other line segments. So can your “line segment” be composed of sub-elements, specifically other line segments?

 

[doronshadmi]

Please tell us specifically how your “non-composed” zero dimensional “point” “includes” one of your “lines” or “line segments”.

Since the zero dimensional object has a dimension, then a one dimensional object that also has a dimension, is at least included NXOR excluded w.r.t the zero dimensional object (and not just included, as you wrongly put it).

Though you claim your “line segment” is composed you do not claim that it can be composed of sub-elements, specifically other line segments. So can your “line segment” be composed of sub-elements, specifically other line segments?

A line-segment is a composed object (line+point(s)) that can be composed by other composed sub-objects like line-segments.

 

[The Man]

Since the zero dimensional object has a dimension, then a one dimensional object that also has a dimension, is at least included NXOR excluded w.r.t the zero dimensional object (and not just included, as you wrongly put it).

Where did I put "just included"? Again stop trying to simply posit your own failed reasoning and erroneous assumptions onto others.

So your demonstrative problem is once again simply that you consider a "zero dimensional object" to have "a dimension". So OM is limited to at least one dimension, as both of your “two non-composed elements” each have at least “a dimension”? If you presume these so called “dimensions” to be somehow different, as the evidence seems to indicates that you do, would that not make your “composed” “line segment” at least two dimensional by your reckoning?

Though you still have not addressed the other aspect of the question as to specificly how your “non-composed” point “includes” a “line”, “line segment” or anything for that matter?

A line-segment is a composed object (line+point(s)) that can be composed by other composed sub-objects like line-segments.

So your "line segment" "can be composed by other composed sub-objects like line-segments". That being the case why do you seem to have such a problem with a line segment that spans from A to ~A being composed of two “sub-objects like line-segments” one line segment included in A and the other included in ~A?

 

[doronshadmi]

Where did I put "just included"?

Here (the bolded is mine):

Please tell us specifically how your “non-composed” zero dimensional “point” “includes” one of your “lines” or “line segments”.

.

So your demonstrative problem is once again simply that you consider a "zero dimensional object" to have "a dimension". So OM is limited to at least one dimension, as both of your “two non-composed elements” each have at least “a dimension”? If you presume these so called “dimensions” to be somehow different, as the evidence seems to indicates that you do, would that not make your “composed” “line segment” at least two dimensional by your reckoning?

No, because 0 Dimensional object + 1 Dimensional object can't be greater than 1 Dimensional object.

Though you still have not addressed the other aspect of the question as to specificly how your “non-composed” point “includes” a “line”, “line segment” or anything for that matter?

Only a line segment can include (and not must include) sub line-segments (where a line-segement is also a line with a single point along it, or what you cal a ray).

So your "line segment" "can be composed by other composed sub-objects like line-segments". That being the case why do you seem to have such a problem with a line segment that spans from A to ~A being composed of two “sub-objects like line-segments” one line segment included in A and the other included in ~A?

Again, a line segment can include (and not must include) sub line-segments, in order to be a line segment, and in the case of

the non-local and non-composed building-block of a given composed line-segment, "airs its logical view".

EDIT:

The non-composed non-local and local building-blocks do not losing their properties under the composed result.

 

[epix]

Originally Posted by epix
But Doron's line is a collection of "lines+points,"

Nope.

A line is not a collection, exactly as a point is not a collection.

You seem to have a severe problem with comprehending your own ideas. I didn't quote "line" and "points" separately, but used your expression "lines+points," which is a collection of two different words. The word "collection" doesn't refer to arrangements that consist of a single item, such as '@':

@ = "not a collection"

@@ = "a collection of two identical items"
@$ = "a collection of two different items"

"Collection" refers to the plural and the minimum requirement for plural to be applied is 2. Now we are getting closer to the famous identity that enables 2 to exists, an identity that you need to work on from time to time: 1 + 1 = 2.

 

[The Man]

Here (the bolded is mine):

So it was only you who “wrongly put it” as "just included”, and apparently deliberately so.

Again stop trying to simply posit your own failed reasoning and erroneous assumptions onto others.

.

No, because 0 Dimensional object + 1 Dimensional object can't be greater than 1 Dimensional object.

So now your “0 Dimensional object” does not have “ a dimension” as you previously claimed?

.

Only a line segment can include (and not must include) sub line-segments (where a line-segement is also a line with a single point along it, or what you cal a ray).

So your “ray” is also some type of your “line segment” and “can include” “sub line-segments”? How about two of your ‘rays’ from a single point in opposite directions, can they too “include” “sub line-segments”?

Agian...

Though you still have not addressed the other aspect of the question as to specificly how your “non-composed” point “includes” a “line”, “line segment” or anything for that matter?

Again, a line segment can include (and not must include) sub line-segments, in order to be a line segment, and in the case of

[qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4077/4789944385_7e4d198597.jpg[/qimg]

the non-local and non-composed building-block of a given composed line-segment, "airs its logical view".

Still does not answer the question…

That being the case why do you seem to have such a problem with a line segment that spans from A to ~A being composed of two “sub-objects like line-segments” one line segment included in A and the other included in ~A?

EDIT:

The non-composed non-local and local building-blocks do not losing their properties under the composed result.

So you have no opposition to “a line segment that spans from A to ~A being composed of two “sub-objects like line-segments” one line segment included in A and the other included in ~A” as you claim “The non-composed non-local and local building-blocks do not losing their properties under the composed result”?

 

[epix]

Again, a line-segment is a composed result of the linkage among two non-composed elements that are called "line" and "point".

What do you mean by "non-composed elements?" Do you imply that chemical element carbon, for example, can be also composed depending on circumstances created by the intrusion of OM?

 

[doronshadmi]

You seem to have a severe problem with comprehending your own ideas. I didn't quote "line" and "points" separately, but used your expression "lines+points," which is a collection of two different words. The word "collection" doesn't refer to arrangements that consist of a single item, such as '@':

@ = "not a collection"

@@ = "a collection of two identical items"
@$ = "a collection of two different items"

"Collection" refers to the plural and the minimum requirement for plural to be applied is 2. Now we are getting closer to the famous identity that enables 2 to exists, an identity that you need to work on from time to time: 1 + 1 = 2.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6224634&postcount=11104

 

[epix]

The above demonstrates the severe damage caused by the OM truck hitting Mr. Venn's house. Any insurance agent would notice that the colored areas are defined, but the line segment is not. It just connects whatever suits the fancy of the OM driver.

 

[epix]

Originally Posted by epix
You seem to have a severe problem with comprehending your own ideas. I didn't quote "line" and "points" separately, but used your expression "lines+points," which is a collection of two different words. The word "collection" doesn't refer to arrangements that consist of a single item, such as '@':

@ = "not a collection"

@@ = "a collection of two identical items"
@$ = "a collection of two different items"

"Collection" refers to the plural and the minimum requirement for plural to be applied is 2. Now we are getting closer to the famous identity that enables 2 to exists, an identity that you need to work on from time to time: 1 + 1 = 2.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6224634&postcount=11104

Yeah, you got that right there : 1 pinnacle + 1 pinnacle = 2 pinnacles

 

[doronshadmi]

So it was only you who “wrongly put it” as "just included”, and apparently deliberately so.

Come on The Man in

Please tell us specifically how your “non-composed” zero dimensional “point” “includes” one of your “lines” or “line segments”.

you used only the word "includes", so please cut off the nonsense.

So now your “0 Dimensional object” does not have “ a dimension” as you previously claimed?

0 dimensional object is an object that has an exact location, 1 dimensional object is an object that does not have an exact location as 0 dimensional object has, and "No dimension" can't be expressed in terms of location at all, whether it is exact (0 dimension) or not (1 dimension).

You still do not distinguish between "nothing+1" which is meaningless expression, and "0+1", which has a meaning.

So your “ray” is also some type of your “line segment” and “can include” “sub line-segments”? How about two of your ‘rays’ from a single point in opposite directions, can they too “include” “sub line-segments”?

Pay attention that you are simply talking about two rays, so one ray is enough to express the notion.

A line with a single point along it, does not mean that we necessarily have two opposite rays.

A line with a single point along it is also a non-composed and non-local object that shares NXOR does not share the exact location of that point (which is a non-composed local object).

So you have no opposition to “a line segment that spans from A to ~A being composed of two “sub-objects like line-segments” one line segment included in A and the other included in ~A” as you claim “The non-composed non-local and local building-blocks do not losing their properties under the composed result”?

The Man, you simply can't get the notion that the building-blocks of some composition, are non-composed under the composed result.

You get things only in one level and therefore you can't distinguish between the non-composed property of the building-blocks level, and the composed result of their linkage, where the linkage is the signature of the un-manifested core among the composed and the non-composed, which are vanished into and derive from the un-manifested, as represented by the following diagram:

 

[doronshadmi]

Yeah, you got that right there : 1 pinnacle + 1 pinnacle = 2 pinnacles

1 pinnacle + 1 pinnacle = 2 pinnacles where "+" or "=" is non-local w.r.t them, and without the linkage among +,=,1,1 there is no 2.

The linkage is "vanishing into and derive from the un-manifested", where the manifested is the linked Non-locality and Locality, as represented by the following diagram:

 

[The Man]

Come on The Man in

you used only the word "includes", so please cut off the nonsense.

Actually I used about 17 words other then "includes" none of which were the word “just”. So please cut off your own nonsense, you simply wanted it to be, and wrongly put it yourself as, “just includes” even though I clearly did not write “just includes”.

0 dimensional object is an object that has an exact location,

An exact location where and in what coordinate system? Locations are aspects of coordinate systems not dimensional objects. If a point is the entire space being considered there are no locations as it has no dimensions.

1 dimensional object is an object that does not have an exact location as 0 dimensional object has,

An exact location where and in what coordinate system?

As a one dimensionl object has only well, one dimension it is exactly a point in all orthogonal dimensions.

and "No dimension" can't be expressed in terms of location at all, whether it is exact (0 dimension) or not (1 dimension).

Sure it can, no dimensions of your considered space means no locations in your considered space.

So you still just don’t understand the concepts of location or dimension.

You still do not distinguish between "nothing+1" which is meaningless expression, and "0+1", which has a meaning.

You still simply do not distinguish between “zero dimensional” and “a dimension”

Oh and “no dimension” is not “nothing” it is simply a lack of any dimensions or “zero dimensional”.

Pay attention that you are simply talking about two rays, so one ray is enough to express the notion.

Pay attention, were one “enough to express the notion” I would not have been “talking about two rays”.

A line with a single point along it, does not mean that we necessarily have two opposite rays.

Are you saying it can be considered as “two opposite rays”?

A line with a single point along it is also a non-composed and non-local object that shares NXOR does not share the exact location of that point (which is a non-composed local object).

“also a non-composed”? So you’re just not sure whether you want your “line” to be composed or “non-composed in any given consideration?

Again “shares NXOR does not share the exact location of that point” is a contradiction, while ‘shares XOR does not share the exact location of that point’ is a tautology.

The Man, you simply can't get the notion that the building-blocks of some composition, are non-composed under the composed result.

Doron you simply can’t get that your “building-blocks” are just contrivances of yours to build your fantasies. Again if you what to consider something as “non-composed” that is up to you, it restricts no one else.

You get things only in one level and therefore you can't distinguish between the non-composed property of the building-blocks level, and the composed result of their linkage, where the linkage is the signature of the un-manifested core among the composed and the non-composed, which are vanished into and derive from the un-manifested, as represented by the following diagram:
[qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4079/4748174621_de8c1f73f9.jpg[/qimg]

Again you get things only at the level of your fantasies as a result of your deliberate “non-composed” limitation at your imagined “building-blocks level”. Even your “un-manifested core” is a just another of the manifestations of your imagination, so it is certainly not “un-manifested” to you, though evidently you would prefer that is was.

 

[epix]

0 dimensional object is an object that has an exact location, 1 dimensional object is an object that does not have an exact location as 0 dimensional object has, and "No dimension" can't be expressed in terms of location at all, whether it is exact (0 dimension) or not (1 dimension).

That's a strongly counterintuitive notion, coz zero-dimensional objects create one-dimensional objects. If you cannot locate the former, you can't create the latter. A point is an example of a zero-dimensional object. Through an induction, you can create higher-dimensional objects:

"By dragging a 0-dimensional object in some direction, one obtains a 1-dimensional object. By dragging a 1-dimensional object in a new direction, one obtains a 2-dimensional object. In general one obtains an n+1-dimensional object by dragging an n dimensional object in a new direction."

 

[epix]

That's a strongly counterintuitive notion, coz zero-dimensional objects create one-dimensional objects. If you cannot locate the former, you can't create the latter.

 

[doronshadmi]

Actually I used about 17 words other then "includes" none of which were the word “just”. So please cut off your own nonsense, you simply wanted it to be, and wrongly put it yourself as, “just includes” even though I clearly did not write “just includes”.

I wrote

(and not just included, as you wrongly put it)

As can clearly be seen, I did not write a quote of what you wrote, but simply said that you used just the term "includes", as the only relation among a point and a line, so save your energy.

An exact location where and in what coordinate system? Locations are aspects of coordinate systems not dimensional objects. If a point is the entire space being considered there are no locations as it has no dimensions.

An exact location where and in what coordinate system?

You still do not get that a point and a line are related w.r.t each other, without being components of each other.

As a one dimensionl object has only well, one dimension it is exactly a point in all orthogonal dimensions

So now a one dimensional object is included in a point by your "all orthogonal dimensions". Ho no wait, you used the concept of multitude in your "all orthogonal dimensions", so you deal with a collection of dimensions, where each one of them has 0 dimension or 1 dimension.

In other words, you still do not understand the relation of a non-composed 0 dimensional object and a non-composed 1 dimensional object w.r.t each other, without being components of each other.

Sure it can, no dimensions of your considered space means no locations in your considered space.

In that case say bye bye to the concept of Location, whether it is exact (local) or not (non-local).

So you still just don’t understand the concepts of location or dimension.

Clearly you are the one.

You still simply do not distinguish between “zero dimensional” and “a dimension”

No The Man, “zero dimensional” is a particular case of "dimension", where "No dimension" is the absence of that concept.

Oh and “no dimension” is not “nothing” it is simply a lack of any dimensions or “zero dimensional”.

"a lack of any dimensions" is the absence of that concept, where "0 dimension" is not the absence of that concept.

“also a non-composed”? So you’re just not sure whether you want your “line” to be composed or “non-composed in any given consideration?

Again, the non-composed building-blocks of a composed result, do not losing their properties w.r.t each other.

Again “shares NXOR does not share the exact location of that point” is a contradiction, while ‘shares XOR does not share the exact location of that point’ is a tautology.

Only by a person that can't grasp the notion of non-local and non-composed element in addition to local and non-composed element.

Even your “un-manifested core” is a just another of the manifestations of your imagination,

A typical reply of a person that does not distinguish between X and X representation.

 

[doronshadmi]

"By dragging a 0-dimensional object in some direction ...

It is possible only if 1-dimension already exists, otherwise 0-dimensional object can't be dragged, because there is no direction.

 

[doronshadmi]

you get things only at the level of your fantasies

Nope.

For example: some natural law is non-local w.r.t any given space-time zones of several laboratories that discover it by well established scientific experiments.

Nevertheless the discovered natural law and the space-time zones of several laboratories that discover it, are vanished within a black-hole.

The big-bang is actually a white bulge, where the natural law and the given space-time zones of several laboratories that discover it, are derive from.

 

[The Man]

I wrote

I know exactly what you wrote as well as what I wrote and how you, apparently deliberately, misrepresented what I wrote.

As can clearly be seen, I did not write a quote of what you wrote, but simply said that you used just the term "includes", as the only relation among a point and a line, so save your energy.

No, I did not use “just the term "includes", as the only relation among a point and a line” that is simply your own misinterpretation. I specifically asked about how your “point” “includes” your “lines”, it is only in your imagination that such a question infers it “as the only relation among a point and a line”. So stop wasting everyone’s time with your, again apparently deliberate, misinterpretations.

You still do not get that a point and a line are related w.r.t each other, without being components of each other.

You still don’t get that “w.r.t” is just your unspecified “relation”.

So now a one dimensional object is included in a point by your "all orthogonal dimensions".

I certainly made no reference to “a one dimensional object” being “included” in any point; again stop simply trying to posit your own failed reasoning onto others. As those orthogonal dimensions do not include the dimension of the expanse of the line they can not include the line, but they certainly can include (or share if you prefer) some point in common with the line. This seems to be your basic point (pun intended) of confusion. That dimensional objects that share some point somehow infers to you that such a point can “include” those dimensional objects. Perhaps it is that you are confusing shared with included? Two lines can share a point, meaning both lines include or transverse that point. Just as two points can share a line, meaning that line includes or transverse both of those points. In fact as two points define a line segment they both share (by defining) that line segment. However a point can not included a line again specifically due to the point lacking dimension. To be more specific what the two lines share is some element, the point, and what the two points share is some particular grouping (or membership) as elements of some line of line segment. So although related they are specificaly different relations, two groups sharing some element(s) and two elements that are members of (or share) some group. Again we could say that a set of lines that transverse a given point includes some given line, but that point still does not and can not include that line.

Ho no wait, you used the concept of multitude in your "all orthogonal dimensions", so you deal with a collection of dimensions, where each one of them has 0 dimension or 1 dimension.

Doron each one of them is a dimension, so being a dimension and having “0 dimension” is just your usual self –contradictory nonsense. Again stop simply trying to posit your own failed reasoning onto others.

In other words, you still do not understand the relation of a non-composed 0 dimensional object and a non-composed 1 dimensional object w.r.t each other, without being components of each other.

Again those are just your fantasies based on your own self imposed “non-composed” restriction and unspecific “w.r.t.” “relation”.

In that case say bye bye to the concept of Location, whether it is exact (local) or not (non-local).

As difficult as this may be for you to understand, concepts often include limitations on their applicability or “in other words” specify where they do not apply or aspects of them do not apply. This does not mean the concept goes, as you put it, “bye bye”, but is simply inapplicable in those considerations and in fact the concept itself is still required as it is what establishes that specific inapplicability under those conditions.

Clearly you are the one.

The evidence above refutes your assertion.

No The Man, “zero dimensional” is a particular case of "dimension", where "No dimension" is the absence of that concept.

"a lack of any dimensions" is the absence of that concept, where "0 dimension" is not the absence of that concept.

No, a lack of any dimension is not “absence of that concept”, that would specifically be a lack of any concept of dimension. Again your simple lack of specificity could very well be as a result of you lacking any concept of specificity or simply your inability to apply that concept under certain conditions, evidently of your own deliberate making. Still your simple or even preferred lack of specificity (for what ever reason) does not imbue anyone else with that same lacking.

Again, the non-composed building-blocks of a composed result, do not losing their properties w.r.t each other.

Again that “non-composed” aspect of your “building-blocks” is simply your own self imposed limitation.

Only by a person that can't grasp the notion of non-local and non-composed element in addition to local and non-composed element.

Again this “non-composed” restriction of yours is simply of your own making and as result you are evidently unable to apply concepts (like sharing) consistently. Just about everyone here (from what I can tell), other than you, grasps that notion and its injunction, which again enjoins only you (though you still don’t seem to realize it).

A typical reply of a person that does not distinguish between X and X representation.

A typical nonsense assertion of a person so desperately seeking to manifest their own unspecific fantasies.