Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

In the above post you claim The Man said, "the negation of 0 is 0" without linking to the original message. Please provide proof that The Man said it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5414957&postcount=7495

As already shown the negation of 0 is 0. “~” is a mutually dependent relation, your “comparison (notated by -->)” is superfluous.

In other words, The Man's negation is the particular case of opposites, and in the case of 0, this particular case does not hold.

Again.

If the entire universe is 0 , then ~0 is what is between {}.

If 0 is one of the given things of a given universe, then ~0 is "anything but" 0.

In both cases the output is different than the input.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5398677&postcount=7392

You do understand that the negation of nothing or zero value is still zero value or nothing, quite distinct from zero value not being equal to some value, don’t you? The primary reason is that the sum of some value with it’s negation always equals zero or nothing.

The Man simply can't distinguish between ~ and - , where ~X is necessarily different than X and -X is not necessarily different than X.

Given X, ~X is "necessarily different than X".

Given X, -X is ~"necessarily different than X".

For example:

-Nothing ---> Nothing

-0 --> 0

~Nothing ---> Somthing

~0 ---> for example, 1 or what is between {}

In both cases ---> is used as a comparison between the input and the output.

EDIT:

Another example:

X = "necessarily different"

Given "necessarily different", ~"necessarily different" is "necessarily different than necessarily different".

Given "necessarily different", -"necessarily different" is ~"necessarily different than necessarily different".

 

[doronshadmi]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6293135#post6293135
- or -
Jehovah

Your choice.

So you are Little 10 Toes or Jehovah.

Who is Jehovah?

 

[sympathic]

So you are Little 10 Toes or Jehovah.

Who is Jehovah?

Who (or what) is asking?

 

[Little 10 Toes]

So you are Little 10 Toes or Jehovah.

Who is Jehovah?

How about you crack open the Bible or Torah every once and a while.

אהיה אשר אהיה (Hebrew text) Ex. 3:14

Tenth time asking: Who/What is the measurer, your mom or the scale?
Fifth time asking: Why does it matter who asks the question?

 

[doronshadmi]

How about you crack open the Bible or Torah every once and a while.

אהיה אשר אהיה (Hebrew text) Ex. 3:14

Tenth time asking: Who/What is the measurer, your mom or the scale?
Fifth time asking: Why does it matter who asks the question?

According to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6293157&postcount=11414 and according the fact that you are not אהיה אשר אהיה , I'll ask again:

Who is "Little 10 Toes" which is also "I"?

 

[Little 10 Toes]

According to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6293157&postcount=11414 and according the fact that you are not אהיה אשר אהיה , I'll ask again:

Who is Little 10 Toes or I?

Please provide proof that I am not Jehovah. Your claim, your proof.

11th time: Who/What is the measurer, your mom or the scale?
6th time: Why does it matter who asks the question?

Edit: Why do you keep asking the same question about me?

 

[doronshadmi]

Please provide proof that I am not Jehovah. Your claim, your proof.

11th time: Who/What is the measurer, your mom or the scale?
6th time: Why does it matter who asks the question?

Edit: Why do you keep asking the same question about me?

If you are Jehovah then you are able to answer to this question, without any tools like books etc...

So who is Jehovah?

 

[Little 10 Toes]

If you are Jehovahm the you are able to answer to this question, without any tools like books etc...

So who is Jehovah?

Red herring question and side topic.

12th time: Who/what is the measurer, your mom or the scale?
7th time: Why does it matter who asks the question?
1st time: What is your point?

 

[doronshadmi]

Red herring question and side topic.

12th time: Who/what is the measurer, your mom or the scale?
7th time: Why does it matter who asks the question?
1st time: What is your point?

Why it is a Red herring question?

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Why it is a Red herring question?

I have asked, for the 13th time now, who/what is the measurer, your mom or the scale. You have gone off on a separate topic on asking me who I am. You are ignoring the original question.

13th time: Who/what is the measurer, your mom or the scale?
8th time: Why does it matter who asks the question?
2nd time: What is your point?

 

[doronshadmi]

I have asked, for the 13th time now, who/what is the measurer, your mom or the scale. You have gone off on a separate topic on asking me who I am. You are ignoring the original question.

13th time: Who/what is the measurer, your mom or the scale?
8th time: Why does it matter who asks the question?
2nd time: What is your point?

In order to really understand my answers to your questions, you first must know the minimal terms that are needed for the existence of definitions or measurements.

Please prove that nor you neither I (or my mom) are one of the must have terms.

Edit:

As a bout the scale, it is an agent of my mom, which helps her to do the measurment.

 

[doronshadmi]

Wow!



This is very interesting.

Of course I am not a scientist in the fields of numbers, so I cannot say what I saw in the content of the first link is right with the present models of our age.

My impression is really of a new model.

I sense that you are trying to develop a different concept to use numbers.

Strange to say, but that picture of the homo sapiens with where the monkey at right side saying "Fellows, when the door of the bank are open?" made me think in a whole new model of how to use numbers.

Damn banks! They machines control every digit in the large scale system which was design to limit our individual financial power.

This binary system of debit and credit will not last forever... The comprehension of numbers must change, to a more complex level.

I understand, Doron, that your are proposing a new model to interpret the use of the numbers in the most important aspects of our contemporary (or perhaps future) demands.

I cannot just understand very well the mathematics concepts. I am better with words.

So I like the way you propose those changes together with ethics. This old knowledge from the ancient Greeks is not in use as should be.

I will give a time to digest the content and maker further comments.

In mean time, I wish good will in your quest.

Please look also at http://scireprints.lu.lv/121/1/IJPAM-Volume-49.pdf .

 

[epix]

How about you crack open the Bible or Torah every once and a while.

אהיה אשר אהיה (Hebrew text) Ex. 3:14

The Greek text makes the word considerably shorter: Pi.

did you ask me who I am
in the wee hour of 3 am?
3 is round and starts odd primes
and I shall answer 14 times

I abhor your interference
for my real name is Circumference
3 is prime and also odd
on your knees, for I'm your god

 

[The Man]

It has long been understood that you and Traditional Math certainly don’t like talking about the existence of the universe that enables definitions.

Your understanding and direct perception has failed you again.

The principle of extension is fundamental to any given concept, for example, the concept of Set:

No Doron, it is just “fundamental” to the concept of, well, extension. If you need to ‘extend’ your “given concept” then you should have “given” a more adequate concept to start with.

This concept extends members or their absence, or in other words, it is not identical with members or their absence.

In other words, nonsense or to be more specific ‘extended’ nonsense.

This notion is expressed by the outer "{" "}" whether the this concept has or does not have members.

Furthermore, Russell's paradox does not hold, because there is a difference between a concept as a member and a concept as an extension which is beyond the existence or absence of members.

Again just your “extension” of your own nonsense as Russell's paradox is specifically about a set being a member of it self.

You do understand that since D() extends 0(), 1(), 2() ... etc., then it is used as their common concept (or in your language: "a “dimensional space”" (for example 0(), 1(), 2(), ... etc.) "is based on the concept of, well, dimension," ( it is based on D() ).

You do not understand that the concept of dimension does not require your fantasy “extension”.

 

[The Man]

If the entire universe is 0 , the negation of 0 is what is between {}.

If 0 is one of the given things of a given universe, then ~0 is "anything but" 0.

In both cases the output is different than the input.

Your notion of Negation is limited to the concept of opposites.

How about some context Doron? That would be helpful if you’re replying to post from almost a year ago.

 

[The Man]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5414957&postcount=7495

In other words, The Man's negation is the particular case of opposites, and in the case of 0, this particular case does not hold.

No Doron, a “particular case of opposites” would be binary and in that case the negation of 0 is 1. We went over all of this about a year ago.

Thanks at least for linking the post.

Again.

If the entire universe is 0 , then ~0 is what is between {}.

If 0 is one of the given things of a given universe, then ~0 is "anything but" 0.

In both cases the output is different than the input.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5398677&postcount=7392

Once again it is “everything but” not “anything but”.

The Man simply can't distinguish between ~ and - , where ~X is necessarily different than X and -X is not necessarily different than X.

Doron we have been over this before negation (-) is the exclusion of that “X” giving the complementation (~) of “everything but” X. This “necessarily different” and “not necessarily different” nonsense is just yours, as usual.

Given X, ~X is "necessarily different than X".

Given X, -X is ~"necessarily different than X".

For example:

-Nothing ---> Nothing

-0 --> 0

~Nothing ---> Somthing

~0 ---> for example, 1 or what is between {}

In both cases ---> is used as a comparison between the input and the output.

EDIT:

Another example:

X = "necessarily different"

Given "necessarily different", ~"necessarily different" is "necessarily different than necessarily different".

So it’s “not necessarily different”.

Given "necessarily different", -"necessarily different" is ~"necessarily different than necessarily different".

Nope, once again it is “not necessarily different” which is “necessarily different" than “necessarily different”. The giveaway (in case you missed it) is the “not”.


In your stroll down memory lane of things we went over a year ago I suggest that you read all the posts and see how the story turns out.

 

[doronshadmi]

The men, you have missed

X = "necessarily different"

Given "necessarily different", ~"necessarily different" is "necessarily different than necessarily different".

Given "necessarily different", -"necessarily different" is ~"necessarily different than necessarily different".

Look:

So it’s “not necessarily different”.

No, "necessarily different" and ~"necessarily different" are "necessarily different".

Nope, once again it is “not necessarily different”

No, "necessarily different" and -"necessarily different" are ~"necessarily different".

Once again it is “everything but” not “anything but”.

No, “everything but” holds only in the case of finite amount, where “anything but” holds in both finite and infinite amounts. Play the game at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6292968&postcount=11405 to get this notion.

 

[doronshadmi]

If you need to ‘extend’ your “given concept” then you should have “given” a more adequate concept to start with.

No, it is a built-in property, for example:

The existence of the concept of Set extends the existence of members, and this notion is notated by the outer "{""}", whether a given set is empty or not.

You do not understand that the concept of dimension does not require your fantasy “extension”.

Do you understand that D() does not require 0(), 1(), 3() ... etc., exactly as {} does not require members?

 

[doronshadmi]

Russell's paradox is specifically about a set being a member of it self.

Russell's paradox is a direct result of the misunderstanding of the difference between a given concept and the members of that concept (see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6293098&postcount=11410).

For example, the existence of the concept of Ideas I() extends the existence of any member of this concept, including I(I()).

So the member of I(I()) is not identical to the concept of Ideas I().

By this real non-naïve understanding of the concept of Set, There is no such a thing like a member of given set, which is identical to that set.

The Man, your reasoning does not hold water, and in the case of the concept of Dimension it can't be used to distinguish
between the absence of D(), and 0().

 

[epix]

The challenge was, is, and always will be to survive, and develop Complexity.

Doron! Hey, what a surprise! Come on in . . .
Want something to drink? Goat milk? I'll get you some. Have a seat.

OOOOOOOUCH!!!

Be aware of mischievous demon Ekklund.