Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

The greatest and defining difference between Organic Mathematics and contemporary mathematics is that the former is purely intuitive and the latter is purely analytic.

Look, for example, at Relative Set Theory http://maths.york.ac.uk/www/sites/default/files/Hrbacek-slides.pdf .

This approach uses also different levels of existence, but it still misses the fact that a given level can't completely be defined by some previous level, because it does not understand Emptiness (that has no predecessor) and Fullness (that has no successor).

Any given existing thing between these totalities has predecessor AND successor, such that there are strict ( for example: PI() ) or non-strict ( for example: 3.14…[base 10]() ) things that appear as non-complex ( for example: ∞( PI() , 3.14…[base 10]() ) ) or complex ( for example: ∞( PI(3.14…[base 10]()) ) ) forms.

OM is the linkage between Intuition and Analysis, where Traditional Math is mostly Analysis.

 

[The Man]

Unless it is clearly written that the considered member is smaller than any arbitrary number of (0,1], where 1 is one of these arbitrary numbers, and you simply can't get it.

Doron, your nonsense assertions don’t help you, Please let us know when you actually find your “considered member” that is “smaller than any arbitrary number” of the interval. Much like your location on a line that can not be covered by points once you identify a location you show that it is and can be covered by a point. In fact your own assertions indicate that a location must be a point. Once you indentify your “considered member” you’ll also indentify an infinite number of members of that interval that it is larger than.

 

[epix]

What is called traditional calculus, is simply a system that uses techniques which avoid non-strict results.

Calculus doesn't avoid handling values that approach zero -- it just handles them properly. You are under a wrong impression that in

a = [lim n → ∞] (1 + 1/n)ⁿ
the term 1/n gets simply canceled, coz it's "infinitely small" with the result being

a = [lim n → ∞] (1 + 1/n)ⁿ = (1 + 1/n)ⁿ = 1ⁿ = 1

Such "avoidance" is not possible, coz you have a number that approaches infinity in the exponent and that means the infinitely small value added to 1 creates a sum that will infinitely multiply itself. That's why you just can't cancel anything that appears to be "too small," and therefore your are heading in this particular case for a solution of

a = (1 + 1/n) ∙ (1 + 1/n) ∙ (1 + 1/n) ∙ (1 + 1/n) ∙ ...

You just jump into any conclusion, for you know that Fullness and Emptiness shall lift you up in their hands, so that you shall not strike your foot against a stone. (It's not just "Philosophy"; its "Religion & Philosophy".)

Feed it to OM and let's see what kind of result that method of yours comes up with. Or is it true that calculus handles problems, which OM doesn't have the slightest idea that they could exist?

 

[epix]

Look, for example, at Relative Set Theory http://maths.york.ac.uk/www/sites/default/files/Hrbacek-slides.pdf .

This approach uses also different levels of existence, but it still misses the fact that a given level can't completely be defined by some previous level, because it does not understand Emptiness (that has no predecessor) and Fullness (that has no successor).

The alleged shortcomings don't seem to have any impact on the ability to find the derivative of a function, for example. Why don't you identify a particular problem that only OM can deal with? "Emptiness" and "Fullness" never appear other than names -- they can't be spotted in the graph, in algebraic terms, equations... They only contribute to the solution of

(O - - M - - -) = (O l y M p u s)

 

[doronshadmi]

In fact your own assertions indicate that a location must be a point.

I see that your 0()-only reasoning prevents from you to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6472238&postcount=12096.

 

[doronshadmi]

Why don't you identify a particular problem that only OM can deal with?

I see that your conservative view of "What is the mathematical science?" prevents from you to grasp OM's novel approach about Logic\Ethics linkage, and its connection the Complexity in evolutionary scale, as expressed by:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE

You also ignore OM's novel contribution to Zeno's Achilles\Tortoise Race:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21967511/...considerations-of-Some-Mathematical-Paradigms.

You also ignore OM's Non-locality\Locality novel approach:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18453171/International-Journal-of-Pure-and-Applied-Mathematics-Volume-49

You are aslo ignore OM's novel contribution for the understanding of the common source of both Intuition and Analysis:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17039028/OMDP

You also ignore OM's novel contribution to Hilbert's 6th problem:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT


In other words epix, you simply have no case.

 

[zooterkin]

I see that your 0()-only reasoning prevents from you to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6472238&postcount=12096.

No.

 

[doronshadmi]

No.

Yes.

 

[doronshadmi]

The alleged shortcomings don't seem to have any impact on the ability to find the derivative of a function, for example. Why don't you identify a particular problem that only OM can deal with? "Emptiness" and "Fullness" never appear other than names -- they can't be spotted in the graph, in algebraic terms, equations... They only contribute to the solution of

(O - - M - - -) = (O l y M p u s)

Why do you ignore the rest of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6474140&postcount=12101 ?

 

[jsfisher]

the greatest and defining difference between organic mathematics and contemporary mathematics is that the former is purely counter-intuitive and the latter is purely analytic.

fify.

 

[epix]

Any given existing thing between these totalities has predecessor AND successor, such that there are strict ( for example: PI() ) or non-strict ( for example: 3.14…[base 10]() ) things that appear as non-complex ( for example: ∞( PI() , 3.14…[base 10]() ) ) or complex ( for example: ∞( PI(3.14…[base 10]()) ) ) forms.

You should elaborate further to highlight the difference between the complex and non-complex case.


non-complex: ∞( PI() , 3.14…[base 10]() )

complex: ∞( PI(3.14…[base 10]()) )

The only discernible difference is the placement of the parenthesis and that's not enough to decode the essence between both opposites non-complex and complex besides the non-complex is to together() as complex is to apart( ).

You decided on using the parenthesis as a part of your symbolic syntax, but you use them often as delimiters in the text, and so that makes is it harder to follow. They say that Serpent had no successor, but I strongly disagree . . .

 

[The Man]

I see that your 0()-only reasoning prevents from you to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6472238&postcount=12096.

Again, stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.


I see you still have not answered this question…

Location a long 1() is exactly 0().

"≠" still isn't a location.

Are you claiming that any location “a long 1() is exactly” a point?

Nor have you identified any location(s) on a line that is not and can not be covered by points.

 

[doronshadmi]

The only discernible difference is the placement of the parenthesis

No, it is about (nested AND complex forms) OR (non-nested AND non-complex forms), where the considered things are strict ( for example: PI() ) or non-strict ( for example: 3.14...[base 10]() ).

According OM, 3.14...[base 10](PI()) is false expression, where PI(3.14...[base 10]()) is true expression.

 

[doronshadmi]

Are you claiming that any location “a long 1() is exactly” a point?

Yes, any given exact location along 1() is 0().

Nor have you identified any location(s) on a line that is not and can not be covered by points.

Still your 0()-only reasoning can comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6472238&postcount=12096.

You are a total 0()-loss and there is no use to continue the dialog with you on this interesting subject.

 

[zooterkin]

Yes, any given exact location along 1() is 0().

Right, so there is no location on the line where there is not a point?

 

[doronshadmi]

fify.

Traditional Math actually claims that 1-dim space is completely covered by 0-dim elements , which is equivalent to the claim that variable x ( where x is any arbitrary distinct 0-dim element of [0,1] ) is both ≤ 1 OR both ≥ 0.

So sell your counter-intuitive fantasy in never never land.

 

[doronshadmi]

Right, so there is no location on the line where there is not a point?

There is no exact location on a line where there is no point, and ≠ is such non-exact location on a line, which exists between any given arbitrary pair of distinct exact locations (arbitrary pair of distinct points).

 

[epix]

No, it is about (nested AND complex forms) OR (non-nested AND non-complex forms), where the considered things are strict ( for example: PI() ) or non-strict ( for example: 3.14...[base 10]() ).

According OM, 3.14...[base 10](PI()) is false expression, where PI(3.14...[base 10]()) is true expression.

So if I'm not sure, I can use the identity 1pi(radian) = 180(degree) to avoid the aproximate form pi = 3.14..., right?

 

[doronshadmi]

So if I'm not sure, I can use the identity 1pi(radian) = 180(degree) to avoid the aproximate form pi = 3.14..., right?

If you get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6470162&postcount=12091 you allready know the answer.

 

[epix]

There is no exact location on a line where there is no point, and ≠ is such non-exact location on a line, which exists between any given arbitrary pair of distinct exact locations (arbitrary pair of distinct points).

That's not true. The function f(x) = (x² - 4)/(x - 2) is not defined for x = 2, so you can't see the point drawn at that exact location.

The OM seems to be a very different computational method. Some drawings would be helpful . . .