Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

[qimg]http://www.glogster.com/media/4/28/10/84/28108414.gif[/qimg]

See the colored areas? These are 2-dim objects.

[qimg]http://www.crctlessons.com/images/pythagorean-theorem-formula.jpg[/qimg]

And so is the a b c triangle where 0-dim,1-dim and 2-dim are in co-exitence, so?

Please read http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7239422&postcount=15553 .

 

[doronshadmi]

Repeatedly posting links to some of your silliest posts doesn't challenge in any way the substance of my post: You mis-assume what I know and understand of your fantastical OM. You fail to demonstrate any relevance for your fantastical OM.

No detailed reply.

 

[doronshadmi]

Since you can't extend 0-dim object into 1-dim object, you can't increase the magnitude of a 1-dim object.

Wrong.

There is no homeomorphism between 0-dim and 1-dim.

You still do not comprehend the co-existence of different dimensions.

Actually you can get it by using pseudo metric space, such that dimension is sameness that has different values ( please see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7239422&postcount=15553 ).

 

[zooterkin]

No detailed reply.

A self-descriptive post; how very circular.

 

[zooterkin]

I can develop the mathematical science, such that the term "mathematical branches" gets its actual meaning.

In can be achieved only of both cross-contexts reasoning AND context-dependent reasoning are used.

My apologies for being slightly ambiguous with my question.

Please show a real result from OM, not what you think you can do with it.

 

[doronshadmi]

My apologies for being slightly ambiguous with my question.

Please show a real result from OM, not what you think you can do with it.

What do you mean by "real result"?

EDIT:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7239690&postcount=15563 (please use the link in it) is a real result that fundamentally develops pseudo metric space beyond its current state of contradiction (which according to it points are indistinguishable AND distinct).

 

[laca]

What do you mean by "real result"?

Of course you would be having trouble with the meaning of "real result"...

 

[The Man]

In both cases you have at least two dimensional spaces, where the smaller dimension is local w.r.t the greater dimension and the greater dimension is non-local w.r.t to the smaller dimension.

So now you just don’t know how many “dim“s your "stretched 0-dim" or "totally reduced 1-dim" have in spite of your previous claim?

There is no more then one element if there is no co-existence between at least two different dimensional spaces.

Nope, you’ve still got two ‘elements’, you’re just claiming that they don’t ‘co-exist’

You still do not comprehend the result of actuality of nothing between A and B.

Evidently that is just you (please see below).

Yes I know, it is actually a pink snail.

Why how purty for you.

What I actually say is that there is a domain starting with 0 and approaching infinity, where there are x and y variables in that domain, such that x<y.

That doesn’t define your “x” or your “y” as approaching infinity, just your “domain”.

x<y are not limited to the real-line so your reply has nothing to do with the fact that x<y and y-dimensional space exists between x-dimensional elements, where x and y approaching infinity.

It still shows your claim to be demonstrably and trivially false.

In that case "dimension has nothing to do with points", which is a false proposition based on your "reasoning".

No, your assertion above is indeed false, but it is just your assertion and your purported "reasoning".

Only if one can't generalize what he\she reads.

Again “generalize” doesn’t mean you conflating simply everything you would like to.

Once again, you demonstrate your inability the understand the proposition "different version".

Once again, you demonstrate your inability to understand and deliberate ignorance of the details of “Hilbert's Hotel”

If something is considered as the negation of nothing, then without the actuality of nothing, something can't be defined.

Sure you can, once you define something you also define its negation. Neither is actually defined at first but once you define one the other is actually defined as its negation.

Be aware that actual and existence are not synonyms.

Be aware that no one has claimed they are “synonyms” (one is an adjective and the other a noun), but perhaps you should read the actual definition again.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/actual

And this…

http://thesaurus.com/browse/actual

Main Entry: actual
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: existing at the present time
Synonyms: current, exact, existent, extant, live, living, original, prevailing Antonyms: hypothetical, imaginary, nominal, past, reputed, theoretical, unreal

“Actual” and “existent” are synonyms (both are adjectives).

You still do not get the actuality of nothing, and as a result you can't comprehend the difference of the following:

1) nothing between A and B, is resulted by at most one thing.

2) something between A and B, is resulted by at least two things.

You still don’t understand that just stringing words together does not give your assertions any meaning.

Part of your problem is that I think you are trying to use two different definitions for the word between.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/between

between (bɪˈtwiːn)
— prep
1. at a point or in a region intermediate to two other points in space, times, degrees, etc
2. in combination; together: between them, they saved enough money to buy a car
3. confined or restricted to: between you and me
4. indicating a reciprocal relation or comparison: an argument between a man and his wife
5. indicating two or more alternatives: a choice between going now and staying all night

This is what is know as the equivocation fallacy.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation_fallacy

Basically setting two different definitions of a word as equivalent simply because they are used for the same word. That a word can have more than one meaning makes those meanings related but it does not make them equivalent.

 

[doronshadmi]

The first goal of Organic Mathematics (OM) is to develop the awareness of the mathematician to directly precept Mathematics as a one organism, such that all of its possible, so called, branches are consistent with each other.

Currently each branch is developed by using only context-dependent reasoning, which is mostly based on the auditory/verbal mathematician's mind skills.

Organic Mathematics current goal is to develop the mathematician's minds, such that he\she will be able to develop mathematics that also uses cross-contexts reasoning and visual/spatial skills.

By practically using this approach, the mathematician's mind will be developed as a result of the combined reasoning and mind's skills, which in turn will develop deeper (more profound) mathematics that is based on cybernetic principles between the developed and the developer.

One of the first steps for the development of this cybernetic ability is to develop the mathematician's self awareness in the most general sense, which is not limited to any particular mind's skills, where this approach actually reinforces the needed mind's balance, which enables it to use its visual/spatial and Auditory/verbal skills, in order to deal with both cross-contexts and context-dependent reasoning under a one cybernetic and organic realm.

In order to really achieve the mentioned goal, the mathematician's mind has to be able to be aware of finer levels of its thinking process until it is directly aware of the finest level of itself, which is naturally free of any process exactly because it is the silent source of any possible process.

The thinking process has many aspects that are expressed and known as reasoning, intuition, emotion, sensual experience etc … , so the first goal of Organic Mathematics is to lead the mathematician's mind beyond these expressions in order to directly aware of their common source, which is the finest level of the mind's activity that is beyond any activity and it is naturally the source of any possible activity.

The practical technique of such development is known as meditation, which enables one's mind to systematically be aware of finer levels of his\her thinking process until he\she directly aware of the finest level of awareness, which is naturally free of any thinking process.

When one's mind learns to express itself by not losing its self awareness (which is actually the finest level of awareness that is naturally beyond any subjective experience) then and only then the real development of the mathematical science air its view as a one organic realm, which is not limited anymore only to context-dependent reasoning that is mostly based on auditory/verbal skills, and it is actually a reflection of the subjective level of the thinking process (only the finest level of the mind's activity that is beyond any activity, is the actual non-subjective state of mind).

 

[doronshadmi]

So now you just don’t know how many “dim“s your "stretched 0-dim" or "totally reduced 1-dim" have in spite of your previous claim?

Nope, you’ve still got two ‘elements’, you’re just claiming that they don’t ‘co-exist’

Sure you can, once you define something you also define its negation. Neither is actually defined at first but once you define one the other is actually defined as its negation.

Here is an example of a mind (known by the name "The Man") that is aware of itself only at the level of the thinking process. As a result he does not aware of the silent level of his awareness, which is the non-subjective state of his particular (and therefore subjective) thinking process.

In this case he does not aware of his non-subjective level that enables the co-existence of different and maybe opposite aspects, such that they actually complement each other.

That doesn’t define your “x” or your “y” as approaching infinity, just your “domain”.

Here his mind, which is trapped only at the level of thinking process can't be aware of the invariant relation of < between x and y, such that there are always at least two dimensional spaces x and y, where x is local w.r.t y and y is non-local w.r.t x.

Once again, you demonstrate your inability to understand and deliberate ignorance of the details of “Hilbert's Hotel”

Here The Man's trapped mind on the subjective level can't comprehend a variation of “Hilbert's Hotel”, which is different than the original “Hilbert's Hotel”.

Be aware that no one has claimed they are “synonyms” (one is an adjective and the other a noun), but perhaps you should read the actual definition again.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/actual

And this…

http://thesaurus.com/browse/actual



“Actual” and “existent” are synonyms (both are adjectives).

Thank you for the correction about adjective and noun, it has to be actuality and existence.

But it does not matter because the subjective mind of The Man, uses notions of other subjective minds, in order to support his subjective mind.

As a result he does not understand that actuality and existence are not synonyms even if they are both nouns.

You still don’t understand that just stringing words together does not give your assertions any meaning.

Part of your problem is that I think you are trying to use two different definitions for the word between.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/between




This is what is know as the equivocation fallacy.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation_fallacy

Basically setting two different definitions of a word as equivalent simply because they are used for the same word. That a word can have more than one meaning makes those meanings related but it does not make them equivalent.

Here the subjective mind of The Man fails to comprehend the different results of "nothing between" and "something between".

 

[epix]

And so is the a b c triangle where 0-dim,1-dim and 2-dim are in co-exitence, so?

Please read http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7239422&postcount=15553 .

So? Are you completely out of order to ask, after refusing to accept that there can be "co-existence" of 3-dim universe with local 2-dim viewing frame?

The only thing that cannot be transformed or modified is your rigidity. Benedict XVI seems to be a fast, flexible and open-minded thinker in comparison to you. That answers the question of OM application. You can't use it even as a religion.

 

[epix]

Part of your problem is that I think you are trying to use two different definitions for the word between.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/between

This is what is know as the equivocation fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation_fallacy

Basically setting two different definitions of a word as equivalent simply because they are used for the same word. That a word can have more than one meaning makes those meanings related but it does not make them equivalent.

You know, this could be a problem, coz languages have not developed with respect to describing highly abstract issues of special relationships. So I was thinking how to avoid Equivocation . . .

E is to Equivocation as ? is to the opposite of Equivocation.

It occurred to me that the symbol expressing the opposite of equivocation could be

Then there is other problem called Ambiguity. So I was thinking how to avoid Ambiguity . . .

A is to Ambiguity as ? is to the opposite of Ambiguity.

It occurred to me that the symbol expressing the opposite of ambiguity could be

And so I got inspired and developed a special language, which is fallacy-proof. Here is an example.

Unfortunately, the language became very unpopular with the OM mathematicians who continue to use the expressive means inherited from the cook-to-cook communication.

 

[doronshadmi]

So? Are you completely out of order to ask, after refusing to accept that there can be "co-existence" of 3-dim universe with local 2-dim viewing frame?

The only thing that cannot be transformed or modified is your rigidity. Benedict XVI seems to be a fast, flexible and open-minded thinker in comparison to you. That answers the question of OM application. You can't use it even as a religion.

In other words epix, you can't comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7239422&postcount=15553 exactly because being flexible for you is the freedom to cut one of your legs in order to develop the framework of movement, which is based on jumping on one leg.

Enjoy your flexibility to do that.

 

[doronshadmi]

You know, this could be a problem, coz languages have not developed with respect to describing highly abstract issues of special relationships. So I was thinking how to avoid Equivocation . . .

E is to Equivocation as ? is to the opposite of Equivocation.

It occurred to me that the symbol expressing the opposite of equivocation could be

[qimg]http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/41700/41756/FC_Exists_41756_mth.gif[/qimg]

Then there is other problem called Ambiguity. So I was thinking how to avoid Ambiguity . . .

A is to Ambiguity as ? is to the opposite of Ambiguity.

It occurred to me that the symbol expressing the opposite of ambiguity could be

[qimg]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Y1sq15aWr_M/SrqN287brRI/AAAAAAAAAPQ/WEl6gOxuoW4/s200/universal-quantifier-for-all.png[/qimg]

And so I got inspired and developed a special language, which is fallacy-proof. Here is an example.

[qimg]http://homepage.mac.com/markcc/logic-equivs.gif[/qimg]

Unfortunately, the language became very unpopular with the OM mathematicians who continue to use the expressive means inherited from the cook-to-cook communication.

According to your provided example you are ignorant about the meaning of being Organic, where people do not harm other people exactly because they are percepting themselves and other people as organs of a one shared organism.

Actually your context-dependent mathematics [qimg]http://homepage.mac.com/markcc/logic-equivs.gif[/qimg] easily tuned to lead to the cook-to-cook non-communication. among people.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7241076&postcount=15569 is developed in order to reduce the amount of subjective noisy and violent minds like you.

Here is another example of your noisy and violent mind: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7182459&postcount=15406.

There is no wonder that such violent mind can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7184678&postcount=15421.

 

[doronshadmi]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7182684&postcount=15411 can be added to the previous post.

 

[doronshadmi]

Please carefully read M. F. ATIYAH's Concluding Remarks about THE UNITY OF MATHEMATICS ( http://www.ime.usp.br/~pleite/pub/artigos/atiyah/the-unity-of-mathematics.pdf ).

8. Concluding Remarks

The main theme of my lecture has been to illustrate the unity of mathematics by discussing a few examples that range from Number Theory through Algebra, Geometry, Topology and Analysis. This interaction is, in my view, not simply an occasional interesting accident, but rather it is of the essence of mathematics. Finding analogies between different phenomena and developing techniques to exploit these analogies is the basic mathematical approach to the physical world. It is therefore hardly surprising that it should also figure prominently internally within mathematics itself.

I feel that this needs to be emphasized because the axiomatic era has tended to divide mathematics into specialist branches, each restricted to developing the consequences of a given set of axioms. Now I am not entirely against the axiomatic approach so long as it is regarded as a convenient temporary device to concentrate the mind, but it should not be given too high a status.

A secondary theme implicit in my lecture has been the importance of simplicity in mathematics. The most useful piece of advice I would give to a mathematics student is always to suspect an impressive sounding Theorem if it does not have a special case which is both simple and non-trivial. I have tried to select examples which satisfy these conditions.

Both unity and simplicity are essential, since the aim of mathematics is to explain as much as possible in simple basic terms. Mathematics is still after all a human activity, not a computer programme, and if our accumulated experience is to be passed on from generation to generation we must continually strive to simplify and unify.

I wish to add that the Unity Of Mathematics can't be systematically achieved without the mathematician's awareness of the non-subjective level of the mind, which is the natural source of any possible expression that is itself beyond expression.

For further reading please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7241076&postcount=15569 .

 

[The Man]

Here is an example of a mind (known by the name "The Man") that is aware of itself only at the level of the thinking process. As a result he does not aware of the silent level of his awareness, which is the non-subjective state of his particular (and therefore subjective) thinking process.

In this case he does not aware of his non-subjective level that enables the co-existence of different and maybe opposite aspects, such that they actually complement each other.[/quote]

Here Doron, as usual, simply tries to claim objectivity for his " his particular (and therefore subjective) thinking process".

Here his mind, which is trapped only at the level of thinking process can't be aware of the invariant relation of < between x and y, such that there are always at least two dimensional spaces x and y, where x is local w.r.t y and y is non-local w.r.t x.

Nope, I'm quite aware of the "<" relation and that it has nothing to do with your " such that there are always at least two dimensional spaces x and y, where x is local w.r.t y and y is non-local w.r.t x." nonsense

Here The Man's trapped mind on the subjective level can't comprehend a variation of “Hilbert's Hotel”, which is different than the original “Hilbert's Hotel”.

Nope.

Thank you for the correction about adjective and noun, it has to be actuality and existence.

No problem.

But it does not matter because the subjective mind of The Man, uses notions of other subjective minds, in order to support his subjective mind.

As a result he does not understand that actuality and existence are not synonyms even if they are both nouns.

Actually "existence" is the definition of "actuality", so please try again.
http://thesaurus.com/browse/actuality

http://thesaurus.com/browse/existence

Main Entry: existence

Part of Speech: noun
Definition: life
Synonyms: actuality, animation, being, breath, continuance, continuation, duration, endurance, entity, essence, hand one is dealt, individuality, journey, lifing, permanence, perseverance, presence, rat race, real world, reality, something, subsistence, survival, the big game, world

Antonyms: death, inanimateness

Since you did not develop langue Doron (among a whole lot of other things) if you are going to use it (and them) effectively your going to have to use the notions of others. Please try harder in that regard.

Here the subjective mind of The Man fails to comprehend the different results of "nothing between" and "something between".

Nope.

 

[The Man]

The first goal of Organic Mathematics (OM) is to develop the awareness of the mathematician to directly precept Mathematics as a one organism, such that all of its possible, so called, branches are consistent with each other.

Currently each branch is developed by using only context-dependent reasoning, which is mostly based on the auditory/verbal mathematician's mind skills.

Organic Mathematics current goal is to develop the mathematician's minds, such that he\she will be able to develop mathematics that also uses cross-contexts reasoning and visual/spatial skills.

By practically using this approach, the mathematician's mind will be developed as a result of the combined reasoning and mind's skills, which in turn will develop deeper (more profound) mathematics that is based on cybernetic principles between the developed and the developer.

One of the first steps for the development of this cybernetic ability is to develop the mathematician's self awareness in the most general sense, which is not limited to any particular mind's skills, where this approach actually reinforces the needed mind's balance, which enables it to use its visual/spatial and Auditory/verbal skills, in order to deal with both cross-contexts and context-dependent reasoning under a one cybernetic and organic realm.

In order to really achieve the mentioned goal, the mathematician's mind has to be able to be aware of finer levels of its thinking process until it is directly aware of the finest level of itself, which is naturally free of any process exactly because it is the silent source of any possible process.

The thinking process has many aspects that are expressed and known as reasoning, intuition, emotion, sensual experience etc … , so the first goal of Organic Mathematics is to lead the mathematician's mind beyond these expressions in order to directly aware of their common source, which is the finest level of the mind's activity that is beyond any activity and it is naturally the source of any possible activity.

The practical technique of such development is known as meditation, which enables one's mind to systematically be aware of finer levels of his\her thinking process until he\she directly aware of the finest level of awareness, which is naturally free of any thinking process.

When one's mind learns to express itself by not losing its self awareness (which is actually the finest level of awareness that is naturally beyond any subjective experience) then and only then the real development of the mathematical science air its view as a one organic realm, which is not limited anymore only to context-dependent reasoning that is mostly based on auditory/verbal skills, and it is actually a reflection of the subjective level of the thinking process (only the finest level of the mind's activity that is beyond any activity, is the actual non-subjective state of mind).

So no real results, just some esoteric goals, after, what, 20 years at it now, how unfortunate.

Oh and you should probably look up the meaning of the word "cybernetic".


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cybernetic

 

[doronshadmi]

Actually "existence" is the definition of "actuality", so please try again.

Here The Man's subjective-only mind uses the word "Actually" in order to express that

"existence" is the definition of "actuality"

 

[doronshadmi]

So no real results, just some esoteric goals, after, what, 20 years at it now, how unfortunate.

Oh and you should probably look up the meaning of the word "cybernetic".


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cybernetic

Another reply of a subjective-only mind, which is trapped at level of thinking process, and as a result reality for him is only the subjective aspect of particular expressions.

Actually he has no clue about the actual meaning of cybernetics, which is not less then the simple AND non-trivial communication between the observed and the observer.

The Man's subjective-only mind can't actually comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7243778&postcount=15576.