Deeper than primes

[The Man]

Thank you for sharing an actual aspect of your life.

No problem, as you will find I share many.

Please share with the posters of this thread your view of current and future development of Robotics.

Hardly on topic or even germane to this discussion.


“Please share with the posters of this thread” any real results you’ve obtained using your “OM”.

 

[epix]

I was actually quite lost in the original explanation of the theory... and there was me thinking the my Physics degree counted for something. But **** me... ORGANIC numbers? Since when did numbers in their purist sense become associated with carbon atoms?

Not all numbers are organic; only the negligible minority of real numbers is. The numbers which are organic are 6, 12.011, 3823, 4098, 2.267, 18350, 0.5, and 2.

 

[epix]

Hardly on topic or even germane to this discussion.

Es wird besser nicht, wenn Doron deutsch schreibt - vertrauen Sie mir.

Edit: Forgot that winkey. ;-)

 

[doronshadmi]

Hardly on topic or even germane to this discussion.


“Please share with the posters of this thread” any real results you’ve obtained using your “OM”.

Cybernetics and Robotics are on topic subjects and fruitful ground of this thread.

All you have is to plant your seed (your expert view) in that ground, in order to realize that it has the chance flourish by discussion.

So please share with the posters of this thread your view of current and future development of Robotics, if you wish to see how OM is relevant to your expertise.

 

[doronshadmi]

JFC... I hate the use of Organic in foods (because what food is NOT Organic!?), but in numbers! Now I have a new thing to hate! Based on observation, evidence hypotheses and reason of course!

I am also someone who wants to preserve language. I hate the way it "evolves". This whole concept of "Organic" meaning wholesome or interconnectedness is simply wrong from the outset.

Hi PadainFain and welcome.

Do you suggest that a phrase like "mathematical branches" is simply wrong from the outset?

 

[doronshadmi]

Gently?

Yes, gently.

For example, where is the straight line in the following diagram?:

Where is your mind's ability to be aware of both straight and curved lines as aspects of 1-dimensional space, as given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7255966&postcount=15594 ?

 

[epix]

Where is your mind's ability to be aware of both straight and curved lines as aspects of 1-dimensional space,[...]

Partial awareness can be seen right here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7251673&postcount=15593

It's waiting for the moment when you unleash the awesome analytic power of OM, as claimed, and calculate the heck out of the problem.

 

[The Man]

Es wird besser nicht, wenn Doron deutsch schreibt - vertrauen Sie mir.

Edit: Forgot that winkey. ;-)

Wie dem auch sei, es wäre das gleiche.

 

[The Man]

Cybernetics and Robotics are on topic subjects and fruitful ground of this thread.

No the topic of this discussion is your “OM”, if that is not what you want to discuss anymore then you should close this thread and start another.

So, “Please share with the posters of this thread” any real results you’ve obtained using your “OM”.

All you have is to plant your seed (your expert view) in that ground, in order to realize that it has the chance flourish by discussion.

So please share with the posters of this thread your view of current and future development of Robotics, if you wish to see how OM is relevant to your expertise.

You seem to be confusing me with someone who has not been engaging you for a number of years. Most of us here already know that no matter what is said you will misinterpret, misrepresent and simply conflate words and meanings to pretend your “OM is relevant to” anything but just your “OM” fantasies. So we can just cut to the chase and you can just pretend all that other stuff preceded what you already pretend. The fact remains Doron that you can’t show your “OM” is relevant to anything other than just your “OM” fantasies.

So again, “Please share with the posters of this thread” any real results you’ve obtained using your “OM”.

 

[doronshadmi]

No the topic of this discussion is your “OM”, if that is not what you want to discuss anymore then you should close this thread and start another.

So, “Please share with the posters of this thread” any real results you’ve obtained using your “OM”.



You seem to be confusing me with someone who has not been engaging you for a number of years. Most of us here already know that no matter what is said you will misinterpret, misrepresent and simply conflate words and meanings to pretend your “OM is relevant to” anything but just your “OM” fantasies. So we can just cut to the chase and you can just pretend all that other stuff preceded what you already pretend. The fact remains Doron that you can’t show your “OM” is relevant to anything other than just your “OM” fantasies.

So again, “Please share with the posters of this thread” any real results you’ve obtained using your “OM”.

The topic of that discussion is OM, and I wish to show how it is relevant to Robotics, which is, by your own words, what earns" you "a living".

Do you actually say that "understanding of robotics and control systems is what earns" you "a living", but you are unable to share with the posters of this thread your view of current and future development of Robotics?

The fact remains Doron that you can’t show your “OM” is relevant to anything other than just your “OM” fantasies.

As long as you actually can't do that your "understanding of robotics and control systems is what earns me a living" simply does not hold water.

So please share with the posters of this thread your view of current and future development of Robotics, if you wish to see how OM is relevant to your expertise.

 

[doronshadmi]

Partial awareness ...

Partial awareness is not enough.

The superiority of OM is to develop the mathematician's awareness, such that its results will not be used for destruction, which is a result that is not in the scope of Traditional Mathematics.

Please try to answer to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7258971&postcount=15606 if you really wish to get what OM is, in the first place.

 

[epix]

Partial awareness is not enough.

The superiority of OM is to develop the mathematician's awareness, such that its results will not be used for destruction, which is a result that is not in the scope of Traditional Mathematics.

Please try to answer to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7258971&postcount=15606 if you really wish to get what OM is, in the first place.

The full awarness kicks in right after you show the superiority of OM by solving the entry level problem:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7251673&postcount=15593

Maybe you can start with a partial solution, like meditating upon the question how many real results the problem has. Give the OM chance to shine like the mid-summer sun. Or are you afraid of triangles, coz they have sharp vertices and can be used for destruction? Or is your fear of the aliens who abduct ships in Bermuda Triangle?

 

[The Man]

The topic of that discussion is OM, and I wish to show how it is relevant to Robotics, which is, by your own words, what earns" you "a living".

So by all means do that and for that, you don't need me or how I earn a living. Just your "OM" and some actual, well, relevance to robotics (if you got any of that).

Do you actually say that "understanding of robotics and control systems is what earns" you "a living", but you are unable to share with the posters of this thread your view of current and future development of Robotics?

Nope, what I'm saying, as I and many have before, is that the encumbrance is specifically upon you and you alone to display your professed relevance of your "OM" to that or any topic. A task you have consistently failed at. Got that bijection of a set with its power set yet or a definition of your predecessor and successor without ordering? How about that definition of your “magnitude of existence” independent of cardinality or the difference between increasing and decreasing with “no past (before) and no future (after)”?

To those active and lurking, as I have said before this is a common tactic of cold readers and huckster. To get the audience to provide them with a road map within which to try to conform their assertions. A tactic we are more than familiar with here.

As long as you actually can't do that your "understanding of robotics and control systems is what earns me a living" simply does not hold water.

I never said it held "water", just that it holds my current employment, as it does. It is simply not an issue that you can in any way dispute as it is just a matter of fact. You can accept it as that or not, it really doesn't matter to me either way.

So please share with the posters of this thread your view of current and future development of Robotics, if you wish to see how OM is relevant to your expertise.

Again “Please share with the posters of this thread” any real results you’ve obtained using your “OM”.

If you think relevance to robotics can do that for you, then by all means, please, be my guest.

You seem to be operating under the delusion that the relevance of your "OM" to robotics somehow hinges upon my understanding, expertise or opinion "of current and future development of Robotics". Your "OM" relevance to that subject should be demonstrably independent of me. If it isn't, then you simply have no actual relevance to that subject but are just trying to find some relevance through my understanding, expertise or opinion "of current and future development of Robotics". Too bad for you and your "OM".

 

[doronshadmi]

So by all means do that and for that, you don't need me or how I earn a living. Just your "OM" and some actual, well, relevance to robotics (if you got any of that).

The Man, I can air OM's view about Cybernetic and Robotics by totally ignore your "understanding of robotics and control systems".

Instead of doing it in the easy way, I prefer to do it by not ignore your understanding of this subject.

I thing that your view is important exactly because you actually work in that field of science.

So please share with the posters of this thread your view about the current and future development of Robotics.

Nope, what I'm saying, as I and many have before, is that the encumbrance is specifically upon you and you alone to display your professed relevance of your "OM" to that or any topic. A task you have consistently failed at. Got that bijection of a set with its power set yet or a definition of your predecessor and successor without ordering? How about that definition of your “magnitude of existence” independent of cardinality or the difference between increasing and decreasing with “no past (before) and no future (after)”?

I gave exact answers to these subjects. You insisted to use a reasoning (context-dependent-only reasoning) that is not sufficient in order to understand my answers that are derived from the association of both cross-contexts AND context-dependent reasoning, which provide a one organic framework, where both cross-contexts AND context-dependent reasoning reinforce each other, in order to provide non-destructive results.

To those active and lurking, as I have said before this is a common tactic of cold readers and huckster. To get the audience to provide them with a road map within which to try to conform their assertions. A tactic we are more than familiar with here.

I do not think that you get yourself as a weak poster, that easily influenced by "common tactic of cold readers and huckster".

But maybe I make a mistake about this issue, and you actually afraid to air your view about a given subject, in order to not be exposed to other notions that do not fit to your current notions of a given subject.

Do I make such a mistake about you?

I never said it held "water", just that it holds my current employment, as it does. It is simply not an issue that you can in any way dispute as it is just a matter of fact. You can accept it as that or not, it really doesn't matter to me either way.

Do you actually claim that the fact that Robotics "holds" your "current employment" do not give you any privilege to air your view about the current and future development of Robotics?

 

[doronshadmi]

Or are you afraid of triangles, coz they have sharp vertices and can be used for destruction?

The fear of sharp vertices is a direct result of partial awareness, where the organic awareness of different expressions that complement each other, is not fully developed.

If organic awareness is fully developed, any given expression is actually an organ of a one organism, where this actuality expresses itself by reinforcing the expressions as a one simple AND non-trivial ever developed realm.

This time please to your best in order to grasp the following:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7243778&postcount=15576

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7255966&postcount=15594

Also please try to answer to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7258971&postcount=15606 .

 

[doronshadmi]

I think it would be better if you show how that meditation works. There is a unit circle (radius=1) inscribed in an isosceles triangle -- one of the infinitely many which a unit circle can be inscribed to.

[qimg]http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/1343/drawing2l.png[/qimg]


But infinitely many cases doesn't mean that the cases are all equal -- there is always a criterion of choice that makes a particular selection(s) unlike any other and therefore unique or special (more than one but very few in comparison with the whole).

In this particular case, the specialty lies in the relationship between 2-dim objects (areas) and 1-dim objects (lines) and the question is this: What is the altitude h so that the area of the unit circle equals the area not in the circle (lighter blue).

Now start meditating upon the strategy of the solution -- you may learn something about the real points. This way I can get a pretty good picture of what you meant in your reply. You can try to google help. Just show that the OM solution is superior to the one that traditional math can fetch.

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/1343/drawing2l.png[/qimg]
.................[COLOR="Red"]--------X--------[/COLOR]

If h*X = (pi*r[SUP]2[/SUP]) then h = (pi*r[SUP]2[/SUP])/X

We deal with an isosceles triangle and a given circle if:

(r > 0 and r < ∞) and (X > r and X < ∞) and (h > 2r and h < ∞)

 

[epix]

[qimg]http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/1343/drawing2l.png[/qimg]
.................--------X--------

If h*X = (pi*r²) then h = (pi*r²)/X

We deal with an isosceles triangle and a given circle if:

(r > 0 and r < ∞) and (X > r and X < ∞) and (h > 2r and h < ∞)

Well, at least you didn't get the constraints wrong, but you doronized them to the image and likeness of OM. The inscribed circle is a unite circle and that means its radius is equal to one. Sometimes I bemuse myself by inventing geometric arrangements where only one parameter is known, and so in this case it is the radius of the inscribed circle.

That X is a half of the base line b of the triangle, coz the triangle is isosceles. So the constrains are

r = 1, b/2 > r, h > 2r

The expression "h < ∞" is a redundant addition to the works and its only purpose is to support the presence of the boolean operators as an opulent garnishment.

Since the area of a unit circle is equal to pi, your condition in the first line says

If h*X = pi then h = pi/X (where X = base/2)

which is formally correct, but useless to the purpose of finding the roots.

I think that there are only two theorems that are used to solve the problem altogether with a few basic laws of trigonometry. When all is done, the length of the altitude h which satisfies the given condition is given by the solution of this equation:

x³ - 4*x*pi² + 8*pi² = 0

You can see below that there exist two real roots.

That means, the solution cannot be expressed in the exact format; it exists only as f(x) = 0 and that's the only way to draw the points onto the real line. The roots x = h are in the approximate format as

h₁ = 2.313757093139...
h₂ = 4.7982296547833...

So if you ever figure the geometry part, you can use the result to check if you got that right.

The next time OM gets tested through the "spaghetti triangles" -- the finite and the infinite cases.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well, at least you didn't get the constraints wrong,

It is wrong.

The right one is:

.................--------X--------

If h*X-(pi*r²)=(pi*r²) then h=(2*(pi*r²))/X

We deal with an isosceles triangle and a given circle if:

(r > 0 and r < ∞) and (X > r and X < ∞) and (h > 2r and h < ∞)

So as you see, it is not limited only to r=1.

 

[jsfisher]

+1 for finding his own math error.

 

[epix]

It is wrong.


We deal with an isosceles triangle and a given circle if:

(r > 0 and r < ∞) and (X > r and X < ∞) and (h > 2r and h < ∞)
So as you see, it is not limited only to r=1.

I didn't say that only a circle with r=1 can be inscribed to an isosceles triangle, did I? At least one parameter needs to be known for a problem to have a particular set of solutions, and in this case the known parameter is r=1. It's like the diference between a - x = 2 and 5 - x = 2.

When I say "constraints," I mean that highlighted stuff, and there is no mistake in it. So why don't you set pi*r² = pi, and since isosceles triangle is a symmetrical figure, cut it in half along its altitude h and take it from X*h/2 - pi/2 = pi/2 to X*h/2 = pi and on. You need to figure out the length of that X though. Unfortunately I got nothing else to clue you with except the "obsolete, traditional views."
http://www.mathsrevision.net/gcse/pages.php?page=13