Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

Doron, it doesn't matter one twit what you think the word, approach, should or should not mean in the limit definition. The fact remains, the definition itself tells us exactly what is meant by it.

Stop trying to disprove definitions. It cannot be done.

Yavoll her jsfisher, the dictator of the mind.

 

[jsfisher]

Yavoll her jsfisher, the dictator of the mind.

If you don't like all the definitions and such that make up Mathematics, go invent your own.


...Oh, yeah. You tried that. You couldn't come up with any workable definitions. In fact, nothing you tried led to anything other than the contradictory premises you started with.

Do let us know when you have some sort of useful result from Doronetics, won't you?

 

[doronshadmi]

If you don't like all the definitions and such that make up Mathematics, go invent your own.


...Oh, yeah. You tried that. You couldn't come up with any workable definitions. In fact, nothing you tried led to anything other than the contradictory premises you started with.

Do let us know when you have some sort of useful result from Doronetics, won't you?

Yavoll herr jsfisherr, the dictator of the mind.

 

[The Man]

Because the screen destroys the superposition of identities of the quantum objects.

So now you are claiming that no interference pattern is ever visible on the screen?

Only “strict localization” because the screen destroys the superposition of identities of the quantum objects.

Ah so now the double slit interference pattern on the screen is a “strict localization” since “screen destroys the superposition of identities of the quantum objects”.

The distribution patterns of "strict spots" is exactly the signature of the interaction among quantum objects, before they hit the screen and collapse into "strict spots". The distribution of wave patterns actually manifests the superposition of identities of the quantum objects before they hit the screen, where the distribution of a single peak pattern manifests the strict identities of the quantum objects before they hit the screen.

Doron in a single shot double slit experiment there is no “interaction among quantum objects” as there is only one quantum (a single photon) per shot. The superposition is in the possible paths that single photon can take and not some “interaction among quantum objects”, which such single shot experiments clearly demonstrate. Though thank you once again for so obviously demonstrating that you understand absolutely nothing about double slit experiments.

What “distribution of wave patterns” are you referring to? “the distribution of a single peak pattern”?
Wouldn’t that make it a multiple peak pattern?

You seem to be confusing (again probably deliberately) a distribution pattern with some bizarre distribution of (a) pattern(s).

After all quantum objects are wavicles even if their wave properties and particle properties can't be manifested simultaneously.

So this claim of yours before…

Read about the uncertainty principle and learn why as what is considered a particle aspect becomes more defined (to a singular location) the wave aspect (frequency) becomes less defined and as the wave aspect becomes more defined (to a singular frequency) the particle aspect (location) becomes less defined. That’s duality Doron it always involves both.

Indeed duality always involves both, such that it is changeable from 50%;50% which-way state (which is characterized by a wave pattern with non-strict localization) to 0%;100% which-way state (which is characterized by a single slit pattern with strict localization) by using partial measurements that are done between 50%;50% to 0%;100% , as shown, for example, in http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/06/q-what-is-a-measurement-in-quantum-mechanics/:

Was what, just another of your compulsive lies?

TURD is your ill attitude of URDT, which is characterized by your "closed box" syndrome about this fine subject . As long as this is your initial attitude there is no use to talk with you about URDT.

Fine, you can stop talking about your TURD anytime you want, or can you?

Can you change your attitude about this fine subject?

Can you demonstrate you can do what you claimed with your TURD or stop lying about it? Evidently not.

The Man, you defiantly have no clue about the symmetry of superposition of identities, because you do not distinguish, for example, between "AB" (which is an example of the symmetry among superposition of identities) and "A,B" (which is an example of the asymmetry among strict identities), exactly because your reasoning is closed under "A,B".

You definitely still (and apparently deliberately) have no clue about the meaning of the word symmetry.

It that your problem that you just want to conflate symmetry by using your asymmetric "A,B"-only view?

Nope, I have asserted no such view. In your previous post you attested to not only your knowledge that I have asserted no such view but also assert I “can't” even make such a claim.

I have claimed no “"A,B"-only formal reasoning”.

You can't because you are closed under it.

So in continuing to simply attempt to ascribe aspects of your own failed reasoning on to me you are just lying. Stop lying Doron.

Once again, it can't claim such basis, exactly because it is the expression of "A,B"-only reasoning.

So now you attest to your knowledge that the Schrödinger equation makes no claim about being based “on strict variables” and also assert that it can make no such claim. So stop lying about it Doron.

It is not less than the symmetry of superposition of identities.

Evidently even when your “superposition” (that you claim does not use superposition) is not even symmetrical.

You can't comprehend that as long as you are closed under your asymmetric "A,B"-only reasoning.

The Man, you actually doing your best in order to stay closed under your asymmetric "A,B"-only reasoning all along this thread.

Stop lying Doron, by your own admission not only I have made no such assertions but in your opinion I can make no such assertions.

 

[jsfisher]

Yavoll herr jsfisherr, the dictator of the mind.

Spell it properly, please. Also, please stop with the personal attacks. You are not advancing your argument one micron. The only thing you've done invoke Godwin's law.

 

[doronshadmi]

So now you are claiming that no interference pattern is ever visible on the screen?

No superposition of identities is shown on the screen, because it collapses into strict spots when hit the screen.

Ah so now the double slit interference pattern on the screen is a “strict localization” since “screen destroys the superposition of identities of the quantum objects”.

The wave pattern on the screen is not the superposition of identities.

Doron in a single shot double slit experiment there is no “interaction among quantum objects” as there is only one quantum (a single photon) per shot. The superposition is in the possible paths that single photon can take and not some “interaction among quantum objects”, which such single shot experiments clearly demonstrate. Though thank you once again for so obviously demonstrating that you understand absolutely nothing about double slit experiments.

The gap in time between shots has no influence on the superposition of identities in terms of space.

What “distribution of wave patterns” are you referring to? “the distribution of a single peak pattern”?
Wouldn’t that make it a multiple peak pattern?

There is the wave pattern and the peak(s) pattern(s).

The 50%;50% wave pattern is the signature of the superposition of identities, which is shown indirectly on the screen as a wave pattern of strict spots.

The 0;100% peak(s) pattern is the strict identities, which is shown directly on the screen as peak(s) of strict spots.

You seem to be confusing (again probably deliberately) a distribution pattern with some bizarre distribution of (a) pattern(s).

You seem to unable to get the difference between "AB" and "A,B", because all you get is in terms of "A,B".

So this claim of yours before…

Again, the screen detector destroys the superposition of identities, and as a result you always see strict spots on the screen, whether they are distributed as wave pattern or peak(s) pattern(s), and again, time has no influence of this result, because you get strict spots whether you shot many photons at the same time, or not.

Was what, just another of your compulsive lies?

No, it is you misunderstanding of the fact that the screen has an influence on the superposition of identities (the spots are always in strict positions, but there is a gradual change between the 50%;50% wave pattern of many strict spots, and the 0%;100% peak(s) pattern(s) of many strict spots).

You definitely still (and apparently deliberately) have no clue about the meaning of the word symmetry.

Again, The Man, you defiantly have no clue about the symmetry of superposition of identities, because you do not distinguish, for example, between "AB" (which is an example of the symmetry among superposition of identities) and "A,B" (which is an example of the asymmetry among strict identities), exactly because your reasoning is closed under "A,B".

Nope, I have asserted no such view.

Again, You can't because you are closed under it.

So in continuing to simply attempt to ascribe aspects of your own failed reasoning on to me you are just lying. Stop lying Doron.

This is all you are doing all along this thread, about this fine subject.

So now you attest to your knowledge that the Schrödinger equation makes no claim about being based “on strict variables” and also assert that it can make no such claim. So stop lying about it Doron.

The Man, by using only "in-the-box" reasoning, this reasoning can't deal also with "in-the-box" AND "out-of-the-box" reasoning.

Evidently even when your “superposition” (that you claim does not use superposition) is not even symmetrical.

Evidently your closeness under "A,B" can't comprehend "AB".

Stop lying Doron, by your own admission not only I have made no such assertions but in your opinion I can make no such assertions.

You are "in-the-box" The Man, and you are doing exactly nothing in order to also get out.

 

[doronshadmi]

Spell it properly, please. Also, please stop with the personal attacks. You are not advancing your argument one micron. The only thing you've done invoke Godwin's law.

Doron, it doesn't matter one twit what you think the word, approach, should or should not mean in the limit definition. The fact remains, the definition itself tells us exactly what is meant by it.

Stop trying to disprove definitions. It cannot be done.

jsfisher, you are indeed the dictator of the mind (your mind, in case you have missed it).

By this self dictatorship you are not advancing your ability to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7540470&postcount=16339 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7540060&postcount=16337.

 

[jsfisher]

By this self dictatorship you are not advancing your ability to get....

Yeah, yeah. We've heard it all before. Your standard refrain when you muddle something and no one else agrees with you. It's everyone else's fault you don't understand simple concepts.

Well, at least I'm in great company. You, well, it must be very lonely for you. Also, my stuff works, producing remarkably useful results day after day. Do you have anything like that?

 

[doronshadmi]

Yeah, yeah. We've heard it all before.

And still you don't get it.

Do you have anything like that?

Do you have anything like http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7511706&postcount=16304 ?

Well, at least I'm in great company.

It is a very dangerous company because it uses mind's skills in an imbalanced way, which has no ability to establish the unified basis of Logic AND Ethics.

Also, my stuff works, producing remarkably useful results day after day.

Your mind's self dictatorship can't comprehend the devastating results of your company's imbalanced expressions, which have no ability to actually establish the balanced scientific framework between Logic AND Ethics.

Again, I am talking about Ethics in evolutionary terms (which is not the narrow view of religious terms) , as can be seen, for example, in http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE or http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM .

You, well, it must be very lonely for you.

Your imbalanced company quickly lead us all to dead end street.

jsfisher, your mind's self dictatorship can't handle, for example, with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7548669&postcount=16347.

 

[jsfisher]

...<nonsense snipped>...

My stuff still works. Demonstrable results day after day.

Why don't you have anything like that?

 

[The Man]

No superposition of identities is shown on the screen, because it collapses into strict spots when hit the screen.

So you are claiming that no interference pattern would be visible on the screen? You do understand that the two single slit pattern is still a superposition just not an interference between those two slits, don't you?

The wave pattern on the screen is not the superposition of identities.

The pattern on the screen is the superposition of the photon impacts. Where each photon is likely to impact is the result of the superposition of the possible paths it can take. Exactly what your “superposition of identities” means you have yet to verify other then it is expressly (by you) not a superposition.

The gap in time between shots has no influence on the superposition of identities in terms of space.

What “identities”? The point of the single shoot experiments is to show that the interference is from the superposition of the possible paths for each photon and not a result of the interaction of multiple photons.

There is the wave pattern and the peak(s) pattern(s).

They are distribution patterns and either could be the pattern of some wave.

The 50%;50% wave pattern is the signature of the superposition of identities, which is shown indirectly on the screen as a wave pattern of strict spots.

The distribution patterns show directly on the screen (double, single slit and two single slits). The double slit interference patterns show the superposition of the possible paths, including the 15/85 and 1/99 patterns cited in the reference you provided. However, as noted before only the 50/50 and 0/100 patterns are symmetrical.

The 0;100% peak(s) pattern is the strict identities, which is shown directly on the screen as peak(s) of strict spots.

“the strict identities”? What are these “strict identities”? Please specificly identify these “strict identities” which should not be a problem for you as you have claimed they are “identities” and that they are, well, “strict”.

You seem to unable to get the difference between "AB" and "A,B", because all you get is in terms of "A,B".

You are demonstrably unable to cite any difference between your "AB" and your "A,B", because you will refuse to confirm or will directly contradict any difference you previously claim.

Again, the screen detector destroys the superposition of identities, and as a result you always see strict spots on the screen, whether they are distributed as wave pattern or peak(s) pattern(s), and again, time has no influence of this result, because you get strict spots whether you shot many photons at the same time, or not.

What “identities”? What “superposition”? By you own assertion there is no superposition in your “superposition”. How does the detector destroy a “superposition” that you claim involves no superposition (looks like you destroyed that yourself)? Exactly how “strict” are these spots of yours.

No, it is you misunderstanding of the fact that the screen has an influence on the superposition of identities (the spots are always in strict positions, but there is a gradual change between the 50%;50% wave pattern of many strict spots, and the 0%;100% peak(s) pattern(s) of many strict spots).

Nope just your deliberate misunderstanding as usual since your “superposition of identities” doesn’t (by your own assertion) involve any superposition. It would seem you’re the only one who can influence your “superposition of identities”. Again, clearly identify your “identities” and your “superposition” as you claim it does not involve superposition.

Again, The Man, you defiantly have no clue about the symmetry of superposition of identities, because you do not distinguish, for example, between "AB" (which is an example of the symmetry among superposition of identities) and "A,B" (which is an example of the asymmetry among strict identities), exactly because your reasoning is closed under "A,B".

Again learn what symmetry means Doron. Your own cited reference shows two slit interference patterns that are not symmetrical. I’m sure no one here is surprised to find that your “symmetry of superposition of identities”, which you claim does not involve superposition, also lacks symmetry as well as apparently any identities.

Again, You can't because you are closed under it.

So stop lying about it.

This is all you are doing all along this thread, about this fine subject.

Stop lying Doron, I have never tried to ascribe any kind of reasoning to you.

The Man, by using only "in-the-box" reasoning, this reasoning can't deal also with "in-the-box" AND "out-of-the-box" reasoning.




Evidently your closeness under "A,B" can't comprehend "AB".


You are "in-the-box" The Man, and you are doing exactly nothing in order to also get out.

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

 

[doronshadmi]

So you are claiming that no interference pattern would be visible on the screen? You do understand that the two single slit pattern is still a superposition just not an interference between those two slits, don't you?

The pattern on the screen is the superposition of the photon impacts. Where each photon is likely to impact is the result of the superposition of the possible paths it can take. Exactly what your “superposition of identities” means you have yet to verify other then it is expressly (by you) not a superposition.

The wave pattern of strict spots on the screen is an indirect expression of the superposition of identities. As long as you get "AB" in terms of "A,B" you can't get that.

What “identities”? The point of the single shoot experiments is to show that the interference is from the superposition of the possible paths for each photon and not a result of the interaction of multiple photons.

What you call "each photon" is understood by you only in terms of strict identity, which is derived from a strict location on the screen. Since this is all you get, you indeed ask

What “identities”?

Again it is shown that your understanding of quantum objects is limited only to Locality (the non-local property (superposition of identities) of a quantum object is not understood by you).

They are distribution patterns and either could be the pattern of some wave.

The distribution patterns show directly on the screen (double, single slit and two single slits). The double slit interference patterns show the superposition of the possible paths, including the 15/85 and 1/99 patterns cited in the reference you provided. However, as noted before only the 50/50 and 0/100 patterns are symmetrical.

All there is on the screen is different patterns of strict spots.

What “identities”? What “superposition”? By you own assertion there is no superposition in your “superposition”. How does the detector destroy a “superposition” that you claim involves no superposition (looks like you destroyed that yourself)? Exactly how “strict” are these spots of yours.

Symmetry actually exists as long as a superposition of identities is not changed into strict identities, where strict identities appear as strict spots on the screen. You still do not get that the screen has an influence on the result of the double silts experiment, no matter if you are using a "which-way" measurement, or not.

“the strict identities”? What are these “strict identities”? Please specificly identify these “strict identities” which should not be a problem for you as you have claimed they are “identities” and that they are, well, “strict”.

Each spot on the screen has a strict identity ("AB" is changed into "A" or "B", where "A" or "B" are strict identities of "A,B" collection).

You are demonstrably unable to cite any difference between your "AB" and your "A,B", because you will refuse to confirm or will directly contradict any difference you previously claim.

The Man, your "A,B"-only reasoning prevents the understanding of URDT ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7511706&postcount=16304 ).

Nope just your deliberate misunderstanding as usual since your “superposition of identities” doesn’t (by your own assertion) involve any superposition. It would seem you’re the only one who can influence your “superposition of identities”. Again, clearly identify your “identities” and your “superposition” as you claim it does not involve superposition.

Well, is is strictly known that you can't get “superposition of identities”.

Again learn what symmetry means Doron. Your own cited reference shows two slit interference patterns that are not symmetrical. I’m sure no one here is surprised to find that your “symmetry of superposition of identities”, which you claim does not involve superposition, also lacks symmetry as well as apparently any identities.

Learn how to get thing not only in terms of "A,B"-reasoning.

So stop lying about it.

Stop lying to yourself by limit it only to "A,B"-reasoning.

Stop lying Doron, I have never tried to ascribe any kind of reasoning to you.

Ho yes are forcing your "A,B"-only reasoning all along this thread, exactly because "A,B" is all you can get.

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

You do not need me The Man, you actually doing the job by yourself by limit it to only to "A,B"-reasoning.

 

[doronshadmi]

My stuff still works. Demonstrable results day after day.

Why don't you have anything like that?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7550576&postcount=16349.

 

[jsfisher]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7550576&postcount=16349.

So, that's your response to whether you have anything the works. You could have just said "No". There was no need for the URL.

 

[doronshadmi]

So, that's your response to whether you have anything the works. You could have just said "No". There was no need for the URL.

For your self-dictatorship of your mind, you indeed get nothing of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7550576&postcount=16349.

 

[The Man]

The wave pattern of strict spots on the screen is an indirect expression of the superposition of identities. As long as you get "AB" in terms of "A,B" you can't get that.

Again, what “identities”? We already know by your own assertion there is no superposition in your “superposition”.

What you call "each photon" is understood by you only in terms of strict identity, which is derived from a strict location on the screen. Since this is all you get, you indeed ask

What the heck are you babbling about now? You should probably look up what the word photon means.

Again it is shown that your understanding of quantum objects is limited only to Locality (the non-local property (superposition of identities) of a quantum object is not understood by you).

Once again you simply choose to lie by calling your “superposition” precisely what you claim it does not involve, superposition. Stop lying Doron.

All there is on the screen is different patterns of strict spots.

Again exactly how “strict” are these “spots” of yours?

Symmetry actually exists as long as a superposition of identities is not changed into strict identities, where strict identities appear as strict spots on the screen. You still do not get that the screen has an influence on the result of the double silts experiment, no matter if you are using a "which-way" measurement, or not.

I’m sure it surprises no one that your “symmetry” does not involve, well, symmetry.

Each spot on the screen has a strict identity ("AB" is changed into "A" or "B", where "A" or "B" are strict identities of "A,B" collection).

So as expected your “strict identities” don’t even invole any identites (strict or otherwise).

The Man, your "A,B"-only reasoning prevents the understanding of URDT ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7511706&postcount=16304 ).

Stop lying Doron, you have attested to your knowledge that I have claimed no “"A,B"-only reasoning” and further asserted your opinion that I can not even make such a claim.

Well, is is strictly known that you can't get “superposition of identities”.

That would be your “superposition” without superposition and those “identities” you evidently just couldn’t identify? We got that some time ago.

Learn how to get thing not only in terms of "A,B"-reasoning.

Stop lying Doron, you have attested to your knowledge that I have claimed no “"A,B"-only reasoning” and further asserted your opinion that I can not even make such a claim.

Stop lying to yourself by limit it only to "A,B"-reasoning.

I have attributed and limited nothing “only to "A,B"-reasoning”, While you have attested to your knowledge that I have claimed no “"A,B"-only reasoning” and further asserted your opinion that I can not even make such a claim. So stop lying Doron

Ho yes are forcing your "A,B"-only reasoning all along this thread, exactly because "A,B" is all you can get.

Who are you calling a “Ho”?

Show specifically where I have ascribed any kind of reasoning to you or stop lying about it.

Stop lying Doron, you have attested to your knowledge that I have claimed no “"A,B"-only reasoning” and further asserted you opinion that I can not even make such a claim.

You do not need me The Man, you actually doing the job by yourself by limit it to only to "A,B"-reasoning.

I have certainly never asserted any need for you Doron and I have never claimed any “"A,B"-only reasoning”. You however have attested to your knowledge that I have claimed no “"A,B"-only reasoning” and further asserted your opinion that I can not even make such a claim. So stop lying Doron, but evidently you simply can't.

 

[jsfisher]

For your self-dictatorship of your mind, you indeed get nothing of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7550576&postcount=16349.

Result, you need to produce an actual result. Simply saying where you think your incredible dearth might apply is not a result.

 

[doronshadmi]

Result, you need to produce an actual result. Simply saying where you think your incredible dearth might apply is not a result.

An actual result is a new understanding of the considered subject.

 

[doronshadmi]

Again, what “identities”?

The Man, have a pleasant life in your strict box, I am not going to continue the discussion on this fine subject with you.

 

[epix]

The Man, have a pleasant life in your strict box, I am not going to continue the discussion on this fine subject with you.

The unfolding of your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple.
Psalm 119:130

I didn't know that you also venture beyond "local" Devarim.