Deeper than primes

[realpaladin]

They are well-bla bla bla ... , no more.

Most of this bla bla bla ... vebal-only agreement is wrong, exactly because it is not organaized by direct perception.

The right notions are http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4877172&postcount=4486 .

:jaw-dropp

Moshe, you reading this?

[realpaladin]

So, Doron, do you really expect that anyone but you will ever accept your theory?

[doronshadmi]

No no no, in science, the burden of proof is not on me, but on you.

So I can not fail here, simply because I am not a part of the process yet.

You, on the other hand...

You have missed the direct perception fact repitition in many minds.

It is not about your subjective aspect or my subjective aspect, it is about an objective replication of a directe perception fact both in your mind and my mind, etc ...

[doronshadmi]

So, Doron, do you really expect that anyone but you will ever accept your theory?

Anyone that gets himself by direct perception, knows that OM is not a theory but a simple fact.

By direct perception there is no gap between theory and abstract\non-abstract results.

[realpaladin]

You have missed the direct perception fact repitition in many minds.

It is not about your subjective aspect or my subjective aspect, it is about an objective replication of a directe perception fact both in your mind and my mind, etc ...

I just queried my brain, but it says "404, no such fact exists".

So, when can I expect the fact to be replicated? Will it wake me up when I sleep, or what?

[realpaladin]

Anyone that gets himself by direct perception, knows that OM is not a theory but a simple fact.

By direct perception there is no gag between theory and abstract\non-abstract results.

Ok, so, how many?

[doronshadmi]

I just queried my brain, but it says "404, no such fact exists".

So, when can I expect the fact to be replicated? Will it wake me up when I sleep, or what?

You need training.

Please start your training by get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4877172&postcount=4486 fact.

[The Man]

<snip>
At the moment that you get that direct perception fact, a notion was replicated in your mind, and now it is in your mind an also in my mind.

Each time when this direct perception fact is replicated in more and more minds, a scientific proof, based on repitition, is given.

See, what did I say?


<snip>
Does this mean I'm immune to Organic Mathematics?

A fair surmise catbasket, as Doron has mentioned his OM creates an ‘agreement’ even with a virus. Additionally his OM seems to only be transmittable like a virus. One must first be infected with its “direct perception” then it replicates in the victims mind. Suddenly new OM virions burst forth, as additional infections and replications in other minds serves as “scientific proof, based on repitition” of the OM virus. Fortunately, as an agreement with said virus is one of its requirements, by not agreeing one is spared the initial infection and replication can not ensue. As always intelligence, education and skepticism are the best inoculations against the spread of such self-replicating nonsense.

[realpaladin]

You need training.

Please start your training by get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4877172&postcount=4486 fact.

I get a '500 - internal error' on that.

But there is one other inherent problem...

Dimension, that is a verbal notion. Set, that is a verbal notion. Wait... all the words in your training... they are verbal notions...your PDF, only verbal notions!

[doronshadmi]

Ok, so, how many?

Most of the people that were not brainwashed by verbal-only training.

I belive that there are millions of tham aroung the world.

[doronshadmi]

See, what did I say?

You say <snip>, so?

[realpaladin]

Most of the people that were not brainwashed by verbal-only training.

I belive that there are millions of tham aroung the world.

The uneducated masses will tell us we are wrong?

[doronshadmi]

I get a '500 - internal error' on that.

But there is one other inherent problem...

Dimension, that is a verbal notion. Set, that is a verbal notion. Wait... all the words in your training... they are verbal notions...your PDF, only verbal notions!

You have missed the part of organized thoughts that are based on direct perception.

No organized thoughts, no correct results.

[realpaladin]

You have missed the part of organized thooghts that are based on direct perception.

No organized thoughts, no correct results.

Do you pay taxes? I really do have a point here...

[doronshadmi]

The uneducated masses will tell us we are wrong?
If you claim that 0-dim elements can fully cover a 1-dim element, you are objectively wrong.

[doronshadmi]

Do you pay taxes? I really do have a point here...
Yes. Please show your point (I just hope that you are not going to show something about my taxes and the non-finite).

[realpaladin]

Yes. Please show your point.

Taxes, the concept and all it's associated math is but verbal notions... why do you even agree?

[realpaladin]

STOP RE-EDITING YOUR POSTS!

Man, thinking things through is demonstrably not your forte.

[doronshadmi]

Taxes, the concept and all it's associated math is but verbal notions... why do you even agree?



I just hope that you are not going to show something about my taxes and the non-finite, because my direct perception fact is about the non-finite, in case that you have missed it (and you have missed it).

[catbasket]

Already given in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4877172&postcount=4486 .
What definition of "practical" are you using? My dictionary gives six meanings for "practical", not one of which can be used to describe postcount=4486 as a "practical example".

I tried using "direct perception" to detect a practical example in there but it appears my direct perception doesn't work.

Am I immune to Organic Mathematics?

[doronshadmi]

STOP RE-EDITING YOUR POSTS!

Man, thinking things through is demonstrably not your forte.

No, translating them to Enlgish, and the need of Word spaller, makes it more problematic.

[doronshadmi]

What definition of "practical" are you using? My dictionary gives six meanings for "practical", not one of which can be used to describe postcount=4486 as a "practical example".

I tried using "direct perception" to detect a practical example in there but it appears my direct perception doesn't work.

Am I immune to Organic Mathematics?

You try do define definition for "practical" instead of do direct perception parctical training.

In other words you are not doing OM.

[doronshadmi]

As always intelligence, education and skepticism are the best inoculations against the spread of such self-replicating nonsense.

Since you do not get (yet) that direct perception is not a thought, you are using here wrong analogies that are based on the level of different thoughts.

There is no skepticism at direct perception because skepticism works only on the level of thoughts.


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4877172&postcount=4486 is exactly organized thoughts by direct perception, that delete your "dragged point" virus.

[catbasket]

The right notions are http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4877172&postcount=4486 .
Notions, eh? I thought that post was supposed to be a practical example, not more theory?

You try do define definition for "practical" instead of do direct perception parctical training.
Definitions are our friends. *
My direct perception doesn't work.

In other words you are not doing OM.
Of course not!

It seems that for those of us who not "get" it, the following is the doronshadmi approved learning plan for Organic Mathematics -

10 We not "get" it.
20 Doron cannot explain it to us unless we already "get" it.
30 GOTO 10.



* as is the Preview Post button.

[realpaladin]

I just hope that you are not going to show something about my taxes and the non-finite, because my direct perception fact is about the non-finite, in case that you have missed it (and you have missed it).

Yup. :duck:Flew right over my head.

But Doron... you have not proven anything yet, replicated anything yet (except links to your own posts)... what gives?

When will something happen with your theory?

Or does it have the same value as the verbal statement "the walls of my office are white" i.e. information you can not do a thing with, but which really is a fact.

What would OM do to the world, in other words.

[realpaladin]

10 We not "get" it.
20 Doron cannot explain it to us unless we already "get" it.
30 GOTO 10.


You forgot:

5 POKE 808,225

Which meant you could not break the running program.

[doronshadmi]

Notions, eh? I thought that post was supposed to be a practical example, not more theory?


Definitions are our friends. *
My direct perception doesn't work.


Of course not!

It seems that for those of us who not "get" it, the following is the doronshadmi approved learning plan for Organic Mathematics -

10 We not "get" it.
20 Doron cannot explain it to us unless we already "get" it.
30 GOTO 10.



* as is the Preview Post button.

You did not even try to read and understand http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4877172&postcount=4486 .

So, you get the expected results, which are: not getting OM.

[realpaladin]

Since you do not get (yet) that direct perception is not a thought, you are using here wrong analogies that are based on the level of different thoughts.
I most certainly start getting an inkling that thoughts are not involved here, I agree.

There is no skepticism at direct perception because skepticism works only on the level of thoughts.
Yahooo!


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4877172&postcount=4486 is exactly organized thoughts by direct perception, that delete your "dragged point" virus.

That example says nothing more than any infinite set would have told you...:confused:

[doronshadmi]

What would OM do to the world, in other words.

It will provide it the simplest long term agreement that enables the optimal Comlexity\Simplicity development.

Please read all of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMDP.pdf from top to bottom.

Then think about it, and only then please air your view in details about its content.

[doronshadmi]

I most certainly start getting an inkling that thoughts are not involved here, I agree.
You are wrong.

It not less than organized thoughts by direct perception, where direct perception is the organizer and it is not a thought.

That example says nothing more than any infinite set would have told you...:confused:

Wrong, it clearly shows that the cadinality of a non-finite set is not well-defined (cannot be clearly known, exactly because R set is incomplete) as the cardinality of a finite set.

[realpaladin]

It will provide it the simplest long term agreement that enables the best Comlexity\Simplicity development.

Please read all of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMDP.pdf from top to bottom.

Then think about it, and only then please air your view in details about its content.

Deal. But if I do, do you agree to bow down and kiss my hairy heini when I show you wrong?

[realpaladin]

You are wrong.

It not less than organized thoughts by direct perception, where direct perception is the organizer and it is not a thought.
Yippie-kay-yay!

Wrong, it clearly shows that the cadinality of a non-finite set is not well-defined (cannot be clearly known, exactly because R set is incomplete) as the cardinality of a finite set.
Yes.

[doronshadmi]

Deal. But if I do, do you agree to bow down and kiss my hairy heini when I show you wrong?

If you want to shoot, shoot, don't talk.

I am fully opened to your detailed criticism.

[realpaladin]

Direct perception's concrete example

Direct perception is not a thought exactly as silence itself is not the thought "silence".

Thoughts are organized by direct perception.

Some example of organized thoughts:

"No amount of 0-dim elements can fully cover a 1-dim element"

_____ represents a non-finite 1-dim element.

• represents a single 0-dim element.

There are infinitely many • on _____

By using organized thoughts that are based on direct perception, it is shown that for any arbitrary • on _____ there is • < • < • , where < is possible for any amount of • on _____ exactly because no collection of • elements can fully cover _____

By using organized thoughts that are based on direct perception, we immediately conclude that no collection of 0-dim elements is complete (there are always uncovered domains along the 1-dim element, no matter how many 0-dim elements exist along the 1-dim element).



Where is the cardinality of the 0-dim elements complete?

Or rather... where does that differ from an infinite set?

[realpaladin]

If you want to shoot, shoot, don't talk.

I am fully opened to your detailed criticism.

Agree, or no deal! You are so infinitely sure about yourself!

[doronshadmi]

Where is the cardinality of the 0-dim elements complete?

Or rather... where does that differ from an infinite set?

It has a fixed amout of elements, someting that a non-finite set does not have.

[realpaladin]

And something that shows exactly the same as your example:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Geometry_for_elementary_school/Lines

Geometry for elemental schools! :)

[realpaladin]

It has a fixed amout of elements, someting that a non-finite set does not have.

It does 'have what'? A 'fixed' amount? As in 'never more or less than that amount' ?

But...but... your example says something else. I reread that 3 times now....

[doronshadmi]

Agree, or no deal! You are so infinitely sure about yourself!

I am wating to your detailed critisism, so please start to read my paper.

Thank you.

[zooterkin]

"No amount of 0-dim elements can fully cover a 1-dim element"


You seem to be really hung up on this one.

Are you really unable to understand that it's possible to talk about a range of numbers on the real line, e.g. [3,5], without having to identify each individual one? Do you really not get it?

[jsfisher]

Agree, or no deal! You are so infinitely sure about yourself!

Be careful, realpaladin. You are trying to deal logically with someone that can't distinguish among if A then B and A if B and A if and only if B. He also has no problem taking A and not A as a true-valued formula.

It's those super direct perception skillz....

[realpaladin]

I am wating to your detailed critisism, so please start to read my paper.

Thank you.

Agree or no deal! Heck, I will even pay your airplane ticket so we can get it on camera!

And my behind is hairy :)

[doronshadmi]

And something that shows exactly the same as your example:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Geometry_for_elementary_school/Lines

Geometry for elemental schools! :)

No ____ is not defined, has, made, etc ... by points.

You failed at your first baby staps, in order to get OM.

[realpaladin]

No ____ is not defined, has, made, etc ... by points.

You failed at your first baby staps, in order to get OM.

Do you know what a point is?

Btw. just so you do not think to agree and then get away with it... if you agree I am first going to verify everything about your identity.

[doronshadmi]

Agree or no deal! Heck, I will even pay your airplane ticket so we can get it on camera!

And my behind is hairy :)

I doronshadmi agree, go a head.

[doronshadmi]

Be careful, realpaladin. You are trying to deal logically with someone that can't distinguish among if A then B and A if B and A if and only if B. He also has no problem taking A and not A as a true-valued formula.

It's those super direct perception skillz....

Are you still here with your local-only view?

[realpaladin]

Agree, go a head.

Great. So what we first do is make sure there is no way you can get away with it.

PM me your details.

[doronshadmi]

Do you know what a point is?

Btw. just so you do not think to agree and then get away with it... if you agree I am first going to verify everything about your identity.
Great. So what we first do is make sure there is no way you can get away with it.

PM me your details.


You are talking too much, start working.

[realpaladin]

You are talking too much, start working.

Did the point scare you? Scary point! Scary point!

[realpaladin]

Doron, you know what. You can have it. I concede.

I get berated by the mods too much as it is, and I am feeling I am sliding into the dark-side here again....

:)

[doronshadmi]

Did the point scare you? Scary point! Scary point!

A point is the most accurate form of location.

[doronshadmi]

jsfisher,

You can add realpaladin to your obsolete community.

[realpaladin]

jsfisher,

You can add realpaladin to your obsolete community.

I...must...not... sorry, can not...resist....

Does that community have infinite or finite number of members?

Or does it consist of (<world-population>-1) members.

[doronshadmi]

You seem to be really hung up on this one.

Are you really unable to understand that it's possible to talk about a range of numbers on the real line, e.g. [3,5], without having to identify each individual one? Do you really not get it?

It is not about range of numbers etc ...

It is about the essential difference between 1-dim element and 0-dim element (or a collection of 0-dim elements and a 1-dim element).

Exaclty because of the limitations of "range of numbers on the real line" the Mathematical Science misses the real notions that can be found in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMDP.pdf .

Why are you so happy to be limited by "range of numbers on the real line"?

[doronshadmi]

I...must...not... sorry, can not...resist....

Does that community have infinite or finite number of members?

Or does it consist of (<world-population>-1) members.

realpaladin,

Thank you for the Repititon idea, you helped me to improve my understanding of OM.

[doronshadmi]

I...must...not... sorry, can not...resist....

Does that community have infinite or finite number of members?

Or does it consist of (<world-population>-1) members.
Currently it has too much members, but we are working on this problem.

[jsfisher]

jsfisher,

You can add realpaladin to your obsolete community.

In what way is it obsolete? Our stuff works; yours doesn't. Our stuff has practical applications; your stuff has none. Our stuff is founded in reality; your stuff is founded in mysticism and fantasy.

[zooterkin]

It is not about range of numbers etc ...

It is about the essential difference between 1-dim element and 0-dim element (or a collection of 0-dim elements and a 1-dim element).
But why do you keep bringing up in situations when it is not relevant?



Exaclty because of the limitations of "range of numbers on the real line" the Mathematical Science misses the real notions that can be found in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMDP.pdf .

Why are you so happy to be limited by "range of numbers on the real line"?

In what way is an infinite amount of real numbers between two points 'limiting'?

[doronshadmi]

But why do you keep bringing up in situations when it is not relevant?
It is most relevant to our own survival, which is a notion that you still don't get.


In what way is an infinite amount of real numbers between two points 'limiting'?

It limiting the notions that can help us to survive the power of our own technologies, because the current Mathematical education artificially disconnects between our ethical cognitive skills and our logical\technological skills, exactly where it is mostly needed (during the real-time work of the researcher).


Zooterkin, please try to read http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMDP.pdf in order to really understand how a simple thing like the difference between a point and a line, can be used in order to develop a long term "agreement" (smooth communication) between Complex systems (living or not).

[zooterkin]

It is most relevant to our own survival, which is a notion that you still don't get.

Then please explain. How have we survived so long?


It limiting the notions that can help us to survive the power of our own technologies, because the current Mathematical education artificially disconnects between our ethical cognitive skills and our logical\technological skills, exactly where it is mostly needed (during the real-time work of the researcher).

Again, please give a real example of what OM can do that conventional maths cannot.

[doronshadmi]

Then please explain. How have we survived so long?
Because we did not have the destructive power of current technologies.

[doronshadmi]

Again, please give a real example of what OM can do that conventional maths cannot.

conventional maths cannot make the real-time connections between ethical and logical skills of the reseacher.

[zooterkin]

conventional maths cannot make the real-time connections between ethical and logical skills of the reseacher.

Please answer the question. Show how OM can do this.

[realpaladin]

Okay, just because I had nothing better to do but wait for ABR to call me and demonstrate his telepathy, and finalmessenger has not put in his novel of 12k words for me yet, *and* because I think Doron Shadmi is in India, *and* I am in Kolkata anyway, I decided to do this:

Error number 1:

Any dimension is measured in units. No matter how small. And unless the units of Doron are indivisable, which means they are the smallest number in his numbering system, they can not consist of an infinite number of .

If I can divide the units however, then it also consists of an infinite number of ___ elements.

This follows because the distance (1-dim) between any two . is at least a dimension, therefore there exists a ___ between any two .

That this is so can be directly perceived.

Error number 2:

The 'branching and single element' paradigm is an alias for 'fractal'.

That is nicely demonstrated by the Ford circles.

The Ford circles and the tangential approach to filling the distance between any two . on the ___ is nothing but an increasingly more accurate approximation of Real Numbers.

Nowhere in the article is given a proof that these 2-dimensional objects will ultimately fill the complete distance.

In fact, the demonstration is a proof of what I stated in Error 1.


Now Pucker up Doron! You are going to kiss it! I promise I won't wash it until you are here!

[integral]

conventional maths cannot make the real-time connections between ethical and logical skills of the reseacher.

That isn't an example.

[The Man]

Since you do not get (yet) that direct perception is not a thought, you are using here wrong analogies that are based on the level of different thoughts.

There is no skepticism at direct perception because skepticism works only on the level of thoughts.


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4877172&postcount=4486 is exactly organized thoughts by direct perception, that delete your "dragged point" virus.


Do you “directly perceive” your self-replicating nonsense remaining infectious when confronted with such "intelligence, education and skepticism”? This entire thread clearly demonstrates otherwise.

[doronshadmi]

Okay, just because I had nothing better to do but wait for ABR to call me and demonstrate his telepathy, and finalmessenger has not put in his novel of 12k words for me yet, *and* because I think Doron Shadmi is in India, *and* I am in Kolkata anyway, I decided to do this:

Error number 1:

Any dimension is measured in units. No matter how small. And unless the units of Doron are indivisable, which means they are the smallest number in his numbering system, they can not consist of an infinite number of .

If I can divide the units however, then it also consists of an infinite number of ___ elements.

This follows because the distance (1-dim) between any two . is at least a dimension, therefore there exists a ___ between any two .

That this is so can be directly perceived.

Thank you for using direct perception.

Just know you showed that you support the notion that ___ and . are essentially two different building-blocks, and no amount of 0-dim elements can fully cover a 1-dim element.


Error number 2:

The 'branching and single element' paradigm is an alias for 'fractal'.

That is nicely demonstrated by the Ford circles.

The Ford circles and the tangential approach to filling the distance between any two . on the ___ is nothing but an increasingly more accurate approximation of Real Numbers.

Nowhere in the article is given a proof that these 2-dimensional objects will ultimately fill the complete distance.

In fact, the demonstration is a proof of what I stated in Error 1.


Now Pucker up Doron! You are going to kiss it! I promise I won't wash it until you are here!

Ford circle are used in my article as a tool to define whole, rational and irrational numbers, and you have totally missed it.

In other words, you support OM and you unaware of that, this is a good strat.

All you have to do now is to realize that you are actually an OM supporter.

[doronshadmi]

Do you “directly perceive” your self-replicating nonsense remaining infectious when confronted with such "intelligence, education and skepticism”? This entire thread clearly demonstrates otherwise.
Your "dragged point" virus was deleted.

[doronshadmi]

That isn't an example.

This not just an example, this is the best example.

[realpaladin]

Thank you for using direct perception.

Just know you showed that you support the notion that ___ and . are essentially two different building-blocks, and no amount of 0-dim elements can fully cover a 1-dim element.



Ford circle are used in my article as a tool to define whole, rational and irrational numbers, and you have totally missed it.

In other words, you support OM and you unaware of that, this is a good strat.

All you have to do now is to realize that you are actually an OM supporter.

Mods, pleeeeeeeeease try forgive me, but this can not warrant anything but a:

**** me!

He just made me one of his and I still see Error number 1. :eye-poppi

[zooterkin]

Thank you for using direct perception.

Just know you showed that you support the notion that ___ and . are essentially two different building-blocks, and no amount of 0-dim elements can fully cover a 1-dim element.

Now, please explain who is claiming that lines are constructed by sticking a lot of points together.

[zooterkin]

This not just an example, this is the best example.

Then show how it is done, not just make vague references. Or is "example" another word that you have redefined?

[catbasket]

Thank you for using direct perception.

Just know you showed that you support the notion that ___ and . are essentially two different building-blocks, and no amount of 0-dim elements can fully cover a 1-dim element.

Ford circle are used in my article as a tool to define whole, rational and irrational numbers, and you have totally missed it.

In other words, you support OM and you unaware of that, this is a good strat.

All you have to do now is to realize that you are actually an OM supporter.
Doron, thanks for that post. Seriously - I haven't laughed so much in weeks.

realpaladin, trust in the power of the auto-censor ;)

[jsfisher]

Ford circle are used in my article as a tool to define whole, rational and irrational numbers, and you have totally missed it.


Ford Circles, defined by the rational numbers, get used to define the rational numbers. Will the circle ever be broken?

[realpaladin]

It has a fixed amout of elements, someting that a non-finite set does not have.

This is what you said! In response to my question "how does it differ from an infinite set"

And I demonstrated, and you applauded me for it, that it does NOT have a fixed amount of 1-dim elements, it has an infinite amount of 1-dim elements. So it is not different from an infinite set.

You simply describe points and lines in made-up terminology!

So you are contradicting yourself. And you still need to get your behind over here to kiss mine.

[The Man]

<snip>
So you are contradicting yourself. <snip>

That continues to be the primary consistency demonstrated by Doron and his OM, both are consistently self inconsistent.

[doronshadmi]

Now, please explain who is claiming that lines are constructed by sticking a lot of points together.
Anyone that ignores the fact that a line is not a non-local building-block (which is a property that no point has).

[zooterkin]

Anyone that ignores the fact that a line is not a non-local building-block (which is a property that no point has).

Who is doing that?

[doronshadmi]

This is what you said! In response to my question "how does it differ from an infinite set"

And I demonstrated, and you applauded me for it, that it does NOT have a fixed amount of 1-dim elements, it has an infinite amount of 1-dim elements. So it is not different from an infinite set.

You simply describe points and lines in made-up terminology!

So you are contradicting yourself. And you still need to get your behind over here to kiss mine.

Don't you amaze yourself from time to time by your inability to get what you read?

Any finite amount is a fixed amount, no matter how many different fixed amounts you check.

This is not that case with a non-finite amount, it is not a fixed amount (its exact cardinality does not exist, as it exists in the case of the cardinality of a finite amount).

[doronshadmi]

Who is doing that?

jsfisher, The Man, you ... and more.

[doronshadmi]

That continues to be the primary consistency demonstrated by Doron and his OM, both are consistently self inconsistent.

The Man: "Where is my little "dragged point" virus?"

doronshadmi: :id:

[zooterkin]

jsfisher, The Man, you ... and more.

Please point to a specific post.

[doronshadmi]

Please point to a specific post.
jsfisher and The Man are actively disagree with the non-local property of a line, because they analyze it only by sub-elements, or more accurately, by points.

You disagree with line's non-locality by your claim that there is a sub-element (known by the name "interval") along the real-line, which is made of non-finite amount of sub-elements, and this composed sub-element actually has a point as its immediate successor or immediate predecessor.

By claiming that (in your "up to" posts) you actually say that a non-finite amount of 0-dim elements can fully cover a 1-dim element.

[The Man]

The Man: "Where is my little "dragged point" virus?"

doronshadmi: :id:

Well you are the one that claims to agree with virions.

So you make up your own little statement, attribute it to some else then profess it as irony?

Clearly irony is something else outside of your “direct perception”

[doronshadmi]

Well you are the one that claims to agree with virions.

So you make up your own little statement, attribute it to some else then profess it as irony?

Clearly irony is something else outside of your “direct perception”

What is "virions"?

[The Man]

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



noun
the infectious form of a virus as it exists outside the host cell, consisting of a nucleic acid core, a protein coat, and, in some species, an external envelope.

[doronshadmi]

Well you are the one that claims to agree with virions.

No at all.

Your "dragged point" is exactly an infection that harms the linkage between Complexity and Simplicity.


Your virus is an infection, my virus is a cure, as clearly shown in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4877408&postcount=4523, exactly becuse it develops the linkage between Cmplexity and Simplicity.

[Little 10 Toes]

No, translating them to Enlgish, and the need of Word spaller, makes it more problematic.

Wow, you're Word spaller, its aye moist kneeded thing ewe half sown two sum won four righting Enlgish massages!!

It still doesn't explain why you add more things, delete things, and write entirely new messages after you (and typically someone else) has posted.

Can't you write your post, translate it, use a speller, then post it? Opps, that's right, that's a cereal process.

By the way, a translator that gives mispellings?

*Disclaimer: Yes, I did write the hole massage like I did on porpoise. :)

[realpaladin]

Don't you amaze yourself from time to time by your inability to get what you read?

Any finite amount is a fixed amount, no matter how many different fixed amounts you check.

This is not that case with a non-finite amount, it is not a fixed amount (its exact cardinality does not exist, as it exists in the case of the cardinality of a finite amount).

Again! It is what I said!

Any of your 1-dim elements consists of a non-finite, or infinite number of other 1-dim elements!

So, your whole concept of finite elements is down the drain!

Unless you insist that your 1-dim element is indivisable into other 1-dim elements, but in that case only 2 0-dim elements can exist on it; both endpoints.

You are just trying to squirm your way out of a big french kiss with my behind are you?

Now you are just trying to play a fool so I might forget, well, I won't.

P.s. I just as well accept Moshe do stooge in your place, if he so chooses.

[realpaladin]

By claiming that (in your "up to" posts) you actually say that a non-finite amount of 0-dim elements can fully cover a 1-dim element.

But again, that is true of ANY line!

Any line has an infinite amount of possible solutions to the problem of covering it with a set of finite intervals or 'smaller lines'.

Or to put it in woo-speak;

Any ___ has an infinite amount of sets consisting of smaller ___ that cover it completely.

The lengths, or non-localities, will approach 0 when the finite number of that given solution approaches infinity. And tadaaa! We arrive at the dragging point, even in OM.

[zooterkin]

jsfisher and The Man are actively disagree with the non-local property of a line, because they analyze it only by sub-elements, or more accurately, by points.
Well, since you have yet to satisfactorily define 'non-local', it's hard to say whether people disagree with it.

You disagree with line's non-locality by your claim that there is a sub-element (known by the name "interval") along the real-line, which is made of non-finite amount of sub-elements, and this composed sub-element actually has a point as its immediate successor or immediate predecessor.

I'm certainly not claiming that my terminology is exact. However, I don't see that there's anything difficult in the concepts. It may be practically impossible to draw the line represented by (3,5], but it's surely not difficult to understand the idea. What I don't get is your leap from the fact that any line has an infinite number of points on it to saying that because of this you cannot have an interval. If an interval is defined as being (3, 5], where do you think it starts? What is the immediately preceding point?

By claiming that (in your "up to" posts) you actually say that a non-finite amount of 0-dim elements can fully cover a 1-dim element.

A line is not created by sticking lots of points together. It has one dimension, and it joins two points and covers all the points in between. This seems to be the root of your confusion.

[realpaladin]

Doron? Do you speak Hindi, or Bengali, or Rajasthani?

Because then I will ask one of my guys translate it for you, as english nor math can get through to you.

[zooterkin]

Doron? Do you speak Hindi, or Bengali, or Rajasthani?

Because then I will ask one of my guys translate it for you, as english nor math can get through to you.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree, I believe he's Israeli.

[realpaladin]

I think you're barking up the wrong tree, I believe he's Israeli.

Ah, the Shadmi threw me off-track.

I have no Jiddish speaking people here.

[MosheKlein]

Ah, the Shadmi threw me off-track.

I have no Jiddish speaking people here.

Hi Realapaladi,

Both Doron and myself live in Israel. We are Jews !
You can Forgot OM. Do you believe that Mathematics have to possibility of paradigm shift like what happen in physic in 1905 ?

Moshe

[catbasket]

You can Forgot OM.
I don't understand. We can forget Organic Mathematics? Or were you trying to say something else?

[MosheKlein]

I don't understand. We can forget Organic Mathematics? Or were you trying to say something else?

Hi catbasket,

I want to say that you will never and never and never and never etc.. Until infinity can understand OM if you disagree with the potential of Paradigm shift in Mathematics language like the miracle year of 1905.

I also want to say that OM is only one of many way ( infinite ?) to do that.
if realpaladin don't believe in that possibility then he just waste his time hear.

Moshe

[catbasket]

Thanks for clarifying.

So do you agree with Doron - you cannot explain OM to us?

[realpaladin]

Hi Realapaladi,

Both Doron and myself live in Israel. We are Jews !
You can Forgot OM. Do you believe that Mathematics have to possibility of paradigm shift like what happen in physic in 1905 ?

Moshe

Moshe, yep paradigm shifts can always happen, but just as in physics, it will be hotly debated and proofs are needed.

The whole process of science is:

- Someone sets up a theory, and he (or someone who finds the theory intuitively acceptable) goes and figures out the proof.
- Some other people retest the theory and try to corroborate the proof or find new proofs.
- The theory is accepted, until something comes along that explains the observed phenomena (in the broadest sense of the word) better.

So, it is an 'inbuilt' mechanism in science to overthrow itself, if necessary.

But you will never effect a paradigm shift because you want a paradigm shift.

A paradigm shift happens, sometimes even against the grain of it's discoverer, because it explains more and has more or better proofs or evidence.

A good example in physics is String Theory... while I do not know the finer details, I do know that the maths are more elegant, but it does not explain more or better than what we already can with current other theories.

That is why String Theory is not the prevalent theory at the moment.

That is also what I tried to explain to Doron:

Even if you can defend away any criticism, it does you no good if you can not convince anyone that your theory is better.

If nobody is convinced, then the paradigm shift will not happen.

[realpaladin]

Hi catbasket,

I want to say that you will never and never and never and never etc.. Until infinity can understand OM if you disagree with the potential of Paradigm shift in Mathematics language like the miracle year of 1905.

I also want to say that OM is only one of many way ( infinite ?) to do that.
if realpaladin don't believe in that possibility then he just waste his time hear.

Moshe

Aw coprolites. And there I thought I had you convinced of what science is about.

You guys are too focussed on Paradigm Shift.

It. Will. Not. Happen. Because. You. Want. It. Too.

Paradigm shifts happen because everybody is convinced that it is a good thing.

Do not tell me that you are 'looking for a paradigm shift'?

[MosheKlein]

Moshe, yep paradigm shifts can always happen, but just as in physics, it will be hotly debated and proofs are needed.

The whole process of science is:

- Someone sets up a theory, and he (or someone who finds the theory intuitively acceptable) goes and figures out the proof.
- Some other people retest the theory and try to corroborate the proof or find new proofs.
- The theory is accepted, until something comes along that explains the observed phenomena (in the broadest sense of the word) better.

So, it is an 'inbuilt' mechanism in science to overthrow itself, if necessary.

But you will never effect a paradigm shift because you want a paradigm shift.

A paradigm shift happens, sometimes even against the grain of it's discoverer, because it explains more and has more or better proofs or evidence.

A good example in physics is String Theory... while I do not know the finer details, I do know that the maths are more elegant, but it does not explain more or better than what we already can with current other theories.

That is why String Theory is not the prevalent theory at the moment.

That is also what I tried to explain to Doron:

Even if you can defend away any criticism, it does you no good if you can not convince anyone that your theory is better.

If nobody is convinced, then the paradigm shift will not happen.

ok, thank you !

I agree with you all accept one thing..
I still think that OM is a paradigm shift. This is because it can change the most fundamental concept of mathematics which is the Number. the discovery of organic number by Doron Shadmi.

Will you be willing to help us
if you change your opinion about OM ?

Let's go now step by step
I can show you if you really want to know
how I came to OM idea in 2000.

Have you heard about the famous lecture
of David Hilbert in Paris in 1900.
this is very fundamental for my picture.


Best
Moshe

[catbasket]

I still think that OM is a paradigm shift.
No. A paradigm shift is certainly possible in Mathematics, but you have presented zero evidence to persuade anyone that OM is anything more than smoke and mirrors. You also, just like doron, appear totally incapable of explaining OM to anyone.

"A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share.”
If only MosheKlein and doronshadmi "get" OM ... how can it be a paradigm shift?

Maybe it's a local paradigm shift rather than a non-local one?

Any progress in finding "even one minor practical use for organic mathematics" to show us? jsfisher, myself and others would love to see one.

[doronshadmi]

Again! It is what I said!

Any of your 1-dim elements consists of a non-finite, or infinite number of other 1-dim elements!
1-dim element is a non-local building-block (it is an atom, and therefore consists by exactly 0 sub-elements).

The research about the difference between finite or non-finite cardinality is about the number of elements that can be along the 1-dim building-block.

So you totally have missed the whole point here.

Here is an equivalent example from Standard Math:

____ is equivalent to {} (known as the empty set).

The cardinality of {} (notated as |{}|) is 0 exactly because we do not count the empty set as its own element.

So is the case with _____ , we do not count it as its own building-block, exactly as {} is not its own element.

On top of this non-local atomic state we research the difference between the amounts of finite or non-finite elements.

An amount of finite elements along ______ has a well-known cardinality.

An amount of non-finite elements along ______ does not have a well-known cardinality, exactly because 1-dim element cannot fully covered by non-finite amount of elements (by the way, when we deal with the non-finite, the most accurate way is to use non-finite amount of 0-dim elements, so in both case (the finite case and the non-finite case) we have to use the same type of elements (0-dim, in this case) in order to get valid conclusion about the difference between finite cardinality and non-finite cardinality).

I hope that now you start to get it.

[doronshadmi]

If only MosheKlein and doronshadmi "get" OM ... how can it be a paradigm shift?
Because you use the level of some partial result of X in order to get X.

It cannot be done, because you can't get X by using a partial result of X.

The level of verbal definitions is nothing but a partial result of direct perception.

As long as you are not enable to use direct perception as the basis of your understanding, you can't get OM.

[Christian Klippel]

Moshe,

i think you still don't understand. People here are not that much interested why and how you came to OM, or why and how doron came to OM. They want to know what practical applications are there for OM. They want examples of how OM can solve things in a better/more elegant way than good old regular math.

You and doron go to great lengths to explain what you think of it, to describe things about it, but you never go forward and give any practical examples.

Look, in standard math, to get the circumference of a circle, one calculates 2 * radius * pi. To get the circular area, one calculates radius * radius * pi. Another example. If i get a bag full of the same coins, the contents bag weighs 2 kilogram, and i know that a single coin weighs 10 grams, then i can calculate 2 / 0.01 to get the number of coins in the bag.

Now, how can these examples be solved using OM? To make OM attractive, the solutions must be simpler and easier to calculate than in standard math. If it gets more complicated and awkward, no one will ever care for OM.

So, stop dancing around. Stop accusing people of not getting it or whatever. Come up with practical examples of how OM can be applied to mathematical problems, how the application of PM makes it simpler to handle these problems, and show that you get the same results that standard math would give for a given problem but by using OM instead.

Again, no one really cares how you came to it, where you heard from it, where you talk about it. If you can't come up with good examples of it's applications, it will be nothing more than crackpot numerology.

Greetings,

Chris

[doronshadmi]

Any ___ has an infinite amount of sets consisting of smaller ___ that cover it completely.

Wrong.

At the momnet that you deal with the non-finite you can't avoid the smallest possible elements, which are 0-dim elements.

And this is where the Non-locality\Locality story takes place, and clearly shows that no amount of 0-dim elements can fully cover a 1-dim element.


The lengths, or non-localities, will approach 0 when the finite number of that given solution approaches infinity.
Ya, when finite = non-finite, call us.

As long as finite ≠ non-finite I suggest you to keep silence.

Maybe you can learn some interesting things at the level of silence (which is not the thought "silence").

[MosheKlein]

No. A paradigm shift is certainly possible in Mathematics, but you have presented zero evidence to persuade anyone that OM is anything more than smoke and mirrors. You also, just like doron, appear totally incapable of explaining OM to anyone.


If only MosheKlein and doronshadmi "get" OM ... how can it be a paradigm shift?

Maybe it's a local paradigm shift rather than a non-local one?

Any progress in finding "even one minor practical use for organic mathematics" to show us? jsfisher, myself and others would love to see one.

catbasket

I came to this forum because doron ask me to do that.
To protect my algorithm for On
Which is no more relevant to OM

I am sorry but you can't have any idea which mathematician are involved in this story today.

local paradigm shift - I like it so you see you can be creative also.


Can you start to imagine the economical value
of any application that you so much
asking to share here freely ?

Moshe

[doronshadmi]

If nobody is convinced, then the paradigm shift will not happen.
In the case of OM the initial terms to get it are worse, because the mind must enable to use direct perception in order to be convinced of some valuable result.

I am talking here about not less than a paradigm-shift about how things are valued, in the first place.

You are using verbal-based skills that are nothing but some particular result of direct perception.

As long as people can't use direct perception as the basis of reasoning, no paradigm shift will take place.

This thread clearly shows that we are in a very preliminary state of direct perception's paradigm shift, which says nothing about what is going to happen in the future.

[zooterkin]

Can you start to imagine the economical value
of any application that you so much
asking to share here freely ?

Moshe

So, you're hoping to make money from OM? I would like to think that you'd need to prove that you actually have something worth selling, but there are plenty of peddlers of woo out there making a living already.

However, if you really do have a new form of mathematics, I think you may be overoptimistic if you think you'll make money from it. Can you think of any previous mathematicians who managed it?

[realpaladin]

1-dim element is a non-local building-block (it is an atom, and therefore consists by exactly 0 sub-elements).

An atom....
It consists of 0 sub-elements....

You can not be serious here. Seriously. You can not.

This is never going to be a paradigm-shift as it would be moving backwards in history, before the ancient Greeks.

You want to backwardify your people, huh?

[Little 10 Toes]

catbasket

I came to this forum because doron ask me to do that.
To protect my algorithm for On
Which is no more relevant to OM

I am sorry but you can't have any idea which mathematician are involved in this story today.

local paradigm shift - I like it so you see you can be creative also.


Can you start to imagine the economical value
of any application that you so much
asking to share here freely ?

Moshe

But MosheKlein, your algorithm has already been shown on how to get ON (or so I believe) and we aren't even asking for a specific example, we're just asking for any example.

[doronshadmi]

An atom....
It consists of 0 sub-elements....

You can not be serious here. Seriously. You can not.

This is never going to be a paradigm-shift as it would be moving backwards in history, before the ancient Greeks.

You want to backwardify your people, huh?
Wrong,

The paradigm shift is exactly the use of direct perception, which enables to immediately understand that our abstract and non-abstract realm is the result of the linkage between non-local atom(s) (represented at least as a 1-dim element) and local atom(s) (represented at least as 0-dim element).

You are invited to show Non-locality\Locality linkage in ancient Greeks time, and how it was developed during the years until nowadays.

Another thing that you miss is that there are a lot of ideas along the history of mankind that were forgotten during the years, and re-discovered by chance and also developed if they had been found useful.

So, time has no significance in the case of inventing, discovering, re-discovering and using\re-using fruitful notions.

[catbasket]

I came to this forum because doron ask me to do that.
To protect my algorithm for On
Which is no more relevant to OM
I do not want explanations why you came here. It is irrelevant.

I am sorry but you can't have any idea which mathematician are involved in this story today.
I did not ask for this information. Irrelevant.

local paradigm shift - I like it so you see you can be creative also.
I'm glad you like my joke :D

Can you start to imagine the economical value
of any application that you so much
asking to share here freely ?

As I have not seen "even one minor practical use for organic mathematics" I can have no idea of any possible economical value. Why do you ask? Are you looking for investors?

[doronshadmi]

I do not want explanations why you came here. It is irrelevant.


I did not ask for this information. Irrelevant.


I'm glad you like my joke :D


As I have not seen "even one minor practical use for organic mathematics" I can have no idea of any possible economical value. Why do you ask? Are you looking for investors?

Try to get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4880215&postcount=4604 .

[realpaladin]

So... why is your 1-dim indivisible? Why is it the atom? If I look, nay stare even, at a thing with 1 dimension, it still is divisible. That is the whole nature of something having a dimension.

No paradigm shift can contradict Nature, yet you try to...

[realpaladin]

Wrong,

The paradigm shift is exactly the use of direct perception, which enables to immediately understand that our abstract and non-abstract realm is the result of the linkage between non-local atom(s) (represented at least as a 1-dim element) and local atom(s) (represented at least as 0-dim element).


But... but... but... Nature has proven that in the non-abstract realm you are wrong... why try to contradict it?


You are invited to show Non-locality\Locality linkage in ancient Greeks time, and how it was developed during the years until nowadays.


The name atom comes from the Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) ἄτομος/átomos, α-τεμνω, which means uncuttable, something that cannot be divided further. The concept of an atom as an indivisible component of matter was first proposed by early Indian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_philosophy) and Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_philosophy) philosophers. In the 17th and 18th centuries,
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom


Another thing that you miss is that there are a lot of ideas along the history of mankind that were forgotten during the years, and re-discovered by chance and also developed if they had been found useful.

You have yet to show it more useful than anything else that is currently out there.

So, time has no significance in the case of inventing, discovering, re-discovering and using\re-using fruitful notions.

Except for that 'magical year 1905' *sigh*

[doronshadmi]

But... but... but... Nature has proven that in the non-abstract realm you are wrong... why try to contradict it?

Not at all.

Non-locality\Locality linkage is exactl both abstract and non-abstract realm.

If you wish to get QM non-locality\locality linkage, this time really read http://www.livecity.co.il/image/users/112431/ftp/my_files/IJPAM-OM.pdf (last time it took 2 minutes, so this time give yourself the chance to get it).



Except for that 'magical year 1905' *sigh*
No, time is considered as the 4th dim. in E. theories.

[doronshadmi]

So... why is your 1-dim indivisible? Why is it the atom? If I look, nay stare even, at a thing with 1 dimension, it still is divisible. That is the whole nature of something having a dimension.

No paradigm shift can contradict Nature, yet you try to...

No, it is always a linkage between Non-locality and Locality, no matter what dimension degrees of dimansions are used.

[realpaladin]

No, it is always a linkage between Non-locality and Locality, no matter what dimension degrees of dimansions are used.

Does this make sense in your language? I do not understand it.

[MosheKlein]

Moshe,

i think you still don't understand. People here are not that much interested why and how you came to OM, or why and how doron came to OM. They want to know what practical applications are there for OM. They want examples of how OM can solve things in a better/more elegant way than good old regular math.

You and doron go to great lengths to explain what you think of it, to describe things about it, but you never go forward and give any practical examples.

Look, in standard math, to get the circumference of a circle, one calculates 2 * radius * pi. To get the circular area, one calculates radius * radius * pi. Another example. If i get a bag full of the same coins, the contents bag weighs 2 kilogram, and i know that a single coin weighs 10 grams, then i can calculate 2 / 0.01 to get the number of coins in the bag.

Now, how can these examples be solved using OM? To make OM attractive, the solutions must be simpler and easier to calculate than in standard math. If it gets more complicated and awkward, no one will ever care for OM.

So, stop dancing around. Stop accusing people of not getting it or whatever. Come up with practical examples of how OM can be applied to mathematical problems, how the application of PM makes it simpler to handle these problems, and show that you get the same results that standard math would give for a given problem but by using OM instead.

Again, no one really cares how you came to it, where you heard from it, where you talk about it. If you can't come up with good examples of it's applications, it will be nothing more than crackpot numerology.

Greetings,

Chris

Organic Mathematics is like a real organism !
In my vision it have the shape of Klein Bottle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8rifKlq5hc

From locality it have two size
From non locality it have only one size.

I can see it also as a positive demonstration to Goedel theorem.

So ,Many Many and Many ! application it can have
because the language is one of the most important
quality of the Human race.

Moshe

[catbasket]

Try to get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4880215&postcount=4604 .
Good try, but I think you'll find that post is a non-answer to a question I didn't ask.

[catbasket]

Many Many and Many ! application it can have
because the language is one of the most important
quality of the Human race.
Excellent. Surely there is one minor practical application that you can share with us? After all there are "Many Many and Many !".

[Christian Klippel]

Organic Mathematics is like a real organism !

So, as i mentioned earlier, it is compostable. Thanks for clarifying that.

In my vision it have the shape of Klein Bottle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8rifKlq5hc

From locality it have two size
From non locality it have only one size.


Size? You probably mean surface, right?

However, care to gives us an example of how to represent a Klein bottle using OM? The formula for that, using standard math, can be found in this Wikipedia Link.

Edit: However, it still has only one side. And if you talk about perception, then i guess you have it the wrong way round. If i would walk locally on the surface, it shows up as a single surface. But if i look at it non-locally from a distance, it _appears_ on a quick look to have two surfaces (inner and outer). You could also have referred to a Moebius-strip, basically the same, just that the strip has borders, which the bottle has not.

So you either went completely wrong with you local/non-local things (because there is only one surface), or you mixed up local and non-local.

I can see it also as a positive demonstration to Goedel theorem.

So ,Many Many and Many ! application it can have
because the language is one of the most important
quality of the Human race.

Moshe

Are you aware that mathematics _is_ already a well defined language? In fact, it is _the_ universal language of science. You assert that OM can do better, which automatically implies that standard math is flawed. But so far you have not given any practical example for that.

Instead, you rave around why people request something "for free" from something that has such a big "economical value".

You know, and let me say that very clear: You and doron sound like free-energy crackpots. Yes, you do. To 100%. Why? Simple: You say your stuff is superior, but can not explain how. You say that your stuff works, but you can not demonstrate it. You say your stuff will do so much good things to humanity, but you fail to deliver. If asked for an demonstration, you bail out and bring in financial interests of your own as a reason. That is indeed 100% free-energy crackpotish. The only difference is that you play this silly game with math, instead of energy. But the plot is the exact same.

Oh, did i mention that you also bring quantum mechanics, big names, etc. into your game in a lame attempt to make it look credible? Yes, 100% FE-crackpot.

So, again. Bring some (or even only one) example where OM does things better than regular math. Bring a sound comparison. Show us the flaw in standard math that your OM can solve. Otherwise everything you say is just meaningless blather.

Greetings,

Chris

[MosheKlein]

So, as i mentioned earlier, it is compostable. Thanks for clarifying that.



Size? You probably mean surface, right?

However, care to gives us an example of how to represent a Klein bottle using OM? The formula for that, using standard math, can be found in this Wikipedia Link.

Edit: However, it still has only one side. And if you talk about perception, then i guess you have it the wrong way round. If i would walk locally on the surface, it shows up as a single surface. But if i look at it non-locally from a distance, it _appears_ on a quick look to have two surfaces (inner and outer). You could also have referred to a Moebius-strip, basically the same, just that the strip has borders, which the bottle has not.

So you either went completely wrong with you local/non-local things (because there is only one surface), or you mixed up local and non-local.



Are you aware that mathematics _is_ already a well defined language? In fact, it is _the_ universal language of science. You assert that OM can do better, which automatically implies that standard math is flawed. But so far you have not given any practical example for that.

Instead, you rave around why people request something "for free" from something that has such a big "economical value".

You know, and let me say that very clear: You and doron sound like free-energy crackpots. Yes, you do. To 100%. Why? Simple: You say your stuff is superior, but can not explain how. You say that your stuff works, but you can not demonstrate it. You say your stuff will do so much good things to humanity, but you fail to deliver. If asked for an demonstration, you bail out and bring in financial interests of your own as a reason. That is indeed 100% free-energy crackpotish. The only difference is that you play this silly game with math, instead of energy. But the plot is the exact same.

Oh, did i mention that you also bring quantum mechanics, big names, etc. into your game in a lame attempt to make it look credible? Yes, 100% FE-crackpot.

So, again. Bring some (or even only one) example where OM does things better than regular math. Bring a sound comparison. Show us the flaw in standard math that your OM can solve. Otherwise everything you say is just meaningless blather.

Greetings,

Chris

I am sorry but you are wrong !
klein bottle have two sizes from locality point of view
and only one size from the global view


ok - I give up

try to think about the Economy of the world
as a living organisim:con2:

[MosheKlein]

Excellent. Surely there is one minor practical application that you can share with us? After all there are "Many Many and Many !".

ok . take a point and a line ( not made from points)
and go to play on that with the childrens
in the near kindergarden:con2:

[realpaladin]

So, let's say I want to buy an application? What would I buy?

[zooterkin]

ok . take a point and a line ( not made from points)
and go to play on that with the childrens
in the near kindergarden:con2:

Evasion noted.

[realpaladin]

Doron & Moshe... you bunch of plagiarites: http://ione.psy.uconn.edu/MC.pdf

(and that academic paper on direct perception makes more sense!)

[MosheKlein]

So, let's say I want to buy an application? What would I buy?

Good !

Well ,you receive already the organic number 2 for free

(ab,ab);(ab,a);(ab,b);(a,a);(b,b);(a,b)

until today you have only (a,b)

for much more advance application how you are going to pay us ?

Best
Moshe
:cool:

[realpaladin]

Good !

Well ,you receive already the organic number 2 for free

(ab,ab);(ab,a);(ab,b);(a,a);(b,b);(a,b)

until today you have only (a,b)

for much more advance application how you are going to pay us ?

Best
Moshe
:cool:

I want to say: I guess the humane thing to do would be 'to pay the bill until therapy restores you to full mental health', but alas I can not.

So I say, you given nothing of worth and I still have given you my time, so you owe me!

[MosheKlein]

I want to say: I guess the humane thing to do would be 'to pay the bill until therapy restores you to full mental health', but alas I can not.

So I say, you given nothing of worth and I still have given you my time, so you owe me!

I am really sorry but I can't take any responsibility about your time.
Do you know something about the Turing machine ?

[MosheKlein]

Doron & Moshe... you bunch of plagiarites: http://ione.psy.uconn.edu/MC.pdf

(and that academic paper on direct perception makes more sense!)



thank you for the link
I never sow it before
Moshe

p.s what is plagiarites
I am dyslectic in English

[MosheKlein]

Evasion noted.

I can't understand the english

[realpaladin]

thank you for the link
I never sow it before
Moshe

p.s what is plagiarites
I am dyslectic in English
Yes I knaw...

[catbasket]

...
for much more advance application how you are going to pay us ?

Which advanced application are you selling?

[realpaladin]

I am really sorry but I can't take any responsibility about your time.
Do you know something about the Turing machine ?

My Phd says I do, but you probably will tell me I do not :D

[MosheKlein]

My Phd says I do, but you probably will tell me I do not :D

Congetulation for the PHD degree !
It can be very helpful if you decide to be in.

Are the numbers on the infinite string of TM
have redundancy or uncertainty ?

[MosheKlein]

Which advanced application are you selling?

Windows for the brain !
Do you have any connection to Bill Gates ?

[MosheKlein]

yes i knaw...

יפה

[dlorde]

The worked example is first of all you.MY direct perception is that you are being deliberately obtuse.

For better understanding please read very carefully page 7 of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMDP.pdf .
I think you (deliberately?) misunderstood my question, which was requesting worked examples of OM, i.e. Organic Numbers used in some calculation. There are no Organic Numbers on page 7 of OMDP.pdf.

[jsfisher]

Do you know something about the Turing machine ?

(I know I am going to regret this....)

Why are you bringing up Turing machines?

[realpaladin]

Congetulation for the PHD degree !
It can be very helpful if you decide to be in.
Meh, it's 15 years old... and I do not want to be in with people that babble incoherent nonsense.

Are the numbers on the infinite string of TM
You mean 'symbols' that define the transition map and you mean infinite tape.

have redundancy or uncertainty ?
You mean 'oogedyboogedyboo'.

I am not done with your indivisibility problem.

You are going to prove to me why ANY 1-dim element that has locality/non-locality linkage is indivisible.

I still state that this is your basic error; if the two localities are ANY distance apart from each other, otherwise you do not have a 1-dim element, then that distance can be divided.

Showing you are wrong AGAIN:

The dimension of the 1-dim element is 1a (meaning 1 atom), right?

- na = 2na/2 because any line with length na can be split up in n*1a elements.

- na = 2n(a/2), but this is not possible in your OM, because 1a is indivisible!

So, OM fails the most basic of math.

[realpaladin]

Windows for the brain !
Do you have any connection to Bill Gates ?

Nope, but I can give you Steve Ballmers email addy.

[realpaladin]

יפה
Ja, en dan? Engels is ook niet mijn eerste taal, maar ik heb tenminste gestudeerd.

[MosheKlein]

Meh, it's 15 years old... and I do not want to be in with people that babble incoherent nonsense.


You mean 'symbols' that define the transition map and you mean infinite tape.


You mean 'oogedyboogedyboo'.

I am not done with your indivisibility problem.

You are going to prove to me why ANY 1-dim element that has locality/non-locality linkage is indivisible.

I still state that this is your basic error; if the to localities are ANY distance apart from each other, otherwise you do not have a 1-dim element, then that distance can be divided.

Showing you are wrong AGAIN:

The dimension of the 1-dim element is 1a (meaning 1 atom), right?

- na = 2na/2 because any line with length na can be split up in n*1a elements.

- na = 2n(a/2), but this is not possible in your OM, because 1a is indivisible!

So, OM fails the most basic of math.


Before we can go to the concept of dimension in OM
Please let me ask you a very simple question :

Do you agree with me that a line is not collection of many points ?

[MosheKlein]

Ja, en dan? Engels is ook niet mijn eerste taal, maar ik heb tenminste gestudeerd.


It's Hebrew the language of the bible

זו עברית השפה של התנ"ך

[MosheKlein]

(I know I am going to regret this....)

Why are you bringing up Turing machines?

Haven't to understand already that the only and really the only connection between OM and traditional mathematics is the symbols of the letters.
and even the space between the letters is different ?

[realpaladin]

Before we can go to the concept of dimension of OM
Please let me ask you a very simple question :

Do you agree with me that a line is not collection of many points ?

Man... you *do* have a problem with basic math;

Points have no size, but the answer to your question is:

A line is a collection of a type 2 infinity number of points.

The proof is:
Start with the length of your line, in your case at least 1 (atomic), then subtract 0. If the result is not yet 0, repeat.

Infinity hurts your brain, or what?

[MosheKlein]

Nope, but I can give you Steve Ballmers email addy.

Who is this man and how he can help OM ?

[realpaladin]

It's Hebrew the language of the bible

זו עברית השפה של התנ"ך

That other fantasmagoria, I know.

[realpaladin]

Who is this man and how he can help OM ?

Either you are a troll, or you have completely missed who is the CEO of Microsoft for years now.

[MosheKlein]

Man... you *do* have a problem with basic math;

Points have no size, but the answer to your question is:

A line is a collection of a type 2 infinity number of points.

The proof is:
Start with the length of your line, in your case at least 1 (atomic), then subtract 0. If the result is not yet 0, repeat.

Infinity hurts your brain, or what?

I am sorry but there are too many words in your answer for me:

yes or no ? ( line is made from points )

[MosheKlein]

Either you are a troll, or you have completely missed who is the CEO of Microsoft for years now.


This sound to me excellent connection !
How can I pay you for that ?

[zooterkin]

Man... you *do* have a problem with basic math;

Points have no size, but the answer to your question is:

A line is a collection of a type 2 infinity number of points.

The proof is:
Start with the length of your line, in your case at least 1 (atomic), then subtract 0. If the result is not yet 0, repeat.

Infinity hurts your brain, or what?

It's a blindspot Doron and Moshe seem to share.

[realpaladin]

I am sorry but there are too many words in your answer for me:

yes or no ? ( line is made from points )
t2 ∞

[MosheKlein]

It's a blindspot Doron and Moshe seem to share.


you don't want to ride on the wave of successes
of those who get out from the cave of Plato.

[realpaladin]

This sound to me excellent connection !
How can I pay you for that ?

Dropping the sharades that OM is really something would be a start...

[MosheKlein]

t2 ∞

nice, is this is your real picture ?

can't you say simply yes or no

[realpaladin]

you don't want to ride on the wave of successes
of those who get out from the cave of Plato.

Aaah yes, Plato, the man who thought the indivisibility of atoms was meshuggene!

[realpaladin]

nice, is this is your real picture ?

can't you say simply yes or no

I can, but I won't, because you can but you don't.

[MosheKlein]

Dropping the sharades that OM is really something would be a start...


L.Lovasz the president of the international mathematics unity
is working at Microsoft please look on his paper One Mathematics

http://www.cs.elte.hu/~lovasz/berlin.pdf


I will pay you 5% for a contract with Microsoft on the equation:


One Mathematics = OM

A Dill ?

[jsfisher]

can't you say simply yes or no

He already did answer your question. He said:

A line is a collection of a type 2 infinity number of points.

[realpaladin]

L.Lovasz the president of the international mathematics unity
is working at Microsoft please look on his paper One Mathematics

http://www.cs.elte.hu/~lovasz/berlin.pdf (http://www.cs.elte.hu/%7Elovasz/berlin.pdf)


I will pay you 5% for a contract with Microsoft on the equation:


One Mathematics = OM

A Dill ?

Not even a pickle!

I just read his document. Get cracking on infinity guys, or you are losing it.

The title refers to the fact that Mathematics is diverting away from One Mathematics, and that finite or discrete mathematics needs to find ways to approach continuous mathematics.

Wow! Your reading comprehension is horrible!

[MosheKlein]

He already did answer your question. He said:

What is type 2 point's

Did I miss something in my kindergarden?

[realpaladin]

What is type 2 point's

Did I miss something in my kindergarden?

Type 2 infinity is what your Kindergarten forgot to teach you.

You know? There are several types of infinity?

I am beginning to think you have no background in math at all and you just make it up as you go along...

[MosheKlein]

Not even a pickle!

I just read his document. Get cracking on infinity guys, or you are losing it.

The title refers to the fact that Mathematics is diverting away from One Mathematics, and that finite or discrete mathematics needs to find ways to approach continuous mathematics.

Wow! Your reading comprehension is horrible!



Oh my God !

I read what you wrote about the paper OM of Lovasaz
and I now I am really sock that you don't have OM
How can you don't understand what you wrote ???

Am I blind ?

[realpaladin]

Oh my God !

I read what you wrote about the paper OM of Lovasaz
and I now sock that you don't have OM

am I blind ?

Dunno, pull the sock off your head?

[MosheKlein]

Aaah yes, Plato, the man who thought the indivisibility of atoms was meshuggene!

Do you have sufficient woods for the fire in the cave ?

[MosheKlein]

Type 2 infinity is what your Kindergarten forgot to teach you.

You know? There are several types of infinity?

I am beginning to think you have no background in math at all and you just make it up as you go along...

Do you mean א1 ?

[realpaladin]

Do you have sufficient woods for the fire in the cave ?

You know that 'the cave of Plato' was not real, right? That is was just a philosophical tool to demonstrate that we can never see reality (according to him) and that this tool has been refuted many times over?

Just checking, as I do not know how much a sock-wearing kid can absorb in Kindergarten...

[MosheKlein]

Dunno, pull the sock off your head?

realpaladin

Did you write :

finite or discrete mathematics needs to find ways to approach continuous mathematics.

[realpaladin]

Do you mean א1 ?

Dude! 1 aleph is an element in one of the infinities! It does not denote infinity!

Wow....:jaw-dropp

[MosheKlein]

You know that 'the cave of Plato' was not real, right? That is was just a philosophical tool to demonstrate that we can never see reality (according to him) and that this tool has been refuted many times over?

Just checking, as I do not know how much a sock-wearing kid can absorb in Kindergarten...


No I don't know that at all !
we are now in a real situation of the cave
you miss a real deal with me ( remember the 5%)

[realpaladin]

realpaladin

Did you write :

finite or discrete mathematics needs to find ways to approach continuous mathematics.

I have no answer to that statement as it is no question.

[MosheKlein]

Dude! 1 aleph is an element in one of the infinities! It does not denote infinity!

Wow....:jaw-dropp

Does your line is made from א1 points ?

[realpaladin]

No I don't know that at all !
we are now in a real situation of the cave
you miss a real deal with me ( remember the 5%)

My pretty marble floor, airco's and garden do protest vehemently that they are NOT a cave.

[MosheKlein]

I have no answer to that statement as it is no question.

I only edit and faste what you wrote to me !

so what do you mean you have no answer ?

[realpaladin]

Does your line is made from א1 points ?

I just *know* my brain will tell my colon to jump out of my throat to choke me for a mercy kiling...

If you are not comfortable with the infinities, then we can start there first.

You are like an 8-year old asking 'Daddy, daddy, someone told me that E=mc2 , what is it and why is that so?"

If you are not comfortable with real mathematics, just say so, and I will try to go at it from a different standpoint.

[MosheKlein]

My pretty marble floor, airco's and garden do protest vehemently that they are NOT a cave.

ok you are not in a cave.

But if you think that line is made from א1 points
than you live in a "cave"

[realpaladin]

I only edit and faste what you wrote to me !

so what do you mean you have no answer ?

It was not a question, this is.

[MosheKlein]

I just *know* my brain will tell my colon to jump out of my throat to choke me for a mercy kiling...

If you are not comfortable with the infinities, then we can start there first.

You are like an 8-year old asking 'Daddy, daddy, someone told me that E=mc2 , what is it and why is that so?"

If you are not comfortable with real mathematics, just say so, and I will try to go at it from a different standpoint.


All fields and known 61 branches of mathematics
are clear to me like my hand !

you can try me.

[realpaladin]

ok you are not in a cave.

But if you think that line is made from א1 points
than you live in a "cave"

Great, a bat-cave it is then, let's not pursue it.

But, lest we forget and before you strawman too much...

na = xn(a/x) for any x>1

example:
na = 2n(a/2)

That is a Kindergarten equation... why is this still possible with O.M. even when a is indivisible?

[MosheKlein]

It was not a question, this is.


sorry I wrote to you excetly :

Did you write :

finite or discrete mathematics needs to find ways to approach continuous mathematics.

[realpaladin]

All fields and known 61 branches of mathematics
are clear to me like my hand !

you can try me.

And you asked what a type 2 infinity was?

Pull. Off. That. Sock. Now!

[zooterkin]

But if you think that line is made from א1 points
than you live in a "cave"

You and Doron keep going on about this. The line is not made from points.

[realpaladin]

sorry I wrote to you excetly :

Did you write :

finite or discrete mathematics needs to find ways to approach continuous mathematics.

I am missing the question mark here. Yeah, pedantic, I know. But sometimes you have to be a bit pedantic. Can't be helped.

And I see an error in my statement; finite can be continuous as well.

But what is your strawman?

[MosheKlein]

Great, a bat-cave it is then, let's not pursue it.

But, lest we forget and before you strawman too much...

na = xn(a/x) for any x>1

example:
na = 2n(a/2)

That is a Kindergarten equation... why is this still possible with O.M. even when a is indivisible?



I am afraid that you don't understand me
if you think that a line is made from א1 points
there is no way for us to communicate ( about math


I take a brake. I hope to be here tomorrow.

[realpaladin]

You and Doron keep going on about this. The line is not made from points.
It is like the same discussion with another member on what happened before the Big Bang...the answer that was obvious did not register as it was not intuitive enough :)

[realpaladin]

I am afraid that you don't understand me
if you think that a line is made from א1 points
there is no way for us to communicate ( about math


I take a brake. I hope to be here tomorrow.

This has nothing to do with any line.

This is simply working with a formula on the premises of OM.

Not a single line in sight here! In fact, only 1-dim elements in that formula. And some numbers.

Really, how you can drag a line into this, I do not see. It is simply about the properties of the 1-dim element.

In fact, this formula follows from your own redundancy statement.

[MosheKlein]

I am missing the question mark here. Yeah, pedantic, I know. But sometimes you have to be a bit pedantic. Can't be helped.

And I see an error in my statement; finite can be continuous as well.

But what is your strawman?


Maybe I am creasy when I see you blindness.

Good night !:)

[realpaladin]

Maybe I am creasy when I see you blindness.

Good night !:)

Simple question, is that formula possible with OM, yes or no?

[MosheKlein]

This has nothing to do with any line.

This is simply working with a formula on the premises of OM.

Not a single line in sight here! In fact, only 1-dim elements in that formula. And some numbers.

Really, how you can drag a line into this, I do not see. It is simply about the properties of the 1-dim element.

In fact, this formula follows from your own redundancy statement.


one more thing to say before I close my eyes.

OM is completely different in any symbol that you use:

2, / , < etc

[realpaladin]

one more thing to say before I close my eyes.

OM is completely different in any symbol that you use:

2, / , < etc

Yes, the terminology 'Gobbledygook' springs to mind, indeed.

[MosheKlein]

You and Doron keep going on about this. The line is not made from points.


excellent ! so see you tomorrow !! good night !!!
The Trool :con2:

[MosheKlein]

Yes, the terminology 'Gobbledygook' springs to mind, indeed.


Try to see the space between the letters.

I have to wake early tomorrow for my business..

[realpaladin]

Just for laughs... here you can contact the Israeli Microsoft R&D center: http://www.microsoft.com/Israel/RnD/about/overview.html

Click on 'contact us'.

But copy/paste what they say, puhleeeeeeeaaase!

[MosheKlein]

:c2:
:c2: :c2:
:c2: :c2: :c2:
:c2: :c2: :c2: :c2:

[realpaladin]

Does not matter how often you say good night. It still makes you evasive and wrong.

And now you can contact Microsoft in Hebrew as well. Man, they are so going to hate me for this.

[catbasket]

you miss a real deal with me ( remember the 5%)
Can you use OM for financial transactions?

Eek! That makes me directly perceive the old ABBA song - "Money money money, Must be funny, In an OM world".

(If I gotta suffer this song, so do you lot)

[doronshadmi]

Good try, but I think you'll find that post is a non-answer to a question I didn't ask.
So you think wrong, because your verbal-only reasoning can't get the direct perception that enables it, in the first place.

[jsfisher]

It is curious how Doronshadmi and now Mosheklein want to believe so badly that a line is somehow atomic, totally indivisible, and, most importantly, not a collection of points.

Then again, Doronshadmi has claimed there are no more real numbers than there are rationals, so maybe a distorted concept for infinity is at the root. But I digress....

Now, given this totally indivisible line that is not a collection of points, Doron and Moshe are still able to divide into line segments and locate points on it.

Curious, no?

[jsfisher]

So you think wrong, because your verbal-only reasoning can't get the direct perception that enables it, in the first place.

Doronshadmi,

Why are you being so childish? "I know you are, but what am I?" Is your position really so vacuous that you have no defense other than these playground retorts?

[The Man]

Doron & Moshe... you bunch of plagiarites: http://ione.psy.uconn.edu/MC.pdf

(and that academic paper on direct perception makes more sense!)


I found that the other day but haven't had the chance to finish reading it yet. Been quite occupied today so haven’t had time for chit-chat. Just making my way thought the past 24hrs worth of posts to get back up to speed.

[doronshadmi]

No, it is always a linkage between Non-locality and Locality, no matter what dimension degrees of dimansions are used.

Does this make sense in your language? I do not understand it.
Sorry my typo mistake, the right one is:

"No, it is always a linkage between Non-locality and Locality, no matter what degrees of dimensions are used."

For example:

1/2 is the ratio between 1 and 2.

2/4 is the ratio between 2 and 4.

Pi/sqrt(2) is the ratio between pi and sqrt(2).

37/100 is the ratio between 37 and 100.

In general, no one of the values (x or y) of the ratio x/y has to be broken into pieces in order to define the result of x/y ratio, and no one of the results is made of broken pieces. It is all based on ratio, and this is exactly the reason of why 2/4 = 1/2.

Furthermore, if the result is based on the amount or size of elements that can cover another element, then the covered element is non-local w.r.t any element that covers it, if this element < the covered element.

No covered element and no element < the covered element are made of broken pieces.

[dlorde]

OK, excuse me for expressing myself with 'verbal thinking', but forum posting is a verbal activity. So far I've 'got' the basic generation of ONs - as the sum of the 'distinctions' of the partitions of a number. I've also 'got' the principle of OM - it requires 'direct perception'. 'Direct perception' involves no thought - it comes before thought and directs and organises thought. To 'get' OM, you must directly perceive a claimed truth ('fact'), or truths, presented by Doron - that, incidentally, is/are contradictory to classical maths and common-sense. IOW you must accept the 'fact' of OM and its axioms. If you do this, your perception will be changed and you will 'become an OM supporter' (Moshe's words) and see how it can change the world and enable all creatures to 'communicate smoothly' (hmm...Tower of Babel anyone?).

So grasping OM requires unthinking acceptance of a 'fact' or set of 'facts' as presented. Let's be honest what this means - it's asking for faith. It's the classic call to faith, in new clothes - as espoused by religions, snake-oil salesmen and carnival barkers.

[W.C. Fields]"Ordinary maths? No sirree, this is special maths, imbued with the multiple and manifest miracle never-before-seen distinctions of a number - this numerological wonder will make world peace, smooth communication between all creatures, cause moral, ethical, and cultural enlightenment across all boundaries, and cure lumbago. Yes, indeed sir, it is a Paradigm Shift, a renaissance in our ecosphere, a portent of Things To Come! Carry it with you at all times."[/W.C. Fields]

[W.C. Fields]"You want to see it work, watch it in action? Why, you only have to accept the fact and it is so - and your unthinking Direct Perception will guide you to the truth. Its implications? why you can think about its implications afterwards. Yes sir? You'd like an example sir? Some evidence? Why, er, no - bless you sir, no, we couldn't possibly do that - this is a commercial venture, with proprietary secrets - we can't just give it away, no sirree. Oh yes, indeedy, this here is a miracle, a true revelation - we can save the world... for a price. We'll target the children first."[/W.C. Fields]

They are saying you must have faith to understand it. Faith in a simple mathematical concept as a miracle cure for the worlds ills. But it's practical use is commercially sensitive, even though it could save the world.

[Dan Brown]He found it odd... odd that Doron and Moshe, for all their apparent superficial differences, were so similarly opaque and obscure in their evasiveness when it came to the real-world applications, the practicalities, the usage. They were as mysteriously alike as two peas in a pod when it came to excuses, misreadings, misunderstandings, misinterpretations, twistings, evasions, misdirections, misquotes, reposts, pointless links, and general slipperiness. Avowedly religious, claiming to conceal the commercial secrets of an apparently mundane mathematical technique that hid a faith-based but scientific solution that could change the world for the better (and presumably make them rich). Could it be a single, subtle, bi-faceted Mandelson-like entity, come to buy gullible souls, or worse, their very consciences ? something told him he was scratching the surface of a vast conspiracy, and this was only the beginning...[/Dan Brown]

It reads like a fantasy novel (perhaps a hint of L. Ron Hubbard ?) - except that common-sense jumps in to remind us that we should always prefer Cockup over Conspiracy, especially when the claims are absurd and unsupported by plausible evidence.

The truth is that it's the posting of a mathematical wonder cure for bad communication that has failed to communicate with the very people it's aimed at. 'Direct Perception' :rolleyes:

Year two - leave him alone Snodgrass - year two, who can tell me the difference between silence and a thought about silence? Yes, Kevin, that's right. Silence is no sound, and a thought about silence is a thought about no sound. Tomorrow we'll talk about ego and displacement. Now go and play.

[doronshadmi]

Doron & Moshe... you bunch of plagiarites: http://ione.psy.uconn.edu/MC.pdf

(and that academic paper on direct perception makes more sense!)

This paper has not reached the fundamentality of OM.

OM enables to demonstrate direct perception by the linkage between non-local and local building-blocks (that stands at the basis of any verbal-based bla bla bla ... description).

This paper is still based on verbal-only descriptions of direct perception and misses direct perception itself.

You still do not get the difference between silence and a thought about silence.

But generally you gradually exposed to the idea of direct perception (which is a good first-step) even if an idea (some thought) about direct perception is not direct perception.

[doronshadmi]

OK, excuse me for expressing myself with 'verbal thinking', but forum posting is a verbal activity.
Not at all.

Forum posting is nothing but some particular representation of direct perception.

You are not able to gather two thoughts into a one idea without the direct perception that stands at the basis of it.


For example : thought thought thought …

As you see your verbal activity cannot be done without direct perception, which its simplest researchable form is at least Non-locality\Locality linkage.


So grasping OM requires unthinking acceptance of a 'fact' or set of 'facts' as presented.
No,

Grasping Om requires self awareness of how direct perception is the basis of organized thoughts (no matter what these thoughts are).

By getting this simplest basis one enables to be aware of the finest relations between different thoughts, and develops his\her ability to re-form and organize them into long term agreement between Complex systems, which reinforces the linkage between Complexity and Simplicity.


(hmm...Tower of Babel anyone?)
The Tower of Babel is a beautiful metaphor of a civilization that lost its ability to communicate on the basis of direct perception, and as a result it lost its ability for smooth communication between its individuals (where smooth communication is not based on verbal-only skills).

The people in that metaphor, that built The Tower of Babel , built it exactly as a result of their loss of communication on the basis of direct perception.

The myth of the Garden of Eden is exactly the same story.

In this story Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledge and lose their ability to get direct perception (known by the name "innocence") as the basis that organizes any knowledge (they became verbal-based creatures).


Let's be honest what this means - it's asking for faith. It's the classic call to faith, in new clothes - as espoused by religions, snake-oil salesmen and carnival barkers.
No.

Faith is a state of mind of a man that has lost his ability to use direct perception in order to organize his thoughts.

As a result he gets anything only on the verbal level, and needs faith in order to find his way.

[doronshadmi]

You and Doron keep going on about this. The line is not made from points.

The line is not made, defined (and any other bla bla bla ... verbal description that you wish) by points, exactly because a line is the simplest representation of a non-local building-block, and a point is the simplest representation of a local-building block.

This notion is organized thoughts that are based on direct perception, where direct perception itself is not a thought.

[dlorde]

Forum posting is nothing but some particular representation of direct perception.
Excellent, in which case you should be able to provide us with a particular (forum) representation of the direct perception of some practical use of OM in specific calculations.

You are not able to gather two thoughts into a one idea without the direct perception that stands at the basis of it.

For example : thought thought thought …

As you see your verbal activity cannot be done without direct perception, which its simplest researchable form is at least Non-locality\Locality linkage.Indeed, and of course - all of which means I must be doing it all the time when perceiving anything - including OM, which I perceive as moonshine.

Faith is a state of mind of a man that has lost his ability to use direct perception in order to organize his thoughts.

As a result he gets anything only on the verbal level, and needs faith in order to find his way.So faith is verbal reasoning, and non-thinking 'direct perception' of so-called 'facts' is not... yes, very Lewis Carroll.

[MosheKlein]

And you asked what a type 2 infinity was?

Pull. Off. That. Sock. Now!


Good morning ! I wake up.

When I was a teenager I ask my self the following question: does the operation of addition + and multiplication * have a third operation say @ with satisfy to following roll:

x@y=y@x
x@(y@z)=(x@y)@z
x@(y*z)=(x@y)*(x*z)

after I solve this challenge positively I ask could it be that the traditional mathematics is a first step to another type of mathematics ?


Way do you need the diagonal method of Cantor to see the line clearly?

Moshe

I will not use the link that you share with me since I am looking to direct connection with Bill Gates. ( he can buy OM , since it is like windows but for the brain)

[jsfisher]

Good morning ! I wake up.

When I was a teenager I ask my self the following question: does the operation of addition + and multiplication * have a third operation say @ with satisfy to following roll:

x@y=y@x
x@(y@z)=(x@y)@z
x@(y*z)=(x@y)*(x*z)


And did your teenager self recognize that the question has a trivial solution, or did you seek out something more convoluted?

[The Man]

Good morning ! I wake up.

When I was a teenager I ask my self the following question: does the operation of addition + and multiplication * have a third operation say @ with satisfy to following roll:

x@y=y@x
x@(y@z)=(x@y)@z
x@(y*z)=(x@y)*(x*z)

after I solve this challenge positively I ask could it be that the traditional mathematics is a first step to another type of mathematics ?


Way do you need the diagonal method of Cantor to see the line clearly?

Moshe

I will not use the link that you share with me since I really search now to a direct connection with Bill Gates. ( OM is like windows but for the brain)

Good morning Moshe.

This @ operation that you proposed so many (or so few) years ago, does it carry any particular attributes as an operation? Is it simply a place holder for some operation you hoped to find later in life, which I must surmise you found in OM? Now it seems to have an ordering dependence in your post. So I ask you again why are ordering distinctions exclude in OM or simply the ‘On’ calculations that form the basis of OM?


ETA:
Of course knowing 61 areas of math like the back of your hand, you do know that addition and multiplication are not different operations but just one is a simpler form of the other representing the same operation?

[jsfisher]

(I know I am going to regret this....)

Why are you bringing up Turing machines?

Haven't to understand already that the only and really the only connection between OM and traditional mathematics is the symbols of the letters.
and even the space between the letters is different ?


Do you realize your response has nothing to do with my post? This is a technique perfected by Doronshadmi, but you can lay claim to being an expert at it as well.

You raised the issue of Turing machines -- yes, I do know quite a bit about them. Why did you raise the issue?

Your aside about spaces and letters was non-responsive to my question.

[MosheKlein]

And did your teenager self recognize that the question has a trivial solution, or did you seek out something more convoluted?

Please present here the solution to this problem.

[MosheKlein]

Do you realize your response has nothing to do with my post? This is a technique perfected by Doronshadmi, but you can lay claim to being an expert at it as well.

You raised the issue of Turing machines -- yes, I do know quite a bit about them. Why did you raise the issue?

Your aside about spaces and letters was non-responsive to my question.

ok. Becase with OM there is posibility to creat new type of computers!

[MosheKlein]

Good morning Moshe.

This @ operation that you proposed so many (or so few) years ago, does it carry any particular attributes as an operation? Is it simply a place holder for some operation you hoped to find later in life, which I must surmise you found in OM? Now it seems to have an ordering dependence in your post. So I ask you again why are ordering distinctions exclude in OM or simply the ‘On’ calculations that form the basis of OM?


ETA:
Of course knowing 61 areas of math like the back of your hand, you do know that addition and multiplication are not different operations but just one is a simpler form of the other representing the same operation?

you can't get OM since you admite here that a line is made from points
no value to talk about distiction with you


@ have no connection with OM

infact I discover that there is infinit number of operators @1, @2, @3, @4...
were :

@1 = + ( x+y)
@2= * (x*y)
@3 = @ ( x^.. let's wait to jsfisher answer)

[The Man]

you can't get OM since you admite here that a line is made from points
no value to talk about distiction with you


@ have no connection with OM

infact i discovert that there is @1, @2, @3, ...

were @1 = +
@2= *

and @3 is the solution to my original problem ( le'ts wait to jsfisher answer)

You misconstrue agian, I have never said (or admitted as you put it) that a line or line segment is made from points, simply that it is defined by points and that is a major distinction. A distiction that most elemetry grade geometry students are able to understand within the first lecture. I have specifically said (as others have) that a line segment is made of other less expansive line segments. Have you some other way of defining a line segment then with points or other less expansive line segments? I would certainly be glad to hear it. I apologize that my pervious post surmised some association of your @ operation with OM. I should have asked first, entirely my fault. I’m also sorry to say that I am still unclear about distinctions in OM, as it appears to be simply a very limited form or set of distinctions (focusing only on associative, or as you put it parallel distinctions) such that certain specific distinctions are excluded, at least in the calculations of “On“s. I am also unsure as to how what should be a common understanding between us, that you understand 61 forms of math, hopefully geometry being one of them, somehow precludes you from discussing distinctions with me, simply because you consider OM to be a 62nd from of math. If your are not comfortable discussing them with me in that 62nd framework, then we can just start with distinctions in general and work from there. Alternatively, simply discussing your @ operation as you must feel it relevant to OM in some way or I doubt you would be bringing it up. Unless of course you are simply inferring that you were looking for your own paradigm shift, new operation, new math or whatever but found something else in OM.

The latter part of you post seems to indicate your @ operation as simply multiplication or @2 as in X @2 simply means X+X or X*2. So I’m not sure how this simplifies anything or does anything different then current multiplication notation representing a simpler form of some ‘n’ series of additions. Meaning where n=1; Xn = X, where n=2; Xn= X+X, where n=3; Xn = X+X+X so on and so forth. Basically Xn or X@n is just X*n.

I am not sure if Doron precisely explained the nature of this forum to you, but it is one primarily populated by skeptics, so expect to have assertions you make responded to with, well, skepticism.

I don’t know if you know much about the United States, but one of our states, Missouri, is called “The Show Me State“. You could consider this the show me forum, so please show me.

[realpaladin]

Sorry my typo mistake, the right one is:

"No, it is always a linkage between Non-locality and Locality, no matter what degrees of dimensions are used."

For example:

1/2 is the ratio between 1 and 2.

2/4 is the ratio between 2 and 4.

Pi/sqrt(2) is the ratio between pi and sqrt(2).

37/100 is the ratio between 37 and 100.

In general, no one of the values (x or y) of the ratio x/y has to be broken into pieces in order to define the result of x/y ratio, and no one of the results is made of broken pieces. It is all based on ratio, and this is exactly the reason of why 2/4 = 1/2.

Furthermore, if the result is based on the amount or size of elements that can cover another element, then the covered element is non-local w.r.t any element that covers it, if this element < the covered element.

No covered element and no element < the covered element are made of broken pieces.

Good! Btw. You should kick Moshe because he stated that the symbols you are using this are nonsense in OM.

So, you are saying that if I had a 1-dim element and I do that math and it turns out to be 1/2 1-dim element, then I did not have a 1-dim element to begin with?

[sympathic]

A line is not composed of points it contains points. This is similar I guess to an interval which is not composed of numbers, it contains numbers. By the way speaking of intervals, Moshe: do you share the same thinking as Doron that there is no immediate successor to [3,5)?

[realpaladin]

This paper has not reached the fundamentality of OM.

That 7-page thingy of yours?

OM enables to demonstrate direct perception by the linkage between non-local and local building-blocks (that stands at the basis of any verbal-based bla bla bla ... description).
It does nothing of the sort.


You still do not get the difference between silence and a thought about silence.

No, you do not get that the thought/concept of silence is enough to communicate to others that it is meant 'that moment of no sound'.

That is what communication does.

Do not blame your tool, blame the craftsman. (Man, I would have loved to write "Do not blame the tool, tool.", but that would have gotten me a mod-action and would have been lost on Doron anyway).

[realpaladin]

Not at all.

Forum posting is nothing but some particular representation of direct perception.

So you claim you are unable to even particularly represent it?

You say DP (man, I should lead another life, I have a totally different connotation with that) is not worth very much?


For example : thought thought thought …


ibbiddi ibbiddi ibbiddi

:confused:

As you see your verbal activity cannot be done without direct perception, which its simplest researchable form is at least Non-locality\Locality linkage.
You mean... two points are at the end of a line segment. Nothing new there.


Grasping Om requires self awareness of how direct perception is the basis of organized thoughts (no matter what these thoughts are).
Bolding mine. Well, *that* is something you have proven...

By getting this simplest basis one enables to be aware of the finest relations between different thoughts, and develops his\her ability to re-form and organize them into long term agreement between Complex systems, which reinforces the linkage between Complexity and Simplicity.

Simple?


The Tower of Babel is a beautiful metaphor of a civilization that lost its ability to communicate on the basis of direct perception, and as a result it lost its ability for smooth communication between its individuals (where smooth communication is not based on verbal-only skills).

The people in that metaphor, that built The Tower of Babel , built it exactly as a result of their loss of communication on the basis of direct perception.

The myth of the Garden of Eden is exactly the same story.

In this story Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledge and lose their ability to get direct perception (known by the name "innocence") as the basis that organizes any knowledge (they became verbal-based creatures).

And now it sounds like "Snow Crash" by Neal Stephenson again.

When does something original pop up?



Faith is a state of mind of a man that has lost his ability to use direct perception in order to organize his thoughts.

As a result he gets anything only on the verbal level, and needs faith in order to find his way.

Nice, this makes me want to organise things like 'Doron vs Yrreg' and 'Moshe vs Greatest I Am'

I would not participate, but just read it :)

[realpaladin]

The line is not made, defined (and any other bla bla bla ... verbal description that you wish) by points, exactly because a line is the simplest representation of a non-local building-block, and a point is the simplest representation of a local-building block.

This notion is organized thoughts that are based on direct perception, where direct perception itself is not a thought.

You are playing with LEGO! I got it!

[realpaladin]

I will not use the link that you share with me since I am looking to direct connection with Bill Gates. ( he can buy OM , since it is like windows but for the brain)

Bill Gates is out of IT! Did you miss his 'last day at the office' video, or what?

But just because I really want to see you try, and because anyone with half a brain could get to this email address anyway.

Here is the email-addres of Steve Ballmer, the CEO of Microsoft:

steveb@microsoft.com

[realpaladin]

I am beginning to wonder more and more if Doron and Moshe are not simply two teens.

Here are some clues:


Failing to understand real math, but fighting it off with schoolyard evasiveness
Not knowing that Bill Gates is not working for Microsoft anymore and is now only doing charitable work (so no, he will not buy the idea).
Not knowing that the big shouting guy in a gorilla suit Steve Ballmer exists and that he is the CEO (the boss) of Microsoft.
Stating that they know 61 branches of math, but have to ask what a simple type 2 infinity is.
Playing with LEGO

So, I call that these are two misguided teens who have convinced themselves that they have an idea that will make them rich.

And *that* does make me feel sad, as I do not want to crush dreams of people...

[MosheKlein]

Bill Gates is out of IT! Did you miss his 'last day at the office' video, or what?

But just because I really want to see you try, and because anyone with half a brain could get to this email address anyway.

Here is the email-addres of Steve Ballmer, the CEO of Microsoft:

steveb@microsoft.com

thank you !

my e-mail address is

gan_adam@netvision.net.il

I can sent you if you want
A copy of my mail to Steve Ballamer.

Best
Moshe:c2:

[realpaladin]

thank you !

my e-mail address is

gan_adam@netvision.net.il

I can sent you if you want
copy of my mail to Steve Ballamer.

best
Moshe:c2:

Post it here.

[The Man]

Sorry my typo mistake, the right one is:

"No, it is always a linkage between Non-locality and Locality, no matter what degrees of dimensions are used."

For example:

1/2 is the ratio between 1 and 2.

2/4 is the ratio between 2 and 4.

Pi/sqrt(2) is the ratio between pi and sqrt(2).

37/100 is the ratio between 37 and 100.

In general, no one of the values (x or y) of the ratio x/y has to be broken into pieces in order to define the result of x/y ratio, and no one of the results is made of broken pieces. It is all based on ratio, and this is exactly the reason of why 2/4 = 1/2.

Furthermore, if the result is based on the amount or size of elements that can cover another element, then the covered element is non-local w.r.t any element that covers it, if this element < the covered element.

No covered element and no element < the covered element are made of broken pieces.

I have to point out that Doron has referred to essentially invariant proportions or constants, like pi and the speed of light, as also his ‘atoms’. ‘Not composed’ and ‘invisible’ while both are composed specifically as divisions. Now with pi I might give him some leeway there as it is in dimensionless units. The ratio of diameter to circumference, so whatever units you are using cancel and a line can just be considered a circle or curve of infinite radius. However, the speed of light or any speed (or velocity for a vector) is specifically breaking down distance into pieces related to unit time or one dimension to a unit value of another, thus not dimensionless.

[zooterkin]

ibbiddi ibbiddi ibbiddi




Kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabaddi)

[MosheKlein]

I am beginning to wonder more and more if Doron and Moshe are not simply two teens.

Here are some clues:


Failing to understand real math, but fighting it off with schoolyard evasiveness
Not knowing that Bill Gates is not working for Microsoft anymore and is now only doing charitable work (so no, he will not buy the idea).
Not knowing that the big shouting guy in a gorilla suit Steve Ballmer exists and that he is the CEO (the boss) of Microsoft.
Stating that they know 61 branches of math, but have to ask what a simple type 2 infinity is.
Playing with LEGO

So, I call that these are two misguided teens who have convinced themselves that they have an idea that will make them rich.

And *that* does make me feel sad, as I do not want to crush dreams of people...

So I think that you are a girl
you attract to OM
but you don't let it
to go inside you..

[realpaladin]

Thank you for the email addy though.

It made me find this:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=18872

and this:

http://www.freeratio.org/archive/index.php/t-125608.html

Both places your behinds got kicked with exactly the same arguments as here. With a little less verbal sneer perhaps...

Which in turn made me also find the other pdf's of Doron.

'Crash and burn, baby!'

[MosheKlein]

Post it here.

I can sent to you in the private address of this forum if you want that
But I really have to live now for doing another contract..
I will ceck your answer in this evening

[The Man]

I am beginning to wonder more and more if Doron and Moshe are not simply two teens.

Here are some clues:


Failing to understand real math, but fighting it off with schoolyard evasiveness
Not knowing that Bill Gates is not working for Microsoft anymore and is now only doing charitable work (so no, he will not buy the idea).
Not knowing that the big shouting guy in a gorilla suit Steve Ballmer exists and that he is the CEO (the boss) of Microsoft.
Stating that they know 61 branches of math, but have to ask what a simple type 2 infinity is.
Playing with LEGO

So, I call that these are two misguided teens who have convinced themselves that they have an idea that will make them rich.

And *that* does make me feel sad, as I do not want to crush dreams of people...

I doubt teens but they certainly have regressed, it is the basis of the OM notions. These OM notions were derived from interaction with kindergarten classes (or a class). That the innocence and inquisitive yet uncontaminated nature of youth provide for broader interpretations and perhaps more creativity. Again reminds my of my hippie dippy days back in the sixties and seventies. Who knows back then I might have thought this was the greatest thing going, as I did a lot of things back then. However, also back then I learned what it actually took to change the world (or just your part of it) and peoples perceptions including the risks, abuse and harm many had to endure for those changes. It was not rhetoric that changed things but action and often inaction in the face of abuse. I see nothing but rhetoric in OM, no action, no use and certainly no relevance to what is required to change the world, or even simply the world of math.

[realpaladin]

I can sent to you in the private address of this forum if you want that
But I really have to live now for doing another contract..
I will ceck your answer in this evening

Sure, PM me, I will post it.

[realpaladin]

So I think that you are a girl
you attract to OM
but you don't let it
to go inside you..

Dude, you need to get some... seriously.

EDIT: I nominated that piece, for the sheer creepiness it exudes.

[The Man]

So I think that you are a girl
you attract to OM
but you don't let it
to go inside you..

Wow, the penile application of OM. So Moshe are you saying OM wants to rape us? Perhaps I was wrong realpalaldin, you may be spot on with the teenager interpretation.

ETA:
*If that is not your intent then just whip it out, show us what you got, some might be interested. Again this is the show me forum.

*speaking figuratively of course.

[sympathic]

I can sent to you in the private address of this forum if you want that
But I really have to live now for doing another contract..
I will ceck your answer in this evening

Moshe, best of luck with all your business prospects. Since Doron claims that OM is a generalization of maths, obviously you can do everything you do in math with OM. Mathematicians extend math's so that it can solve more problems. What problem do you see that math is unable to solve and OM does?

[realpaladin]

Moshe, best of luck with all your business prospects. Since Doron claims that OM is a generalization of maths, obviously you can do everything you do in math with OM. Mathematicians extend math's so that it can solve more problems. What problem do you see that math is unable to solve and OM does?

Follow the links I posted above... I am convinced we can not wear them out in any way shape or form...

We have about 3000 posts to go before we even approach their previous limits.

[MosheKlein]

Moshe, best of luck with all your business prospects. Since Doron claims that OM is a generalization of maths, obviously you can do everything you do in math with OM. Mathematicians extend math's so that it can solve more problems. What problem do you see that math is unable to solve and OM does?

The six problem of David Hilbert !

[MosheKlein]

Follow the links I posted above... I am convinced we can not wear them out in any way shape or form...

We have about 3000 posts to go before we even approach their previous limits.

Ok, I will sent to your privat mail here a draft of a letter to Microsoft
This may take one ore two day's.

I have to go now.

bye

[zooterkin]

It made me find this:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=18872


Is page 4 of that the historic meeting of Doron and Moshe?

[doronshadmi]

A line is not composed of points it contains points.

No, a line is a non-local atom and contains exactly 0 points.

A point is a local atom and contains exactly 0 points.

Both of them are existing things, but their cardinality is 0, exactly as {} is an existing thing but its cardinality = 0 (notated as |{}|=0).

[zooterkin]

No, a line is a non-local atom and contains exactly 0 points.


So, you're using your own definitions for 'line' and 'point'. Care to share them?


A point is a local atom and contains exactly 0 points.

Both of them are existing things, but their cardinality is 0, exactly as {} is an existing thing but its cardinality = 0 (notated as |{}|=0).

If I have one apple, does that mean I have exactly 0 apples?


ETA: How long is the line on which the numbers in the following series appear: {1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, ... } ?

[doronshadmi]

That 7-page thingy of yours?

OM actually needs exactly 0 pages in order to work, exactly because it is based on direct perception, where direct perception is not a thought, but it is the natural and simplest basis of any thought.

Your noisy mind goes exactly in the opposite direction and values things according to the amount of the verbal blab la bla …actions that are needed in order to describe them.

As long as your mind values things according to the level of the noise that they make (and in this case, the number of the pages that are needed in order to describe them) you can't get OM, because direct perception is equivalent to silence itself, and silence itself is not any thought about silence.

[doronshadmi]

If I have one apple, does that mean I have exactly 0 apples?
No, it means the it is divided into exactly 0 sub-apples.

1 is for apple's exictence.

0 is for apple's sub-parts.

Again, {} is an existing thing but its cardinality = 0, and notated as |{}|=0.



ETA: How long is the line on which the numbers in the following series appear: {1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, ... } ?
How do you measure length, in this case?

[doronshadmi]

To all posters,

My suggestion to you is to read very carefully http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4882440&postcount=4707 as an essential tool that helps to understand OM better (at least at the level of thoughts).

If and only if you grasp that post by direct perception, you can start to understand why Kindergarten is the best place to start with OM's understanding and development.

[doronshadmi]

When does something original pop up?
Exactly when you are aware of the source of any thought, which is exactly the direct perception of the silent state of your mind.

This silent state is the origin of any new idea.

[realpaladin]

No, a line is a non-local atom and contains exactly 0 points.

A point is a local atom and contains exactly 0 points.

Both of them are existing things, but their cardinality is 0, exactly as {} is an existing thing but its cardinality = 0 (notated as |{}|=0).

A line contains a type 2 infinity number of points, a point contains exactly 1 point.

[realpaladin]

The six problem of David Hilbert !

Show!

[realpaladin]

As long as your mind values things according to the level of the noise that they make (and in this case, the number of the pages that are needed in order to describe them) you can't get OM, because direct perception is equivalent to silence itself, and silence itself is not any thought about silence.

You are too silly with words; someone can tell me this:

To experience silence, you have to:

* Go to a place that is shielded from outside interference
* Think as little as possible
* Experience it.

Alternatively:

* Have an hour in a floatation tank.

Any simple person can convey the concept of silence. If OM is so simple, why can you not convey the concept?

[realpaladin]

Exactly when you are aware of the source of any thought, which is exactly the direct perception of the silent state of your mind.

This silent state is the origin of any new idea.

Toning down mine.

No it is not.