[Merged] Deeper than primes [Archive] - Page 2

drkitten

6th October 2008, 05:09 PM

If you are so certain, here is what you do. Compile it into a text, and submit it to a mathematical journal for peer-review (and get the honour of being called a stupid by a Fields Medal laureate). Far more productive.

The irony --- if indeed irony it be --- is that I've given him much more detailed and polite feedback in this forum than I would be inclined to give him if I received any of his trash via a journal submission.

If he submitted something to any of the journals for which I review, the odds are extremely good that it would be rejected without formal review by the editor-in-chief for failure to conform to any known grammar or syntax. If the editor-in-chief disliked me enough to send the manuscript to me for detailed review, I would return it with a one sentence rejection note.

nathan

6th October 2008, 11:32 PM

He did send once his material to Underwood Dudley (see here (http://www.skepticalcommunity.mu.nu/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=19307&view=previous&sid=ac7d8aa0b2b29af7bae64af6f70fccb9)) - or at least, he claimed to have done so. No reply :D

He certainly implied he'd sent it to Benoît Mandelbrot too (see OP).

TMiguel

7th October 2008, 04:45 AM

He did send once his material to Underwood Dudley (see here (http://www.skepticalcommunity.mu.nu/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=19307&view=previous&sid=ac7d8aa0b2b29af7bae64af6f70fccb9)) - or at least, he claimed to have done so. No reply :D

LOL! So he really got already called stupid by a professional mathematician.

ddt

7th October 2008, 06:04 PM

LOL! So he really got already called stupid by a professional mathematician.

Even worse. Prof. Underwood Dudley has made it a hobby to collect crank stories. The lack of answer implies that he deems Doron not even interesting as cranks go. :p

doronshadmi

9th October 2008, 05:06 PM

Nope, you are wrong. In "Clock 2" arithmetic, 1+1 is, in fact, [equivalent to] 2. I.e., 1 + 1 = 2 (Clock 2).

As I said, it depends on the mathematician's decision to interpret a collection of distinct values that is wrapped on itself, by equivalence classes.

I choose to calculate the result, by simply follow the property of "being wrapped on itself".

In that case "Clock 2" with the distinct values 0 and 1, gives the result 0 by the equation 1+1=0.

It is similar to http://www-math.cudenver.edu/~wcherowi/clockar.html except that I choose to start by value 0.

So, as you see, there is no right or wrong in this case, but simply a matter of common agreement about some decision, which is taken by mathematicians.

The real problem starts when agreements are interpreted as absolute truth. In that case there is a very short way from real science to religious dogma.

doronshadmi

9th October 2008, 05:22 PM

jsfisher

9th October 2008, 06:02 PM

Clock arithmetic has a specific meaning. The term is not yours to redefine at your convenience.

You asserted that clock was synonymous with modular arithmetic. You were wrong. Live with it. Move on.

doronshadmi

9th October 2008, 06:09 PM

Clock arithmetic has a specific meaning. The term is not yours to redefine at your convenience.

You asserted that clock was synonymous with modular arithmetic. You were wrong. Live with it. Move on.

A specific meaning by some community, which became a religion called Mathematics. Live with it.

Move on.

Modular AND clock arithmetic are both a collection of distinct values that is wrapped on itself, and this is a general point of view of this case.

jsfisher

9th October 2008, 06:36 PM

Modular AND clock arithmetic are both a collection of distinct values that is wrapped on itself, and this is a general point of view of this case.

I'm pleased to see you haven't lost your fluency in gibberish.

Welcome back to the JREF forums, by the way.

nathan

9th October 2008, 11:57 PM

In that case "Clock 2" with the distinct values 0 and 1, gives the result 0 by the equation 1+1=0.

Are you going to address the problem here that you've not proved that 1 + 1 \not= 2? All you've done is use modular arithmetic to show that 1 +_{mod 2} 1 \equiv_{mod 2} 0. You've not shown that under that modular field that 2 \not\equiv_{mod 2} 0 (or alternatively that 1 +_{mod 2} 1 \not\equiv_{mod 2} 2). You can't, because it is.

Phaedrus74

10th October 2008, 12:29 AM

A foundationalist [1] believes that there are beliefs that do not need any justification by other beliefs. Therefore these beliefs can be used as an objective base ground to justify other beliefs.

An anti-foundationalist [2] believes that there are no beliefs that do not need any justification by other beliefs. Therefore no belief can be used as an objective base ground to justify other beliefs, and beliefs are relative to each other.

Is it possible to define a framework where anti-foundationalist and foundationalist can agree with each other?

For further reading please look at http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf .

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-foundationalism

Doron, your sketch of a possible solution does not answer the question you posed (or if it does, you need to be more explicit). It definitely needs more work if you want people to understand what you are getting at.

For instance it is absolutely unclear what the connection is between the two epistemological positions that figure in your initial question and the quasi-logical formalization you offer in section 2.

At this point that is all I can offer in terms of feedback.

Jeroen.

doronshadmi

10th October 2008, 01:09 AM

Welcome back to the JREF forums, by the way.

Thank you jsfisher.

jsfisher and nathan,

We are here at the philosophy forum, where critique on Mathematics is possible.

You are still sucked under the agreed decisions of your community, and do not get my claim that Mathematicians are a significant factor of the mathematical science.

doronshadmi

10th October 2008, 01:28 AM

Doron, your sketch of a possible solution does not answer the question you posed (or if it does, you need to be more explicit). It definitely needs more work if you want people to understand what you are getting at.

For instance it is absolutely unclear what the connection is between the two epistemological positions that figure in your initial question and the quasi-logical formalization you offer in section 2.

At this point that is all I can offer in terms of feedback.

Jeroen.
The idea is to define the minimal accepted form that enables us to research (whatever we wish to research) in the first place.

I have found that this form must not have a meaning of its own, where Distinction is its first-order property (in this case, clear distinction is a partial case of Distinction).

There must be some kind of interaction, which enables us to research; otherwise we are at Singularity (going beyond any interaction) which is a non-comparable (and non-researchable) state.

The interaction is between Relation and Element, and we, as researchers, are a significant factor of this interaction.

In that case, no researchable framework is totally absolute (Element-only, according to the foundationalist believes) and not totally relative (Relation-only, according to the anti-foundationalist believes).

Phaedrus74

10th October 2008, 01:56 AM

The idea is to define the minimal accepted form that enables us to research (whatever we wish to research) in the first place.

A minimal accepted form of what?

I have found that this form must not have a meaning of its own, where Distinction is its first-order property (in this case, clear distinction is a partial case of Distinction).

First-order property of what?

There must be some kind of interaction, which enables us to research; otherwise we are at Singularity (going beyond any interaction) which is a non-comparable (and non-researchable) state.

The interaction is between Relation and Element, and we, as researchers, are a significant factor of this interaction.

What kind of interaction are we talking about?

In that case, no researchable framework is totally absolute (Element-only, according to the foundationalist believes) and not totally relative (Relation-only, according to the anti-foundationalist believes).

What do you mean with "researchable framework"?

I'm sorry if I come across a bit curt but you need to answer these questions to get ahead. I understand that you have a concrete idea in our head, but to get it across to other people you have to be a lot more meticulous in defining your concepts.

Finally I would implore you to read significantly more on foundationalism and its problems as it stands your grasp of it is tenuous at best.

doronshadmi

10th October 2008, 02:18 AM

A minimal accepted form of what?

The minimal accepted form that enables us to research (no matter what) in the first place.

First-order property of what?

Of the minimal accepted form.

What kind of interaction are we talking about?

Relation\Element interaction.

What do you mean with "researchable framework"?

The minimal environment that enables us to research (no matter what) in the first place.

Finally I would implore you to read significantly more on foundationalism and its problems as it stands your grasp of it is tenuous at best.
Some concrete examples would be nice.

doronshadmi

10th October 2008, 02:30 AM

Formalism is a game with forms (where the forms have no meaning of their own) and mathematicians are a significant factor of this game.

There is one simple condition; the game has to be researchable.

In that case we have to define the minimal accepted form that enables us to research (no matter what) in the first place (please see http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=126053 for more details).

Phaedrus74

10th October 2008, 02:53 AM

Hey Doron,

I'm going to continue with asking short questions....

The minimal accepted form that enables us to research (no matter what) in the first place.

Explain what you mean with "minimal accepted form", and "research (no matter what)".

Of the minimal accepted form.

I'll wait for your definition of minimal accepted form then ;)

Relation\Element interaction.

What kind of relation?
What kind of element?

The minimal environment that enables us to research (no matter what) in the first place.

What constitutes the "minimal environment"?
And also (see above) explain what you mean with "research (no matter what)".

Some concrete examples would be nice.

Donald Davidsons "Three Dogma's of Empiricism"
Wilfrid Sellars "Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind"

Pretty much anything written by the Wiener Schule, most notably Carnap's works.

Also interesting is Rorty's "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature"

nathan

10th October 2008, 02:54 AM

We are here at the philosophy forum, where critique on Mathematics is possible.
certainly. But misrepresenting maths is not acceptable. You misrepresented maths when you claimed a proof of the falsity of '1 + 1 = 2'.

TMiguel

10th October 2008, 03:02 AM

We are here at the philosophy forum, where critique on Mathematics is possible.
Actually this topic is here because of religion, but whatever.

You are still sucked under the agreed decisions of your community, and do not get my claim that Mathematicians are a significant factor of the mathematical science.

First of all Mathematics don’t stand by the scientific method, you have been warned this before, so cut the science out of math.
Secondly there are no beliefs involved, there are just statements, they are either true or false. You can get simple statements first in order to define what you are working whit, but that’s it, everything else falls out of those statements. It does not matter if math is able to describe or not the world in which you live in and it doesn’t matter if it makes sense to you. And certainly it doesn’t matter if I do it or some one else does it, they are bound by the same rules of logic, the statements that are true by my logic has also to be true by some one else logic, and must also be true for everyone under the light of the statements that first define whit what you are working.
This is what you don’t get it, this is why you are making a fool out of yourself.

There is one simple condition; the game has to be researchable.

In that case we have to define the minimal accepted form that enables us to research (no matter what)
Math is not a science (there is no research to be conducted, already explained).
We do not study geometry by cutting shapes of paper, partly because it is not necessary, partly because the resulting shape would never exact squares, triangles or whatever they where supposed to be. Any conclusion you take out of the real world, you can never import it in to mathematics and say that a purely abstract statement must necessarily be always true on the condition you have proposed because you have observed to happen. Add it to the fact that because you where never able to violate an idea in the real world, it is not proof that a cleverer person could come along and do it instead.

Take a look at this series: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsIJN4YMZZo

doronshadmi

10th October 2008, 03:11 AM

certainly. But misrepresenting maths is not acceptable. You misrepresented maths when you claimed a proof of the falsity of '1 + 1 = 2'.

Math is not absolute interpretation but simply an agreement between persons.

doronshadmi

10th October 2008, 03:23 AM

Actually this topic is here because of religion, but whatever.
You are right. It is here because Mathematics is a religion by persons like you ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4098467&postcount=211 ).

First of all Mathematics don’t stand by the scientific method

No, the current agreement about Mathematics is based mostly on Deduction.

I disagree with this partial interpretation.

This time, please look at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=126053.

Darat

10th October 2008, 03:34 AM

You are right. It is here because Mathematics is a religion by persons like you ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4098467&postcount=211 ).

No, the current agreement about Mathematics is based mostly on Deduction.

I disagree with this partial interpretation.

This time, please look at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=126053.

Since you clearly indicate that the "new" thread is nothing more than a continuation of some of your arguments in this thread I've merged it into this thread. Again let me warn you not to start new threads to discuss something you are already discussing in an ongoing thread.

TMiguel

10th October 2008, 03:37 AM

You are right. It is here because Mathematics is a religion by persons like you ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4098467&postcount=211 ).
No because your “mathematics” is religious.

No, the current agreement about Mathematics is based mostly on Deduction.

I disagree with this partial interpretation.

No it isn’t, you completely ignored my statements about what mathematics is, and how there is no possibility for agreement, simply because THERE IS NOTHING TO AGREE in the first place.

This time, please look at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=126053.
Looked, pointless.

nathan

10th October 2008, 05:23 AM

Math is not absolute interpretation but simply an agreement between persons.

Sigh, you are again confusing the representation and value. And you're evading the point about the bogosity of your 'proof'.

doronshadmi

10th October 2008, 11:49 AM

No it isn’t, you completely ignored my statements about what mathematics is, and how there is no possibility for agreement, simply because THERE IS NOTHING TO AGREE in the first place.
Yes, I know. You believe in something which is both researchable and the knowledge of it has nothing to do with your existence.

TMiguel

10th October 2008, 12:24 PM

Yes, I know. You believe in something which is both researchable and the knowledge of it has nothing to do with your existence.

MATH IS NOT SCIENCE, THERE IS NO RESEARCH, NOTHING IN THE REAL WORLD VALIDATES OR INVALIDATES IT.

Can’t you get this simple statement?
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/images/smilies/other_beatingA_DeadHorse.gif

dahduh

10th October 2008, 12:27 PM

To quote the psychologist in Fawlty Towers, "There's enough material here for an entire conference."

doronshadmi

10th October 2008, 12:52 PM

Research is not limited to applied research that is based both on theory and experiments.

Research is also "pure" and deal with abstract things.

Can you get it?

TMiguel

10th October 2008, 01:09 PM

doronshadmi

10th October 2008, 03:07 PM

You have posted your ideas, you have already been called stupid by a professional mathematician. You failed to answer simple questions, you failed to perform even the most simplest mathematical proofs.

Answer me, What is your academic degree in the subject?
I see that you do not get that Reaserch is also for abstract things.

If you have an academic degree, then I do not see how it helps you to get it.

TMiguel

10th October 2008, 03:28 PM

I see that you do not get that Reaserch is also for abstract things.

If you have an academic degree, then I do not see how it helps you to get it.

Then You don't have any problem stating what is your academic degree on the subject at hand, do you?

doronshadmi

10th October 2008, 03:36 PM

Let me help you TMiguel.

Basic research, fundamental research (sometimes pure research), is research carried out to increase understanding of fundamental principles ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_research ).

I do not have any academic title, but I get what Basic research is (something that you don't get, even if you maybe have an academic title).

The beautiful thing about fundamental principles is that no academic title is essentially needed in order to invent\discover them.

jsfisher

10th October 2008, 03:38 PM

Enough of this pleasant banter.

I do note that in Doron Shadmi's latest effusion (UR.PDF), he begins with what may in fact be his most lucid sequence of sentences we've yet observed. Oddly, Doron actually defines some terms in seemingly meaningful ways. This is unprecedented and most impressive.*

Not so oddly, though, at the end of the introduction, the document slips into the confusion we have come to expect of doron. Notation is introduced without regard to meaning, and everything is reduced to a vague sequence of nonsensical symbols, viz. *_*_*_*.

I have but one question of our philosophic savant: "id"?

(...and least for now.)

*Not so oddly, these definitions are left to rot on the vine, as it were, unreferenced elsewhere in the document. That's what introductions are all about, right?

doronshadmi

10th October 2008, 03:45 PM

jsfisher

10th October 2008, 04:04 PM

id = identification in [spam deleted]

So, "* id is A, B, C" means "* identification is A, B, C"?

You sure? That doesn't parse well.

TMiguel

10th October 2008, 04:39 PM

I do not have any academic title.
Which means you never handled real math in you life to begin with.

In the other hand I have handled not 1 not 2 but 5 different mathematical courses plus 3 courses of pure mathematical applications in the Superior Technical Institute (Engineering school), which has one of the heaviest hardcore mathematical educations in the country. We are even more requested to give mathematical explanation then mathematicians themselves.

What do you think you could possibly hope to know about math, more then just nonsense or what I have already beaten up to death?

Just 2 weeks studying math at a real academic level is more then enough to throw everything you think you know about math out the window.

I see that you do not get that Research is also for abstract things.
And I am talking about a research of our abilities to do Math, which is a pre-axiomatic research (its aim is to understand why and how axioms are agreed statements).
There is nothing before the axioms, before you define whit what you are working whit you have nothing, no groups, no relation of order, no notion element, no addition, no operations, nothing to reason whit, there is absolutely NOTHING! So every single thing you have done worth’s absolutely NOTHING!

doronshadmi

10th October 2008, 06:19 PM

There is nothing before the axioms,

There is a research, which its aim is to understand how axioms are possible, in the first place.

I call it pre-axiomatic research of Reasoning itself.

For example:

Axiom X and axiom Y are mutually-independent.

It means that they have some relation with each other, which is weak enough to save their independency of each other.

All we care at this pre-axiomatic level, is to understand the form of how X and Y are related to each other, by avoiding any meaning of X or Y.

The form that we get is not limited to any particular Order or Distinction, as explained in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf

doronshadmi

10th October 2008, 06:22 PM

So, "* id is A, B, C" means "* identification is A, B, C"?

You sure? That doesn't parse well.
Unless you get Relation\Element interaction.

jsfisher

10th October 2008, 08:48 PM

Unless you get Relation\Element interaction.

No, it had nothing do to with getting or not getting yet another Thing-1 \ Thing-2 pairing; it had everything to do with English syntax and semantics.

Reality Check

10th October 2008, 09:34 PM

There is a research, which its aim is to understand how axioms are possible, in the first place.

I call it pre-axiomatic research of Reasoning itself.

For example:

Axiom X and axiom Y are mutually-independent.

It means that they have some relation with each other, which is weak enough to save their independency of each other.

All we care at this pre-axiomatic level, is to understand the form of how X and Y are related to each other, by avoiding any meaning of X or Y.

The form that we get is not limited to any particular Order or Distinction, as explained in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf

What are the axions that describe "the form of how X and Y are related to each other, by avoiding any meaning of X or Y."?

According to your definition there are none and so you cannot describe the form (whatever that is)

doronshadmi

11th October 2008, 04:24 AM

No, it had nothing do to with getting or not getting yet another Thing-1 \ Thing-2 pairing; it had everything to do with English syntax and semantics.

No, it is the reasoning of how syntax and semantics (English or not) are possible, in the first place.

TMiguel

11th October 2008, 06:30 AM

There is a research, which its aim is to understand how axioms are possible, in the first place.

I call it pre-axiomatic research of Reasoning itself.

For example:

Axiom X and axiom Y are mutually-independent.

It means that they have some relation with each other, which is weak enough to save their independency of each other.

All we care at this pre-axiomatic level, is to understand the form of how X and Y are related to each other, by avoiding any meaning of X or Y.

The form that we get is not limited to any particular Order or Distinction, as explained in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf

You can only relate axiom X whit axiom Y, AFTER they have been established or else there is no axiom X or Y to deal whit in the first place.

jsfisher

11th October 2008, 08:56 AM

No, it is the reasoning of how syntax and semantics (English or not) are possible, in the first place.

It's that reading comprehension thing again, isn't it? You have gone off on a sequence of non sequiturs.

The original point was (and continues to be) that your treatise has some mal-formed language constructs. It needs some editing.

Apathia

11th October 2008, 09:11 AM

I see Doron's essential M.O. is once again being lost in his forest of ever new undifined terms.

All we care at this pre-axiomatic level, is to understand the form of how X and Y are related to each other, by avoiding any meaning of X or Y.

It's somewhat like this (I'm never satisfied that I really get Doron's opus.)

Doron posits a fundamental, essentail association of all abstract concepts prior to whatever meanings or designations given concepts may have.
This is his "X/Y Complementation."

For any abstract concept X, there is a polar opposite concept Y.
In interactive combination (He calls it "Complementation.") they yield a matix of new concepts which in turn follow this "pre-axiomatic" rule of association.

It doesn't make any difference what the X and Y designate, they already follow the Rule.

When it comes to Logic this prior "complementation" yields the usual values of "True" and "False." but in the interactive combo of these polar opposites, he also gets the True False and the False True.

In sets, the program yields a state where completion is not the final word, but there is the incomplete complete and the complete incomplete.

In Numerology (Yes, I'm sarcastic here, because I like to call Doron's "Organic Natural Numbers" "paranormal" numbers. But this is a somewhat unfair caricature.) Doron's fundamental rule of association yields not only the familiar counting numbers, but a host of new critters such as 2-3 or 3-2 where the first number of the pair is adjectival.

Have a naughty nice day!

doronshadmi

11th October 2008, 09:28 AM

It's that reading comprehension thing again, isn't it? You have gone off on a sequence of non sequiturs.

The original point was (and continues to be) that your treatise has some mal-formed language constructs. It needs some editing.

The editing of my poor English is always welcome.

doronshadmi

11th October 2008, 09:30 AM

What are the axions that describe "the form of how X and Y are related to each other, by avoiding any meaning of X or Y."?

According to your definition there are none and so you cannot describe the form (whatever that is)

Form is a researchable (capable of being studied) environment without any meaning or particular description.

All we care, at this level is to understand what are the minimal conditions that enables any research, whether it is a mathematical research or not. Exhaustively

By using MAF, one determines what axiomatic system can be described.

TMiguel

11th October 2008, 09:38 AM

Form is a researchable (capable of being studied) environment without any meaning or particular description.

All we care, at this level is to understand what are the minimal condition that enables any research, whether it is a mathematical research or not. Exhaustively

By using MAF, one determines what axiomatic system can be described.
Here we go again, hitting on the same key.
You didn’t even know that there was such thing has an axiom before I even mentioned it.
Give an example of an axiom of mainstream mathematics, except for “1 is different from 0” cause I already given you that one.

doronshadmi

11th October 2008, 10:42 AM

You didn’t even know that there was such thing has an axiom before I even mentioned it.
Please don't be ridiculous.

Give an example of an axiom of mainstream mathematics, except for “1 is different from 0” cause I already given you that one.

ZF Axiom of extensionality: X and Y are the same set if they have the same members.

TMiguel

11th October 2008, 11:28 AM

ZF Axiom of extensionality: X and Y are the same set if they have the same members.
Wrong! You taken that out of Wikipedia, I made sure they didn’t have main stream math axioms (or Arithmetic axioms). You took a Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory axiom.
Here are another examples of mainstream math axioms you don’t find on the web:

There is a number a, that added to a any number b equals b. a+b=b
And to this number “a” we call it zero “0”
There is a number c, that multiplied to any number d is equal to d. cxd=d
And to this number “c” we call it one “1”

You don’t know what axioms are, you never heard of it before, you don’t know what you are talking about.

QED!

ddt

11th October 2008, 12:04 PM

ZF Axiom of extensionality: X and Y are the same set if they have the same members.

Wrong! You taken that out of Wikipedia, I made sure they didn’t have main stream math axioms (or Arithmetic axioms). You took a Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory axiom.
To be fair to Doron, you didn't ask for an axiom from arithmetic, so the answer shouldn't be discarded on that account.

I would like to remind, though, that doron up until 3 months ago was not aware of the axiom of extensionality. You might re-read the "A collection of infinitely..." thread from post 1328 on (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3816047&postcount=1328) to see it took some 150 posts to drive home the existence and implications of the Axiom of Extensionality.

TMiguel

11th October 2008, 01:06 PM

To be fair to Doron, you didn't ask for an axiom from arithmetic, so the answer shouldn't be discarded on that account.

I referred main stream mathematics and clearly given the example of the axiom 0 is different from 1. What else could I be possibly talking about?

jsfisher

12th October 2008, 09:58 AM

doronshadmi

12th October 2008, 10:41 AM

To be fair to Doron, you didn't ask for an axiom from arithmetic, so the answer shouldn't be discarded on that account.

I would like to remind, though, that doron up until 3 months ago was not aware of the axiom of extensionality. You might re-read the "A collection of infinitely..." thread from post 1328 on (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3816047&postcount=1328) to see it took some 150 posts to drive home the existence and implications of the Axiom of Extensionality.

Understanding of fundamental notions has nothing to do with time.

I definitely did not drive to your home about "The axiom of the Empty set" as can be clearly shown by your reply, for example, in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3816786&postcount=1359 .

The Axiom of an empty set is:

"There exists set X such that given any set Y, Y it is not a member of set X."

There is no guarantee that there is a unique X by this axiom, because ONLY by this axiom there must be also set X that is not a member of set X (for example: {} is not a member of {} (and {} exists only if it is not a member of {}, which gives us more than a one unique {}, without the Axiom of Extensionality)).

Again, a unique empty set does not exist without at least two axioms, which are:

The axiom of an empty set AND the Axiom of Extensionality.

I am not going to open again this disagreement between us on this case, in this thread.

jsfisher

12th October 2008, 11:01 AM

Again, a unique empty set does not exist without at least two axioms, which are:

The axiom of an empty set AND the Axiom of Extensionality.

Why do you continue to make such an issue of this? In ZFC set theory, the empty set exists and it is unique. There is absolutely no rule of linguistic ethics forbidding naming an axiom about the empty set The Axiom of the Empty Set, even though that axiom may not be complete in every possible way characterizing the empty set.

You don't like the name given to one of the axioms. So what?

I am not going to open again this disagreement between us on this case, in this thread.

How can you honestly not claim to do something that you have already done?

doronshadmi

12th October 2008, 11:11 AM

Why do you continue to make such an issue of this? In ZFC set theory, the empty set exists and it is unique. There is absolutely no rule of linguistic ethics forbidding naming an axiom about the empty set The Axiom of the Empty Set, even though that axiom may not be complete in every possible way characterizing the empty set.

You don't like the name given to one of the axioms. So what?

How can you honestly not claim to do something that you have already done?

The relevant part to this thread, taken from ddt's reply in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3816786&postcount=1359 is:

"Set theory without extensionality seems quite uninteresting to me."

In other words, ddt's fundamental notion is limited to the particular case of no Entropy (clearly distinct elements) as a first-order property of the entire framework.

This is, by the way, also your limitation, jsfisher, because you do not get my argument about the non-unique state of set X by using only the axiom of an empty set.

jsfisher

12th October 2008, 11:49 AM

The relevant part to this thread, taken from ddt's reply in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3816786&postcount=1359 is:

"Set theory without extensionality seems quite uninteresting to me."

In other words, ddt's fundamental notion is limited to the particular case of no Entropy as a first-order property of the entire framework.

You are getting a lot of mileage out of this entropy term. Perhaps you should define it as some point.

Be that as it may, ddt meant exactly what he said. Your "in other words" are irrelevant, misguided, and little more than gibberish.

ddt

12th October 2008, 11:49 AM

Understanding of fundamental notions has nothing to do with time.
You are (deliberately?) misunderstanding why I brought this up. As anyone can see from the referenced posts, it took you a freaking 150 posts to actually listen to what other posters were saying about the Axiom of Extensionality and its implications. That's rather bizarre for someone who claims to have been working for 20 years on his own variant on set theory and has been repeating again and again that "Cantor was wrong", etc.

In other words: it's quite disengenuous of you to bring up this particular axiom, given the above. Think of one you actually thought of yourself, instead of one that nearly literally had to be hammered into your skull. I'm not interested in re-iterating that bizarre discussion.

I definitely did not drive to your home about
You don't think I'd give you my home address, do you?

The relevant part to this thread, taken from ddt's reply in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3816786&postcount=1359 is:

"Set theory without extensionality seems quite uninteresting to me."
The onus would be on you to show that set theory without extensionality would be interesting, not the reverse.

In other words, ddt's fundamental notion is limited to the particular case of no Entropy as a first-order property of the entire framework.
Bollocks. The words "entropy" and "first-order property" did not appear in that thread. You've invented them later, without actually defining them. We're still waiting for that...

Skeptic

12th October 2008, 12:13 PM

doronshadmi

12th October 2008, 12:41 PM

You are (deliberately?) misunderstanding why I brought this up. As anyone can see from the referenced posts, it took you a freaking 150 posts to actually listen to what other posters were saying about the Axiom of Extensionality and its implications.

Let us reverse it.

Evan after 150 posts, you still do not get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4117701&postcount=306 and http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4117773&postcount=308 .

doronshadmi

12th October 2008, 12:46 PM

The problem with Doron's work is that he thinks that some trivial point or definition he had recently read about (or had made up) is the "key to everything" in math that everybody else had missed.

For the record, primes in mathematics -- more precisely, in number theory -- are "deep" for reasons that have nothing whatever to do with this odd definition of "enthropy". Doron simply doesn't know enough mathematics to know that.

Doron -- why don't you read a basic primer about number theory?

The "deep" about Primes, is limited to the particular case of clear distinction, as a first-order property of the entire framework.

Did you read http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf?

I'll be glad if you air your view about it.

jsfisher

12th October 2008, 12:49 PM

Let us reverse it.

Evan after 150 posts, you still do not get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4117701&postcount=306 and http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4117773&postcount=308 .

Doron, since you, yourself, are clearly having trouble following your own point, post to post, as evidenced by your sequence of non sequiturs, do you really expect us to follow it?

doronshadmi

12th October 2008, 12:58 PM

Doron, since you, yourself, are clearly having trouble following your own point, post to post, as evidenced by your sequence of non sequiturs, do you really expect us to follow it?
Please don't be ridiculous.

Since you and your friends here do not know how to start, I'll give you some help by this dialog:

Glad to see you around here. How you doing?

Well, I have read your article and I have several questions, but in here I will show two general comments:

i) The MAF, when defined as "any possible relation between A, B and C that is not limited to any particular order", is defined as "any possible relation between A, B and C in any order". Then you say that in a MAF "There is no particular order and there is no particular distinction between the elements.", that is to say, a MAF is any relation between anything.

http://philosophy-forums.com/showthread.php?p=30891

Do not copy posts from other forums. This is a violation of copyright.

My answer:

Thank you, I'm doing fine.

I really like your analysis of my work.

You are right about MAF.

By using MAF we ignore any particular meaning that may be given by some definition, and all we care is about the form.

I have found that MAF ,if it is researchable, is not less than Relation\Element Interaction (it can be called REI).

An anti-foundationalist reduces its belief to Relation (everything is relative to each other).

A foundationalist reduces its belief to Element (everything is derived from an Elementary building-block).

No researchable framework can be found, unless REI can be found, where this framework is not Relation-only and not Element-only.

We have shown that no Singularity (going beyond any interaction) is researchable, or in other words, a researchable framework is at least the interaction between anti-foundationalism and foundationalism beliefs.

Let A be Foundationalist beliefs.

Let B be Anti-Foundationalist beliefs.

MAF is *__*, in this case, where:

* A,B * A
| and |
* A,B * B

Without MAF *__* , A and B are not comparable and not researchable, in the first place.

In other words, Relation (notated by "__") \ Element (notated by "*") Interaction (REI) enables a researchable framework, which is not Relative-only (__) and not Element-only (*), but it at least MAF.

jsfisher

12th October 2008, 01:34 PM

Please don't be ridiculous.

Since you and your friends here do not know how to start, I'll give you some help by this dialog:

...improbably dialog snipped...

This is far more likely:

I did read your Universal Reasoning document. I found the Introduction uncharacteristic of your other writings. Then I realized it was a very long carbon copy of someone else's work. You might want to review standard manuscript style about how to properly present long quotations. You don't want to be accused of plagiarism, after all.

As for the rest of the document, it was classic doron in style and content. Rather than any sort of intelligent development of concepts and relationships using the words and the powers of expression, you resort to pointless substitutions, inconsistent terminology, meaningless diagrams, and, of course, gibberish.

I also note that document does not really build on nor develop the concepts expressed in the Introduction.

ddt

12th October 2008, 02:35 PM

I referred main stream mathematics and clearly given the example of the axiom 0 is different from 1. What else could I be possibly talking about?

I agree with ddt. I do not take main stream mathematics to mean just arithmetic.
Thanks, jsfisher. But basically, we're going to argue about what is a true Scotsman, so let's leave it with that.

You don’t know what axioms are, you never heard of it before, you don’t know what you are talking about.

Doron indeed has on several occasions shown not to comprehend what axioms are.

Here are another examples of mainstream math axioms you don’t find on the web:

There is a number a, that added to a any number b equals b. a+b=b
And to this number “a” we call it zero “0”
There is a number c, that multiplied to any number d is equal to d. cxd=d
And to this number “c” we call it one “1”
Well, you'd find them if you look at the Wiki lemma about Group Theory. They're both the Inverse Element Axiom for a group, once stated for the addition group and once for the multiplication group.

I wouldn't call them axioms in the context of arithmetic. Arithmetic, IMHO, builds on Peano's axioms for the natural numbers and on top of that, the definitions of Z, Q and R. Based on that, the existence of an inverse element is merely a theorem.

Let's have a good mathematical discussion about that in the R&P forum :D.

doronshadmi

12th October 2008, 02:53 PM

This is far more likely:

I did read your Universal Reasoning document. I found the Introduction uncharacteristic of your other writings. Then I realized it was a very long carbon copy of someone else's work. You might want to review standard manuscript style about how to properly present long quotations. You don't want to be accused of plagiarism, after all.

As for the rest of the document, it was classic doron in style and content. Rather than any sort of intelligent development of concepts and relationships using the words and the powers of expression, you resort to pointless substitutions, inconsistent terminology, meaningless diagrams, and, of course, gibberish.

I also note that document does not really build on nor develop the concepts expressed in the Introduction.
Another example of your inabitiy to grasp new ideas.

You simply unable to say even a one valueable thing about http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4117959&postcount=315 , isn't it?

ddt

12th October 2008, 02:55 PM

[color="Darkblue"]I did read your Universal Reasoning document. I found the Introduction uncharacteristic of your other writings. Then I realized it was a very long carbon copy of someone else's work. You might want to review standard manuscript style about how to properly present long quotations. You don't want to be accused of plagiarism, after all.

The paragraphs from "In logic, three kinds" to "associated with this style of reasoning" are a verbatim copy of the wiki article on logical reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_reasoning).

The most hilarious is the reference, though. Doron references this part with [2]: T.J. Menzies, “Applications of Abduction: Knowledge Level Modeling". However, Menzies' paper (http://menzies.us/pdf/96abkl.pdf) does not contain that quote. The paper is merely given as an unquoted reference in the wiki article. :D

So, Doron doesn't even know how to properly give references...

Apathia

12th October 2008, 02:56 PM

Please don't be ridiculous.

Since you and your friends here do not know how to start, I'll give you some help by this dialog:

Glad to see you around here. How you doing?

Well, I have read your article and I have several questions, but in here I will show two general comments:

i) The MAF, when defined as "any possible relation between A, B and C that is not limited to any particular order", is defined as "any possible relation between A, B and C in any order". Then you say that in a MAF "There is no particular order and there is no particular distinction between the elements.", that is to say, a MAF is any relation between anything.

However, such stipulative definition of MAF is so general and abstract that it does not define anything. I mean, by that definition, any relation between any element is a MAF: everything is a MAF! But that explains/defines nothing.

Regarding the traditional rules to make a definition, one rule suggests that a definition should not be too wide as to include everything, and your definition is definitely too wide.

ii) Regarding your main problem: "Is it possible to define a framework where anti-foundationalist and foundationalist can agree with each other?"

You correctly define:

A foundationalist believes that there are beliefs that do not need any justification by other beliefs. Therefore these beliefs can be used as an objective base ground to justify other beliefs.

An anti-foundationalist believes that there are no beliefs that do not need any justification by other beliefs. Therefore no belief can be used as an objective base ground to justify other beliefs, and beliefs are relative to each other.

Now, how does a MAF define a framework where anti-foundationalist and foundationalist can agree with each other? If the MAF criteria is too general as to accept any relation, then it also accepts the disagreement between anti-foundationalist and foundationalist.

I mean, MAF does not define a framework where anti-foundationalist and foundationalist can agree with each other because MAF does not define a framework. MAF only says "we can relate anything with anything", but that is already just another foundationalist belief that an anti-foundationalist is well prepared to reject.

My answer:

Thank you, I'm doing fine.

I really like your analysis of my work.

You are right about MAF.

By using MAF we ignore any particular meaning that may be given by some definition, and all we care is about the form.

I have found that MAF ,if it is researchable, is not less than Relation\Element Interaction (it can be called REI).

An anti-foundationalist reduces its belief to Relation (everything is relative to each other).

A foundationalist reduces its belief to Element (everything is derived from an Elementary building-block).

No researchable framework can be found, unless REI can be found, where this framework is not Relation-only and not Element-only.

We have shown that no Singularity (going beyond any interaction) is researchable, or in other words, a researchable framework is at least the interaction between anti-foundationalism and foundationalism beliefs.

Let A be Foundationalist beliefs.

Let B be Anti-Foundationalist beliefs.

MAF is *__*, in this case, where:

* A,B * A
| and |
* A,B * B

Without MAF *__* , A and B are not comparable and not researchable, in the first place.

In other words, Relation (notated by "__") \ Element (notated by "*") Interaction (REI) enables a researchable framework, which is not Relative-only (__) and not Element-only (*), but it at least MAF.

http://philosophy-forums.com/showthread.php?p=30891

doronshadmi

12th October 2008, 02:57 PM

oppss...

doronshadmi

12th October 2008, 03:03 PM

http://philosophy-forums.com/showthread.php?p=30891

Thank you Apathia.

TMiguel

12th October 2008, 03:14 PM

Thanks, jsfisher. But basically, we're going to argue about what is a true Scotsman, so let's leave it with that.

Doron indeed has on several occasions shown not to comprehend what axioms are.

Well, you'd find them if you look at the Wiki lemma about Group Theory. They're both the Inverse Element Axiom for a group, once stated for the addition group and once for the multiplication group.

I wouldn't call them axioms in the context of arithmetic. Arithmetic, IMHO, builds on Peano's axioms for the natural numbers and on top of that, the definitions of Z, Q and R. Based on that, the existence of an inverse element is merely a theorem.

Let's have a good mathematical discussion about that in the R&P forum :D.
I'm sure that the existence of a neutral element for those 2 operations that I referred are axioms (at least classical, and I don’t think that has changed), there are indeed lemmas that are directly related to them that say that this neutral elements are unique, very similar but not the same.
I personally had a hard time to find those axioms on the web, and those that I found where in .pdf documents from local universities (not in English, and so I did not post links for external sources other then myself), and frankly I’m quite surprised how this fundamental topics are not very accessible in the web (at least not whit terminology I used to handle them, ah yes English is a second language to me).

doronshadmi

12th October 2008, 03:16 PM

The paragraphs from "In logic, three kinds" to "associated with this style of reasoning" are a verbatim copy of the wiki article on logical reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_reasoning).

The most hilarious is the reference, though. Doron references this part with [2]: T.J. Menzies, “Applications of Abduction: Knowledge Level Modeling". However, Menzies' paper (http://menzies.us/pdf/96abkl.pdf) does not contain that quote. The paper is merely given as an unquoted reference in the wiki article. :D

So, Doron doesn't even know how to properly give references...

No problem. But where is the man behind this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_reasoning that has to be quated?

After all, the stuff that was written in wikipedia must show at least somre reference, or at least lead to some person or persons that wrote it.

Come on ddt, please show us where are the sources behind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_reasoning ?

One of them is maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Logical_reasoning&oldid=188811068. Where are the rest?

Apathia

12th October 2008, 03:21 PM

The skinny is that by Doron's "Form," Foundationalism and Anti-Foundationalism are a complementary pair and only come (as concepts) in a complemetary pair. So, they are both necessarily related but foundational.

How this relates to axioms? I don't get that yet. Doron holds his Form
to be pre-axiomatic.

Is the Form (as a philosophical artifice) foundational or relative (anti-foundational)?
Doron certainly gives it a foundational status.
But at the same time, by rule of the Form, any (conceptual) X position or Y position is necessarily one pole of a Complement
So Form (as a philosophical artifice) must have its Anti-Form.
The foundation is swallowed up by a sink hole.

As they say, "it's turtles all the way down." unless on the way down you strike the original turtle.

ddt

12th October 2008, 03:27 PM

oppss...
What "oppss"?

http://philosophy-forums.com/showthread.php?p=30891

Thank you Apathia.

Thanks too. I notice that in another thread on philosophy-forums (http://philosophy-forums.com/showthread.php?t=657), you have quoted a poster (DrMatt) from this thread on skepticalcommunity.com (http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=17385&sid=22d77e2fba5de9e05dcc94cb37ca6526). And you've done this in various other threads, not only on philosophy-forums, but also on sciencechatforum.com and sophiasdialectic.com, and maybe others.

This is, IMHO, not only a clear breach of copyright but also highly unethical. If you'd do that with my posts here, I'd not hesitate one moment to report you for it with the admins.

There is, BTW, quite some overlap in posters between JREF and skepticalcommunity.com.

doronshadmi

12th October 2008, 03:31 PM

TMiguel

12th October 2008, 03:32 PM

This is, IMHO, not only a clear breach of copyright but also highly unethical. If you'd do that with my posts here, I'd not hesitate one moment to report you for it with the admins.

:pHey let's not turn this into a serious thread.

ddt

12th October 2008, 03:33 PM

No problem. But where is the man behind this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_reasoning that has to be quated?

After all, the stuff that was written in wikipedia must show at least somre reference, or at least lead to some person or persons that wrote it.

Come on ddt, please show us where are the sources behind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_reasoning ?

One of them is maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Logical_reasoning&oldid=188811068. Where are the rest?
Cut it out with the arrogant tone. You're only displaying ignorance. Don't you know how to reference a source with unknown author(s)? BTW, referencing wiki articles is a bit more difficult than referencing books or journal articles.

ETA: let's not forget that you attributed the text of that wiki article to a paper of Menzies which didn't contain that text!

Apathia

12th October 2008, 03:45 PM

Thank you Apathia.

I was considering getting into the discussion there, since Martin was having the same difficulty catching the Form.

Again and again I've had to sus out your intent, because your presentations never serve it very well.
But I've worked through the confusion I had previously about what you are now calling the Form, and have some more questions I'll ask in appropriate context.

ddt

12th October 2008, 03:59 PM

Let us reverse it.

Evan after 150 posts, you still do not get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4117701&postcount=306 and http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4117773&postcount=308 .
There's not much to understand about gibberish. The only point you seem to make in the first is that you're still complaining about an article. The second one is nonsense from end to end.

There is a research, which its aim is to understand how axioms are possible, in the first place.

I call it pre-axiomatic research of Reasoning itself.
Research that is obviously out of your league, judging from your posts, and especially judging from the above statement. Axioms are not "possible" - axioms are posited, and from those axioms, abstract theories are formed.

Many of the branches of mathematics derive their axioms from properties of numbers. The (natural, integer, rational, real, complex) number systems are incredibly rich in structures. Abstracting the basic properties of arithmetic - addition, multiplication - leads to Group Theory. Abstracting the basic properties of order in numbers leads to Order Theory. Abstracting the idea of "distance" in C or R2 leads to the notion of metric and theory of metric spaces. And so on.

Axiom X and axiom Y are mutually-independent.
Often, axioms are not independent. For example, the axiom of the empty set is unneeded in ZF set theory, as the axiom of comprehension already implies the existence of the empty set. Or in group theory, the axiom of inverse element is often stated in the form that each element has an inverse which is both left-inverse and right-inverse. In the presence of the other group axioms, one of them is superfluous.

Independence of axioms isn't the greatest worry of mathematicians; they should be consistent, and should lead to a fruitful theory. Getting a minimal set of axioms is the least concern. And often, richer theories have superfluous axioms (as illustrated above) because they served a purpose in a less rich version of the theory.

It means that they have some relation with each other, which is weak enough to save their independency of each other.
Gibberish.

All we care at this pre-axiomatic level, is to understand the form of how X and Y are related to each other, by avoiding any meaning of X or Y.
Avoiding meaning??? As long as X and Y have no meaning whatsoever, they're just strings of characters and that's where their relation ends. Again, your usual nonsense.

doronshadmi

12th October 2008, 04:08 PM

This is, IMHO, not only a clear breach of copyright but also highly unethical. If you'd do that with my posts here, I'd not hesitate one moment to report you for it with the admins.

It is forbidden by some forums that deal with the same subject to make links between them, in order to avoid members to move to another forum.

In this case I quoted some dialog on the same subject in another forum, in order to show that there are people how capable to say some more words in addition to "Gibberish" , " nonsense" etc… Do not post such accusations of others.

doronshadmi

12th October 2008, 04:14 PM

Independence of axioms isn't the greatest worry of mathematicians;

Really ?

I wish to see some axiom that is derived from (dependent on) another axiom, and it is still considered as an axiom.

ddt

12th October 2008, 04:24 PM

I'm sure that the existence of a neutral element for those 2 operations that I referred are axioms (at least classical, and I don’t think that has changed), there are indeed lemmas that are directly related to them that say that this neutral elements are unique, very similar but not the same.
If you define

The natural numbers N with the Peano axioms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms);
Addition on natural numbers by:
x + 0 = x
x + succ(y) = succ(x+y)
The whole numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer) Z as equivalence classes of pairs of natural numbers;
Addition on whole numbers as the obvious extension of addition on natural numbers

then it is quite easy to prove that (Z, +, 0) is an Abelian group.

Actually, that's quite a nice homework assignment for Doron. :p

I personally had a hard time to find those axioms on the web, [...] ah yes English is a second language to me).
I can feel your pain. More than once, I've had to look for the proper English word. Simon Stevin be cursed :) for inventing so many properly Dutch mathematical terms.

Apathia

12th October 2008, 04:26 PM

Hi Apathia,

The keyword is: Reseachable Form.

It cannot be Relative-only or Element-only, as explaind in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4117959&postcount=315 .

I was afraid you wouldn't catch that I was talking about "The Form" as the fundamental intellectual construct you present. In your book, as a concept, as a researchable, it must be subject to The Form which you believe is prior to all concepts but is their indispensible ground.

Is the Form subject to the Form?
Yes, when we're talking about the researchable philosphical concept.
No, if you are talking about the metaphysical principle.
Yes, the researchable Form.
No, the Form in its self state.

Unless you want to restrict The Form from self-reference.
Restricting self-reference is a poor linguistic, philosophical, amd mathematical policy. It is better to jump right into it, and let the river carry you to the ocean where it ceases.

ddt

12th October 2008, 04:33 PM

Really ?

I wish to see some axiom that is derived from (dependent on) another axiom, and it is still considered as an axiom.

Did you read my post? I gave two examples of axioms that (one in whole, the other in part) can be derived from other axioms in the same theory.

BTW, "derived from" and "dependent on" are not synonyms.

ddt

12th October 2008, 04:42 PM

It is forbidden by some forums that deal with the same subject to make links between them, in order to avoid members to move to another forum.
Huh? I'm not sure what you mean with this, what those fora would like to avoid.

BTW, other fora - including JREF - do not allow spamming multiple fora with the same texts.

In this case I quoted some dialog on the same subject in another forum, in order to show that there are people how capable to say some more words in addition to "Gibberish" , " nonsense" etc…
The quotes of DrMatt you quoted amounted to the same, only in more words. The ones I read basically stated your mathematical abilities were under Kindergarten level. I concur.

(isn't it ddt? a person that has no problems to force himself on my private life
This is slander. You suggest I stalk you or somesuch. All info I have published here on you was accessible elsewhere on the web, published by yourself.

and convince other people to check about me at my employee's, only because he cannot get new abstract ideas).
Evidence? More slander. Reported for that.

doronshadmi

12th October 2008, 05:37 PM

Evidence? More slander. Reported for that.

You are an angel (

Not really conclusive - everyone can lie on the internet, after all. But Doron has mentioned before - on IIDB - that he is a CAD manager at Tahal. Doron has also said he was previously a Fortran programmer. If the level of reasoning Doron here employs is indicative of the general level of the employees at Tahal, I'm not surprised anymore by the enormous water leakages from the Mountain Aquifer that runs through Israel and the West Bank.

But if you want conclusive evidence that Doron works at Tahal, you could just drop a line to the Tahal HR department, not?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4095093&postcount=162 ).

You have forgotten some important fact:

I am also a Jew.

Skeptic

12th October 2008, 10:45 PM

(Sigh)

Look, Doron, you asked for my view. As it happens, I am -- of all things -- a philosophy lecturer whose specialization is in belief change and, in particular, issues like induction, abduction, etc.

Your paper is amateurish at best.

1). First of all, you make the mistake (common to amateur philosophers) of thinking that if you find some logical relation between foundationalists and non-foundationalists (in your case, so far as I can tell, that both use the well-known three types of inference to reach a conclusion -- assuming for the sake of the argument "Abduction" is an inference), then this is necessarily some sort of deep, deep "relationship" between the two that is a "basis for logic" or "foundation of reasoning" that everybody else had missed.

This is simply not true, for various reasons. The most obvious reason is that this "deep relationship" between foundationalists and antifoundationalists -- that is, that both use logical inference -- is trivially the same among both of them, since that has nothing at all to do with the issue they disagree about. You might as well have claimed that, since foundationalists and antifoundationalists both agree that 2+2=4, this should be the basis for "solving the disagreement" between them.

(I should add, perhaps, that papers that try and find a common ground between seemingly-opposing views are perfectly legitimate in themselves, but not in the way you do it.)

2). Second, you obviously are simply ignorant of the vast literature on the subject you're talking about.

You've read two or three articles (online) about foundationalism or logic, "discovered" that "everybody missed" something because it doesn't appear in those two or three articles, and then decided to "correct" this mistake. But the real reason the articles you've read "missed" what you think is the "crucial point" is with all probability simply that (a) they don't deal with this "crucial point" at all, and (b) the "crucial point" is "crucial" only in your imagination.

Let's take your biblography. Only two references -- both of them secondary sources (one of them a textbook, I believe?). What about the primary sources? You mention abduction. Well, tell me something about the relation between Aristotle's abduction and C. S. Peirce's revolutionizing of the same. Tell me something about the relation between Peirce's view of abduction in the 1866 Lowell lectures and his view in the 1901 Harvard lectures.

I am not saying you must have mentioned these particular two philosophers in your bibliography. But I *am* saying that the assumption, in a real bibliography, is that the person writing the article knows the "standard literature" about his subject -- usually composing of hundreds of sources -- pretty well, and refers to the (say) 5-10 most relevant sources to the paper's particular subject in the bibliography.

In your case, it is clear that your "bibliography" is the beginning and end of your entire knowledge of the subject, and that you simply are ignorant of the field. In short, from the bibliography alone -- even without reading the article -- any experienced editor could instantly say, "uh oh, an ignorant nutcase".

In short, your paper proves that you are an amateur who is ignorant of the subject. The experienced eye can note that only from looking at the bibliography at the end. The slightly less experienced eye can note it from the triviality of your argument, your use of non-standard notations and terms as if the use of new terms is a "discovery" (amateurs LOVES to use new words), and so on.

In short, it's crap. That you think it's gold is your problem.

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 01:48 AM

(Sigh)

Look, Doron, you asked for my view. As it happens, I am -- of all things -- a philosophy lecturer whose specialization is in belief change and, in particular, issues like induction, abduction, etc.

This specialization does not help you to get the Minimal Agreed Form that has no meaning of its own, but it enables a researchable framework, in the first place.

MAF uses Deduction, Induction and Abduction as some particular example of a form without any particular meaning. In other words, you looked for the meaning and missed the formalization.

By using MAF I clearly show that no researchable framework exists, unless Relation and Element are in interaction, or in other words, foundationalism and non-foundationalists complement each other, in order to get a researchable framework.

If you disagree with me, you have to show a researchable framework which is totally relative (no elements are involved) or totally absolute (no relations are involved).

I'll be glad if you direct me to some professional material that deals with this subject by formal approach, as I do.

Your paper is amateurish at best.

In your criticism not even a single example, taken from the content of my work, is given.

For example, please show that my argument about the disagreement between foundationalism and anti-foundationalism is "crucial" only in my imagination, by using your profession and supply the non-imaginary "crucial point" of the disagreement between foundationalism and anti-foundationalism.

1). First of all, you make the mistake (common to amateur philosophers) of thinking that if you find some logical relation between foundationalists and non-foundationalists
I do not care about the meaning of Logical Reasoning. I do care about its form without meaning (what I call MAF) and this is the whole point of my paper. There there is no evidence in your reply that you actually got my formalist approach about this subject.

(in your case, so far as I can tell, …
You still did not tell anything about the content of my paper. As I said, please air your view directly to the content and do not critique only the non-convectional style that is used in order to air my view.

This is simply not true, for various reasons. The most obvious reason is that this "deep relationship" between foundationalists and antifoundationalists -- that is, that both use logical inference -- is trivially the same among both of them, since that has nothing at all to do with the issue they disagree about. You might as well have claimed that, since foundationalists and antifoundationalists both agree that 2+2=4, this should be the basis for "solving the disagreement" between them.
Once again, Logical Reasoning is used here only as some MAF's particular example.

(I should add, perhaps, that papers that try and find a common ground between seemingly-opposing views are perfectly legitimate in themselves, but not in the way you do it.)
Please give concrete examples, that are related to the content of my work.

2). Second, you obviously are simply ignorant of the vast literature on the subject you're talking about.

You are obviously an ignorant about Formalism (a form that has no meaning of it own).

As a result, you did not understand (yet) my work. Furthermore, you did not write anything that clearly shows that you directly deal with its content.

In short, it's crap. …
You are not (yet) in a stage to conclude that. First you have to show that you understand my work.

ddt

13th October 2008, 02:01 AM

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4095093&postcount=162 ).
So what did I write about your career that you didn't write yourself, e.g., in this IIDB post (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=132690&page=7)?

You have forgotten some important fact:

I am also a Jew.
Apparently, you think that's important: you mention it, and you're the only one who ever mentioned it. Ethnicity is utterly irrelevant to being a (mathematical) crackpot, vice versa. Are you trying to play the persecution card or is this another attempt at slandering?

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 02:29 AM

So what did I write about your career that you didn't write yourself, e.g., in this IIDB post (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=132690&page=7)?
Here is the relevant part:

"A lot of my insights are based on System analysis, design and programming of a very rich and versatile environment ( see http://www.tahal.com/ ) and I have an experience of more than 25 years in this rich and versatile environment."

In does not give you any permission to convince other persons (or act by yourself) directly or indirectly, to make any kind of contact with Tahal in order to get details about me. It is simply amazing that you do not get that.

Apparently, you think that's important: ...
You even missed that (the cynicism). What can we say?

nathan

13th October 2008, 03:09 AM

Here is the relevant part"

"A lot of my insights are based on System analysis, design and programming of a very rich and versatile environment ( see http://www.tahal.com/ ) and I have an experience of more than 25 years in this rich and versatile environment."

In does not give you any permission to convince other persons (or act by yourself) directly or indirectly, to make any kind of contact with Tahal in order to get details about me. It is simply amazing that you do not get that.

Why do you think your permission is needed?

TMiguel

13th October 2008, 03:29 AM

"A lot of my insights are based on System analysis, design and programming of a very rich and versatile environment ( see http://www.tahal.com/ ) and I have an experience of more than 25 years in this rich and versatile environment."
So you mean, you are a plumber and therefore you are right?

We have been relatively very nice to you, because at least I personally don’t like people like you producing garbage and try to litter others whit it.
Let me give you an example of what I mean, Look at this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K93dL65Q724
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSTzmHiqmko
There are lots of videos about thins guy teaching “pseudo-mathematics”, he does everything you can not do in math, he gets paid for that, and it is all complete nonsense from beginning to end. People actually get more stupid just by listening that.
Now take a look on how he works, lots of pictures, schematics, nonsense terminology, conclusions out of no where, nonsense from top to bottom.
Now answer me, what is the difference between this douche and you?

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 03:37 AM

Why do you think your permission is needed?

I can tell you from my own experience.

I did such a foolish thing by myself, and sent an email to some student's mathematical department in order to tell them that he uses their computers in order to follow after me to any forum that I wrote something in it. He did it in order to warn people about me and to ignore anything that I write. He did it intensively and very aggressively for a long time until one day I decided to do my best in order to calm his aggressive obsession about me, down.

After I did it, I understood that I am actually not better than him when I acted like this.

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 03:40 AM

So you mean, you are a plumber and therefore you are right?

We have been relatively very nice to you, because at least I personally don’t like people like you producing garbage and try to litter others whit it.
Let me give you an example of what I mean, Look at this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K93dL65Q724
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSTzmHiqmko
There are lots of videos about thins guy teaching “pseudo-mathematics”, he does everything you can not do in math, he gets paid for that, and it is all complete nonsense from beginning to end. People actually get more stupid just by listening that.
Now take a look on how he works, lots of pictures, schematics, nonsense terminology, conclusions out of no where, nonsense from top to bottom.
Now answer me, what is the difference between this douche and you?
Your inability to understand my work. Until now you did not show that you get it.

"Nonsense" or "Gibberish" do not give any indication to your understanding.

ddt

13th October 2008, 04:00 AM

So you mean, you are a plumber and therefore you are right?
:D :D :D

Let me give you an example of what I mean, Look at this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K93dL65Q724
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSTzmHiqmko
There are lots of videos about thins guy teaching “pseudo-mathematics”, he does everything you can not do in math, he gets paid for that, and it is all complete nonsense from beginning to end. People actually get more stupid just by listening that.
Amen. You should also look at this video of his:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XV1w7OI0w
and tune in at 2:15. Nice coincidence, the resemblance of that picture with doron's avatar. :D

nathan

13th October 2008, 04:04 AM

I can tell you from my own experience.

I did such a foolish thing by myself, and sent an email to some student's mathematical department in order to tell them that he uses their computers in order to follow after me to any forum that I wrote something in it. He did it in order to warn people about me and to ignore anything that I write. He did it intensively and very aggressively for a long time until one day I decided to do my best in order to calm his aggressive obsession about me, down.

After I did it, I understood that I am actually not better than him when I acted like this.

So, you don't think permission is needed?

ddt

13th October 2008, 04:24 AM

"A lot of my insights are based on System analysis, design and programming of a very rich and versatile environment ( see http://www.tahal.com/ ) and I have an experience of more than 25 years in this rich and versatile environment."
We haven't seen a lot of insights though. Most of your statements are vacuous. But then, the insights you show from 5+ years posting on nearly every internet forum in sight and invariably been told your writings are nonsense aren't very impressive either.

In does not give you any permission to convince other persons [...]
(bolding mine). That word does not mean what you think it means. And what nathan said: no permission is needed. You opened the door yourself by publishing the association with your employer to the possibility that someone can contact them.

I can tell you from my own experience.

I did such a foolish thing by myself, and sent an email to some student's mathematical department in order to tell them that he uses their computers in order to follow after me to any forum that I wrote something in it. He did it in order to warn people about me and to ignore anything that I write. He did it intensively and very aggressively for a long time until one day I decided to do my best in order to calm his aggressive obsession about me, down.

After I did it, I understood that I am actually not better than him when I acted like this.
You tellingly left out three important details about this story:

1) a couple of links to the posts in question, so we can judge about the temper of his posts. What's different about this student exposing your writings for the crap they are on various fora, than about you going from one forum to another posting the same crap?

2) the effect it had on the student's behaviour. Did he stop after that?

3) the answer you got from the department. Did they just answer you that the student was completely right in stating your writings are nonsense?

IMHO, if that student pointed out repeatedly your writings are nonsense, he just did a public service.

You even missed that (the cynicism). What can say?
What cynicism? I only see a lame attempt to insinuate others might be racists. That's disgusting.

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 04:38 AM

We haven't seen a lot of insights though. Most of your statements are vacuous. But then, the insights you show from 5+ years posting on nearly every internet forum in sight and invariably been told your writings are nonsense aren't very impressive either.

(bolding mine). That word does not mean what you think it means. And what nathan said: no permission is needed. You opened the door yourself by publishing the association with your employer to the possibility that someone can contact them.

You tellingly left out three important details about this story:

1) a couple of links to the posts in question, so we can judge about the temper of his posts. What's different about this student exposing your writings for the crap they are on various fora, than about you going from one forum to another posting the same crap?

2) the effect it had on the student's behaviour. Did he stop after that?

3) the answer you got from the department. Did they just answer you that the student was completely right in stating your writings are nonsense?

IMHO, if that student pointed out repeatedly your writings are nonsense, he just did a public service.

I made a mistake in the email address, so the email was sent to a wrong address.

I did not try to send it again, because after I did it I understood that it was a wrong reaction.

What cynicism? I only see a lame attempt to insinuate others might be racists. That's disgusting.
Are you kidding my angel?

Darat

13th October 2008, 04:43 AM

Back to a topic appropriate for this section; as much as you may like to talk about each other that is only appropriate in a metaphysical sense of "appropriate for the "R&P" section.

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 04:49 AM

Entropy is a MAF that has no distiction or order between its elements.

nathan

13th October 2008, 05:24 AM

Entropy is a MAF that has no distiction or order between its elements.
Who else understands this definition of Entropy?

jsfisher

13th October 2008, 05:58 AM

Doron,

In your UR.PDF, you make bizarre use of the asterisk and underbar symbols to mean, as you put it,

Let * be an element.
Let _ be a relation.

Then you declare

An example of MAF, where three elements are related to each other:
*_*_*

As described by you, the asterisk would be bound to a single element and the underbar to a single relation. I doubt this is what you meant. Did you in fact mean for your example MAF to be three, not one elements under a single relation?

So, your original with corrections would be:

Let x, y, and z each be an element.
Let _ be a relation.
Then x _ y _ z is an example MAF.

I think that is more consistent with what you really meant, but it is still with problems. You use the underbar as a binary relation, so while x _ y and y _ z each are sensible formulae, the triple x _ y _ z is not.

What did you mean by x _ y _ z?

ddt

13th October 2008, 07:10 AM

ddt

13th October 2008, 08:06 AM

Who else understands this definition of Entropy?

You don't? I'm disappointed :). Well, neither do I. Maybe it would help to look on the net what other Doron-discussions have given in terms of results.

Deeper than Primes:

IIDB, Aug. 2005 (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=132690)
Math Help Forum Aug. 2007 (http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-help/philosophy-mathematics/18140-deeper-than-primes.html)
Philosophy Forums, Aug. 28, 2008 (http://philosophy-forums.com/showthread.php?t=592)
Center for Inquiry, Aug. 28, 2008 (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/2893/)

Universal Reasoning:

Philosophy Forums, Oct. 10, 2008 (http://philosophy-forums.com/showthread.php?p=30939)
Science Chat Forum, Oct. 10, 2008 (http://www.sciencechatforum.com/bulletin/viewtopic.php?t=10562&sid=d6bbf01b30ec00e5285b7e77ba2b88e6)
Center for Inquiry, Oct. 10, 2008 (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/4846/)

Note that the latter 3 have the same posting date and the same OP as Doron's post #259 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4111758&postcount=259), which was the OP of the later merged thread "Universal Reasoning" here.

Note also that one poster at CfI remarks that he'd rather wait to see what comes out of this thread. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I'm none the wiser. But maybe someone else may have adavantage of these links.

Skeptic

13th October 2008, 08:42 AM

If you disagree with me, you have to show a researchable framework which is totally relative (no elements are involved) or totally absolute (no relations are involved).

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I don't have to prove you are wrong. You have to prove you are right. All I have done is shown that it is quite clear from your paper that you know very little about either philosophy, logic, or mathematics -- and that therefore, it is extremely unlikely you made an earth-shattering discovery in the philosophy of mathematical logic.

Skeptic

13th October 2008, 08:43 AM

Entropy is a MAF that has no distiction or order between its elements.

No, it isn't. That's just a definition you made up.

TMiguel

13th October 2008, 09:08 AM

jsfisher

13th October 2008, 09:40 AM

Deeper than Primes:

IIDB, Aug. 2005 (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=132690)
Math Help Forum Aug. 2007 (http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-help/philosophy-mathematics/18140-deeper-than-primes.html)
Philosophy Forums, Aug. 28, 2008 (http://philosophy-forums.com/showthread.php?t=592)
Center for Inquiry, Aug. 28, 2008 (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/2893/)

Doron got himself banned from one of these sites (the one I bolded). Apparently, being obtuse is less tolerated elsewhere than here.

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 09:59 AM

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I don't have to prove you are wrong. You have to prove you are right. All I have done is shown that it is quite clear from your paper that you know very little about either philosophy, logic, or mathematics -- and that therefore, it is extremely unlikely you made an earth-shattering discovery in the philosophy of mathematical logic.
Sorry, but you did not show anything that is related to the content of my work.

You have to show that you get it, before you air your view about it, something that you did not do.

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 10:13 AM

This post is a bit of a derail, but as we've been all asking about Doron's credentials, I don't understand why he hasn't brought up the following.

Doron's research associate, Moshe Klein, has given a talk on "Organic Mathematics" in the Fifth International Congress in Applied Mathematics and Computing (http://math.uctm.edu/conference2008/), August 2008, in Plovdiv, Bulgaria. At least, the PDF here (http://www.upsite.co.il/uploaded/files/251_0f2d8e2b34a229f1d05ab31eb070be32.pdf) claims so.

Let's disregard that he misspells the name of the conference ("Computation" instead of "Computing"), and that the professor who he claims invited him, Bromi Bainov, is nowhere to be found on the web but shares his last name with organizer Drumi Bainov.

With this academic break-through of one of your key theories, why do you still need to pebble your theories on such mundane fora as this?

Or is there something not quite true about the above? I couldn't find a comprehensive program for FICMAC.

Wrong PDF version (http://www.upsite.co.il/uploaded/files/251_0f2d8e2b34a229f1d05ab31eb070be32.pdf) is a vary preliminary (and full of mistakes) version (of the right version http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.pdf) that by mistake was published at Fifth International Congress in Applied Mathematics and Computing (http://math.uctm.edu/conference2008/) website.

With this academic break-through of one of your key theories, why do you still need to pebble your theories on such mundane fora as this?
There is no such a thing like academic break-through.

The important thing is always the dialog, no matter what environment is used.

This is the right way to save any scientific development from stagnation, by always listen also to "outsiders".

In my opinion, any reseachable thing (abstarct or not) is always under research, and can be re-opened again and again.

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 10:20 AM

No, it isn't. That's just a definition you made up.
How said it, the God of the Mahtematical Science?

nathan

13th October 2008, 10:26 AM

How said it, the God of the Mahtematical Science?

Why are you unable to show anyone else that has agreed to that definition? (After all, the A in MAF is 'Agreed', so there must be someone other than you who agreed to your definition.)

jsfisher

13th October 2008, 10:29 AM

drkitten

13th October 2008, 11:00 AM

[
This is the right way to save any scientific development from stagnation, by always listen also to "outsiders".

Not when the outsiders themselves neither listen nor learn.

Sometimes outsiders have valuable insights and useful perspectives. More often, they're simply wrong. And there's no need to listen to a nutcase tell you something a second time. If you were wrong 150 posts ago, you're still wrong.

In my opinion, any reseachable thing (abstarct or not) is always under research, and can be re-opened again and again.

Well, then, your opinion is wrong. There's a reason that we no longer study alchemy and astrology at reputable schools. Alchemy is simply wrong, and there's no need to continue to research or to re-open it.

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 11:39 AM

Doron,

Admittedly, most of the criticism you get here is blunt, but it is also quite honest. And how do you react? You ridicule the respondent.

Are you really so naive so as to believe you'll only receive praise and adulation for a job well done? If you cannot accept honest criticism, don't ask for it, ok?
jsfisher,

Here is some example:

"An empty set" (not clearly a unique element) is essentially different than "The empty set" (clearly a unique element).

What exactly direct you to claim that this is "just" a semantic difference?

jsfisher

13th October 2008, 11:47 AM

jsfisher,

Here is some example:

"An empty set" (not clearly a unique element) is essentially different than "The empty set" (clearly a unique element).

What exactly direct you to claim that this is "just" a semantic difference?

Geez, again with the reading comprehension thing. Your response has nothing to do with my post. You are also off topic. You also lack evidence of your claim.

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 11:48 AM

Alchemy is simply wrong, and there's no need to continue to research or to re-open it.
Modern Chemistry is the result of a re-search that re-opened Alchemy again and again and developed it to its current developed (so called modern) stage.

You have no guarantee that current Modern Chemistry will not be understood by future generations, in the same manner as we get Alchemy today.

jsfisher

13th October 2008, 11:48 AM

*bump*
Doron, how about addressing this:

Doron,

In your UR.PDF, you make bizarre use of the asterisk and underbar symbols to mean, as you put it,

Let * be an element.
Let _ be a relation.

Then you declare

An example of MAF, where three elements are related to each other:
*_*_*

As described by you, the asterisk would be bound to a single element and the underbar to a single relation. I doubt this is what you meant. Did you in fact mean for your example MAF to be three, not one elements under a single relation?

So, your original with corrections would be:

Let x, y, and z each be an element.
Let _ be a relation.
Then x _ y _ z is an example MAF.

I think that is more consistent with what you really meant, but it is still with problems. You use the underbar as a binary relation, so while x _ y and y _ z each are sensible formulae, the triple x _ y _ z is not.

What did you mean by x _ y _ z?

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 11:54 AM

Geez, again with the reading comprehension thing. Your response has nothing to do with my post. You are also off topic. You also lack evidence of your claim.

Here is the evidence: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4117701&postcount=306

It is not off topic because it is related to MAFs and Distinction as a first-order proprty.

Skeptic

13th October 2008, 12:00 PM

Doron seems a typical mathematical crank.

1). He's more or less completely ignorant of the fields he thinks his "work" is "contributing" to.

2). He defines the most basic terms in his "theory" (such as "enthropy") in idiosyncratic, home-made, cumbubrsome way that he himself sometimes misuses, and nobody else ever uses (this follows, of course, from his ignorance).

3). His "work" is mostly simply nonsense.

4). The part that isn't nonsense is a bunch of trivial mathematical claims, made to look "deep" (e.g., difficult to undestand) simply because he uses such non-standard and cumbursome definitions it takes forever to figure out what he's going on about. Once you figure it out, however, you quickly see it wasn't worth the effort.

5). Any criticism, no matter how much to the point, is met with personal attacks on the critic.

6). Suffers from delusions of grandeur, and shows signs of paranoia.

7). Demands other prove him wrong, instead of proving himself right.

...and so on.

I'm putting him on "ignore", as there's obviously no point to any discussion. The man will be convinced of his own greatness and amazing mathematical genius to the day he dies, and none of us can do a damn thing about it.

One word, though, as someone trained in both mathematics and philosopy, to those of you struggling to undestand him: don't bother. It isn't worth the effort. There is no "there" there.

ddt

13th October 2008, 12:04 PM

Hum, interesting. That document alone explained more about the subject, then all the rambling Doron put together, and I can tell that Doron didn’t write it himself.
Some words actually made sense, it is still mathematical nonsense, but at least is a reader friendly mathematical nonsense.
To elucidate on this: Moshe Klein is the Kindergarten teacher. Still, the paper hops to and fro in what it discusses, and never defines a thing. It is undoubtedly chock-full of factual errors too. Just glancing over it, I spotted this one:
A point for speculation is what directions our thought process can take us in if we assume that Lines and Points are two independent elements that do not derive from each other?
The answer is: they don't. You can also do geometry if you replace the words "point" and "line" with "beermat" and "table" (Hilbert).

Wrong PDF version (http://www.upsite.co.il/uploaded/files/251_0f2d8e2b34a229f1d05ab31eb070be32.pdf) is a vary preliminary (and full of mistakes) version (of the right version http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.pdf) that by mistake was published at Fifth International Congress in Applied Mathematics and Computing (http://math.uctm.edu/conference2008/) website.
First of all, it wasn't published on the FICMAC website.
Secondly, "very preliminary"??? How long have you been working on this stuff? For 20+ years, I think.
Thirdly, it's very interesting to note that this "preliminary" version has a date of Aug. 5, and carries a notice it is the talk at FICMAC and the "right" version of Sept. 28, and does not carry such a notice; while the conference was Aug. 12-18.

To be frank, I'm very wary this paper was accepted at all at the conference. Could someone who has access to such info clear this up? And if it was, tell what the deadline for submission of manuscripts is?

The important thing is always the dialog, no matter what environment is used.

This is the right way to save any scientific development from stagnation, by always listen also to "outsiders".
That's why, whenever someone asks for clarification, your only response is "you don't get it", and you don't actually explain it. I read a fine example of that in the IIDB "Deeper than Primes" thread (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=132690&page=8), read on from post #182. A perfectly fine question from 'reddish' that is never answered. And look back in this thread: three definitions for "entropy" were proposed, and you commented on not one of them appropriately. In every thread you've started, you've had this same MO: when people ask relevant questions, you answer "you don't get it", but you never give an explanation.

I think it's quite clear why there is a lack of dialogue.

TMiguel

13th October 2008, 12:13 PM

Modern Chemistry is the result of a re-search that re-opened Alchemy again and again and developed it to its current developed (so called modern) stage.
Wrong! Alchemy was simply put to dead because it was:
1. Stupid
2. Had produce no valuable knowledge, it had no method, it had nothing but nonsense.

Chemistry is based on the scientific method.
Your statement is equivalent of claiming that zoology developed originally from the bigfoot and sea monsters folkloric stories.

You have no guarantee that current Modern Chemistry will not be understood by future generations, in the same manner as we get Alchemy today.
We today can actually point out what kind of break trough can revolutionize the way we do chemistry, but that will not in any way affect the majority of the acquired knowledge, nor change anything that would make any previous research useless.

But talking Chemistry and Alchemy is getting a bit of topic. Although you very clearly showed that you are in fact trying to get the substance of physicists and mathematicians tough like the Alchemist search for gold. And dared to put on a document that you are willing to brain wash kids and deprive them from education in order to server your wimps of a delusional mathematical subjectivity. That makes me very sick, your place is in a mental hospital. Please consider on getting medical help before you harm some one.

jsfisher

13th October 2008, 12:15 PM

To elucidate on this: Moshe Klein is the Kindergarten teacher. Still, the paper hops to and fro in what it discusses, and never defines a thing. It is undoubtedly chock-full of factual errors too.

I believe his biggest factual error, and one the Doron has repeated, is in regards to Hilbert's organic claim. Moshe and Doron would have us believe Hilbert was predicting/pleading for a unification of Mathematics. If you read Hilbert's speech, it is easy to see Hilbert meant nothing of the kind.

Not surprising, the "organic notion" that is so fundamental to Doron's discourse is 180 degrees out of phase with the rational.

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 12:21 PM

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 12:27 PM

Wrong! Alchemy was simply put to dead because it was:
1. Stupid
2. Had produce no valuable knowledge, it had no method, it had nothing but nonsense.

Chemistry is based on the scientific method.
Your statement is equivalent of claiming that zoology developed originally from the bigfoot and sea monsters folkloric stories.

We today can actually point out what kind of break trough can revolutionize the way we do chemistry, but that will not in any way affect the majority of the acquired knowledge, nor change anything that would make any previous research useless.

But talking Chemistry and Alchemy is getting a bit of topic. Although you very clearly showed that you are in fact trying to get the substance of physicists and mathematicians tough like the Alchemist search for gold. And dared to put on a document that you are willing to brain wash kids and deprive them from education in order to server your wimps of a delusional mathematical subjectivity. That makes me very sick, your place is in a mental hospital. Please consider on getting medical help before you harm some one.
You cannot wash kids' brains if the pedagogy of the unknown is used.

By the pedagogy of the unknown the adult and the kid are both students and teachers of each other.

TMiguel

13th October 2008, 12:30 PM

You cannot wash kids' brains if the pedagogy of the unknown is used.

By the pedagogy of the unknown the adult and the kid are both students and teachers of each other.

I don’t think I need to say more.

jsfisher

13th October 2008, 12:32 PM

*__* is a one form.

*__*__* is a one form.

*__*__*__* is a one form.

... *__* ... is a one form.

Not only did you fail to clean up your notation to clarify that each asterisk was meant to be independent of each other asterisk, you didn't address my question on the semantics of the underbar relation in x _ y _ z.

Permit me to expand upon my question:

For the greater-than relation, x > y > z is accepted as shorthand for the well-formed formula x > y AND y > z. On the other hand, if addition is accepted as a relation, x + y + z is accepted as shorthand for the well-formed formula (x + y) + z.

Your x _ y _ z is not a well-formed formula. It has no meaning by itself. If you meant it to be shorthand for something that is a well-formed formula, please say so and reveal the formula.

ddt

13th October 2008, 01:11 PM

Doron got himself banned from one of these sites (the one I bolded). Apparently, being obtuse is less tolerated elsewhere than here.

That was MathHelpForum. The story is a bit more complicated. Doron made 26 posts there between 2007-08-03 and 2007-10-29 (ISO 8601 format). Doron visited the forum almost 4 months later, 2008-02-26. So it's highly unlikely that he was banned due to posting obtuse things.

So I wonder what then was the reason for his banning. Had he, maybe, been PM-ing inappropriate things to other forum members? That would give an interesting twist to Doron's story of the student who followed him around various fora...

BTW, Doron, could you disclose the handle this student used so we can check on your story?

nathan

13th October 2008, 01:15 PM

*__* is a one form.

*__*__* is a one form.

*__*__*__* is a one form.

... *__* ... is a one form.

So, in regular lingo, * maps to TRUE and __ maps to =. And you've come to the astounding conclusion that
TRUE = TRUE = TRUE
and
TRUE = TRUE = TRUE = TRUE
and
... TRUE = TRUE ...

Wow, astounding. I think I'll go read G.E.B a E.G.B again. At least the author there points out such stupidity

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 01:19 PM

Your x _ y _ z is not a well-formed formula. It has no meaning by itself.
This is exactly what MAF is, a form that has no meaning of its own, and can be used used for any purpose.

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 01:24 PM

So, in regular lingo, * maps to TRUE and __ maps to =. And you've come to the astounding conclusion that
TRUE = TRUE = TRUE
and
TRUE = TRUE = TRUE = TRUE
and
... TRUE = TRUE ...

Wow, astounding. I think I'll go read G.E.B a E.G.B again. At least the author there points out such stupidity
Don't blame others if you use MAFs in a non-interesting way.

nathan

13th October 2008, 01:25 PM

This is exactly what MAF is, a form that has no meaning of its own, and can be used used for any purpose.

Gosh, it's taken you a long time to admit you have no meaning.

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 02:06 PM

Gosh, it's taken you a long time to admit you have no meaning.
You, the researcher, gives it its meaning. This is the beaufiful thing about MAFs, as clealry written in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf .

jsfisher

13th October 2008, 02:13 PM

This is exactly what MAF is, a form that has no meaning of its own, and can be used used for any purpose.

You mean it as a syntax without semantics. Yeah, I got that. My point is that the syntax itself -- the form -- is meaningless.

The syntax x _ y has meaning; your x _ y _ z does not have meaning (and * _ * _ * has less meaning than that, if such a thing were possible).

the PC apeman

13th October 2008, 03:32 PM

Note also that one poster at CfI remarks that he'd rather wait to see what comes out of this thread. :rolleyes:
"roll eyes (sarcastic)"? Really?

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 03:56 PM

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 04:06 PM

You mean it as a syntax without semantics.

No, it is a form without meaning.

Syntax or semantics are already some MAF's meanings.

jsfisher

13th October 2008, 04:31 PM

No, it is a form without meaning.

Syntax or semantics are already some MAF's meanings.

Wow! This is deeper than primes. You use a meaningless notation to represent a meaningless construct for a meaningless concept.

You have invented nothing. You must be very proud.

ddt

13th October 2008, 04:32 PM

No, it is a form without meaning.

Syntax or semantics are already some MAF's meanings.

Syntax as meaning??? :jaw-dropp

You give as examples of MAF's:
*__* is a one form.

*__*__* is a one form.

*__*__*__* is a one form.

... *__* ... is a one form.

So what's that *__*__* etc.? Isn't it? Yes, it is:

SYNTAX

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 04:33 PM

Although you very clearly showed that you are in fact trying to get the substance of physicists and mathematicians tough like the Alchemist search for gold.
The motivation of the Alchemist search was to transform common material to rare material.

This motivation exists also today. Because a lot of affords were made in order to re-search , re-open and develop our understanding of fundamental forces and structures in nature, we actually have today the technology to fulfill the Alchemist search and actually transform one material to another material (it may cost a lot of money, but technically it can be done).

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 04:38 PM

Wow! This is deeper than primes. You use a meaningless notation to represent a meaningless construct for a meaningless concept.

You have invented nothing. You must be very proud.

I provide the form that enables you to invent whatever you wish to invent (and then, research and develop it, if you wish to do so).

jsfisher

13th October 2008, 04:47 PM

I provide the form that enables you to invent whatever you wish to invent (and then, research and develop it, if you wish to do so).

You invented nothing.

As was pointed out to you, the form itself for *_*_* is the notational equivalent of gibberish. It doesn't mean anything.

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 04:48 PM

Syntax as meaning???

Yes, it is a MAF that understood in terms of Llinguistics.

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 04:50 PM

You invented nothing.

Again, MAF is not any invention, but it provides the minimal form that enables you to invent.

As was pointed out to you, the form itself for *_*_* is the notational equivalent of gibberish. It doesn't mean anything.

MAF *_*_* can be, for example, number 3.

MAF *_*_* can be, for example, some axiomatic system, based on 3 axioms.

MAF *_*_* can be, for example, the possible relations between conclusion, rule and precondition (the example that I provide in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf ).

jsfisher

13th October 2008, 04:55 PM

Again, MAF is not any invention, but it provides the minimal terms that enables you to invent.

MAF *_*_* can be, for example, number 3.

It can be 3.14159, too, but that doesn't change the fact your notation is gibberish.

ddt

13th October 2008, 05:00 PM

I believe his biggest factual error, and one the Doron has repeated, is in regards to Hilbert's organic claim. Moshe and Doron would have us believe Hilbert was predicting/pleading for a unification of Mathematics. If you read Hilbert's speech, it is easy to see Hilbert meant nothing of the kind.

Not surprising, the "organic notion" that is so fundamental to Doron's discourse is 180 degrees out of phase with the rational.

From the Moshe Klein/Doron Shadmi paper:
He saw the subject called "Mathematics" as a living "Organism" "whose vitality is conditioned upon the surprising connections between its parts". He has pointed to a strong fear that in the near future, Mathematics will split up into separate branches and the connection between these will loosen up. He predicted that in the future every Mathematician would in a specific branch of Mathematics. This will likely form separate mathematical groups where each group deals with a small and specific studying area of Mathematics. To our great regret, this fear became reality. Hilbert ends his lecture by stating his vision of an "Organic unity" between all Mathematical Branches. He thinks that there is a possibility that a new type of "Mathematics" shall be discovered.

However, when you read the actual speech by Hilbert (English translation (http://www.cs.arizona.edu/~rcs/hilbert-speech)):
Mathe-
matical science is in my opinion an indivisible whole, an
organism whose vitality is conditioned upon the connection
of its parts. For with all the variety of mathematical
knowledge, we are still clearly conscious of the similarity
of the logical devices, the %relationship% of the %ideas% in mathe-
matics as a whole and the numerous analogies in its differ-
ent departments. We also notice that, the farther a mathe-
matical theory is developed, the more harmoniously and
uniformly does its construction proceed, and unsuspected
relations are disclosed between hitherto separate branches
of the science. So it happens that, with the extension of
mathematics, its organic character is not lost but only
manifests itself the more clearly.
But, we ask, with the extension of mathematical knowl-
edge will it not finally become impossible for the single in-
vestigator to embrace all departments of this knowledge?
In answer let me point out how thoroughly it is ingrained
in mathematical science that every real advance goes hand
in hand with the invention of sharper tools and simpler
methods which at the same time assist in understanding
earlier thoeries and cast aside older more complicated de-
velopments. It is therefore possible for the individual
investigator, when he makes these sharper tools and simpler
methods his own, to find his way more easily in the various
branches of mathematics than is possible in any other
science.

Nothing of an "organic unity" in the way Klein/Shadmi bring it; no vision either of a "new type of Mathematics". And no fear of fragmentation, on the contrary, Hilbert is confident that mathematicians will remain able to cross over to other specializations.

And here's some more to read and weep about Moshe Klein's kindergartening (http://empower.co.il/healingkiss/K.I.S.S.-LOG/2008_07/07_30.htm):
1) Introduction :"Dialog in mathematics" is a unique approach to teaching mathematics in kindergarten. Children between the ages of 4-6 are still very open-minded as they haven't studied mathematics in the traditional way of the regular education system. Our approach is applied today in 7 kindergartens at Kiryat Tivon, a small town near Haifa with a populationof approximately 20,000 citizens.
[...]
4) Gan Adam project:The Gan Adam project and vision of education were established in 1990 by the mathematician Moshe Klein. We developed a program "Genesis"in teaching science in kindergarten which was applied in 1,200 kindergartens in Israel. Next year the first course of "Dialog in Mathematics" for kindergartens will be opened. We are establishing now the model in Kiryat Tivon and we are looking for a partner to expand and develop the project in other places in Israel and in other countries.

Don't let it come near you...

ddt

13th October 2008, 05:06 PM

Syntax as meaning???
Yes, it is a MAF that understood in terms of Llinguistics.
Non sequitur.

BTW, the Dutch word "maf" means "daft". Quite apt.

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 05:38 PM

From the Moshe Klein/Doron Shadmi paper:

However, when you read the actual speech by Hilbert (English translation (http://www.cs.arizona.edu/~rcs/hilbert-speech)):

Nothing of an "organic unity" in the way Klein/Shadmi bring it; no vision either of a "new type of Mathematics". And no fear of fragmentation, on the contrary, Hilbert is confident that mathematicians will remain able to cross over to other specializations.

This post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3580353&postcount=300 may help you to get it.

Also you ignored what I wrote at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4120100&postcount=362 about the right version of our paper, and quated things from the wrong version.

EDIT:

Also you ignored this part of the lecture ( http://www.cs.arizona.edu/~rcs/hilbert-speech ):

But, we ask, with the extension of mathematical knowl-
edge will it not finally become impossible for the single in-
vestigator to embrace all departments of this knowledge?
In answer let me point out how thoroughly it is ingrained
in mathematical science that every real advance goes hand
in hand with the invention of sharper tools and simpler
methods which at the same time assist in understanding
earlier thoeries and cast aside older more complicated de-
velopments. It is therefore possible for the individual
investigator, when he makes these sharper tools and simpler
methods his own, to find his way more easily in the various
branches of mathematics than is possible in any other
science.
(my edit)The organic unity of mathematics is inherent in the nature
of this science, for mathematics is the foundation of all exact
knowledge of natural phenomena. That it may completely
fulfil this high mission, may the new century bring it gifted
masters and many zealous and enthusiastic disciples.

Hilbert was full of hope that the mathematical scince will save the connections between its parts, because he belived that "the organic unity of the mathematical science is inherent in the nature of this science".

It is well known that the current mathematical science is made of parts that do not talk with each other, and something has to be done in order to fufill Hilbert's viewpoint about The Organic Unity of Mathematics.

jsfisher

13th October 2008, 05:42 PM

This post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3580353&postcount=300 may help you to get it.

Also you ignored what I wrote at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4120100&postcount=362 about the right version of our paper, and quated things from the wrong version.

More reading comprehension issues.

What you wrote, quoted above, has nothing to do with ddt post, nor my post that prompted it.

Here's the point: You and Moshe completely misrepresented what Hilbert said.

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 06:00 PM

Here's the point: You and Moshe completely misrepresented what Hilbert said.

No, you and ddt do not get it:

Again, you ignored this part of the lecture ( http://www.cs.arizona.edu/~rcs/hilbert-speech ):

But, we ask, with the extension of mathematical knowl-
edge will it not finally become impossible for the single in-
vestigator to embrace all departments of this knowledge?
In answer let me point out how thoroughly it is ingrained
in mathematical science that every real advance goes hand
in hand with the invention of sharper tools and simpler
methods which at the same time assist in understanding
earlier thoeries and cast aside older more complicated de-
velopments. It is therefore possible for the individual
investigator, when he makes these sharper tools and simpler
methods his own, to find his way more easily in the various
branches of mathematics than is possible in any other
science.
(my edit)The organic unity of mathematics is inherent in the nature
of this science, for mathematics is the foundation of all exact
knowledge of natural phenomena. That it may completely
fulfil this high mission, may the new century bring it gifted
masters and many zealous and enthusiastic disciples.

Hilbert was full of hope that the mathematical scince will save the connections between its parts, because he belived that "the organic unity of the mathematical science is inherent in the nature of this science".

It is well known that the current mathematical science is made of parts that do not talk with each other, and something has to be done in order to fufill Hilbert's viewpoint about The Organic Unity of Mathematics.

This is exactly the goal of works like:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf

jsfisher

13th October 2008, 06:17 PM

No, you and ddt do not get it:

Again, you ignored this part of the lecture ( http://www.cs.arizona.edu/~rcs/hilbert-speech ):

Hilbert was full of hope that the mathematical scince will save the connections between it parts.

It is well known that the current mathematical science is made of parts that do not talk with each other, and something has to be done in order to fufill Hilbert's viewpoint about The organic unity of mathematics.

More reading comprehension issues, I see.

Read the whole speech. Hilbert cites multiple examples of where solutions found in one branch of Mathematics have found elegant application in other branches. Hilbert was celebrating the many seemingly disparate parts as they form a united whole.

Hilbert allusion to the organic was that of a complex organism with multiple, very different parts with complex interrelations. He argued against the Mathematics branches becoming too specialized and compartmentalized at the expense of interconnections between the branches.

You and Moshe have mistakenly argued Hilbert meant to unify Mathematics. He did not. He wanted to preserve its unity, which is an entirely different matter.

ddt

13th October 2008, 06:19 PM

This post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3580353&postcount=300 may help you to get it.
Your paper should be self-explanatory.

Also you ignored this part of the lecture ( http://www.cs.arizona.edu/~rcs/hilbert-speech ):
[...]It is therefore possible for the individual
investigator, when he makes these sharper tools and simpler
methods his own, to find his way more easily in the various
branches of mathematics than is possible in any other
science.
(my edit)The organic unity of mathematics is inherent in the nature
of this science, for mathematics is the foundation of all exact
knowledge of natural phenomena.[...]

You edited the text of Hilbert's lecture??? If you just meant you bolded a part, you've spent long enough on internet fora to see how you should indicate that.

As to that sentence of Hilbert's: he asserts there is already "organic unity" in mathematics, no need to go look for it and invent some crazy stuff that should "unify" mathematics.

It is well known that the current mathematical science is made of parts that do not talk with each other, and something has to be done in order to fufill Hilbert's viewpoint about The organic unity of mathematics.
:D :D :D
Says the ignoramus.

I asked you before (and of course you didn't answer): what techniques are used in the (classical) proof of the Prime Number Distribution Theorem?

And what's been used in proving the Poincaré Conjecture?

And what's being used for the latest cryptographic methods?

Also you ignored what I wrote at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4120100&postcount=362 about the right version of our paper, and quated things from the wrong version.
Then show the differences.

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 06:31 PM

More reading comprehension issues, I see.

Read the whole speech. Hilbert cites multiple examples of where solutions found in one branch of Mathematics have found elegant application in other branches. Hilbert was celebrating the many seemingly disparate parts as they form a united whole.

Hilbert allusion to the organic was that of a complex organism with multiple, very different parts with complex interrelations. He argued against the Mathematics branches becoming too specialized and compartmentalized at the expense of interconnections between the branches.

You and Moshe have mistakenly argued Hilbert meant to unify Mathematics. He did not. He wanted to preserve its unity, which is an entirely different matter.

No, he knew that in the near future the complexity will be so high and in order to avoid dis-communication and dis-connections between mathematical branches, sharper and simpler tools have to be developed in order to save the mathematical science as an organism.

He explicitly says:

Mathematical science is in my opinion an indivisible whole, an
organism whose vitality is conditioned upon the connection
of its parts.

The current mathematical scince is far from Hilbert's Organic Paradigm.

jsfisher

13th October 2008, 06:33 PM

No, he knew that in the near future the complexity will be so high and in order to avoid dis-communication and dis-connections between mathematical branches, sharper and simpler tools have to be developed in order to save the mathematical science as an organism.

He explicitly says:

The current mathematical scince is far form Hilbert's Organic Paradigm.

You continue to conflate unity with unify.

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 07:00 PM

I asked you before (and of course you didn't answer): what techniques are used in the (classical) proof of the Prime Number Distribution Theorem?

And what's been used in proving the Poincaré Conjecture?

And what's being used for the latest cryptographic methods?

Hilbert's lecture was taken before Einstein's SRT and Godel's work, and his naïve Organic Paradigm was influenced by Newton's mechanic paradigm, his success to define a complete theory of axioms for Geometry, which led him to hope that Physics can be formalized by using deductive methods.

Also he hoped to show that the mathematical science can completely prove its own consistency.

After Gödel's work most of the mathematicians stopped to seek for a one comprehensive framework for the mathematical science, and developed different branches that a lot of them do not talk with each other.

ddt

13th October 2008, 07:05 PM

Hilbert's lecture was taken before Einstein's SRT and Godel's work, and his naïve Organic Paradigm was influenced by Newton's mechanic paradigm, his success to define a complete theory of axioms for Geometry, which led him to hope that Physics can be formalized by using deductive methods.

Also he hoped to show that the mathematical science can completely prove its own consistency.

After Gödel's work most of the mathematicians stopped to seek for a one comprehensive framework for the mathematical science, and developed different branches that a lot of them do not talk with each other.

As usual, you didn't answer my questions. I repeat them:

I asked you before (and of course you didn't answer): what techniques are used in the (classical) proof of the Prime Number Distribution Theorem?

And what's been used in proving the Poincaré Conjecture?

And what's being used for the latest cryptographic methods?

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 07:11 PM

You continue to conflate unity with unify.

Hilbert talked about a state, not about an action, and so we are.

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 07:13 PM

As usual, you didn't answer my questions. I repeat them:
Plaese show the organic unity of these proofs and mathods.

Please show how Geomtery, Logic, ZF Set Theory, Real Analysis, Number Theory, etc... can be simply and naturally connected with each other, according to Hilbert's Orgainc paradigm.

jsfisher

13th October 2008, 07:14 PM

Hilbert talked about a state, not about an action, and so we are.

Huh?

jsfisher

13th October 2008, 07:18 PM

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 07:25 PM

Doron, seriously. English is not your first language, right? Ok, fine, but if you don't understand something addressed to you, don't respond with just anything that occurs to you.

It makes you look really stupid to reply as you do with complete disregard to what was posted.

If something is unclear, ask for clarification. There's no dishonor in that.

Unity is a state.

Unify is an action.

We do not use unify in our edited version of our work ( http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.pdf ).

ddt

13th October 2008, 07:29 PM

Plaese show the organic unity of these proofs and mathods.

Please show how Geomtery, Logic, ZF Set Theory, Real Analysis, Number Theory, etc... can be simply and naturally connected with each other, according to Hilbert's Orgainc paradigm.

First answer my questions:
I asked you before (and of course you didn't answer): what techniques are used in the (classical) proof of the Prime Number Distribution Theorem?

And what's been used in proving the Poincaré Conjecture?

And what's being used for the latest cryptographic methods?

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 07:34 PM

First of all, it wasn't published on the FICMAC website..
You are right, my mistake (actually I am glad that this wrong version is not in FICMAC website).

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 07:37 PM

First answer my questions:
I don't know about any common basis that is involeved here.

If you know then please share it with us.

ddt

13th October 2008, 07:47 PM

I don't know about any common basis that is involeved here.
Translated for the rest: you don't know anything actual about mathematics. If you had, you had at least looked up these things and tried to give an answer.

ETA: your "common basis" wording here betrays again your confusion between "unity" and "unify".

If you know then please share it with us.
That would be pearl before swine for one poster here, and superfluous for the rest.

jsfisher

13th October 2008, 07:55 PM

I now offer up my own generalizations of Doron's MAF. Since they each contain MAF as a proper subset, I claim they are each more powerful than MAF.

Formulation #1:

Let f be an arbitrary function.
Let x, y, z, ... be arbitrary elements.

An example of an EMAF (extended MAF) is f(x,y,z).

More generally,

Let A be an n-tuple of arbitrary elements, where n is arbitrary.

All EMAF's are of the from f(A)

Formulation #2:

Let X be anything at all.

All EMAF's are of the form X.

Discussion:

In formulation #1, it is clear that any doron underbar relation _ can be expressed as a function f and any asterisk element * can be expressed as a lowercase letter. So, simple function notation contains all of doron's MAF as a proper subset. Moreover, since A is not restricted to be a finite tuple, EMAF's clearly cover notions and concepts outside those available in MAF.

In formulation #2, well, since X can be anything, all of doron's MAF is included as a proper subset, all of formulation #1 is included, and well, all of everything else is included, too.

Conclusion:

Although formulation #1, unlike doron's MAF, is consistent with standard mathematical notation formulation #2 has such expressive simplicity to be preferred for all applications.

See how easy it is to be deep?

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 07:57 PM

ETA: your "common basis" wording here betrays again your confusion between "unity" and "unify".
Please show us where Hibert uses the word "unify" in http://www.cs.arizona.edu/~rcs/hilbert-speech .

Now after my answer was given, please give your's:

Please show how Geomtery, Logic, ZF Set Theory, Real Analysis, Number Theory, etc... can be simply and naturally connected with each other, according to Hilbert's Orgainc paradigm.

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 08:03 PM

jsfisher

13th October 2008, 08:07 PM

Again you used the particular case of clear distinction as the general case of your framework.

You still do not get MAF.

Absolute nonsense. Please show any concept, notion, idea, whatever you can express with your MAF notation that I cannot express with my EMAF notation.

ddt

13th October 2008, 08:07 PM

Please show us where Hibert uses the word "unify" in http://www.cs.arizona.edu/~rcs/hilbert-speech .
He didn't and that's the point. You're trying to do as if he wanted to unify things.

Now after my answer was given, please give your's:
You call that an answer? You said "I don't know". That's no answer for someone who wants to overthrow all of mathematics!

Please show how Geomtery, Logic, ZF Set Theory, Real Analysis, Number Theory, etc... can be simply and naturally connected with each other, according to Hilbert's Orgainc paradigm.
A nonsensical question. First show what "Hilbert's Organic Paradigm" is - quoting only Hilbert himself, not your own whacky, deluded interpretation of it.

jsfisher

13th October 2008, 08:12 PM

First show what "Hilbert's Organic Paradigm" is - quoting only Hilbert himself, not your own whacky, deluded interpretation of it.

In EMAF, I can easily represent "Hilbert's Organic Paradigm" as X. Deep, eh?

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 08:23 PM

He didn't and that's the point. You're trying to do as if he wanted to unify things

1) Please show in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.pdf where the word "unify" is used.

2) Organic Unity is a state (something that you do not get).

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 08:25 PM

A nonsensical question. First show what "Hilbert's Organic Paradigm" is - quoting only Hilbert himself, not your own whacky, deluded interpretation of it.

Already shown in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4121090&postcount=402 (look at the bold leters)

jsfisher

13th October 2008, 08:28 PM

Already shown in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4121090&postcount=402 (look at the bold leters)

So, then, we all agree Mathematics has a unity among its many disparate parts.

Progress!

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 08:29 PM

In EMAF, I can easily represent "Hilbert's Organic Paradigm" as X. Deep, eh?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4120494&postcount=383

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 08:31 PM

So, then, we all agree Mathematics has a unity among its many disparate parts.

Progress!

This is not the case in today's Math, and we call it "The Unity Problem" in our paper.

jsfisher

13th October 2008, 08:32 PM

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4120494&postcount=383

Why are you pointing me to someone else's posts? I can't help you if you refuse to understand EMAFs. It is a very basic concept, and it unifies everything.

jsfisher

13th October 2008, 08:34 PM

This is not the case in today's Math, and we call it "The Unity Problem" in our paper.

Evidence?

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 08:40 PM

Why are you pointing me to someone else's posts? I can't help you if you refuse to understand EMAFs. It is a very basic concept, and it unifies everything.
I do not "unify" anything. "Unify" is your problem.

You still do not get "Orgainc Unity".

This is your problem that you are using MAF in a non-intersting way. Blame only yourself.

ddt

13th October 2008, 08:43 PM

1) Please show in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.pdf where the word "unify" is used.
It isn't because of lack of English knowledge of the writers/translators. One example:
Newton tried to unite the universe by introducing the Notion of Mass and the Notion of Force as something that interacts with different masses.
Huh? Did Newton try to establish a Trade Union of the Stars or some such?

In section 3, you introduce - without defining the terms - again your locality/non-locality notions as some overarching principle. That is an attempt at unifying things that cannot be unified - at least not in that way. (we've beaten that horse already thoroughly dead).

2) Organic Unity is a state (something that you do not get).
No-one gets gibberish.

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 08:45 PM

Evidence?

Look around you. You will find a lot of mathematical branches that do not communicate with each other.

jsfisher

13th October 2008, 08:47 PM

I do not "unify" anything. "Unify" is your problem.

You still do not get "Orgainc Unity".

Wow!!! This is your worst demonstration of reading comprehension ever. You really need to work on getting at least some assemblance of relevance to the post you are quoting.

This is your problem that you are using MAF in a non-intersting way. Blame only yourself.

You just don't understand EMAF. That's ok. I know how standard notatoin confuses you.

Still, if you feel there is some expressive superiority for your MAF notation, either in simplicity or in terms of "interesting", please post it. I can match it.

There is nothing my EMAF cannot express that your MAF can.

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 08:47 PM

It isn't because of lack of English knowledge of the writers/translators. One example:

Huh? Did Newton try to establish a Trade Union of the Stars or some such?

In section 3, you introduce - without defining the terms - again your locality/non-locality notions as some overarching principle. That is an attempt at unifying things that cannot be unified - at least not in that way. (we've beaten that horse already thoroughly dead).

No-one gets gibberish.

Good night.

doronshadmi

13th October 2008, 08:49 PM

Wow!!! This is your worst demonstration of reading comprehension ever. You really need to work on getting at least some assemblance of relevance to the post you are quoting.

You just don't understand EMAF. That's ok. I know how standard notatoin confuses you.

Still, if you feel there is some expressive superiority for your MAF notation, either in simplicity or in terms of "interesting", please post it. I can match it.

There is nothing my EMAF cannot express that your MAF can.
Show some expression of EMAF that is also interesting.

ddt

13th October 2008, 08:51 PM

Already shown in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4121090&postcount=402 (look at the bold leters)

No you haven't. No paradigm in sight. Let's look at this portion of Hilbert's speech:
Mathe-
matical science is in my opinion an indivisible whole, an
organism whose vitality is conditioned upon the connection
of its parts. For with all the variety of mathematical
knowledge, we are still clearly conscious of the similarity
of the logical devices, the %relationship% of the %ideas% in mathe-
matics as a whole and the numerous analogies in its differ-
ent departments.

He speaks of an organism, of similarities between math branches, but not of a single paradigm or a single overriding principle.

Is there a single paradigm (necessary) for the various organs of a human body to be able to interact with each other?

Is there a single paradigm (necessary) for the various parts of a car to be able to interact with each other?

Is there a single paradigm (necessary) for the various branches of mathematics to be able to interact with each other?

No, no, no.

jsfisher

13th October 2008, 08:52 PM

Look around you. You will find a lot of mathematical branches that do not communicate with each other.

What utter nonsense!

Let's take cryptography as a modest example. I will not mention RSA and elliptic curve methods and how they span other branches. Instead I will point out IDEA encryption. Curiously, it is a very simple, elegant encryption method based on three other branches of mathematics.

No communication? Stop saying stupid things.

I asked for evidence; you came up empty. Want to try again?

jsfisher

13th October 2008, 08:53 PM

Show some expression of EMAF that is also interesting.

Show any MAF that is also interesting, and I will match it.

ddt

13th October 2008, 08:55 PM

Look around you. You will find a lot of mathematical branches that do not communicate with each other.

Says the poster who consistently has misrepresented each mathematical subject he touched upon. Where's that laughing dog when you need it? Oh, here:

:dl:

PS. Care to try a real answer to my questions:
I asked you before (and of course you didn't answer): what techniques are used in the (classical) proof of the Prime Number Distribution Theorem?

And what's been used in proving the Poincaré Conjecture?

And what's being used for the latest cryptographic methods?

Skeptic

13th October 2008, 09:55 PM

(Shrug)

More evidence that Doron is a typical mathematical crank.

1). Naturally enough, he latches into one of the most famous (to the laymen) problems in mathematics. (Hilbert, in this case).

2). He misunderstands it completely.

3). He thinks that all that matematicians want or need on order to solve the problem is some new notation, or some new terms. Cranks *love* new notation and terms, because they're easy to invent.

4). He cannot imagine why (except for a conspiracy against him, of course) mathematicians ignore his "amazing discovery".

nathan

14th October 2008, 12:18 AM

You, the researcher, gives it its meaning. This is the beaufiful thing about MAFs, as clealry written in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf .

Ok. the meaning I bestow upon it is that you are a crackpot.

any progress on finding someone else to agree on one of your MAFs?

nathan

14th October 2008, 12:19 AM

Don't blame others if you use MAFs in a non-interesting way.

Don't blame others if you can't understand symbolic representation.

TMiguel

14th October 2008, 02:51 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVgoHb73i7U
Important stuff after 6 min.

doronshadmi

14th October 2008, 03:13 AM

What utter nonsense!

Let's take cryptography as a modest example. I will not mention RSA and elliptic curve methods and how they span other branches. Instead I will point out IDEA encryption. Curiously, it is a very simple, elegant encryption method based on three other branches of mathematics.

No communication? Stop saying stupid things.

I asked for evidence; you came up empty. Want to try again?
Have you noticed that the braches that you have motioned are based on the particular case of clear distinction, as a first-order property of the entire researched framework?

All along our dialogs, it prevents from you to get anything that that is not based on clear distinction, as a first-order property of the entire researched framework.

doronshadmi

14th October 2008, 03:24 AM

No you haven't. No paradigm in sight. Let's look at this portion of Hilbert's speech:

He speaks of an organism, of similarities between math branches, but not of a single paradigm or a single overriding principle.

Is there a single paradigm (necessary) for the various organs of a human body to be able to interact with each other?

Is there a single paradigm (necessary) for the various parts of a car to be able to interact with each other?

Is there a single paradigm (necessary) for the various branches of mathematics to be able to interact with each other?

No, no, no.

The Organic paradigm is not a single thing, but it is an organism (something that you don't get yet), which is not less than the improved interactions between the simple and the complex, which is not limited to any particular case of Order or Distinction.

This is not the case of the current mathematical paradigm that is mostly based on the particular case of clear distinction as its first-order property and prevents a further development of the mathematical science, as long it is taken as the one and only one possibility to do Math.

doronshadmi

14th October 2008, 03:29 AM

Show any MAF that is also interesting, and I will match it.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4083359&postcount=1

Now please show your match (be careful, it must not be limited to clear distinction as if it is the only possibility of Distinction).

doronshadmi

14th October 2008, 03:33 AM

ddt

14th October 2008, 03:48 AM

Skeptic, it is obsolete and boring.

ddt and jsfisher at least write to the point and air their view in detailes as an inherent part of thier disagreement with me.

You don't.

Skeptic's posts are a very apt analysis of your stance, though. And every response of yours to jsfisher or me corroborates that analysis. You might also review your response to Skeptic's post in which he shreds to pieces your UR "paper" - you sidestepped or flat-out denied every issue he had with the paper.

Calling this discussion a "disagreement" is giving yourself too much credit. It gives the air of a discussion between equals/peers. Hint: you're not and you'll never be.

ddt

14th October 2008, 04:06 AM

The Organic paradigm is not a single thing, but it is an organism (something that you don't get yet), which is not less than the improved interactions between the simple and the complex, which is not limited to any particular case of Order or Distinction.
"organism" here isn't more than a metaphor, just as Hilbert described it in his speech. You, however, are constantly trying or claiming to capture all of mathematics (all of which you don't understand at all) in your meaningless buzzwords like "non-locality", and now "distinction" - or whatever the mot-du-jour is in your fantasy world - and your "X\Y complementation" stuff. None of which you've adequately defined or even clarified to a satisfying level. Note you're pulling now the words "order" and "distinction" out of your ass, which didn't occur in this discussion on Hilbert's speech.

Interaction between simple and complex? I thought we were discussing the interaction between various branches of mathematics - can we please keep on topic?

This is not the case of the current mathematical paradigm that is mostly based on the particular case of clear distinction as its first-order property and prevents a further development of the mathematical science, as long it is taken as the one and only one possibility to do Math.
(emphases mine)

Can you also write a paragraph without a nonsensical "particular case" thrown in? And could you clarify the bolded words - you failed thus far to do that.

You haven't shown in any way there is anything preventing the development of math. I gave three examples of thriving interaction between various mathematical branches and you failed at acknowledging that.

In fact, you even failed at answering each elementary-level math question asked of you.

doronshadmi

14th October 2008, 05:08 AM

"organism" here isn't more than a metaphor, just as Hilbert described it in his speech. You, however, are constantly trying or claiming to capture all of mathematics (all of which you don't understand at all) in your meaningless buzzwords like "non-locality", and now "distinction" - or whatever the mot-du-jour is in your fantasy world - and your "X\Y complementation" stuff. None of which you've adequately defined or even clarified to a satisfying level. Note you're pulling now the words "order" and "distinction" out of your ass, which didn't occur in this discussion on Hilbert's speech.

Interaction between simple and complex? I thought we were discussing the interaction between various branches of mathematics - can we please keep on topic?

(emphases mine)

Can you also write a paragraph without a nonsensical "particular case" thrown in? And could you clarify the bolded words - you failed thus far to do that.

You haven't shown in any way there is anything preventing the development of math. I gave three examples of thriving interaction between various mathematical branches and you failed at acknowledging that.

In fact, you even failed at answering each elementary-level math question asked of you.

1) My answer to jsfisher in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4122039&postcount=445 also hold for you.

2) I am going to write to the moderator about your (see the bolded part) style.

nathan

14th October 2008, 05:16 AM

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4083359&postcount=1

Now please show your match (be careful, it must not be limited to clear distinction as if it is the only possibility of Distinction).

jsfisher asked for a MAF that is interesting. You claim MAFs are of the form * _ * ..., but nothing of that form appears in the post. The post you cite doesn't contain MAFs.

Oh, and it's not interesting either.

Try again.

Oh, why are you unable to show any one other than you who uses these MAF things of yours? Do you not understand what 'Agreed' means? Should we just add this to the list of questions you're unable to answer?

jsfisher

14th October 2008, 05:18 AM

Have you noticed that the braches that you have motioned are based on the particular case of clear distinction, as a first-order property of the entire researched framework?

All along our dialogs, it prevents from you to get anything that that is not based on clear distinction, as a first-order property of the entire researched framework.

You failed the challenge, doron. You alleged there are now branches of Mathematics isolated from the rest of the body of Mathematics. You need to exhibit at least one example to support your bogus claim, not unrelated gibberish.

Want to try again? Got evidence?

nathan

14th October 2008, 05:23 AM

Have you noticed that the braches that you have motioned are based on the particular case of clear distinction, as a first-order property of the entire researched framework?

All along our dialogs, it prevents from you to get anything that that is not based on clear distinction, as a first-order property of the entire researched framework.

If one does not have a clear distinction between terms being discussed, there is no discussion for one cannot know what each word means. That's your whole problem, you keep making up new meanings for existing words, and then keeping those meanings entirely in your head. If you stuck to meanings that are agreed on, you'll find you'll get a lot further. (Oh, but I forget, you're showing every sign of not understanding the agreed meaning of 'agreed'.)

jsfisher

14th October 2008, 05:26 AM

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4083359&postcount=1

Now please show your match (be careful, it must not be limited to clear distinction as if it is the only possibility of Distinction).

You failed this challenge, too.

You were to offer up a single, interesting MAF. Pointing back to a failed post of undefined terms, faulty reasoning, and irrelevant diagrams is completely off-track.

Want to try again? You need something of this form: *_*_* (or *_* or *_*_*_* or ...) where * is an element and _ is a relationship. I didn't make up the notation; you did. So, please, kindly identify an element, a relationship, and something in the proper form.

You don't understand EMAF's at all, that's clear, but now it is becoming apparent you don't understand your own MAF's either.

ETA: Oops, nathan beat me to it.

ddt

14th October 2008, 05:52 AM

2) I am going to write to the moderator about your (see the bolded part) style.
Please do so. I'm looking forward to it.

1) My answer to jsfisher in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4122039&postcount=445 also hold for you.
Apart from having to guess at certain words there (e.g., motioned should be mentioned, right?) that post remains nonsense. A simple first question about that post: when you write "the braches that you have motioned", do you mean the math branches that were used in conceiving the IDEA encryption scheme? Could you be so kind as to first mention which those branches are?

I'm afraid though, that that question also remains on the "questions not answered by Doron" list.

I further note that you do not deny my claim that your "organic paradigm" is a (misguided) attempt at unifying mathematics in some vague notions like "locality", and that it isn't meant as an organism in the metaphorical sense that Hilbert employed. In fact, I note that this is the first time ever you employed the word "organism" for describing your "organic paradigm", here on JREF.

You also thus far fail to illustrate with examples that mathematical branches have become disconnected - as jsfisher and nathan have argued in their latest posts - thus also rendering the need for your whole exercise of wanting to have a unifying "organic paradigm" moot.

I note that mathematics, a century after Hilbert's lecture, still is a thriving endeavour of various interconnected branches; and that Hilbert's confidence that mathematicians would still be able to look outside their own specialization was warranted.

You might also look at the talk on the youtube TMiguel linked to. If you don't believe us, maybe you'd believe a professional.

jsfisher

14th October 2008, 06:20 AM

2) I am going to write to the moderator about your (see the bolded part) style.

Is that why you nominated ddt's post for The Language Award?

doronshadmi

14th October 2008, 07:27 AM

You failed this challenge, too.

You were to offer up a single, interesting MAF. Pointing back to a failed post of undefined terms, faulty reasoning, and irrelevant diagrams is completely off-track.

Want to try again? You need something of this form: *_*_* (or *_* or *_*_*_* or ...) where * is an element and _ is a relationship. I didn't make up the notation; you did. So, please, kindly identify an element, a relationship, and something in the proper form.

You don't understand EMAF's at all, that's clear, but now it is becoming apparent you don't understand your own MAF's either.

ETA: Oops, nathan beat me to it.
jsfisher,

You have nothing to say about EMAF, isn't it?

Please don't be sad, you can't help it (EDIT: here is some example http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4075327&postcount=2204 -out of many- of your inability to grasp new ideas).

doronshadmi

14th October 2008, 07:42 AM

In fact, I note that this is the first time ever you employed the word "organism" for describing your "organic paradigm", here on JREF.

Wrong ( http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=114233&page=55 ).

ddt, this is more or less your (in)ability to read and grasp new ideas.

ddt

14th October 2008, 07:47 AM

jsfisher,

You have nothing to say about EMAF, isn't it?
Why should he? He's defined them in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4121353&postcount=418 and that definition is crystal clear. He also proved them to be more powerful than your MAFs. What more do you want? The ball's in your park, to show just one vaguely interesting MAF. But you can't, can you?

Please don't be sad, you can't help it.
Complete non-sequitur.

In fact, I'm not satisfied with jsfisher's EMAF definition #1. He defined an EMAF to be of the form f(A), where f is a function and A is a tuple. I think this needs to be extended to a form I'll call EEMAF.

First of all, using functions is restrictive: for every A, there is only one y such that f(A) = y if f is a function. So I relax this to using relations instead of functions, so my first shot at an EEMAF definition is: anything of the form
R(A, y)
However, when we note that a relation is just a subset of the cartesian product of its domains, we can do even better:
every set S is an EEMAF.

What about that? An EEMAF is a set. Period.

And as EEMAF is clearly, from its construction, a more general notion than EMAF, which again is a more general notion than MAF, everything MAF you can make up is automatically an EEMAF.

MAFs are just sets. What about replacing your notion of MAF with set? Then you indeed have something that is acknowledged to be the basis of much of mathematics.

JimBenArm

14th October 2008, 07:49 AM

Are there corndogs available in here? Sure sounds like they should be.

I'll have two, with mustard, and a large diet pepsi.

Thanks!

doronshadmi

14th October 2008, 07:55 AM

Why should he? He's defined them in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4121353&postcount=418 and that definition is crystal clear. He also proved them to be more powerful than your MAFs. What more do you want? The ball's in your park, to show just one vaguely interesting MAF. But you can't, can you?

Complete non-sequitur.

In fact, I'm not satisfied with jsfisher's EMAF definition #1. He defined an EMAF to be of the form f(A), where f is a function and A is a tuple. I think this needs to be extended to a form I'll call EEMAF.

First of all, using functions is restrictive: for every A, there is only one y such that f(A) = y if f is a function. So I relax this to using relations instead of functions, so my first shot at an EEMAF definition is: anything of the form
R(A, y)
However, when we note that a relation is just a subset of the cartesian product of its domains, we can do even better:
every set S is an EEMAF.

What about that? An EEMAF is a set. Period.

And as EEMAF is clearly, from its construction, a more general notion than EMAF, which again is a more general notion than MAF, everything MAF you can make up is automatically an EEMAF.

MAFs are just sets. What about replacing your notion of MAF with set? Then you indeed have something that is acknowledged to be the basis of much of mathematics.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4122426&postcount=459

ddt

14th October 2008, 07:58 AM

Wrong ( http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=114233&page=55 ).

ddt, this is more or less your (in)ability to read and grasp new ideas.

Could you have the decency to link to a particular post? I have my pages at 50 posts.

You mean post #2161 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4061617&postcount=2161)? OK, you're right about that one. You back then failed to explain what you meant by it, despite being asked; as you are now just throwing it up.

It's also good to see again my post #2163 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4061770&postcount=2163) there:
To get back to that supposed dichotomy - let's take number theory as an example. One of the most important theorems in number theory is the Prime Number Theorem, about the distribution of prime numbers. Do you care to explain us what techniques are used to prove this theorem?

You didn't answer that then, and you haven't answered it now. It's already abundantly clear that you don't have the mathematical knowledge to do so.

In fact, you don't even have the mathematical knowledge to prove such simple things as:
- associativity and commutativity of set union
- associativity and commutativity of set intersection
- the Theorem of Pythagoras
and various other simple questions you failed to answer.

Of course, you still can prove me wrong on all these counts. But I don't hold my breath.

ddt

14th October 2008, 07:59 AM

Is that why you nominated ddt's post for The Language Award?

It's these kind of gestures that make discussing with Doron so endearing to me. See also here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4122363&postcount=158).

ddt

14th October 2008, 08:00 AM

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4122426&postcount=459

That's no answer to my post and you know it.

jsfisher

14th October 2008, 08:38 AM

jsfisher,

You have nothing to say about EMAF, isn't it?

Still waiting on you. Can you not show us at least one interesting MAF?

You've failed the challenge again.

doronshadmi

14th October 2008, 09:02 AM

He also proved them to be more powerful than your MAFs. What more do you want?
No.

His entire framework is the particular case of distinct MAF *__* (notated, in this particular case, as Formulation #1__Formulation #12)

jsfisher

14th October 2008, 09:11 AM

No.

His entire framework is the particular case of distinct MAF *__* (notated, in this particular case, as Formulation #1__Formulation #12)

Well, this makes it clear you don't understand EMAF at all.

Be that as it may, is this your answer to the MAF challenge? A simple binary MAF at that, and certainly not a very interesting one, either.

Don't you realize this doesn't even qualify as an MAF? You very specifically defined * to be an element (singular). Formulation #1 _ Formulation #1 would qualify (although it would be nice if you could say something about your underbar relation), but the example you gave doesn't satisfy the very form you laid out.

This is further evidence you don't understand your own notation.

ddt

14th October 2008, 09:29 AM

He also proved them to be more powerful than your MAFs. What more do you want?
No.
You can judge that? You, who hasn't shown a single proof of himself here?

His entire framework is the particular case of distinct MAF *__* (notated, in this particular case, as Formulation #1__Formulation #12)

"Formulation"? What's that supposed to mean? And why #1 and #12?

Besides, you only show with this post that you really didn't understand jsfisher's post.

And I remark you haven't answered to any of my challenges from post #463.

Skeptic

14th October 2008, 12:50 PM

doronshadmi

14th October 2008, 01:38 PM

Well, this makes it clear you don't understand EMAF at all.

Be that as it may, is this your answer to the MAF challenge? A simple binary MAF at that, and certainly not a very interesting one, either.

Don't you realize this doesn't even qualify as an MAF? You very specifically defined * to be an element (singular). Formulation #1 _ Formulation #1 would qualify (although it would be nice if you could say something about your underbar relation), but the example you gave doesn't satisfy the very form you laid out.

This is further evidence you don't understand your own notation.

Wow, you took the words straight out from my mouth, my little asymmetric-only thinker.

doronshadmi

14th October 2008, 01:44 PM

JimBenArm

14th October 2008, 01:46 PM

Hmm. Where's that order of corndogs?
I've been waiting patiently...

ddt

14th October 2008, 02:35 PM

Whenever people note that this or that sentence in his work is wrong, Doron says that that's not what the sentence "really means" and therefore the critic is "unfair" or "misinformed".

That's quite true -- the sentence usually doesn't mean what the critic thinks it means -- but that's only because most of Doron's writings is literally meaningless and doesn't mean anything in particular at all. From the discussion above, it's quite clear that not even Doron knows what he wrote means -- at least, he never managed to explain it in any clear fashion.

This is typical of crank works, and the main reason why the only appropriate reply to them is, as Vergil told Dante, to "speak not to them, but look, and pass them by."

Thanks for your reflections, Skeptic.

Upfront, I admit to having very little experience with cranks. Until I met Doron, I thought that a crank would come up with, say, a proof that the circle can be squared and the proof would at least follow the basic form of a mathematical proof. Sure, there's an error in it, somewhere, but at least you can reason about that.

However, Doron's work is so devoid of meaning and basic mathematical form that it doesn't even lead to interesting discussion as everything centers around trying to extract from him what his posts - which are at best grammatically correct nonsense and often even not that. By comparison, JdG's trolling led to more interesting threads, e.g., his "black hole" thread.

I'm also quite surprised at Doron's persistency in pursuing this - 1,571 posts here, 2,164 on IIDB, 458 on SC and hundreds various other fora - and inadvertently met with either the sort of replies we've seen here or with silence. Some may temporarily be taken in by the pretty pictures and formulae that seem impressive at first for the layman, but in the end, no one buys the nonsense. What makes a crank tick to put so much effort in it? It's massively masochistic, IMHO.

On the one hand, I fully agree with your advice to meet cranks with silence - reacting doesn't lead to any discernible progress. On the other hand, shouldn't at least be pointed out that the writing is crackpottery?

This is of course a derail from the topic of the thread, but, judging from Doron's latest reactions, that is essentially dead: Doron's posts #471 and #472 are both ad-hom attacks on the messenger, thus blocking any progress on elucidating his "theories". Coincidentally, they correspond to nr. 5 in your post #372, thus reinforcing your crank diagnosis.

ddt

14th October 2008, 02:43 PM

Doron's research associate, Moshe Klein, has given a talk on "Organic Mathematics" in the Fifth International Congress in Applied Mathematics and Computing (http://math.uctm.edu/conference2008/), August 2008, in Plovdiv, Bulgaria. At least, the PDF here (http://www.upsite.co.il/uploaded/files/251_0f2d8e2b34a229f1d05ab31eb070be32.pdf) claims so.

Let's disregard that he misspells the name of the conference ("Computation" instead of "Computing"), and that the professor who he claims invited him, Bromi Bainov, is nowhere to be found on the web but shares his last name with organizer Drumi Bainov.

[...]

Or is there something not quite true about the above? I couldn't find a comprehensive program for FICMAC.

Thirdly, it's very interesting to note that this "preliminary" version has a date of Aug. 5, and carries a notice it is the talk at FICMAC and the "right" version of Sept. 28, and does not carry such a notice; while the conference was Aug. 12-18.

To be frank, I'm very wary this paper was accepted at all at the conference. Could someone who has access to such info clear this up? And if it was, tell what the deadline for submission of manuscripts is?

Bump.

doronshadmi

14th October 2008, 02:59 PM

Doron's posts #471 and #472 are both ad-hom attacks on the messenger

ddt, this is an "insightful" sentence from a person which writes things like:

"Note you're pulling now the words "order" and "distinction" out of your ass" http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4122099&postcount=450

Since you are an ad-hom expert, will you, for example, explain us what exactly is ad-hom in post #472 http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4123357&postcount=472 ?

Since Skeptic cannot reply to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4119262&postcount=340 , maybe you can do that.

jsfisher

14th October 2008, 03:07 PM

Wow, you took the words straight out from my mouth, my little asymmetric-only thinker.

So, you continue to dodge the challenges before you? They are in direct response to your claims - statements you made for which we require evidence. Are you unable to support your claims?

For completeness, here are mine again (and ddt has a couple of his own, too):

Name one branch of Mathematics that is now isolated from the rest of the body of Mathematics.
Show us just one interesting MAF (you know, one of those *_*_* type things) that cannot be equally represented as an EMAF.

We suspect your claims may have been a bit overstated, and therefore you cannot meet these simple "back up your statements" requests.

You've failed repeatedly so far. Want to try again?

jsfisher

14th October 2008, 03:10 PM

Hmm. Where's that order of corndogs?
I've been waiting patiently...

They're going into the deep fryer right now. You wanted two, right?

Rut, rut, rut!

ddt

14th October 2008, 03:15 PM

Hmm. Where's that order of corndogs?
I've been waiting patiently...

They're going into the deep fryer right now. You wanted two, right?

You do serve kosher corndogs, do you? We wouldn't want to upset Doron, would we? :p

doronshadmi

14th October 2008, 03:25 PM

Name one branch of Mathematics that is now isolated from the rest of the body of Mathematics.

The body of Mathematics ???

This is the whole point, there is no such a thing currently.

Again please show us how the current "body of Mathematics" enables us to research, for example, Logic, ZF set theory, Geometry, Number theory, Real Analysis, etc ... by using a one generalization (only such generalization can be considered as a body for different organs)?

Do not forget that each time when I did it in my papers, you (not you as a single person) jumped and said: You cannot talk (for example) about lines and points in terms of Logic or in terms of Membership (and vice versa).

Show us just one interesting MAF (you know, one of those *_*_* type things) that cannot be equally represented as an EMAF.

Your entire framework is the particular case of distinct MAF *__* (notated, in this particular case, as Formulation #1__Formulation #12)

JimBenArm

14th October 2008, 03:26 PM

You do serve kosher corndogs, do you? We wouldn't want to upset Doron, would we? :p
Hebrew National? After all, they have to answer to a Higher Authority!:wackytwitcy:

ddt

14th October 2008, 03:30 PM

ddt, this is an "insightful" sentence from a person which writes things like:

"Note you're pulling now the words "order" and "distinction" out of your ass" http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4122099&postcount=450
Ad-homming again? Nobody is impressed by that sentence except you. Did you already find the report button? :rolleyes:

Since you are an ad-hom expert, will you, for example, explain us what exactly is ad-hom in post #472 http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4123357&postcount=472 ?

Since Skeptic cannot reply to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4119262&postcount=340 , maybe you can do that.
What's ad-hom about it is very clear. In your post #340, you sidestepped every issue that Skeptic raised about your paper ramblings - e.g., the paucity of your references (two, of which one even isn't right as I showed). Now you accuse him of not reacting to that???

All in all it's very clear you don't react to any question about the content of your "theories", and also why: you don't even have a high-school level of comprehension of math; at least, you haven't shown it.

So, are you going to answer my questions in post #463 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4122457&postcount=463)? It would at least establish your credentials at high-school level.

And are you going to answer my questions in post #404 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4121133&postcount=404)? Those questions are relevant to your claim about the disconnectness of the various mathematical branches.

And lastly, how about clarifying what your idea of "organic unity" now really entails?

ddt

14th October 2008, 03:38 PM

The body of Mathematics ???

This is the whole point, there is no such a thing currently.
You keep repeating this lie. But then, you're not hampered in your claims by actual knowledge, are you?

But if it's so easy to show the various branches of mathematics are disconnected, show for at least ONE branch it's disconnected from the rest.

Then go on to answer my post #404 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4121133&postcount=404).

Again please show us how the current "body of Mathematics" enables us to research, for example, Logic, ZF set theory, Geometry, Number theory, Real Analysis, etc ... by using a one generalization (only such generalization can be considered as a body for different organs)?
Fail. Your parenthesized sentence is another lie. See my post #437 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4121480&postcount=437).

jsfisher

14th October 2008, 03:47 PM

The body of Mathematics ???

This is the whole point, there is no such a thing currently.

Again please show us....

No, it is your claim. You need to be the one showing. You failed again.

Your entire framework is the particular case of distinct MAF *__* (notated, in this particular case, as Formulation #1__Formulation #12)

Geez, as already pointed out, your example, Formulation #1 __ Formulation #12[sic], isn't even an MAF according to your very own definitions. You fail here, too, only doubly so, since you don't understand your own notation.

Want to try again?

ddt

14th October 2008, 03:50 PM

Do not forget that each time when I did it in my papers, you (not you as a single person) jumped and said: You cannot talk (for example) about lines and points in terms of Logic or in terms of Membership (and vice versa).

You're at this obnoxious edit game again?

But you're showing off again your ignorance about mathematics, don't you?

The whole point of different branches of mathematics is that they study different structures. The names of the primitive concepts don't matter; only their relationships matter. As Hilbert famously said, as long as they obey the same axioms, you could do geometry as well with tables, chairs and beermats instead of points, lines and planes.

If a field would obey the same properties as the points and lines on a plane, then group theory would be identical to planimetry, wouldn't it? And that wouldn't make much sense, would it?

The wonderful thing about math is, however, that you can combine these structures, and that techniques from one branch can be used to give results in other branches.

doronshadmi

14th October 2008, 03:59 PM

Fail. Your parenthesized sentence is another lie. See my post #437 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4121480&postcount=437).

No ddt,

You fail to get this beauty:

In http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4121480&postcount=437 you simply used MAF *_*_* (the particular case of clear distinction of MAF *_*_*)

Here is your MAF's particular case:

*Is there a single paradigm (necessary) for the various organs of a human body to be able to interact with each other?
|
*Is there a single paradigm (necessary) for the various parts of a car to be able to interact with each other?
|
*Is there a single paradigm (necessary) for the various branches of mathematics to be able to interact with each other?

So as you see, without MAFs, nothing is researchable.

You simply unaware of your use of MAF each time you air your view about something.

Your current awareness of MAFs is like the awareness of the little fish about the water within and around it.

The little fish asks his mother: "Mother, Mother, someone told me that there is such a thing called water. Please Mother show me where can I find it?"

doronshadmi

14th October 2008, 04:10 PM

The whole point of different branches of mathematics is that they study different structures.

If Math is an organism (As Hilbert clearly said), then there must be a common base ground (I call it Minimal Accepted Form) used as the trunk of these different branches.

Without this Trunk\Branches interaction, Hilbert's "Organic Unity" does not hold.

jsfisher

14th October 2008, 04:19 PM

If Math is an organism (As Hilbert clearly said), then there must be a common base ground (I call it Minimal Accepted Form) used as the trunk of these different branches.

Without this Trunk\Branches interaction Hilbert's "Organic Unity" does not hold.

Very faulty logic. You made up that "common base ground" requirement, didn't you?

Back to the challenges, though: Are you going to try again, or have you given up?

doronshadmi

14th October 2008, 04:26 PM

ddt

14th October 2008, 04:33 PM

Jsfisher,

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4123589&postcount=486 and http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4123589&postcount=487 are painfully sharp.
Sharp in the sense of falling on your own sword.

I am not going to waste my time here anymore.

Bye, and this time, for good.
I guess you won't stop peddling your nonsense? Good luck then on other fora. You might check out your "Universal Reasoning" thread on CFI forums, it seems there's a post added tonight. But it's only number 7, you don't seem to be quite as popular on other fora as here. On Philosophy Forums, there's only 3 posts in the thread, and on Science Chat Forums no-one has replied. :rolleyes:

ETA: what about all the unanswered questions? Are you just going to leave us with them? How cruel! Inquiring minds want to know!

TMiguel

14th October 2008, 04:33 PM

Again please show us how the current "body of Mathematics" enables us to research, for example, Logic, ZF set theory, Geometry, Number theory, Real Analysis, etc ... by using a one generalization (only such generalization can be considered as a body for different organs)?

I guess I have to beat this down has well haven’t I?
1. Math uses Logic, math is not Logic (simple concept, all man are human, not all human are man)
2. For so one that doesn’t have any education what so ever, how can you make such statement?
That is a very naïve view:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVgoHb73i7U
Important stuff after 6 min.
In fact we can relate them ALL!! All you know about them is just a name (of a field), you are unaware of underlying construct of it all.
We can relate geometry whit “Real Analysis” (if we actually call that a field) whit the inequalities of Pythagoras and basic trigonometric parameters, add it a grouping of variables, and you can make all multidimensional analysis you want.
We can Relate then whit Number Theory (impressively) needing to only use the basic operations (yes that thing to multiply and add) and we can get an entire construct out of it, add it a couple of more “finesse” of differential equation you get something like the prime upperbounds and things like the Reimann functions.
You can relate that and differential equations, knot theory, topology, well you name it (anything). They are by far more interconnected then it appears at first sight.
I personally have made my own independent mathematical analysis, and sometimes I could sleep just to track how extensive was the close relation of that new mathematical finding whit already established mathematical knowledge.

To state that mathematics has different and completely independent fields is complete nonsense, and reveals the immaturity of the person whit the subject.

Doron, you have by now Proved your complete incompetence on the subject, (and demonstrated to be capable of engaging is disgraceful conduct).
Anybody else in your position would have discarded everything, but amazingly you’re persistent on pursuing whit your mistake to catastrophe, and blinded yourself from any reason or intellectual honesty. Perhaps it is time for you to look around and acknowledge that by hammering the same subject over and over again is not going to make it truth, it is not the other people that are unable to understand what you mean but it is you that is unable to understand that you got nothing rather the nonsense. You have been in countless forums and the answer was invariably the same, have at least the balls to admit that you are wrong and move on.

TMiguel

14th October 2008, 04:40 PM

Sharp in the sense of falling on your own sword.

I guess you won't stop peddling your nonsense? Good luck then on other fora. You might check out your "Universal Reasoning" thread on CFI forums, it seems there's a post added tonight. But it's only number 7, you don't seem to be quite as popular on other fora as here. On Philosophy Forums, there's only 3 posts in the thread, and on Science Chat Forums no-one has replied. :rolleyes:
We are very persistent, for me this sort of thing is like sport you know. Helps me get might teeths on hammering down nonsense to dead, good practice.

ddt

14th October 2008, 04:44 PM

If Math is an organism (As Hilbert clearly said), then there must be a common base ground (I call it Minimal Accepted Form) used as the trunk of these different branches.
So what is the trunk of the organism called "car"? Or what is the trunk of the organism called "animal"? But then, you thus far obstinately refused to answer post #437.

Without this Trunk\Branches interaction, Hilbert's "Organic Unity" does not hold.
Ah, more X\Y nonsense.

jsfisher

14th October 2008, 04:46 PM

Jsfisher,

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4123589&postcount=486 and http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4123589&postcount=487 are painfully sharp.

I am not going to waste my time here anymore.

Bye, and this time, for good.

Just out of curiosity, why two links to the same post?

So, since your "painfully sharp" interesting MAF - linked twice in your post - is neither interesting nor an MAF, you must be giving up, then. Complete failure noted.

Now, what about the other, remaining challenge? Giving up there, too?

ddt

14th October 2008, 04:47 PM

In http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4121480&postcount=437 you simply used MAF *_*_* (the particular case of clear distinction of MAF *_*_*)

Here is your MAF's particular case:
Apart from the nonsense (what in Wotan's name is "clear distinction"?), drawing some stars and lines is no substitute for arguing your case. You haven't made clear whatsoever what relation exists between those statements of mine and why it's relevant. Anyone can draw some lines without explaining what they mean.

So as you see, without MAFs, nothing is researchable.

You simply unaware of your use of MAF each time you air your view about something.
When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. That's being nice, as a hammer is actually useful for some tasks, whereas your MAFs are so meaningless - you've actually said yourself they had no meaning - as to be useless.

Your awareness of MAFs is like the awareness of the little fish about the water within and around it.

The little fish asks his mother: "Mother, Mother, someone told me that there is such a thing called water. Please Mother show me where can I find it?"
Drawing and children's stories. Could we lift the conversation above kindergarten level?

Apathia

14th October 2008, 07:07 PM

:train

Alas, hope can be so cruel.

Skeptic

14th October 2008, 10:44 PM

ddt --

If you want to learn more about mathematical cranks, there is a very amusing book "Mathematical Cranks" by Underwood Dudley. Even the book's cover is right on the money: a cartoon of a crank holding a pamphlet called "The Amazing Mathematical Solution to Everything" while pointing to a blackboard full of gibberish. Sounds familiar?

As for pointing out that it is gibberish: yes, point it out, but there's no need to go into the details and trying to undestand what the formulas "really mean" in order to show they're wrong. Pointing out that the "definitions" used by the crank are meaningless, home-made, without relation to anybody else's use of the terms, and that the crank himself doesn't know what they mean is usually enough.

Whatever you do, do not attempt to convince the crank that he's wrong, or get into any argument with him. He's ummovable in his delusions -- if for no other reason, then because admitting he's wrong means admitting he spent a lifetime doing nothing but making a fool of himself.

P.S.

Forgot to add -- another very common delusion of cranks is to take metaphors literally. In this case, Hiblert's claim that "math is an organism" is taken by Doron to be waaaaaaaaaaaaay more important than Hilbert ever meant.

Cranks latch onto metaphors by famous mathematicians since, usually, that's the only part of the famous mathematician's work they can undestand. Naturally, they vastly overestimate the metaphor's importance.

Skeptic

14th October 2008, 10:50 PM

ddt -- forgot to add:

I forgot the very best way to deal with cranks: to laugh at them and tell them, in no uncertain terms, they are fools and that you will not treat them seriously, no matter what they write. They will huff and puff and claim you are a perfect example of the kind of people who persecuted Galileo and Cupernicus, but then they'll leave.

Why? Their real goal is not to spread the truth about mathematics, but to have somebody -- anybody! -- take them seriously. When you try to disprove their work, that is taking them seriously, and it makes them feel they are fighting the evil world. But if you refuse to fight, and simply ignore the crank's declarations that he had "won" and "showed you are all wrong", the crank will leave.

Kopji

14th October 2008, 11:41 PM

On the contrary, I found the first few skeptical posts to be almost prophetic in their accuracy. :|

nathan

15th October 2008, 12:29 AM

This specialization does not help you to get the Minimal Agreed Form that has no meaning of its own, but it enables a researchable framework, in the first place.

If Math is an organism (As Hilbert clearly said), then there must be a common base ground (I call it Minimal Accepted Form) used as the trunk of these different branches.

(My emph)

Once again you cannot even remember what you previously wrote. Why are you using a single acronym 'MAF' for two different things? Or have you just decided to drop the 'Agreed' because you were unable to answer my question about who is the other party to this agreement? don't you realize 'Accepted' has the same problem -- who else accepts this form?

I suspect you're just going to ignore this, as with the other times I've asked. Go on, stick your fingers in your ears and go La! La! La!. Or alternatively, if you actually want a dialog, how about answering some questions with answers -- rather than non-sequiturs. I dare you to remain focussed long enough to proved a coherent response.