[Merged] Deeper than primes [Archive] - Page 3

doronshadmi

15th October 2008, 08:34 AM

For the benefit of the lurkers out there, Doron appears to now be sending PMs to me, jsfisher, ddt & skeptic. My guess is he doesn't want to post here because he said goodbye (again), but still wants to say something.

You'll not be surprised that Doron wanted to edit his PM after he sent it. Not once, but twice, resulting in 3 near identical copies. I've no idea what's changed between them, and I'm not going to post them here, even though Doron clearly wants that (by explicitly giving permission to do so).

Doron, if you have something to say, say it here. Or go away.
Fair enough:

------------------------------------------------------------

My answer to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4124484&postcount=500

Trunk has no meaning of its own, and this is exactly the reason why it can be used as a common base ground for different branches.

You may say:

But then trunk's meaning is "common base ground for different branches" , so it has a meaning, and you contradict yourself.

My answer:

Only a branch has a meaning, and in this case it is disconnected from any other branch exactly because it has some specialization (a different structure, as ddt says in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4123562&postcount=485 ) of its own.

This is not the case about the trunk, which actually enables different structures to stay connected during differentiation, and this is exactly what organism is: Trunk\Branches Interaction.

Your (ddt, Nathan, skeptics, jsfisher) ignorance is based on your inability to distinguish between Trunk and Branch, which prevents Hilbert's Organic Paradigm of the mathematical science, to air its life.

------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by ddt in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4123562&postcount=485 :

" 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.

No axiomatic system exists (as a reseachable framework), unless it is at least a MAF.

It means that from the general viewpoint of MAF also relations' names don't matter exactly as elements' names don't matter.

Your current abstract ability is limited to relations' names, which prevents from you to deal with real forms (real formalization).

------------------------------------------------------------

As for you Skeptic, your inability to DIRECTLY answer to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4119262&postcount=340 simply show that you are nothing but some voice of the mob.

------------------------------------------------------------

End of transmission !!!

ddt

15th October 2008, 08:42 AM

For the benefit of the lurkers out there, Doron appears to now be sending PMs to me, jsfisher, ddt & skeptic. My guess is he doesn't want to post here because he said goodbye (again), but still wants to say something.
I got such a message too. Completely surreal.

You'll not be surprised that Doron wanted to edit his PM after he sent it. Not once, but twice, resulting in 3 near identical copies.
Priceless. He didn't try that with me... I feel left out! :D I got Doron's PM at 15:59 local time (GMT+2), that's about 90 min. before your post.

jsfisher

15th October 2008, 08:44 AM

...<gibberish>...

End of transmission !!!

We've heard that before from you...under similar circumstances if I recall correctly: You made a few false claims; you were called on them; you tried to switch the topic as is your style; you were pressed for evidence; you waved your hands and stomped your feet; unable to support your bogus claims or drift away from them, you eventually just said the equivalent of "goodbye forever."

And yet here you are again.

jsfisher

15th October 2008, 08:47 AM

I feel so left out. I didn't get any PM's from doron at all. I guess my membership in the Kool Kids Klub has expired. :(

Apathia

15th October 2008, 08:56 AM

Doron,

I hope you're finally off this railroad track, as it's certainly not getting you anything but grief.
I'll try to pick up my questions at the Philosophy Forums.
Not to go over there to stalk or hassle you, but because, though you are horribly poor at communicating your suggestion of a Complementary Logic, I see enough of it to be further intrigued by possibilties. It's been rough going. Obviously your POV doesn't just fall into place for most readers. But that's one of the reasons I'm not done with it.

Sorry for when I've been blunt to rudeness in my frustrations at getting you.
It's been tough going.

Apathia

15th October 2008, 09:05 AM

I feel so left out. I didn't get any PM's from doron at all. I guess my membership in the Kool Kids Klub has expired. :(

I was never a member of the Kool Kids Klub (Though one of my uncles was Justice of the Peace, child molester, and Klan member.) But I didn't get any PMs from Doron either.

He just didn't have unfinished comments for us.

Take heart, it wasn't personal. :D

jsfisher

15th October 2008, 09:13 AM

I was never a member of the Kool Kids Klub (Though one of my uncles was Justice of the Peace, child molester, and Klan member.) But I didn't get any PMs from Doron either.

He just didn't have unfinished comments for us.

Take heart, it wasn't personal. :D

Yeah, I know. Someone always gets left out....

At any rate, good luck with your attempts to continue at the Philosophy Forums. Let us know if something comes of it. Your posts I enjoy reading.

nathan

15th October 2008, 09:14 AM

Priceless. He didn't try that with me... I feel left out! :D I got Doron's PM at 15:59 local time (GMT+2), that's about 90 min. before your post.

curious. The timestamps are:

15th October 2008 01:27 PM
15th October 2008 01:36 PM
15th October 2008 01:47 PM

(times are UTC+1)

Because it contained the phrase 'Your (ddt, Nathan, skeptics, jsfisher) ...' I presumed he'd cc'd y'all. Now we learn that Doron 'the computer programmer' apparently doesn't know how to send a message to more than one person at a time. And in his usual way he got distracted part way through and forgot where he was in his list of recipients, or forgot what the list was.

ddt

15th October 2008, 02:47 PM

I feel so left out. I didn't get any PM's from doron at all. I guess my membership in the Kool Kids Klub has expired. :(
That must hurt. Maybe you weren't critical enough of Doron for him to think you'd post the contents of his PM?

I'll try to pick up my questions at the Philosophy Forums.
Good luck with that. The thread there seems to have some activity. At CFI Forums, no activity at all. For Science Chat Forum, see this thread (http://www.sciencechatforum.com/bulletin/viewtopic.php?t=10593). :)

Not to go over there to stalk or hassle you,
To pick up on Doron's earlier comment on someone stalking him: I've taken a look into Doron's activities on various fora, but I've seen no evidence at all of someone stalking him. I have seen evidence on more than one forum of Doron posting under different names.

curious. The timestamps are:

15th October 2008 01:27 PM
15th October 2008 01:36 PM
15th October 2008 01:47 PM

(times are UTC+1)
That's over an hour before the PM to me. Took him quite some time.

Because it contained the phrase 'Your (ddt, Nathan, skeptics, jsfisher) ...' I presumed he'd cc'd y'all. Now we learn that Doron 'the computer programmer' apparently doesn't know how to send a message to more than one person at a time.
I'm not really surprised. Every time he wanted to report a post, it ended up in the nomination thread. He has also always been quite careless in hiding his private information. Who would have found his employer if he had only mentioned it in one IIDB thread and not in various forum profiles? And I've discovered even more sensitive information from just googling. (I don't mention what, and hope Doron realizes what I mean before someone malicious finds out. I note that Doron has not really left the forum after his last post; he visited JREF only an hour ago).

TMiguel

15th October 2008, 03:24 PM

Well i tried to make a ggogle search just for fun, and I came acoss this pearl:
http://www.twis.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?action=print;num=1111874177
LOL!
I couldn't resist it, ok I shall stop beating on the dead corpse of this topic.

BirdyBuddy

15th October 2008, 04:56 PM

Well darn... is it too late to start a game of doronshadmi (ds) Bingo?

Hokulele

15th October 2008, 05:35 PM

Urk. I didn't realize what I was debating with over in the Conscious Universe (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4125175#post4125175) thread. :boggled:

jsfisher

15th October 2008, 07:21 PM

So, by "I'm out of here forever", Doron meant he's still here?

nathan

15th October 2008, 11:51 PM

I note that Doron has not really left the forum after his last post; he visited JREF only an hour ago).

Colour me unsurprised.

ddt

16th October 2008, 01:28 AM

Urk. I didn't realize what I was debating with over in the Conscious Universe (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4125175#post4125175) thread. :boggled:
Makes you feel dirty? :)

Well i tried to make a ggogle search just for fun, and I came acoss this pearl:
http://www.twis.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?action=print;num=1111874177
LOL!
Thanks for the addition. I keep a file with Doron's presence in various fora. Thus far I found 39 fora over the last 5 years. Though there's a curious gap: Doron seems not to have started any new thread in 2006 or begin 2007. Maybe he took a sabbatical? :p

So, by "I'm out of here forever", Doron meant he's still here?
I guess he'll be back. His "Universal Reasoning" thread over at Science Chat Forums mysteriously disappeared :). Read the thread I linked to above...

Well darn... is it too late to start a game of doronshadmi (ds) Bingo?
Great idea :D. Want to guess on his next thread title? Sometimes he tries an old OP again in a different forum. "Deeper than primes" had its premiere on IIDB, 2005-08-04. And "A hidden assumption" premiered on Science Chat Forum, 2007-08-03 (release on JREF: 2008-03-16).

ddt

16th October 2008, 02:57 AM

There's another question Doron left unanswered, viz. the veracity of this story:

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.

The answer can be found in this thread on scienceforums.net (http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5014&page=3)

The other poster in question (Matt Grime) just pointed out that Doron is a crank, whereupon Doron accused him of following him to other fora. A third poster pointed out that Matt actually had joined SFN before Doron. :D

doronshadmi

16th October 2008, 03:43 AM

There's another question Doron left unanswered, viz. the veracity of this story:

The answer can be found in this thread on scienceforums.net (http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5014&page=3)

The other poster in question (Matt Grime) just pointed out that Doron is a crank, whereupon Doron accused him of following him to other fora. A third poster pointed out that Matt actually had joined SFN before Doron. :D

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5014&page=4

ddt

16th October 2008, 04:33 AM

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5014&page=4

I can only surmise you've given this link to draw our attention to this quote of Matt Grime:
then why do you keep sending me unsolicited emails with you pet theories in them if you do not wish me to comment upon them.
Sounds familiar?

ETA:
Your reaction is a tacit acknowledgement that this is indeed the case you were referring to. It is now easy for everyone to see that you've grossly distorted this case in your description here. Matt did give an accurate picture of your mathematical capabilities, and he didn't follow you to "any" forum: I've only seen both your handles on physicsforums.com and SFN - unless you've posted on other fora also with one of the many handles you've used on physicsforums.com ("Organic", "WWW", "Shemesh", "Lama") and every time was banned with.

jsfisher

16th October 2008, 04:38 AM

Ah, great! You are still here, doron.

Ok, so please name one branch of Mathematics that is disconnected from any other branch.

Please provide a single, interesting MAF example in the form *_*_* (or *_* or *_*_*_* or ...). Be complete by being specific as to what element the asterisk represents and what relation the underbar represents.

Remember, there were claims you made you haven't yet backed up with evidence. Surely, if the claims were true, you'd be able to support them.

doronshadmi

16th October 2008, 04:59 AM

then why do you keep sending me unsolicited emails with you pet theories in them if you do not wish me to comment upon them.
Hope, what a beautiful illness.

Dear Apathia,

This is exactly the problem here.

More you are a mathematician (based only on Western oriented culture) less you are able to get my ideas.

The same problem holds if you are based only on Eastern oriented culture.

My ideas hold as long as East and West complement each other.

Yours,

Doron

ddt

16th October 2008, 05:18 AM

He has also always been quite careless in hiding his private information. Who would have found his employer if he had only mentioned it in one IIDB thread and not in various forum profiles? And I've discovered even more sensitive information from just googling. (I don't mention what, and hope Doron realizes what I mean before someone malicious finds out.

Bump.

Oh, and for who wants a good laugh another Doron thread title: A proof that |R| < c (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5361).

TMiguel

16th October 2008, 06:51 AM

This is exactly the problem here.

More you are a mathematician less you are able to get my ideas.
LOL!!!!! Incredible insight you just had. Weren’t you supposed to be gone for good?

Skeptic

16th October 2008, 06:59 AM

I've only seen both your handles on physicsforums.com and SFN - unless you've posted on other fora also with one of the many handles you've used on physicsforums.com ("Organic", "WWW", "Shemesh", "Lama") and every time was banned with.

About Doron's handles:

Doron is probably a native Hebrew speaker. Non-speakers might be interested ot know "Shemes" means "sun" and "Lama" means "why?".

Apparently Doron sees himself as shining sun of reason and truth in the world of mathematics, explaining to everybody else why things are (he wrongly believes) not going well.

Skeptic

16th October 2008, 07:11 AM

jsfisher

16th October 2008, 07:55 AM

Doron's problem is that he doesn't seem to undestand that concepts are not the same as the symbols, or the words, used to represent them.

E.g., he thinks that 0.2222222222.... in base 3 and 1 are different numbers, presumably because they are written differently. On the other hand, he thinks the x-axis in the plane (in Geometry) and the set R (in Calculus) are identical, since they are often referred to in similar words. He also, it seems, thinks that the term "infinity" as used in calculus (e.g., in the definition of a limit) and in set theory (e.g., in describing a set's cardinality) means the same thing in both fields.

No wonder he is confused about what is going on in mathematics, or thinks that mathematical subfields don't communicate with each other, or that he wants to invent a new notation where every term means exactly one thing.

Conflate may have more precise connotations than confuse, I think. For example, in the link ddt provided, Doron disparately wants points and real numbers to be the same thing. That gets him to his {.} notation. Then, he conflates sets with set members, referring to {.} as a member. Then he conflates set cardinality with set membership while at the same time conflating the general with the specific by concluding that since |{.}| = 1, {.} must represent the real number, 1. Then he conflates....

nathan

16th October 2008, 09:03 AM

Sometimes he tries an old OP again in a different forum. "Deeper than primes" had its premiere on IIDB, 2005-08-04. And "A hidden assumption" premiered on Science Chat Forum, 2007-08-03 (release on JREF: 2008-03-16).

Talking of which, despite having had over a year to perfect the OP, he still had to edit it after posting :)

jsfisher

16th October 2008, 09:26 AM

Talking of which, despite having had over a year to perfect the OP, he still had to edit it after posting :)

The one he posted here was worse than the original. At least in the original, it was clearer the elements of the multi-sets were meant to be summed.

nathan

16th October 2008, 10:22 AM

Doron,
now you're back, any update on what the A in MAF stands for?

catbasket

16th October 2008, 01:15 PM

My policy of reading this thread in three or four-day chunks for maximum enjoyment has paid off bigtime today (reading from Oct 14th). All in one big hit I have had -

Talking fish.
Doron "reports" a post by nominating it for TLA.
Doron leaves.
Doron comes back again.
In the Doronverse signing-up at a forum five months before Doron equates to "follow after me to any forum that I wrote something in it".

I take it I'm too late for the corndogs?

ddt

16th October 2008, 02:03 PM

Talking of which, despite having had over a year to perfect the OP, he still had to edit it after posting :)

The "Deeper than primes" thing? The IIDB version is 3 years old and quite different, but he posted the same thing a month earlier at CFI. So yes, still surprising he had to edit the thing after posting. :p

The one he posted here was worse than the original. At least in the original, it was clearer the elements of the multi-sets were meant to be summed.

The IIDB version (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=132690) is substantially different. And his concept of "Equation Tree" is kinda cute - I did CS as graduate studies after all :). Too bad he didn't work that out. Not that it would be something revolutionary, not even new, but it would be the kind of thing that is fun and doable to work out on your own.

ddt

16th October 2008, 02:19 PM

Doron is probably a native Hebrew speaker. Non-speakers might be interested ot know "Shemes" means "sun" and "Lama" means "why?".

Apparently Doron sees himself as shining sun of reason and truth in the world of mathematics, explaining to everybody else why things are (he wrongly believes) not going well.

Thanks for the clarification, Skeptic!

Could you also clarify what this Hebrew wiki page (http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%97%D7%AA_%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%AA%D7%9E% D7%A9:%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9F_%D7%A9%D7%93% D7%9E%D7%99/%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F_1) is about? It seems to be some kind of talk page or discussion page where Doron discusses with other wiki-members. I see some stuff in Latin letters I recognize from Doron papers, and Google translate revealed some discussion about Hilbert's 6th problem, but I've no idea what (Hebrew) wiki page(s) Doron wanted to include this stuff in.

Reality Check

16th October 2008, 02:41 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.
This has probably been stated here before but doronshadmi seems to be obsessed with the conclusion of the following lecture by David Hilbert on mathematical problems (doronshadmi should note that the subject is not 'problems with mathematics').

In this conclusion David Hilbert describes mathematical science as an organism and uses the phrase 'organic unity'. This is a description only. It is not a specification of mathematics.

Mathematical Problems
(http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/hilbert/problems.html)Lecture delivered before the International Congress of Mathematicians at Paris in 1900
By Professor David Hilbert

The problems mentioned are merely samples of problems, yet they will suffice to show how rich, how manifold and how extensive the mathematical science of today is, and the question is urged upon us whether mathematics is doomed to the fate of those other sciences that have split up into separate branches, whose representatives scarcely understand one another and whose connection becomes ever more loose. I do not believe this nor wish it. Mathematical 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 mathematics as a whole and the numerous analogies in its different departments. We also notice that, the farther a mathematical 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 knowledge will it not finally become impossible for the single investigator 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 theories and cast aside older more complicated developments. 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. 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!

Skeptic

16th October 2008, 03:15 PM

Thanks for the clarification, Skeptic!

Could you also clarify what this Hebrew wiki page (http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%97%D7%AA_%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%AA%D7%9E% D7%A9:%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9F_%D7%A9%D7%93% D7%9E%D7%99/%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F_1) is about?

The short version is:

1). Doron wants to use wikipedia's "discussion" pages as a free-for-all discussion forum.

2). Others tell him that while there's more leeway allowed in wikipedia's discussion forums than in the entries themselves, it isn't really the place for a free-for-all discussion or "tentative results" (their polite term for "whatever the heck you're babbling about") but rather for established results.

3). Doron demands that they show him exactly where it says that he cannot use wikipedia's discussion forums in such a manner.

4). He then posts his usual gibberish, and demands everybody show exactly what is wrong with it.

5). Others complain that, in two days, he made about 50 edits of two entries ("The Lair's Paradox" and "Godel", I believe) "most of them trivial" and ask him to PLEASE use the "preview" button instead of posting and then changing the posts later, since "that makes our job harder".

6). Then the discussion, quite suddenly, veer away from mathematics to theology: they begin to discuss how logical the hypothesis that God exists is. A few gems:

a). The title of the "does God exist?" thread is actually "On the big Bang, Atheism, and Onions."

b). Doron and another poster spend most of the time discussing the onions: do they have a core, or an infinite number of layers? Onions are used as a metaphor for two ways to look at reality, one with a first cause (theism's God as a cause), the other as better and better natural explanations without a first cause (atheism).

c). Doron claims the onions have both a core and an infinite number of layers, because he had discovered classical two-valued logic is wrong.

d). He writes long-winded gibberish about theology as well as about mathematics (Cranks are very prolific in their gibberish). Example paragraph (they all are of the same kind):

"When there's a dichotomy between the cooperation field and the expression field, consciousness, which is locked under the impressions of the expression field, understands the cooperation field (the unity aspect of consciousness) as the creator of the expression field (the multiplicity aspect of the consciousness)."

It doesn't make any sense in Hebrew, either. Crank works have one advantage: they don't really lose anything in translation.

e). Doron asks another poster angrily during that discussion: "are you going to listen to facts, or are you just going to use the form to spew your own theories?" :eek: :faint:

doronshadmi

17th October 2008, 01:31 AM

"When there's a dichotomy between the cooperation field and the expression field, consciousness, which is locked under the impressions of the expression field, understands the cooperation field (the unity aspect of consciousness) as the creator of the expression field (the multiplicity aspect of the consciousness)."
No.

Coordination field (trunk), Expression field (branches) ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4125070&postcount=505 ).

nathan

17th October 2008, 01:46 AM

Crank works have one advantage: they don't really lose anything in translation.

I think I see a signature :)

nathan

17th October 2008, 01:47 AM

No.

Coordination field (trunk), Expression field (branches) ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4125070&postcount=505 ).

Ah, I see you're back. Any progress on what MAF stands for? Or any of the other myriad of unanswered questions?

TMiguel

17th October 2008, 03:50 AM

No.

Coordination field (trunk), Expression field (branches) ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4125070&postcount=505 ).
Here we go again. State an example of a field that is disconnected from another, and I will prove you otherwise.

ddt

17th October 2008, 07:36 AM

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5014&page=4
For more comedy on the Doron/Matt Grime battle, see this thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=274454), from post #292. moshek (= Moshe Klein, the kindergarten teacher) quotes from post #287. Post #294 is Doron's threat to call Matt's university. Note also his use of the word "vulgarity".

The short version is:
It's much much longer than I hoped for. Thanks for the summary, it is comedy gold!

5). Others complain that, in two days, he made about 50 edits of two entries
Yes, editing is hard :D.

d). He writes long-winded gibberish about theology as well as about mathematics (Cranks are very prolific in their gibberish). Example paragraph (they all are of the same kind):
Well, at least there's more words to it. Most of his "mathematical" gibberish leaves me (at least at first) puzzled how he hopped from one thing to another.

I think I see a signature :)
Me too :)

Doron, as you're still around anyway, care to answer my post #463 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4122457&postcount=463)? You've left quite some unanswered questions here that just beg for clarification.

Oh, and when you want to complain: that triangle-shaped button with an exclamation mark, on the left, is for reporting a post. Learning to use an internet forum is difficult, I understand, and you've only used 40+ thus far. The moderators especially appreciate it if you send in a dozen or so reports in a row. :rolleyes:

TMiguel

17th October 2008, 10:29 AM

:DLOL, this keeps getting better and better. I guess there will be more corndogs after all.

ddt

17th October 2008, 11:39 AM

:DLOL, this keeps getting better and better. I guess there will be more corndogs after all.

Oh, what about this one: "Two different models of infinity" (http://www.security-forums.com/viewtopic.php?p=167259&sid=ce00b66a0421ed61b791ce673a7f8195) in a computer security forum, section "Cryptographic Theory".

Just google for "complementarytheory" (as one word). It's the name of his geocities webpage, where he has stored all his PDFs. You won't get false hits, as it's nowhere else used as a single word; and it gives a complete view on Doron's web activities, as he invariably links to one of those PDFs.

But yes, were are the corndogs?

nathan

17th October 2008, 01:46 PM

But yes, were are the corndogs?

I have to say that when I was in NYC this summer we went to Coney Island, but I was too full from lunch, so had to pass on Nathan's corn dogs :( So I've yet to devour that culinary delight.

ddt

18th October 2008, 04:10 PM

I have to say that when I was in NYC this summer we went to Coney Island, but I was too full from lunch, so had to pass on Nathan's corn dogs :( So I've yet to devour that culinary delight.

With all this talk about corn dogs, I'm getting really curious about the phenomenon. Too bad we don't have them over here. I could offer a typical Dutch snack: the Frikandel - especially tasty as "frikandel speciaal" with mayonnaise, curry sauce and chopped onions.

Apropos Doron's editing behavior, you should take a look at his "User Contributions (http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%95%D7%97%D7%93:%D7%AA%D7%A8%D7%95% D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9F_%D7%A9%D7%93%D7%9E% D7%99)" page at wikipedia. You don't have to be able to read Hebrew to see what the complaint about the frequent edits was about: whenever he edited a page, at least 2 edits of the same page followed within minutes...

I was further reminded of Doron's "letter to Alain Connes (http://hypography.com/forums/physics-and-mathematics/4221-point-segment-letter-prof-alain-connes.html)" he posted to another forum:
Four years ago, Moshe Klein heard your lecture about Non-commutative Geometry, which was given in "100 to Hilbert" U.C.L.A conference.

You closed your lecture with these words: " ...We need a new understanding in Mathematics which is based on geometry more then on logic".

For the past 20 years I have developed a mathematical framework, which uses geometrical notions, in order to research the most fundamental mathematical concepts, (like set, number, point, segment, function, continuum, discreteness, finite, non-finite,... etc.) according to this orientation.
That Alain Connes said this (as claimed earlier by Moshe Klein, the kindergarten teacher, here (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=127512)) cannot be verified as his lecture has not been published AFAIK. So it's a vacuous claim, and probably misrepresented anyway.

However, Prof. Alain Connes has a very interesting paper, "A View of Mathematics (http://alainconnes.org/docs/maths.pdf)", on his website. It starts with:
It might be tempting at first to view mathematics as the union of separate parts such as Geometry, Algebra, Analysis, Number theory etc... where the first is dominated by the understanding of the concept of “space”, the second by the art of manipulating “symbols”, the next by the access to “infinity” and the “continuum” etc...

This however does not do justice to one of the most essential features of the mathematical world, namely that it is virtually impossible to isolate any of the above parts from the others without depriving them from their essence. In that way the corpus of mathematics does resemble a biological entity which can only survive as a whole and would perish if separated into disjoint pieces.

and the rest of the paper is permeated by the concept of different mathematical branches (in particular, geometry and algebra) contributing to each other.

doronshadmi

19th October 2008, 09:42 AM

nathan

19th October 2008, 09:48 AM

MAF is REI (Relation\Element Interaction):

"The first embryo of mental picture of the mathematical world one can start from is that of a network of bewildering complexity between basic concepts." ( http://alainconnes.org/docs/maths.pdf )

Sigh. Defining an undefined concept in terms of another undefined concept, is not defining it. Referring to a paper that uses neither term is not a definition either.

Define your terms, or go away.

jsfisher

19th October 2008, 10:26 AM

MAF ( http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf ) is REI (Relation\Element Interaction):

"The first embryo of mental picture of the mathematical world one can start from is that of a network of bewildering complexity between basic concepts." ( http://alainconnes.org/docs/maths.pdf )

EDIT:

"between" = relation

"basic concopts" = elements

Oh, great! Yet another reference doron doesn't understand.

The Man

19th October 2008, 11:03 AM

MAF ( http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf ) is REI (Relation\Element Interaction):

"The first embryo of mental picture of the mathematical world one can start from is that of a network of bewildering complexity between basic concepts." ( http://alainconnes.org/docs/maths.pdf )

EDIT:

"between" = relation

"basic concopts" = elements

Looks like I’m late to the party and might have missed all the fun, anyway seeing Doron finally indicate what he has edited and added to a post is a gift I will not soon forget.

doronshadmi

19th October 2008, 03:03 PM

This however does not do justice to one of the most essential features of the mathematical world, namely that it is virtually impossible to isolate any of the above parts from the others without depriving them from their essence. In that way the corpus of mathematics does resemble a biological entity which can only survive as a whole and would perish if separated into disjoint pieces.
( http://alainconnes.org/docs/maths.pdf )

In other words, the Organic Paradigm of the mathematical science (trunk(=essence)\branches interaction):

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

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

TMiguel

19th October 2008, 03:10 PM

( http://alainconnes.org/docs/maths.pdf )

In other words, the Organic Paradigm of the mathematical science (trunk(=essence)\branches interaction):

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

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf
That adds absolutly nothing, besides it is nonsense.

jsfisher

19th October 2008, 03:39 PM

How you doing on coming up with any evidence to support your claims, doron?

You remember: (1) Provide any interesting example of MAF (complete with the specifics of what relation _ represents and what element * represents), and (2) Name any branch of Mathematics that is isolated from the others.

Got anything? Anything at all?

drkitten

19th October 2008, 03:41 PM

( http://alainconnes.org/docs/maths.pdf )

In other words, the Organic Paradigm of the mathematical science (trunk(=essence)\branches interaction):

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

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

Weren't you leaving us, never to return?

You're still just posting gibberish. You still haven't even got a "Paradigm" to present.

ddt

19th October 2008, 03:58 PM

Oh, great! Yet another reference doron doesn't understand.
Had you expected otherwise?

Looks like I’m late to the party and might have missed all the fun, anyway seeing Doron finally indicate what he has edited and added to a post is a gift I will not soon forget.
We'll cherish it! Is it worthy of nomination?

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

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

I haven't read the MA in a long time, but isn't this constant referral to the same tired PDF's a sort of spamming?

The Man

19th October 2008, 05:00 PM

We'll cherish it! Is it worthy of nomination?

Nope, that’s for exemplary writing not for expected etiquette writing.

Apathia

19th October 2008, 05:13 PM

I had intended to persue my interest in Doron's "Universal Reasoning" or "Complementary Logic" in his thread at philosophy-forums.com. I was able to register there but unable to post. And now the philosophy-forums has vanished from the web. Since Doron is still checking in here, I'll say a few words and see where it goes.

Buried beneath Doron's landfill of missused and discarded mathematical terminology is an actual idea. Once it's made clear, then it can be discussed and critiqued in an intelligent way. It rarely comes to that because Doron's way of thinking is counterintuitive, as if from some culture isolated from the rest of the world.

Now that we're in the Philosophy Section, I feel I can discuss Doron from a more general than mathematical angle.

Back in Post#295 of this thread, I posted this simplistic into to Doron's frame of thinking:

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.

Again this is very simplistic, but it is the basic idea, the Yin-Yang of it, so to speak.

If you get the idea, then there are a host of questions and critcisms that are not being addressed. I hope we can move on to these and not back to the years of forum wreckage and debacle Doron has behind him.
It will be more interesting if we can get to questions that are relevant to the very different way Doron thinks.

ddt

19th October 2008, 05:39 PM

Nope, that’s for exemplary writing not for expected etiquette writing.
Sorry for omitting the smiley. I thought the rhetorical nature of the question was obvious to all.

ddt

19th October 2008, 06:30 PM

I had intended to persue my interest in Doron's "Universal Reasoning" or "Complementary Logic" in his thread at philosophy-forums.com. I was able to register there but unable to post. And now the philosophy-forums has vanished from the web.
I noticed it is down. You should get a second email when your account is actually activated.

Buried beneath Doron's landfill of missused and discarded mathematical terminology is an actual idea. Once it's made clear, then it can be discussed and critiqued in an intelligent way. It rarely comes to that because Doron's way of thinking is counterintuitive, as if from some culture isolated from the rest of the world.

[...]
As put forward by you, it seems an idea that could be pursued and actually turned into mathematics - that's the goal, isn't it? And this wouldn't tear down the vast building of mathematics in order to replace it, but be an extra wing built onto it. However, I doubt that your analysis is right - for reasons put forward below, and because there's already precedent that your interpretation of Doron's work turned out not to be what he meant, in previous threads, despite your good efforts.

If you get the idea, then there are a host of questions and critcisms that are not being addressed. I hope we can move on to these and not back to the years of forum wreckage and debacle Doron has behind him.
"Wreckage" is, IMHO, put mildly. There's 5.5 years of Doron posting on numerous fora. On various fora, e.g., physicsforums.com, IIDB, and here, he met people who were inclined to meticulously point out the various errors in his mathematical reasoning and gradually grew tired with his not listening to their arguments. In that time, he's shown no inclination whatsoever to actually learn mathematics; instead, he's grown ever bolder in statements like "Cantor was wrong" up to his laughably incorrect rendering here of Cantor's diagonalization argument in the proof of the uncountability of R.

Would he honestly have some actual idea, and not only vague delusions, then methinks, he would have taken the effort to understand how mathematics works. He obviously hasn't. He doesn't know what an axiom is, how a definition looks like, etc., everything a freshman math student learns is alien to him. He doesn't take to heart criticism from others, but on questions posed in the best case regurgitates the same he's said before - in words or in links to earlier posts - or gives an answer that is even vaguer than what the question was about in the first place.

Would it be due to a lack of skill in English, then I honestly don't know what he's doing on English language boards. I note he's also active on haayal.co.il, a Hebrew-language board, and I obviously can't judge the clarity of his writings there, but I very much doubt it's better than his English writings - going on Skeptic's report of the wiki-discussion. And well, it's not that there's a lack of Hebrew-language highly-schooled mathematicians who could teach, coach or vet his work - apart from the questionable kindergarten teacher.

It will be more interesting if we can get to questions that are relevant to the very different way Doron thinks.
I'll gladly leave the floor to you to see if your interpretation of Doron's writings gets his approval.

jsfisher

19th October 2008, 07:18 PM

Now that we're in the Philosophy Section, I feel I can discuss Doron from a more general than mathematical angle.

I truly wish you the best of luck in this, but I am concerned you have become involved in "facilitated communication."

Hokulele

19th October 2008, 07:31 PM

<snip>

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.

<snip>

From what I have seen, it read as if he were rejecting "True" and "False" and only allowing "True False" and "False True" (as well as rejecting "True True" and "False False"). I think a great deal of this could be due to the way he seems to think that redefining a term redefines what the term is referring to. The best example was from one of the other fora referenced earlier where someone asked doronshadmi a question along the lines of "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" Doron's answer was "5". Someone else made a similar observation here regarding doron's confusion over analogies and metaphors.

I certainly do not have any problem with using a gradual scale of reference as applies to the real world rather than simple binary terms, but a flat-out rejection of the ends of the scale leads to many problems. If there is no such thing as absolute "True" or "False", how could one determine the "Trueness" of "True False"?

Thank goodness we don't have Bubblefish and doronshadmi going at each other.

Apathia

19th October 2008, 09:04 PM

I truly wish you the best of luck in this, but I am concerned you have become involved in "facilitated communication."

I'll answer for both you and ddt in this one post. I like the way you stated the concern.

I won't dismiss that possibility because Doron is incapable of communicating his ideas in a coherent fashion, and he was unable to addess the difficulty I had earlier except just to repeat himself.
So I wound up working through my misuderstanding on my own, and it does seem to me to be his intent.

If I am reading something different than his intent, at least as ddt points out, what I'm saying has some viable mathematical possibilities.

This brings me to one of my big questions (and actually it's been asked of Doron before.)
In respect to Logic, Doron produces his Complementary Logic Truth Table,
but where are the rules of inference?
These are a must have, especially when traditional inference by contradictory resuts is weakened.

My interpretation of Doron could be just my own fantasy. But I don't stand to lose anything by that. I may just wind up with a better fantasy than his.

Doron,

What new tools of logical inference do we get with Complementary Logic?
It's not enough to say that it restores an otherwise excluded middle.
What are the rules to arrive at and manipulate that middle?
Intuitionist, multivalue, and fuzzy logics provide rules of inference.
What are the unique rules of Complementary Logic?

jsfisher

19th October 2008, 09:16 PM

My interpretation of Doron could be just my own fantasy. But I don't stand to lose anything by that. I may just wind up withy a better fantasy than his.

Very true, and since you are already aware of the possibility, I have no concerns. As I have said before, I do enjoy your posts, so even if they are about nothing doron, it doesn't really matter.

Apathia

19th October 2008, 09:20 PM

From what I have seen, it read as if he were rejecting "True" and "False" and only allowing "True False" and "False True" (as well as rejecting "True True" and "False False"). I think a great deal of this could be due to the way he seems to think that redefining a term redefines what the term is referring to. The best example was from one of the other fora referenced earlier where someone asked doronshadmi a question along the lines of "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" Doron's answer was "5". Someone else made a similar observation here regarding doron's confusion over analogies and metaphors.

I certainly do not have any problem with using a gradual scale of reference as applies to the real world rather than simple binary terms, but a flat-out rejection of the ends of the scale leads to many problems. If there is no such thing as absolute "True" or "False", how could one determine the "Trueness" of "True False"?

Thank goodness we don't have Bubblefish and doronshadmi going at each other.

You point out another question I have of Doron.
It does seem that he throws inference by contradiction under the bus, even though his truth table invoves the False False and True True as circumstances of truth value.

So again what's lacking are the rules of inference that define when the law of contadiction is relevant and when it is not.

On the contrary. I would very much like to see a Doronshadmi/Bubblefish encounter.

Hokulele

19th October 2008, 09:27 PM

You point out another question I have of Doron.
It does seem that he throws inference by contradiction under the bus, even though his truth table invoves the False False and True True as circumstances of truth value.

So again what's lacking are the rules of inference that define when the law of contadiction is relevant and when it is not.

Agreed.

On the contrary. I would very much like to see a Doronshadmi/Bubblefish encounter.

Intellectually, yes. Considering how each reacts to disagreement, emotionally, no.

Apathia

19th October 2008, 09:33 PM

Very true, and since you are already aware of the possibility, I have no concerns. As I have said before, I do enjoy your posts, so even if they are about nothing doron, it doesn't really matter.

:cool:

Apathia

19th October 2008, 09:41 PM

Intellectually, yes. Considering how each reacts to disagreement, emotionally, no.

I think they'd get along fine. Bubblefish might be impressed with Doron's "Complementary Logic."

Hokulele

19th October 2008, 09:42 PM

I think they'd get along fine. Bubblefish might be impressed with Doron's "Complementary Logic."

I hate to sound close-minded, but I never saw Bubblefish impressed by anything other than Bubblefish.

Apathia

19th October 2008, 09:53 PM

I hate to sound close-minded, but I never saw Bubblefish impressed by anything other than Bubblefish.

Well, since I can't offer any example to the contrary .... :cool:

Hokulele

19th October 2008, 10:08 PM

Well, since I can't offer any example to the contrary .... :cool:

Hmm, what would you think about having you take the doronshadmi role and I take the Bubblefish role, and debating the merits of each framework in another thread?

Apathia

20th October 2008, 12:55 AM

Hmm, what would you think about having you take the doronshadmi role and I take the Bubblefish role, and debating the merits of each framework in another thread?

I'm still in the process of trying to determine what actual merits Doron's framework has. I'm not really in a position to debate them.

TMiguel

20th October 2008, 03:09 AM

Buried beneath Doron's landfill of missused and discarded mathematical terminology is an actual idea. Once it's made clear, then it can be discussed and critiqued in an intelligent way. It rarely comes to that because Doron's way of thinking is counterintuitive, as if from some culture isolated from the rest of the world.

(...)

If you get the idea, then there are a host of questions and critcisms that are not being addressed. I hope we can move on to these and not back to the years of forum wreckage and debacle Doron has behind him.
It will be more interesting if we can get to questions that are relevant to the very different way Doron thinks.

That will never happen, he has produced several mistakes that you wouldn’t expect from a mathematical student on his first month, and those mistakes compose his entire framework.
You can try and sort of the garbage, but in the end of your work you will realise that there is just garbage with nothing to sort.

drkitten

20th October 2008, 07:40 AM

Buried beneath Doron's landfill of missused and discarded mathematical terminology is an actual idea.

I used to think that, too. I now think you're reading something into the landfill that isn't there.

I'm a professional educator -- not, I hasten to point out, a professional research mathematician -- so I really have no dog in this fight about whether or not there's a better approach to mathematics that would put all my colleagues out of a job. On the other hand, what I do have is a hell of a lot of experience with trying to deal with teasing out good ideas from the badly-stated gibberish of students and helping to shine them smooth and polish them pretty. Expressing oneself professionally is a skill, and not all students have that skill.

But I don't think there's an idea in the landfill. I don't think that Doron has any ideas in there to polish. I think he's simply expressing hostility to rigorous thought. If you can't be right (and apparently he can't), then he wants to destroy the entire framework so that no one can -- and he can't be wrong, either.

Once it's made clear, then it can be discussed and critiqued in an intelligent way.

And once I perfect my unicorn trap, we can have rack of unicorn for supper.

Don't skip lunch, eh?

If you get the idea, then there are a host of questions and critcisms that are not being addressed.

Yeah. Starting with the question of whether or not your expression of "his" idea has any relationship to his actual idea. The problem is that we have at least four mutually exclusive representations of his idea on board already, and Doron has steadfastly managed to avoid either agreeing or disagreeing with any of them.

I know the definition of an optimist -- the one who believes, when he's standing up to his knees in manure, that there must be a pony around somewhere. But I'm afraid that we may just have manure here.....

The Man

20th October 2008, 07:58 AM

Sorry for omitting the smiley. I thought the rhetorical nature of the question was obvious to all.

It was for me, but I had to respond anyway. I was going to add a bit about only nominating it if I was going to report it, but I passed on that.

ddt

20th October 2008, 08:26 AM

It was for me, but I had to respond anyway. I was going to add a bit about only nominating it if I was going to report it, but I passed on that.

:D :D :D
So now you added that bit in this post nevertheless? :D

Apathia

20th October 2008, 08:47 AM

I used to think that, too. I now think you're reading something into the landfill that isn't there.

drkitten,

You are one of my most respected professionals here.
I agknowledge that there is a good possibility that I'm bringing something into the landfill with me. If it's not Doron's very poorly presented core idea, it's close enough to his desire to make it interresting to see how he relates to it.

Thanks for the warning though.

This could be my pathetic
end:

The Mad Gardener's Song

He thought he saw an Elephant,
That practised on a fife:
He looked again, and found it was
A letter from his wife.
'At length I realise,' he said,
The bitterness of Life!'

He thought he saw a Buffalo
Upon the chimney-piece:
He looked again, and found it was
His Sister's Husband's Niece.
'Unless you leave this house,' he said,
"I'll send for the Police!'

He thought he saw a Rattlesnake
That questioned him in Greek:
He looked again, and found it was
The Middle of Next Week.
'The one thing I regret,' he said,
'Is that it cannot speak!'

He thought he saw a Banker's Clerk
Descending from the bus:
He looked again, and found it was
A Hippopotamus.
'If this should stay to dine,' he said,
'There won't be much for us!'

He thought he saw a Kangaroo
That worked a coffee-mill:
He looked again, and found it was
A Vegetable-Pill.
'Were I to swallow this,' he said,
'I should be very ill!'

He thought he saw a Coach-and-Four
That stood beside his bed:
He looked again, and found it was
A Bear without a Head.
'Poor thing,' he said, 'poor silly thing!
It's waiting to be fed!'

He thought he saw an Albatross
That fluttered round the lamp:
He looked again, and found it was
A Penny-Postage Stamp.
'You'd best be getting home,' he said:
'The nights are very damp!'

He thought he saw a Garden-Door
That opened with a key:
He looked again, and found it was
A Double Rule of Three:
'And all its mystery,' he said,
'Is clear as day to me!'

He thought he saw a Argument
That proved he was the Pope:
He looked again, and found it was
A Bar of Mottled Soap.
'A fact so dread,' he faintly said,
'Extinguishes all hope!'

-- Lewis Carroll

:D

doronshadmi

20th October 2008, 03:46 PM

I'll answer for both you and ddt in this one post. I like the way you stated the concern.

I won't dismiss that possibility because Doron is incapable of communicating his ideas in a coherent fashion, and he was unable to addess the difficulty I had earlier except just to repeat himself.
So I wound up working through my misuderstanding on my own, and it does seem to me to be his intent.

If I am reading something different than his intent, at least as ddt points out, what I'm saying has some viable mathematical possibilities.

This brings me to one of my big questions (and actually it's been asked of Doron before.)
In respect to Logic, Doron produces his Complementary Logic Truth Table,
but where are the rules of inference?
These are a must have, especially when traditional inference by contradictory resuts is weakened.

My interpretation of Doron could be just my own fantasy. But I don't stand to lose anything by that. I may just wind up with a better fantasy than his.

Doron,

What new tools of logical inference do we get with Complementary Logic?
It's not enough to say that it restores an otherwise excluded middle.
What are the rules to arrive at and manipulate that middle?
Intuitionist, multivalue, and fuzzy logics provide rules of inference.
What are the unique rules of Complementary Logic?
Abstraction of both Relation and Element, which is actually hyper-formalism (in standard formalism only Elements are abstracted but Relations still have a particular meaning).

By Hyper-formalism, Distinction is a first-order property.

Hyper-formalism's goal is to understand the minimal terms that unable a researchable framework, in the first place, and only from this level different mathematical branches (where each one of them is a particular researchable framework) are naturally and systematically are connected with each other.

Another benefit of Hyper-formalism is to show that any meaning that is given to some MAF (Minimal Accepted Form) is a direct result of the mathematician's involvement. It can be shown only if MAF has no meaning of its own, which makes it the best detector of any tend to give some meaning to some researchable form.

In my X/Y Complementation, X is Relation and Y is Element.

Please try to define a researchable framework by using only X or only Y.

If you can show such a researchable framework, than I have no argument.

The Man

20th October 2008, 04:36 PM

ddt

20th October 2008, 04:56 PM

Abstraction of both Relation and Element, which is actually hyper-formalism (in standard formalism only Elements are abstracted but Relations still have a particular meaning).
"Hyper-formalism", another word which is undefined! And of course, "relation" and "element" will turn out not to be what we expect it to be, nor will it be defined.

In my X/Y Complementation, X is Relation and Y is Element.

Please try to define a researchable framework by using only X or only Y.

If you can show such a researchable framework, than I have no argument.
You're turning it around now. The onus is on you to show that your "framework" makes sense and has something to add, not on us to show it has not.

But maybe we shouldn't interfere with the attempted dialog between Apathia and Doron. How about setting up another thread as "peanut gallery", where the rest of us can hang out and give our comments? Then Doron will not be distracted by our pesky questions :boggled:

Apathia

20th October 2008, 05:00 PM

Abstraction of both Relation and Element, which is actually hyper-formalism (in standard formalism only Elements are abstracted but Relations still have a particular meaning).

By Hyper-formalism, Distinction is a first-order property.

Hyper-formalism's goal is to understand the minimal terms that unable a researchable framework, in the first place, and only from this level different mathematical branches (where each one of them is a particular researchable framework) are naturally and systematically are connected with each other.

Another benefit of Hyper-formalism is to show that any meaning that is given to some MAF (Minimal Accepted Form) is a direct result of the mathematician's involvement. It can be shown only if MAF has no meaning of its own, which makes it the best detector of any tend to give some meaning to some researchable form.

In my X/Y Complementation, X is Relation and Y is Element.

Please try to define a researchable framework by using only X or only Y.

If you can show such a researchable framework, than I have no argument.

My nightmare. I asked for it. The other participators in this forum are now saying, "We told you so!"

Doron,

What you have stated above is another presentation of why you say your framework (that I'm taking to be a Complementary Logic) has a superior perspective.
What I was asking for in the post you quoted are the rules of inference that are integral and essential to your Logic.
Ok, you're calling it "Hyper-formalism" now. But what are the rules of this game of which the mathematician is now one of the playing pieces.
What determines my dog's move on the game board. and do I collect $200 or go to jail?

In my X/Y Complementation, X is Relation and Y is Element.

Please try to define a researchable framework by using only X or only Y.

If you can show such a researchable framework, than I have no argument.

That's not what I'm here for ("a researchable framework using only X or only Y")
I'm sticking my neck out with the notion that you might just have someting to say about a framework that begins with the complementation of X and Y. And I want to see if anything can be made of it.

I've made the assertion that the core of what you seem to be saying makes sense to me. The others say I'm just reading something into what you say that you have never said.
It would be more interesting if I were catching the essence of your way of thinking and we could sharpen that into some clarity.
I'm hoping it's not just a bar of soap I see, or at least there's an idea related to yours that has some pontential.

Apathia

20th October 2008, 05:13 PM

But maybe we shouldn't interfere with the attempted dialog between Apathia and Doron. How about setting up another thread as "peanut gallery", where the rest of us can hang out and give our comments? Then Doron will not be distracted by our pesky questions :boggled:

In choosing to try getting back into a dialog with Doron here, I assumed you would be present. I'm hoping I coulld ground things a little, so that there wouldn't be as many sometimes hostile expressions of frustration between Doron and the rest of us. And that we might just get on somewhat the same track.

But at the moment I'm laughing at my fear that I'm going to fall on my face and have to admit defeat.
Alas! I'll be that bear without a head!

drkitten

20th October 2008, 05:36 PM

Abstraction of both Relation and Element, which is actually hyper-formalism (in standard formalism only Elements are abstracted but Relations still have a particular meaning).

The implicit definition of "hyper-formalism" here comes very close to being a type of higher-order logic.

I.e. propositional or zero order logic represents propositions : "Tigers are orange and black."
First order logic represents partial propositions where elements are abstracted : "Something exists that is orange and black."
Second order logic represents partial propositions where elements and their properties (such as relationship) are also representable : "Something exists that has two colors x and y."

But this, again, is a well-understood field of mathematics. Interesting, but hardly earth-shaking.

Apathia

20th October 2008, 07:12 PM

The implicit definition of "hyper-formalism" here comes very close to being a type of higher-order logic.

I.e. propositional or zero order logic represents propositions : "Tigers are orange and black."
First order logic represents partial propositions where elements are abstracted : "Something exists that is orange and black."
Second order logic represents partial propositions where elements and their properties (such as relationship) are also representable : "Something exists that has two colors x and y."

But this, again, is a well-understood field of mathematics. Interesting, but hardly earth-shaking.

Doron's "higher order logic," if that's what it is, concerns itself with a template that every element and relation neccesarily comes in.
There's a field on the template for the element (whatever it's going to be) and one for the relation (whatever its going to be.)
His template is his "X/Y Complementation." He asserts that to have rational meaning (or "researchability" as he puts it), you need both the element and the relation standing with each other in this framework.

Now that's just plain trivial, but here comes the twisterroo.
"Complementarity" means many different things to Doron. It includes dualities such as Mind/Body or Wave/Patricle, split levels of discourse such as Physics/Metaphysics, 2 dimensions defining a plane, and any situation where two elements interact. Seeing that it casts so wide a net, this rule of 2, it involves the twist that any element of the pair can also be the relation field of the template. And any relaltion of the pair can also be in the element field. Any element can be regarded as relational, and any relation can be regarded as an object of discourse itself.
So, allowing this interchangability (that is not necessarily a feature of ordinary linguistics and so comes across as counterintuitive) the complementary field involves not just 2 values but four.

So here Doron gets his truth table of "Complementary Logic,"
where True or False as elemental values are paired with True and False as relational values.

This is also the generator of Doron's Organic Natural Numbers, though he has a different way of approching them based on Local/Non-local Complementarity. But it all comes back to anything goes into the two slots and you pull the lever.

Yes, I'm not speaking with mathematical rigor and precision. I'm a storyteller. a retired English teacher. I confess to my uselessness in the field of Mathematics.
And it's with this incompetance that I claim some insight into what Doron is about. His approach is analogical in nature. He uses the language of Mathematics metaphorically to express his overarching analog.

Perhaps this is why his Complementary Logic as yet has no formal rules of inference, or why his Organic Numbers as yet don't have their own Algebra.
But perhaps they could.

doronshadmi

21st October 2008, 06:11 AM

jsfisher

21st October 2008, 06:41 AM

Aphatia,

I am going to reply only to you in this thread

If you are unwilling to defend and support allegations you have made, then we may fairly assume you are unable to support them and they are all false.

Yes, you completely misunderstood and misquote Hilbert.
Yes, the whole MAF idea is trivial at best with no interesting example.
Yes, Mathematics has interconnections among all of its branches.
No, you cannot demonstrate any meaningful knowledge of Mathematics.
No, you cannot recognize a metaphor in normal English discourse.
No, English is not your first language; your native tongue is gibberish.

Apathia

21st October 2008, 07:12 AM

Aphatia,

I am going to reply only to you in this thread, exactly because you are not a mathematician, which is limited to the western school of thought.

You are asking for a rule.

Please read again http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf in order to see how the concept of rule is nothing but a particular case of hyper-formalism, where
No form has a meaning of its own.

MAFs are simply the Relation\Element Interaction (without any meaning) that can be found under any given cardinal.

You, the mathematician take Relation\Element Interaction (REI) and invent your researchable game, by giving it meaning where rules already have meaning.

By standard formalism, Relations have meaning (the hold the rules) where Elements can be replaced by any other elements that obey the invented\discovered rules.

Higher-order logic is a particular case of Universal Reasoning (Hyper-Formalism) because Higher-order is based on some particular asymmetric MAF.

Again, Relation\Element Interaction is not a dualistic framework exactly as a tree with a one trunk and infinitely many branches (that are related to each other by infinitely many distinct ways, where each way is both general and particular case of the entire tree) is not a dualistic framework.

You still don't get how Hyper-formalism's natural transparency of any meaning, is the best detector of being aware of any meaning (rule, etc...) that is given by the mathematician.

The form without any meaning is the best way to avoid hidden assumptions during mathematical developments.

Thanks for your reply, Doron.

Indeed, the others were right. I was reading something into you that isn't really what you're about.
It was based on old stuff of yours about "Complementary Logic," but I should drop that because your MAF is not a logic. And since it isn't, one shouldn't expect rules of inference.

So I confess this idea of a complementary frame for all elements of cognition was my own fantasy. I'll not muddy your waters with it again.

You still don't get how Hyper-formalism's natural transparency of any meaning, is the best detector of being aware of any meaning (rule, etc...) that is given by the mathematician.

Actually that's what I like. Forget the "Complemetary Logic." The essence is groundless and structureless. The template is empty of any set fields.
Mathematics can only speak of the stuff it writes on this blamk sheet, but it's that the sheet is blank that allows anything to be written on it.

The Man

21st October 2008, 08:51 AM

Aphatia,

I am going to reply only to you in this thread, exactly because you are not a mathematician, which is limited to the western school of thought.

You are asking for a rule.

Please read again http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf in order to see how the concept of rule is nothing but a particular case of hyper-formalism, where
No form has a meaning of its own.

MAFs are simply the Relation\Element Interaction (without any meaning) that can be found under any given cardinal.

You, the mathematician take Relation\Element Interaction (REI) and invent your researchable game, by giving it meaning where rules already have meaning.

By standard formalism, Relations have meaning (the hold the rules) where Elements can be replaced by any other elements that obey the invented\discovered rules.

Higher-order logic is a particular case of Universal Reasoning (Hyper-Formalism) because Higher-order is based on some particular asymmetric MAF.

Again, Relation\Element Interaction is not a dualistic framework exactly as a tree with a one trunk and infinitely many branches (that are related to each other by infinitely many distinct ways, where each way is both general and particular case of the entire tree) is not a dualistic framework.

You still don't get how Hyper-formalism's natural transparency of any meaning, is the best detector of being aware of any meaning (rule, etc...) that is given by the mathematician.

The form without any meaning is the best way to avoid hidden assumptions during mathematical developments.

You still do not get it Doron, what you are talking about is done and has been done for centuries, it is called language.

The sentence above is just a collection of abstract symbols that have no meaning on their own. What gives them meaning is the alphabet, the definitions, the syntax and the general rules of the language involved, in this case English. It does not matter whether it is Swahili, pig Latina or mathematics none of the symbols (being the MAF) of any language have any meaning on their own. What you’re asking for or seeking to accomplish has been done since the inception of language, symbols as the MAF is already there. If you what to create your own language then you must define your symbols, syntax, rules of usage as well as terminology, which everyone is still waiting for you to do.

Skeptic

21st October 2008, 09:13 AM

TMiguel

21st October 2008, 10:47 AM

Aphatia,

I am going to reply only to you in this thread, exactly because you are not a mathematician, which is limited to the western school of thought.
Asking for other people that has already proven to know more then you do to step aside is the first symptom that you are about to talk nonsense, that you are not willing to be showed has so.

You are asking for a rule.

Please read again http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf in order to see how the concept of rule is nothing but a particular case of hyper-formalism, where
No form has a meaning of its own.
Pointless, document without content that has been presented many times.

MAFs are simply the Relation\Element Interaction (without any meaning) that can be found under any given cardinal.
Nonsense, cardinality means something; therefore it can not represent something meaningless. Even if we ignore that, something meaningless is totally useless has it tells you absolutely nothing.

You, the mathematician take Relation\Element Interaction (REI) and invent your researchable game, by giving it meaning where rules already have meaning.
Mathematicians limits themselves to find relations, those relations are applicable under certain rules.

By standard formalism, Relations have meaning (the hold the rules) where Elements can be replaced by any other elements that obey the invented\discovered rules.

Higher-order logic is a particular case of Universal Reasoning (Hyper-Formalism) because Higher-order is based on some particular asymmetric MAF.
Meaningless sentence.

Again, Relation\Element Interaction is not a dualistic framework exactly as a tree with a one trunk and infinitely many branches (that are related to each other by infinitely many distinct ways, where each way is both general and particular case of the entire tree) is not a dualistic framework.
Mathematics is not a tree although you can make the analogy has such. If you base your framework on the same principles then different aspects of it will follow the same rules, and because they follow the same rules you are able to relate them.

You still don't get how Hyper-formalism's natural transparency of any meaning, is the best detector of being aware of any meaning (rule, etc...) that is given by the mathematician.
Meaningless sentence.

The form without any meaning is the best way to avoid hidden assumptions during mathematical developments.
There are no assumptions in mathematical development beside the axioms that we know to be true but can not be proven (and they can not be made at any stage). You can not present a mathematical proof whit an assumption, if it has an assumption it is not a proof.

Yet again you failed to comprehend even the most basic elements on how we do math.
You can call you work whatever you want, but there is no math in it.

The Man

21st October 2008, 10:57 AM

Folks --

Once again, Doron's entire "discovery" is re-stating trivial, well known points as if they are essential, and doing so in incredibly complicated and badly-defined language. That makes up 10% or so of what he writes; the other 90% is simply meaningless.

It's pointless to ask Doron what he thinks, since there's nothing Doron thinks that isn't either (a) meaningless, or (b) found in any first-year logic textbook.

Hey, you asked.

Indeed, Skeptic, I stopped asking Doron what he “thinks” some time ago. I had tried instead to actually get him to look at the current (as well as past) thinking that he so vehemently opposes yet utilizes in his own dissociative manner. That of course has been as effective and meaningful as asking him what he thinks. Certainly I am not above chastising (since I am a scourge) and, as you mentioned before, attempting to humiliate him into waking up, but I still need to do more then just that. If not just for Duron’s benefit then for those others that might gain something even from the re-stating of the trivial, albeit this time from someone who can put it (hopefully) in a more coherent fashion.

ddt

21st October 2008, 04:00 PM

jsfisher

21st October 2008, 06:05 PM

The notion "cardinal" exists within the context of (ZF) set theory, so it is utterly misplaced here. That apart from the question what finding a MAF under a cardinal means - is that like strolling through your garden and finding a slug under a rock?

Finding an MAF under a cardinal is similar to finding an acolyte under a priest. Either way, though, the Catholic Church is in denial.

The Man

22nd October 2008, 12:04 AM

It seems I'm late to the party :). All other participants in the thread have already responded to Doron. I agree with their opinions and sentiments expressed. Doron doesn't address the many questions raised nor will he most probably ever do so; and his latest post doesn't add anything meaningful. A few snippets:

It is most curious that someone who claims to do mathematics refuses his work to be vetted and inquired by mathematicians. It is tantamount to admitting your work is not mathematics.

The "western school of thought" claim is another untruth from Doron. Mathematics has been influenced not only by Greeks, but by Arabs, Persians, Khwarezmians, and Indians, to name a few. India and China have had flourishing mathematical traditions which are recognized by everyone as being mathematics. Doron's writings are not, and that has nothing to do with "western thought" or "eastern thought".

The notion "cardinal" exists within the context of (ZF) set theory, so it is utterly misplaced here. That apart from the question what finding a MAF under a cardinal means - is that like strolling through your garden and finding a slug under a rock?

A fine post ddt and exemplifies the “Doron dilemma”. Certainly, Eastern and Western philosophies can be considered divergent, but not to the extent that Doron asserts. However, in mathematics there is no divergence, as you so eloquently described. The problem, I think (and as I recall Skeptic pointed out before), is that Doron takes such references as “real”, “irrational” and perhaps even “Imaginary” (or complex) numbers as a philosophical indication of such divergence in mathematics, taking those ascriptions as philosophically literal, as opposed to just defining some classifications. What he has repeatedly indicted, and in some cases stated, is his intent to combine Eastern with Western philosophies in mathematics (which as you note is the already the general basis of mathematics) when the only divergence is just philosophical and not literally mathematical.

doronshadmi

22nd October 2008, 12:12 AM

... because your MAF is not a logic.
It is the essence of Logic (where Logic is already a researchable framework).

By using MAF one can invent\discover anything that is based on Relation\Element Interaction.

Reality Check

22nd October 2008, 01:10 AM

It is the essence of Logic (where Logic is already a researchable framework).

By using MAF one can invent\discover anything that is based on Relation\Element Interaction.
What is your proof that Logic is a researchable framework?

Where is your proof that anything that is based on Relation\Element Interaction can be invented/discovered by using MAF?

What do you mean by "invent\discover"? Does "invent" mean that the "anything" did not exist before and was created by the researcher?

So many questions from a couple of sentences from doronshadmi! I am tempted to ask you what you mean by "the", "essence" and "of" :)

doronshadmi

22nd October 2008, 01:29 AM

What is your proof that Logic is a researchable framework?

Where is your proof that anything that is based on Relation\Element Interaction can be invented/discovered by using MAF?

What do you mean by "invent\discover"? Does "invent" mean that the "anything" did not exist before and was created by the researcher?

So many questions from a couple of sentences from doronshadmi! I am tempted to ask you what you mean by "the", "essence" and "of" :)
Please try, for example, to use Logic where there is no interaction between Logical connectives (what I call Relations) and propositions (what I call Elements).

The same holds in the case of Arithmetic where Relations are the operations and Elements are numbers, etc… (actually REI is the Minimal Accepted Form (MAF) of any researchable framework, formal or informal).

One of the new things about MAF is Distinction as a first-order property.

By get MAF one can understand that most of the current mathematical science is based on the particular case of MAFs' distinct elements.

doronshadmi

22nd October 2008, 02:28 AM

I'll not muddy your waters with it again.

Dear Aphatia,

MAF is simply the Minimal Accepted Form that is used to define the minimal terms of some researchable framework.

You, as a mathematician use MAF in order to define your game.

If this game is interesting, more persons will play with it and develop it.

In other words, you as a mathematician have the ability to define some interesting (researchable) framework (you are a significant factor of any given game).

TMiguel

22nd October 2008, 03:13 AM

Please try, for example, to use Logic where there is no interaction between Logical connectives (what I call Relations) and propositions (what I call Elements).
Without any possible relation, there is nothing you can possibly do.

The same holds in the case of Arithmetic where Relations are the operations and Elements are numbers, etc… (actually REI is the Minimal Accepted Form (MAF) of any researchable framework, formal or informal).
There is no accepted form, you can call it whatever you wish, but the intrinsic properties and relation that they imply always holds no matter what you call it. You can chose to ignore, but then you will be missing good tools.

One of the new things about MAF is Distinction as a first-order property.

By get MAF one can understand that most of the current mathematical science is based on the particular case of MAFs' distinct elements.
Pointless, complete nonsense after what has been said.

You, as a mathematician use MAF in order to define your game.
If I wish I can get myself a group of new axioms and create a new field of mathematics of my own. Will it be consistent? Different? Useful?
The answer is never yes on all the 3.

If this game is interesting, more persons will play with it and develop it.

In other words, you as a mathematician have the ability to define some interesting (researchable) framework (you are a significant factor of any given game).
We do not define the rules of the game, there is no point in time where some mathematician could have said that the result of a certain operation is different then what he came up whit in his “original version”. He doesn’t set the rules, he can only find them.

Ps. You are getting extremely repetitive.

Reality Check

22nd October 2008, 04:00 AM

Please try, for example, to use Logic where there is no interaction between Logical connectives (what I call Relations) and propositions (what I call Elements).

The same holds in the case of Arithmetic where Relations are the operations and Elements are numbers, etc… (actually REI is the Minimal Accepted Form (MAF) of any researchable framework, formal or informal).

One of the new things about MAF is Distinction as a first-order property.

By get MAF one can understand that most of the current mathematical science is based on the particular case of MAFs' distinct elements.
Your logic is incorrect.
An example of not being able to "use Logic where there is no interaction between Logical connectives (what I call Relations) and propositions (what I call Elements)" is not any of:

What is your proof that Logic is a researchable framework?
Where is your proof that anything that is based on Relation\Element Interaction can be invented/discovered by using MAF?
What do you mean by "invent\discover"? Does "invent" mean that the "anything" did not exist before and was created by the researcher?
Let us start with somthing really simple: What is your proof that Logic is a researchable framework?

doronshadmi

22nd October 2008, 04:09 AM

Your logic is incorrect.
An example of not being able to "use Logic where there is no interaction between Logical connectives (what I call Relations) and propositions (what I call Elements)" is not any of:

What is your proof that Logic is a researchable framework?
Where is your proof that anything that is based on Relation\Element Interaction can be invented/discovered by using MAF?
What do you mean by "invent\discover"? Does "invent" mean that the "anything" did not exist before and was created by the researcher?
Let us start with somthing really simple: What is your proof that Logic is a researchable framework?
It uses Interactions between Relations and Elements, and this is not a proof but the Minimal Accepted Form that enables to define some interesting axiomatic system, in the first place.

MAF is a pre-axiomatic form where also Relations (unlike in axiomatic systems) have no meaning of their own (in addition to Elements).

By asking about a proof you simply show that you (still) do not get axiomatic of pre-axiomatic frameworks.

Reality Check

22nd October 2008, 04:14 AM

It uses Interactions between Relations and Elements, and this is not a proof but the Minimal Accepted Form that enables to define some interesting axiomatic system, in the first place.

MAF is a pre-axiomatic form where also Relations (unlike in axiomatic systems) have no meaning of their own (in addition to Elements).

By asking about a proof you simply show that you (still) do not get axiomatic of pre-axiomatic frameworks.
So you cannot prove your statement? Then it is an assumption. And since it has absolutely no consequences then it is useless.

doronshadmi

22nd October 2008, 04:21 AM

As about "invent" or "discover":

"Invent" is to define some framework by using primitive things and develop it according to certain arbitrary (but consistent) rules.

"discover" is to find an already develop framework that is already developed by certain rules where the current developed degree is the best guarantee of the consistency of the rules.

doronshadmi

22nd October 2008, 04:25 AM

So you cannot prove your statement? Then it is an assumption. And since it has absolutely no consequences then it is useless.
Again, MAF is not a statement, but it is the meaningless form that enables us to define meaningful statements, where we as researchers, are a significant factor of the meaning of the statments.

TMiguel

22nd October 2008, 04:31 AM

Phaedrus74

22nd October 2008, 04:34 AM

Again, MAF is not a statement, but it is the meaningless form that enables us to define meaningful statements, where we as researchers, are a significant factor of the meaning of the statments.

And how can MAF help us distinguish meaningful from meaningless statements? (For is you can define them you can discern the difference)

Please offer us a demonstration:

Meaningful statement:

"The sun is shining."

Meaningless statement:

"Green dreams sleep furiously."

doronshadmi

22nd October 2008, 04:58 AM

And how can MAF help us distinguish meaningful from meaningless statements? (For is you can define them you can discern the difference)

Please offer us a demonstration:

Meaningful statement:

"The sun is shining."

Meaningless statement:

"Green dreams sleep furiously."
MAF is the simplest state of some researchable framework, where the meaning of it is given according to Relation\Element Interactions.

You, as a researcher provide the meaning of the interaction between what is considered by you as Relations and what is considered by you as Elements.

Your first example is based on already established framework that is based on the agreed element called "sun", the agreed relation "is" (where the element has some property called "shining")

Your second example is not yet an agreed framework.

Phaedrus74

22nd October 2008, 05:20 AM

Apathia

22nd October 2008, 06:43 AM

Dear Aphatia,

MAF is simply the Minimal Accepted Form that is used to define the minimal terms of some researchable framework.

You, as a mathematician use MAF in order to define your game.

If this game is interesting, more persons will play with it and develop it.

In other words, you as a mathematician have the ability to define some interesting (researchable) framework (you are a significant factor of any given game).

There's a form.
It's formless.
I'm lost.

I thought I was on your trail, but I was only chasing my tail.

This is like a game of snakes and ladders in wich every snake has its tail on square one. No, there's a sanke that has its tail off the game board. my little dog token has landed on that snake.
His game is over.

I don't follow your MAF at all. This is beyond me.
I'm putting my tail between my legs and running away as fast as I can.

doronshadmi

22nd October 2008, 07:13 AM

Fair enough.

Please show us how MAF defines meaningful statements.

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

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

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

jsfisher

22nd October 2008, 07:16 AM

I don't follow your MAF at all. This is beyond me.

No, quite the opposite. Doron is enamored with the pathetically trivial. If you got stuff, and you want to talk about the stuff, you need stuff to talk about.

The first stuff is his asterisk. The second stuff is more of the same. The third stuff is an underbar. Gee, I think I can go more minimal than Doron's minimal. Since everything is stuff, can't I just go with * (**, ***, ...)?

Someone cue Carl Sagan....

doronshadmi

22nd October 2008, 07:16 AM

There's a form.
It's formless.
I'm lost.

I thought I was on your trail, but I was only chasing my tail.

This is like a game of snakes and ladders in wich every snake has its tail on square one. No, there's a sanke that has its tail off the game board. my little dog token has landed on that snake.
His game is over.

I don't follow your MAF at all. This is beyond me.
I'm putting my tail between my legs and running away as fast as I can.

No.

There is a form; it is meaningless (but researchable).

You give it its meaning.

If more persons think that what you did is interesting, a community will be born and some framework will be developed.

Phaedrus74

22nd October 2008, 07:35 AM

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

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

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

No, sorry doron this will not do.

I have put to you questions regarding the UR.pdf sketch which you have not answered yet. And I am not going to read two papers in which I have little faith.

Explain, in (at most) two sentences how MAF defines meaningful sentences.

And please properly define your concepts this time.

doronshadmi

22nd October 2008, 07:43 AM

No, sorry doron this will not do.

I have put to you questions regarding the UR.pdf sketch which you have not answered yet. And I am not going to read two papers in which I have little faith.

Explain, in (at most) two sentences how MAF defines meaningful sentences.

And please properly define your concepts this time.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125220

1(element) +(relation) 1(element) =(relation) 2(element)

EDIT: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4125070&postcount=505

jsfisher

22nd October 2008, 07:56 AM

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125220

1(element) +(relation) 1(element) =(relation) 2(element)

Technically, as presented by Doron himself, this is not an MAF. This is mostly do to Doron's misunderstanding of the basic meanings of words and sentences (e.g. * is an element). Moreover, the abstraction to which he is clinging is trivial and not interesting.

drkitten

22nd October 2008, 08:09 AM

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125220

1(element) +(relation) 1(element) =(relation) 2(element)

EDIT: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4125070&postcount=505

That is not satisfactory.

First, it is an example, not an explanation (as requested).

Second, the terms are still not defined.

In particular, what distinguishes

1(element) +(relation) 1(element) =(relation) 2(element)

as a "meaningful" statement from

Colorless(element) green(relation) ideas (element) sleep(relation) furiously(element)

... which is not.

Phaedrus74

22nd October 2008, 08:10 AM

doronshadmi

22nd October 2008, 08:30 AM

Colorless(element) green(relation) ideas (element) sleep(relation) furiously(element)

Colorless(element's property) green(element's property) ideas (no element exists, contradiction of properties) sleep(relation) furiously(relation's property).

Since only relation is considered, nothing is researchable.

ddt

22nd October 2008, 08:30 AM

Oh well, we're back to business as normal with Doron. Answers from Doron are either a reference to one of his PDFs, or to a previous post, or evasive or incomprehensible. Doron doesn't answer the regulars from this and previous threads (drkitten, jsfisher, nathan, The Man, TMiguel, me) - e.g., my debunking of Doron's claim about "mathematics as part of western thought" goes unchallenged (let's consider that the upside).

So much for Apathia's experiment, who obviously also has given up on his hope there was some useful kernel in Doron's writings. I hope the new respondents are fast learners.

ETA. I see drkitten gets a response... that's not fair! :)

doronshadmi

22nd October 2008, 08:33 AM

This does not answer my question.

But if it does, please explain why...

Also: what drkitten said...
No, this time please explain why it does not answer your question?

drkitten

22nd October 2008, 08:40 AM

Colorless(element's property) green(element's property) ideas (no element exists, contradiction of properties) sleep(relation) furiously(relation's property).

Why do you assume that colorless is not and cannot be an element?

And where did "properties" come into this? You've been talking about elements and relations as a binary opposition. Now you're talking about elements, relations, and properties?

Again, your response to a query about the definition of a term is not to define the term, but to introduce a new undefined term to hide behind.

TMiguel

22nd October 2008, 09:10 AM

MAF is the simplest state of some researchable framework, where the meaning of it is given according to Relation\Element Interactions.

You, as a researcher provide the meaning of the interaction between what is considered by you as Relations and what is considered by you as Elements.

Your first example is based on already established framework that is based on the agreed element called "sun", the agreed relation "is" (where the element has some property called "shining")

Your second example is not yet an agreed framework.

That is called L-a-n-g-u-a-g-e. It has nothing to do with the fact that 1+1=2.

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

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

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/TOUM.pdf
Documents presented to many times, and they are meaningless.

No, this time please explain why it does not answer your question?
Let me explain you.
1+1=2
1: Ent also called the neutral element of multiplication from the axiom: there is an element “a” from R that for any element “b”: a×b=b
Then we prove that “a” has to be unique and we call that “1”.

+: Operand

=: Statement that tells that what is on the left is the same to what is on the right
2: Ent that by definition is 1+1. From the axioms “1” is different from “0” and the axiom of order (a>b <=> b-a Є R-; a>b <=> c+a>c+b) then we prove by
assuming 1+1=1+0 => 1=0 because of axiom 1≠0 1+1≠1 (only restating that 0 is the unique element whit the property 0+b=b) , because 1>0 then 1+1>1 and we call this new number 2.

Let’s prove that 2+2=4, by definition 4 = 1+1+1+1 (by extending the previous demonstration up until 4) then 2+2=(1+1)+(1+1)=1+1+1+1=4.
Wow, you just learned something today. Now you can tell that you can prove that 2+2=4
But has you can see, element operant, whatever comes after you define whit what you are working whit, NEVER BEFORE!!!

TMiguel

22nd October 2008, 10:26 AM

Since Doron has stopped commenting me. I think that PWNED! Doesn’t quite say what has been happening here.
Besides this is getting too repetitive for me, and the old jokes eventually die out. It is not even funny to comment Doron anymore.

Phaedrus74

22nd October 2008, 02:57 PM

No, this time please explain why it does not answer your question?

Firstly: no clearly defined concepts "element" and "relation"

Secondly: As drkitten pointed out: an example does not constitute a definition

If you want constructive feedback on your writings you need to be much more meticulous in defining and describing the concepts you use, because (as should be clear to you by now) you do not use these concepts in the sense they are commonly used.

ddt

23rd October 2008, 08:17 AM

No, this time please explain why it does not answer your question?

In general, you've been pointed out ad nauseam that regurgitating old posts doesn't answer questions about them.

And are you planning on addressing any of my points? Or are you running away again?

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

The Man

23rd October 2008, 08:20 AM

Apathia

23rd October 2008, 10:04 AM

What English is not “an agreed framework”?

By the way “Relations” are just “Elements” that, well, relate “Elements” including “Relations”.

“Similarities as well as differences are both ways of relating things”

Yes.
I can't but comment because this brings me to this simple rewording of Doron's favorite question:

What is the ultimate relation that enables all relations between all elements and all relations?

An examination of this question sweeps away pages and pages of confusion.

ddt

23rd October 2008, 03:38 PM

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125220

1(element) +(relation) 1(element) =(relation) 2(element)

EDIT: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4125070&postcount=505

I'm beating a dead horse, I know, but the above is obviously wrong in various ways.

+ is not a relation, it is a function. + applied to arguments 1 and 1 yields 2, in formula:
+(1, 1) = 2
Of course, any function is a relation (in set theory), but then + is not a relation between a pair of numbers, but between a triple of numbers, and you'd have to write
(1, 1, 2) \in +
and the above notation of Doron precludes that.

Then there's the question what 1 + 1 = 2 exactly means. I mean, we know it really means
(1 + 1) = 2
but Doron has never specified where the parentheses should go. And as we all know, in Doron's universe everything is slightly different (never mind never defined either).

This whole idea of Doron's MAF is really ludicrous. It consists of 3 elements and 2 relations, but he never says which of the elements are part of which relations - as shown by the ambiguity above.

And it's superfluous. Why do you need two relations? One suffices. You can reduce it to one relation relating three elements. And while we're at it, why not one relation relating one element - surely, a triple of three elements is an element itself, isn't it? (it is in set theory). And well, a relation on one element really is nothing more than a subset of the set the relation is defined on.

So, MAF - as far as it makes sense - can be fully described by set theory. Nothing new here. Tune in tomorrow for the proof that any set can be described by a MAF in a trivial way.

Apathia

23rd October 2008, 03:54 PM

Slightly rewording my stupid question:

What is the ultimate relationship that enables all relationships between all elements and all relations?

jsfisher

23rd October 2008, 05:08 PM

So, MAF - as far as it makes sense - can be fully described by set theory. Nothing new here. Tune in tomorrow for the proof that any set can be described by a MAF in a trivial way.

The trivial part doron just doesn't get. He's struggling to say something he thinks is important; he's tripping over his own inabilities to reason and attend to detail; and ultimately he cannot see how trivial his points are.

Consider:

E => E + T
E => T
T => T * F
T => F
F => ( E )
F => a

...where + * ( ) are all symbols with the normal meaning in mathematical expressions involving addition and subtraction, and "a" represents any possible number or variable.

Pretty basic stuff. This context-free language may seem to be an almost trivial abstraction for expressions. And so it would be, except it also conveys a structure and precedence for the arithmetic operations. This simple abstraction led directly to improvements in parsing of computer languages and compilation into executable computer code. Prior to this development in formal languages and automata theory, computer langauge translation involved very ad hoc, make-shift methods.

The abstraction adds value.

MAF's, on the other hand, trivialize. They don't reveal structure or hidden meaning. They do the opposite, in fact. But doron's eyes are closed.

Skeptic

23rd October 2008, 11:30 PM

The trivial part doron just doesn't get. He's struggling to say something he thinks is important; he's tripping over his own inabilities to reason and attend to detail; and ultimately he cannot see how trivial his points are.

Of course, Doron -- like many cranks -- wrongly equates "difficult to calculate and undestand" with "deep and important". That's because crank's incredibly cumbersome and vague notation makes the most trivial point difficult to undestand, and the simplest proof difficult to calculate. A good rule of thumb here, to distinguish real importance from sham, is the one used by Charles Babbage: no man's heterodox mathematical work is worth looking at unless he used it, succesfully, to solve a difficult open mathematical problem. (And vague blather about "uniting mathematics" or "changing the paradigm" don't count.)

But there is another, unrelated reason why cranks think their idea is so important, when in fact it's between the meaningless and the trivial. Isaac Asimov used to regularly get letters from would-be writers, with the usual suggestion: they'll give him a "great idea for a story", he'll write it up, they'll share the credit. He complained to his editor, Joseph Campbell: "Why do they expect me to do all the work? Why do they think the idea is so important?" Campbell replied: "Did it occur to you, Isaac, that it's the only idea they ever had, or are likely to have? Naturaly, they overestimate its importance."

Like most cranks and would-be "great idea" authors, Doron is a case of a small, dud mind obsessed with large, dud idea.

doronshadmi

24th October 2008, 02:08 AM

Firstly: no clearly defined concepts "element" and "relation"

Secondly: As drkitten pointed out: an example does not constitute a definition

If you want constructive feedback on your writings you need to be much more meticulous in defining and describing the concepts you use, because (as should be clear to you by now) you do not use these concepts in the sense they are commonly used.
By Universal Reasoning, any researchable framework is at least an interaction between Relation and Element.

The Interaction is at least Extrapolation and Integration.

Given a researchable framework, Extrapolation is its outer interaction (Relation).

Given a researchable framework, Interpolation is its inner interaction (Element).

The meaning of REI (Relation\Element Interaction) is given by some consistent axiomatic system, but by using UR we have the trunk that enables different branches (where each branch has a particular meaning) to stay connected during differentiation of meanings.

By using UR, Distinction is a first-order property and the researcher is a significant factor (cannot be used as a hidden assumption) of the researched framework.

By using this notion, you may able to get the beauty of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4083359&postcount=1 .

Again:

In my opinion, meaningful frameworks exist as long as there is a difference between X-model and X (which is also a positive interpretation of Gödel's work), where X-model has a particular maning and X has no meaning of its own.

Slightly rewording my stupid question:

What is the ultimate relationship that enables all relationships between all elements and all relations?

That has no meaning of its own.

Take for example http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4148437&postcount=629 .

Jsfisher truly believes that a meaningful game has an objective status of its own without any influence of the researchers that determinate its meaning.

By using UR this illusion is immediately exposed.

TMiguel

24th October 2008, 04:36 AM

By Universal Reasoning, any researchable framework is at least an interaction between Relation and Element.

The Interaction is at least Extrapolation and Integration.
Nonsense.

Given a researchable framework, Extrapolation is its outer interaction (Relation).
Extrapolation is a numerical approximation, similar to the interpolation whit the difference that it is out of the comfort zone (comfort zone - for which we believe there is a solution whiting a given interval).

Given a researchable framework, Interpolation is its inner interaction (Element).
Interpolation is a numerical approximation, either whit one or several recursive steps depending of the method.

The meaning of REI (Relation\Element Interaction) is given by some consistent axiomatic system, but by using UR we have the trunk that enables different branches (where each branch has a particular meaning) to stay connected during differentiation of meanings.
Relation, Element and Interaction are 3 independent and different words that can be used together, but each on the way they are have no meaning.
Universal Reasoning is another set of words, what they mean does not in any way imply what your are claiming.

By using UR, Distinction is a first-order property and the researcher is a significant factor (cannot be used as a hidden assumption) of the researched framework.
I will put into other words to enlighten you how ridiculous this is.
By using a method of thinking, the difference between things is the main property, and the one doing the reasoning can screw everything up.
Does this make sense to you? Do you think that we believe that mathematics to absolute certainty and that some how we let something as trivial as ourselves to screw everything up?

By using this notion, you may able to get the beauty of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4083359&postcount=1 .
There is no beauty, there is nothing but nonsense.

In my opinion, meaningful frameworks exist as long as there is a difference between X-model and X (which is also a positive interpretation of Gödel's work), where X-model has a particular maning and X has no meaning of its own.
Math has nothing to do whit the real world (so you have been told several times), we create models of the world, we do not create models of mathematics models and make mathematics out of it.

Jsfisher truly believes that a meaningful game has an objective status of its own without any influence of the researchers that determinate its meaning.
First of all mathematics is not a game. You can sometimes make games out of it.
Although the person discovering the mathematical relations play a significant role in increasing the knowledge, they do not at any stage able to transform it at their will.
A common example was the discovery that the root of 2 was not a rational number, they tried to discard it because it was against their view of a perfect world, they tried everything to find a mistake, but no more they could ignore the proof and what it implies.
If you have any reason to believe that man makes math instead of just finding it. Then you won’t have any trouble of giving an example of it or to be able to prove wrong any already established theorems.

By using UR this illusion is immediately exposed.
Has they say, don’t worry, you just missed it by 180º

Phaedrus74

24th October 2008, 05:35 AM

By Universal Reasoning, any researchable framework is at least an interaction between Relation and Element.

And by framework you mean conceptual framework I presume?

What do you mean by "interaction"?

The Interaction is at least Extrapolation and Integration.

Given a researchable framework, Extrapolation is its outer interaction (Relation).

Given a researchable framework, Interpolation is its inner interaction (Element).

Until you have clarified your notion of "interaction" I can't respond to this.

The meaning of REI (Relation\Element Interaction) is given by some consistent axiomatic system, but by using UR we have the trunk that enables different branches (where each branch has a particular meaning) to stay connected during differentiation of meanings.

What would be the pupose to show that different researchable frameworks are connected at a "trunk"? [I'm not sure this question makes sense, since I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.]

By using UR, Distinction is a first-order property and the researcher is a significant factor (cannot be used as a hidden assumption) of the researched framework.

Distinction is a first order property of what exactly? [You really need to be more precise in your formulations!]
Also distinction in relation to what? Distinction is a two-place predicate (to put it this way).

The anthropological aspect that you cannot fully abstract away the researcher (despite the latters best efforts), is a given. (Again I hope I understand you correctly).

By using this notion, you may able to get the beauty of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4083359&postcount=1 .

I am sorry but this makes no sense to me, I will admit my interest was peaked mainly by Universal Reasoning, so I'm willing to chalk this up as a shortcoming on my behalf.

Again:

In my opinion, meaningful frameworks exist as long as there is a difference between X-model and X (which is also a positive interpretation of Gödel's work), where X-model has a particular maning and X has no meaning of its own.
<snip answer to someone else's question>

If I understand you correctly I cannot see how X-model and X are necessarily anything other than different (assuming that by X-model you mean a model of X). So that would be tautological and leads me to suspect that I am mistaken in my assumptions.

doronshadmi

24th October 2008, 05:55 AM

If I understand you correctly I cannot see how X-model and X are necessarily anything other than different (assuming that by X-model you mean a model of X). So that would be tautological and leads me to suspect that I am mistaken in my assumptions.
Any definition has some meaning and any model of X has a particular meaning given by the researcher.

Since X itself has no particular meaning it is the best platform for any meaning, exactly as transparency is the best platform for any given color (meaning).

Phaedrus74

24th October 2008, 06:45 AM

Apathia

24th October 2008, 07:06 AM

Well Doron, in the world of all that's researchable (conceptual) there are elements and relations, and they interact.
But this statement as it is is entirely trivial and does not give an MAF or any form of significance.

However the replies you give and the pdfs you continue to cite do have an MAF of sorts. When you first came to this forum, you spoke of it as an "x/y complementation." You've ditched that now for an "element/relation interaction."

From the original post of this thread, your trademark idea is still with us.
Your MAF is still that of the form of a pair interaction where the x-element and the y-relation can have any manings for x and y, but they are bound to their special pair realtionship or interaction.

You've changed the words you use a bit, but your trademark MAF is still there.
And that's not bad.
Because if all you have is there are some relaltions and some elements and some interactions between them, it's as trivial and
uninteresting as saying a sentence has a subject and an object.
Your MAF is manifestly (right there in the OP) more than that.

If you are telling me you don't have a fundamental structure after all, but insisting you do have a mininimal form, it's like saying, "No, this is not water ice. It's frozen water."

The Man

24th October 2008, 07:41 AM

Any definition has some meaning and any model of X has a particular meaning given by the researcher.

Since X itself has no particular meaning it is the best platform for any meaning, exactly as transparency is the best platform for any given color (meaning).

This doesn't make it any clearer for me. What is "X"?

I think Doron is using “X” to refer to anything that we might give meaning to by definition or modeling. He considers “X” to have no meaning on its own, so the only meaning it can have is what we ascribe to it. Much like Doron’s notions, meaningless on their own and the only meaning they have is what he ascribes to them and only for him. Certainly, some concepts or notions do not have meaning on their own but only gain meaning from our definitions of them, like language. However, other concepts like color, as in Doron’s example, do in fact have meaning other then what we might choose to ascribe to them (specifically wavelength or a combination of wavelengths). In this case it is not our ascription that gives it meaning but that inherent meaning, on its own, that we must use to make our ascriptions useful. If Doron is just limiting his consideration to those “X”s that do not have meaning on their own, then I do not think there is much of an issue. However since he specifically refers to color as an example (something that does have meaning on its own) the limitation I mentioned above does not seem to be his consideration.

By the way transparency is not the “best platform for any given color (meaning)”, in and of itself, since it does not alter the attributes of color or make those attributes meaningfully apparent. A prism can do that which, although transparent, alters the refractive angle of the various wavelengths of a given color making them meaningfully apparent (spectrum).

TMiguel

24th October 2008, 09:51 AM

This inevitably doomed to go around in circles without getting any where.

Here is what I purpose, if what Doron says is right, then he should be able to give an example of case where his point is correct where the classical isn’t. If as Doron says that the mathematician builds the mathematics instead of just finding it, Then he should be able to come up whit a proof that at least one of the currently proved theorems is wrong.
Any is enough, anything at all.

I personally advise for the rest of the community to pressure Doron whit an answer (not to post here until he actually answers it), because this topic has passed his utility.

jsfisher

24th October 2008, 11:15 AM

...he should be able to come up whit a proof...

Doron has already proven an inability to follow even the simplest of proof...or even the simple inference that gets you to a set is not the union of its members.

doronshadmi

24th October 2008, 01:42 PM

If you are telling me you don't have a fundamental structure after all, but insisting you do have a mininimal form, it's like saying, "No, this is not water ice. It's frozen water."
Dear Apathia,

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, because we give it its meaning.

So MAF (which is not Singularity) is the "must have" state of any researchable framework.

By using it we get a "nice to have" researchable framework, which has some particular meaning given by the researcher.

For example:

By using MAF *__* one can give some meaning to MAF *__* by define * as Element and __ as Relation.

By using Distinction as MAF's first-order property we get:

* id is *, __ * id is __
| and |
* id is *, __ * id is *

As can be seen, the meaning is related always to the Elements, where the Relation enables us to compare between the Elements and arrive to some conclusions according to certain rules given by us.

In this particular case MAF *__* (that has no particular meaning of its own) is used in order to research itself, where we, as researchers give it this particular meaning.

Some claims that, for example, by using MAF *__* in order to research itself, we are using a circular reasoning. This is not the case because by giving MAF a meaning we are no longer at the "trunk" state, but we are at the "branch" state (where MAF has some particular meaning).

Actually MAF *__* can get any wished meaning of any two comparable Elements, for example:

* id is True, False * id is True
| and |
* id is True, False * id is False

In both cases MAF *__* (that has no meaning of its own, until we give it its meaning) is used.

By using some MAF one gets the natural trunk for infinitely many branches (where each branch has its particular meaning), which helps him to stay tuned and not get some branch (some particular meaning) as if it is the only possibility.

Apathia

24th October 2008, 02:50 PM

Dear Aphatia,

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, because we give it is meaning.

So MAF (which is not Singularity) is the "must have" state of any researchable framework.

By using it we get a "nice to have" researchable framework, which has some particular meaning given by the researcher.

For example:

By using MAF *__* one can give some meaning to MAF *__* by define * as Element and __ as Relation.

By using Distinction as MAF's first-order property we get:

* id is *, __ * id is __
| and |
* id is *, __ * id is *

As can be seen, the meaning is related always to the Elements, where the Relation enables us to compare between the Elements and arrive to some conclusions according to certain rules given by us.

In this particular case MAF *__* (that has no particular meaning of its own) is used in order to research itself, where we, as researchers give it this particular meaning.

Some claims that, for example, by using MAF *__* in order to research itself, we are using a circular reasoning. This is not the case because by giving MAF a meaning we are no longer at the "trunk" state, but we are at the "branch" state (where MAF has some particular meaning).

Actually MAF *__* can get any wished meaning of any two comparable Elements, for example:

* id is True, False * id is True
| and |
* id is True, False * id is False

In both cases MAF *__* (that has no meaning of its own, until we give it its meaning) is used.

By using some MAF one gets the natural trunk for infinitely many branches (where each branch has its particular meaning), which helps him to stay tuned and not get some branch (some particular meaning) as if it is the only possibility.

Ah, there it is. Still there, as plain as a pikestaff with a head on it.
Water ice and frozen water.
And the substitution of the word, "interaction" for the word "relationship."

What's going on Doron? Why can't you just say, "Yes, I'm using a different way talking about my "nice to have," "must have state of any researchable framework." It's the same as my Complementarity thingy, just a different way of putting it."
Instead of throwing it all out when I communicate it in a way some of the other participants of this thread can see some sense to it and make some useful critiques?

Of course I still could only be seeing dancing faries.

doronshadmi

24th October 2008, 03:03 PM

Ah, there it is. Still there, as plain as a pikestaff with a head on it.
Water ice and frozen water.
And the substitution of the word, "interaction" for the word "relationship."

What's going on Doron? Why can't you just say, "Yes, I'm using a different way talking about my "nice to have," "must have state of any researchable framework." It's the same as my Complementarity thingy, just a different way of putting it."
Instead of throwing it all out when I communicate it in a way some of the other participants of this thread can see some sense to it and make some useful critiques?

Of course I still could only be seeing dancing faries.
Dear Apathia,

Do you get the beauty of the meaningless form (MAF) as the "trunk" of infinitely many (meaningful) "branches" (where the researcher is a significant factor of any given meaning, and Distinction is a first-order property)?

jsfisher

24th October 2008, 05:35 PM

Dear Apathia,

Do you get the beauty of the meaningless form (MAF) as the "trunk" of infinitely many (meaningful) "branches" (where the researcher is a significant factor of any given meaning, and Distinction is a first-order property)?

Dear Doron,

Do you get the triviality of the meaningless form (MAF) of the gibberish you spout?

Apathia

24th October 2008, 07:11 PM

Dear Apathia,

Do you get the beauty of the meaningless form (MAF) as the "trunk" of infinitely many (meaningful) "branches" (where the researcher is a significant factor of any given meaning, and Distinction is a first-order property)?

Assuming that this MAF is the framework you have been trying to present for twenty some odd years, I see a rwo pronged root system and the potential for a very interesting lingustic-cultural tree that I've thougts of making an integral part of the next fantasy story world I create.

I would feel it "beautiful" if I found it the core Principle of my worldview that was the significance of everything.
I'm not finding it that.

But then I still can't counter the argument that I'm reading my own stuff into you and of whatever you are saying, I know nothing.
It's time for me to go dance with my own faires.

doronshadmi

25th October 2008, 04:45 AM

I would feel it "beautiful" if I found it the core Principle of my worldview that was the significance of everything.
I'm not finding it that.

Great,

So please take the (meaningless) "trunk" and define your significant (meaningful) "branch".

No one else will do it for you, because you are a significant factor of any "branch".

TMiguel

25th October 2008, 05:09 AM

great,

so please take the (meaningless) "trunk" and define your significant (meaningful) "branch".

No one else will do it for you, because you are a significant factor of any "branch".

where is the proof?

ddt

25th October 2008, 06:33 AM

Consider:

E => E + T
E => T
T => T * F
T => F
F => ( E )
F => a

...where + * ( ) are all symbols with the normal meaning in mathematical expressions involving addition and subtraction, and "a" represents any possible number or variable.

Pretty basic stuff. This context-free language may seem to be an almost trivial abstraction for expressions. And so it would be, except it also conveys a structure and precedence for the arithmetic operations. This simple abstraction led directly to improvements in parsing of computer languages and compilation into executable computer code. Prior to this development in formal languages and automata theory, computer langauge translation involved very ad hoc, make-shift methods.

The abstraction adds value.
Excellent point to bring up (context-free) grammars and languages. They may indeed seem trivial for something simple as an arithmetic expression, or a logic proposition, but they're certainly not for a computer language, with its many constructs like if-then-else (think of the "dangling else" problem), definition of and call to procedures/functions, statement sequences, etc. And, as you note, even for a simple language like logic propositions, formally defining the language by production rules indicates priority and associativity of the respective operators.

IIRC, the first language to employ a formal language definition - in "Backus-Naur form" was ALGOL-60; and since, every programming language invented has used that in one form or another. The Pascal report has them in the form of "railroad diagrams". It has, in fact, been so influential that virtually no-one nowadays builds their parsers by hand but uses parser generators such as yacc; a rule in yacc essentially consists of the formal language production rule interspersed with snippets of C-code in which you then can do the static semantic stuff like type checking.

Actually, you can do even better than using just context-free languages. ALGOL-68 employed a 2-level Van Wijngaarden grammar in its definition, thus also capturing all the static semantics of the language: whereas the report of ALGOL-60 had to say in words that the types of the THEN and ELSE-parts had to be identical, the ALGOL-68 definition put this into the formal language definition. In fact, you can also use a 2-level grammar for the definition of operator expressions (ad-hoc syntax mine; I only focus now on the priority part, not the associativity):

expression ::= functioncall | operexpr(9) | ...
operexpr(n) ::= operexpr(n-1) operator(n) operexpr(n)
operator(1) ::= "="
operator(2) ::= "==" | "!="
operator(3) ::= ">" |"<" | ...
operator(4) ::= "+" | "-" | ...
operator(5) ::= "*" | "/" | ...

I actually once built a parser for Gofer (a Haskell dialect) in Gofer using the Parser Monad, and employed such a scheme for operator expressions. Unfortunately, it turned out to be so slow that I had to rewrite it to a simpler scheme and re-adjust an operator expression tree after parsing it :(

MAF's, on the other hand, trivialize. They don't reveal structure or hidden meaning. They do the opposite, in fact. But doron's eyes are closed.
Not only that, but looking at the above, MAF's aren't even properly defined. If the rule *_*_* is to be seen as a production rule from some formal language (where the rules for "element" * and "relation" _ are conspicuously absent), we have a typing problem. If it's to be seen as (*_*)_*, the left relation "acts" on the left and middle element and the result is a logical proposition, not an "element"... And the same problem arises if you put the parentheses to the right.

doronshadmi

30th October 2008, 02:57 AM

http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/essays/nat-cog.htm

jsfisher

30th October 2008, 04:25 AM

http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/essays/nat-cog.htm

Are you trying to make a point? If you'd like to draw so parallels between your gibberish and the content of that website, please do so. Don't expect us to argue your case for you. You need to establish the connections.

Be careful, though. Be sure you want to be tied down by what's presented at that link.

doronshadmi

30th October 2008, 05:47 AM

( http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/essays/nat-cog.htm )
While the quantum potential and the soliton can be discussed
using purely local mathematics, on the other hand David Bohm
has provided a powerful non-local metaphor for such systems
that he calls the Implicate (or enfolded) Order.9 What we take
for reality, Bohm argues, are surface phenomena, explicate
forms that have temporarily unfolded out of an underlying
implicate order. Within this deeper order forms are enfolded
within each other so systems which may be well separated in
the Explicate Order are contained within each other in the
Implicate Order. (my bold letters) Within the Implicate Order one form can be both interior and exterior to another.

[_] XOR [ ]_ (Locality)

[_]_ NXOR [_]_ (Non-Locality)

Non-Locality\Locality complementation.

The Man

30th October 2008, 06:54 AM

Did you miss this part?

While the quantum potential and the soliton can be discussed
using purely local mathematics, on the other hand David Bohm
has provided a powerful non-local metaphor..

[_] XOR [ ]_ (Locality)

[_]_ NXOR [_]_ (Non-Locality)

Non-Locality\Locality complementation.

So is this your unnecessary and powerless “non-local metaphor”?

doronshadmi

30th October 2008, 07:04 AM

Did you miss this part?

"Purely" local mathematics also uses non-locality, known as Relation.

Purely local mathematics is not researchable because each thing is totally isolated of any other thing.

The same holds if purely non-local mathematics is considered.

In this case no researchable things are comparable because all we have is Unity.

( http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/essays/nat-cog.htm )
Non-locality could be considered as a complementary description to that of locality, as part of a general nexus of new ideas, or as the starting point of a radically new approach to science.

About Prof. F. David Peat please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._David_Peat .

The Man

30th October 2008, 08:48 AM

"Purely" local mathematics also uses non-locality, known as Relation.

Purely local mathematics is not researchable because each thing is totally isolated of any other thing.

The same holds if purely non-local mathematics is considered.

In this case no researchable things are comparable because all we have is Unity.

About Prof. F. David Peat please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._David_Peat .

So is that a yes or a no?

Non-locality complimenting locality is nothing new to science. A vector field is inherently non-local but can have an inherently local source such as the field from an electron.

doronshadmi

30th October 2008, 09:09 AM

So is that a yes or a no?

Non-locality complimenting locality is nothing new to science. A vector field is inherently non-local but can have an inherently local source such as the field from an electron.
No.

If it is Non-Local it is the Relation between Locals, and no relation can be inherently Local, exactly as no Local can be inherently a Relation.

jsfisher

30th October 2008, 11:20 AM

Yet another definition for non-local, eh?

So many contradictions, doron. It is really tough to keep track of them all.

doronshadmi

30th October 2008, 11:45 AM

Yet another definition for non-local, eh?

So many contradictions, doron. It is really tough to keep track of them all.

The contradiction is a direct reuslt of your ability to get things only from their local point of view.

Wittgenstein already said ( http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/wittgenstein-mathematics/#WitIntCriSetThe ):

As Wittgenstein says at (MS 121, 71r; Dec. 27, 1938), three pages after the passage used for (RFM II, §57): “If you now call the Cantorian procedure one for producing a new real number, you will now no longer be inclined to speak of a system of all real numbers” (italics added). From Cantor's proof, however, set theorists erroneously conclude that “the set of irrational numbers” is greater in multiplicity than any enumeration of irrationals (or the set of rationals), when the only conclusion to draw is that there is no such thing as the set of all the irrational numbers. The truly dangerous aspect to ‘propositions’ such as “The real numbers cannot be arranged in a series” and “The set… is not denumerable” is that they make concept formation [i.e., our invention] “look like a fact of nature” (i.e., something we discover) (RFM II §§16, 37). At best, we have a vague idea of the concept of “real number,” but only if we restrict this idea to “recursive real number” and only if we recognize that having the concept does not mean having a set of all recursive real numbers.

But you simply unable to get that because you are a member a community of people that cannot get anything that is not local.

jsfisher

30th October 2008, 12:18 PM

The contradiction is a direct reuslt of your ability to get things only from their local point of view.

...<snip meaningless aside>...

But you simply unable to get that because you are a member a community of people that cannot get anything that is not local.

No, the contradictions are strictly of your creation. You speak in gibberish, and you reason in reverse. Don't blame me or others when the problem is yours and yours alone.

doronshadmi

31st October 2008, 07:18 AM

No, the contradictions are strictly of your creation. You speak in gibberish, and you reason in reverse. Don't blame me or others when the problem is yours and yours alone.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125220 and Organic Mathematics is not for one-track minded.

Some link for non one-track minded: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science

jsfisher

31st October 2008, 10:45 AM

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125220 and Organic Mathematics is not for one-track minded.

I suppose organic is a plausible adjective given the high humus content.

Some link for non one-track minded: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science

The wikipedia link leads to an article written in relatively straightforward English. It expresses complete thoughts in the form of sentences using generally accepted meanings of words. It is comprehensible.

It is nothing like your writings.

TMiguel

31st October 2008, 11:38 AM

The contradiction is a direct reuslt of your ability to get things only from their local point of view.
Things or either are or are not. There is no “kind of is” in mathematical terms. If it means what we think it means that it is that what it means, if it doesn’t mean what we think it means, they you have to explain what it means.

As Wittgenstein says at (MS 121, 71r; Dec. 27, 1938), three pages after the passage used for (RFM II, §57): “If you now call the Cantorian procedure one for producing a new real number, you will now no longer be inclined to speak of a system of all real numbers” (italics added). From Cantor's proof, however, set theorists erroneously conclude that “the set of irrational numbers” is greater in multiplicity than any enumeration of irrationals (or the set of rationals), when the only conclusion to draw is that there is no such thing as the set of all the irrational numbers. The truly dangerous aspect to ‘propositions’ such as “The real numbers cannot be arranged in a series” and “The set… is not denumerable” is that they make concept formation [i.e., our invention] “look like a fact of nature” (i.e., something we discover) (RFM II §§16, 37). At best, we have a vague idea of the concept of “real number,” but only if we restrict this idea to “recursive real number” and only if we recognize that having the concept does not mean having a set of all recursive real numbers.
1. There is no “New Real Numbers”, there are real numbers and that’s it.
2. The irrational numbers is a R^2 relation. You do not conclude anything by enumeration because R is innumerable.

But you simply unable to get that because you are a member a community of people that cannot get anything that is not local.
Pure crap!

doronshadmi

31st October 2008, 06:31 PM

Things or either are or are not. There is no “kind of is” in mathematical terms. If it means what we think it means that it is that what it means, if it doesn’t mean what we think it means, they you have to explain what it means.

1. There is no “New Real Numbers”, there are real numbers and that’s it.
2. The irrational numbers is a R^2 relation. You do not conclude anything by enumeration because R is innumerable.

Pure crap!

1. I agree with you. The diagonal number simply shows that R set is incomplete, because any cardinal is weaker than non-locality (that is something that is beyond your abstract ability, which is limited only to locality).

2. Any given collection that its cardinality > 0 is the result of Relation\Element Interaction (that is something that is beyond your abstract ability, which is limited only to locality).

3. Non-locality is already understood ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4164710&postcount=650 ) but not by the community of current mathematicians.

TMiguel

31st October 2008, 07:21 PM

1. I agree with you. The diagonal number simply shows that R set is incomplete, because any cardinal is weaker than non-locality (that is something that is beyond your abstract ability, which is limited only to locality).
What? Did you read the innumerable part?
And that complex numbers is a R^2 and so it is bigger cardinality then R?

2. Any given collection that its cardinality > 0 is the result of Relation\Element Interaction (that is something that is beyond your abstract ability, which is limited only to locality).
Drop the “Relation\Element Interaction” we have already told you that it is nonsense.

3. Non-locality is already understood ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4164710&postcount=650 ) but not by the community of current mathematicians.
Has far as I know Locally refers to a determinate place. The closest thing that could make sense is for example on the case of the second law of thermodynamics that in a closed controlled volume it can not be violated, but locally (sub-volume not closed) it can. But that is not what you are implying, neither does the case that I mentioned could be applied in mathematics because if there is a property that a set must have but there is something different that happens within the sub-set, we call it “set” or “sub-set” and absolutely not “non-locally” or “locally”.
And I still don’t know what the hell you mean whit Locally and non-whatever.

doronshadmi

31st October 2008, 07:40 PM

What? Did you read the innumerable part?
And that complex numbers is a R^2 and so it is bigger cardinality then R?

Drop the “Relation\Element Interaction” we have already told you that it is nonsense.

Has far as I know Locally refers to a determinate place. The closest thing that could make sense is for example on the case of the second law of thermodynamics that in a closed controlled volume it can not be violated, but locally (sub-volume not closed) it can. But that is not what you are implying, neither does the case that I mentioned could be applied in mathematics because if there is a property that a set must have but there is something different that happens within the sub-set, we call it “set” or “sub-set” and absolutely not “non-locally” or “locally”.
And I still don’t know what the hell you mean whit Locally and non-whatever.

Any non-empty set or subet is the rusult of Non-locality\Locality interaction (something that is beyond your current abstract ability).

jsfisher

31st October 2008, 08:09 PM

Any non-empty set or subet is the rusult of Non-locality\Locality interaction (something that is beyond your current abstract ability).

No, it is not his, my, or anyone else's inabilities that are showing here, doron, just yours. You make up a term which you cannot define, explain, or characterize in any intelligible way, but then you ascribe it fantastical abilities spanning the breath of all knowledge.

Rubbish.

Then you rely on google skills to pull out seemingly learned articles that use the same term you have been using, only the author actually defines the term and uses it in a comprehensible way. You, on the other hand, mostly due to your oft-demonstrated poor reading skills, fail to see the author's usage is not at all like your usage of the term.

Your examples often contradict your claims.

The trouble is, doron, you can make such a colossal mistake as claiming sets are the union of their members and cannot see the blunder even when pointed out by simple counter examples.

Doron, you seem impervious to any form of logical reasoning and incapable of intellectual discourse. I suppose that insulates you from ever discovering that your gibberish is all nonsense and trivia.

I assure you, doron, the lack understanding by others for your ideas is clearly your own doing.

The Man

1st November 2008, 08:06 AM

No.

If it is Non-Local it is the Relation between Locals, and no relation can be inherently Local, exactly as no Local can be inherently a Relation.

This is just your dogmatic dichotomist approach to Local and non-local as well as relations and what is being related. Since the local in one perspective can be non-local in another so too can a “Relation between Locals” be related to some other “Relation between Locals” (as in electromagnetism). The limitation of association of these ascriptions you profess are entirely your own construct or your own local relations.

doronshadmi

1st November 2008, 09:01 AM

This is just your dogmatic dichotomist approach to Local and non-local as well as relations and what is being related. Since the local in one perspective can be non-local in another so too can a “Relation between Locals” be related to some other “Relation between Locals” (as in electromagnetism). The limitation of association of these ascriptions you profess are entirely your own construct or your own local relations.

You are unable to get the beauty of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4167380&postcount=271 , do you?

How can it be dogmatic if Distinction is its first-order property (which means that also my paradigm can be changed by a paradigm-shift, which is something that no dogmatic paradigm has)?

TMiguel

1st November 2008, 09:38 AM

How can it be dogmatic?
Because you believe it without logic or reason, it has nothing to stand upon, and you continue to hold it like the most valuable thing on earth despite it has been proven to you many times that it is a bunch of crap.

doronshadmi

1st November 2008, 03:22 PM

Because you believe it without logic or reason

This is exactly the story of the Black\White reasoning.

The persons who uses it realy believe (without any good reason) that it is the general and comprehensive method of real reasoning.

But they are wrong, it is nothing but a trivial and particular case of Universal Reasoning, as clearly shown by:

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

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/NXOR-XOR.pdf

Listen to an honest man like Prof. Melvyn B. Nathanson http://www.ams.org/notices/200807/tx080700773p.pdf , maybe you will learn some honesty from him.

jsfisher

1st November 2008, 03:48 PM

Listen to an honest man like Prof. Melvyn B. Nathanson http://www.ams.org/notices/200807/tx080700773p.pdf , maybe you will learn some honesty from him.

What is it in Nathanson's AMS notice you find interesting, doron. I am curious how you interpret his words.

The Man

2nd November 2008, 01:16 PM

You are unable to get the beauty of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4167380&postcount=271 , do you?

Beauty? As far as art goes it is very poor work, as far as science goes it is even less significant, even in a philosophical sense it has no meaning, which is quite a feat as almost anything can have some philosophical meaning. So the beauty of it is that it demonstrates that even in philosophy some representations can still be absolutely meaningless.

How can it be dogmatic if Distinction is its first-order property (which means that also my paradigm can be changed by a paradigm-shift, which is something that no dogmatic paradigm has)?

Yet your paradigm does not shift and from what I have seen has never shifted. Claiming your “paradigm can be changed by a paradigm-shift” and that paradigm actually having the capability of shifting are two different things. Particularly considering that you ascribe absolutely everything to your dichotomist local / non-local dogma leaving no room for any kind of a “shift”.

No.

If it is Non-Local it is the Relation between Locals, and no relation can be inherently Local, exactly as no Local can be inherently a Relation.

The statement above is simply an edict and nothing more, without any supporting evidence and in direct contraction of considerations like “my local neighborhood” or “my immediate family” both represent relations between locals but are still themselves inherently local relations. Also non-local relations like Electric and Magnetic fields that have been combined as one local relation electromagnetism and further localized as the emission and absorption of virtual photons (Quantum electrodynamics) This represents a paradigm shift from the non-local consideration of an electromagnetic vector field to the more localized aspect of an exchange of virtual photons, providing some of the most precise agreement between theory and experimentation as has ever been encountered by science. Science is designed to change; the paradigm shifts are substantial and historically evident. You utilize your local/non-local dichotomy to account for absolutely everything, specifically ascribing arguments against it as simply one part of it, making it dogma and your assertion “my paradigm can be changed by a paradigm-shift” a lie, if only to yourself.

Skeptic

2nd November 2008, 02:22 PM

The Man

2nd November 2008, 04:52 PM

You're arguing with a crank, "The Man" -- with someone who is utterly convinced of his own greatness. You might as well try to drain the sea.

Doron NEEDS to believe he's a mathematical-logical-philosophical genius, and therefore every criticism is dismissed as the jealous sniping of pygmies who are all green with envy of him.

Like most crank works, there's little point to trying to undestand what he's talking about since there's simply no "there" there. It's merely the restatement of badly-understood basic terms in cumbersome language.

More then well understood, Skeptic, but I do think it is important for you to continue to point that out. Hey I actually saw Doron note what he had added to a post, a failing he continually indulged and I would berate him for, so even Doron can learn, although him learning his own limitations is a bit much to hope for. Again it is not so much for Doron’s sake but also for those lurking that may think he actually knows what he is talking about if we do not specifically address it.

catbasket

3rd November 2008, 02:55 AM

Again it is not so much for Doron’s sake but also for those lurking that may think he actually knows what he is talking about if we do not specifically address it.

A job well done. It's a pity that everyone's valiant efforts to educate Doron have failed so spectacularly ... of course this failure is in no way the fault of the educators and is simply a problem for the student to resolve. (Some hope of that, eh?)

If it helps in any way to encourage you guys to carry on - this thread* has helped rekindle my interest in (real) maths, which I sadly lost some time after dropping out of school in 1977 when studying A-Level Pure Maths, Applied Maths and Physics.

* - not including any post by Doron.

TMiguel

3rd November 2008, 08:24 AM

A job well done. It's a pity that everyone's valiant efforts to educate Doron have failed so spectacularly ... of course this failure is in no way the fault of the educators and is simply a problem for the student to resolve. (Some hope of that, eh?)

If it helps in any way to encourage you guys to carry on - this thread* has helped rekindle my interest in (real) maths, which I sadly lost some time after dropping out of school in 1977 when studying A-Level Pure Maths, Applied Maths and Physics.

* - not including any post by Doron.
If you like I can start a new tread about one of my own mathematical researches that I have done when I was a bit younger. A bit crude, hard to read, but it uses simple principles that I in my ignorance of the current mathematical knowledge done the job of “reinventing the wheel”. Well I find it interest, and it is one step away from proving the twin prime conjecture if one of my own conjectures happens to be true (I wasn’t able to prove or disprove that), If you want just say anything and I will try to reproduce it here.

doronshadmi

3rd November 2008, 09:24 AM

Doron NEEDS to believe he's a mathematical-logical-philosophical genius, and therefore every criticism is dismissed as the jealous sniping of pygmies who are all green with envy of him.

Nonsense,

I am an ordinary man who dislikes fanatic approach no matter what name is given to it.

Black\White reasoning as the only possibility of the foundations of Mathematical science is simply trivial.

jsfisher

3rd November 2008, 10:04 AM

Black\White reasoning as the only possibility of the foundations of Mathematical science is simply trivial.

Well, it's not trivial, but it is also not the only possibility. Mathematics has its only branches set aside for such "fuzzy" topics.

Now, back to this AMS Notice link you posted. Care to comment on it? Or are you going to leave it as just another irrelevant aside from you?

catbasket

3rd November 2008, 05:16 PM

If you want just say anything and I will try to reproduce it here.

Yes please! I've PM'd you my email address in case you prefer to send it that way.

doronshadmi

12th November 2008, 06:33 AM

Here is an important correction at the end of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4195319&postcount=373 .

Instead of:

"This simultaneity cannot be understood and be developed unless Distinction and Non-locality become first-order properties of the mathematical science that helps to find the "trunk" for different "branches" (different deductive context-dependent axiomatic systems)(and it cannot be done unless the mathematician's interaction and influence are totally ignored (where this ignorance easily leads to hidden assumptions in the foundations of this science))."

it has to be:

"This simultaneity cannot be understood and be developed unless Distinction and Non-locality become first-order properties of the mathematical science that helps to find the "trunk" for different "branches" (different deductive context-dependent axiomatic systems)(and it cannot be done if the mathematician's interaction and influence are totally ignored (where this ignorance easily leads to hidden assumptions in the foundations of this science)).

Do not derail this thread by continuing a discussion from a closed thread.

drkitten

12th November 2008, 08:30 AM

Here is an important correction at the end of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4195319&postcount=373 .

Instead of:

"This simultaneity cannot be understood and be developed unless Distinction and Non-locality become first-order properties of the mathematical science that helps to find the "trunk" for different "branches" (different deductive context-dependent axiomatic systems)(and it cannot be done unless the mathematician's interaction and influence are totally ignored (where this ignorance easily leads to hidden assumptions in the foundations of this science))."

it has to be:

"This simultaneity cannot be understood and be developed unless Distinction and Non-locality become first-order properties of the mathematical science that helps to find the "trunk" for different "branches" (different deductive context-dependent axiomatic systems)(and it cannot be done if the mathematician's interaction and influence are totally ignored (where this ignorance easily leads to hidden assumptions in the foundations of this science)).

Because that change is so important in interpreting the otherwise meaningless gibberish.

In approximately the same way that a turd sandwich is much better when made with dijon mustard instead of the ordinary yellow stuff.

I suggest a much simpler rewriting of the relevant post:

It has to be:

"[Every word that Doron writes] cannot be understood and be developed [and should be] totally ignored."

doronshadmi

12th November 2008, 10:49 AM

In general Relation cannot be but Non-local, where an Element can be Non-local of Local w.r.t another Element.

If I wrote that an Element cannot be but local, then I was wrong.

drkitten

12th November 2008, 11:57 AM

In general Relation cannot be but Non-local, where an Element can be Non-local of Local w.r.t another Element.

If I wrote that an Element cannot be but local, then I was wrong.

You weren't even wrong. You weren't even meaningful.

ddt

12th November 2008, 03:12 PM

Because that change is so important in interpreting the otherwise meaningless gibberish.

In approximately the same way that a turd sandwich is much better when made with dijon mustard instead of the ordinary yellow stuff.
:) Is this the right place to point out there is a significant difference between dijon mustard and ketchup? For those who want to keep track of time as well want to savour now and then some mustard, the integrated solution of a mustard watch is feasible; whereas for ketchup, you'd need at least a teaspoonful for a good tasting, which is beyond the limitations of a wrist watch.

Lit.: Yann-Joachim Ringard, "Mustard Watches: an integrated approach to time and food" (http://iml.univ-mrs.fr/%7Egirard/mustard/article.html).

I suggest a much simpler rewriting of the relevant post:

It has to be:

"[Every word that Doron writes] cannot be understood and be developed [and should be] totally ignored."
That's worth being repeated, for the hapless who might bump into this thread unprepared.

BTW, notice what happened to the "Consciousness" thread?

jsfisher

12th November 2008, 03:19 PM

BTW, notice what happened to the "Consciousness" thread?

More importantly, notice what happened to our main lecturer. He has apparently taken a one week sabbatical.

ddt

12th November 2008, 03:41 PM

More importantly, notice what happened to our main lecturer. He has apparently taken a one week sabbatical.

Apparently, he had run out of straws to grasp at.

Apathia

12th November 2008, 03:55 PM

Darn! I totally missed that the circus had moved there.

drkitten

12th November 2008, 06:25 PM

:) Is this the right place to point out there is a significant difference between dijon mustard and ketchup? For those who want to keep track of time as well want to savour now and then some mustard, the integrated solution of a mustard watch is feasible; whereas for ketchup, you'd need at least a teaspoonful for a good tasting, which is beyond the limitations of a wrist watch.

Lit.: Yann-Joachim Ringard, "Mustard Watches: an integrated approach to time and food" (http://iml.univ-mrs.fr/%7Egirard/mustard/article.html).

That is brilliant. The truly scary thing is that Dr. Ringard's mathematics is substantially better -- more rigorous, more creative, and above all, more coherent -- than Doron's.

ddt

14th November 2008, 03:21 PM

That is brilliant. The truly scary thing is that Dr. Ringard's mathematics is substantially better -- more rigorous, more creative, and above all, more coherent -- than Doron's.

But then, Dr. Ringard is known for "System F" and "Linear Logic". He knows his stuff. And maybe indeed, an occasional lick of mustard gives inspiration. :)

doronshadmi

21st November 2008, 12:06 PM

A part of the first post:

The non-local ur-element is the maximum entropy of itself (no differences can be found within it). Also a local ur-element is the maximum entropy of itself (no differences can be found within it).

Maximum entropy exists in both non-locality and locality, but they are opposite by their self nature, so if non-locality and locality are associated, then a non-entropic domain is created.

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

By carefully reading all of it, one can understand post 1 ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4083359&postcount=1 ).

ddt

21st November 2008, 02:40 PM

I improved http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf.
I bet improving means that you put even more gibberish and nonsense in it? I, at least, won't bother downloading it. You don't even bother to indicat what you might have changed, and I doubt you even know what you changed.

By carefully reading all of it, one can understand post 1 ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4083359&postcount=1 ).
That's not the way it works here. You could simply have improved post #1. But at post #688, you have not been able to explain the various questions about post #1, so why could you do that in a PDF we should download?

jsfisher

21st November 2008, 04:04 PM

I bet improving means that you put even more gibberish and nonsense in it? I, at least, won't bother downloading it. You don't even bother to indicat what you might have changed, and I doubt you even know what you changed.

Ok, but then you will miss such gems as:

Definition 4: An object that is distinguished from another object by exactly one relation, is called Local.

Example: a point is a local object.

So, "Local" is a relative concept. An object is local with respect to another object. But why then does doron cite "a point" as an example of a local object without providing its relative referent?

Also, how hard is it to establish more than one relation between any two distinct objects?

In other words, nothing is local. Doron has provided a non-standard definition for the empty set.

doronshadmi

21st November 2008, 05:24 PM

Ok, but then you will miss such gems as:

So, "Local" is a relative concept. An object is local with respect to another object. But why then does doron cite "a point" as an example of a local object without providing its relative referent?

Also, how hard is it to establish more than one relation between any two distinct objects?

In other words, nothing is local. Doron has provided a non-standard definition for the empty set.
No,

A relation cannot be but non-local w.r.t any given element.

A line segment can be local or non-local w.r.t another element.

A point cannot be but local w.r.t another element.

Please read all of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf very carefully, then think about it before you reply.

You will not get it by using only a step-by-step observation, as explained in pages 6-7.

I did not provide a non-standard defitition of the empty set.

I provide the pre-axiomatic terms that enables this axiom, in the first place.

jsfisher

21st November 2008, 05:41 PM

A point cannot be but local w.r.t another element.

Nonsense.

Consider a point and any line which does not include that point. I'll use the line as my point of reference.

Relation 1: The point is not on the line.
Relation 2: The point is not equal to the line.
Relation 3: The point and line share a common plane.

Shall I go on?

Three relations between point and another element, namely the line. According to your definition, the point is non-local with respect to the line.

Please read all of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf very carefully, then think about it before you reply.

You will not get it by using only a step-by-step observation, as explained in pages 6-7.

I put far more care into reading it than you put into writing it.

Apathia

21st November 2008, 06:25 PM

Apathia the Mad Gardener cannot resist.

From the UR.pdf:

A non-local element (which is not defined by (not made of) any collection of local
elements) can be both a member and not a member of any given non-empty set.
Therefore, non-locality is a property that is stronger than any cardinal of any non-empty
set of local members. As a result, any non-empty set of local members, is incomplete by
definition.

Lets say we represent the Local/Non-Local Complementation by a table with some fruit on it.
The bare tabletop represents Non-Locality. Distinguising individual items of fruit represents Locality. A bowl of oranges represents the complementation of Relation and Element. The oranges are elements. A relation of classification identifies, lets say three, of them as members of the bowl of oranges.
How many oranges are there?
Three it seems.
But suppose there are some other oranges on the table that have not been localized in the bowl. They are non-local to it. They haven't been counted among the elect.
How many oranges are there? Well, I don't know how many are rolling around on the table. Are these virtual oranges?
I can say how many are in the bowl, can't I? A total of three in the bowl.
It would seem that my bowling relation both includes and excludes.
So the total, complete number of oranges in the bowl is three.

However:
Doron, it seems by your reckoning those non-local oranges that by non-locality are everywhere and nowhere are and are not in the bowl.

So, the one hundred and forty-four thousand dollar question:
Are there more than three oranges in the bowl?

Remember: non-locality is a property that is stronger than any cardinal of any non-empty
set of local members.

doronshadmi

22nd November 2008, 03:45 AM

Relation 1: The point is not on the line.
Relation 2: The point is not equal to the line.
Relation 3: The point and line share a common plane.

Observations 1 and 2 are the result of observation 3 (where the plane is the non-local w.r.t a point or a line).

Furthermore, there is an OR condition between observation 1 and observation 2, where non-locality is an AND condition between two relations of the same observer.

You have to learn how things are observed by x. If two different relations are gathered by an AND condition in the same x, then x is non-local.

You used the non-locality of a plane w.r.t a point or a line, in order to conclude something about a point.

y (which is a point or a line) is observed through x (a plane).

x (a plane) is non-local w.r.t y (which is a point or a line) if:

x < = y

x > = y

x < > y

x = point

In all cases the same point (nontated as x) cannot be in more than a one relation with any given y.

You still do not get that "y observed through x" is non-commutative, where x is the observer and y is the observed.

jsfisher

22nd November 2008, 05:28 AM

Observations 1 and 2 are the result of observation 3 (where the plane is the non-local w.r.t a point or a line).

They are relations. If anything, relation #3 is a consequence of #1, not the other way around. But you can learn geometry on your own. Right now, the topic is your definition #4.

Your definition #4 is bogus. It doesn't do what you think it does.

As stated, object #1 is "local" with respect to object #2 if and only if there exists exactly one relation between the two.

Between any point and any line, there exist more than one relation. Whether the relations are "related" is of no consequence; that's not an aspect of your definition. By your definition, a point is not local with respect to a line.

If that is not what you meant (and seldom is what you write what you mean), then you need a new definition.

doronshadmi

22nd November 2008, 05:44 AM

Apathia the Mad Gardener cannot resist.

From the UR.pdf:

Lets say we represent the Local/Non-Local Complementation by a table with some fruit on it.
The bare tabletop represents Non-Locality. Distinguising individual items of fruit represents Locality. A bowl of oranges represents the complementation of Relation and Element. The oranges are elements. A relation of classification identifies, lets say three, of them as members of the bowl of oranges.
How many oranges are there?
Three it seems.
But suppose there are some other oranges on the table that have not been localized in the bowl. They are non-local to it. They haven't been counted among the elect.
How many oranges are there? Well, I don't know how many are rolling around on the table. Are these virtual oranges?
I can say how many are in the bowl, can't I? A total of three in the bowl.
It would seem that my bowling relation both includes and excludes.
So the total, complete number of oranges in the bowl is three.

However:
Doron, it seems by your reckoning those non-local oranges that by non-locality are everywhere and nowhere are and are not in the bowl.

So, the one hundred and forty-four thousand dollar question:
Are there more than three oranges in the bowl?

Remember:

Orenge in the bowl or on the table = *

The bowl = [*,*,*]

* is local w.t.r the bowl.

The bowl is non-local w.r.t any *.

The table (notated by "{" and "}") is non-local w.r.t the bowl ( notated as{[]} ) or to any given * no matter if it is in the bowl or not.

{[*,*,*,*,[*,*,*]*,*,...} or in other words, any given orange is local w.r.t the table, the bowl, or to any * .

Apathia

22nd November 2008, 06:20 AM

Orenge in the bowl or on the table = *

The bowl = [*,*,*]

* is local w.t.r the bowl.

The bowl is non-local w.r.t any *.

The table (notated by "{" and "}") is non-local w.r.t the bowl ( notated as{[]} ) or to any given * no matter if it is in the bowl or not.

{[*,*,*,*,[*,*,*]*,*,...} or in other words, any given orange is local w.r.t the table, the bowl, or to any * .

Thanks for restatement.
But please imagine I'm a grade schooler, first grade.
The lesson is using Organic Natural Numbers.
I come up to the table and count three oranges in the bowl.
I say there are no more than three oranges in the bowl.
Explain to me how I have failed in my accounting. Or, if I'm right, if what way ONNs agknowledge the oranges outside the bowl, but maintain a definite number within the bowl.
How do ONNs address the question of how many?

Please imagine I'm a small child. (I'm not really that far from being one according to my ex-girlfriend.)

ddt

22nd November 2008, 09:08 AM

Ok, but then you will miss such gems as:

Definition 4: An object that is distinguished from another object by exactly one relation, is called Local.

Example: a point is a local object.

So, "Local" is a relative concept. An object is local with respect to another object. But why then does doron cite "a point" as an example of a local object without providing its relative referent?

Also, how hard is it to establish more than one relation between any two distinct objects?

In other words, nothing is local. Doron has provided a non-standard definition for the empty set.

Very good observation, jsfisher! I see my prediction
and I doubt you even know what you changed.
was quite spot-on. :D

I see doron tries to deny your conclusion and your example. It's clear he simply doesn't get the point of your argument. I'll try another approach. It's even constructivist, i.e., I won't be using argument by contradiction :).

Let's first see what it should mean that "an object x is distinguished from another object y by relation R". IMNSHO, this can only mean that there is a third object z such that
(x, z) in R and not (y, z) in R or not (x, z) in R and (y, z) in R
in other words: the question "with which objects is z related by R" is answered differently for x and y.

Let's take two different points A and B. Then draw the circle with centre A and radius the length of the line segment AB. Likewise, draw the circle with centre B and the same radius. These two circles have two intersection points; call them C and D.

With four (known) points, we can make 2^16 different relations between these points. I just define two different ones now:

R1 := { (A, C) }
R2 := { (B, C) }

Now it's clear that R1 distinguishes A from B, as (A, C) is in R1 and (B, C) is not. Likewise, R2 distinguishes A from B.

As we have now two relations that distinguish A from B (and I could define many more), A is not local. QED.

Yes, it's clear this definition of "local" is nonsensical. It's also again clear that doron doesn't understand the basest and simplest mathematical arguments.

Skeptic

22nd November 2008, 09:11 AM

Doron --

I don't know how to tell you this, but why don't you go and take first-year mathematics at the Open University? Then, you might have some idea why what you're talking about is nonsense.

Just think of all you could have achieve with the time and effort you put into this absolutely futile and meaningless "theory" (actually, meaningless gibberish) of yours. Sigh.

doronshadmi

22nd November 2008, 10:22 AM

Between any point and any line, there exist more than one relation.

There is an OR connective between any pair of relatrions between a point and a line, for example:

x = .
y = __

x is local w.r.t y if:

x < y (example: . __ )

or

x = y (example: ( _. , _._ , ._ )

or

x > y (example: __ . )

This is not the case if:

x = __
y = .

x is local w.r.t y if:

x < y (example: __ . )

or

x > y (example: . __ )

x is non-local w.r.t y if:

x < and = y (example: _. )

x < and > y (example: _._ )

x = and > y (example: ._ )

Pay attantion that no plane was used here, but only a single point and a single line segment.

doronshadmi

22nd November 2008, 10:30 AM

doronshadmi

22nd November 2008, 10:41 AM

Very good observation, jsfisher! I see my prediction

was quite spot-on. :D

I see doron tries to deny your conclusion and your example. It's clear he simply doesn't get the point of your argument. I'll try another approach. It's even constructivist, i.e., I won't be using argument by contradiction :).

Let's first see what it should mean that "an object x is distinguished from another object y by relation R". IMNSHO, this can only mean that there is a third object z such that
(x, z) in R and not (y, z) in R or not (x, z) in R and (y, z) in R
in other words: the question "with which objects is z related by R" is answered differently for x and y.

Let's take two different points A and B. Then draw the circle with centre A and radius the length of the line segment AB. Likewise, draw the circle with centre B and the same radius. These two circles have two intersection points; call them C and D.

With four (known) points, we can make 2^16 different relations between these points. I just define two different ones now:

R1 := { (A, C) }
R2 := { (B, C) }

Now it's clear that R1 distinguishes A from B, as (A, C) is in R1 and (B, C) is not. Likewise, R2 distinguishes A from B.

As we have now two relations that distinguish A from B (and I could define many more), A is not local. QED.

Yes, it's clear this definition of "local" is nonsensical. It's also again clear that doron doesn't understand the basest and simplest mathematical arguments.

In order to get the difference between the points in your particular example, you have used a non-local element (a line segment, in this case) that is both = and ≠ to any given point.

Without it each point is totally isolated of any other point in your particular example, and nothing can be concluded about the differences between them.

In other words, you have used non-locality in order to define the difference between locals.

Again:

(A,C) is not less than:

((A) AND (a line segment that is both A AND not-A(called C)))

OR

((C) AND (a line segment that is both C AND not-C(called A)))

ddt

22nd November 2008, 11:09 AM

In order to get the difference between the points in your particular example, you have used a non-local element (a line segment, in this case) that is both = and ≠ to any given point.
Nonsense. I didn't use the line segment for anything other than to get its length and plot out a circle with my compass. A revered technique since the Ancients to Gauss' construction of the regular 17-sided polygon.

I could also show you that any point is non-local to any line or line segment with your ludicrous definition.

Without it each point is totally isolated of any other point in your particular example, and nothing can be concluded about the differences between them.
The whole point of geometry (in this case, planimetry) is to have both points and lines. Without the lines, the points are pointless (pun intended).

ddt

22nd November 2008, 11:13 AM

this can only mean that there is a third object z
No, there are a point (which is an object), a line segment (which is an object), a single relation (which is not and object) or several relations connected by AND w.r.t a single object.
This sentence was about interpreting your definition in real mathematical terms - not about the particular case of points and lines. Look up what a "relation" is in math.

Or heed the advice of Skeptic, similar to what I already expressed many moons ago in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3785480#post3785480).

jsfisher

22nd November 2008, 11:15 AM

There is an OR connective between any pair of relatrions between a point and a line...

The logical connector in my example was AND, but so what? It just means I can establish additional relations using already known relations in boolean combinations.

Your definition requires there be exactly one relation between two objects. Clearly, you definition is completely bogus since there are always more than one.. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

Try again.

doronshadmi

22nd November 2008, 12:04 PM

I could also show you that any point is non-local to any line or line segment with your ludicrous definition.

Please do it.

doronshadmi

22nd November 2008, 12:08 PM

Look up what a "relation" is in math.
Relation (which is not an element) is between an element to itself or not to itself.

Please show a relation which is not what was written above.

doronshadmi

22nd November 2008, 12:21 PM

The logical connector in my example was AND again.

Relation 1: The point is not on the line.
Relation 2: The point is not equal to the line.

In that case there is no problem to reduce it to . ≠ __ (where not on = not equal in the case that __ is observed through . )

Try to do it in the case that . is observed through __ , where __ ≠ and = . , for example:

x = __
y = .

x is non-local w.r.t y if:

x < and = y (example: _. )

x < and > y (example: _._ )

x = and > y (example: ._ )

You still do not get the notion of "y is obsereved through x"

doronshadmi

22nd November 2008, 12:27 PM

This sentence was about interpreting your definition in real mathematical terms - not about the particular case of points and lines. Look up what a "relation" is in math.

Or heed the advice of Skeptic, similar to what I already expressed many moons ago in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3785480#post3785480).

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4219528&postcount=702

doronshadmi

22nd November 2008, 12:44 PM

This sentence was about interpreting your definition in real mathematical terms
It cannot be done because ___ is not a collection of . . . . . .

doronshadmi

22nd November 2008, 12:56 PM

I have changed definition 5 to:

Definition 5:
An object that is distinguished from another object by simultaneously more than a one relation, is called Non-local.

Only a non-local thing (a relation or a non-local element) can define the difference between local elements.

Without it, each local element is totally isolated and the difference cannot be defined, for example:

{a,b,c} is actually {a≠b,a≠c,b≠c}, where in this case the non-local ≠ is used.

jsfisher

22nd November 2008, 01:31 PM

In that case there is no problem to reduce it to . ≠ __ (where not on = not equal in the case that __ is observed through . )

Your continued fascination with dots, dashes, and other symbols as substitutes for rational statements does nothing to salvage your failed definition.

Remember? This is the definition under fire:

Definition 4: An object that is distinguished from another object by exactly one relation, is called Local.

Also, please note, that if a point is local with respect to a line, then that line must be local with respect to that point. It's your definition. Live with its consequences.

jsfisher

22nd November 2008, 01:34 PM

I have changed definition 5 to:

Definition 5:
An object that is distinguished from another object by simultaneously more than a one relation, is called Non-local.

You need to define "distinguished" first. The word "simultaneously" isn't necessary.

doronshadmi

22nd November 2008, 02:48 PM

Your continued fascination with dots, dashes, and other symbols as substitutes for rational statements does nothing to salvage your failed definition.

Remember? This is the definition under fire:

Definition 4: An object that is distinguished from another object by exactly one relation, is called Local.

Also, please note, that if a point is local with respect to a line, then that line must be local with respect to that point. It's your definition. Live with its consequences.

In order to get Definition 4 you have to get y through x.

x = .

y = __ or .

y is observed through x:

If relations <, = , >, ≠ are used, then x cannot be simultaneously in more than a one relation with y.

If you disagree with me than please show how x is simultaneously in more than a one relation with y.

EDIT:

Also, please note, that if a point is local with respect to a line, then that line must be local with respect to that point. It's your definition. Live with its consequences.

It depends on the observation's point of view, as can be seen in pages 3-5 of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf .

jsfisher

22nd November 2008, 02:58 PM

In order to get Definition 4 you have to get y through x.

No, in order for you to get Definition 4 you need to pay attention to what you wrote. It says nothing about "y through x". It deals solely with two objects and relations between them.

Stop making up stuff that isn't in the definition.

...
If you disagree with me than please show how x is simultaneously in more than a one relation with y.

(Irrelevant word removed.) Already did...I stopped at three.

The Man

22nd November 2008, 03:08 PM

In order to get Definition 4 you have to get y through x.

x = .

y = __ or .

y is observed through x:

If relations <, = , >, ≠ are used, then x cannot be simultaneously in more than a one relation with y.

If you disagree with me than please show how x is simultaneously in more than a one relation with y.

The ‘relations’ < (less then) as well as > (greater then) both infer ≠ (not equal to) as the typical exclusive variants of those ‘relations’. Which is why the indications of <= (less then and equal to) as well as >= (greater then and equal to) are used to denote the inclusive variants. Since greater then as well as less then can only be inclusive or exclusive, two of the relations you have given (< as well as >) must always include one or the other of the two relation given (= or ≠) or are ‘relations’ that are inherently and simultaneously at least one of your other given ‘relations’.

doronshadmi

22nd November 2008, 04:03 PM

No, in order for you to get Definition 4 you need to pay attention to what you wrote. It says nothing about "y through x". It deals solely with two objects and relations between them.

Stop making up stuff that isn't in the definition.

(Irrelevant word removed.) Already did...I stopped at three.

Ok,

Maybe these are clearer:

Definition 4:

If object x can be distinguished from object y by using a one relation, then x is called Local.

Definition 5:

If object x cannot be distinguished from object y unless more than a one relation is simultaneously used, then x is called Non-Local.

jsfisher

22nd November 2008, 04:21 PM

Ok,

Maybe these are clearer:

Definition 4:

If object x can be distinguished from object y by using a one relation, then x is called Local.

So, since a line can be distinguished from a point by the relation "isn't the same as", a line is therefore local.

Definition 5:

If object x cannot be distinguished from object y unless more than a one relation is simultaneously used, then x is called Non-Local.

You switched things around then. Before nothing was local and everything was non-local. Now, with these improved definitions it's the other way around.

Is that really what you meant to do?

ddt

22nd November 2008, 06:09 PM

It cannot be done because ___ is not a collection of . . . . . .

What's this? A questionnaire???

Stop the ******** with dots and lines and asterisks. Use normal notation that everyone understands.

ddt

22nd November 2008, 06:10 PM

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4219528&postcount=702

There's nothing in that post that says you enrolled in the Open University.

ddt

22nd November 2008, 06:12 PM

I have changed definition 5 to:

So what? We're arguing right now about definition 4, which precedes it (I may hope). So, definition 5 is utterly irrelevant at this point.

ddt

22nd November 2008, 06:13 PM

Relation (which is not an element) is between an element to itself or not to itself.

Please show a relation which is not what was written above.

Nonsense. That's not what a relation is.

doronshadmi

23rd November 2008, 01:08 AM

I am trying to build a bridge from my notions to the currently agreed notions.

It is not as easy task but I am not going to give up easily.

Thank you for your patience.

So, since a line can be distinguished from a point by the relation "isn't the same as", a line is therefore local.

You are right.

If x ≠ y or y ≠ x (where ≠ is < or >) then x or y are local w.r.t to each other, where the first object (x or y) is the observer and the second object is the observed.

In this case the non-local is ≠ relation, that enables a simultaneous connection between x and y, in order to conclude that x "is not the same as" y or y "is not the same as" x (please see the top of page 3 in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf ).

This is not the case if x = and ≠ (where ≠ is < or >) w.r.t y.

In that case x is non-local w.r.t y (where y is the observed and x is the observer).

You cannot get things form the observed point of view and still be considered as observed.

Actually x w.r.t y means that x is the observer and y is the observed, where only the observer can get a conclution according to a pre-condition and a given rule.

You switched things around then. Before nothing was local and everything was non-local. Now, with these improved definitions it's the other way around.

Is that really what you meant to do?

Ok, let's try this:

Definition 4: If object x = or ≠ (where ≠ is < or >) w.r.t object y, then object x is called Local.

A point cannot be but Local according to Definition 4.

Example:

x = .
y = __

x is local w.r.t y if:

x < y (example: . __ )

or

x = y (example: ( _. , _._ , ._ )

or

x > y (example: __ . )

Definition 5: If object x = and ≠ (where ≠ is < or >) or < and > w.r.t object y, then object x is called Non-Local.

Example:

A line segment can be Non-Local according to Definition 5.

x = __
y = .

x is non-local w.r.t y if:

x < and = y (example: _. )

x < and > y (example: _._ )

x = and > y (example: ._ )

doronshadmi

23rd November 2008, 03:18 AM

By the way: ≠ cannot be < and > , < and = , > and = becase ≠ is a single relation.

doronshadmi

23rd November 2008, 07:08 AM

I have to add that I use "=" as self identity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_(philosophy) )

ddt

23rd November 2008, 07:16 AM

I could also show you that any point is non-local to any line or line segment with your ludicrous definition.
Please do it.

Pearl before swine. You wouldn't understand it anyway, and for the rest of the posters I can safely say: left as an exercise for the reader.

How about you showing some honest effort - e.g., post your enrollment in the Open University.

ddt

23rd November 2008, 07:17 AM

I have to add that I use "=" as self identity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_(philosophy) )

You claim to be doing math, and then you refer to an article about philosophy??? :jaw-dropp

jsfisher

23rd November 2008, 07:19 AM

This is not the case if x = and ≠ (where ≠ is < or >) w.r.t y.

"W.r.t" doesn't mean what you think it means. Your sentence is nonsense. If you intended to say two objects are equal, then just do so. Don't make a totally unnecessary shift to symbols that do not add any clarity, and don't throw in mathematical-sounding phrase abbreviations that render it gibberish.

And, why, oh why are you introducing less-than and greater-than relations? Or do you mean something totally nonstandard and bizarre for your comparison operators? Do the formulae, X = Y and X ≠ Y, not carry their conventional meanings?

Ok, let's try this:

Definition 4: If object x = or ≠ (where ≠ is < or >) w.r.t object y, then object x is called Local.

We are again back to everything being local. This is assured because equality is a reflexive relation. (In doron-speak, object x = w.r.t. object x.)

The Man

23rd November 2008, 07:21 AM

By the way: ≠ cannot be < and > , < and = , > and = becase ≠ is a single relation.

Why? If considering a circle taken from some X Y origin and defined by X2 + Y2 = R2. Any Radius RXn,Yn that is not equal to RX1,Y1 would be defined as all radii both greater to and less then RX1,Y1 or RXn,Yn ≠RX1,Y1 is the same as RXn,Yn < and > RX1,Y1.

ddt

23rd November 2008, 07:25 AM

I am trying to build a bridge from my notions to the currently agreed notions.

It is not as easy task but I am not going to give up easily.
Time and again you've shown that you can't even articulate your "notions" in plain English. Time and again, you've also shown to have no eff-ing clue about standard math notions. Small wonder it's no easy task. You've also shown time and again an unwillingness to learn standard math practice. You'll never get there, and only waste your and others' time in the process.

Thank you for your patience.
I'm really only posting here to expose your writings for the crackpottery they are, and to mock them.

Apathia

23rd November 2008, 07:49 AM

I am trying to build a bridge from my notions to the currently agreed notions.

It is not as easy task but I am not going to give up easily.

Yes, Doron, I realize you are in rough water and haven't have time to answer my posts.
I don't think you catch the difficulty I'm in with what you seem to be presenting about sets and non-local elements.
It seems to me (I confess I'm like the mad gardener.) that you are presenting sets as containers of always indefinite quantity and number. The set contaning the square root of 144, for example. Conventionaly we'd say it was {12}. But it seems as if you are saying that by virtue if non-locality, 12 is not its complete and definite content.

What I've been hoping for all along, but not getting, is some clarification and/or qualification on what is complete and what is incomplete about a set, and how your ONNs are reckoned but not counted.

It seems to me your disallowance of definite quantity doesn't provide a new paradigm of Mathematics but guts mathematics and leaves its intestines for the vultures.

doronshadmi

23rd November 2008, 08:02 AM

Do the formulae, X = Y and X ≠ Y, not carry their conventional meanings?

No, they do not.

In this case I try to use the minimal must have terms in order to research pre-conditions (x,y in this case) according to some rules (definitions) in order to conclude something about x.

If a line segment or a point are not made of sub-elements and we wish to research the relations =, <, > , ≠ between them without using an external point of view of another object, we have no choice but to use one of them w.r.t the other.

In that case x is the observer that has the point of view and y is the observed that helps us to conclude something about x.

Only by using these minimal terms, you can get my notion of xRy (which is not the same as yRx)

jsfisher

23rd November 2008, 08:06 AM

No, they do not.

Then what meaning would you like them to have?

Start with equal and not-equal.

doronshadmi

23rd November 2008, 08:30 AM

What I've been hoping for all along, but not getting, is some clarification and/or qualification on what is complete and what is incomplete about a set,

What I say is this:

Any researchable thing cannot be complete (total).

By my notion, a set is the result of an interaction between two totalities, which are Isolation and Connectivity.

Objects are a non-total version of Isolation where Relations are a non-total version of Connectivity where a set is the result of Relation\Object Interaction, and therefore non-total (or incomplete).

EDIT:

It seems to me your disallowance of definite quantity doesn't provide a new paradigm of Mathematics but guts mathematics and leaves its intestines for the vultures.
One of my aims is to show that in addition to, so called, objective and external point of view w.r.t researched mathematical subjects, there can be many other points of view that may change our understanding of these subjects.

In other words, the observer's point of view must not be ignored and by using it we can improve (by training) our abilities to use observation in more fruitful ways.

doronshadmi

23rd November 2008, 08:35 AM

Then what meaning would you like them to have?

Start with equal and not-equal.

= is a single relation from x to itsef.

≠ is a single relation from x not to itself.

jsfisher

23rd November 2008, 08:58 AM

= is a single relation from x to itsef.

≠ is a single relation from x not to itself.

Ok, fine. I'm pleased you left out references to > and <.

Now back to your twice-revised definition #4. It makes everything local.

ddt

23rd November 2008, 09:03 AM

= is a single relation from x to itsef.

≠ is a single relation from x not to itself.

Apart from the clumsy formulation: what's different with standard equality in math?

doronshadmi

23rd November 2008, 09:10 AM

Ok, fine. I'm pleased you left out references to > and <.

x=x (a single relation from x to itself)

x≠y (a single relation from x not to itself)

x<y (a single relation from x not to itself)

x>y (a single relation from x not to itself)

In all cases x is local, where there is no conclusion about y because y is observed through x, and not vice versa.

doronshadmi

23rd November 2008, 09:13 AM

Apart from the clumsy formulation: what's different with standard equality in math?
In this case, any observation is only from x, and any conclusion is only about x.

Please look also at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4221149&postcount=734 .

jsfisher

23rd November 2008, 09:24 AM

In all cases x is local, where there is no conclusion about y because y is observed through x, and not vice versa.

In X = Y, either they are the same or they are not. The equal relation is symmetric. X = Y implies Y = X. Nothing "is observed through" anything else.

If you need such a concept, then you need to express it in your definitions. You also need to pick some new symbols; the equal sign has a well-established meaning already.

Richard Masters

23rd November 2008, 09:27 AM

Why doronshadmi? Why TMiguel?

ddt

23rd November 2008, 09:35 AM

In this case, any observation is only from x, and any conclusion is only about x.

Please look also at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4221149&postcount=734 .
What do you mean with observation and conclusion? Are you deliberately being obtuse?

Your symbol = denotes a relation. A relation is a set of pairs. So do you mean that your symbol = denotes the relation { (x, x) }, and your symbol ≠ denotes the relation { (x, y) | y is unequal to x }?

So how do I know which x your = refers to? Your notation doesn't make this clear, which could be done, e.g., by subscripting with x: =x, as the relations =x and =y, for different x and y, are two different relations.

In X = Y, either they are the same or they are not. The equal relation is symmetric. X = Y implies Y = X. Nothing "is observed through" anything else.

If you need such a concept, then you need to express it in your definitions. You also need to pick some new symbols; the equal sign has a well-established meaning already.
Yes, the = symbol denotes an equality relation, which at least satisfies the laws of an equivalence relation.

As usual, doron, you display your utter ignorance of mathematics.

Apathia

23rd November 2008, 10:20 AM

What I say is this:

Any researchable thing cannot be complete (total).

By my notion, a set is the result of an interaction between two totalities, which are Isolation and Connectivity.

Objects are a non-total version of Isolation where Relations are a non-total version of Connectivity where a set is the result of Relation\Object Interaction, and therefore non-total (or incomplete).

EDIT:

One of my aims is to show that in addition to, so called, objective and external point of view w.r.t researched mathematical subjects, there can be many other points of view that may change our understanding of these subjects.

In other words, the observer's point of view must not be ignored and by using it we can improve (by training) our abilities to use observation in more fruitful ways.

So what I count as three oranges in the bowl, another can count as four?
And the squarer root of 144 can be lots of different numbers?
And quantity is all relative?

What you are tragically missing is the precision of Mathmatics to yield definite quantities according to defined relations.
To get to the relativity you want, you have destroyed definition.
And you have destoyed it for the obeserver as well. Since she can say three anytime she pleases, her statement of quantity looses any value.

Your complementary approach doesn't necessarily lead to this slime.

One of my aims is to show that in addition to, so called, objective and external point of view w.r.t researched mathematical subjects, there can be many other points of view that may change our understanding of these subjects.

I get your philosophical intent. I'm glad you said "in addition to." Because if you chuck out objective quantity and defined relation, you kill your intent as well. With no defined point of view from which to speak, you indeed have nothing but gibberish.

Take The Special Theory of Relativity for example. It asserts the relativity of observers in respect to duration and extension. But its precise Mathmatical expression gives us the ability to calculate just how much time will be slowed or space will be contracted. Its not a free for all where there is no definition and observers can't coherently relate their observations.

Some of us have suspected you have a cognitive difficulty manipulating embedded classes.
New ideas involve new ways data is related in classes. It's all about new deffinitions of association. We deal with exclusion by a wider inclusion. I am Human. Human includes Asian. But I'm not Asian. I am excluded from that classifier.
But potential racial predjudice isn't overcome by declaring that the set of Asian includes Caucasion as well. Its in the wider classifier of Human.

If you want to slip into a state of non-local consciouness, go ahead. But when you get back to the researchable, cognitive, world, you are going to be manipulatng defined boundaries.

That's what Mathematics is all about: defined boundaries.

I really hope you aren't chucking them and calling it a new paradigm.
Because without objective, defined relation, boundaries that hold their exclusive contents, you have nothing.

And don't try to invoke something like "quantum tunneling" here.
We have a Mathematics of Quantum Theory that deals wth those events in objective precision.

You can have your observers with different points of view. But when they talk to each other, they better have a common language with words whose meanings are more than subjective.
Or you're just going to have a Babel.

Now you still haven answerd my question about ONNs and countable quantity. What is quanity in rerspect to ONNs?
And does it mean that the quanity of oranges in the bowl cannot be determined?

doronshadmi

23rd November 2008, 10:24 AM

In X = Y, either they are the same or they are not. The equal relation is symmetric. X = Y implies Y = X. Nothing "is observed through" anything else.

If you need such a concept, then you need to express it in your definitions. You also need to pick some new symbols; the equal sign has a well-established meaning already.

Dear jsfisher,

Your determinations , and so my determinations are based on point of view of the researched mathematical subjects.

For example: Y=X = X=Y is a symmetric point of view of X,Y relation, where my point of view is asymmetric.

By using an asymmetric point on view, the difference between non-locality and locality can be defined.

By using a symmetric point of view the difference between non-locality and locality cannot be defined.

So the general idea of my work is not to get mathematical subjects from any exclusive point of view, because additional points of view of the researched mathematical subjects, may lead us to define more interesting results about, so called, already agreed definitions.

doronshadmi

23rd November 2008, 10:32 AM

That's what Mathematics is all about: defined boundaries.

For me Mathemathics is to define relations between boundaries by not using any exclusive obseraviton.

Relations are non-local, element are local or non-local and non-exclusive obseraviton is used in order to interact and understand them.

jsfisher

23rd November 2008, 10:32 AM

By using an asymmetric point on view, the difference between non-locality and locality can be defined.

No, all you are doing is using well-defined symbols and constructs to mean undefined things.

Your Definition #4, in any of its revisions, remains a complete failure.

Here's a tip: If something isn't symmetric, don't define it as symmetric.

Apathia

23rd November 2008, 10:36 AM

What I say is this:

Any researchable thing cannot be complete (total).

Yep.
But here's the qualifier that Mathmatics depends upon:
It can be relatively complete according to a specified relation.
We manipulate classifiers of relation all the time, understanding that inclusion and exclusion are realtive to a defined relaltion of commonality.

We get stuck behind boundaries, not because there are boundaries but because we accept no relations that transcend them.
But transcendance doesn't erase boundaries or turn them into mushy mud. It enables new cnfigurations.
I can put another orange in that bowl.
I can make a bowl of fruit that contains oranges ands bannanas.
I can talk about all the fruit in all the bowls on the table.
All thanks to Locality and Non-Locality.

The playing field does not mix up the teams.

doronshadmi

23rd November 2008, 10:43 AM

No, all you are doing is using well-defined symbols and constructs to mean undefined things.

Your Definition #4, in any of its revisions, remains a complete failure.

Here's a tip: If something isn't symmetric, don't define it as symmetric.

Please show the symmetry in definition #4:

Definition 4: If object x = or ≠ (where ≠ is < or >) w.r.t object y, then object x is called Local.

Also please show the symmetry in definition #5:

Definition 5: If object x = and ≠ (where ≠ is < or >) or < and > w.r.t object y, then object x is called Non-Local.

Hint: Do not force Y=X = X=Y on them.

As for symbols, their meaning can be changed by using non-exclusive observations.

doronshadmi

23rd November 2008, 10:49 AM

Yep.
But here's the qualifier that Mathmatics depends upon:
It can be relatively complete according to a specified relation.
We manipulate classifiers of relation all the time, understanding that inclusion and exclusion are realtive to a defined relaltion of commonality.

We get stuck behind boundaries, not because there are boundaries but because we accept no relations that transcend them.
But transcendance doesn't erase boundaries or turn them into mushy mud. It enables new cnfigurations.
I can put another orange in that bowl.
I can make a bowl of fruit that contains oranges ands bannanas.
I can talk about all the fruit in all the bowls on the table.
All thanks to Locality and Non-Locality.

The playing field does not mix up the teams.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4221408&postcount=745