Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

Hurrah! Atoms that can be divided.

No,

____ and __ are two non-local atoms.


Please look at the edit in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4261206&postcount=997 .

[doronshadmi]

the spelling is 'chord'.

zooterkin,

A chord in the abstract sense (a line segment that is straight or not) is not made or determined by sub-elements.

I hope that you are able to get its non-local property, which used used as a connector between local elements.

For more details please look at http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf

[Little 10 Toes]

zooterkin,

A chord in the abstract sense (a line segment that is straight or not) is not made or determined by sub-elements.

I hope that you are able to get its non-local property, which used as a connector between local elements.

Oooo. Wrong again doronshadmi. There is nothing abstract about a chord. In fact, a chord is straight. Once again, you make up definitions on the fly of words that 99.9% of math people already use correctly.

Since you are not willing to discuss definitions of words that you use to discuss your trunk, I know I'm wasting my time. I'll continue to point out the errors in your "logic" until you start responding to my posts. You've had what, something like 10 years, to think about your ideas. It might only take me 10 minutes to counter them.

[doronshadmi]

Oooo. Wrong again doronshadmi. There is nothing abstract about a chord.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chord_(geometry)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chord_(graph_theory)

[jsfisher]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chord_(geometry)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chord_(graph_theory)


doron, your reading comprehension skills are failing you again. It was clear from context that only one meaning applied. Care to guess which one? 50/50 chance....

[doronshadmi]

Except for the fact that some given line segment can have coordinate positions greater then and less then some given point and that you have to think about it.

No,

Since ___ is an atom it is not measured by sub-elements.

This is exactly the reason why ____ < AND > then . , if _.__ state is observed from ___ to . , where "<" or ">" are not related to any . but to ___ w.r.t the . , where this observation is not along ____ (as used by a serial observation) but parallel to _____

Actually "<" or ">" do not understood here only as "smaller" or "greater" but also as notations which determine that ___ is beyond . domain

[doronshadmi]

doron, your reading comprehension skills are failing you again. It was clear from context that only one meaning applied. Care to guess which one? 50/50 chance....

I am talking about the abstract interpretation of a chord.

[ddt]

A chord in the abstract sense (a line segment that is straight or not) is not made or determined by sub-elements.

I am talking about the abstract interpretation of a chord.

Nothing "abstract" about the word chord. It simply has two different meanings in two branches of math. And in graph theory, it is not a line segment. So you're talking out of your posterior again. But do carry on to make a fool of yourself, Doron Shadmi, CAD manager at Tahal.

[Little 10 Toes]

zooterkin,

A chord in the abstract sense (a line segment that is straight or not) is not made or determined by sub-elements.

I hope that you are able to get its non-local property, which used used as a connector between local elements.

For more details please look at http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf

Oooo. Wrong again doronshadmi. There is nothing abstract about a chord. In fact, a chord is straight. Once again, you make up definitions on the fly of words that 99.9% of math people already use correctly.

Since you are not willing to discuss definitions of words that you use to discuss your trunk, I know I'm wasting my time. I'll continue to point out the errors in your "logic" until you start responding to my posts. You've had what, something like 10 years, to think about your ideas. It might only take me 10 minutes to counter them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chord_(geometry)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chord_(graph_theory)

I am talking about the abstract interpretation of a chord.

I am so glad you posted a few times after me since this will show everyone your standard mode of operation. You use a word that already has an established definition and use the "abstract" definition (aka you'll make it up).

In fact if you go to the chord page, you'll notice that there isn't the word "abstract" anywhere on the page. Same thing with Chord_(geometry) and Chord_(graph_theory).

You had the chance to define what you mean by "abstract" when I called upon the fact that there is no abstract definition. Funny that you decided to give us two standard definitions that show chords are not "a line segment that is straight or not".

Generally speaking, it's a line segment that connects two points on a circle's circumference. A diameter is a special chord, just like a square is a special rectangle. Nothing abstract about chords there.

Love is abstract, hate is abstract, Picasso is abstract. And my 10 minutes are up for this post.

[doronshadmi]

Nothing "abstract" about the word chord. It simply has two different meanings in two branches of math. And in graph theory, it is not a line segment. So you're talking out of your posterior again. But do carry on to make a fool of yourself, Doron Shadmi, CAD manager at Tahal.
No ddt,

In both cases we deal with something that can be non-local w.r.t to other things.

[nathan]

Please look at the edit in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4261206&postcount=997 .

Back to your usual trick of editing the past I see. And you didn't remove the statment that the difference between two atoms is another atom. Ergo atoms are divisible.

[doronshadmi]

I am so glad you posted a few times after me since this will show everyone your standard mode of operation. You use a word that already has an established definition and use the "abstract" definition (aka you'll make it up).

In fact if you go to the chord page, you'll notice that there isn't the word "abstract" anywhere on the page. Same thing with Chord_(geometry) and Chord_(graph_theory).

You had the chance to define what you mean by "abstract" when I called upon the fact that there is no abstract definition. Funny that you decided to give us two standard definitions that show chords are not "a line segment that is straight or not".

Generally speaking, it's a line segment that connects two points on a circle's circumference. A diameter is a special chord, just like a square is a special rectangle. Nothing abstract about chords there.

Love is abstract, hate is abstract, Picasso is abstract. And my 10 minutes are up for this post.
No,

Abstract is anything that is not necessarily related to any physical phenomena.

In that case love, hate, line, point, etc… can be considered as abstract or non-abstract concepts, according to the researched enviornment.

[doronshadmi]

Back to your usual trick of editing the past I see. And you didn't remove the statment that the difference between two atoms is another atom. Ergo atoms are divisible.

Since no atom is a component of another atom (otherwise the researched thing is not an atom but a composed element) no atom is changed under any operation.

The changed thing is the observation's point of view of some equation.

There are basically at least two ways to look at some equation:

From the arithmetic to the result or form the result to the arithmetic.

In both cases the result can be considered as an atom that does not depend on any arithmetic manipulation.

[doronshadmi]

In polar coordinates we can define such a cord as (in a radius angle notation) from 5 units at 90 degrees to 5 units at 180 degrees.

In that case you are using two locations that are based on x,y where x is some angle and y is some length.

So by your particular example we get a local object that is determined by the localities 90,5 and 180,5.

Form a local point of view 90,5 and 180,5 are not equal to each other.

From the line-segment's point of view these local identities are in a superposition w.r.t to each other, because a line-segment is simultaneously at both local values.


This situation is based on ONN2 symmetrical case, represented as:


90,5 90,5
180,5 180,5
. .
| |
| |
|_________|__
|
|

[Little 10 Toes]

No,

Abstract is anything that is not necessarily related to any physical phenomena.

In that case love, hate, line, point, etc… can be considered as abstract or non-abstract concepts, according to the researched enviornment.

Nice escape clause there. "It could be, depending on what you're basing it on." Based on that, anything you tell us has no meaning. Nice way to teach something.

Still haven't defined chord I notice. We'll make this simple. Please go back and look at the posts that ask you to confirm definitions of words. How about you tell us what your definitions are.. Nevermind. You haven't, and you still won't. I think the following post still applies here:

Avoidance of posts defining words that you use uniquely noted. Since you won't answer questions, I feel that you are a fanatic of your own ideas and aren't open to using common terms. How can you share your "ideas" without a common language?

Your shalmerflik is so getuy of werlug, I'm klutairq that you can yiwl without hiltnerbrafing all over your reezlents!! You tell me what I said and I'll tell you if you're right.

[zooterkin]

In that case you are using two locations that are based on x,y where x is some angle and y is some length.
Well, normally (x,y) is used for Cartesian coordinates, (r, θ) are used for polar coordinates.

So by your particular example we get a local object that is determined by the localities 90,5 and 180,5.

Form a local point of view 90,5 and 180,5 are not equal to each other.
With you so far, though I don't know what you mean by 'local point of view'

From the line-segment's point of view these local identities are in a superposition w.r.t to each other, because a line-segment is simultaneously at both local values.

And... no. Just because the line goes from one to the other doesn't make them the same. My route to work goes from town A to town B; that doesn't make town A the same place as town B.


What can you do with your notation that can't be done with conventional notation?

[doronshadmi]

My route to work goes from town A to town B; that doesn't make town A the same place as town B.

Unless the road is considered, which is non-local w.r.t town A and town B that (as you said) have places (they are local w.r.t the road).


What can you do with your notation that can't be done with conventional notation?
Do you mean notion?

[jsfisher]

Unless the road is considered, which is non-local w.r.t town A and town B that (as you said) have places (they are local w.r.t the road).


And yet you still cannot define local and non-local -- not even informally without contradiction or circular reasoning.

[doronshadmi]

And yet you still cannot define local and non-local -- not even informally without contradiction or circular reasoning.
No,

You can't get it becuse you are closed under serial observation, and I do not care anymore in your case.

[zooterkin]

Unless the road is considered, which is non-local w.r.t town A and town B that (as you said) have places (they are local w.r.t the road).

They are two separate places. They are at two different locations on the same road. That does not make the two places the same.


Do you mean notion?

No. I don't think you have one of those.

[jsfisher]

No,

You can't get it becuse you are closed under serial observation, and I do not care anymore in your case.


You can't define them, so it is my fault. Curious.

[ddt]

Nothing "abstract" about the word chord. It simply has two different meanings in two branches of math. And in graph theory, it is not a line segment. So you're talking out of your posterior again. But do carry on to make a fool of yourself, Doron Shadmi, CAD manager at Tahal.
No ddt,

In both cases we deal with something that can be non-local w.r.t to other things.
Anyone notice how the word "non-local" never occurs in my post?

Your reply is a complete non-sequitur. But that''s just your SOP, isn't it?

[doronshadmi]

They are two separate places. They are at two different locations on the same road. That does not make the two places the same.
I am talking about the road, which is non-local w.r.t A and B.

You are talking about A and B, which are local w.r.t to the road.



No. I don't think you have one of those.
In that case we have nothing to talk about.

[doronshadmi]

You can't define them, so it is my fault. Curious.
Yeh,

jsfisher: "I have lost my key in the field during the football game".

doron: "So why do search it near to your home?"

jsfisher:"Because the street light in near my home".

http://susanhilton.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/71/files/2008/04/streetlight.jpg

[nathan]

Yeh,

jsfisher: "I have lost my key in the field during the football game".

doron: "So why do search it near to your home?"

jsfisher:"Because the street light in near my home".

http://susanhilton.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/71/files/2008/04/streetlight.jpg

Doron, IIRC you have previously been asked not to misquote people.

To use your analogy, if you want us to look at the football game, it would help if you used the vocabulary of football, rather than the vocabulary of street furniture.

[zooterkin]

I am talking about the road, which is non-local w.r.t A and B.

You are talking about A and B, which are local w.r.t to the road.



In that case we have nothing to talk about.

No, I really did mean 'notation'. What are you able to do with your notation of the red and blue lines, etc., that cannot be done by conventional maths? There must be some advantage to it, surely?

[doronshadmi]

No, I really did mean 'notation'. What are you able to do with your notation of the red and blue lines, etc., that cannot be done by conventional maths? There must be some advantage to it, surely?
To accurately represent non-local objects, and then to define the possible results that we get by non-local\local object's interactions, as can be seen by Organic Natural Numbers in post #1 ( http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125220 ) or in works like:


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

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

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

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ONN1.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ONN2.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ONN3.pdf

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

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

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

and more ...

[doronshadmi]

Doron, IIRC you have previously been asked not to misquote people.

To use your analogy, if you want us to look at the football game, it would help if you used the vocabulary of football, rather than the vocabulary of street furniture.
You did not understand the analogy because observation is not used by the body of knowledge of the mathematical science for the past 3000 years.

" By using only a step-by-step observation one misses the ability get x as a result of simultaneous relation w.r.t to not-x (notated as y). In other words, elements that are defined by more than a one relation w.r.t other elements, are not understood by using only a step-by-step observation. Serial observation is the common observation of the western philosophy for the past 3000 years, and it is still used as the main reasoning for both abstract and applied sciences like Mathematics and Physics. We claim that some paradigm-shift is needed here, which will expend observation beyond serial thinking into at least Relation\Element Interaction, where we are a significant factor of it." ( http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf pages 6-7)

In other words, if you wish to find the key, you have no choice but to move from the already known (the light of the street light) and search the still unknown.

I gave you bridges to the unknown but you stick to each other under the light circle of the street light, and refuse to research the unknown.

[Little 10 Toes]

But if the door is already unlocked, why do we need a key? And if you "give" us bridges, why can't you give clear directions? Oh, and why haven't you given us a light either? :D For the American's in the audience, why can't you define a roundabout?

Also, you still haven't defined or agreed upon the use of certain words. Why is that?

[nathan]

... observation is not used by the body of knowledge of the mathematical science for the past 3000 years.

Don't you think that might be a bit of a clue that observation is not necessary for maths? If you want to go and define something that needs obeservations, go ahead, knock yourself out. But you don't get to say maths is wrong.

[doronshadmi]

Don't you think that might be a bit of a clue that observation is not necessary for maths? If you want to go and define something that needs obeservations, go ahead, knock yourself out. But you don't get to say maths is wrong.

I am not talking about observation in the physical sense.

You and your friends here are closed under serial observation of the mathematical science.

[doronshadmi]

By the common notion of the Limit concept elements get closer to the limit, but this is not the case when we use the proportion concept, for example, let us say that we have a sports car (where the name of the back wheels is "epsilon" and the name of the front wheels is "delta") and our mission is to cross the zero point of X,Y-axis with both "delta" and "epsilon" wheels:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/SportsCar.jpg

We are seated in the car and trying to reach point zero. We realize that we are not getting any closer to the zero point, and the reason is: the faster we drive, the smaller we become (as can be seen in the picture above) and we have here a Lorentz-like transformation that has an invariant proportion along non-finite scale levels.

According to this invariant proportion, nothing gets closer to the Zero point. Strictly speaking, our mission cannot be completed, because between the "delta" front wheels and the zero point, there is a non-local and non-composed line-like element that cannot be eliminated by a non-finite collection/sequence of local elements.

In the same manner R set is an incomplete collection. Actually we reach point zero, if and only if we don’t have a car anymore but a single point, which is a phase transition that cuts the infinitely many smaller states (smaller cars), and we don’t have an incomplete collection over infinitely many scales (infinitely many cars), but a finite collection of many scales (a finite collection of sports cars).

Some claims that at non-finite speed, we get point zero.

In this case, no collection of cars (no collection of R members) is defined, and we get two extreme and non-researchable states which are total-locality (represented by a single point) and total non-locality (represented by a single line, where the single line and the single point are atoms (are not based on sub-elements).

[nathan]

I am not talking about observation in the physical sense.

Do you have some kind of reading comprehension or deductive problem? It doesn't matter what you meant by 'observation'. That mathematics has got on quite well without it is probably a big clue.

[ddt]

or in works like:

Reported for link spamming.

[ddt]

By the common notion of the Limit concept elements get closer to the limit, but this is not the case when we use the proportion concept, for example, let us say that we have a sports car (where the name of the back wheels is "epsilon" and the name of the front wheels is "delta") and our mission is to cross the zero point of X,Y-axis with both "delta" and "epsilon" wheels:
I conjecture the use of the names delta and epsilon is no coincidence. It's based on miscomprehension of the definition of a continuous function, isn't it?

[doronshadmi]

Do you have some kind of reading comprehension or deductive problem? It doesn't matter what you meant by 'observation'. That mathematics has got on quite well without it is probably a big clue.

No,

Your mathematics is nothing but the particular result of serial observation.

[ddt]

Your mathematics is nothing but the particular result of serial observation.
And what's "serial observation"? It's been asked before and you've never been able to explain it. It's just word salad.

[doronshadmi]

I conjecture the use of the names delta and epsilon is no coincidence. It's based on miscomprehension of the definition of a continuous function, isn't it?
If a set is a complete mathematical object (the magnitude of its cardinality is equal to the magnitude of total connectivity) then no function can be related to it, because this object has no distinct members (it is an atom).

Since a set has distinct members, there is a function that is related to it, but then it is an incomplete mathematical object (the magnitude of its cardinality < the magnitude of total connectivity, has found in a non-local atom).

[doronshadmi]

Reported for link spamming.
When you repeat again and again on the conventional observation of fundamental mathematical notions, it is also considered as a spam.

Actually, this is all you do all along your replies.

[ddt]

If a set is a complete mathematical object (the magnitude of its cardinality is equal to the magnitude of total connectivity) then no function can be related to it, because this object has no distinct members (it is an atom).

Since a set has distinct members, there is a function that is related to it, but then it is an incomplete mathematical object (the magnitude of its cardinality < the magnitude of total connectivity, has found in a non-local atom).
A non-sequitur if there ever was one.

Your Turing machine is broken. Fix it. Eliza was better.

[doronshadmi]

And what's "serial observation"? It's been asked before and you've never been able to explain it. It's just word salad.

The step-by-step thinking style, that cannot get non-locality and cannot use reasoning that is base on parallel thinking, as clearly explained (with very clear examples and definitions in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf).

[ddt]

The step-by-step thinking style,
You mean, in contrast to the "make up as you go" style you employ?

that cannot get non-locality
Which you've not been able to explain nor define - 1860 posts and counting.

and cannot use reasoning that is base on parallel thinking,
Another concept you've never adequately explained.

as clearly explained (with very clear examples and definitions in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf).
Huh? All definitions in that non-paper of yours have been thoroughly demolished in this thread, without you being able to answer to that. Specifically, you haven't answered my criticism - and this is not an invitation you revisit my post on that, you've had your chance.

Now, what about the delta and epsilon?

[doronshadmi]

You mean, in contrast to the "make up as you go" style you employ?

Which you've not been able to explain nor define - 1860 posts and counting.

Another concept you've never adequately explained.

Huh? All definitions in that non-paper of yours have been thoroughly demolished in this thread, without you being able to answer to that. Specifically, you haven't answered my criticism - and this is not an invitation you revisit my post on that, you've had your chance.

Now, what about the delta and epsilon?

ddt: "I have lost my key in the field during the football game".

doron: "So why do you search it near your home?"

ddt:"Because the street light is near my home".

http://westjuneau.com/WordPress/wp-images/IMG_1491_2.jpg

[ddt]

ddt: "I have lost my key in the field during the football game".

doron: "So why do you search it near to your home?"

ddt:"Because the street light is near my home".

We're playing the editing game again? Your original post read:
Read http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1024, by changing jsfisher with ddt.

So I see you get the concept of "substitution" in practice. Any chance we'll witness you grasping it as used in math in our life times?

And in the redundancy department: you introduce all these words. The onus is on you to explain them. Not the reverse.

You clearly prefer to wallow in ignorance and stupidity, e.g. by your refusal to have any formal math education. Just don't blame us for your own failure.

[doronshadmi]

... your refusal to have any formal math education.
No,

I perfectly get your serial observation (what you call formal math education).

As a direct result of your serial-only observation you are stacked under the street light near your home.

The onus is on you not to be stacked under the street light.

If you do that, then and only then you have the chance to get, for example, http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4266018&postcount=1032 .

[ddt]

I perfectly get your serial observation (what you call formal math education).
You can't equate "serial observation" with formal math education, as long as you don't explain what you mean with serial observation.

You've conceded before that you didn't have any math education beyond high school, so don't try to deny that. It has been suggested to you several times to take that up and you haven't - so you have refused in fact to have math education.

And you don't get mathematics. You've amply shown in your posts a total miscomprehension of all math fields you've touched upon.

[jsfisher]

By the common notion of the Limit concept elements get closer to the limit <...more meaningless nonsense...>


Can't stay focused, doron? You've jumped topics again. Since you are incapable of defining your terms (local and non-local being the current recurring examples), have you decided to move on and show us (again) you have no understanding of limits?

[doronshadmi]

You can't equate "serial observation" with formal math education, as long as you don't explain what you mean with serial observation.

What you actually say is:

"You cannot understand my Cyclops point of view because you have more than a one eye"

[ddt]

http://westjuneau.com/WordPress/wp-images/IMG_1491_2.jpg

Can't decide which picture to put there? This is at least the second try.

[doronshadmi]

Can't <...more meaningless nonsense...>

. __

[ddt]

What you actually say is:

"You cannot understand my Cyclops point of view because you have more than a one eye"

Having two eyes doesn't help when theyr're looking cross.

But to carry on the analogy, even zero eyes would be an overestimation of your abilities in this field.

[ddt]

. __

a?

_ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ .

[doronshadmi]

Can't decide which picture to put there? This is at least the second try.
A typical reply of one who stucked under the street light.

[doronshadmi]

But to carry on the analogy...
U did not get the analogy.

[ddt]

A typical reply of one who stucked under the street light.
Under the street light, at least there's light. You're stumbling in the dark, and you're even in denial about it.

U did not get the analogy.
Oh I did get it.

Now when are you going to enroll in open university? To, you know, actually learn some math?

[doronshadmi]

Under the street light, at least there's light. You're stumbling in the dark, and you're even in denial about it.
Another typical reply of one who is limited to a particular street light.



Oh I did get it.
No U didn't.

Let me help you.

A person with two eyes can get a one eye's view.

A person with a one eye cannot get more than a one eye's view.

[ddt]

Another typical reply of one who is limited to a particular street light.




No U didn't.

Let me help you.

A person with two eyes can get a one eye's view.

A person with a one eye cannot get more than a one eye's view.

You really think I didn't get that? :jaw-dropp

And you're wrong in the implication that you would have two eyes in this analogon. Your "views" have been utterly demolished in all these threads. You have been found completely unable and/or refusing to clarify them.

From this exchange, I gather you're more interested in yes/no games than in actually discussing the topic at hand. I guess it's about time the thread got closed.

[jsfisher]

Is this current derail to continue, or shall we return to the root topic?

As near as I can tell, the root topic was never prime numbers, nor limits, nor the Cardinals, nor the Red Sox. It was this local and non-local pair that doron is unable to explain.

It would be a shame if yet another of doron's threads got closed again just because he himself wasn't able to stay on topic.

[Apathia]

Is this current derail to continue, or shall we return to the root topic?

As near as I can tell, the root topic was never prime numbers, nor limits, nor the Cardinals, nor the Red Sox. It was this local and non-local pair that doron is unable to explain.

It would be a shame if yet another of doron's threads got closed again just because he himself wasn't able to stay on topic.

Even though this thread substituted "Element/Relation Interaction" for Doron's "Local/Non-Local Complementation,"
The matter of Local vrs. Non-Local and the two as interactive pairs remains fundamental to what Doron is about.

I think I've always gotten him about that, though I've had difficulty fitting it together with the other fragments of his program.

It's easier to get his intent if you aren't coming from a place of mathematical intellect but from an altered state of consciousness:
One I've experience in meditation, exaustion, or once at the shock of romantc rejection.

Analytical thought, linear thought, discursive and discriminating inteligence takes a holiday. Your feel discrimination between yourself and you environment brake down, so that there is no Inside vrs. Outside. There's no over there vrs over here. Nothing has locality, there is just a seamless presence.

Of the individual vrs the whole, there are two modes this very temporarily takes. There may be only the whole of which your self has become nothing. or the self may expand to be the whole. At either of these poles, there is no ego self. The first is pure Locality. The second is pure non-locality. Actually you can turn that around. It amounts to the same, as far as experiencing your self.

Doron treats these two as polar principles. Together they yield the consciousness of self.

Non-Local/Non-Local and Local/Local do not of themselves yield self and cognition.
But there is also Local/Non-Local and Non-Local/Local (amonting to the same)
that yield varying degrees or states of cognition.

Spend a few sleepless nights, and you might experience a state of mind where the elements of your experience are individualized but not classified. Each is local to itself but not contained by any boundary. They are neither within or without any group, but are still individual.

Doron says they are "parallel." They just stand there as they are not summed up, counted, or collected. Each is just what it is without comparison, contrast, and classification.

There they sit ready for some wild new association once linear or serial thinking grabs hold of them again.

But Doron makes a premptive grab that attempts to reckon them though not yet couint them.

So he posits a new kind of Three. Conventional "Serial" Three has a count of three items. This is a Three-Three in Doron's book. But he also offers, say. a Three-One or a Three-Two (This nomenclature could be turned around and still have the same idea.) where an item or two is Non-Local, that is it remains independent of the serial collection.

In Three-Two, two items are considered serially, while one is still parallel and non-local (being both in and outside the Three.) Ordinary number manipulation would say what we have here is simply two.
But Doron wants to agknowledge all of what linear intelligence ignores.

Let's take that set of all natural numbers less than 4 and greater than 2.
{3}
Conventionnaly speaking it's complete.
But enter Doron's "Organic Natural Numbers."
By their reckoning there is not just Three-Three (Or 3_3) to be reckoned with. But there is 3_2, 3_1, a 6_3, and when you consider all the other numerical combos, no end of ONNs potentially, by virtue of parallel
non-locality, present.

Everything you aren't paying attention to is polking you on your back asking to be recognized but not added to your reckoning.

I suppose this could get pretty cumbersome, but Doron did respond to me that when you ask "How many?" it's the serial aspect that counts as the answer: the 3_3s, 4_4s and such.

Now a non-local element is not simply one that isn't serially collected and counted. The quality of non-local means that it's not merely outside but it is inside and outside and neither inside nor outside.
It's simply present.

I hope this raises the questions that should be asked of Doron.

As for the rest of his metaphorical useages and dirivations,
I suggest you rent David Lynch's Inland Empire and watch it about half a dozen times.

[jsfisher]

I think I've always gotten him about that, though I've had difficulty fitting it together with the other fragments of his program.


Despite my strong objections to most of what Doronshadmi writes, I, too, have a basic understanding of what he's trying to say. My problem with it all is that it is either trivial or contradictory. In either case, it is also usually nonconstructive.

Also, it requires far too much back-filling to convert a doron-ism into something even a little bit sensible, only for doron to then respond with, "No, that's not what I mean."

I was hopeful when you first tried exploring notions of infinity with him. I was waiting for that Aha! moment when Doron's mish-mash of concepts would suddenly have a focus and begin to arrange into something meaningful.

Didn't happen.

I also believed he was simply naive and misguided, but things like that "a set is the union of its member" nonsense provided serious evidence Doron cannot follow a simple syllogism.

About the only thing left is to help Doron contain his notions. He doesn't see lines quite the same way Euclid did. I have no problem with that at all, but Doron wants to believe Euclid must have been wrong; he hasn't made that step to realize he can have his odd points of view, but they go in his own private version of Mathematics and not in Euclid's version.

I'll help him with that, if he wants to try developing it, but if he instead accuses Euclid, Gödel, and everyone use of being idiots, then he needs to be challenged, not encouraged.

If you look back to the initial discussion of his UR.PDF, you may notice he agreed with my criticism of his definitions of local and non-local...until he couldn't overcome the problems. At that point, he switched from the "oh, you are right" to "you are incapable of understanding my brilliant ideas."

[Apathia]

If you look back to the initial discussion of his UR.PDF, you may notice he agreed with my criticism of his definitions of local and non-local...until he couldn't overcome the problems. At that point, he switched from the "oh, you are right" to "you are incapable of understanding my brilliant ideas."

I didn't comment on that exchange, but the problem I kept seeing in all of it was that Doron wants to difine Local and Non-Local independently of each other, and I don't think that can be done. For the same reason that these concepts are fundamental enough for Doron to set as interactive pairs, they have no meaning apart from each other. Outside of what Doron calls the "Researchable," they don't exist as self-sufficiant "atoms."

I've pointed out before, but it bears repeating:
. and ____ (point and line) as used by Doron are not mathematical signs. They are symbols he uses metaphorically. Often he uses math language to speak of what is not analytical content but what we can only speak of in a metaphorical way (qualities of consciousness).
This throws everybody for a loop.

But part of the fun of it all is that here is a curious thing: a concept of number that is not only quantity but quality.

Early on I asked Doron how he'd go about building an arithematic or algebra upon his ONNs. I see now that there is no way to manipulate and determine non-local presences of a given set. Doron has taken his ONNs as far as possible in terms of serial usage.

Their value then for him is philosophical. It's his way of speaking of the self as both a distinct element and a transcendent relation.

It's all still a very odd jigsaw puzzle.
The picture on the cover shows a spiral galaxy, but the pieces inside are not just black with stars, but there are red ones, green ones, and it seems more than one set of puzzle pieces have been thrown together in the same box.

I get groups of pieces connected, but can't find their connection to the others. When I think I'm on my way to the big picture, Doron sweeps it all off the table and tells me to stop using "step by step thinking."

So, here's my new idea, my new art concept. I'll just paste the pieces in rows on a large board without letting them touch. All parallel, yoiu see.
Take that, Jackson Pollack!

[doronshadmi]

You really think I didn't get that?

Yes, because you are the one eye's person of this analogy.

[doronshadmi]

As near as I can tell, the root topic was never prime numbers, nor limits, nor the Cardinals, nor the Red Sox. It was this local and non-local pair that doron is unable to explain.

Non-local and Local are clearly appear in post #1 as fundamentals that without them this post (and generally, this thread) cannot be understood.

This thread is a very good example of the inability of an educational method that is based on one and only one observation type, to get things that are not based on this particular observation.

You have nothing to contribute to this thread anymore ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4254074&postcount=954 ).

[doronshadmi]

I'll help him with that, if he wants to try developing it, but if he instead accuses Euclid, Gödel, and everyone use of being idiots, then he needs to be challenged, not encouraged.
It is much more fundamental.

It is about observation as an inseparable property of the body of knowledge of the mathematical science.

No one is idiot here because observation has nothing to do of being smart or not.

Observation is about perception and how it is used to research.

As long as observation is not used by you as an inseparable property of the body of knowledge of the mathematical science, you cannot get my work.

Simple as that.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I'm going to be an insane person and attempt ot verify his statements. I admit, I've only taken up to Calc 2 but..


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.

The history of such a domain is written by symmetry, where at the first stage symmetry is so strong that no outcome of this domain has a unique identity, and all we have is a superposition of identities.

Symmetry is collapsed because the opposite properties of non-locality and locality are expressed more and more until each local ur-element has a unique identity of its own.

This uniqueness, which is anti-entropic by nature, cannot exist without the association between the non-local and the local.

Opposite properties do not contradict each other, if they are based on NXOR connective.

A NXOR connective enables the existence of NXOR\XOR logic (non-locality and locality are associated, and associated realms have more than one entropy level).

A XOR connective does not enable the existence of NXOR\XOR logic (non-locality and locality are isolated, and isolated realms have maximum entropy).

This does not state what they are. Matter of fact, I can wring no consistant definition. I'd say you need to explain these. In plain. short, simple words.

[doronshadmi]

I didn't comment on that exchange, but the problem I kept seeing in all of it was that Doron wants to difine Local and Non-Local independently of each other, and I don't think that can be done.

Please read page 6 of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf .

If it is done then nothing is researchable because each state is closed on its own (we are at singularity) and we have total entropy.

I suggest you to read again post #1 about entropy and my explanation about A (an example of total locality) and = (an example of total non-locality) as clearly written from page 3 of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf and forward.

Also please look at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4266018&postcount=1032 in order to understand more . __

[doronshadmi]

I'm going to be an insane person Then we have nothing to talk about, if this is your initial attitude.



This does not state what they are.
How do you know that if you (by your own words) do not understand it?

[KoihimeNakamura]

.. well, if I cannot understand it b ecause it is not stated..

[doronshadmi]

.. well, if I cannot understand it b ecause it is not stated..
Please ask some detailed questions if you wish to communicate about this subject.

And again, if your initial attitude is to be insane, then please do not try to communicate.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I have one question. Define clearly without linking the pdf I have no real time to read what local and non-local is.

[doronshadmi]

I have one question. Define clearly without linking the pdf I have no real time to read what local and non-local is.
1) This is not a question but an order.

2) In order to communicate please ask some detailed question about the quote that you have taken from post #1.

[KoihimeNakamura]

... I would if I could even understand it. You know what? Let's just drop the issue.

[Apathia]

Please read page 6 of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf .

If it is done then nothing is researchable because each state is closed on its own (we are at singularity) and we have total entropy.

I suggest you to read again post #1 about entropy and my explanation about A (an example of total locality) and = (an example of total non-locality) as clearly written from page 3 of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf and forward.

Also please look at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4266018&postcount=1032 in order to understand more . __

Page 6:
Right away you deal in concepts, Distinct/Non-Distinct and Local/Non-Local.
These are conceptual pairs that have no meaning apart from each other.
These are concepts. These are words used in the context of the "researchable."
Yup, there's a "singularity" of no concept where you do not have Local/Non-Local interaction.

What I'm saying is that Non-Local and Local do not have a self state independent of each other within or outside the researchable.

They are terms used within and after the the process. Prior to it there is no talk, and there is no conceptual pair.

One is simply not able to define Non-Locality without reference to Locality and Locality without reference to Non-Locality.
Rather than insisting on each as an independent metaphysical enity, why not agknowledge their mutual dynamic in cognition.
You could present them as "poles" rather than "atoms" and still have the structure of interaction you desire.

I suspect you try to "atomize" them in an attempt to be mathematical in your presentation. Beware becoming a "cyclops" yourself.

It's a difficult road. Local and Non-Local are lingusitic terms.
Ordinary language uses analogy, metaphor, and symbol. While mathematics manipulates signs.
Often it seems to me, your intention is to create a kind of analogical mathematics.
That might be tilting at windmills, but sometimes a wild endevour can produce unexpected fruits. So carry on.

[Apathia]

As regards Post 1032,
I grant you (for the purpose of this attack upon the windmills), the treatment of . and ____ as fundamentals without sub-components.
I'm content to follow your unique presentaion that a line is not composed of points.
. as representative of Locality, and ___ as representative of Non-Locality is a symbological usage for paired concepts as I tried to say in my previous post.
There's really no concept of them apart from . .

(I don't know hoe to put the point over the line as you do.)

[doronshadmi]

Page 6:
Right away you deal in concepts, Distinct/Non-Distinct and Local/Non-Local.
These are conceptual pairs that have no meaning apart from each other.

The non-distinct is a state of singularity, where concepts like locality or non-locality cannot be found.

Singularity is the non-researchable state but used as the invariant basis for any researchable environment.

"On top" of singularity there is the researchable universe, that exists as superposition of identities or not, where these identities are the result of Relation\Element Interactions, where Relation is the non-local aspect of this interaction, Element is local or non-local aspect of this interaction and Interaction is the non-distinct singular common source of both Relation and Element.

If only non-locality is considered, then we have no elements.

If only locality is considered, then we have no connections.

In both cases we simply have no researchable universe, but it does not mean that a non-researchable universe is not considered. It is simply non-researchable but used as the natural basis of the researchable.

Actually, the concept of pair or polarity is not less than singularity(trunk)\non-singularity(branch) organic structure, as illustrated by:

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

[Apathia]

Interaction is the non-distinct singular common source of both Relation and Element.

I like that very much.

[doronshadmi]

I like that very much.
You are not alone.

Actually, what is called cognition can be understood in tems of Interaction of Relation (non-locality) and Element (that can be local or non-local).

[Little 10 Toes]

Funny how in post #1, you don't define what entropy is, what partitions are, what a multiset is. Also, you posted "Since a set has no repetitions, it has no entropy" and immedately claim that the set {1,1} has full entropy.

Oh, and why won't can't you define the following term: proper subset?

[ddt]

Yes, because you are the one eye's person of this analogy.

When you think I didn't get that that was your meaning, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Still, it seems the lesser of your comprehension problems.

[jsfisher]

I didn't comment on that exchange, but the problem I kept seeing in all of it was that Doron wants to difine Local and Non-Local independently of each other, and I don't think that can be done. For the same reason that these concepts are fundamental enough for Doron to set as interactive pairs, they have no meaning apart from each other. Outside of what Doron calls the "Researchable," they don't exist as self-sufficiant "atoms."

By all rights, the two concepts should be fully complementary. Defining just one should be sufficient. I have noticed, though, that Doron seems unable to tell you what something is, but instead, how it behaves. May be that explains his myopia.

His attempt at defining finite set in UR.PDF was a good example of this.

It may be he can only conceive of things in terms of how they behave. Truly defining things would then be virtually impossible for him, even though he'd be convinced he understood the undefinable concept completely.

And, if you don't actually know what something is, you may not recognize the "non-" version of something to be a simple complement.

I've pointed out before, but it bears repeating:
. and ____ (point and line) as used by Doron are not mathematical signs. They are symbols he uses metaphorically. Often he uses math language to speak of what is not analytical content but what we can only speak of in a metaphorical way (qualities of consciousness).
This throws everybody for a loop.

Certainly the dots and underbars cannot be but metaphors (to borrow a Doron-esque phrasing). Doron, however, does far more than simply couch his non-analytical content in math-speak. He continually alleges it to be the new math, poised to correct 2,500 years of misguided mathematical thinking and incorrect results. That's the part that raises controversy.

But part of the fun of it all is that here is a curious thing: a concept of number that is not only quantity but quality.

Early on I asked Doron how he'd go about building an arithematic or algebra upon his ONNs. I see now that there is no way to manipulate and determine non-local presences of a given set. Doron has taken his ONNs as far as possible in terms of serial usage.

Their value then for him is philosophical. It's his way of speaking of the self as both a distinct element and a transcendent relation.

It's all still a very odd jigsaw puzzle.
The picture on the cover shows a spiral galaxy, but the pieces inside are not just black with stars, but there are red ones, green ones, and it seems more than one set of puzzle pieces have been thrown together in the same box.

I get groups of pieces connected, but can't find their connection to the others. When I think I'm on my way to the big picture, Doron sweeps it all off the table and tells me to stop using "step by step thinking."

Once upon a time, I reminded you of the dangers of facilitated communication. I'm seeing more of you in the above text than I am of Doron.

[ddt]

Non-local and Local are clearly appear in post #1 as fundamentals that without them this post (and generally, this thread) cannot be understood.
What does this word salad mean?

This thread is a very good example of the inability of an educational method that is based on one and only one observation type, to get things that are not based on this particular observation.
Oh if you want, please stay in your fantasy world. But stop claiming that the rest of the world is too stupid to get your "ideas".

You have nothing to contribute to this thread anymore ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4254074&postcount=954 ).
If even jsfisher with his near inexhaustible patience has nothing to contribute to the thread, who has? You certainly haven't, as you haven't come closer to explaining your "ideas" in 1800+ posts.

Conclusion: it's time the thread got closed.

[doronshadmi]

Conclusion: it's time the thread got closed.

Conclusion: It is about time to open more than a single eye.

[ddt]

Conclusion: It is about time to open more than a single eye.

Strange remark when you first claim I only have one eye in the first place.

Ostensibly you don't want to discuss "local" or "non-local" anymore since your feeble attempts to define them have been thoroughly debunked.

So my conclusion that the thread should be closed still stands.

[doronshadmi]

Strange remark when you first claim I only have one eye in the first place.
I am not talking to you.

This is a Philosophy forum here:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4267769&postcount=1076

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4267794&postcount=1077

[jsfisher]

I am not talking to you.

I do so love the paradox that sentence contains.

This is a Philosophy forum here.

Religion and Philosophy, actually. Virtually none of this thread has been on philosophy, after all.

[Apathia]

Defining just one should be sufficient. I have noticed, though, that Doron seems unable to tell you what something is, but instead, how it behaves. May be that explains his myopia.

I think its what's to be expected for the actual content he's after.

Once upon a time, I reminded you of the dangers of facilitated communication. I'm seeing more of you in the above text than I am of Doron.

I see a point of entry where I have some agreement with him I could use for future discussion with him along Buddhist lines. I do think I have his basic idea to work from.

But he could suddenly sweep it all off the table as before.

I think you missed my irony in my jigsaw puzzle story.

[jsfisher]

I see a point of entry where I have some agreement with him I could use for future discussion with him along Buddhist lines. I do think I have his basic idea to work from.


That's a fair point. And it doesn't really matter whether his words sparked the idea in you or it was his idea all along.

[Little 10 Toes]

doronshadmi:
I am not talking to you.

This is a Philosophy forum here:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4267769&postcount=1076

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4267794&postcount=1077
If you're not talking to him, why quote him? Or are you doing your typical "... but I'm not talking about that here" routine?


jsfisher:

Religion and Philosophy, actually. Virtually none of this thread has been on philosophy, after all. Well, we haven't spoken much on math either.:D

I think that this is the best forum since his idea is more of a "how you look at something" rather that what that something is. I'm semi-interested in his ideas, but it's too bad he won't met us on common ground. The way that he talks to us, it reminds me like he is trying to convert me over to his religion (not talking about Judaism (which I assume he is since he's in Israel)). The whole "yur 2 stupid 2 getz what i'm preechin'", "yur thougts ain't the write onez", and the "you have 2b in it 2get it" just about every time we point out something, makes me want to bang my head. But then I realize, he won't change, because "i'm rite, yur rong", and I go on my merry way.

[doronshadmi]

But he could suddenly sweep it all off the table as before.
Nothing was sweeped off the table simply because the table itself is a part of the game.

In that case the table is Relation where Relation is non-local.



As for the independency of a point and a line-segment, a line-segment or a point are types of elements, where a point is local w.r.t other element and a line-segment is local or non-local w.r.t other elements.

When we speak about total isolation (which is not researchable, exactly because no connection can be found) or about total connectivity (which is not researchable, exactly because there are no elements that can be connected), we distinguish between at least to non-researchable states, where total isolation is too weak in order to be researched, and total connectivity is too strong in order to be researched.

Actually total connectivity is the strong limit of the researchable and total isolation is the weak limit of the researchable, where these extremes are not defined by each other, but they are independent manifestations of Singularity, which is non manifested by nature.

Since our cognition is aware of the non manifested it gets itself as a factor that has no influence on the manifested, or in other words, the manifested is considered as objective and independent of any observation.

But on the other hand, the manifested is after all the manifestation of the non-manifest, where the manifested depends on the non-manifested, but not vice versa.

From this hierarchy of dependency, our cognition is aware of its ability to be used as the interactor between the non manifested and the manifested.

In this case what is considered as objective, can be understood differently from more than a one point of view.

This is one of the aims of my work, to show the non-trivial property of observation as a significant factor of the mathematical science.

[nathan]

This is one of the aims of my work, to show the non-trivial property of observation as a significant factor of the mathematical science.

You're having no success at that.

[doronshadmi]

You're having no success at that.

Since Observation is not a researched concept during your mathematical work, we have nothing to talk about.

[nathan]

Since Observation is not a researched concept during your mathematical work, we have nothing to talk about.

Then what was your point here?

[doronshadmi]

Then what was your point here?

This is something that you have to ask yourself, because you are the one who is an expert of how to ignore Observation as a significant factor of the mathematical science.

[Marcus]

I haven't read enough of this thread to know if he has shown otherwise, but Doron doesn't seem to know any math. That last statement, that math is affected by observation (lol) indicates that he is simply making things up.

[ddt]

This is something that you have to ask yourself, because you are the one who is an expert of how to ignore Observation as a significant factor of the mathematical science.
How can you know? You've only shown a very deep ignorance of mathematics.

I haven't read enough of this thread to know if he has shown otherwise, but Doron doesn't seem to know any math. That last statement, that math is affected by observation (lol) indicates that he is simply making things up.

He is indeed. You haven't missed a thing in that respect.

[doronshadmi]

I haven't read enough of this thread to know if he has shown otherwise, but Doron doesn't seem to know any math. That last statement, that math is affected by observation (lol) indicates that he is simply making things up.

Hi Marcus,

You are invited to air your view (in details) about the content of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4265780&postcount=1027 .

[ddt]

Hi Marcus,

You are invited to air your view (in details) about the content of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4265780&postcount=1027 .

That's only a bunch of links to your PDFs. I'd qualify the content of that post as link spamming. Why do you link to those PDFs rather than explain your views here in a post?

Hint: the PDFs are as incoherent as your posts here.

[doronshadmi]

That's only a bunch of links to your PDFs. I'd qualify the content of that post as link spamming. Why do you link to those PDFs rather than explain your views here in a post?

Hint: the PDFs are as incoherent as your posts here.
ddt,

Hint: Your replies are nothing but spam.

You are not qualified to say any meaningful thing about the PDF's content, as clearly shown time after time along this thread ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4266596&postcount=1043 ).

[ddt]

ddt,

Hint: Your replies are nothing but spam.

You are not qualified to say any meaningful thing about the PDF's content, as clearly shown time after time along this thread.

You obviously haven't read my post #964 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4254205&postcount=964), where I thoroughly analyzed page 2 of your "Universal Reasoning" nonsense. You haven't reacted to that. I dare to say I've read more of your nonsense papers than you've ever read mathematical textbooks at appropriate level.

I get the sound impression you don't want to discuss your "ideas" anymore, as you're only engaged in yes/no games for the last couple of days, as opposed to do an honest effort to meaningfully convey your "ideas".

[doronshadmi]

You obviously haven't read my post #964 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4254205&postcount=964),

Yes I read it, and it is another good example of your fundamental inability to get UR.pdf, simply because you are trained to be an one-eye-observer expert.

[ddt]

Yes I read it, and it is another good example of your fundamental inability to get UR.pdf, simply because you are trained to be an one-eye-observer expert.

Is your only way to counter criticism to call the critics stupid or myopic? That doesn't make the criticism go away. And I think that all other posters here agree with the criticism I raised there.

And a trained one-eyed observer is always better than an untrained, blind one stumbling around uttering nonsense.

[doronshadmi]

Is your only way to counter criticism to call the critics stupid or myopic? That doesn't make the criticism go away. And I think that all other posters here agree with the criticism I raised there.

And a trained one-eyed observer is always better than an untrained, blind one stumbling around uttering nonsense.
Observation (something that you are clearly ignorant about) has nothing to do with being smart, idiot etc ..., but it is about Perception and how it is used in Math.

Since this is the case here, your criticism of my work has no basis because Observation is not a part of your body of knowledge ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4267502&postcount=1064 ).

Please do not take what I wrote above as something that its aim is to insult you.

It is simply about time for you to realize that since you disagree with Observation as a significant factor of the mathematical science (which is ok with me) we have nothing to talk about on this subject.

Simple as that.

[nathan]

It is simply about time for you to realize that since you disagree with Observation as a significant factor of the mathematical science (which is ok with me) we have nothing to talk about on this subject.

Have you convinced anybody that Observation is a significant factor of the mathematical science?

[The Man]

The patience of some posters here never ceases to amaze me. Bravo!



Just in case doronshadmi should choose to follow up on this, the spelling is 'chord'.


hehe, way to go picking on that misspelling :) Haven't you noticed Doron's misspellings are so complete they often hit a completely different word!

Oooo. Wrong again doronshadmi. There is nothing abstract about a chord. In fact, a chord is straight. Once again, you make up definitions on the fly of words that 99.9% of math people already use correctly.

Since you are not willing to discuss definitions of words that you use to discuss your trunk, I know I'm wasting my time. I'll continue to point out the errors in your "logic" until you start responding to my posts. You've had what, something like 10 years, to think about your ideas. It might only take me 10 minutes to counter them.


Oops, sorry that was my fault, my misspelling and misuse, not Doron’s


No,

Since ___ is an atom it is not measured by sub-elements.

So by your assertions a line segment is not measurable, even if measured by comparison to some smaller line segment.




This is exactly the reason why ____ < AND > then . , if _.__ state is observed from ___ to . , where "<" or ">" are not related to any . but to ___ w.r.t the . , where this observation is not along ____ (as used by a serial observation) but parallel to _____

Actually "<" or ">" do not understood here only as "smaller" or "greater" but also as notations which determine that ___ is beyond . domain

So by limiting your definition of a line so it is not defined by points you also limit your conclusion of “< AND >” to your monocular approach your call “parallel” which really just means “going the same direction”. Once again you clearly demonstrate your singular approach in your exclusive perspective which now you assert requires you to simply and deliberately exclude conclusions from other perspectives (remember that other perspective does not require a line to be undiviable) in order to maintain the exclusive monocular view of your preferred perspective.



If a line segment is an atom, then it is measured by relations between atoms.

For example: 1(= ____) – 0.5(= __) = 0.5(=__)

So a line segment is measurable by other line segments and can be divided into some finite number of those other segments, as asserted by standard geometry.



EDIT:

By understanding a line segment as an atom, the real-line is a 1D overlap of infinitely many different non-local atoms, ordered according to a local atom, for example:


0 = . (local atom)

1 = ____ (non-local atom)

.5 = __ (non-local atom)

Pi = ______________ (non-local atom)

Real-line example: ______________.______________

“The real-line”? Please describe a “real-line” and not just the geometrical abstraction of a line.

So now we have your “real-line” as “a 1D overlap of infinitely many different non-local atoms” in a specific order. Curious it seems that in order to assert the measurability of a line segment you have forced yourself to the conclusion that a line segment must be dividable into such units of measure that, represented by other line segments, enable you to obtain some finite value of that measure. Also since you claim a “segment as an atom” has “infinitely many different non-local atoms” that confers no value of extent to those “infinitely many different non-local atoms” as such a value would result in an infinite and not finite value of a line segment. We could presume that your reference to “real-line” is not to a line segment but to a theoretical line in general which would have an infinite extent, regardless of the finite measure of each of those “infinitely many different non-local atoms”. Much like modern geometry you assert a line segment as being finitely dividable by some finite value and a line as being infinitely devisable by any finite value. Perhaps unintentionally you also assert the divisibility of some line segment into an infinite number of “many different non-local atoms, ordered according to a local atom” that modern geometry would refer to as coordinates of some coordinate system. It would seem now the only difference between what you think of as your own notions about lines and line segments and that of standard geometry is that standard geometry does not take the contradictory approach of considering lines and line segments as indivisible while asserting their divisibility. Once again the only unique aspect of your approach is you continued contradiction of what you claim to do in your approach.



Since no atom is a component of another atom


(otherwise the researched thing is not an atom but a composed element) no atom is changed under any operation.

The changed thing is the observation's point of view of some equation.

There are basically at least two ways to look at some equation:

From the arithmetic to the result or form the result to the arithmetic.

In both cases the result can be considered as an atom that does not depend on any arithmetic manipulation.[/QUOTE]

Except of course where you choose to contradict that assertion by claiming…


EDIT:

By understanding a line segment as an atom, the real-line is a 1D overlap of infinitely many different non-local atoms, ordered according to a local atom, for example:

and where your conclusion ands assertion depends on some “arithmetic manipulation.” of your “atoms”.


If a line segment is an atom, then it is measured by relations between atoms.

For example: 1(= ____) – 0.5(= __) = 0.5(=__)




In that case you are using two locations that are based on x,y where x is some angle and y is some length.

So by your particular example we get a local object that is determined by the localities 90,5 and 180,5.

What happened to your claim that a line segment in non-local?





Form a local point of view 90,5 and 180,5 are not equal to each other.

They are not equal from any point of view, however one could just as easily consider a curve of equal radius extending for 360 degrees or a circle in that case the staring point is the same as the ending point and on a curved surface like that of a sphere a straight line can create a circle or would return to it’s starting point. As you seem to have missed the point of my question how do your notions, if at all, deal with the alternative perspectives of curved surfaces so readily available in modern geometry.





From the line-segment's point of view these local identities are in a superposition w.r.t to each other, because a line-segment is simultaneously at both local values.

Here we go again with this introduction of time or simultaneity into the mix, simultaneous has no meaning without the inclusion of time. If you mean to say that the line segment includes both of those point or “local values” fine but it also includes all points or “local values” in between those two. Likewise we could consider just some portion of the line segment our “local” focus or just one point, making the rest of the segment non-local by definition.



Also please answer to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=975.

Anoter example of distinction between line-segments, without using points (a point is 0 = . and it is a local atom):

1 = ______

2 = ____________

3 = ___________________

.5 = ___

pi = _____________________

Each line segment in this example is a non-local atom.

The name of each non-local atom is determined by its proportion to some arbitrary line-segment, called 1, which is used as the common unit measurement.

So these line segments of yours do not start at some “point” and end at some “point” with a finite measure of your “unit” between those “points” being the different values you equate to distinguish between the your line segments?

Points define even your line segments. Still you choose to claim some monocular view that points are not needed define a line segment, other perspectives do not hold that view and in fact neither do you.


From the line-segment's point of view these local identities are in a superposition w.r.t to each other, because a line-segment is simultaneously at both local values.

See you are more then capable of answering your own questions, however usually by contradicting your own claims. Again no one will, most likely, ever agree with your assertions if you can not even agree with your assertions.

[Apathia]

Nothing was sweeped off the table simply because the table itself is a part of the game.

In that case the table is Relation where Relation is non-local.

I really shoudn't use figures of spech with you.

You're pretty much following a structure that I recognize of you, though you keep substituting new terms and some have interchangable meanings.

At some point hare I'd like to examine how Observation and Interaction are prior to any cognitive abstractions, including "Isolation" and "Connectivity."

But I confess it may be too heavy a philosophical topic for me, even if our communication weren't so difficult.

I'm never entirely sure I'm intrerpreting you correctly or even marginally in the same ball park. But since interpreting is what I have to do in this case, there is always the danger I'm just reading into you what I think is the drift and direction of your thinking.

But, even if I am off base, at least I have this unique piece of intellectual culture based on two interacting principles that I could eventually work into a piece of phlisophical fiction. (That does make my motives rather suspect.)

[doronshadmi]

The Man,

I have a suggestion for you.

Instead of telling me what I see or do not see in my work, it is about time that you start to say what do you see or not see in my work.

I believe that this change of view will contribute much more to the dialog between us.

So by limiting your definition of a line so it is not defined by points you also limit your conclusion of “< AND >” to your monocular approach your call “parallel” which really just means “going the same direction”.
Wrong,

Direction does not exists from parallel observation.

Direction exists only be a serial observation along the observed element.


Once again you clearly demonstrate your singular approach in your exclusive perspective which now you assert requires you to simply and deliberately exclude conclusions from other perspectives (remember that other perspective does not require a line to be undiviable) in order to maintain the exclusive monocular view of your preferred perspective.

Once again you clearly demonstrate that you are unable to get what you read because you tell me what I do instead of observe yourself during your research.

Remember that other observations based on points, get a line segment as a local element. But in your case, this is the only alternative. Since My observation has more than a one alternative, I can use it in order to get also the non-local property of a line-segment (which is something that is impossible by your exclusive one and only one "alternative")


So a line segment is measurable by other line segments and can be divided into some finite number of those other segments, as asserted by standard geometry.

No,

No non-local atom like a line segment is changed by any arithmetical operation,

The arithmetical operation is used in order to defined some non-local atom as the result of this operation, but no non-local atom is a sub-element of any other non-local atom.

By changing observation and get line-segments from a point of view of a point, then and only then line segments are not atoms anymore but composed elements that are changed under arithmetical operations. This observation style is the only one that you are using in order to get my work, and as a result, you don't get it.




“The real-line”? Please describe a “real-line” and not just the geometrical abstraction of a line.
The real-line is a non-finite ur-element, which is the strong 'limit' of the mathematical science (no magnitude can get it and still be related to a collection).

So now we have your “real-line” as “a 1D overlap of infinitely many different non-local atoms” in a specific order. Curious it seems that in order to assert the measurability of a line segment you have forced yourself to the conclusion that a line segment must be dividable into such units of measure that, represented by other line segments, enable you to obtain some finite value of that measure.
No atom is changed under any operation (otherwise the researched thing is not an atom but a composed element).

The changed thing is the observation's point of view of some equation.

There are basically at least two ways to look at some equation:

From the arithmetic to the result or form the result to the arithmetic.

In both cases the result can be considered as an atom that does not depend on any arithmetic manipulation.

Also since you claim a “segment as an atom” has “infinitely many different non-local atoms” that confers no value of extent to those “infinitely many different non-local atoms” as such a value would result in an infinite and not finite value of a line segment.
Again, by using parallel observation of a collection of non-local atoms of line-segments, no atom is influenced by any arithmetical operation. By arithmetical operations we simply get different atoms as different results, where no result is a sub-element of any other result. If our observation is based on points, then our results are sub-elements of other results (and this is the only observation that you use).


We could presume that your reference to “real-line” is not to a line segment but to a theoretical line in general which would have an infinite extent, regardless of the finite measure of each of those “infinitely many different non-local atoms”. Much like modern geometry you assert a line segment as being finitely dividable by some finite value and a line as being infinitely devisable by any finite value.
No, You simply force your local-only point of view on mine, instead of observing yourself while you observing my work.

Perhaps unintentionally you also assert the divisibility of some line segment into an infinite number of “many different non-local atoms, ordered according to a local atom” that modern geometry would refer to as coordinates of some coordinate system.
Another forcing of you on me.

It would seem now the only difference between what you think of as your own notions about lines and line segments and that of standard geometry is that standard geometry does not take the contradictory approach of considering lines and line segments as indivisible while asserting their divisibility. Once again the only unique aspect of your approach is you continued contradiction of what you claim to do in your approach.
The contradiction is a direct result of your forced local-only observation on my work.

It is really about time that you will start to be aware of yourself during observation, otherwise you will not get my work.



Except of course where you choose to contradict that assertion by claiming…

and where your conclusion ands assertion depends on some “arithmetic manipulation.” of your “atoms”.


What happened to your claim that a line segment in non-local?
Again, by using parallel observation, no result is a sub-element of any other result.

Nothing happened to my claim that a line segment is also a non-local element. It depends on the way it is observed.

They are not equal from any point of view, however one could just as easily consider a curve of equal radius extending for 360 degrees or a circle in that case the staring point is the same as the ending point and on a curved surface like that of a sphere a straight line can create a circle or would return to it’s starting point. As you seem to have missed the point of my question how do your notions, if at all, deal with the alternative perspectives of curved surfaces so readily available in modern geometry.
In addition to the local view, as shown above, one can develop a non-local view of the same system.


Here we go again with this introduction of time or simultaneity into the mix, simultaneous has no meaning without the inclusion of time. If you mean to say that the line segment includes both of those point or “local values” fine but it also includes all points or “local values” in between those two. Likewise we could consider just some portion of the line segment our “local” focus or just one point, making the rest of the segment non-local by definition.
Since you cannot get parallel observation, you get simultaneity in terms of time changing, which is a direct result of your serial observation.





So these line segments of yours do not start at some “point” and end at some “point” with a finite measure of your “unit” between those “points” being the different values you equate to distinguish between the your line segments?
Again,

Given some arithmetical operation, the result is a non-local atom, if parallel observation is used.


Points define even your line segments. Still you choose to claim some monocular view that points are not needed define a line segment, other perspectives do not hold that view and in fact neither do you.
Now you really "cross the border" and directly force your serial-only observation on me, instead of observe yourself observing my work.



See you are more then capable of answering your own questions, however usually by contradicting your own claims. Again no one will, most likely, ever agree with your assertions if you can not even agree with your assertions.

I hope that after this post you will be able to get how you force yourself on me, and by using this notion you will be able to start to observe yourself observing my work about observation.

[ddt]

Observation (something that you are clearly ignorant about) has nothing to do with being smart, idiot etc ..., but it is about Perception and how it is used in Math.
Which it isn't. Except when you mean with "observation" and "perception" other things than the rest of the world - which wouldn't surprise me in the least, given your track record.


Since this is the case here, your criticism of my work has no basis because Observation is not a part of your body of knowledge ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4267502&postcount=1064 ).
Stop with the referring back to previous posts. And don't tell me what I know and do not know. How would you know?


Please do not take what I wrote above as something that its aim is to insult you.

It is simply about time for you to realize that since you disagree with Observation as a significant factor of the mathematical science (which is ok with me) we have nothing to talk about on this subject.

Simple as that.
Your "observation" thing seems just a cop-out to save your face. No-one in the world shares your view on this. Even moreso, you can't even make that case yourself why it would be so.

And as to insulting: it is an insult. You have stated more than once that 2,500 years of mathematics has been wrong. You have stated that Gödel, Hilbert and various other mathematicians were wrong. That's a deliberate insult. You claim mathematics is something you can't even coherently describe yourself, and which it isn't. To top it off, you've adamantly refused repeatedly to actually learn mathematics. Every of your 1880+ posts has been an insult to mathematics and, by proxy, to mathematicians.

[zooterkin]

. Every of your 1880+ posts has been an insult to mathematics and, by proxy, to mathematicians.
That's just his posts on this site. As far as I can tell, Doronshadmi has been talking about this for at least the last five years on various sites, and yet still doesn't seem to have cracked the problem of explaining what it is or what it's useful for.

[doronshadmi]

You have stated more than once that 2,500 years of mathematics has been wrong.

If a particular observation style is used at the basis of some body of knowledge as if it is the one and only one possibility, than it is wrong.

Your school of thought is going to be changed to a better one, by using Observation as a significant factor of the mathematical science.

I think that people like you are not going to survive this change.

[doronshadmi]

That's just his posts on this site. As far as I can tell, Doronshadmi has been talking about this for at least the last five years on various sites, and yet still doesn't seem to have cracked the problem of explaining what it is or what it's useful for.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

zooterkin,

If you get and agree with Russell, you already have to know that any researchable framework can be chaneged by paradigm-shifts.

And so is the mathematical science.

[ddt]

That's just his posts on this site. As far as I can tell, Doronshadmi has been talking about this for at least the last five years on various sites, and yet still doesn't seem to have cracked the problem of explaining what it is or what it's useful for.

That's absolutely right. He's been peddling the same word salad at least since 2003 on dozens of forums, on Usenet and on Wikipedia discussion pages. Sometimes doron posts the same "paper" on three or four forums at the same time, and sometimes he reuses, some years later, the same title for different content. He's been banned from various sites. On various sites, he also has employed multiple handles, sometimes even simultaneously. And he has left his work email address at various places.

Here's a list I compiled some time ago. The three dates are respectively: first post, last post and last visit. I included the web presence of Moshe Klein, who has worked together with Doron and is (slightly) less cranky than Doron.

Philosophy Forums
philosophy-forums.com, sophiasdialectic.com
as: DoronShadmi
2008-08-28
NOW
NOW
84 posts

JREF
forums.randi.org
as: doronshadmi
2008-03-15
NOW
NOW
1611 posts

Center for Inquiry
www.centerforinquiry.net
as: DoronShadmi
2007-08-28
NOW
NOW
40 posts

Philosophy Chat Forum / Science Chat Forum
philosophychatforum.com, sciencechatforum.com
as: DoronShadmi
2007-04-07
NOW
NOW
49 posts

SciForums.com
www.sciforums.com
(a) as: Doron Shadmi
2003-06-29
2005-12-19
2006-03-11
191 posts
(b) as: Doron
2004-02-24
2004-05-23
2004-06-02
5 posts
(c) as: ShadmiDoron
2006-09-08
2008-02-19
2008-06-06
36 posts

Hypography
hypography.com
(a) as: Doron
2003-01-10
2005-03-08
2005-03-11
18 posts
(b) as: Doron Shadmi
2005-10-09
2005-12-21
2006-01-22
22 posts
(c) as: ShadmiDoron
2006-09-08
2006-11-04
2008-08-11
12 posts

Skeptical Community
www.skepticalcommunity.com
as: DoronShadmi
2007-05-05
2008-03-15
??
458 posts

Math Help Forum
www.mathhelpforum.com
as: DoronShadmi
2007-08-03
2007-10-29
2008-02-26
26 posts
BANNED

IIDB
iidb.infidels.org
(a) as: Doron Shadmi
2004-06-12
2006-01-22
2006-01-22
2164 posts
(b) as: ShadmiDoron
2006-09-08
2006-09-11
2006-09-11
1 post
(c) as: Moshe Klein:
2005-05-05
2005-08-18
2005-08-28
452 posts

EvC Forum
www.evcforum.net
as: Doron Shadmi
2005-03-08
2006-01-22
3 posts

Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum
www.bautforum.com
as: Doron Shadmi
2004-08-15
2005-01-06 ??
2005-07-09
13 posts

International Society for Complexity, Information and Design
www.iscid.org
as: Doron Shadmi
2003-11-01
2004-02-13
??
10 posts

The NKS Forum
forum.wolframscience.com
as: Doron Shadmi
2004-08-15
2005-10-11
??
9 posts

Physics Forums
www.physicsforums.com
(a) as: Doron Shadmi
2003-04-15
2003-09-25
??
99 posts
GUEST
(b) as: Organic
2003-09-30
2004-04-24
2004-06-05
1,210 posts
BANNED
(c) as: WWW
2004-04-19
2004-06-02
2005-04-08
127 posts
BANNED
(d) as: Shemesh
2004-06-08
2004-06-09
2004-06-10
27 posts
BANNED
(e) as: Lama
2004-06-07
2004-08-17
2004-08-24
469 posts
BANNED
(f) as "moshek" (Moshe Klein?)
2003-12-13
2005-09-18
2005-10-02
262 posts

Philosophy Forums
forums.philosophyforums.com
(a) as "Doron Shadmi":
2003-07-31
2004-11-24
2005-11-16
97 posts
BANNED
(b) as "DoronShadmi":
2007-04-08
2007-04-08
2007-07-27
1 post (deleted?)
BANNED

Chat Area
chatarea.com
as: Doron Shadmi
2003-05-02
2005-03-25
2005-03-25
9 posts

Science Forums
www.scienceforums.net
(a) as: Doron Shadmi
2004-07-23
2004-11-22
??
145 posts
GUEST
(b) as: lama
2004-12-20
2005-12-22
2005-12-26
76 posts
SUSPENDED

Students for the Exploration and Development of Space
forums.seds.org
as: Doron Shadmi
2005-03-09
2005-05-15
2005-12-22
3 posts

Various Topics
www.varioustopics.com
as: Doron Shadmi
2003-08-15
2003-09-26
??
GUEST

The Student Room
www.thestudentroom.co.uk
as: DoronSahdmi
2005-03-26
2005-04-04
2005-11-11
8 posts

Electronics Forum
www.dutchforce.com/~eforum/
as: Doron Shadmi
2003-05-06
2003-05-06
??
1 post (?)
GUEST

HSN.uk.net
www.hsn.uk.net
as: Doron Shadmi
2004-10-02
2004-11-12
2004-11-12
16 posts

22 Philosophy Forums
22philosophyforums.com
as; DoronShadmi
2005-03-21
2005-11-10
2005-11-11
5 posts

Society for Popular Astronomy
www.popastro.com
as: DoronShadmi
2005-03-10
2005-03-17
??
12 posts

Ask Me Help Desk
www.askmehelpdesk.com
as: DoronShadmi
2005-03-25
2005-03-25
??
3 posts

BrainDen.com
brainden.com
as: doronshadmi
2008-03-15
2008-03-15
2008-03-15
1 post

The MathForum
mathforum.org
(a) as: Doron Shadmi
2004-12-13
??
??
24 posts
USERID: 166609
(b) as: Doron Shadmi
2004-12-06
2005-12-22
??
47 posts
USERID: 54340

Math Is Fun Forum
www.mathisfunforum.com
as: DoronShadmi
2005-03-26
2005-03-27
??
2 posts

Erratic Wisdom
forum.erraticwisdom.com
as: DoronShadmi
2007-04-07
2007-04-07
??
1 post

EPhilosopher
www.ephilosopher.com
(a) as: DoronShadmi
2005-10-17
2005-10-19
??
7 posts
(b) as: SHadmiDoron
2006-09-09
2006-09-09
??
1 post
(c) as: Shadmi
2007-04-08
2007-04-08
??
1 post

The Quantum Factor
www.thequantumfactor.co.nr, z8.invisionfree.com/The_Quantum_Factor/
as: Doron Shadmi
2005-03-10
??
2005-10-22
4 posts

KurzweilAI.net
www.kurzweilai.net/mindx
as: Doron Shadmi
?? 2003-09-15
2004-12-08
??
?? 10 posts

MathKB
mathkb.com
2003-09-10
2005-12-16
??
ca. 7 posts (MORE)
REGISTRATION policy unclear

Science groupsrv.com
www.groupsrv.com/science/
2003-12-09
2004-12-07
??
26 posts
NB: post as "Guest" on 2005-02-11
NB: same as MathKB??

PHYSORG Forums
www.physforum.com
as: Doron Shadmi
2005-03-08
2005-08-08
??
2 posts

PhysicsMathForums
physicsmathforums.com
(a) as: DoronShadmi
2005-03-21
2005-12-23
2006-04-16
7 posts
(b) as: Concept
2007-04-11
2007-04-24
2007-05-04
3 posts

Karakas-Online
karakas-online.de
as: DoronShadmi
2005-03-26
2005-12-23
??
6 posts

Flash Kit Community Forums
board.flashkit.com/board/
as: DoronShadmi
2005-12-23
2005-12-23
??
3 posts

This Week In Science
http://www.twis.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl
as: DoronShadmi
2005-03-26
2005-11-10
??
4 (?) posts
EX-MEMBER

Art of Problem Solving Forum (AoPS)
www.artofproblemsolving.com/Forum, www.mathlinks.ro
as: DoronShadmi
2005-03-21
2005-12-23
??
14 posts

carolinanavy.com
as: Doron Shadmi
2003-05-02
2003-05-02
??

Space-Talk
www.space-talk.com/ForumE/
as: Doron Sahdmi
2005-03-08
2005-03-13
??
5 posts

RichardDawkins.net
richarddawkins.net
as: DoronShadmi
2007-04-07
2007-04-07
2007-05-04
1 post

SPACE.com
space.com
as: DoronShadmi
2007-03-16
2007-03-16
??
1 post

WindowSecurity
www.security-forums.com
as: DoronShadmi
2005-03-26
2005-04-22
??
22 posts

School Lounge
schools.mylounge.com
(a) as: Doron Shadmi
2003-08-15
2004-07-13
??
27 posts
(b) as: Doron Shadmi
2004-02-14
2004-12-07
??
24 posts
(c) as: ShadmiDoron
2006-09-08
2006-09-08
2006-09-24
1 post

The Wavelet Digest
www.wavelet.org
as: Doron Shadmi
2004-09-14
2004-09-14
??
1 post
GUEST

OSDIR
osdir.com
as: Doron Shadmi
2004/2005, 1 post

CTK Exchange Forums
www.cut-the-knot.org
as: Moshe Klein
2005-10-14
1 post ?

Usenet
groups: sci.logic, sci.math, sci.math.research, sci.math.symbolic, geometry.research
as: Doron Shadmi
2003-04-09
2005-12-15
??
40 posts (?)

Gmane
group: gmane.org.infiniteink
as: Doron Shadmi
2004-05-11
2004-05-11
??
1 post

Wikipedia (Hebrew version)
he.wikipedia.org
2006-04-12
2007-02-20
??
multiple edits
0.999... - discussion - 2007-02-07
Limit_(mathematics) - discussion - 2007-02-04
Boundary_(topology) - discussion - 2007-02-04
Upper_and_lower_bounds - discussion - 2007-02-03
Cardinal_number - discussion - 2006-12-09
Cantor's_theorem - discussion - 2006-10-11
Barber_paradox - discussion - 2006-10-09
Liar_paradox - discussion - 2006-09-09
Srinivasa_Ramanujan - page - 2006-07-04
Dimensionless_quantity - discussion - 2006-06-07
Equivalence_relation - discussion - 2006-05-28
Ordinal_number - discussion - 2006-05-13
Russell's_paradox - discussion - 2006-04-21
Russell's_paradox - page - 2006-04-21
Fuzzy_logic - discussion - 2006-04-14
Fuzzy_logic - page - 2006-04-14
Philosophy_of_mathematics - 2006-04-12

haayal.co.il
IN HEBREW

forums.bgu.co.il
IN HEBREW

stage.co.il
IN HEBREW

[The Man]

The Man,

I have a suggestion for you.

Instead of telling me what I see or do not see in my work, it is about time that you start to say what do you see or not see in my work.

I believe that this change of view will contribute much more to the dialog between us.



I have said it from the very beginning “contradiction” that you contradict yourself and I have claimed that if you see such contradictions you simply choose to ignore them. What I have not seen is you addressing those contradictions in any constructive or corrective manor. The problem is that until you see this “change of view” you will continue to have very little to contribute to a dialog, as opposed to your usual diatribe, about the current thinking on anything, including math and science or religion and philosophy.



Wrong,

Direction does not exists from parallel observation.

Direction exists only be a serial observation along the observed element.

So, no direction in parallel observation? Seems to be extremely limiting attribute of your preferred perspective.

Fortunately, for those of us not bound by your monocular view and unsubstantiated definitions, direction (specifically the same direction) can be a fundamental part of a parallel observation.




Once again you clearly demonstrate that you are unable to get what you read because you tell me what I do instead of observe yourself during your research.

Actually you tell us what you do, I simply point out to you that what you assert you do (like measuring a line segment by dividing into it some line segment of “unit” length) is contradictory to what you claim as the basis of your notions (like a line segment is an “atom” and indivisible). I also point out that what you assert you do is more consistent with standard geometry then what you claim as the basis of your own notions.




Remember that other observations based on points, get a line segment as a local element. But in your case, this is the only alternative. Since My observation has more than a one alternative, I can use it in order to get also the non-local property of a line-segment (which is something that is impossible by your exclusive one and only one "alternative")

Again your defining non-local conclusion of “< AND >” is obtainable by a coordinate system, which itself does not define anything as local or non-local, but simply allows one to define such aspects, should they choose to, within that coordinate system. As such it can “get” some given “line segment as a local element” or as a non-local element based on the definition of “local” being applied at that time and not necessarily intrinsically linked to the coordinate system being used at that time. This is far more flexible then your notions since You limit your own perspective with your exclusive “observation” by claiming such a conclusion is “impossible” by other perspectives, even when that possibility has been clearly shown to you.




No,

No non-local atom like a line segment is changed by any arithmetical operation,

Who said it was changed, are you asserting that in your notions you have to change the “No non-local atom like a line segment” to measure it?


The arithmetical operation is used in order to defined some non-local atom as the result of this operation, but no non-local atom is a sub-element of any other non-local atom.

By changing observation and get line-segments from a point of view of a point, then and only then line segments are not atoms anymore but composed elements that are changed under arithmetical operations. This observation style is the only one that you are using in order to get my work, and as a result, you don't get it.

As usual the only observation style you use is your own and you use it to misinterpret other observation styles. Line segments do not have to be changed under “arithmetic operations”, a 1 unit line segment is always a 1 unit line segment, but two one unit line segments back to back are the same length as a 2 unit line segment. Just as (as in your example) subtracting 0.5 units from a one unit line segment does not change a one unit line segment into a 0.5 unit line segment but simply gives you a resulting line segment of 0.5 units. Scaling however is somewhat a different consideration. If we double our scale and define what was a 2 unit line segment as now our unit line segment then that specific arithmetical operation, of scaling, has changed the unit line segment from what it was before. This is the flexibility of modern geometry it does not require the changing of a line segment in an arrhythmic operation, nor does it prevent such a change, however it does tend to restrict such a changes to a global application. If one were to scale a unit line segment by 2 and not a 2 unit line segment the relationship or distinction between a unit and a 2 unit line segment would be lost. Your approach seems to be simply limiting yourself and more specifically limiting other perspectives to your interpretation of them, thus extending your limits of yourself to others and claiming it as their limitations.




The real-line is a non-finite ur-element, which is the strong 'limit' of the mathematical science (no magnitude can get it and still be related to a collection).

Sounds like a “geometrical abstraction” and not very well defined at that.


No atom is changed under any operation (otherwise the researched thing is not an atom but a composed element).

Again you confuse measured with “changed”, why is that? Do you equate the two for some reason?




The changed thing is the observation's point of view of some equation.

There are basically at least two ways to look at some equation:

From the arithmetic to the result or form the result to the arithmetic.

With “=” as self identity both sides of the equation (or your “two ways to look at some equation “) are the same. Oh wait you claimed to use “=” as self identity didn’t you, but again what you claim is not what you do.




In both cases the result can be considered as an atom that does not depend on any arithmetic manipulation.

Ok, now you’re just being silly again claiming that the “result” of an “arithmetic operation” “does not depend on any arithmetic manipulation”


Again, by using parallel observation of a collection of non-local atoms of line-segments, no atom is influenced by any arithmetical operation. By arithmetical operations we simply get different atoms as different results, where no result is a sub-element of any other result. If our observation is based on points, then our results are sub-elements of other results (and this is the only observation that you use).

These are simply your limitations of your notions, which are of little consequence to you since you never adhere to your own claims. As exemplified by your claim of “a collection of non-local atoms of line-segments” which would be the result of “sub-elements” and if we combine that collection with another collection, guess what, then by you own assertions, those “results are sub-elements of other results”.


No, You simply force your local-only point of view on mine, instead of observing yourself while you observing my work.

Another forcing of you on me.

The contradiction is a direct result of your forced local-only observation on my work.

It is really about time that you will start to be aware of yourself during observation, otherwise you will not get my work.


You made those claims yourself, I did not force you to contradict yourself, you simply can not assert your notions without contradicting yourself, when you become aware of yourself during your contradictions then perhaps you’ll stop trying to claim others as forcing themselves on you as an excuse for claims your freely assert yet do not follow.




Again, by using parallel observation, no result is a sub-element of any other result.

Electronics disproves that assertion, where parallel as well as serial configurations are often the sub-elements of some other result, but then your observations are extremely limited.




Nothing happened to my claim that a line segment is also a non-local element. It depends on the way it is observed.



In addition to the local view, as shown above, one can develop a non-local view of the same system.

As one can do with standard geometry, being far more flexible and self consistent.




Since you cannot get parallel observation, you get simultaneity in terms of time changing, which is a direct result of your serial observation.

Since you choose to make up your own definitions, I doubt anyone would be surprised that your definition of “simultaneity” does not involve time. However it is just a lame attempt by you to skirt around claiming that both point are included in the line segment.






Again,

Given some arithmetical operation, the result is a non-local atom, if parallel observation is used.

Again only in you limited, contradictory and ill defined notions of “parallel observation”



Now you really "cross the border" and directly force your serial-only observation on me, instead of observe yourself observing my work. .

Just how would it be possible to “cross the border” if your line segments do not start at some “point”, on one side of that “border”, and end at some other “point”, on the other side of that border?




I hope that after this post you will be able to get how you force yourself on me, and by using this notion you will be able to start to observe yourself observing my work about observation.

Please, the episode with you calling me “Dear” was disturbing enough; I do not need to hear about your recurring fantasies of me forcing myself on you.

“observe yourself observing my work about observation”

You missed the past tense “observed” not to mention the adjective form “observational” and the adverb form “observationally”


Once you contradict the contradictory contradictions of your notions by excluding your exclusively exclusive exclusions you might conclude that your conclusions are not conclusive.

[ddt]

If a particular observation style is used at the basis of some body of knowledge as if it is the one and only one possibility, than it is wrong.

Your school of thought is going to be changed to a better one, by using Observation as a significant factor of the mathematical science.

I think that people like you are not going to survive this change.

You'd have more success standing on a street corner with a sign "The end of the world is near" than with your ludicrous statements here. It's not mathematics what you do - to use a cliché, mathematics is what mathematicians do, and you're not one. Nor is it a matter of "school of thought", unless you count the absence of thought as a school as well. No-one agrees with you, even you yourself don't agree with yourself, given the number of times you've contradicted yourself.

Stop the nonsense and go have a life.

[Marcus]

Hi Marcus,

You are invited to air your view (in details) about the content of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4265780&postcount=1027 .

I'm afraid I don't have the patience of the posters on this thread, so I will limit myself to a general observation. You have redefined so many terms that you are speaking your own personal language. Semantic games are not math.

[doronshadmi]

I have said it from the very beginning “contradiction” that you contradict yourself…
Again you tell me what I do instead of observe yourself during your research.


So, no direction in parallel observation?
Direction is along the observed object, which is serial by nature.

You can combine between different observation, and this is exactly ONNs.


Actually you tell us what you do, …
You can get me only if you also aware of yourself, when you listen to me.


Again your defining non-local conclusion of “< AND >” is obtainable by a coordinate system,
No, it is not because:

1) Only the local property of line-segment is defined by coordinates, simply because a coordinate cannot be but a local object.

2) < AND > is a simultaneous parallel state that no collection of objects that are based on direction can determine.

In other words, you use the name "non-local object" without understand it.


Who said it was changed, are you asserting that in your notions you have to change the “No non-local atom like a line segment” to measure it?
On the contrary.

I claim that since by your serial observation, a line-segment is not an atom, it can be divided to its sub-elements, where the result is such sub-element.

In addition to serial observation, I add parallel observation, where a line-segment is a non-local atom that is not divided by division operation (and not changed by any other operation), and the result is not considered as a sub-element of the non-local atom (represented as line-segment).

With “=” as self identity both sides of the equation (or your “two ways to look at some equation “) are the same. Oh wait you claimed to use “=” as self identity didn’t you, but again what you claim is not what you do.
Self identity it is, whether it is serial or parallel observation.

For example:

____ - __ = __


By serial observation, ____ was changed by __ in order to get __

(The substation operation have changed ____)


By parallel observation ____ was not changed by __ in order to get __

(The subtraction operation did not change ____ but used to point to another non-local atom, as the result)

Ok, now you’re just being silly again claiming that the “result” of an “arithmetic operation” “does not depend on any arithmetic manipulation”

Exactly.

From a parallel point of view, the result is always an atom, no matter what arithmetical operation is used in order to point on it.


These are simply your limitations of your notions, which are of little consequence to you since you never adhere to your own claims. As exemplified by your claim of “a collection of non-local atoms of line-segments” which would be the result of “sub-elements” and if we combine that collection with another collection, guess what, then by you own assertions, those “results are sub-elements of other results”.
No,

If parallel observation is used, then atoms are used to point to other atoms, where no atom is a sub-element of any atom.


You made those claims yourself, I did not force you to contradict yourself,…

Since you are not aware of yourself during your research, you are unable to get that you are the one who contradicts itself (you simply use me, because you are not aware of yourself and how you get these contradictions as a direct result of your serial-only observation of the researched objects)

Electronics disproves that assertion, where parallel as well as serial configurations are often the sub-elements of some other result, but then your observations are extremely limited.
Until this very moment you did not use parallel observation even once, so you can't use it as a legitimate part of your conclusions.

As one can do with standard geometry, being far more flexible and self consistent.
No,

By standard geometry a line-segment is defined as a local object.


Since you choose to make up your own definitions,…
Since you choose to use only serial observation …


Again only in you limited, contradictory and ill defined notions of “parallel observation”
You are talking all along this post to your own reflection that uses a serial-only observation, but you are not aware of it, because after all by your school of thought you do not exist as a factor of your research, isn't it?

Just how would it be possible to “cross the border” if your line segments do not start at some “point”, on one side of that “border”, and end at some other “point”, on the other side of that border?

Another example of conclusions that are based on self ignorance, as shown above.

Once you contradict the contradictory contradictions of your notions by excluding your exclusively exclusive exclusions you might conclude that your conclusions are not conclusive.
Once you aware of yourself a significant factor of your research, you will be able to get my work.

[doronshadmi]

mathematics is what mathematicians do
I agree with you, this is all my work about.

[nathan]

... the observed object, which is serial by nature.
I.e. 'observed objects' are serial, by by essence (or definition, if you will) ...
In addition to serial observation, I add parallel observation

... except when you change your mind. Notice how you've contradicted yourself in a single unedited post.

[Myriad]

Incivility and bickering moved to AAH. Please remember the Membership Agreement and do not personalize the argument.

[ddt]

mathematics is what mathematicians do
I agree with you, this is all my work about.

Good. You left out a relevant portion of what I wrote, though:
mathematics is what mathematicians do, and you're not one.

And before you try to deny it: you've confessed as much in your previous posts. You have no formal training in mathematics, and every time you've touched on existing mathematics (so, not your own ramblings) you've shown enormous lack of comprehension of existing concepts.

So, stop claiming what mathematics is, as you're obviously not a mathematician yourself.

[jsfisher]

You have no formal training in mathematics, and every time you've touched on existing mathematics (so, not your own ramblings) you've shown enormous lack of comprehension of existing concepts.


ddt, I think you accidentally left out those two important words.

Doron, if we may, let's lay all the posturing and naming calling aside and focus on value.

What advantage does your alternate view of things bring?

Please, no handing waving. Let's be somewhat concrete.

Under the conventional view, Mathematics is reasonably self-consistent and very utilitarian. From quantum physics, through cryptography, to balancing checkbooks, Mathematics works. Under your alternate view, all of this falls apart. Not even logic nor set theory survive intact.

So, a fair question to ask is, "What's the point?"

[ddt]

ddt, I think you accidentally left out those two important words.
Thanks. I corrected it. I wouldn't want to go down in history as having once endorsed Doron's views. :)


What advantage does your alternate view of things bring?
Very good question. IIRC, you asked it before. I hope you get more answer than previous times.

[doronshadmi]

Very good question. IIRC, you asked it before. I hope you get more answer than previous times.
To increase our understanding of the researchable, whether it is formal or not.

[nathan]

To increase our understanding of the researchable, whether it is formal or not.

You have failed to show that it does that. given the number of tries you've had at attempting that, it seems reasonable to conclude it doesn't increase understanding.

[ddt]

To increase our understanding of the researchable, whether it is formal or not.
You shouldn't be answering me, but jsfisher. Let's review his post:


Doron, if we may, let's lay all the posturing and naming calling aside and focus on value.

What advantage does your alternate view of things bring?

Please, no handing waving. Let's be somewhat concrete.

Under the conventional view, Mathematics is reasonably self-consistent and very utilitarian. From quantum physics, through cryptography, to balancing checkbooks, Mathematics works. Under your alternate view, all of this falls apart. Not even logic nor set theory survive intact.

So, a fair question to ask is, "What's the point?"
Your "answer" is hand waving. Thus far, no-one's understanding is increased in any way - everyone's only confused. So, concretely, to fill in jsfisher's examples:

1) does doronatics better help in modeling quantum physics?

2) does doronatics help in designing better cryptographic methods?

3) does doronatics help me to better balance my check book?

In each case, if the answer is a "yes", concretely point out how.

[doronshadmi]

ddt, nathan,

A single eye movement cannot get my work.

[drkitten]

ddt, nathan,

A single eye movement cannot get my work.

That's trivially true, but I wouldn't brag about it if I were you.

A single eye movement cannot get your work, because nothing can get your work, because there is no work to be got.

[jsfisher]

To increase our understanding of the researchable, whether it is formal or not.

Your response is weak, but let's test it with a simple example.

You have told us that the 2 in {2,4,6,8,...} (the set of even positive numbers) is different from the 2 in {2,3,5,7,11,13,...} (the set of prime numbers). So, under your unique view, the intersection of those two sets would be empty since no element is common to both. Similarly, the union of those two sets would appear to the rest of us as a multiset, because the two different versions of 2 that would need to appear in the union.

So, according to what you have told us, set theory -- perhaps the most fundamental branch of all of Mathematics -- doesn't work. In what way does this increase our understanding?

[nathan]

A single eye movement cannot get my work.

oh great, you're now claiming saccades are relevant to your theory. Smells of another diversion to me.

[The Man]

Again you tell me what I do instead of observe yourself during your research.

This is your research not mine, which makes you the one in need of observation. Observations of my research demonstrate the global use of serial and parallel aspects including parallel aspects in series and series aspects in parallel.


Direction is along the observed object, which is serial by nature.

You can combine between different observation, and this is exactly ONNs.

So your answer is yes that in your “parallel observation” there is no direction. That being the case the only way you could be sure what you are observing is in fact “parallel” and not just off on some tangent is by what you call “series observation”. So in fact by your own assertions what you call “serial observation” is required to establish what you call “parallel observation”


You can get me only if you also aware of yourself, when you listen to me.



No, it is not because:

1) Only the local property of line-segment is defined by coordinates, simply because a coordinate cannot be but a local object.

2) < AND > is a simultaneous parallel state that no collection of objects that are based on direction can determine.

That is untrue by your own “< AND >” defining conclusion of a line segments non-locality, a conclusion easily obtainable by a coordinate system which you refer to as “serial observation”.



In other words, you use the name "non-local object" without understand it.

It is your definition, Doron, if it shows someone uses “the name "non-local object" without understand it” then that person is you.




On the contrary.

I claim that since by your serial observation, a line-segment is not an atom, it can be divided to its sub-elements, where the result is such sub-element.

In addition to serial observation, I add parallel observation, where a line-segment is a non-local atom that is not divided by division operation (and not changed by any other operation), and the result is not considered as a sub-element of the non-local atom (represented as line-segment).

Again this is just you establishing, very poorly mind you, two mutually exclusive perspectives, “serial observation” and “parallel observation”, so you can claim that you use both of these exclusive perspectives in your notions where you claim their are no exclusive perspective.




Self identity it is, whether it is serial or parallel observation.

For example:

____ - __ = __


By serial observation, ____ was changed by __ in order to get __

(The substation operation have changed ____)


By parallel observation ____ was not changed by __ in order to get __

(The subtraction operation did not change ____ but used to point to another non-local atom, as the result)

Again you say one thing and do another if as you said “Self identity it is, whether it is serial or parallel observation” then the self identity of an arithmetic operation is the same “whether it is serial or parallel observation”.


As far as self identity goes “____ - __ = __” also means that anywhere one finds a “__” they can replace it with a “____ - __ “ which is in direct contradiction to your perspective dependent use of “=”.



Exactly.


So you intended to be silly, I’m sorry I did not realize that all of this was just your attempt at parody.



From a parallel point of view, the result is always an atom, no matter what arithmetical operation is used in order to point on it.

Then you are not using “=” as self identity in your parallel point of view because if “____ - __ = __” (with self identity) then any operation done to both sides does not change that self identity so “+ __” to both sides results in ____- __+ __= __ + __ or simplified ____ = __ + __ thus “__ + __” is just as valid a result as “____”. Atom or not atom, the result can be considered either, you are the only one limiting it to one or the other as thus limit alternatives in your exclusive perspective.



No,

If parallel observation is used, then atoms are used to point to other atoms, where no atom is a sub-element of any atom.

You say no then describe the limitations of one of your mutually exclusive perspectives thus confirming the assertions of my statement you quoted and responded with “No”.




Since you are not aware of yourself during your research, you are unable to get that you are the one who contradicts itself (you simply use me, because you are not aware of yourself and how you get these contradictions as a direct result of your serial-only observation of the researched objects) .

This is your research not mine, don’t try to pass off responsibility for your wasted effort to other just because you can’t make sense out of your own research.




Until this very moment you did not use parallel observation even once, so you can't use it as a legitimate part of your conclusions. .


Well you’re a little bit late for that as I have been working in electronics for over 25 years. Likewise parallel aspects can be observer being legitimately used in Mechanics, Quantum Physics, Music, Computers, Language and a whole host of other application where they help establish the legitimate conclusions that are demonstrated by our current technological society. The fact that you use the term “parallel” as an illegitimate part of your conclusions does not restrict anyone but yourself.




No,

By standard geometry a line-segment is defined as a local object.

It can meet you own definition of non-local as well as its own definitions of non-local and is therefore far more flexible then you notions and especially your notions of standard geometry. The limitation of a line segment being defined by standard geometry as only a local object is simply one of your unsupportable notions and thus the injunction it entails is likewise yours alone.



Since you choose to use only serial observation …

Again the exclusive perspective of what you call “serial observation” is your own, ill defined, creation as is your ascription of it to others.




You are talking all along this post to your own reflection that uses a serial-only observation, but you are not aware of it, because after all by your school of thought you do not exist as a factor of your research, isn't it?

Again this is your research not mine, if you can not make sense of it yourself and clearly communicate that to others it is no ones fault but your own. Are you that unhappy with your “research” that you insist on trying to pawn it off on others?



Another example of conclusions that are based on self ignorance, as shown above.

Since when is a question a conclusion? Must be another example of your exclusive definitions from your exclusive perspectives.



Once you aware of yourself a significant factor of your research, you will be able to get my work.

Again you defer others to their own research instead of addressing your own, if your only response to critiques of your research is to tell people to look elsewhere or to themselves, you’re not going to help yourself or your research much. Anyone doing their own research will repeatedly find serial and parallel applications, without your limitations, and find those applications usefully employed with self consistent and generally consistent easily understandable explanations. If you do not take your own research seriously enough to take responsibility for it and its effective explanation yourself, then how can you expect others to take you or your research seriously?

[doronshadmi]

I'm afraid I don't have the patience of the posters on this thread,
So you can't say any meaningful thing about my work.

[doronshadmi]

Again you say one thing and do another if as you said “Self identity it is, whether it is serial or parallel observation” then the self identity of an arithmetic operation is the same “whether it is serial or parallel observation”.


As far as self identity goes “____ - __ = __” also means that anywhere one finds a “__” they can replace it with a “____ - __ “ which is in direct contradiction to your perspective dependent use of “=”.
No,

Since you are using a one and only one observation type in order to get __ self identity, you simply ignore observation and replace it by __ self identity (By the way, an element is local w.r.t itself).

But this is not the case if more than a one observation type is used in order to get __ self identity.

In this case we get a tree-like structure, that from one hand we have a single result (the "trunk") and on the other hand we get infinitely many serial or parallel observations ("branches") that are related to that identity, which is not less than the tree.

So self identity __ = __ is nothing but the simplest case of such a tree.

Ignoring the branches of a tree is not its generalization, but it is its trivialization.

We can get a partial tree if it is limited only to one observation's type (whether it is serial or parallel).

Observations of my research demonstrate the global use of serial and parallel aspects including parallel aspects in series and series aspects in parallel.

Please show us the parallel and non-local aspects of your research.

It will help us to compare our points of view, in order to develop the communication between us.

[zooterkin]

So you can't say any meaningful thing about my work.

{} would be the set of people in this thread who can.

[ddt]

ddt, nathan,

A single eye movement cannot get my work.
So you refuse to list anything concrete you can accomplish with your "theory".

So you can't say any meaningful thing about my work.
Nobody can. Even you yourself can't, judging by the scores of times you contradict yourself.

And there's a simple explanation for that: your "theory" isn't meaningful itself. Simple as that.

[doronshadmi]

{} would be the set of people in this thread who can.
Why do you care about others, in this case.

After all you are the one who has to get it or not.

[doronshadmi]

So you refuse to list anything concrete you can accomplish with your "theory".
Some of it is in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4265780&postcount=1027 but no single-eye observer can get it.


Nobody can. Even you yourself can't, judging by the scores of times you contradict yourself.
The contradiction is a direct result of a single-eye observer.

And there's a simple explanation for that: your "theory" isn't meaningful itself. Simple as that.
It isn't meaningful to single-eye observers.

[drkitten]

Some of it is in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4265780&postcount=1027 but no single-eye observer can get it.

Only in the trivial sense that no observer can get it, because it isn't there.

Specifically, there is nothing in that post except link spam.

If you think that you have something to offer, do it in flat ASCII and here on the forum.

.... or better still, don't do it at all, because you're wrong in thinking you have something to offer.

[zooterkin]

Some of it is in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4265780&postcount=1027 but no single-eye observer can get it.

The contradiction is a direct result of a single-eye observer.

It isn't meaningful to single-eye observers.

How many non-single-eye observers do you expect to find on this site?

[drkitten]

How many non-single-eye observers do you expect to find on this site?

Blow "this site." I want to know how many non-single-eye observers he expects to find ANYWHERE. Upthread is a list of forums and blogs he's spammed with this gibberish; he's failed to find any supporters on any of them, either.

[doronshadmi]

How many non-single-eye observers do you expect to find on this site?
I do not expect anything, I simply air my view and listed to others (sometimes I agree with them and correct my work) here or in any other forum.

[ddt]

I do not expect anything, I simply air my view and listed to others (sometimes I agree with them and correct my work) here or in any other forum.

So you're just wasting your own time and that of others. You're not really listening to others; otherwise, you'd have taken heed the advice drkitten gave in a post that was relegated to AAH (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=130832). There is nothing to correct about your "work". It's bunk. It's gibberish. It's word salad. It isn't even wrong.

[The Man]

No,

Since you are using a one and only one observation type in order to get __ self identity, you simply ignore observation and replace it by __ self identity (By the way, an element is local w.r.t itself).

But this is not the case if more than a one observation type is used in order to get __ self identity.

In this case we get a tree-like structure, that from one hand we have a single result (the "trunk") and on the other hand we get infinitely many serial or parallel observations ("branches") that are related to that identity, which is not less than the tree.

So self identity __ = __ is nothing but the simplest case of such a tree.

Remember you asserted the Wikipedia definition of self identity as your own. That definition equates the arithmetic operation to the result. Since then you have done other things to demonstrate that the definition you asserted is not the one you use. Likewise you have since asserted and do now that such self identity differs in what you call serial observation from what you call parallel observation, yet asserted that they do not. This is just another example of you not adhering to the assertions you make about your own research.



Ignoring the branches of a tree is not its generalization, but it is its trivialization.

How do you generalize a tree without trivializing its braches? If you contend that the branches of some specific tree are a significant consideration from others then you have not generalized that or those trees.




We can get a partial tree if it is limited only to one observation's type (whether it is serial or parallel).

You mean you can “get a partial tree if it is limited only to one” of your mutualy exclusive perspectives.



Please show us the parallel and non-local aspects of your research.

It was not my research, although I wish I could lay claim to it. Most of the research was done thousands of years ago.

In the X, Y, Z coordinate system I used before a line segment at (4, 3, 1) to (4, 3, 9) is parallel with a line segment at (10, 15, 0) to (10, 15, 45). One could consider either one of those line segments as the “local” consideration making the other or some other line segment non-local in part or in its entirety. Under your own exclusive definition of “non-local” the latter line segment has Z axis coordinates “< And >” the former line segment. This is the flexibility of coordinate systems to meet not only its own coordinately dependent definition of non-local, but your own, as you assert, non-coordinately dependent definition of non-local.




It will help us to compare our points of view, in order to develop the communication between us.

I can only hope, but since this is nothing that I have not expressed before, that hope is minimal at best. This is your research, the restricting definitions are yours. If you can not operate within the constraints of the definitions of your own research then you need to stop trying to define things in such a constrictive manor or make better definitions. To help you, a definition is just common usage, if you what people to understand what you want to say then use the applicable common usage. I understand that English is not your natural language, but the aspects of language are still the same. We can help you in that regard, but you have to be willing to seriously participate and not just focus on telling us that we are limited by one of your exclusively defined perspectives.

[doronshadmi]

Remember you asserted the Wikipedia definition of self identity as your own. That definition equates the arithmetic operation to the result.

And so do I.

The tree is the same tree and it has its self identity, which is based on traunk\branches relation.



How do you generalize a tree without trivializing its braches? If you contend that the branches of some specific tree are a significant consideration from others then you have not generalized that or those trees.
No, the tree is a whole (trunk)\parts (branches) relation and its identity is not less than whole\parts relation.



You mean you can “get a partial tree if it is limited only to one” of your mutualy exclusive perspectives.
No, your serial exclusive observation is a particular case of the identity of the tree, that is based on whole\parts relation.




It was not my research, although I wish I could lay claim to it. Most of the research was done thousands of years ago.
And it is closed under the particular case of serial observation.


In the X, Y, Z coordinate system I used before a line segment at (4, 3, 1) to (4, 3, 9) is parallel with a line segment at (10, 15, 0) to (10, 15, 45). One could consider either one of those line segments as the “local” consideration making the other or some other line segment non-local in part or in its entirety. Under your own exclusive definition of “non-local” the latter line segment has Z axis coordinates “< And >” the former line segment. This is the flexibility of coordinate systems to meet not only its own coordinately dependent definition of non-local, but your own, as you assert, non-coordinately dependent definition of non-local.
(4, 3, 1) to (4, 3, 9) and (10, 15, 0) to (10, 15, 45) are locals w.r.t each other no matter what observation type is used, simply because they are determined by coordinates. If their length is considered w.r.t each other then no axis like X,Y or Z is considered, because Length is independent of any n-axis system.

By examining Length, one get gets by changing an element
(for example: by serial observation we get __ result by changing ____ with - __ operation), or by pointing to an element (for example: by parallel observation we get __ result by pointing to __ from ____ with - __ operation, where both of them are considered as non-local atoms).

It is clear that you do not understand what is non-local element and what is parallel observation, simply because your observation is closed under local-only and serial observation.

In other words, you did not demonstrate any flexibility but exactly the opposite.




if you what people to understand what you want to say then use the applicable common usage.

So you say: "do not suggest any alternative to the current body of knowledge, because the current body of knowledge can do all what you do, but better".

The Man, you did not show this. All you showed is that you do not understand my work.

Simple as that.

...non-local in part or in its entirety.

We actually do not need more than that in order to demonstrate that you do not understand what non-local object is, or what parallel observation is.

Furthermore, you do not understand Relation as non-local only state, that is independent of any observation.

Also you do not understand Point as local only state, that is independent of any observation.

EDIT:

In addition you do not understand that a coordinate system cannot be found without Relation(non-local)\Element(local or non-local) Interaction, where Interaction is the observer's view.

In that case, no coordinate's value can be found, without a non-local object that is used as a connector between points (that are local objects, independently of any observation).

No non-local object is determined by local objects like points.

[The Man]

And so do I. .

So try using it within the application of the definition you presented and claim to use.


The tree is the same tree and it has its self identity, which is based on traunk\branches relation.

No, the tree is a whole (trunk)\parts (branches) relation and its identity is not less than whole\parts relation.

A bush has those same relations, as does a hard line phone system (a cable trunk that branches to various residences) your generalization of a tree by “traunk\branches relation” is ill defined for the self identity of a tree.





No, your serial exclusive observation is a particular case of the identity of the tree, that is based on whole\parts relation.

Exclusive “serial observation” is your construct that you simply ascribe to others. Your ascription of such does not require anyone to adhere to the injunctions you seem to enjoy prescribing for them.

Remember your previous claim that self identity is the same in your constructs of serial or parallel observation. Now you claim “serial exclusive observation is a particular case of the identity…”





And it is closed under the particular case of serial observation.

Absolutely false, people are making developments as we speak, the only one that considers it closed is you, by your own construct of an exclusive perspective you call “serial observation” that you ascribe to others while claiming no perspective is exclusive.



(4, 3, 1) to (4, 3, 9) and (10, 15, 0) to (10, 15, 45) are locals w.r.t each other no matter what observation type is used, simply because they are determined by coordinates. If their length is considered w.r.t each other then no axis like X,Y or Z is considered, because Length is independent of any n-axis system.

By examining Length, one get gets by changing an element
(for example: by serial observation we get __ result by changing ____ with - __ operation), or by pointing to an element (for example: by parallel observation we get __ result by pointing to __ from ____ with - __ operation, where both of them are considered as non-local atoms).

Who said anything about length? The question you asked was about parallel and non-local. The same slopes (not lengths) in the same plane demonstrate that they are parallel and the non-local conclusion is by your own definition of such. Your definitions only limit you not others. If you can not focus on the answer given then at least try to focus on the question you asked.



It is clear that you do not understand what is non-local element and what is parallel observation, simply because your observation is closed under local-only and serial observation.

In other words, you did not demonstrate any flexibility but exactly the opposite.

It is clear that you do not understand the implications of your own definition of non-local and remain closed minded to alternative perspectives that meet your definition but do not employ your notions.





So you say: "do not suggest any alternative to the current body of knowledge,

Where did I say that, you simply quote what you would have liked me to have said and try to attribute it me. If you what to communicate effectively then use common vernacular, if that makes it clearer for you.



because the current body of knowledge can do all what you do, but better".

Well you will get no argument from me about “the current body of knowledge can do all what you do, but better”, but if you what to “suggest any alternative” you should do it clearly and consistently, which you do not.


The Man, you did not show this. All you showed is that you do not understand my work.

Simple as that.

Show what, that you do not communicate your suggested alternative clearly and consistently? You show that yourself, simple as that.


We actually do not need more than that in order to demonstrate that you do not understand what non-local object is, or what parallel observation is.

Furthermore, you do not understand Relation as non-local only state, that is independent of any observation.

Also you do not understand Point as local only state, that is independent of any observation.




Again these constraints and definitions of yours like “Relation as non-local only state”, “< AND >” some point defines a line segment as non-local, “Point as local only state, that is independent of any observation”, constrain only you and no one else, severely limiting your flexibility, which is demonstrated by the fact that you do not adhere to your own definitions and constraints, yet only use them to try and constrain others or alternative (to your) perspectives.



EDIT:

In addition you do not understand that a coordinate system cannot be found without Relation(non-local)\Element(local or non-local) Interaction, where Interaction is the observer's view.

In that case, no coordinate's value can be found, without a non-local object that is used as a connector between points (that are local objects, independently of any observation).

No non-local object is determined by local objects like points.

Coordinate systems are not “found” there are defined, but you do not understand that do you?

ETA:
A line segment can be used to connect points in a coordinate system, so now you assert that a line segment is “a non-local object that is used as a connector between points (that are local objects, independently of any observation).”

[Belz...]

I haven't followed the whole thread. Does the OP understand that numbers don't have entropy, now ?

[doronshadmi]

So try using it within the application of the definition you presented and claim to use.

Read my works.



A bush has those same relations, as does a hard line phone system (a cable trunk that branches to various residences) your generalization of a tree by “traunk\branches relation” is ill defined for the self identity of a tree.
All your examples have the general topology of a tree, where from one side we have a singleton, and on the other side we have the states that are related to this singleton.

The same holds for class, category, set, etc ..


Exclusive “serial observation” is your construct that you simply ascribe to others
No, you are doing it by yourself, all along our dialog, without any help from me.


Remember your previous claim that self identity is the same in your constructs of serial or parallel observation. Now you claim “serial exclusive observation is a particular case of the identity…”
No, your serial-only observation is your one and only one "alternative" to understand Identitiy.


Absolutely false, people are making developments as we speak, the only one that considers it closed is you, by your own construct of an exclusive perspective you call “serial observation” that you ascribe to others while claiming no perspective is exclusive.
Since I use more than a one alternative to observe things, I am not closed like you under a one and only one observation's type.



Who said anything about length? The question you asked was about parallel and non-local. The same slopes (not lengths) in the same plane demonstrate that they are parallel and the non-local conclusion is by your own definition of such. Your definitions only limit you not others. If you can not focus on the answer given then at least try to focus on the question you asked.
So now you demonstrate that you cannot understand anything that is not defined it terms of coordinate systems, which is again a demonstration of your serial-only observation.



It is clear that you do not understand the implications of your own definition of non-local and remain closed minded to alternative perspectives that meet your definition but do not employ your notions.
You are (yet) not in a position to conclude any meaningful thing about my work, as you clearly show all along our dialog, until this very moment.


Where did I say that, you simply quote what you would have liked me to have said and try to attribute it me. If you what to communicate effectively then use common vernacular, if that makes it clearer for you.


if you what people to understand what you want to say then use the applicable common usage.
In other words, I have to show how non-locality and parallel observation are actually local and serial observations.

You are invited to do it, but first you have to demonstrate that you get non-locality and parallel observations. Until this very moment, you did not demonstrat it.


Well you will get no argument from me about “the current body of knowledge can do all what you do, but better”, but if you what to “suggest any alternative” you should do it clearly and consistently, which you do not.
Only from your serial-only observation.


Show what, …
That you are closed under serial observation, and your conclusions are a direct result of this limitation.


Again these constraints and definitions of yours like “Relation as non-local only state”, “< AND >” some point defines a line segment as non-local, “Point as local only state, that is independent of any observation”, constrain only you and no one else, severely limiting your flexibility, which is demonstrated by the fact that you do not adhere to your own definitions and constraints, yet only use them to try and constrain others or alternative (to your) perspectives.
The only fact here is your wrong conclusions of my work, which are a direct result of your serial-only observation.


Coordinate systems are not “found” there are defined, but you do not understand that do you?
You are right, my mistake.


ETA:
A line segment can be used to connect points in a coordinate system, so now you assert that a line segment is “a non-local object that is used as a connector between points (that are local objects, independently of any observation).”
Very simple, try to use a point as a connector to another point, and you immediately understand that only a line-segment can do it, and the reason is:

A line-segment can be non-local w.r.t to other elements, where a point cannot be but local w.r.t other elements no matter what observation type is used.

The opposite holds for Relation, which cannot be but non-local no matter what observation type is used.

[doronshadmi]

The Man,

x = point

y = line

z = plane

w = volume

If x is observed through w w.r.t z, then x cannot be but on z XOR not on z.

By observation w x is local w.r.t z.

If y is observed through w w.r.t z, then y can be on z AND not on z.

By observation w y can be non-local w.r.t z.

By using standard geometry, please get the results above, or show that these results are wrong, limited, etc ...

[drkitten]

By using standard geometry, please get the results above, or show that these results are wrong, limited, etc ...

Certainly :


If x is observed through w w.r.t z, then x cannot be but on z XOR not on z.

Define "on z" as "an element of z"; define "cannot be but" as "must be." We therefore must
show that "x is an element of z" XOR "x is not an element of z" is tautological.

Since for all a,b, "a is an element of b XOR a is not an element of b" is tautological, it holds for the general case.



By observation w x is local w.r.t z.

"Local" is not a defined term, hence this sentence is neither right nor wrong, but meaningless.


If y is observed through w w.r.t z, then y can be on z AND not on z.

No, this one is wrong. By previous theorem, y cannot be on z and not on z.


By observation w y can be non-local w.r.t z.

"Non-local" is not a defined term, hence this sentence is also meaningless.

And your pseudo-mathematics offers nothing to standard mathematics except truism, gibberish, and error. In this case, you've presented all three.

[drkitten]

The opposite holds for Relation, which cannot be but non-local no matter what observation type is used.

Aware you are that "cannot be but" not grammatical standard non is penguin conflugalize bork bork bork?

Dumber than before previously had not thought possible for to you appear methadone arsenal calligraph Antwerp snerkle whiz bang.

[Little 10 Toes]

The Man,

x = point; y = line; z = plane; w = volume

If x is observed through w w.r.t z, then x cannot be but on z XOR not on z.
By observation w x is local w.r.t z.
If y is observed through w w.r.t z, then y can be on z AND not on z.
By observation w y can be non-local w.r.t z.
By using standard geometry, please get the results above, or show that these results are wrong, limited, etc ...
I'll take a crack too!



In no particular order and not being a complete list:
How can you "observe" a point through volume with relation to a plane?
I'm not too familiar with XOR but x can be in z or not in z. I don't have to "observe" it through "volume".
Why do you need XOR?
Based on your past history of using standard terms "uniquely", you have not defined "observe" nor "observation".
A plane does not have "volume". It's two dimensional. It has area, like a circle.
"By observation [a] volume [a] point is local with relation to z" does not parse.
How can you "observe" a line through volume?
"By observation [a] volume [a] line can be non-local with reguard to a plane" does not parse.
Why do you need AND?
How about you work on these? BTW: you still haven't answered what a "proper subset" is. The last time you used it in a "definition" was in this message (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4236183&postcount=896). You still haven't given us a definition, nor told us the difference between it and a subset.

[doronshadmi]

Since for all a,b, "a is an element of b XOR a is not an element of b" is tautological, it holds for the general case.
No, it holds the trivial case.

It is all in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf .

Since you are too lazy to read it I am too lazy to reply to this post.

[doronshadmi]

I'll take a crack too!



In no particular order and not being a complete list:
How can you "observe" a point through volume with relation to a plane?
I'm not too familiar with XOR but x can be in z or not in z. I don't have to "observe" it through "volume".
Why do you need XOR?
Based on your past history of using standard terms "uniquely", you have not defined "observe" nor "observation".
A plane does not have "volume". It's two dimensional. It has area, like a circle.
"By observation [a] volume [a] point is local with relation to z" does not parse.
How can you "observe" a line through volume?
"By observation [a] volume [a] line can be non-local with reguard to a plane" does not parse.
Why do you need AND?
How about you work on these? BTW: you still haven't answered what a "proper subset" is. The last time you used it in a "definition" was in this message (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4236183&postcount=896). You still haven't given us a definition, nor told us the difference between it and a subset.


As for (2) please show how the same point can be on Z or not on Z.

Please explain your problems about obeservation.


BTW: you still haven't answered what a "proper subset" is ...
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf (definition #1 in page 2).

[zooterkin]

It is all in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf .

Since you are too lazy to read it I am too lazy to reply to this post.

So, remind me, exactly why do you bother to post here? If you can't respond to simple factual questions about your post, please go away. It clearly doesn't occur to you that your PDF files might be unclear, despite many comments saying they are. How many people have you found who understand your ramblings in the years you have been posting about them? What useful work have you done with your ideas?

[doronshadmi]

So, remind me, exactly why do you bother to post here?
Because I am developing my work during the dialogs.


It clearly doesn't occur to you that your PDF files might be unclear,...
Then ask detailed questions about their contents.

[nathan]

Because I am developing my work during the dialogs.

Evidence?

Then ask detailed questions about their contents.
Already done, have you failed to notice all the questions in this thread? What is missing is detailed answers from you.

[doronshadmi]

Evidence?


Already done, have you failed to notice all the questions in this thread? What is missing is detailed answers from you.

Evidence can be seen only by a more-than-one-eye observer.

So nothing was done by you.

[zooterkin]

Evidence can be seen only by a more-than-one-eye observer.



So, you will only answer questions from those who are not one-eyed. Those who are not one-eyed will understand your documents. Those who ask questions are therefore one-eyed.

Is that correct?

[doronshadmi]

oppsss...

[doronshadmi]

So, you will only answer questions from those who are not one-eyed. Those who are not one-eyed will understand your documents. Those who ask questions are therefore one-eyed.

Is that correct?

No.

An answer is given, but only a non-only-one-eye observer can get it.

Until this very moment, my answers are observed by using only a one eye.

[Skeptic]

To those replying to Doron:

Like most cranks, doron thrives on attention -- and "negative" attention is almost as good as "positive" attention in that respect. He wants to be told he's a genius, but in a pinch, being told he's an idiot would do -- it feeds his notion of being "prosecuted for his beliefs".

It is pointless to argue with him, as it is pointless to argue with cranks in general. It isn't that they refuse to see what's wrong with their reasoning, it's that they CANNOT see it. It's like arguing with a blind man about what shade or red exactly is the color of somebody's shirt. Doron's blindness is psychological rather than physical, but it is no less real, for all that.

The best reply to him is silence. After a few "challanging" posts where doron, ignored, will DEMAND that we continue to talk to him or else WE ARE ADMITTING HE IS 100% CORRECT, he will leave.

Cranks are imprevious to criticism, but they can't stand being ignored.

[doronshadmi]

To those replying to Doron:

Like most cranks, doron thrives on attention -- and "negative" attention is almost as good as "positive" attention in that respect. He wants to be told he's a genius, but in a pinch, being told he's an idiot would do -- it feeds his notion of being "prosecuted for his beliefs".

It is pointless to argue with him, as it is pointless to argue with cranks in general. It isn't that they refuse to see what's wrong with their reasoning, it's that they CANNOT see it. It's like arguing with a blind man about what shade or red exactly is the color of somebody's shirt. Doron's blindness is psychological rather than physical, but it is no less real, for all that.

The best reply to him is silence. After a few "challanging" posts where doron, ignored, will DEMAND that we continue to talk to him or else WE ARE ADMITTING HE IS 100% CORRECT, he will leave.

Cranks are imprevious to criticism, but they can't stand being ignored.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4235385&postcount=876

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4235964&postcount=880

Your amateur pseudo physiatrist's analysis is trivial as usual, but you can't help it because this is your best, isn't it?

I am challenging you, please reply in details to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1146 .


For the record, primes in mathematics -- more precisely, in number theory -- are "deep" for reasons that have nothing whatever to do with this odd definition of "enthropy". Doron simply doesn't know enough mathematics to know that.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4117882&postcount=311

For the record, please give some detailed example that supports your argument.

[doronshadmi]

Here is some intersting page:

http://or519.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=67

[jsfisher]

Here is some intersting page:

http://or519.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=67


Are your thoughts on the "intersting page" so vacuous you present the link without comment? By the way, the "intersting page" doesn't support any of your tortured reasoning or undefined concepts.

[Little 10 Toes]

As for (2) please show how the same point can be on Z or not on Z.

Please explain your problems about obeservation.


http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf (definition #1 in page 2).

Lifted straight off your doc: "B is a proper subset of A if any object of B is an object of A, but there is an object of A that is not an object of B." You only use "proper subset" 3 times in you doc.

You do not define a proper subset, but you give an example of what it is. (ie "A car is a vehicle that moves people." By this example, a bus and a moped is a car.) In additon, the definition of subset, "In mathematics, especially in set theory, a set A is a subset of a set B if A is "contained" inside B" is practially the same. So again, what is the difference?

Edit: I'll dicuss observation later.

Edit#2: Please counter the rest of the points.

[drkitten]

No, it holds the trivial case.

Is "trivial" another word you are redefining to mean gibberish?


It is all in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf .

No, it is not.


Since you are too lazy to read it I am too lazy to reply to this post.

Since you are too lazy to write it intelligibly, I am to lazy to translate it into English.

[Little 10 Toes]

As for (2) please show how the same point can be on Z or not on Z.
Using Wikipedia's info on xor: The logical operation exclusive disjunction, also called exclusive or (symbolized XOR or EOR), is a type of logical disjunction on two operands that results in a value of “true” if and only if exactly one of the operands has a value of “true”. [1] A simple way to state this is "one or the other but not both."

so point x is either not in plane z or it is.

[drkitten]

Because I am developing my work during the dialogs.
Then ask detailed questions about their contents.

All right. Detailed questions.

Please [b]define[/i] Relation/Element Interaction in a non-circular fashion.
Please explain how in definition #3 the cardinal of B can be simultaneously less than and equal to the cardinal of A. (Bear in mind that a "cardinal" is a type of bird, that the "cardinality" of a set is uniquely defined as a number, and that it is provable that at most one of x>y, x<y and x=y hold for numbers.)
How are "relations" defined?
How are "relations" enumerated (in the sense of definition #4)? How can an object be "non-local" in absolute terms (as the text at the top of page 2 indicates)? You only defined non-locality w.r.t a particular undefined element y]. Please prove your assertion that a non-local object can both be and not be an element of [i]any given non-empty set.
Please provide an example of an object and a set and prove that the object is simultaneously in and not in the set. Make sure that you enumerate the objects in the set explictly so that we can see the list in which the object both appears and does not appear.
Please define "researchable" in a non-circular fashion.


And now that I've read your UR.pdf post in detail, please respond in detail to my earlier proof that x is or is not in y in the general case.

[doronshadmi]

"Organic Mathematics" is now available by the peer reviewed journal named as "International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics".

Thank you for helping me to develop my theory up to the level that can be accepted by a professional mathematical journal.

Enjoy: http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/IJPAM-OM.pdf

I have found a mistake in page 332:

"In the Thought experiment electrons are launched in two opposite directions from a common origin and measurements are made of the location and momentum of one of the particles."

and it hase to be:

"In the Thought experiment electrons are launched in two opposite directions from a common origin and measurements are made of the location or momentum of one of the particles."

[doronshadmi]

All right. Detailed questions.

Please [b]define[/i] Relation/Element Interaction in a non-circular fashion.
Please explain how in definition #3 the cardinal of B can be simultaneously less than and equal to the cardinal of A. (Bear in mind that a "cardinal" is a type of bird, that the "cardinality" of a set is uniquely defined as a number, and that it is provable that at most one of x>y, x<y and x=y hold for numbers.)
How are "relations" defined?
How are "relations" enumerated (in the sense of definition #4)? How can an object be "non-local" in absolute terms (as the text at the top of page 2 indicates)? You only defined non-locality w.r.t a particular undefined element y]. Please prove your assertion that a non-local object can both be and not be an element of [i]any given non-empty set.
Please provide an example of an object and a set and prove that the object is simultaneously in and not in the set. Make sure that you enumerate the objects in the set explictly so that we can see the list in which the object both appears and does not appear.
Please define "researchable" in a non-circular fashion.


And now that I've read your UR.pdf post in detail, please respond in detail to my earlier proof that x is or is not in y in the general case.

(1) Nothing is circular hear, since relation and element are mutually independent of each other.

(2) B is not a particular object but used as a dummy-variable.

It is known that unlike a finite set, the cardinal of a proper subset of a non-finite set can be < (example: |Q| < |R|) or = (example: E is the set of even numbers, |E| = |N|) to the cardinal of the set, which it is belongs to.

As for numbers, you get them only as local objects. x>y, x<y and x=y hold for only for local numbers. This is not the case with non-local numbers.

(3) Relation or Element do not need any definition, because they are immediately understood as the fundamental building-blocks that enables researchability, in the first place. It cannot be understood without a paradigm-shift of your observation's ability.

(4) Nothing is enumerated without Relation Element Interaction, for example:

Enumerability cannot be satisfied if '+'(some relation) or 'A'(some element) are not interact with each other.

(5) I do not see such a definition at the top of page 2. An element that is not a point can be non-local w.r.t other element.


(6) There is nothing to be proved here, this is the very nature of a non-local property of an object, which is: it cannot be fully captured by any given domain.

(7) A line segment can be a member and not a member of a given plane, if the plane is defined by a set of points.

(8) Compare-ability.

[drkitten]

(1) Nothing is circular hear, since relation and element are mutually independent of each other.

That's not a definition.



(2) B is not a particular object but used as a dummy-variable.

It is known that unlike a finite set, the cardinal of a proper subset of a non-finite set can be < (example: |Q| < |R|) or = (example: E is the set of even numbers, |E| = |N|) to the cardinal of the set, which it is belongs to.

Wrong. First of all, a cardinal is a type of bird.

Second, assuming you mean "cardinality," you're not using it correctly. (Hint: the cardinality of E is always equal to the cardinality of N, even though E is a proper subset of N.)


As for numbers, you get them only as local objects. x>y, x<y and x=y hold for only for local numbers. This is not the case with non-local numbers.

Prove this statement.


(3) Relation or Element do not need any definition,

Yes, they do.

because they are immediately understood as the fundamental building-blocks that enables researchability,

Then why doesn't anyone int his thread understand them?

It cannot be understood without a paradigm-shift of your observation's ability.

In other words, you can't define them and your entire house of cards collapses to the ground.



(4) Nothing is enumerated without Relation Element Interaction, for example:


This is gibberish without the definition of Relation Element Interaction which you have failed to provide.



(5) I do not see such a definition at the top of page 2. An element that is not a point can be non-local w.r.t other element.

Then you can't read. An element is describe as "non-local" in absolute terms.




(6) There is nothing to be proved here, this is the very nature of a non-local property of an object, which is: it cannot be fully captured by any given domain.

That's not a proof.



(7) A line segment can be a member and not a member of a given plane, if the plane is defined by a set of points.

Prove this assertion.

[doronshadmi]

That's not a definition.
They do not need any definition in order to be used as the must-have building-blocks of any reseachable framework.


Wrong. First of all, a cardinal is a type of bird.
No, it is the magnitude of a bird.


Second, assuming you mean "cardinality," you're not using it correctly. (Hint: the cardinality of E is always equal to the cardinality of N, even though E is a proper subset of N.)
And this a property of a non-finite set, so?


Prove this statement.
Please look at http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/TOUM.pdf page 9.


Yes, they do.
No they do not, exactly as Hilbert did not define Line or point.


Then why doesn't anyone int his thread understand them?
Because they were not trained to get it.


In other words, you can't define them and your entire house of cards collapses to the ground.
No, you simply do not know how to observe the house.


This is gibberish without the definition of Relation Element Interaction which you have failed to provide.
Only to un-trained people.


Then you can't read. An element is describe as "non-local" in absolute terms.
Please provide a quote taken from the top of page 2.


That's not a proof.
It is a pre-axiomatic state; therefore no proof is needed here.


Prove this assertion.
Again, it is a pre-axiomatic state; therefore no proof is needed here.

You still do not get the paradigm-shift here.

We are dealing here with a mathematical activity that is based on direct (parallel) perceptions of some of its fundamental building-blocks .

If you cannot get it immediately and directly, no definition will help you to get it.

[zooterkin]

"Organic Mathematics" is now available by the peer reviewed journal named as "International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics".

Thank you for helping me to develop my theory up to the level that can be accepted by a professional mathematical journal.


Fascinating; I have no idea how reputable that organisation is, but their publisher's website is blocked by both google and other malware blocking services, which doesn't enhance their reputation.

Reported Attack Site!



This web site at www.gbspublisher.com has been reported as an attack site and has been blocked based on your security preferences.

[ddt]

"Organic Mathematics" is now available by the peer reviewed journal named as "International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics".
Anyone with some Latex skills can make that PDF and claim it was published.

At least your claim is consistent with the claim that Moshe Klein could talk at that Bulgarian conference. The journal (only) publishes the papers accepted at that yearly conference. If you check out the journal (ISSN 1311-8080), you'll note that its subscription rate is about the price of waste paper.


I have found a mistake in page 332:
One mistake? The whole "paper" is vacuous. It isn't worth the paper it's printed on, even if it's waste paper.

[ddt]

double post.

[doronshadmi]

Anyone with some Latex skills can make that PDF and claim it was published.

At least your claim is consistent with the claim that Moshe Klein could talk at that Bulgarian conference. The journal (only) publishes the papers accepted at that yearly conference. If you check out the journal (ISSN 1311-8080), you'll note that its subscription rate is about the price of waste paper.


One mistake? The whole "paper" is vacuous. It isn't worth the paper it's printed on, even if it's waste paper.

So the editorial board of this journal ( http://iew3.technion.ac.il/Labs/Orsis/pam.html ) are a group of cranks, isn't it ddt.

I suggest you to to make a call and ask them about "Organic Mathematics" work.

[doronshadmi]

Fascinating; I have no idea how reputable that organisation is, but their publisher's website is blocked by both google and other malware blocking services, which doesn't enhance their reputation.
The journal that published our work is in Bulgaria (ISSN 1311-8080), not in India.

Its current address is http://iew3.technion.ac.il/Labs/Orsis/pam.html and its website is under construction in those days.

[ddt]

So the editorial board of this journal ( http://iew3.technion.ac.il/Labs/Orsis/pam.html ) are a group of cranks, isn't it ddt.

I suggest you to to make a call and ask them about "Organic Mathematics" work.

I didn't say they were cranks. But it has all the signs of a fourth-rate journal, and a crank paper can easily slip by. The scope of the paper is overly broad (anything mathematical). The prime aim of the journal seems to be to publish the proceedings of that Bulgarian conference Moshe claims to have attended. It's price hardly covers the postage costs. The editor works at a Bulgarian Medical University. The website is hosted at a Management faculty in Israel.

And until their website lists your "paper" as being published, I don't believe you. You can as well have made this up.

[doronshadmi]

I didn't say they were cranks. But it has all the signs of a fourth-rate journal, and a crank paper can easily slip by. The scope of the paper is overly broad (anything mathematical). The prime aim of the journal seems to be to publish the proceedings of that Bulgarian conference Moshe claims to have attended. It's price hardly covers the postage costs. The editor works at a Bulgarian Medical University. The website is hosted at a Management faculty in Israel.

And until their website lists your "paper" as being published, I don't believe you. You can as well have made this up.

Please do not believe me, make a phone call to Plovdiv and ask them.

You can also ask them about Moshe's lecture and what was the impression of the 50 mathematicians that listened to Moshe.

But it has all the signs of a fourth-rate journal, and a crank paper can easily slip by.
This paper was an invited lecture by the Fifth International Conference of Applied Mathematics and Computing (Plovdiv, Bulgaria, August 12-18, 2008) . More than 400 mathematicians from 40 countries were there, ddt.

[jsfisher]

"Organic Mathematics" is now available by the peer reviewed journal named as "International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics".

The Journal is not peer reviewed in any traditional sense. It is dis-respected publication to support a dis-respected annual conference at a university with no particular claim to fame in Mathematics. Care to guess circulation numbers?

The primary test of journal quality is number of citations. Got any?

Thank you for helping me to develop my theory up to the level that can be accepted by a professional mathematical journal.

That word, like so many other English words, doesn't mean what you think it means.

By the way, since most of your gibberish didn't make it to the paper, I have to assume Moshe did the writing and not you. I also note the paper isn't about Mathematics, neither pure nor applied, nor does it make any substantive point.

[Little 10 Toes]

I wrote here (http://http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4279429&postcount=1149) I'm not too familiar with XORWP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XOR) but x can be in z or not in z. I don't have to "observe" it through "volume".
As for (2) please show how the same point can be on Z or not on Z.

First, I did not say on Z, but in Z. Not to nitpick, but since you use words differently, I want to make that point shown. I will assume that we are both talking about point x being inside the boarders of Z.

Think of the top of your kitchen counter as a plane. Think of a speck of dust as a point. If that speck of dust is not on the counter, then it must be somewhere else. There you go. You have given me two options, either in the plane (counter top) or not (somewhere else).

Please counter the rest of my points. What is the difference between "proper subset" and "subset"?

[doronshadmi]

The Journal The primary test of journal quality is number of citations. Got any?
This is a peer reviewed journal, no matter of what you say (look again the the list of the editorial board http://iew3.technion.ac.il/Labs/Orsis/pam.html). Also I suggest you to clearly say that the 400 mathematicians form 40 countries that were at the Fifth International Conference of Applied Mathematics and Computing (Plovdiv, Bulgaria, August 12-18, 2008) are all idiots just becasue Mr. jsfisher cannot get somthing.

Let me remind you Bell's case (J. Bell: "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox" Physics 1 #3, 195 (1964)). Physics journal had one and only one edition and then it was gone. This journal is known only because of a one and only one work, Bell's work.

In other words, you never know when some journal's publication becomes important or not, until the moment that it becomes important. Furthermore, the number of citations to some journal is not always a guaranty of the quality of the cited papers, and there is a great disagreement among scholars around the world about how to determine the importance of some journal, and one of the disagreements is that the sum of the number of citations is not sufficient enough in order to determine the importance of some journal in the long run.

In other words, your argument is trivial.


By the way, since most of your gibberish didn't make it to the paper, I have to assume Moshe did the writing and not you. I also note the paper isn't about Mathematics, neither pure nor applied, nor does it make any substantive point.
The paper is about solving Hilbert's 6th problem, and most of its content (what you call gibberish) (and how it was edited and corrected) is based on my work.

[doronshadmi]

Also the number citations of some work can be changed by a paradigm-shift, if this work is related to this paradigm-shift.

[jsfisher]

This is a peer reviewed journal, no matter of what you say (look again the the list of the editorial board http://iew3.technion.ac.il/Labs/Orsis/pam.html).

You poor reading comprehension skills are at work again. I asked about journal citations, and you respond with "is too, is too peer reviewed".

By the way, it looks more like a conference proceeding than anything else. Conference proceedings are not peer reviewed despite the naming of an editorial board. Still, I did take a look at the claimed editorial board. I picked a few names at random to seem how much prestige they brought to the journal. Most aren't even mathematicians; none are prominent. What does this tell you?

Also I suggest you to clearly say that the 400 mathematicians form 40 countries that were at the Fifth International Conference of Applied Mathematics and Computing (Plovdiv, Bulgaria, August 12-18, 2008) are all idiots just becasue Mr. jsfisher cannot get somthing.

Why would you say they were idiots? I wouldn't assume that. The only thing being alleged by anyone other than you, here, is that this conference has exceedingly low academic standards for presentation, and the conference proceedings, the Journal, has negligible standards for publication.

Let me remind you Bell's case (J. Bell: "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox" Physics 1 #3, 195 (1964)). Physics journal had one and only one edition and then it was gone. This journal is known only because of a one and only one work, Bell's work.

In other words, you never know when some journal's publication becomes important or not, until the moment that it becomes important.

Careful what you say. You get extra crank points for comparing yourself to Einstein.

Furthermore, the number of citations to some journal is not always a guaranty of the quality of the cited papers, and there is a great disagreement among scholars around the world about how to determine the importance of some journal, and one of the disagreements is that the sum of the number of citations is not sufficient enough in order to determine the importance of some journal in the long run.

Considering how your journal gets no citations of merit, your point is wholly irrelevant.

In other words, your argument is trivial.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises, even if they were not faulty.

The paper is about solving Hilbert's 6th problem, and most of its content (what you call gibberish) (and how it was edited and corrected) is based on my work.

More reading comprehension difficulties, I see. I never said the paper was gibberish; I said what you write is gibberish. Be that as it may, you do seem to be validating my conclusion, though, that Moshe authored the paper.

[jsfisher]

Also the number citations of some work can be changed by a paradigm-shift, if this work is related to this paradigm-shift.

Is this where you click your heels together three times?

[doronshadmi]

Conference proceedings are not peer reviewed despite the naming of an editorial board.

Yeh, We all know that Conference proceedings for invited lectures is to collect people from the street and ask them to be lecturers of the conference, isn't it jsfisher?

jsfisher, invited lecture is checked more intensively then the regular procedure .



I never said the paper was gibberish; I said what you write is gibberish.

Nice.

If you read this paper you will find that most of it is based of what you call gibberish (which is my work).

Is this where you click your heels together three times?

It is quit clear that a paradigm-shift of the mathematical science will be based on a new understanding of Reseachability, and my work doing exactly this (for example: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4099460&postcount=216 http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4094525&postcount=137 ).

My work is a very preliminary stage of such a research, but it already enables to expose the difficulties of the current scientific approach (that is based only on serial step-by-step thinking style) to get things that cannot be understood by this particular thinking style. This thread is a very good example of my argument (for example: your reply http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4094620&postcount=140 to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4094525&postcount=137 ).

The Journal is not peer reviewed in any traditional sense. ...

This is a peer reviewed journal, no matter of what you say ...

You poor reading comprehension skills are at work again.
:jaw-dropp

[Little 10 Toes]

bump
I wrote here (http://http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4279429&postcount=1149)

First, I did not say on Z, but in Z. Not to nitpick, but since you use words differently, I want to make that point shown. I will assume that we are both talking about point x being inside the boarders of Z.

Think of the top of your kitchen counter as a plane. Think of a speck of dust as a point. If that speck of dust is not on the counter, then it must be somewhere else. There you go. You have given me two options, either in the plane (counter top) or not (somewhere else).

Please counter the rest of my points. What is the difference between "proper subset" and "subset"?

[doronshadmi]

I wrote here (http://http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4279429&postcount=1149)

First, I did not say on Z, but in Z. Not to nitpick, but since you use words differently, I want to make that point shown. I will assume that we are both talking about point x being inside the boarders of Z.

Think of the top of your kitchen counter as a plane. Think of a speck of dust as a point. If that speck of dust is not on the counter, then it must be somewhere else. There you go. You have given me two options, either in the plane (counter top) or not (somewhere else).

Please counter the rest of my points. What is the difference between "proper subset" and "subset"?
So you after all usinf the term "on" in your analogy.

Given some point it can be in exactly one and only one location.

Given some line-segment, it can be in more than a one location, for example: on and not on some given plane.

If each member of set A is also a member of set B, than A is called a subset of B.

If each member of set A is also a member of set B, but there is a member of B that is not a member of A, than A is called a proper subset of B.

Also look at http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/52426.html .

[doronshadmi]

oppsss...

[doronshadmi]

Hi,

A Paradigm Shift happens in physics mostly when fundamental concepts of some system are deeply changed by a new theory and/or new experimental results that supporting and/or triggering a new theory for enough long time.

Pure Mathematics has no experimental side like physics, therefore a Paradigm shift depends
on deep changes of our understanding fundamental concepts like: definition, logic, axiom, number, set, operation, limit, function, infinity and so on.

My question is this, because there are no experiments that determine the validity of some theory, what some new theory has to “pass” until a paradigm shift really happens in Pure Math?

Another question on the same subject:

What do you think is the “nature” of a paradigm shift in a pure theoretical system?

[the PC apeman]

Translation: Why don't y'all take me seriously?

[Jimbo07]

Pure Mathematics has no experimental side like physics, therefore a Paradigm shift depends
on deep changes of our understanding fundamental concepts like: definition, logic, axiom, number, set, operation, limit, function, infinity and so on.


I'm unclear on your meaning. Can you provide some historical examples of this?

[drkitten]

My question is this, because there are no experiments that determine the validity of some theory, what some new theory has to “pass” until a paradigm shift really happens in Pure Math?

A new theory has to substantially enhance our understanding of some phenomenon in a way that would not be possible under the old theory. Whether the phenomenon is physical or purely intellectual doesn't matter -- the development of Cartesian coordinates and the resulting merger of algebra and geometry would qualify as a paradigm shift, as would the development of the calculus as a method of dealing with instantaneous processes.

However, in order to do this, the theory itself needs to be well-founded; if you can't define the basic terms and concepts underlying your pseudo-theory, or establish the legitimacy of the foundational theorem, then it's not a paradigm shift but simply crackpot mathematics (of which there are also legions of examples). Furthermore, a "paradigm shift" has to extend our current knowledge, not invalidate it. Just as the Einsteinian paradigm still had to explain the experimental results that had been gathered under Newton's paradigm, so any theorems provable under the old paradigm must remain provable at least in a limiting case.

So, for example, one of the basic theorems of set theory is that for any x, y, either x \in y, or x \not\in y (this follows from the ZFC axioms); If you have a theory of sets that implies that x can be both in and not in y, then you also need to be able to explain why ZFC gets the results that it does, and show how ZFC can be derived as a special case within your theory.

It's not sufficient to simply wave your arms around and says "it's a paradigm shift; if you don't see it, it's because you're thinking with the old paradigm." Paradigms, even in the hard sciences, do not REPLACE each other, but extend each other.

If you can't define your "paradigm shift" in terms recognizable to the foundations and results of the old paradigm, then it's not a "paradigm shift" at all, but simple crackpot mathematics.

[Mashuna]

Modern scientific theories tend to be paradigm automatics.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Modern scientific theories tend to be paradigm automatics.


Damn. I drive a stick shift. I guess that explains a lot.

[jsfisher]

The Journal is not peer reviewed in any traditional sense. ...
This is a peer reviewed journal, no matter of what you say ...
You poor reading comprehension skills are at work again.

:jaw-dropp


Jaw drop indeed! You have spliced together quotations for previous posts that did not go together. Here again is your original post that created all the fuss:


The primary test of journal quality is number of citations. Got any?
This is a peer reviewed journal, no matter of what you say (look again the the list of the editorial board http://iew3.technion.ac.il/Labs/Orsis/pam.html).


You selected the part of my post to quote for your post. The quotation you selected was about citations; your response to it is about peer review. My subsequent comment about your poor reading comprehension skills was entirely justified. Your post was completely irrelevant to what you quoted.

So, what are you trying to tell us now? That you quoted one thing but really meant something completely different, or that you cannot carry a thought from post to post? If you cannot follow your own thought processes, how do you expect us to?

I stand by my statement that your reading comprehension skills do not serve you well. You continue to provide evidence supporting my statement. I stand by my statement that your reasoning skills do not serve you well. You continue to provide evidence supporting my statement.

[jsfisher]

Yeh, We all know that Conference proceedings for invited lectures is to collect people from the street and ask them to be lecturers of the conference, isn't it jsfisher?

Can you please translate this into English?

jsfisher, invited lecture is checked more intensively then the regular procedure .

Perhaps others can comment, but this has not been my experience. The presentations of invited speakers aren't checked at all. But, heck, what do I know about the academic environment.

[doronshadmi]

The quotation you selected was about citations;

It simply was the last sentence of your basic negative attitude about the journal.

Your argument about citation was simply the tail of this negativity, and I preferred to answer to the head of this negative beast.

You have spliced together quotations for previous posts that did not go together.
Since everything for you is understood by serial step-by-step disconnected and fragmented parts, you are unaware of your negative beasts.


Perhaps others can comment, but this has not been my experience. The presentations of invited speakers aren't checked at all. But, heck, what do I know about the academic environment.
So you are a participator of conferences that their invited lectures are not checked, which is "very interesting".

In my case our article was checked twice, by the conference committee and then again by the journal's editorial board, before is was accepted, cappish?

[jsfisher]

Your argument about citation was simply the tail of this negativity, and I preferred to answer to the head of this negative beast.

This is consistent with your general communication problem. You quote one thing, while commenting on something else.

In my case our article was checked twice, by the conference committee and then again by the journal's editorial board, before is was accepted, cappish?

We all understand that the Journal is nothing more than a conference proceeding. We all understand that the editorial committee has little or no academic prestige. What exactly are you now trying to say by this "checked twice"? That doesn't sound at all like peer review. That sounds like proof reading.

So, you claim to be published in a proof-read proceeding of an obscure meritless conference. Your mother must be so proud.

[doronshadmi]

So, for example, one of the basic theorems of set theory is that for any x, y, either x \in y, or x \not\in y (this follows from the ZFC axioms); If you have a theory of sets that implies that x can be both in and not in y, then you also need to be able to explain why ZFC gets the results that it does, and show how ZFC can be derived as a special case within your theory.

1) ZFC deals with elements that belong XOR not belong to a given domain (call this domain class, it does not matter even if it is an informal concept under ZFC that uses it by metalanguage).

2) If there are elements that can belong AND not belong to a given domain, then these elements are not researchable by ZFC because of (1).

It is quit simple to show that such elements exist, for example: If some plane represents a class, then there is an element that belongs AND does not belong to that class for example:

The plane is a set (where this set is a member of some class) of distinct line-segments and points.

A point belongs XOR does not belong to this plane.

A line-segment belongs XOR does not belong to this plane, but there is also the case where a line-segment belongs AND does not belong to this plane (for example: if the line-segment is perpendicular to the plane).

This notion is not limited to Geometry, Metric space etc … but generalized to Membership itself, which is a fundamental aspect of any set theory, including ZFC.

Actually belongs AND does not belong is exactly an extension of belongs XOR does not belong exactly as a perpendicular line-segment w.r.t to some plane is an extension form one dimension to another dimension.

This extension in this analogy cannot be defined by elements that belongs XOR do not belong to the given plane (where a plane is a member of some class, in this analogy).

You may say that elements of ZFC must be sets.

In that case any given element (except the empty set) is based on sub-elements, or in other words, there are no ur-elements in ZFC (for example: the abstract notion of non-locality, that is represented by a perpendicular line segment w.r.t a given plane, holds only if this line segment is an atom (some case of a ur-element), where an atom has no sub-elements by definiton).

This is exactly the reason why elements belong XOR do not belong to a given set (which is a member of some class) etc … by ZFC.

[doronshadmi]

This is consistent with your general communication problem. You quote one thing, while commenting on something else.
This is consistent with your general communication problem. You do not read things in order to understand their whole\parts relations, before you reply.



We all understand that the Journal is nothing more than a conference proceeding.
No, this is a peer-reviewed journal and your mama will be very proud of you if you get that.

[drkitten]

1) ZFC deals with elements that belong XOR not belong to a given domain (call this domain class, it does not matter even if it is an informal concept under ZFC that uses it by metalanguage).

2) If there are elements that can belong AND not belong to a given domain, then these elements are not researchable by ZFC because of (1).

See? Pure gibberish. About half of the terms you use are used wrongly, and the other half are not defined and therefore meaningless.



It is quit simple to show that such elements exist, for example: If some plane represents a class, then there is an element that belongs AND does not belong to that class for example:

Okay, then show it. List your axioms and rules of inference, and then give the proof.

You can't.

And the reason that you can't is the reason that what you're doing isn't "paradigm shifting" mathematics ... and isn't mathematics at all.


The plane is a set of distinct line-segments and points.

Well, no.... but I'll give you this one as an axiom.

But it's still incomplete. Which points and line-segments are elements of the set that is the plane?


A point that is part of the plane?
A point at a small, but finite, distance, from the plane?
A line segment, both of whose endpoints lie in the plane?
A line segment, one of whose endpoints lie in the plane?
A line segment, neither of whose endpoints lie in the plane, but that crosses (and therefore intersects) the plane?
A line segment that does not intersect the plane at all?



A point belongs XOR does not belong to this plane.

Okay.


A line-segment belongs XOR does not belong to this plane, but there is also the case where a line segment belongs AND does not belong to this plane (for example: if the line-segment is perpendicular to the plane).

No. That line segment does not belong to the plane.



This notion is not limited to Geometry, Metric space etc

Of course not. Gibberish and error is not limited at all but is infinite in scope. It's wrong under any context.

ETA: but we're getting off-topic here, for which I apologize.

[doronshadmi]

See? Pure gibberish. About half of the terms you use are used wrongly, and the other half are not defined and therefore meaningless.
See?

You did not understand what you read because you read separated sentences and then reply to them by using your standard body of knowledge without get the notion behind them, simply because you do not get their whole\parts relation.

So please refresh your screen and read again all of my post, then please carefully think about it by carefully compare it to your body of knowledge, and only then please reply in details to any part of it.

Again, your serial step-by-step reading(and thinking) style prevents from you to get my post.

[Mashuna]

See?

You did not understand what you read because you read separated sentences and then reply to them by using your standard body of knowledge without get the notion behind them, simply because you do not get their whole\parts relation.

So please refresh your screen and read again all of my post, then please carefully think about it by carefully compare it to your body of knowledge, and only then please reply in details to any part of it.

Again, your serial step-by-step reading(and thinking) style prevents from you to get my post.

So although the individual sentences don't make sense, you're claiming that when you put them all together, you get a magic paradigm-changing recipe?

I think you've paradigm shifted into reverse by mistake.

[drkitten]

Again, your serial step-by-step reading(and thinking) style prevents from you to get my post.

And this sentence alone is sufficient to demonstrate that your pseudo-theories are not paradigm-shifting, because they neither extend the old paradigm nor redefine it, but are simply and strictly incompatible.

[drkitten]

So although the individual sentences don't make sense, you're claiming that when you put them all together, you get a magic paradigm-changing recipe?

I think you've paradigm shifted into reverse by mistake.

That's his claim, yes. I don't think he's shifted into reverse. I think the clutch is broken, and the engine has quite possibly seized up.

[doronshadmi]

And this sentence alone is sufficient to demonstrate that your pseudo-theories are not paradigm-shifting, because they neither extend the old paradigm nor redefine it, but are simply and strictly incompatible.

Enjoy your ignorence.

[Mashuna]

Enjoy your ignorence.

I loves irony, I does.

[drkitten]

Enjoy your ignorence.

No, thank you. I'm too busy enjoying yours. Mine is too valuable to me to be used up for such a petty purpose, especially as I have so much less of it remaining to me.

[drkitten]

Perhaps others can comment, but this has not been my experience. The presentations of invited speakers aren't checked at all. But, heck, what do I know about the academic environment.


I can confirm this from personal experience (as both writer/speaker and editor). If they are checked, it's usually of the "may we correct your spelling?" variety.

Normally, of course, this is because the invited speaker is of sufficient standing that the conference organizer assumes that what she has to say will be interesting, relevant, and of good quality. That's obviously not the case in this instance -- without prejudice to the actual quality of the paper, neither Doron nor his co-author have any sort of standing to justify this kind of star treatment.

If the paper were indeed "invited," then it's because the conference organizers were so desperate for crap that they invited anyone and everyone they could find to submit anything to bulk out the page count -- and to collect revenue from conference registrations.

I suspect, Doron, that you were scammed.

[Apathia]

A line-segment belongs XOR does not belong to this plane, but there is also the case where a line-segment belongs AND does not belong to this plane (for example: if the line-segment is perpendicular to the plane).

Doron, your analogy crashes and burns right there, because the perpendicular line does not belong to and is not upon the plane.

Also it leaves the reader with the impression that the non-local is simply another dimension of locality.

Try an analogy of projection where an image of what is non-local is projected upon the plane, so that it can be regarded as both on and off.
Then you can extend your analogy such that a set is a variable projection.

Unfortunately this still gives the impression of the non-local as content rather than function.

[ddt]

Of course not. Gibberish and error is not limited at all but is infinite in scope. It's wrong under any context.

ETA: but we're getting off-topic here, for which I apologize.

Why is that off-topic? Gibberish and error is a very accurate description of all of doronshadmi's posts.

Within a page, the thread will devolve into a discussion about this "non-local" thing he hasn't been able to explain for as long as he's been posting here and on other boards.

[doronshadmi]

IIf the paper were indeed "invited," then it's because the conference organizers were so desperate for crap that they invited anyone and everyone they could find to submit anything to bulk out the page count -- and to collect revenue from conference registrations.

I suspect, Doron, that you were scammed.

drkitten I "suspect" that you are ignoternt about my work, and then blame the conference organizers.

[doronshadmi]

QUOTE=Apathia;4284219]Doron, your analogy crashes and burns right there, because the perpendicular line does not belong to and is not upon the plane.[/QUOTE]

Please explain in details, why do you think so.


Also it leaves the reader with the impression that the non-local is simply another dimension of locality.
The non-locality of the perpendicular line-segment is w.r.t the plane. Since a plane is 2D then the perpendicular line-segment w.r.t to 2D is an extension of 2D.

So please explain exactly what is crashes and burns?

[Apathia]

The non-locality of the perpendicular line-segment is w.r.t the plane. Since a plane is 2D then the perpendicular line-segment w.r.t to 2D is an extension of 2D.

The perpendicular line is not on the plane.
It extends into a third dimension.
So it is not non-local to the plane, if non-local means it is both included on the plane and not included on the plane.

You're not confusing the meanings of "perpendicular" and "parallell," are you? or using some other altogether different meaning of "perpendicular?"

Perhaps you mean that your perpendicular line is perpendicular two another line on a plane, while it remains on the same plane.
Nope. That isn't and doesn't serve your analogy.

That you would insist that a line perpendicular to a plane is on that plane, shatters all poissibility of communication.
This is where my sig quote from the Dalai Lama comes in context.

[The Man]

Read my works.

All your examples have the general topology of a tree, where from one side we have a singleton, and on the other side we have the states that are related to this singleton.

The same holds for class, category, set, etc ..

So now you have generalized or trivialized the braches of a tree to some “general topology”.


No, you are doing it by yourself, all along our dialog, without any help from me.

Exclusive serial observation is entirely your construct, are you now claiming I developed that construct before you and ascribed it to myself? This is just another example of you pawning off responsibility for your notions to others.




No, your serial-only observation is your one and only one "alternative" to understand Identitiy.

You’re the one who claimed

Self identity it is, whether it is serial or parallel observation.


Yet again you profess that identity as different or “alternative” for that “serial or parallel observation”, which would make it not a self identity for both but a “serial” identity for your “serial observation” and “parallel” identity for your “parallel observation”.



Since I use more than a one alternative to observe things, I am not closed like you under a one and only one observation's type.

Your continued ascription of your exclusive serial observational construct to others is an observation type you certainly have closed in and around yourself. You seem to hide behind it as if thinking it will somehow deflect criticism, yet it only shows that you do not confine yourself, while you still attempt to confine others, within your own constructs.



So now you demonstrate that you cannot understand anything that is not defined it terms of coordinate systems, which is again a demonstration of your serial-only observation.

Length can easily be defined in terms of a coordinate system, but your question was not about length, it was about parallel and non-local, which is again a demonstration of your inability to intelligibly contribute to a dialogue.




You are (yet) not in a position to conclude any meaningful thing about my work, as you clearly show all along our dialog, until this very moment.

“You are (yet) not in a position to conclude any meaningful thing about” your own work “as you clearly show all along” in your diatribes and your attempts to hide behind your exclusive serial observation construct by labeling others with the injunctions only your own construct prescribes.



In other words, I have to show how non-locality and parallel observation are actually local and serial observations.

No, you just have to be at least clear, concise and self consistent in the presentation of your “alternative”, which you are not. Since you are unable to distinguish “local and serial observations” from “non-locality and parallel observation” you have not shown that they are not actually one in the same. In fact I have shown that your defining conclusion of “< AND >” of non-locality for a line segment is obtainable and supportable by a coordinate system that you claim represents “serial observation” and asserted that such observation could not obtain that conclusion.




You are invited to do it, but first you have to demonstrate that you get non-locality and parallel observations. Until this very moment, you did not demonstrat it.

I have already done that some time ago, without your invitation or your requirement. The definition of non-local for a line segment as being able to conclude that segment is “< AND >” with respect to some point is yours. The claim that such a “< AND >” conclusion can not be obtained by “serial observation” is also yours. The assertion of a coordinate system as a “serial observation” is also yours. If the use of your definition with your claim and assertion demonstrates that anyone does not get your notions about “non-locality and parallel observations” then that person is you.




Only from your serial-only observation. .

Well that would explain it then, from your “parallel observation” perspective construct you do not need to be clear, concise and consistent about or within your own assertions. Well at least now you have made one definitive differentiation between your “serial observation” and your “parallel observation”, the former needs to make sense and the latter does not.



That you are closed under serial observation, and your conclusions are a direct result of this limitation.

Well since your assertion was…



The Man, you did not show this.

you are now asserting that I am not “closed under serial observation” and I thank you for not imposing the limitations of your own constructs onto what you call “my conclusions”, which in fact were only the combined and contradictory expression of your own definition and assertions.




The only fact here is your wrong conclusions of my work, which are a direct result of your serial-only observation.

They are your conclusions, your assertions and your claims, that they make each other (and you) “wrong” is your responsibility, but I would not be surprised if you claimed being “wrong” is not an observation available within your exclusive “parallel observation” construct.



You are right, my mistake.

No problem.



Very simple, try to use a point as a connector to another point, and you immediately understand that only a line-segment can do it, and the reason is:

I was not using “a point as a connector to another point” I was relating that a line segment in a coordinate system can be considered to act as connector between points, your definition of a “relation” that you claim is always non-local.


A line-segment can be non-local w.r.t to other elements, where a point cannot be but local w.r.t other elements no matter what observation type is used.

The opposite holds for Relation, which cannot be but non-local no matter what observation type is used.

As you reiterate that assertion, then in a coordinate system (which you consider to be “serial observation”) a line segment can act as a connector between two points specifically those two points which define that segment. Also those points are the terminations of that segment, giving each of those terminating points more then one relation with that line segment, both included in the line segment and a termination of the line segment, thus providing another of your definitions of non-local for a line segment (more then one relation to a given point). So far I have demonstrated three defining assertions that you claim show a line segment as non-local, (“< AND >” some point, a connector between points and thus a “relation”, having more then one relation to some given point) all obtainable and supportable from a coordinate system and you have not been able to support any one of those, your own assertions.




The Man,


By using standard geometry, please get the results above, or show that these results are wrong, limited, etc ...

I’ll defer to the others who have already submitted replies to you and are still awaiting a relevant response from you.

[drkitten]

drkitten I "suspect" that you are ignoternt about my work

I wouldn't know. You haven't shown any work yet. Just gibberish.

[doronshadmi]

Length can easily be defined in terms of a coordinate system,…
No,

The values of some coordinate system is the result of interaction between non-local elements like line-segments, and local elements like points.

Without the line-segments the change between values cannot be defined, and without the points the value of a specific location cannot be defined.

Length do not need any points in order to be defined.


I have already done that some time ago,…
You definitely didn't.

The rest of your post is based on these fundamental misunderstandings.

[doronshadmi]

I wouldn't know. You haven't shown any work yet. Just gibberish.
You haven't shown any understanding yet.

[doronshadmi]

The perpendicular line is not on the plane.
It extends into a third dimension.
So it is not non-local to the plane, if non-local means it is both included on the plane and not included on the plane.



Line-segment is an atom.

The perpendicular line-segment is obviously on (belongs) AND not on (does not belong) w.r.t the given plane.

By this line-segment we have an extension from 2D to 3D, where both 2D and 3D are considered (the line-segment is a connector between 2D and 3D, exactly as it is used as a connector between any given states, whether they are elements or dimensions).

No point has this property, because it is local by nature and the unique value that is related to some point cannot be defined without an interaction with a non-local atom like a line-segment.

Furthermore, a line-segment is the simplest representation of Extension, where a point is the simplest representation of Conservation (non-extensive state).

[the PC apeman]

Congratulations doron, you've managed to hijack your own thread into more of the same old garbage. Stop stinking up the place with your never-ending masturbatory self-indulgence.

[doronshadmi]

Congratulations doron, you've managed to hijack your own thread into more of the same old garbage. Stop stinking up the place with your never-ending masturbatory self-indulgence.
the PC apeman you are wellcome to air your view about post #1.

If you have nothing to say about this subject, no one forces you to be in this thread.

[the PC apeman]

the PC apeman you are wellcome to air your view about post #1.

If you have nothing to say about this subject, no one forces you to be in this thread.
You are saying nothing about the subject of the paradigm shifts - you know, the topic of this thread. You just can't resist any opportunity to prattle on about your toy maths.

[The Man]

No,

So length can not be easily defined in a coordinate system?


The values of some coordinate system is the result of interaction between non-local elements like line-segments, and local elements like points.

In what is sometimes referred to as a “global application” all of the coordinate system can be considered “local”. The definition of “non-local elements like line-segments, and local elements like points” are yours and do not have to be an aspect of some coordinate system or even of some defined “local” range within some coordinate system being considered. You’re simply imposing your preferred limitations onto others again.


Without the line-segments the change between values cannot be defined, and without the points the value of a specific location cannot be defined.

Well it is a good thing then that coordinate systems can have line segments and points, making it easy to define length. By the way anything that you would consider as defining the “the value of a specific location” could be considered as a coordinate system.


Length do not need any points in order to be defined.

But you just said it does…


…and without the points the value of a specific location cannot be defined.

Without defining the “value of a specific location” the difference in value between two locations, a length, can not be defined.

However, your claim of “Length do not need any points in order to be defined” is irrelevant anyway, since it does not alter the fact that it is easy to define length within some coordinate system.




You definitely didn't.

The rest of your post is based on these fundamental misunderstandings.

Well from your limited perspective it may be difficult for you to see or simply to accept. If you would just step out and stop trying to hide behind your exclusive “serial observation” construct that you ascribe to others you might find that your defining conclusions are not exclusive to your “parallel observation” construct, neither of those constructs have you as yet to distinctively define anyway.

[ddt]

Congratulations doron, you've managed to hijack your own thread into more of the same old garbage. Stop stinking up the place with your never-ending masturbatory self-indulgence.

See my prediction in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4284638&postcount=17). :D Do I now win the MDC?

You are saying nothing about the subject of the paradigm shifts - you know, the topic of this thread. You just can't resist any opportunity to prattle on about your toy maths.

Small correction: toy non-maths. He hasn't been able to explain what his ideas are about; all his attempts at defining "local" were either mathematically deficient, or turned out to trivially mean either everything or nothing.

But then, doronshadmi, who claims to be a CAD manager at Tahal, and to have been a programmer, is nothing but a crank who never had any math studies to speak of and steadfastedly refuses to take up such studies.

[Apathia]

The perpendicular line-segment is obviously on (belongs) AND not on (does not belong) w.r.t the given plane.

Doron,

You mean it's standing on top of the plane?
I can see you torturing language that way.

Yep, that's it. That's what you are doing. You are claiming the perpendicular line is on the plane, because it is standing on it by one point. And since in your book it is an "indivisible atom," therefore the perpendicular line segment is entirely on the plane, but by the conventional meaning of perpendicular, not.

This makes for an extreamely weak analogy for people who are trying to understand you.
You severelymess with the meaning of the words, "perpendicular," "plane," "line," and so on.
Your analogy does not work for your reader, unless you change the meanings oif those words in unfamiliar ways.

So again and again, no one is able to understand you, because you fail to speak the same language.

In your own little corner, in your own little chair, you can make words mean whatever you like. "perpendicular" can be a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
But if you want to communicate anything to the outside world, you need to explain your special terms in words with which we share common meanings.

But again and again, you make a quicksand of language.

I offered you a possibly better analogy. But you prefer to keep pushing one that does not work for anybody but yourself, because your words don't mean the same as ours.

Gosh. people have pointed this out to you for years now.
So, it seems this travesty and tragedy will only continue.

[Little 10 Toes]

So you after all usinf the term "on" in your analogy.


Given some point it can be in exactly one and only one location.

Given some line-segment, it can be in more than a one location, for example: on and not on some given plane.

If each member of set A is also a member of set B, than A is called a subset of B.

If each member of set A is also a member of set B, but there is a member of B that is not a member of A, than A is called a proper subset of B.

Also look at http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/52426.html (http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/52426.html) .

Yes, I did use "on" in my analogy. You must have skipped over where I said I will assume that we are both talking about point x being inside the boarders of Z. It's because if I said the speck of dust is in the counter top, then you couldn't see it. The speck of dust and the counter top are in three dimentions while the point and plane are in two. No one can give the thickness of a geometric plane, or the width of a point.

No, a given line segment cannot be in more than one location. Please give me an example of it being in more than one location. A line segment could be intersecting a plane at one point. Notice I said one, and point. 3D example: A straw going through a soda cup lid.

So finally we get the definition that I asked for back on post 995! :clap:

Let's refer back to your original post: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4236183&postcount=896 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4236183&postcount=896)
"If a proper subset B of set A cannot be but |B| < |A|, then A is a finite set. Please write definition 2 in your style.

If a proper subset B of set A can be |B| = |A| in addition to |B| < |A|, then A is a non-finite set. Please write definition 3 in your style.

If you think that only a one definition is needed in order to distinguish between finite and non-finite sets, then please write the definition.

Let's look at wikipedia for a few moments:
Proper_subset(which redirects back to set) has as the first two sentences: "In mathematics, especially in set theory, a set A is a subset of a set B if A is "contained" inside B. Notice that A and B may coincide." Under the definitions it mentions "If A is a subset of B, but A is not equal to B (i.e. there exists at least one element of B not contained in A), then A is also a proper (or strict) subset of B;"

Notice the word also. We both agree that subset includes the definition of "proper subset". So the "top level" definition is subset, then the next level is proper subset.

Your latest definitions of subset and proper subset: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4282911&postcount=1186 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4282911&postcount=1186)

If each member of set A is also a member of set B, then A is called a subset of B.

If each member of set A is also a member of set B, but there is a member of B that is not a member of A, than A is called a proper subset of B.

Please note you have said set A is smaller than set B.

Since you've switched set designations/letters let's define some terms:

Set A is a subset (proper or not) of set B.
If set A has one less member than set B, then set A is a proper subset of set B. (To clarify, we are assuming the members are the same for both sets, but B has one additonal differenet member than A.)
If set A has the same members of set B, then set A is a subset of set B.
Def #2 then reads (when expanded and using the correct set names) "If the cardinality of set A (whose members are all contained in set B) is greater than the cardinality of set B (whose members are in set A as well as additional members) then set B is a finite set.”

Once again, you take specific words and use them uniquely. Why not describe the set as “wqetes?” Since that will take me too much time to remember, I’ll amend Def #2 to be called a “doron finite” set. The reason being you may ask, you use the term “finite” in your “paper” 5 times, including when you use it in “non-infinite”. Why confuse others more?

Extended Definition #2 is now “If the cardinality of set A (whose members are all contained in set B) is greater than the cardinality of set B (whose members are in set A as well as additional members) then set B is a doron finite set”.

Since my geometry teacher always wanted to show work when reducing statemets: If the cardinality of set A is greater than the cardinality of set B, then set B is a doron finite set.

Or the short hand version “If proper subset |A| < |B|, then set B is doron finite.”

Since the definition of proper subset includes that the subset will always have less members than the set, you’ll always have a doron finite set and never have a non doron finite set.

Now please answer the rest of my points.:


How can you "observe" a point through volume with relation to a plane?
I'm not too familiar with XORWP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XOR) but x can be in z or not in z. I don't have to "observe" it through "volume". (x is a point and z is a plane)
Why do you need XOR?
Based on your past history of using standard terms "uniquely", you have not defined "observe" nor "observation".
A plane does not have "volume". It's two dimensional. It has area, like a circle.
"By observation [a] volume [a] point is local with relation to a plane" does not parse.
How can you "observe" a line through volume?
"By observation [a] volume [a] line can be non-local with reguard to a plane" does not parse.
Why do you need AND?

[drkitten]

You haven't shown any understanding yet.

There is nothing to understand. You don't seem to understand that, although every competent person who has looked at it understands it well.

[Apathia]

In the light of Membership Agreement discussions that are being held elsewhere (and not to be discussed here), and in order to maintain a distance from transgressioin, I take back my off topic comments regarding Doron's way of communication in my above posts in this thread.

I regret I strayed from the topic toward a personal criticism.
And since I have nothing to offer on the subject of when some new paradigm in Mathematics may come to recognition, I remove myself from this thread.

Please accept my apologies, Doron.

[doronshadmi]

If we understand a line-segment as a general representation of Extension and a point as a general representation of Conservation, then any non-empty set is the result of ECI (Extension\ Conservation Interaction) as follows:

Self-identity is the result of Conservation's law where an element is referred to itself (for example: A=A). But in order to distinguish between self-identities an Extension's law is used such that given some self-identity its extension is that self-identity AND not only that self-identity.

By carefully study ECI one learns that a non-empty set cannot be defined unless its members are distinguished from each other, where distinction is ECI result.

The current paradigm of the mathematical science considers only the results of these extensions (understood as distinct members of a given set) but ignores Extension as a factor of Distinction, for example:

The concept of Successor (as defined by ZFC) is focused only on the result (some distinct member) without show how it is derived from the extension of one self-identity to another self-identity (x U {x}, but x or {x} are already distinct, which is a shortcut that does not explain what enables Distinction, in the first place).

The same holds also between members that have no successor (for example: R members). Also in this case only the result (some distinct member) is considered without show how it is derived from the extension of one self-identity to another self-identity.

The aim of my work in this case, is to show the non-local property (based on Extension's law) and the local property (based on Conservation's law) that stand at the basis of any distinct member of any given set, whether it has a successor or not.

Furthermore, distinct members are nothing but the particular case of EC serial Interaction, where my researcher deals also with EC non-serial Interactions (in this case there is a superposition of identities between the researched elements).

By understanding ECI, one can understand why any set is incomplete by definition (it is not the rusult of only built-in Conservation's law but olso the result of built-in Extension's law).

[drkitten]

If we understand a line-segment as a general representation of Extension and a point as a general representation of Conservation, then any non-empty set is the result of ECI (Extension\ Conservation Interaction) as follows:

This is off-topic and has nothing to do with paradigm shifts.

[jsfisher]

What do you think is the “nature” of a paradigm shift in a pure theoretical system?


The term, "paradigm shift", is very misleading, because it implies revolutionary change. In Mathematics, it is more a matter of simple evolution where the "shift" arises from a fundamental addition, deletion, or change of concept.

Cartesian coordinates were already mentioned as an addition to the body of Mathematics. It brought unity to what were two distinct branches. Changes in concepts of infinity led to a more fundamental understanding of limits.

Notice, too, incorporating the new or altered concepts was not destructive. No branch of Mathematics was injured in the process. Even for cases where a concept must be cast aside, which happened around the turn of the last century in Set Theory, the result is constructive.

Mathematics embraces its own evolution.

[doronshadmi]

This is off-topic and has nothing to do with paradigm shifts.
Yes it is.

Extension is the very essence of the notion of paradigm-shifts, as you pointed out by saying: "Paradigms, even in the hard sciences, do not REPLACE each other, but extend each other."

I accept the notion that Extension (a paradigm-shift) must be compared with the old paradigm in order to be considered as its improvement. As for Replacement, sometimes things are replaced if the old notion is found as fundamentally wrong by the paradigm-shift.

A line-segment is a general representation of Extension.

Some analogy:

Any line-segment (which is a non-local atom) that is perpendicular (that belongs AND does not belong) to some k-dimension (where k = 0 to ∞) is its extension. The traditional point of view about Extension defines only the Extension's result (some Conservation that is defined by some k-dimension) but ignores the extension that enables this result.

In the case of "If n is a member of N, then n+1 is a member of N" the current mathematical paradigm defines the result of n+1 as the successor, by ignoring +1 (the Extension of n that enables the result).

+1 and the line-segment are equivalent by this analogy.

[doronshadmi]

So length can not be easily defined in a coordinate system?


No.

Coordinate system is the result of non-local atoms\local atoms interaction.

You do not understand that coordinate system is a result.

The rest of your post is based on this misunderstanding.

[ddt]

Extension is the very essence of the notion of paradigm-shifts, as you pointed out by saying: "Paradigms, even in the hard sciences, do not REPLACE each other, but extend each other."

I accept the notion that Extension (a paradigm-shift) must be compared with the old paradigm in order to be considered as its improvement. As for Replacement, sometimes things are replaced if the old notion is found as fundamentally wrong by the paradigm-shift.

A line-segment is a general representation of Extension.

Some analogy:

Any line-segment (which is a non-local atom) that is perpendicular (that belongs AND does not belong) to some k-dimension (where k = 0 to ∞) is its extension. The traditional point of view about Extension defines only the Extension's result (some Conservation that is defined by some k-dimension) but ignores the extension that enables this result.

In the case of "If n is a member of N, then n+1 is a member of N" the current mathematical paradigm defines the result of n+1 as the successor, by ignoring +1 (the Extension of n that enables the result).

+1 and the line-segment are equivalent by this analogy.
What a load of codswallop.
n+1 the extension of n??? And that should be equal to a paradigm shift???
And the "current mathematical paradigm" does not define the result of n+1 as the successor of n - it's exactly the other way around.

I could, of course, try to explain to you the relevance of Peano's axioms of the natural numbers, but that would be pearl before the swine, and you wouldn't understand it anyway, given previous experience, so I refrain from doing so. Suffice it to say that it's obvious you don't understand one iota of those axioms and their relevance.

[Wolfman]

I don't know why I'm doing this, since I don't really expect a coherent response, but I'll give it a shot, anyway.

Doron -- two questions. Please avoid the long, rambling mathematical ramblings, and try to answer them in plain English.

1 -- What phenomenon/properties are not explained by current models, that are explained by yours?

2 -- Does your model resolve these problems without creating an equal or greater number of problems than in the existing model?

My own personal experience of such things...the vast majority of people who claim some sort of earth-shaking revelation about the nature of reality have focused on one very specific aspect of whatever it is they are studying, and ignore everything else. They end up coming up with a theory that (at least to them) provides a much better answer to that particular question...but that if you extend it beyond their own very limited view, is discovered to create more inconsistencies, holes, and contraditions than the original theory did.

Curiously enough, while these people will condemn 'conventional theories' for apparently having holes, they'll defend the even greater holes in their own theories as being irrelevant or unimportant.

[The Man]

No.

Coordinate system is the result of non-local atoms\local atoms interaction.

You do not understand that coordinate system is a result.

The rest of your post is based on this misunderstanding.


Only in your own indefinable and preferred method of attempting to limit others that you call “serial observation”, for the rest of us it is very easy to define length within some coordinate system. We can not help it that you simply can not define your “serial observation” thus making it difficult for you (and only you) to define such things a length in a coordinate system, which your refer to as a “serial observation”.

[The Man]

I thought this thread was supposed to be about paradigm shifts? Just making up baseless assertions and claiming them as some new development, blaming others for their own inability to explain these new developments in a clear and consistent fashion while ignoring effective and established methods is a paradigm most of us have seen practiced over and over on this forum. I have as yet to see any shift by doron from that paradigm.

[Ron_Tomkins]

I thought this thread was supposed to be about paradigm shifts? Just making up baseless assertions and claiming them as some new development, blaming others for their own inability to explain these new developments in a clear and consistent fashion while ignoring effective and established methods is a paradigm most of us have seen practiced over and over on this forum. I have as yet to see any shift by doron from that paradigm.

Well, that is probably because we need a paradigm shift to understand it :D

[The Man]

Well, that is probably because we need a paradigm shift to understand it :D


Undoubtedly (as they do profess) however I would venture to say it is more of a paradigm shredding then paradigm shifting, because the best they can usually muster are just bits and pieces haphazardly stuck together.

[The Drain]

A new theory has to substantially enhance our understanding of some phenomenon in a way that would not be possible under the old theory. Whether the phenomenon is physical or purely intellectual doesn't matter -- the development of Cartesian coordinates and the resulting merger of algebra and geometry would qualify as a paradigm shift, as would the development of the calculus as a method of dealing with instantaneous processes.

However, in order to do this, the theory itself needs to be well-founded; if you can't define the basic terms and concepts underlying your pseudo-theory, or establish the legitimacy of the foundational theorem, then it's not a paradigm shift but simply crackpot mathematics (of which there are also legions of examples). Furthermore, a "paradigm shift" has to extend our current knowledge, not invalidate it. Just as the Einsteinian paradigm still had to explain the experimental results that had been gathered under Newton's paradigm, so any theorems provable under the old paradigm must remain provable at least in a limiting case.

So, for example, one of the basic theorems of set theory is that for any x, y, either x \in y, or x \not\in y (this follows from the ZFC axioms); If you have a theory of sets that implies that x can be both in and not in y, then you also need to be able to explain why ZFC gets the results that it does, and show how ZFC can be derived as a special case within your theory.

It's not sufficient to simply wave your arms around and says "it's a paradigm shift; if you don't see it, it's because you're thinking with the old paradigm." Paradigms, even in the hard sciences, do not REPLACE each other, but extend each other.

If you can't define your "paradigm shift" in terms recognizable to the foundations and results of the old paradigm, then it's not a "paradigm shift" at all, but simple crackpot mathematics.


Dr K, this was an excellent post which was easy to read, makes a lot of sense, and explains in an understandable manner what a 'paradigm shift' is. A lot of the other writing on this thread (and that means the OP and subsequent offerings from said OP) makes little or no sense whatsoever.

Thank you. (Nominated).

[doronshadmi]

What a load of codswallop.
n+1 the extension of n???
No, +1 is the extention of n.

And that should be equal to a paradigm shift???
Extension is equivalent to paradigm-shift.

And the "current mathematical paradigm" does not define the result of n+1 as the successor of n - it's exactly the other way around.
No you read my previous posts exactly the other way around.

Please read it again in order to see by yourself how you read it the other way around.

[doronshadmi]

I have as yet to see any shift by doron from that paradigm.
Because a paradigm-shift is both external (changed of the observed) and internal (change of the observer).

[doronshadmi]

I don't know why I'm doing this, since I don't really expect a coherent response, but I'll give it a shot, anyway.

Doron -- two questions. Please avoid the long, rambling mathematical ramblings, and try to answer them in plain English.

1 -- What phenomenon/properties are not explained by current models, that are explained by yours?

2 -- Does your model resolve these problems without creating an equal or greater number of problems than in the existing model?

My own personal experience of such things...the vast majority of people who claim some sort of earth-shaking revelation about the nature of reality have focused on one very specific aspect of whatever it is they are studying, and ignore everything else. They end up coming up with a theory that (at least to them) provides a much better answer to that particular question...but that if you extend it beyond their own very limited view, is discovered to create more inconsistencies, holes, and contraditions than the original theory did.

Curiously enough, while these people will condemn 'conventional theories' for apparently having holes, they'll defend the even greater holes in their own theories as being irrelevant or unimportant.
In my opinion, my theory does exactly this. It closes a hole in the current paradigm by provide the minimal terms that are needed in order to define a researchable environment, in the first place.

Take for example the fruitful and useful notion of Coordinate system.

Coordinate systems enable us to communicate with each other in order to develop abstract and applied technologies that can be shared by many useful and interesting ways.

Without Coordinate systems it will be very hard (if not almost impossible) to share our abilities in powerful useful and fruitful ways, as can be seen by modern technology.

My research defines the must have building-blocks that are needed in order to define something like coordinate systems.

I have found that any given coordinate system is the result of the interaction of at least two types of building-blocks: Non-local building-block and Local building-block.

For example:

The real-line is a coordinate system, such that each coordinate is defined by a single and unique value along the real-line.

These unique coordinates are also known as the members of set R, which includes the value of each coordinate, where each value is also known as some real number.

The order of R members has no significant, but we can ask how each member is distinguished from the rest of the members even if order has no significance?


The current paradigm has no answer. It simply uses R members without dealing with the question of how each member is distinct.

In other words, Distinction is not used as a fundamental property of the current paradigm.

Some analogy:

We can build flying machines by looking at flying animals and copy their structures without investigating the fundamental principles that standing at the basis of the idea of flying, in general.

In this case, our best results will be no more than some imitation of particular flying animals.

If we investigate the fundamental principles that standing at the basis of the idea of flying in general, we are able to use these principles in order to develop flying machines that are not just some imitation of particular flying animals.

In other words, by investigate the fundamental principles that enable some wished result; we increase our abilities to improve them in many new fundamental ways.

Now back to R set.

I asked myself:

What are the fundamental principles that enable to define a set, in the first place?

My answer is:

Relation\Element Interaction (REI).

For example:

Axiom A: element @ is a member of set S.

Axiom B: any element that is defined by the interaction of relation X with element @, is also a member of set S.

So the relation between @ and some other element, enables us to define the other element as a member of set S.

In other words, no value except @ (that is determined by a special axiom, in this case) can be defiend without relation X\@ Interaction, where relation X is an extension of any member of set S to any other member of S.

Furthermore @ identity itself is the result of REI, notated as @=@ (self relation, where relation is = and @ is element) and Axiom A cannot use @ identity if it does not first defined by REI.

So REI is a pre-axiomatic term, which enables even axioms "to air their view".

In general, Relation is an extension from an element to itself or not to itself, and it is non-local by nature, exactly as an element is local by nature because it is the conserver of some distinct identity.

Moreover, the non-local property of Relation enables to "move" from one element's value to another element's value without losing ("forgetting") any of the values, where this non-local property enables the elements to be comparable with each other.

Relation appears by many names in the current mathematical science for example: Function, Operation, Logical connective, Class, etc … but its non-local fundamental property as an Extension and Connection between elements (where an element is some form of Conservation) is not studied by the current paradigm of this science.

Also the local properly of Conservation (formed as Element) is not is not studied by the current paradigm of this science.

In other words, the interaction between the fundamental building-blocks that enables Cardinality and Distinction in the first place, are currently used but not studied.

In that case we are in a state of using something (for example: we copy its structure under different names, without investigating the fundamental principles that enables it, in the first place) without developing it by fundamental research.

By using REI I clearly show what are the fundamental principles that enable Coordinate systems in the first place.

Also I show why a collection of distinct elements is incomplete (since no collection has the magnitude of Extension as its self-state, because a collection is the result od Extension\Conservation Interaction (ECI)).

Another result is that I provide Distinction as a fundamental property of the Natural numbers that currently are based only on Cardinality and Ordinality as their fundamental properties, where Cardinality is not understood in terms of its fundamental building-blocks (REI).

By using Distinction as a fundamental property of the Natural numbers, we are able to understand that N set is nothing but the particular case of distinct elements (by using Distinction as a fundamental property, one can extend the natural numbers in order to deal also with identities that are in a superposition with each other, where the current N members are nothing but the particular case of no superposition between identities). This achievement is possible because my theory not just uses the distinct property of elements like N members (as used by ZFC or Peano's axioms) but investigates the fundamental properties that enable Cardinality Ordinality and Distinction, in the first place (without REI Cardinality, Ordinality and Distinction, cannot be found).

Also my theory enables to discover the non-local properties of elements w.r.t to other elements by using different observations of the same element w.r.t to other elements. A line-segment is the simplest case of such an element.

By this theory the only element that is local independently of any observation, is a point.

By this theory we have these fundamentals:


1) Relation is non-local w.r.t any given Element.

2) A line-segment can be non-local or local w.r.t other elements.

3) A point is local w.r.t other elements.

In my opinon nothing is reseachable without REI.

If you disagree with me, please show how REI is not must have for research.

[Skeptic]

Modern scientific theories tend to be paradigm automatics.

Which would, in reality, be a great name for a car.

[The Man]

Because a paradigm-shift is both external (changed of the observed) and internal (change of the observer).


Ah, so then the only paradigm shift you are asserting is shifting the paradigm (or model) for what one might consider a workable paradigm. From being something self consistent, generally consistent, coherently explainable and of practical use to just whatever it is that Doron chooses to claim today. Again that is not a paradigm shift as it is more of a paradigm shedding or perhaps even a non-paradigmatic paradigm. Dogma is a poor substitute for a workable paradigm.

[doronshadmi]

Only in your own indefinable and preferred method of attempting to limit others that you call “serial observation”, for the rest of us it is very easy to define length within some coordinate system. We can not help it that you simply can not define your “serial observation” thus making it difficult for you (and only you) to define such things a length in a coordinate system, which your refer to as a “serial observation”.

Please read http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4291308&postcount=1242 .

[doronshadmi]

Ah, so then the only paradigm shift you are asserting is shifting the paradigm (or model) for what one might consider a workable paradigm. From being something self consistent, generally consistent, coherently explainable and of practical use to just whatever it is that Doron chooses to claim today. Again that is not a paradigm shift as it is more of a paradigm shedding or perhaps even a non-paradigmatic paradigm. Dogma is a poor substitute for a workable paradigm.
You did not demonstrate any ability "to think beyond the box".

Without this ability you cannot get new things even if your life depends on it.

As for Coordinate system and Length, take for example the real-line as the simplest coordinate system.

It is clear that we do not need any particular location along the real-line (that is defined by its local members) in order to define any wished length (which is non-local w.r.t the ordered R members along the real-line).

[Little 10 Toes]

Let's disect your post for a little bit.

Yes it is.

Extension is the very essence of the notion of paradigm-shifts, as you pointed out by saying: "Paradigms, even in the hard sciences, do not REPLACE each other, but extend each other."

I accept the notion that Extension (a paradigm-shift) must be compared with the old paradigm in order to be considered as its improvement. As for Replacement, sometimes things are replaced if the old notion is found as fundamentally wrong by the paradigm-shift.

A line-segment is a general representation of Extension.

Some analogy:

Any line-segment (which is a non-local atom) that is perpendicular (that belongs AND does not belong) to some k-dimension (where k = 0 to ∞) is its extension. The traditional point of view about Extension defines only the Extension's result (some Conservation that is defined by some k-dimension) but ignores the extension that enables this result. Obvoiusly you were too concerned about your new thread (that you hijacked yourself) to read my last post. I'll paraphrase it here. If a straw pokes through a cup lid, is the whole straw part of the lid? Loose the "atom" part, just stick to basics.


In the case of "If n is a member of N, then n+1 is a member of N" the current mathematical paradigm defines the result of n+1 as the successor, by ignoring +1 (the Extension of n that enables the result).
if the set N is the set of all even numbers, then n-1 is not in that set.

+1 and the line-segment are equivalent by this analogy.
Once again, you fail to understand some basic ideas and concepts.

[doronshadmi]

Loose the "atom" part, just stick to basics.
Why? because you cannot get the "atom" part?

if the set N is the set of all even numbers, then n-1 is not in that set.
So what? I am talking about extension and not about any result of it.

Once again, you fail to understand some basic ideas and concepts.
What basic ideas, the old one?

[nathan]

Anybody else find it funny referring to a position on a line as a coordinate?

[doronshadmi]

Anybody else find it funny referring to a position on a line as a coordinate?
In a 1D universe, a location on a line is a coordinate.