Deeper than primes

[jsfisher]

For the last time, my answer was alreay given in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7621663&postcount=16484.

Take it or leave it, it is up to you.


It would have been far more direct of you to simply admit you were incapable of providing any definition of incomplete. Your constant evasion, projection, gibberish, and re-reference to previous evasion, projection, gibberish, and re-reference is a colossal waste.

[doronshadmi]

It would have been far more direct of you to simply admit you were incapable of providing any definition of incomplete. Your constant evasion, projection, gibberish, and re-reference to previous evasion, projection, gibberish, and re-reference is a colossal waste.
It would have been far more direct of you to simply admit you were incapable of get definitions that are based on
verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, exactly as already given in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7617532&postcount=16470 or http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7617572&postcount=16472.

As I already said to The Man, I am not going to discuss on that fine subject with you anymore.

I wish you happy life in your limited verbal_symbolic_only realm.

[doronshadmi]

The Man and jsfisher,

It is about time to put you in my ignore list.

Bye.

[epix]

Nothing was actually taken from the shelf, if one picks things in his\her mind.
There are surely options attached to the word "picking." There are cases where picking something doesn't mean removal of the object. For example, if you think that one item in a collection is unlike any other, you can indicate so by highlighting the item:

1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13.

The difference between highlighting and removing is in the size of the collection after the action is taken. I'm not sure how you are going to incorporate this into your axioms. It all started with a bunch of question marks raining on your proposition, such as

C is a set.

For all x in C, if all x in C are picked AND no x can be picked twice, then C is infinite.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7593948&postcount=16389

where you defined C as a set, but raised your finger not to pick x twice. I think it was The Man who told you not to worry, coz members of a set don't have duplicates and therefore cannot be picked twice. Since The Man must live real life and navigate through it without getting bruised, he interpreted the verb "pick" the normal way - the way which doesn't lead to the starvation. (Parrot drumsticks! Yummy.) But picking/highlighting changes the situation. If you let C = {1, 2, 3} and set your mind on the only even number in C, then

1st pick/highlight: {1, 2, 3}
2nd pick/highlight: {1, 2, 3}

So how does the picking in your mind translate into your axioms? Remember that highlighting doesn't remove items from the set and therefore has something to say to Mr. Incomplete who owns the set, as alleged by the Axioms.

How about coming up with examples of (finite AND incomplete set) and (infinite AND incomplete set) made by those axioms?

[jsfisher]

It would have been far more direct of you to simply admit you were incapable of get definitions

Projection.

...that are based on verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills

Gibberish.

...exactly as already given in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7617532&postcount=16470 or http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7617572&postcount=16472.

Re-reference to previous evasion, projection, gibberish, and re-reference.

As I already said to The Man, I am not going to discuss on that fine subject with you anymore.

Evasion.

I wish you happy life in your limited verbal_symbolic_only realm.

More projection and gibberish.

Well done! I think you nailed them all.

[epix]

Blank.

[doronshadmi]

How about coming up with examples of (finite AND incomplete set) and (infinite AND incomplete set) made by those axioms?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7601080&postcount=16418

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7608536&postcount=16434

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7611837&postcount=16443

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7511706&postcount=16304

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7611749&postcount=16440

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7617532&postcount=16470

[doronshadmi]

Please look at the Concluding Remarks about "Chapter 7: What is a Definition?", taken from Prof. James Robert Brown book "PHILOSOPHY OF MATHEMATICS - Contemporary Introduction to the World of Proofs and Pictures"

( http://esotericonline.net/docs/library/Philosophy/Philosophy%20of%20Science%20_%20Epistemology/Philosophy%20of%20Mathematics/Brown%20-%20Philosophy.of.Mathematics.Jan.2008.pdf )


Concluding Remarks

The official view of definitions has much to recommend it. It clarified an enormous number of confusions and its imposition on working mathematics was a real advance. But it cannot be completely right. Some concepts (polyhedron) have a history and some theories (graph theory) have multiple representations (set-theoretic and pictorial). The official view cannot cope well with either of these. A quite different approach to mathematical definitions is needed. The question in the title – what is a definition? – remains. It is a wide-open problem.

[epix]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7601080&postcount=16418

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7608536&postcount=16434

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7611837&postcount=16443

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7511706&postcount=16304

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7611749&postcount=16440

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7617532&postcount=16470
I think you misunderstood. I asked for examples involving natural numbers, coz I used them for my example. Remember that you said "that C is a set." In case someone might not be clear on the difference between the complete finite set and the incomplete finite set, I would appeal to the built-in now_you_see_it_now_you_don't skills and supplement my verbal-only explanation with an example using two sets:

Complete Die Set= {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}
Incomplete Die Set = {1, 3, 5, 6}

and then I would go ahead with the lecture . . .

Expected - Observed => |Complete - Incomplete| > 0.

Since everyone is familiar with natural numbers from everyday life appointments with them, they are well-suited for making up an example. So repeat your axioms and then include the examples as suggested.

[jsfisher]

Please look at the Concluding Remarks about "Chapter 7: What is a Definition?", taken from Prof. James Robert Brown book "PHILOSOPHY OF MATHEMATICS - Contemporary Introduction to the World of Proofs and Pictures"

( http://esotericonline.net/docs/library/Philosophy/Philosophy%20of%20Science%20_%20Epistemology/Philosophy%20of%20Mathematics/Brown%20-%20Philosophy.of.Mathematics.Jan.2008.pdf )


So this is your latest excuse? Some philosopher says it is difficult to make definitions complete, so you are content with absolutely nothing?

How novel.

[doronshadmi]

I think you misunderstood. I asked for examples involving natural numbers,
It does not matter, natural numbers are collection of distinct objects, and any collection of distinct objects (which are actually "hosted" objects) do not have the power of the continuum of the mathematical "host" space.

What I have just wrote is understood only if verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills are used as a one comprehensive framework.

[epix]

It does not matter, natural numbers are collection of distinct objects, and any collection of distinct objects (which are actually "hosted" objects) do not have the power of the continuum of the mathematical "host" space.

What I have just wrote is understood only if verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills are used as a one comprehensive framework.
Your axioms don't state which set has the power of the continuum and which doesn't. "C is a set" should apply to all kind of sets and that includes N.

Do you believe that the members of R are not distinct? If it was so then the set theorists wouldn't call R set. So why don't you use the continuum as the source for the examples that would accompany the text of your axioms instead of N?

Your progressive hesitation to answer the requested creates an impression of you are having a difficulty to understand the meaning your own constructs.

As far as the "visual_spatial skills" requirement is concerned: You should at least make an attempt to provide an example in the requested frame of perception and show where the insufficiency lies so that those "visual_spatial skills" need to kick in.

[doronshadmi]

Your axioms don't state which set has the power of the continuum and which doesn't.

Epix, if your reply to this post will be still closed under collections of distinct objects, I am not going to continue the discussion with you on this fine subject.

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

My axioms are expressed by verbal_symbolic skills, but understood only if also visual_spatial skills are also used.

So ,in order to get the incompleteness of collections of distinct objects (whether they are N or R collections) also visual_spatial skills have to be used in order to get the power of the continuum at the level of the "host" space, which is stronger than any collection of "hosted" spaces on it.

In other words, the two following axioms are undersood only if verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills are used as a one comprehensive framework:

Axiom 1:

If (x in C is picked) AND (everything but x, in C is picked) AND (x can't be picked twice), then C is infinite AND incomplete.


Axiom 2:

If (x in C is picked) AND (everything but x, in C is picked) AND (x can be picked twice), then C is finite AND incomplete.

Once again.

Without using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills as a one comprehensive framework you can't understand that everything in terms of collection (for example, points) can't reach the power of the continuum of non-local object (for example, a line), and you do not understand it exactly because your visual_spatial skills are not used in addition to your verbal_symbolic skills.

Again, you do not comprehend the inability of collections of distinct objects to have to power of the continuum of the "host" mathematical space (for example: there is no homeomorphism between 0 dimensional space and 1 dimensional space), which is naturally non-local w.r.t the "hosted" collection.

The term "host" or "hosted" is used in order to clarify that the "host" space
is not made of the "hosted" spaces (for example: ______ (a 1 dimensional space) is not made of "_ _ _" or "......" (which are sub-objects) on it.)

Again, the axioms above can't be understood without using also visual_spatial skills, expressed, for example, as:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4039/4297878664_e6288d244a_z.jpg?zz=1

Also please look at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7587585&postcount=16372.

[The Man]

You don't get it do you? ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7556387&postcount=16359 ).

Evidently “you just don’t get it”, as exemplified once again below.


By your verbal_symbolic_only reasoning "AB" is defined in terms of "A,B", "A" or "B" (there is no superposition of identities).

Doron, by your own assertions there is no superposition in your “superposition of identities”.


By your verbal_symbolic_only reasoning 1 dimensional space is completely covered by 0 dimensional spaces.

Nope, that is your “verbal_symbolic_only reasoning”, so stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others. Again as already explained to you a 1 dimensional space is completely covered by points simply because there is simply no point on that 1 dimensional space that is not, well, a point. Also as already explained to you a 1 dimensional space is completely covered by other 1 dimensional spaces.

[The Man]

The Man and jsfisher,

It is about time to put you in my ignore list.

Bye.


Doron, you’ve been ignoring us along with just about everything having anything to do with mathematics and self-consistency since long before you started this particular thread. Perhaps you should just consider a blog instead of a discussion forum?

[The Man]

Epix, if your reply to this post will be still closed under collections of distinct objects, I am not going to continue the discussion with you on this fine subject.

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




So this is your current redress, to just discontinue even your poorly veiled simple pretence of discussion with anyone who does not agree with you? Soon you will only have yourself to discuss your nonsense with. Oh wait, since you can not even agree with yourself you won’t even have that. How fortuitous for you that you are already quite accustom to efficiently lying to yourself on such matters.

[epix]

Epix, if your reply to this post will be still closed under collections of distinct objects, I am not going to continue the discussion with you on this fine subject.

Yes, your post is a collection of distinct objects called "words," but I don't understand how the set Post can be closed under collection of those words. The terminology "closed under" applies to the operations that the members of a set are subjected to. For example, R is closed strictly under addition and multiplication. You should explain what kind of operation the "collection of distinct object" is, otherwise you could be charged with forceful sodomy performed on juveniles. (The set theory is a relatively young field of mathematics.)

[zooterkin]

So, is it just me left not on ignore?

So, Doron, this definition of incomplete...

[epix]

Doron, you’ve been ignoring us along with just about everything having anything to do with mathematics and self-consistency since long before you started this particular thread. Perhaps you should just consider a blog instead of a discussion forum?
That Ignore List is actually a subset, coz there are no duplicate nicknames in JREF. So if that subset comes under the influence of those two Doron's axioms, then the promised action taken by him can have an unexpected result, like he can even PM you.
;)

[doronshadmi]

So, is it just me left not on ignore?

So, Doron, this definition of incomplete...

In my opinion, any definition is unsatisfied if it is not based on visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic skills.

An example of this attitude can be found in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7634139&postcount=16513.

[doronshadmi]

Yes, your post is a collection of distinct objects called "words," but I don't understand how the set Post can be closed under collection of those words. The terminology "closed under" applies to the operations that the members of a set are subjected to. For example, R is closed strictly under addition and multiplication. You should explain what kind of operation the "collection of distinct object" is, otherwise you could be charged with forceful sodomy performed on juveniles. (The set theory is a relatively young field of mathematics.)

"Closed under" holds for any subject that is researched by using partial skills.

By using only verbal_symbolic skills in order to get the Mathematical science, one is actually closed under the limitations of partial abilities of one's skills.

Set theory in its classical form, is the result of using only verbal_symbolic skills.

By being closed under this limitation one actually can't understand the implications of non-homeomorphism among different mathematical/physical spaces.

As a result one can't comprehend Non-locality and Locality, Actual and potential infinity, the power of the continuum of a given "host" space w.r.t collections of "hosted" spaces on it, Cross-contexts and Context-dependent reasoning, and many more interesting facts that are available if verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills are used as a one comprehensive framework.

Please look at the following article http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0605/0605061v152.pdf which uses visual_spatial skills by translating them into verbal_symbolic skills.

By doing that verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills still do not fulfill the ability to be used as a one comprehensive framework.

But by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, such that (for example) __ is 1-dim space and . is 0-dim space, it is obvious that . is the smallest possible space and no __ space can be . (and vise versa).

As a result __ is no more than smaller space w.r.t to . smallest space, such that given two smallest spaces .. there is always __ between them, which is no more then smaller space w.r.t them.

Furthermore, __ is located AND not located w.r.t each one of the two given smallest spaces .. exactly because it is no more than smaller space w.r.t to them.

On the contrary, a given . space is located XOR not located w.r.t to any given space that is not itself.

So by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills one understands Non-locality and Locality.

[epix]

"Closed under" holds for any subject that is researched by using partial skills.

By using only verbal_symbolic skills in order to get the Mathematical science, one is actually closed under the limitations of partial abilities of one's skills.

Set theory in its classical form, is the result of using only verbal_symbolic skills.

By being closed under this limitation one actually can't understand the implications of non-homeomorphism among different mathematical/physical spaces.

You seem to excel on the theme of the set closures, which is peculiar in the view of my statement

For example, R is closed strictly under addition and multiplication.

which you left floating on the surface of reason without raising any objection. Isn't it true that the example applies to N rather than to R?

Theories are usually rendered formally in the symbolic language, but they are not created that way. Some honest folks like Albert Einstein provided enough clue to what enters the mind. Actually Cantor believed that it was God who disclosed to him the "simple and beautiful" proofs. Andrew Wiles of the Last Fermat Theorem fame pretty much described what happened when he hit the dead end. God helps those who help themselves. In other words, you need to try and show willingness before tricks kick in. But there are plenty of ignorant pretenders who lie about the abilities of the human mind -- the mediocre of the flock who are not humble enough . . .

Is there something like the "second brain"?
http://www.lib.uni-bonn.de/PhiMSAMP/GAP6/Talks/Devlin.pdf

You hint that your insights are so profound that only "spatial_visual" skills can unlock the reason behind them. You can keep lying to yourself and continue your gobbledygook. That's not gibberish; the word actually stands for something:

Language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.



The visual representation of the set theory is unreliable:

T = {a, o, b}
:confused:

(frui)T = {a, o, b} (http://us.cdn4.123rf.com/168nwm/redfig/redfig0606/redfig060600025/420522-apple-orange-banana.jpg)
:)

T = {a, o, b} (http://www.shutterpoint.com/photos/A/749925-Fishing-boat-upside-down_view.jpg)
:mad:

[jsfisher]

In my opinion, any definition is unsatisfied if it is not based on visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic skills.


Talk about self-serving rubbish.... Since Doron has neither skill, his opinion is baseless.

Ideas can be expressed in words, and ideas can be expressed in images. Often times, words supplemented with images is a very effective presentation. Unfortunately for Doron, he has proven himself incapable of meaningful verbal or visual communication. Instead, he provides two seemingly uncorrelated versions of gibberish then blames everyone else for their lack of comprehension.

Rubbish.

[doronshadmi]

You hint that your insights are so profound that only "spatial_visual" skills can unlock the reason behind them.
epix, do you understand the difference between "only "spatial_visual" skills" and verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills?

If your answer is NO, then you are going to my ignore list.

[zooterkin]

epix, do you understand the difference between "only "spatial_visual" skills" and verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills?

If your answer is NO, then you are going to my ignore list.

I don't suppose you'd like to define either of those terms? Or would that require the use of interpretive dance?

[epix]

epix, do you understand the difference between "only "spatial_visual" skills" and verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills?

If your answer is NO, then you are going to my ignore list.
What makes you think that I don't understand the difference? Can you quote the post or a part of it that gave you the impression that I don't understand the difference?

Before that happens - if ever - I think you should get acquainted with an opinion of a mathematician who not only knows what he is doing but also how he is doing in it. I've already provided the link.

Of particular relevance to my thesis are the mathematicians’ descriptions of the way they arrived at the solutions to problems they had been working on. Time and again, the solution came at a quite unexpected moment, when the person was engaged in some other activity and was not consciously thinking about the problem. Moreover, in that inspirational moment the whole solution suddenly fell into place, as if the pieces of a huge jigsaw puzzle had been dropped onto the floor and miraculously landed as a complete picture. The mathematician “saw” the solution and instinctively knew it was correct.

No language is involved in this process. Indeed, with a problem for which the solution is fairly complex, it might take the mathematician weeks or even months to spell out (in linguistic form) the step-by-step logical argument that constitutes the official solution to the problem — the proof of the result.

Here is a supporting word from Einstein and Hadamard respectively:

Words and language, whether written or spoken, do not seem to play any part in my thought processes. The psychological entities that serve as building blocks for my thought are certain signs or images, more or less clear, that I can reproduce and recombine at will.


I insist that words are totally absent from my mind when I really think . . . even after reading or hearing a question, every word disappears the very moment that I am beginning to think it over.


If you ponder the highlighted and imagine the very abbreviated explanation of topological spaces rendered in the formal language in Wikipedia, then it may take more than a month to set up the environment that leads toward understanding of the issue; and it takes a second to call anyone who peruses the text in order to learn the concept and claims that he now knows a liar.

Now you open your axioms with "C is a set" and then you put a restriction on one clause of the axiom, which prohibits "picking" one member no more than twice. Obviously, the confidence of the reader that you know what you are talking about is gone. Reminded of the problem, you change the definition from "C is a set" to "C stands for Collection" without bothering to specify the type of collection and the operation done on its members. Instead, you call upon those verbal_symbolic and spatial_visual skills to do the job. You offer repeatedly only one "spatial_visual" example, which is counter-intuitive, like any other of your visual supplements. Do you think I would bother to keep examining? I leave it to The Man or jsfisher, and then I read about it. If there is nothing to read about, then it's obvious that your "spatial_visual" argument is some kind of nonsense and my suspicion was correct.

Redo the circles, try again and again until a child understands it, if it's not a nonsense.

[doronshadmi]

What makes you think that I don't understand the difference?

Can you quote the post or a part of it that gave you the impression that I don't understand the difference?
Yes.

You hint that your insights are so profound that only "spatial_visual" skills can unlock the reason behind them.


Instead, you call upon those verbal_symbolic and spatial_visual skills to do the job. You offer repeatedly only one "spatial_visual" example, which is counter-intuitive, like any other of your visual supplements.
epix, it is counter-intuitive as long as you do not use verbal_symbolic AND spatial_visual skills as a one comprehensive framework.

By the way "the step-by-step logical argument that constitutes the official solution to the problem — the proof of the result" is an example of using verbal_symbolic_only skills.

This time, please read all of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7637828&postcount=16521 , before you are talking about counter-intuitive.

[The Man]

That Ignore List is actually a subset, coz there are no duplicate nicknames in JREF. So if that subset comes under the influence of those two Doron's axioms, then the promised action taken by him can have an unexpected result, like he can even PM you.
;)

If ‘PM’ means Purposely Misrepresent then that's about all he has been doing.

[epix]

Yes.



epix, it is counter-intuitive as long as you do not use verbal_symbolic AND spatial_visual skills as a one comprehensive framework.

By the way "the step-by-step logical argument that constitutes the official solution to the problem — the proof of the result" is an example of using verbal_symbolic_only skills.

This time, please read all of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7637828&postcount=16521 , before you are talking about counter-intuitive.
Your verbal descriptions are almost always disconnected from your visual renditions. It only takes a few questions to confirm the suspicion that you are not at the helm of your own thoughts. You know it and that's why you ignore answering them or you perform an evasive maneuver. You are addicted to shuffling and connecting math terms that you read elsewhere and putting them stripped of any meaning on the billboard advertising Doronetics. And for the crimes committed against Plus and Minus, I therefore find you guilty as charged and hereby sentence you to counting to one hundred and backward with no possibility of skipping.

[doronshadmi]

Your verbal descriptions are almost always disconnected from your visual renditions. It only takes a few questions to confirm the suspicion that you are not at the helm of your own thoughts. You know it and that's why you ignore answering them or you perform an evasive maneuver.

epix, you still do not use verbal_symbolic AND and visual_spatial skills in order to realize that (for example) all possible line segments can't be smallest as a point, such that given any arbitrary closer points, there is always a line segment between them, which is greater than the points (which are the smallest elements).

This simple fact clearly shows that the power of continuum of 1-dimensional mathematical space is greater than the power of the collection of all 0-dimensional spaces on it.

Your inability to get what I have just wrote is beyond any suspicion, but you can't know that because your reasoning is closed under to power of the collection of all 0-dimensional mathematical spaces on (for example) a given 1-dimasional mathematical space (you wrongly define a given 1-dimensional mathematical space in terms of the 0-dimensional mathematical spaces on it).

Furthermore, you wrongly define the collection of all smallest objects ((known also as points or 0-dimensional mathematical spaces) on (for example) a given 1-dimensional mathematical space) as uncountable, exactly because you are not using also your visual_spatial skills, in order to really get this collection with respect to the power of the continuum of the "host" mathematical space (for example, the 1-dimensional mathematical space).

As a result all you get is the one-to-one correspondence between these smallest elements and their verbal_symbolic interpretations, known as the distinct members of R set.

By using only your verbal_symbolic skills you simply unable to get the 1-dimansiomal mathematical space between the members of R set, which is actually the "host" mathematical space of them that its power of continuum is inaccessible to R set (it is actually inaccessible to ...power(power(power(R)))... ad infinituum).

Because you are using only verbal_symbolic skills you can't actually understand the fact that the outer "{" and "}" symbols are exactly the inaccessibility of any given collection to the power of the continuum of a given "host" mathematical space (where the fact that "{""}" is the notation of the a given "host" mathematical space, is really understood only by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills).

By using verbal_symbolic AND and visual_spatial skills it is immediately understood that no collection of "hosted" mathematical spaces has the power of the continuum of the "host" mathematical space.

Again, as long as your mathematical reasoning does not use verbal_symbolic AND and visual_spatial skills as a one comprehensive framework, you simply can't get this post.

[jsfisher]

epix, you still do not use verbal_symbolic AND and visual_spatial skills in order to realize that (for example) all possible line segments can't be smallest as a point, such that given any arbitrary closer points, there is always a line segment between them, which is greater than the points (which are the smallest elements).

The gibberish is strong in this one....

This simple fact clearly shows that the power of continuum of 1-dimensional mathematical space is greater than the power of the collection of all 0-dimensional spaces on it.

This would be true if the infinite behaved like the finite. It doesn't, and this isn't.

...<more nonsense>...

[doronshadmi]

Anyone that gets things only by verbal_symbolic skills, can't understand the lack of homeomorphism among different mathematical spaces.

Different mathematical spaces are distinct w.r.t each other, such that the greater mathematical spaces are the "host" mathematical spaces of the smaller (and therefore "hosted") mathematical spaces.

Being "hosted" means that the smaller (including the smallest) mathematical spaces are not the building-blocks of the "host" mathematical spaces, or in other words, the "host" mathematical spaces are not made of the "hosted" mathematical spaces.

The smallest mathematical space is 0-dimansional space, which is stronger than emptiness (where emptiness is that has no predecessor), and all the possible infinitely many mathematical spaces that are greater than 0-dimensional mathematical space, are smaller than fullness (where fullness is that has no successor).

Emptiness is the weakest limit of the mathematical science.

Fullness is the strongest limit of the mathematical science.

Collections are the intermediate mathematical universe, which is considered as intermediate if it is inaccessible to these limits.

Unity is absolute symmetry, such that Emptiness,Fullness and the intermediate mathematical universe, are indistinguishable.

[jsfisher]

...<self-serving gibberish>...


So, when Doron said he was ignoring several of us, he wasn't being completely honest. I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked!

[epix]

epix, you still do not use verbal_symbolic AND and visual_spatial skills in order to realize that (for example) all possible line segments can't be smallest as a point, such that given any arbitrary closer points, there is always a line segment between them, which is greater than the points (which are the smallest elements).

In my practical applications, I treat points as a dimensionless reference and so your superlatives, like "smallest," are meaningless in that respect. Show me an example, a real computational problem, where in order to solve it, I need to ascribe some dimension to the point so it would be smaller than a line segment whose length is approaching zero.

I can only guess, but it seems to me that you may not be aware of a certain difference. Check out this hardware:
http://www.maniacworld.com/flash-chess.jpg

The stones move around the board according to a set of rules -- you can liken them to axioms. The rules are invariant.

Now check out this hardware:
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/poker2.jpg

There are 52 cards in the deck, and, unlike in chess, there are many sets of rules, each set defining a different card game: there are rules (axioms) according to which poker is played, there are rules (axioms) according to which blackjack is played, and so on. But you think that there is only one true card game -- some doron canasta -- and you are trying to invent the rules for it thinking that all other card games are biased to a lesser or greater extent. Every card player knows what "flush" means, but you love to rename the established and come up with your own terms, maybe like "local toilet," and relentlessly try to teach your invention to others -- a card game invention where king of spades is less than king of hearts, but queen of spades beats queen of hearts including all sevens AND eights AND the aces, but not two of diamonds. Your rules (axioms) are too weird and outright illogical for any game apart from howhigh solitaire. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/house%20of%20cards.jpg)

[doronshadmi]

In my practical applications, I treat points as a dimensionless reference and so your superlatives, like "smallest," are meaningless in that respect.

0-dimesional mathematical space is not the same as the lack of mathematical dimensional space.

Actually because you are using only verbal_symbolic skills in order to understand what I wrote above, you can't comprehend the difference between 0-dimesional mathematical space and the lack of lack of mathematical dimensional space (called by you "dimensionless").

Once again it is shown that if one does not use verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills as a one comprehensive framework, one actually fails to comprehend the discussed fine subject.


Show me an example, a real computational problem, where in order to solve it, I need to ascribe some dimension to the point so it would be smaller than a line segment whose length is approaching zero.
Once again, 0-dimesional mathematical space is not the same as the lack of dimension, exactly as the cardinality of the empty set (=0) is not the same as Emptiness).

0 is understood by verbal_symbolic skills and Emptiness is understood by visual_spatial skills, and the difference between (for example) 0 cardinality and (for example) Emptiness, is understood only if one uses verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills as a one comprehensive framework.

epix, you still do not do anything in order to get the discussed fine subject by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills as a one comprehensive framework.

If you actually use verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills as a one comprehensive framework, then (and only then) you can understand the following:


The smallest mathematical space is 0-dimansional space, which is stronger than emptiness (where emptiness is that has no predecessor), and all the possible infinitely many mathematical spaces that are greater than 0-dimensional mathematical space, are smaller than fullness (where fullness is that has no successor).

Emptiness is the weakest limit of the mathematical science.

Fullness is the strongest limit of the mathematical science.

Collections are the intermediate mathematical universe, which is considered as intermediate if it is inaccessible to these limits.

Unity is absolute symmetry, such that Emptiness,Fullness and the intermediate mathematical universe, are indistinguishable.


I need to ascribe some dimension to the point so it would be smaller than a line segment whose length is approaching zero.
By your own words you ascribed "zero" as the dimensional mathematical space of a point, where no line segment has "zero" mathematical dimensional space (it approaches AND not reaches "zero" mathematical dimensional space (this time please actually do your best in order to get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7540470&postcount=16339)).


But you think that there is only one true card game -- some doron canasta --
Wrong, there are infinitely many context-dependent games (each game has its own rules) AND cross-contexts principle of being a game.

In other words, in this case you have failed to get "game" as the "host" cross-context mathematical space, and the infinitely many context-dependent games as the "hosted" mathematical spaces.

[doronshadmi]

Enjoy : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOQb_mtkEEE&feature=related :)

[doronshadmi]

By using the fact that we are dealing with collections of distinct objects, let us re-search such collections by understanding notations according to verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.


The cardinality of Fullness is |{}| = ∞, where Fullness (that has no successor) is notated by the outer "{" and "}".

The cardinality of Emptiness is {||} = 0, where Emptiness (that has no predecessor) has no notation.

By understanding the difference between |{}| and {||}, we are able to deal with cardinality which is > {||} AND < |{}|, for example, such that {|...|} < |{...}|, where "..." is a general notation of members.

{|{}|} = 1

|{{}}| = ∞ because Fullness has no successor (its cardinality is inaccessible to all that have cardinality with successors (whether the amount of successors is finite or not).

Generally, all that have cardinality with successors, such cardinality is notated (for example) as {||}, {|a|}, {|a,b|}, {|a,b,c|} , ... etc. in the case of finite cardinality, or notated (for example) as {|,a,b,c,...|} in the case of infinite cardinality.

Russell's paradox is naturally solved as follows:

|{,a,b,c,...}| = ∞

{|,a,b,c,...|} < ∞

{|,{,a,b,c,...},a,b,c,...|} < ∞ = |{,{,a,b,c,...},a,b,c,...}|

Generally , the cardinality of all given collections with distinct objects < cardinality ∞.

So no collection of distinct objects can be its own member, because being a member of collection of distinct members, does not change the fact that the cardinality of all members of a given collection of distinct objects < ∞.

By understanding that (for example) cardinality |{,{,a,b,c,...},a,b,c,...}| > {|,{,a,b,c,...},a,b,c,...|} , one captures that no member (which is no more than "hosted" mathematical space) of a given collection (which is not less than "host" mathematical space) is equivalent to the given collection.

[zooterkin]

Generally , the cardinality of all given collections with distinct objects < cardinality ∞.


Are you saying that the cardinality of the set of positive integers (which are distinct objects) is not ∞?

[doronshadmi]

Are you saying that the cardinality of the set of positive integers (which are distinct objects) is not ∞?

∞ < ∞, where ∞ is the cardinality of Fullness (that has no successor) and ∞ is the cardinality of infinite collections on it (which are incomplete w.r.t to it, since no matter how infinitely many successors (immediate or non-immediate) they have, the cardinality of Fullness (∞) is inaccessible to them).

Fullness (that has no successor) is the "host" mathematical space, which is naturally beyond the power of all infinite collections (they have successors) which are "hosted" mathematical spaces on it.

By understanding this simple fact, it is realized that no collection of "hosted" mathematical spaces have the power of the "host" space, or in other words, the cardinality of the "hosted" mathematical spaces (and members are such spaces) < cardinality of the "host" space.

Fullness is shown, for example, by the non-locality of 1-dimensional "host" mathematical space w.r.t all infinite "hosted" mathematical spaces (whether they are infinite collections of points or line segments on it), which are local w.r.t the 1-dimensional "host" mathematical space.

As long as you do not get the mathematical science as Cross-contexts (Non-locality, or "host" mathematical space) AND Context-dependent (Locality, or "hosted" mathematical spaces) as a one comprehensive framework, you can't comprehend this post.

Once again, Cardinality is between the cardinality of Emptiness (that has no predecessor, which is notated as {||}) and the cardinality of Fullness (that has no successor, which is notated, at least, as |{}|).

Some claims: "1-dimensional mathematical space does not have the cardinality of fullness since it has, for example, 2-dimensional mathematical space as its successor, and so on ... ad infinituum".

Well, the important fact is the "host"\"hosted" principle between mathematical spaces, which is defined exactly because of the inaccessibility of the cardinality of Fullness to all mathematical spaces, which have successors (immediate or not).

Mathematical spaces are considered as collections w.r.t any given "host" mathematical space, which is derived from the "host"\"hosted" principle between mathematical spaces.

The existence of fundamental principle among infinitely many levels of a given non-trivial system, is actually one of the beauties of Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework.

Unity is the symmetry that prevents the distinction between Emptiness, Fullness, and everything between them.

[doronshadmi]

Let's correct the last paragraph of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7653835&postcount=16537.

Instead of

By understanding that (for example) cardinality |{,{,a,b,c,...},a,b,c,...}| > {|,{,a,b,c,...},a,b,c,...|} , one captures that no member (which is no more than "hosted" mathematical space) of a given collection (which is not less than "host" mathematical space) is equivalent to the given collection.

It has to be:

By understanding that (for example) cardinality |{,{,a,b,c,...},a,b,c,...}| > {|,{,a,b,c,...},a,b,c,...|} , one captures that no member (which is no more than "hosted" mathematical space) is equivalent to the "host" mathematical space.

[The Man]

By using the fact that we are dealing with collections of distinct objects, let us re-search such collections by understanding notations according to verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

Just making up crap still does not constitute research.


The cardinality of Fullness is |{}| = ∞, where Fullness (that has no successor) is notated by the outer "{" and "}".

The "{" and "}" are inside not outside the only other symbols in your purported notation, so much for your “visual_spatial skills”.




The cardinality of Emptiness is {||} = 0, where Emptiness (that has no predecessor) has no notation.

And once again you give notations to what you claim “has no notation”, so much for your “verbal_symbolic skills”.

Well that’s two out of three down, you also claimed you would be “using the fact that we are dealing with collections of distinct objects”, let’s see how that pans out.



By understanding the difference between |{}| and {||}, we are able to deal with cardinality which is > {||} AND < |{}|, for example, such that {|...|} < |{...}|, where "..." is a general notation of members.

{|{}|} = 1

Everyone here, but you, has no problem dealing with cardinality without any of your nonsense.




|{{}}| = ∞ because Fullness has no successor (its cardinality is inaccessible to all that have cardinality with successors (whether the amount of successors is finite or not).

Well that just makes your “Fullness” useless, congratulations.



Generally, all that have cardinality with successors, such cardinality is notated (for example) as {||}, {|a|}, {|a,b|}, {|a,b,c|} , ... etc. in the case of finite cardinality, or notated (for example) as {|,a,b,c,...|} in the case of infinite cardinality.

No it isn’t see again Cardinality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality).






Russell's paradox is naturally solved as follows:

|{,a,b,c,...}| = ∞

{|,a,b,c,...|} < ∞

{|,{,a,b,c,...},a,b,c,...|} < ∞ = |{,{,a,b,c,...},a,b,c,...}|

Nope, you just mis-mashing symbols together doesn’t solve anything other than simply your pretence that you have any “verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills” whatsoever.





Generally , the cardinality of all given collections with distinct objects < cardinality ∞.

“Generally”? So not always? When does the “cardinality of all given collections with distinct objects change such that “< cardinality ∞” does not apply?




So no collection of distinct objects can be its own member, because being a member of collection of distinct members, does not change the fact that the cardinality of all members of a given collection of distinct objects < ∞.

Since when is changing “the fact that the cardinality of all members of a given collection of distinct objects < ∞” a requirement for a collection of distinct objects being its own member?




By understanding that (for example) cardinality |{,{,a,b,c,...},a,b,c,...}| > {|,{,a,b,c,...},a,b,c,...|} , one captures that no member (which is no more than "hosted" mathematical space) of a given collection (which is not less than "host" mathematical space) is equivalent to the given collection.

If the collection were a member of itself then the collection would be equal to at least one member of the collection. All you have done is to simply assert that “no collection of distinct objects can be its own member” because it does not change some irrelevant nonsense about your “∞” that you assert above “is inaccessible to all that have cardinality with successors”. Again congratulations not only have you failed to use “the fact that we are dealing with collections of distinct objects” as you claimed above you tried using just your claim that your “inaccessible” “∞ remains, well, “inaccessible” simply by your own edict.

That’s three for three.

Your failure is now complete.

[jsfisher]

Excellent. Doron wasn't sufficiently confused and confusing with his old notation, so he's now moved on to a new notation.

[epix]

By understanding the difference between |{}| and {||}, we are able . . .

. . . to define the host space. (http://partners.visitrenotahoe.com/assets/423/inandoutburger.jpg)

[doronshadmi]

It has to be stressed that there is difference between "defined by" and "made of".

For example, 1-dimensional space is defined as "host" mathematical space w.r.t to 0-demensional spaces or segments on it, where the 0-demensional spaces or segments on it are defined as "hosted" mathematical spaces w.r.t it.

"host"\"hosted" mathematical spaces depends on each other in terms "defined by".

"host"\"hosted" mathematical spaces do no depend on each other in terms "made of", for example (without loss of generality): 1-dimensional mathematical space is not made of 0-dimensonal mathematical spaces or segments on it.

The difference between "defined by" and "made of" is easily understood if verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills are used as a one comprehensive framework.

[epix]

And once again you give notations to what you claim “has no notation”, so much for your “verbal_symbolic skills”.

Doron uses some standard terminology and symbols, but shuffles the latter around at will. The size of a set is usually denoted the same way as the absolute value - the argument appears between two parallel vertical lines. Perhaps because of taking "Emptiness" literally, it never appears as the argument inside | | as he demonstrates here:

The cardinality of Emptiness is {||} = 0, where Emptiness (that has no predecessor) has no notation.

You expect the cardinality of Emptiness is |E| = 0, but instead of finding argument E inside | |, the term "Emptiness" gets symbolized by the braces { } and, as the argument, gets placed outside :confused: | |. There is also a big chance that Doron invented special cardinality symbol for the size of Emptiness that reads {||} and means that set Emptiness has no membership whatsoever. (Emptiness doesn't have to be necessarily a set; it can be some collection whose meaning and function can be understood only when some x_y skills kick in.)

I can't wait when the moment filled with the spirit of fecundity arrives and we'll see some arithmetic performed on delimiters.

[doronshadmi]

Emptiness doesn't have to be necessarily a set; it can be some collection ...
No, it can't be some collection, because Emptiness is the predecessor of the concept of Collection, but not vice versa.

By using the same reasoning, Fulness (which is the opposite of Emptiness) is the successor of the concept of Collection, but not vise versa.

In terms of Cardinality {||} = 0 (where 0 in the measurement of Emptiness and not Emptiness itself).

In terms of Cardinality |{}| = ∞ (where ∞ is the measurement of Fullness and not Fullness itself).

The Cardinality of Collections > 0 AND < ∞, such that 0 < n < ∞ < ∞.

[The Man]

Doron uses some standard terminology and symbols, but shuffles the latter around at will. The size of a set is usually denoted the same way as the absolute value - the argument appears between two parallel vertical lines. Perhaps because of taking "Emptiness" literally, it never appears as the argument inside | | as he demonstrates here:

You expect the cardinality of Emptiness is |E| = 0, but instead of finding argument E inside | |, the term "Emptiness" gets symbolized by the braces { } and, as the argument, gets placed outside :confused: | |. There is also a big chance that Doron invented special cardinality symbol for the size of Emptiness that reads {||} and means that set Emptiness has no membership whatsoever. (Emptiness doesn't have to be necessarily a set; it can be some collection whose meaning and function can be understood only when some x_y skills kick in.)

I can't wait when the moment filled with the spirit of fecundity arrives and we'll see some arithmetic performed on delimiters.


Actually it is just a reversal (the inside symbols become the outside) of his “notation” for “fullness” “|{ }|” (which ironically would normally be taken as the cardinality of the empty set). Doron is attempting to internalize his “cardinality” by putting the “|” symbols inside, indicating cardinality inside the collection (symbolized by the brackets). In that lay the failure epix, not only in the word “Emptiness” which is a notation for his concept of emptiness but also the blank space between “| |” inside the brackets where he literally and symbolically attempts to notate that concept and indicate his “cardinality” of it. Even in spite of his claims that it “has no notation” and that everyone should just get the concept through “direct perception”, he still evidently knows that he must notate it somehow to communicate that concept and what he wants to claim about it. Thus the result is that his attempts at both verbal and visual communication are just half assed and self contradictory because he really doesn’t want to believe he needs them in spite his apparent understanding that he does.

[The Man]

No, it can't be some collection, because Emptiness is the predecessor of the concept of Collection, but not vice versa.

By using the same reasoning, Fulness (which is the opposite of Emptiness) is the successor of the concept of Collection, but not vise versa.

In terms of Cardinality {||} = 0 (where 0 in the measurement of Emptiness and not Emptiness itself).

In terms of Cardinality |{}| = ∞ (where ∞ is the measurement of Fullness and not Fullness itself).

The Cardinality of Collections > 0 AND < ∞, such that 0 < n < ∞ < ∞.



And there you have it epix, the symbols themselves are meaningless. It is only there configuration that is intended to carry meaning by Doron. In this case it is the simple reversal of ordering (the inside symbols become the outside) that is intend to convey his preferred ordering. So Doron has now specifically asserted that his “Emptiness” and “Fullness” are both beyond “the concept of Collection” (though evidently not beyond the concept of ordering) and, as we all already understood, thus irrelevant to that concept, though it may take another 20 some odd years for it to sink in with him.

[The Man]

It has to be stressed that there is difference between "defined by" and "made of".

For example, 1-dimensional space is defined as "host" mathematical space w.r.t to 0-demensional spaces or segments on it, where the 0-demensional spaces or segments on it are defined as "hosted" mathematical spaces w.r.t it.

"host"\"hosted" mathematical spaces depends on each other in terms "defined by".

"host"\"hosted" mathematical spaces do no depend on each other in terms "made of", for example (without loss of generality): 1-dimensional mathematical space is not made of 0-dimensonal mathematical spaces or segments on it.

The difference between "defined by" and "made of" is easily understood if verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills are used as a one comprehensive framework.


It has to be stressed and apparently repeated that being defined as, as in a line and/or line segment being define as a collection of points and/or a line being defined as a collection of line segments (themselves being define by points and as a collection of points), means exactly what it says. It looks like your conflation de jour is to simply replace your “non-local” with “host” and your “local” with “hosted” while still leaving them all, “defined as”, "defined by" and certainly "made of", well, nothing.

[epix]

Actually it is just a reversal (the inside symbols become the outside) of his “notation” for “fullness” “|{ }|” (which ironically would normally be taken as the cardinality of the empty set).
That's right - under the normal circumstances, which is obviously not the case.

I think that Doron got inspired by the fact that the space between | and | is not empty - it's occupied by {} - and therefore it's full. But in case of {||}, the space between both vertical lines is empty. Under the normal circumstances, {||} indicates a set with one member and that's '||' and that means the set is not empty, but since things are the other way - they are far from being normal - Doron links {||} with his peculiar concept of Emptiness.

[epix]

In terms of Cardinality {||} = 0 (where 0 in the measurement of Emptiness and not Emptiness itself).

In terms of Cardinality |{}| = ∞ (where ∞ is the measurement of Fullness and not Fullness itself).

The Cardinality of Collections > 0 AND < ∞, such that 0 < n < ∞ < ∞.
But that greatly reduces the modus operandi of your space - it becomes very restrictive. In other words, your space wouldn't be able to contribute to the solution of

{x}

for x, which is the fundamental unsolved problem of contemporary mathematics.

[doronshadmi]

I think that Doron got inspired by the fact that the space between | and | is not empty - it's occupied by {} - and therefore it's full.
You are still missing it.

"|" and "|" are the notations of cardinality.

{||} = 0, where 0 is the cardinality of Emptiness, where Emptiness (that has no predecessor) is not the same as 0.

|{}| = ∞, where ∞ is the cardinality of Fullness, where Fullness (that has no successor) is not the same as ∞.

You still do not get the meaning of the outer "{" and "}" w.r.t what is found (or not) between them.

As about Emptiness, please pay attention that no notation (including space bar) is used between || (|| + space bar is | |, so there is no notation between "|" and "|" (which notated only by || for the cardinality of Emptiness)).


In other words, your space wouldn't be able to contribute to the solution of

{x}

for x, which is the fundamental unsolved problem of contemporary mathematics.
Wrong, you still do not get the inaccessibility of cardinality {|x|} to cardinality |{x}|, such that cardinality {|x|} measures the naturally open realm, exactly because it is inaccessible to cardinality |{x}|.

[doronshadmi]

About Fullness, it is defined as the opposite as Emptiness, but it is not made of Emptiness or any collection of objects.

About Emptiness, it is defined as the opposite as Fullness, but it is not made of Fullness or any collection of objects.

Also Cardinality can be ordered (as shown in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7656719&postcount=16546) but the order of objects under a given cardinality > 1 AND < ∞ has no significance.

[doronshadmi]

Some typo corrections of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7658997&postcount=16553.

Instead of "opposite as Emptiness" is has to be "opposite of Emptiness".

Instead of "opposite as Fullness" is has to be "opposite of Fullness".

So, the right one is

About Fullness, it is defined as the opposite of Emptiness, but it is not made of Emptiness or any collection of objects.

About Emptiness, it is defined as the opposite of Fullness, but it is not made of Fullness or any collection of objects.

Also Cardinality can be ordered (as shown in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7656719&postcount=16546) but the order of objects under a given cardinality > 1 AND < ∞ has no significance.

[jsfisher]

About Fullness, it is defined as the opposite as Emptiness, but it is not made of Emptiness or any collection of objects.

About Emptiness, it is defined as the opposite as Fullness, but it is not made of Fullness or any collection of objects.


Doron loves circles.

[epix]

Originally Posted by epix
In other words, your space wouldn't be able to contribute to the solution of

{x}

for x, which is the fundamental unsolved problem of contemporary mathematics.


Wrong, you still do not get the inaccessibility of cardinality {|x|} to cardinality |{x}|, such that cardinality {|x|} measures the naturally open realm, exactly because it is inaccessible to cardinality |{x}|.

Quit fantasizing. The reason for the inaccesibility lies elsewhere, and I will explain it. Btw, your set doesn't live in a topological space and it is not closed and at the same time opened,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clopen_set
so it cannot fully address the issue that relates to the solution of {x}.

Unlike you, I can provide an example of what I'm saying. The interim solution is bivariate

1. {x} = 32
2. {x} = 28

but it's hard to arrive at the unique solution.
Let x be enclosed in braces {}. It follows that {x} is a set. The answer to the question of what kind of set is given by the closure, which are the braces, and so the set is definable. (http://www.lawndentalcenter.com/images/chicago-braces.jpg)

We know from the definition of the set that the host space is opened and closed w.r.t. the variable x. That's because the cardinality of the set of teeth is 32, but the wisdom teeth are sometimes removed from the host space, and so the cardinality is reduced to 28. There is no way of determining the unique value of x unless the host space is only and only opened. But it takes Clifford algebra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_algebra
and a special set up
http://tucsondental.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Chair.jpg

to accomplish the transformation that leads toward :jaw-dropp .

[The Man]

So, when Doron said he was ignoring several of us, he wasn't being completely honest. I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked!


Evidently, but given his propensity for self contradiction and only self deception the only way he can ignore us is to read what we post and respond to it while pretending (only to himself) that he is not.


Also Cardinality can be ordered (as shown in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7656719&postcount=16546) but the order of objects under a given cardinality > 1 AND < ∞ has no significance.


“can be ordered”? You just asserted above the particular ordering you insist upon.

No, it can't be some collection, because Emptiness is the predecessor of the concept of Collection, but not vice versa.

By using the same reasoning, Fulness (which is the opposite of Emptiness) is the successor of the concept of Collection, but not vise versa.

Predecessor and successor are both assertions of ordering (as has been pointed out to you multiple times before).


…the order of objects under a given cardinality > 1 AND < ∞ has no significance.



Really? Well let’s try…

We have (in your prefered ordering)…

“Emptiness is the predecessor of the concept of Collection”

Then

“the concept of Collection”

And then

“Fulness (which is the opposite of Emptiness) is the successor of the concept of Collection”

Well that’s just three of your ‘concepts’ “Emptiness”, “Collection” and “Fulness”

As 3 is “> 1 AND < ∞” your preferred ordering of your purported concepts has, by your own assertion, “no significance”.



See that wasn’t so hard to figure out and only took you pretending to ignore what was posted as opposed the 20 some odd years you spent ignoring just about everything but your own ‘concepts’.

This pretend ignorance of yours seems to be working better for you and everyone else as opposed to just the actual blatant ignorance you normally steep yourself in.

[doronshadmi]

Originally Posted by epix
In other words, your space wouldn't be able to contribute to the solution of

{x}

for x, which is the fundamental unsolved problem of contemporary mathematics.



Quit fantasizing. The reason for the inaccesibility lies elsewhere, and I will explain it. Btw, your set doesn't live in a topological space and it is not closed and at the same time opened,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clopen_set
so it cannot fully address the issue that relates to the solution of {x}.

Unlike you, I can provide an example of what I'm saying. The interim solution is bivariate

1. {x} = 32
2. {x} = 28

but it's hard to arrive at the unique solution.
Let x be enclosed in braces {}. It follows that {x} is a set. The answer to the question of what kind of set is given by the closure, which are the braces, and so the set is definable. (http://www.lawndentalcenter.com/images/chicago-braces.jpg)

We know from the definition of the set that the host space is opened and closed w.r.t. the variable x. That's because the cardinality of the set of teeth is 32, but the wisdom teeth are sometimes removed from the host space, and so the cardinality is reduced to 28. There is no way of determining the unique value of x unless the host space is only and only opened. But it takes Clifford algebra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_algebra
and a special set up
http://tucsondental.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Chair.jpg

to accomplish the transformation that leads toward :jaw-dropp .

The outer "{" "}" (Fullness) is not a member of any collection, and so is Emptiness (which has no notation).

"x" of {x} is a placeholder of collections, which their cardinality (notated as {|x|}) is > 0 AND < ∞, simply because the outer "{" "}" (Fullness) is not a member of any collection, and so is Emptiness (which has no notation at all (including space bar)).

So the cardinality of a given collection (notated as {|x|}) is greater than the cardinality of Emptiness ({||} = 0, where 0 is not Emptiness itself) and smaller than the cardinality of Fullness (|{}| = |{x}| = ∞, where ∞ is not Fullness itself).

Furthermore, there is a difference between the names of concepts, which can be members of a given collection, and the concepts themselves, for example: the names Emptiness or Fullness are two distinct members of a given collection, but the concepts Emptiness or Fullness themselves are not members of any given collection.

Your example uses notations that are meaningless by standard notation and also by my non-standard notation.

Let's give them some meaning:

x is a placeholder for collection of members.

My non-standard notation (and notion) {|x|} is equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{x}|.

My non-standard notation (and notion) {||} is equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{}|.

My non-standard notation (and notion) |{x}| = ∞ is not equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{x}|.

My non-standard notation (and notion) |{}| = ∞ is not equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{}| = 0.

Also the order of the members of a given collection that its cardinality > 1 AND < ∞ has no significance.

Persons that put any given concept as a member of some collection, simply can't deal with concepts that are not members of collections (they can't distinguish between the name of a given concept, which is defiantly some member of a given collection, and the concept itself, where the concept itself is not necessarily a member of any given collection, as can be seen in the case of Emptiness or Fullness).

[doronshadmi]

Unity awareness

Awareness' development is first of all self awareness of finer levels of one's thinking process (no matter what meaning is given to thoughts) until one is aware of the finest state of awareness, which is naturally free of any thinking process (it is not a thought or collection of thoughts).

The development of one's awareness is the self ability to be aware of the finest level without losing it during the thinking process, such that both calmness and activity are present in one's mind without prevent each other.

By developing such state of mind, one is at the optimal expressions' abilities , which is naturally free of contradiction w.r.t other expressions, exactly because one's mind expresses itself right from the source of all possible expressions.

Organic Mathematics is first of all a systematic method that uses mathematical insights in order to open one's mind to the Unity of simplicity (calmness) and activity (complex expressions).

Here is some analogy using 1-dimensional space as the Unity of both straight-line (calmness) and curved-lines (complex expressions), as shown by the following diagram:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3296/5721561558_c5b78c3152_b.jpg

By gently meditate on the following diagram one is opened to the non-subjective level of awareness (illustrated by the straight line), at least at the level of the analogy (which is not the actual non-subjective state of mind).

By this analogy the 1 dimensional space is the Unity of any possible form, such that being straight or not is not known in terms of dichotomy.

Please look also at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7654162&postcount=16539 which is ended by this line:


Unity is the symmetry that prevents the distinction between Emptiness, Fullness, and everything between them.

This symmetry actually prevents the distinction between Emptiness, Fullness, and everything between them, such that they are directly known as "organs of a one realm".

Persons that are not able to be aware of their non-subjective level, can't get the awareness of Unity, which is not a thought about Unity (or, by analogy, the name of a given concept is not the concept itself).

[doronshadmi]

Let's correct the last paragraph of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7662467&postcount=16558.

Instead of


Persons that put any given concept as a member of some collection, simply can't deal with concepts that are not members of collections (they can't distinguish between the name of a given concept, which is defiantly some member of a given collection, and the concept itself, where the concept itself is not necessarily a member of any given collection, as can be seen in the case of Emptiness or Fullness).

it has to be

Persons that put any given concept as a member of some collection, simply can't deal with concepts that are not members of collections (they can't distinguish between the name of a given concept, which is definitely some member of a given collection, and the concept itself, where the concept itself is not necessarily a member of any given collection, as can be seen in the case of Emptiness or Fullness).

[The Man]

So the cardinality of a given collection (notated as {|x|}) is greater than the cardinality of Emptiness ({||} = 0, where 0 is not Emptiness itself) and smaller than the cardinality of Fullness (|{}| = |{x}| = ∞, where ∞ is not Fullness itself).


Why you choose the ordering you do specifically prefer (even if just deliberate confusing cardinal numbers for ordinal numbers) is now irrelevant. As you have asserted that because you have only three concepts your preferred ordering of those concepts “has no significance”.



My non-standard notation (and notion) {|x|} is equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{x}|.

No it isn’t, if it were you could just use “standard notation” to say what you mean, but you obviously really mean something else. We already known that your “cardinality” as you put it “magnitude of existence” ain’t cardinality. So why continue to lie by claiming some equivalence?




My non-standard notation (and notion) {||} is equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{}|.

No it isn’t, you have asserted your “emptiness” as being before (preceding) the concept of collection. Both cardinality and the empty set are specifically about collections (one being empty). Stop lying.


My non-standard notation (and notion) |{x}| = ∞ is not equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{x}|.

Well duh… that’s why you couldn’t use the “standard notation” before, because you want it to mean something else, too bad for you.


My non-standard notation (and notion) |{}| = ∞ is not equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{}| = 0.

Well again no **** Sherlock


Also the order of the members of a given collection that its cardinality > 1 AND < ∞ has no significance.

See preceding above.




Persons that put any given concept as a member of some collection, simply can't deal with concepts that are not members of collections (they can't distinguish between the name of a given concept, which is defiantly some member of a given collection, and the concept itself, where the concept itself is not necessarily a member of any given collection, as can be seen in the case of Emptiness or Fullness).

More pretend ignorance Doron. I guess you just can't collect your own concepts, must be why you’ve been chasing them in circles for a couple of decades now

[epix]

My non-standard notation (and notion) {|x|} is equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{x}|.

My non-standard notation (and notion) {||} is equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{}|.

If I wrote to my uncle all the time in Hebrew, I would have the strong inclination to switch from standard to non-standard notation as well.

Don't forget to follow through...

"+" means minus and "-" means plus
"x" means division and "/" means multiplication

That would assure that those weak ones with no ability to adjust to the ever-changing environment will leave your lecture and therefore won't interrupt all the time with stupid questions.

[epix]

My non-standard notation (and notion) {|x|} is equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{x}|.

This change in particular is a witness to your complete disconnection with math. If you want non-negative result for each member in the list L0 = {-1, 2, -3}, then the syntax for doing so is L1 = |{-1, 2, -3}| = {1, 2, 3}. I would chose completely different set of symbols not to drive those folks who practise math crazy.

[The Man]

This change in particular is a witness to your complete disconnection with math. If you want non-negative result for each member in the list L0 = {-1, 2, -3}, then the syntax for doing so is L1 = |{-1, 2, -3}| = {1, 2, 3}. I would chose completely different set of symbols not to drive those folks who practise math crazy.


Exactly epix, it is the hallmark of all cranks. To conflate standard notations and nomenclature with their, generally vague, new meaning(s). It gives them a sense of validity that papers, discussions and research employ both those symbols and terminology. Yet without their personal meanings also gives them a sense of superiority (they use them but only I know what they really mean). Simply lazy to say the least, give new words and new symbols to express your new 'concepts'. Ludicrous to say the most, that they can even understand the concepts they purport to change or improve if they can't use the terminologies and symbols correctly to express not only the concepts they want to change or improve but even just their own.

[epix]

Exactly epix, it is the hallmark of all cranks. To conflate standard notations and nomenclature with their, generally vague, new meaning(s). It gives them a sense of validity that papers, discussions and research employ both those symbols and terminology. Yet without their personal meanings also gives them a sense of superiority (they use them but only I know what they really mean). Simply lazy to say the least, give new words and new symbols to express your new 'concepts'. Ludicrous to say the most, that they can even understand the concepts they purport to change or improve if they can't use the terminologies and symbols correctly to express not only the concepts they want to change or improve but even just their own.
There is supposed to be something called "the vendetta syndrome." It's a peculiar psychology and I give you an example. There is actually an intro: There are many folks who like to paint, but their aptitude, given by some hand/eye coordination or whatever it takes to get noticed by the community living in the world of art, just isn't present. That doesn't really matter to most amateur painters - most of them have the ability to place themselves where they belong by taking a realistic view of their abilities. If the realistic view is biased by some overgrown psychological factors, an amateur painter may feel underestimated and looks for the elevator to take him where he doesn't really belong. By some coincidence, I know a guy who got attracted to pianos and keyboards. There is a prerequisite for starting to mess with those instruments; namely, a musical ear. That guy happens to be in this respect completely deaf; he doesn't have a bit of musical memory. But he keeps playing... well, "playing." In addition, he keeps offering himself as a keyboard player to various garage bands. He simply refuses to "get the message" from them.

Now comes the main: I think that math is exactly what I would excell in. Even though there are some indications that my natural analytic skills are quite bellow average, my deterministic ego kicks the signs of ineptitude away. The problem is that math ideas are spread around through symbolic language that needs to be translated and virtually compiled, so the whole enchilada would find its way toward understanding - not just knowing. Since God forgot to put the compiler into my head, reading math texts results in no comprende. And that it goes and goes, until it makes the devil cry. So the devil becomes charitable and supplies the rescue boat: I invent my own (pseudo)math, my own descriptive symbolic language and I shall publish. Now it's your turn to stare at the rendition of my profound math ideas whilst struggling to comprehend the beautiful intricacies of my thoughts.
:p


Your inability to get what I have just wrote is beyond any suspicion, but you can't know that because your reasoning is closed under to power of the collection of all 0-dimensional mathematical spaces on (for example) a given 1-dimasional mathematical space (you wrongly define a given 1-dimensional mathematical space in terms of the 0-dimensional mathematical spaces on it).



By using only your verbal_symbolic skills you simply unable to get the 1-dimansiomal mathematical space between the members of R set, which is actually the "host" mathematical space of them that its power of continuum is inaccessible to R set (it is actually inaccessible to ...power(power(power(R)))... ad infinituum).



Again, as long as your mathematical reasoning does not use verbal_symbolic AND and visual_spatial skills as a one comprehensive framework, you simply can't get this post.



Anyone that gets things only by verbal_symbolic skills, can't understand the lack of homeomorphism among different mathematical spaces.



epix, you still do not do anything in order to get the discussed fine subject by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills as a one comprehensive framework.

[doronshadmi]

Don't forget to follow through...

"+" means minus and "-" means plus
"x" means division and "/" means multiplication

Yet the notions of minus and plus are used, exactly as the notion of cardinality in terms of collections is used, whether the notations are {|x|}, |{x}| or |{}| (where x is a placeholder of existing members).

In addition to the standard notions about collections of members, I use non-standard notion that deals with concepts that are weaker than collections (Emptiness) and stronger than collections (Fullness).

Although Emptiness and Fullness are opposite notions, they have something in common, which is: They are not members of collections.

By following this non-standard notion, the notion of Collection is understood in a new light, when one of the results is the incompleteness of the cardinality of collections with respect to the cardinality of Emptiness or Fullness, which are not members of collections, because Emptiness is weaker than the concept of Collection and Fullness is stronger than the concept of Collections.

So by non-standard notions Cardinality is extended beyond the concept of Collections, and my non-standard notions are expressed by non-standard notation as follows:

x is a placeholder for collection of members.

My non-standard notation (and notion) {|x|} is equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{x}|.

My non-standard notation (and notion) {||} is equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{}|.

My non-standard notation (and notion) |{x}| = ∞ is not equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{x}|.

My non-standard notation (and notion) |{}| = ∞ is not equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{}| = 0.

Also the order of the members of a given collection that its cardinality > 1 AND < ∞ has no significance.

If one insists to ignore these extensions, then it is obviously chooses to not communicate about the extensions and their implications on the standard notions of the concept of Collection.

In this case there is no use to continue the discussion with this person, because he\she already chose the limits of the discussion, where any extension of it is doomed to fail in terms of these limits.

Again, this is a philosophical forum, where fundamental notions are re-examined and may be changed.

If one insists to stick to the standard notions of a given subject, there is no use to discuss with him\her about re-examination of already agreed standard notions.

So what is left is to clarify the difference between the non-standard notions and the standard notions of a given subjects, and my last posts is an attempt to clarify the extensions of the non-standard notions, by using (as much as possible) notations that may help the reader to make the extensions in is mind, which allow him\her to get the standard notions from the new extended notions of the discussed subject.

You are still not there epix, for example:

If you want non-negative result for each member in the list L0 = {-1, 2, -3}, then the syntax for doing so is L1 = |{-1, 2, -3}| = {1, 2, 3}
In this case you take "|" and "|" notations as abs() function, which (according to your use) changes the all given members of a given collection into absolute values.

Your mistakes are:

1) {-1, 2, -3} is not a list, but it is a collection of distinct members (no matter what (negative or absolute) values they have, where their order has no significance).

2) Even by the standard notion |{-1, 2, -3}| result (=3, because the values and order of {-1, 2, -3} have no significance) is not the same as abs({-1, 2, -3}) (= {1, 2, 3}, where the values of {-1, 2, -3} is significant) result.

In other words (and by using the standard notions), |{-1, 2, -3}| = 3 is not the same as abs({-1, 2, -3}) = {1, 2, 3}.

So, you demonstrated your misunderstanding of the standard notions, and did nothing in order to get the non-standard notions.

[epix]

In this case you take "|" and "|" notations as abs() function, which (according to your use) changes the all given members of a given collection into absolute values.

Your mistakes are:

1) {-1, 2, -3} is not a list, but it is a collection of distinct members (no matter what (negative or absolute) values they have, where their order has no significance).

2) Even by the standard notion |{-1, 2, -3}| result (=3, because the values and order of {-1, 2, -3} have no significance) is not the same as abs({-1, 2, -3}) (= {1, 2, 3}, where the values of {-1, 2, -3} is significant) result.

In other words (and by using the standard notions), |{-1, 2, -3}| = 3 is not the same as abs({-1, 2, -3}) = {1, 2, 3}.

That only increases the distance between you and anything related to math. Of course, you are accustomed to manipulate undefined or poorly defined items. (Actually you thrive on it, coz it leaves the back door unlocked for you, so you can adjust your constructions when caught contradicting yourself.)

If I say that {-1, 2, -3} is a list, then it is a list, coz I defined it that way. Since you ignore whatever can be ignored, you are not aware of the fact that one of the defining terms doesn't prohibit the membership of a list to share certain properties with the membership of a set. In this particular case, members of a list can be distinct items.

Secondly, what sets various kinds of collections apart is also the type of operations performed on those collections. If you define {-1, 2, -3} as a set, as you did, and then expand the term to abs({-1, 2, -3}) to get the absolute value of the members, then you are telling everyone that you are not familiar with collections called sets. That's because the property of individual members of a set cannot be changed. But the absolute value function does exactly the opposite. That's why there exist collections called lists that allow handling vectors.

My initial objection concerned your "non-standard expression" |{x}|. It automatically implies the absolute value of x in a single-member collection which is not a set. But you relate the function to a set:

The cardinality of Fullness is |{}| = ∞

See, "cardinality" always refers to the size of a set -- it's not used with other types of collections. If it's used, then it's a bad deed and it signals that it's time to stop reading unless the writer justifies the use. An important part of mathematics is to convey a new math idea in the most effective way. You do the opposite by ascribing different meanings to the standard symbolism. (Don't forget to redefine the Number, so that 6,6,6 = nine,nine,nine. Maybe it'll please your Master happy and he grants your another "insight" into the opposites, such as standard/non-standard, local/non-local and so on.)


So, you demonstrated your misunderstanding of the standard notions, and did nothing in order to get the non-standard notions.
LOL. No kidding...

Well, I certainly must make amends in this respect, and so I request a step-by-step transformation of the expression that leads toward the result that looks like a smiley: (=3

Even by the standard notion |{-1, 2, -3}| result (=3

[doronshadmi]

That only increases the distance between you and anything related to math.

|{-1, 2, -3}| = 3 is not the same as abs({-1, 2, -3}) = {1, 2, 3}.

In other words, your claim has no basis.

Again, you demonstrated your misunderstanding of the standard notions, and did nothing in order to get the non-standard notions (you simply ignored the first part of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7665090&postcount=16566.


My initial objection concerned your "non-standard expression" |{x}|. It automatically implies the absolute value of x in a single-member collection which is not a set.

Wrong. I explicitly defined x as a placeholder for collection of members, but since you ignore the first part of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7665090&postcount=16566, you don't know that.


See, "cardinality" always refers to the size of a set -- it's not used with other types of collections.
Another demonstration of your ignorance of the first part of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7665090&postcount=16566.

In this case you ignored this part:

by non-standard notions Cardinality is extended beyond the concept of Collections



that leads toward the result that looks like a smiley: (=3
Vary "funny". So you ignored the rest of what is written between the brackets, which is:

(=3, because the values and order of {-1, 2, -3} have no significance)
Shall we :clap: for you?


That's why there exist collections called lists that allow handling vectors.
Since you are using the standard notions and notations, you must know that {-1, 2, -3} is a set and |{-1, 2, -3}| is the cardinality of that set.


I would chose completely different set of symbols not to drive those folks who practise math crazy.
I do not agree with your anti-evolutionist approach, which does not allow mutations of already agreed notions and/or notations.

This time please really read this:

EDITED:

By non-standard notions Cardinality is extended beyond the concept of Collections, and my non-standard notions are expressed by non-standard notations (and mutations of already agreed notations) as follows:

x is a placeholder for collection of members.

My non-standard notation (and notion) {|x|} is equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{x}|.

My non-standard notation (and notion) {||} is equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{}|.

My non-standard notation (and notion) |{x}| = ∞ is not equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{x}|.

My non-standard notation (and notion) |{}| = ∞ is not equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{}| = 0.

Also the order of the members of a given collection that its cardinality > 1 AND < ∞ has no significance.

If one insists to ignore these extensions, then it is obviously chooses to not communicate about the extensions and their implications on the standard notions\notations of the concept of Collection.

In this case there is no use to continue the discussion with this person, because he\she already chose the limits of the discussion, where any extension of it is doomed to fail in terms of these limits.

Again, this is a philosophical forum, where fundamental notions (including already agreed notations) are re-examined and may be changed (even by mutations).

If one insists to stick to the standard notions\notations of a given subject, there is no use to discuss with him\her about re-examination of already agreed standard notions\notations.

So what is left is to clarify the difference between the non-standard notions\notations and the standard notions\notations of a given subject, and my last posts is an attempt to clarify the extensions of the non-standard notions\notations, by using (as much as possible) notations that may help the reader to make the extensions in his\her mind, which allow him\her to get the standard notions\notations from the new extended notions of the discussed subject (which is not free of mutations).
You still do not get that mutations of already agreed notions and/or notations are inseparable part of my non-standard approach of the mathematical science.


epix, your last post is a concrete example of how you do nothing in order to get the non-standard notions and notations (and mutations of already agreed notions\notations) which only increases the distance between you and anything related to real maths' re-search, where real maths' re-search is not limited to already agreed notions\notations and it is not free of mutations.

Again, according to my non-standard approach of the mathematical science, this science obeys the principles of Evolution, where mutations are one of the fundamental principles of Evolution.

In other words epix, you have no clue (yet) about my non-standard approach of the mathematical science, as follows:

In my opinion an anthropologist researches a given subject from within (by being involved with the researched subject) and from an external point of view (by not being involved with the researched subject), in order to get valuable and useful results.

I also think that we have to be aware of our verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial brain's skills if we wish to understand a given subject.

For example, by "Traditional" Mathematics (which is mostly expressed by verbal_symbolic skills) 0.111...2 = 0.999...10 = 1 where 1 is the considered mathematical object (the number itself) and 0.111...2 or 0.999...10 are some numerals (out of many representations) that represent number 1.

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills as follows:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6142/5962015728_d2fe37cc5f_z.jpg

one may understand that no branch of that tree actually reaches any other branch of that tree "downward" , no matter how many levels that tree has (in other words, there is no homeomorphism between 0 dimensional space (notated by "0";"1" symbols) and 1 dimensional space (notated by "_____" spatial non-composed object)).

According to this framework 0.111...2 is a number of its own < number 1 by 0.000...12 where the "...1" part of that number is the irreducibility of ___ 1 dimensional space into 0 dimensional space (known as a point).

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills one enables to distinguish between non-local numbers like 0.111...2 or 0.000...12, and local numbers like 1 or 0.

Furthermore, no collection of, for example, 0 dimensional spaces or segments on 1 dimensional space has the power of the continuum of 1 dimensional space.

By understanding the power of the continuum in terms of spatial skills, one may understand that no collection of sub-objects of a given space (mathematical or physical) has the power of the continuum of that space, or in other words, any given collection of "hosted" sub-objects is incomplete with respect to the "host" space.

The terms "host"\"hosted" are used here in order to clarify that the the "host" and the "hosted" are defined but not made of each other.

The non-locality of 0.111...2 or 0.000...12 is "naturally vague" in terms of location, and one actually discovers/invents that the Real-line has a non-empty collection of non-local numbers between 0 dimensional space and 1 dimensional space.

By generalization, given a "host" space, no collection of "hosted" spaces has the power of the "host" space.

Let us do a further step and look at the Mathematical Science by using the "host"\"hosted" view.

From this view, any mathematical theory is (hopefully) a consistent framework of unproved collection of decelerations.

Also form this view, the mathematical science is generally a collection of isolated (context-dependent) frameworks, where each framework has its own consistency.

From time to time it is discovered\invented that there are deeper connections between some context-dependent frameworks, but these discovered\invented connections are based on sporadic\random approach of these cross-contexts linkages.

It has to be stressed that the use of the word "branches" for these context-dependent frameworks is misleading, if there is no comprehensive framework of these context-dependent frameworks, which rigorously demonstrates the linkage between them, such that they can be considered as "branches of a one tree" or as "organs of a one organism".

By the current paradigm, which is generally based on isolated and context-dependent frameworks, any given professional mathematician (or group of professional mathematicians) is asked to invent\discover his\their context-dependent framework by avoiding any changes of already agreed context-dependent frameworks.

This current paradigm of the Mathematical science of isolated and context-dependent developments, can't agree with a paradigm of cross-contexts framework of this science.

In my opinion, the notion of Non-locality (the "host" aspect of "host"\"hosted" framework) is essential to cross-contexts approach and essentially forbidden by the paradigm of context-dependent approach.

The current community of mathematicians is mostly based on the paradigm of the context-dependent frameworks, and according to this paradigm any paradigm of cross-contexts framework, is automatically considered as non-mathematical.

The evolutionary approach of the mathematical science (which is cross-contexts AND context-dependent framework) changes this paradigm.

[doronshadmi]

Some correction of the last sentence of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7666664&postcount=16568:

The evolutionary approach of the mathematical science (which is cross-contexts AND context-dependent framework that is not free of mutations of already agreed notions\notations) changes this paradigm.

[epix]

|{-1, 2, -3}| = 3 is not the same as abs({-1, 2, -3}) = {1, 2, 3}.

In other words, your claim has no basis.

I didn't say that cardinality and absolute value are the same functions. If you think that lists don't use || to denote absolute value of its members and use function abs() instead, then you are wrong. Lists don't use || to define the size, as you will see in a moment.


Wrong. I explicitly defined x as a placeholder for collection of members, but since you ignore the first part of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7665090&postcount=16566, you don't know that.

So what? You can make x hold a collection of items and then put them in the braces: {x}. Do I see a set or some other collection?

Another demonstration of your ignorance of the first part of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7665090&postcount=16566.

Yes, you use "cardinality" as a favorite condiment on anything. But the math folks use "dimension" instead when handling collections that are not sets.
http://www.daniweb.com/software-development/csharp/threads/226595
Since there is this huge distance filled with vacuum between you and math, I guess it's okay to use cardinality denoted || as an adjustable wrench. Actually, thinking of it, there shouldn't be a problem at all: there is no way that your constructs of any kind would ever include an absolute value, which is a function that lives in Motel Math.


Once again, Cardinality is between the cardinality of Emptiness (that has no predecessor, which is notated as {||}) and the cardinality of Fullness (that has no successor, which is notated, at least, as |{}|).

The above says that the notion of Emptiness having no predecessor is symbolized by {||}. That means Emptiness and your "symbolic_verbal skills" are identical, coz the latter lays flat on the very bottom of the barrel of the cooking pot. Talk to your Master. Maybe he can help; maybe he can use the first two letters of his name DEVIL.

DE

See? The predecessor of E in the alphabet is D. Since D is stricken out, there is no predecessor of E, which can stand for Emptiness. But the symbolism from hell is a picture of beautiful flowers in comparison to what you are capable of coming up with.

[doronshadmi]

The above says that the notion of Emptiness having no predecessor is symbolized by {||}. That means Emptiness and your "symbolic_verbal skills" are identical,
{||} is the notation of the cardinality of Emptiness, where the cardinality of Emptiness is not Emptiness itself (also the name Emptiness is not Emptiness itself, exactly as talking about silence is not silence itself).

This change in particular is a witness to your complete disconnection with math. If you want non-negative result for each member in the list L0 = {-1, 2, -3}, then the syntax for doing so is L1 = |{-1, 2, -3}| = {1, 2, 3}. I would chose completely different set of symbols not to drive those folks who practise math crazy.
epix, all you demonstrate is the inability of you and what you call "math folks" to get my non-standard evolutionary approach (which is not free of mutations of notions\notations) of the mathematical science.

Once again you actually ignored my http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7666664&postcount=16568 last post.


Talk to your Master. Maybe he can help; maybe he can use the first two letters of his name DEVIL.
It is well known (all along this thread) that you have a religious view of the mathematical science.

What you call "math folks" also have religious view of the mathematical science exactly because they are against evolutionary approach (which is not free of mutations of notions\notations) of the mathematical science.

Here is an example of the the anti-evolutionist approach of the currently agreed mathematical science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_systems):

Each formal system has a formal language, which is composed by primitive symbols. These symbols act on certain rules of formation and are developed by inference from a set of axioms. The system thus consists of any number of formulas built up through finite combinations of the primitive symbols—combinations that are formed from the axioms in accordance with the stated rules.[1]

Formal systems in mathematics consist of the following elements:

1. A finite set of symbols (i.e. the alphabet), that can be used for constructing formulas (i.e. finite strings of symbols).
2. A grammar, which tells how well-formed formulas (abbreviated wff) are constructed out of the symbols in the alphabet. It is usually required that there be a decision procedure for deciding whether a formula is well formed or not.
3. A set of axioms or axiom schemata: each axiom must be a wff.
4. A set of inference rules.

A formal system is said to be recursive (i.e. effective) if the set of axioms and the set of inference rules are decidable sets or semidecidable sets, according to context.
(please pay attention that only verbal_symbolic skills are used by the current approach of the mathematical science)

Here is my evolutionary approach of the mathematical science:

The current community of mathematicians is mostly based on the paradigm of the context-dependent frameworks, and according to this paradigm any paradigm of cross-contexts framework, is automatically considered as non-mathematical.

The evolutionary approach of the mathematical science (which is cross-contexts AND context-dependent framework that is not free of mutations of already agreed notions\notations) changes this paradigm.


Stay epix in your box and celebrate your ignorance with your math folks.

[doronshadmi]

Here is some quote taken form http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science :

Natural sciences are the basis for applied sciences. Together, the natural and applied sciences are distinguished from the social sciences on the one hand, and the humanities on the other. Though mathematics, statistics, and computer science are not considered natural sciences, for instance, they provide many tools and frameworks used within the natural sciences.

Since Mathematics is used as a tool for Natural sciences, its paradigm can't be anti-evolutionist if we wish to use its full potential as a tool for Natural sciences.

[doronshadmi]

Morality in terms of evolutionary scale, is aware of complexity development, such that future development is free of contradiction, by allowing different expressions to exist (mutual destruction is avoided).

So the future goal to develop an environment which is free of mutual destruction, actually has an influence on present discussions which leads to future realm with developments' abilities which are free (as much as possible) from mutual detraction (the degree of complexity's expressions is increased).

By taking a Mata view of present\future relations in terms of evolutionary scale, one may conclude that fulfilled future goals has an impact on the past that designed them.

This ability to be aware of future goals at present time, which also aware of past time results, is one of the clear signatures of life-phenomena, where morality development in terms of evolutionary scale is inseparable factor of it.

It has to be stressed that mutations do not destroy diversity, but they reinforce the linkage between simplicity and complexity (where simplicity is the opposite of the trivial and complexity is the opposite of the complicated).

[The Man]

The current community of mathematicians is mostly based on the paradigm of the context-dependent frameworks, and according to this paradigm any paradigm of cross-contexts framework, is automatically considered as non-mathematical.



Doron it is you yourself that proclaimed your "AB" as not being a mathematical expression. So the lack of mathematics in your purported "paradigm" is entirely of your own choice, design and assertion. Stop blaming others for your own, apparently intentional, failures.

[L.Y.S.]

Is there a point to this thread other than to break records? Like longest on going post. :D

[stokes234]

Neverending stream of gibberish. Dunning-Kruger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) effect applied to theoretical mathematics. Abandon all hope. Mayday. Mayday.

[The Man]

Morality in terms of evolutionary scale, is aware of complexity development, such that future development is free of contradiction, by allowing different expressions to exist (mutual destruction is avoided).

Ah so now you're trying to claim your simple abandonment of the concept of contradiction as being 'moral' and "evolutionary"? Simply denying your own self contradictions can only be considered moral in a totally self serving regard and in that regard anything that serves ones self interest becomes equaly moral. Meanwhile regressing your self to a kindergarten education and insisting everyone else do the same is in no way evolutionary.


So the future goal to develop an environment which is free of mutual destruction, actually has an influence on present discussions which leads to future realm with developments' abilities which are free (as much as possible) from mutual detraction (the degree of complexity's expressions is increased).


Mutual destruction is a physical fact (particularly of superposition) so your simply self severing "future goal" immediately fails as a matter of historical fact.


By taking a Mata view of present\future relations in terms of evolutionary scale, one may conclude that fulfilled future goals has an impact on the past that designed them.

It's your self serving "future goals" and the impact of such on both you and the 20 some odd years you have wasted are blatantly obvious.



This ability to be aware of future goals at present time, which also aware of past time results, is one of the clear signatures of life-phenomena, where morality development in terms of evolutionary scale is inseparable factor of it.

Well since you are clearly not aware of the multitude "of past time results" you have just excluded yourself from your own "life-phenomena, where morality development in terms of evolutionary scale is inseparable factor of it."



It has to be stressed that mutations do not destroy diversity, but they reinforce the linkage between simplicity and complexity (where simplicity is the opposite of the trivial and complexity is the opposite of the complicated).

"It has to be stressed that" since trivial and simplicity are synonymous as well as complex being a definition of complicated you should probably look up the mean of the word "opposite".


Oh wait that's right your "future goal" (and current activity) is to deny such a contradiction between your use of the word "opposite" and it's meaning. Let's grant your goal for this moment and now just as your misuse of the word opposite no longer contradicts with it's meaning then your intent of "simplicity" contradicting "trivial" and "complexity" contradicting "complicated" can have no validity just by your own assertions.


Welcome to the world of no contradictions Doron.


Here is some quote taken form http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science :


Since Mathematics is used as a tool for Natural sciences, its paradigm can't be anti-evolutionist if we wish to use its full potential as a tool for Natural sciences.


Mathematics isn't "anti-evolutionist", the fact that it is a "tool for Natural sciences" demonstrates that as well as the fact that math and science evolve. Your posts above simply demonstrate the ludicrous nature of your attempts to claim math as "anti-evolutionist" as well as your attempts to posit whatever self contradictory nonsense that comes into your head as being some kind of evolution.

[The Man]

Is there a point to this thread other than to break records? Like longest on going post. :D

Longest by length of time or number of post/pages?

This has it beat by time.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75565

This has it beat by post/pages (on the third volume now)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=215085&page=317

So there must be some other point, I suspect much like the whole point of this forum.



Neverending stream of gibberish. Dunning-Kruger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) effect applied to theoretical mathematics. Abandon all hope. Mayday. Mayday.


Ah, but even those demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect can improve their estimation of their knowledge.


A follow-up study, reported in the same paper, suggests that grossly incompetent students improved their ability to estimate their rank after minimal tutoring in the skills they had previously lacked—regardless of the negligible improvement in actual skills.


So even though this ship has long ago sank below the waves of ignorance, the only reason to give up the hope of raising it is if everyone stops trying.

[doronshadmi]

Is there a point to this thread other than to break records? Like longest on going post. :D
Is there a point on "feeling the darkness within"?


I feel the darkness within. It conquers the soul. It becomes me. I am lost never to be found. Spoken never to be heard. Conveying but never understood. I am but another lost young soul.

[doronshadmi]

Neverending stream of gibberish. Dunning-Kruger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) effect applied to theoretical mathematics. Abandon all hope. Mayday. Mayday.

Please support your claim by providing some details about, for example:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7617572&postcount=16472

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7666664&postcount=16568

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7662986&postcount=16559

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE

http://ijpam.eu/contents/2008-49-3/5/5.pdf

[zooterkin]

Neverending stream of gibberish. Dunning-Kruger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) effect applied to theoretical mathematics. Abandon all hope. Mayday. Mayday.

Mayday? Well, she might liven the thread up a bit, but even she has the sense to stay away from it..

[stokes234]

Please support your claim by providing some details about, for example:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7617572&postcount=16472

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7666664&postcount=16568

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7662986&postcount=16559

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE

http://ijpam.eu/contents/2008-49-3/5/5.pdf

Show me one practical or theoretical discovery from your ramblings that serves any purpose whatsoever in either aiding mankind or advancing the theory of mathematics, and i'll bite. Until then, you're just throwing a big dollop of word pasta at the wall and claiming to be the only one who can read the pattern it has made.

[doronshadmi]

Show me one practical or theoretical discovery from your ramblings that serves any purpose whatsoever in either aiding mankind or advancing the theory of mathematics, and i'll bite. Until then, you're just throwing a big dollop of word pasta at the wall and claiming to be the only one who can read the pattern it has made.

Here it is:

In my opinion an anthropologist researches a given subject from within (by being involved with the researched subject) and from an external point of view (by not being involved with the researched subject), in order to get valuable and useful results.

I also think that we have to be aware of our verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial brain's skills if we wish to understand a given subject.

For example, by "Traditional" Mathematics (which is mostly expressed by verbal_symbolic skills) 0.111...2 = 0.999...10 = 1 where 1 is the considered mathematical object (the number itself) and 0.111...2 or 0.999...10 are some numerals (out of many representations) that represent number 1.

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills as follows:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6142/5962015728_d2fe37cc5f_z.jpg

one may understand that no branch of that tree actually reaches any other branch of that tree "downward" , no matter how many levels that tree has (in other words, there is no homeomorphism between 0 dimensional space (notated by "0";"1" symbols) and 1 dimensional space (notated by "_____" spatial non-composed object)).

According to this framework 0.111...2 is a number of its own < number 1 by 0.000...12 where the "...1" part of that number is the irreducibility of ___ 1 dimensional space into 0 dimensional space (known as a point).

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills one enables to distinguish between non-local numbers like 0.111...2 or 0.000...12, and local numbers like 1 or 0.

Furthermore, no collection of, for example, 0 dimensional spaces or segments on 1 dimensional space has the power of the continuum of 1 dimensional space.

By understanding the power of the continuum in terms of spatial skills, one may understand that no collection of sub-objects of a given space (mathematical or physical) has the power of the continuum of that space, or in other words, any given collection of "hosted" sub-objects is incomplete with respect to the "host" space.

The terms "host"\"hosted" are used here in order to clarify that the the "host" and the "hosted" are defined but not made of each other.

The non-locality of 0.111...2 or 0.000...12 is "naturally vague" in terms of location, and one actually discovers/invents that the Real-line has a non-empty collection of non-local numbers between 0 dimensional space and 1 dimensional space.

By generalization, given a "host" space, no collection of "hosted" spaces has the power of the "host" space.

Let us do a further step and look at the Mathematical Science by using the "host"\"hosted" view.

From this view, any mathematical theory is (hopefully) a consistent framework of unproved collection of decelerations.

Also form this view, the mathematical science is generally a collection of isolated (context-dependent) frameworks, where each framework has its own consistency.

From time to time it is discovered\invented that there are deeper connections between some context-dependent frameworks, but these discovered\invented connections are based on sporadic\random approach of these cross-contexts linkages.

It has to be stressed that the use of the word "branches" for these context-dependent frameworks is misleading, if there is no comprehensive framework of these context-dependent frameworks, which rigorously demonstrates the linkage between them, such that they can be considered as "branches of a one tree" or as "organs of a one organism".

By the current paradigm, which is generally based on isolated and context-dependent frameworks, any given professional mathematician (or group of professional mathematicians) is asked to invent\discover his\their context-dependent framework by avoiding any changes of already agreed context-dependent frameworks.

This current paradigm of the Mathematical science of isolated and context-dependent developments, can't agree with a paradigm of cross-contexts framework of this science.

In my opinion, the notion of Non-locality (the "host" aspect of "host"\"hosted" framework) is essential to cross-contexts approach and essentially forbidden by the paradigm of context-dependent approach.

The current community of mathematicians is mostly based on the paradigm of the context-dependent frameworks, and according to this paradigm any paradigm of cross-contexts framework, is automatically considered as non-mathematical.

The evolutionary approach of the mathematical science (which is cross-contexts AND context-dependent framework) changes this paradigm ( for more details, please look at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7667692&postcount=16571 ).

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

By using Non-local AND Local points of view ("host"\"hosted" framework) we get a "naturally open" framework that may help us to understand Entropy in a new light.

For example:

Today we know that there were tiny irregularities in the Big-Bang’s space/time fabric, where these irregularities are maybe the fundamental conditions which allowed the existence of galaxies and clusters of galaxies, which has a foam-like shape when observed from a great distance. This foam-like shape is the result of opposite tendencies of Energy/Matter integration/differentiation fluctuations. These fluctuations and their results can be found in any observed scale of our universe.

From the second law of Thermodynamics we know that there is a global tendency in the observed universe, which actually eliminates the difference between integration and differentiation at the macro level, until these fluctuations do not express clear and ordered Energy/Matter phenomena.

We can ask: "How did the original fluctuation, which its thermodynamics "death" we observe, came into existence?" Another question is: "Do we interpret correctly the Energy/Matter integration/differentiation fluctuations in the observed universe?" Let us examine a different model of these observed fluctuations.

By using the Inflationary theory (as suggested by Alan Guth) of the Big-Bang, we may say that the first fluctuation had a strong correlation, which allowed the very early universe to “speak” in the same fundamental “language” called by us "the laws of nature".

Let us examine this correlation.

1) It stands at the basis of the observed tendency to eliminate the difference between integration and differentiation at the macro level.

2) It holds an elastic-like "memory" of several and different degrees of space/time curvatures which approach to the singular state (before the inflation) from different "points of view". These different "points of view" of different degrees of space/time curvatures, actually prevent a smooth return (in terms of Gravity) to the singular state. Maybe the result of this non-smooth return is the diversity of different degrees of complexity that exist in the observed universe.

By this model there is a direct proportion between the smoothness of a given return, and the complexity of the information structure that is based on this return. Also there is a direct proportion between a given return and self-aware states that can be found in non-trivial complex systems like living creatures. At this stage most of the observed universe has the tendency to become "flat" at the macro level (which is recognized as increased entropy) but by this model there is the possibility that in the very long term, there will be more structures that are based on "smooth" return, and life phenomena, which we are a part of, will be the main principle that shapes the observed universe.

Please be aware that this model does not avoid The Copernican Principle because it gets Life phenomena in terms of cosmological
evolutionary scale (which is not focused only on life phenomena as exist on planet Earth).

More about this subject in terms of cosmological evolutionary scale, can be found in http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM and http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE.

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

Unity awareness

Awareness' development is first of all self awareness of finer levels of one's thinking process (no matter what meaning is given to thoughts) until one is aware of the finest state of awareness, which is naturally free of any thinking process (it is not a thought or collection of thoughts).

The development of one's awareness is the self ability to be aware of the finest level without losing it during the thinking process, such that both calmness and activity are present in one's mind without prevent each other.

By developing such state of mind, one is at the optimal expressions' abilities , which is naturally free of contradiction w.r.t other expressions, exactly because one's mind expresses itself right from the source of all possible expressions.

Organic Mathematics is first of all a systematic method that uses mathematical insights in order to open one's mind to the Unity of simplicity (calmness) and activity (complex expressions).

Here is some analogy using 1-dimensional space as the Unity of both straight-line (calmness) and curved-lines (complex expressions), as shown by the following diagram:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3296/5721561558_c5b78c3152_b.jpg

By gently meditate on the following diagram one is opened to the non-subjective level of awareness (illustrated by the straight line), at least at the level of the analogy (which is not the actual non-subjective state of mind).

By this analogy the 1 dimensional space is the Unity of any possible form, such that being straight or not is not known in terms of dichotomy.

Please look also at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7654162&postcount=16539 which is ended by this line:


Unity is the symmetry that prevents the distinction between Emptiness, Fullness, and everything between them.

This symmetry actually prevents the distinction (in terms of clear cut separation) between Emptiness, Fullness, and everything between them, such that they are directly known as "organs of a one realm".

Persons that are not able to be aware of their non-subjective level, can't get the awareness of Unity, which is not a thought about Unity (or, by analogy, the name of a given concept is not the concept itself, for example: talking about silence is not silence itself).

[stokes234]

I waded through that, and I didn't see any references to any useful discoveries you had made, only a vague claim that your previous posts "could help us better understand entropy".

In 20 words or less, what useful application does any of this have? If you are showing that you have made a contribution to the real world, all you have to do is show a picture of what it is, but if you're going to claim to have made an advance in theoretical mathematics, you'll have to cite some academia that references or at least acknowledges you or uses your work in some way, as i'm sure you can understand that anyone could string a bunch of words, numbers, pictures and equations together and claim that they had made some kind of useful discovery.

[L.Y.S.]

Is there a point on "feeling the darkness within"?

I fail to see why my quote is relevant to your long and unending post.

[L.Y.S.]

Neverending stream of gibberish. Dunning-Kruger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) effect applied to theoretical mathematics. Abandon all hope. Mayday. Mayday.

Ha-ha, I chuckled.

[doronshadmi]

I waded through that, and I didn't see any references to any useful discoveries you had made
So go through that again and ask detailed questions, if your really wish to get some answers.

For one thing I am sure. You did not get (yet) that my work is a paradigm-shift of the mathematical science, so no academia references can be found about it.

This time really read at least http://ijpam.eu/contents/2008-49-3/5/5.pdf instead of wading through it and ask your detailed questions.

I have no time for lazy readers.


In 20 words or less, what useful application does any of this have?
The development of the technology of the consciousness.

[doronshadmi]

I fail to see why my quote is relevant to your long and unending post.
How can you see in the darkness?

[L.Y.S.]

The development of the technology of the consciousness.

Like brain machine thingies? The power to levitate? Or the power to create stuff out of thin air? Kiddie questions aside, I'm guessing this is why you have this post in the religious section?

How can you see in the darkness?

Can't, can only feel it, which is what I originally said, "I feel the darkness within. “

[doronshadmi]

Like brain machine thingies? The power to levitate? Or the power to create stuff out of thin air?
Start by avoiding self destruction by the current technology.

More about this subject in terms of cosmological evolutionary scale, can be found in http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM and http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE.

[L.Y.S.]

Start by avoiding self destruction by the current technology.

More about this subject in terms of cosmological evolutionary scale, can be found in http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM and http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE.

Well I certainly won't knock your creativity; if this is your outlet have fun. I was just curious as to why this thread was so long. Looks like you have a lot to discuss here. I am not the mathematic type as you can see from my quote. Have fun now :).

[jsfisher]

Well I certainly won't knock your creativity; if this is your outlet have fun. I was just curious as to why this thread was so long. Looks like you have a lot to discuss here. I am not the mathematic type as you can see from my quote. Have fun now :).


It's ok. Doron is not the mathematical type, either. Proven time and again.

[doronshadmi]

I am not the mathematic type
In that case you are in a better state of mind (w.r.t most of the professional mathematicians) to get my non-standard approach of the mathematical science, where according to it there is no dichotomy between Ethics (in terms of evolutionary scale) and formal Logic.

[stokes234]

The development of the technology of the consciousness.

No, you need to be specific. For example, if I wrote 30 pages of a completely random combination of numbers and letters, and someone asked me to demonstrate the value of it, I couldn't answer "making stuff happen better in science", I would have to answer something like "Here is a picture of a battery that can store 10% more electricity based on technology that follows from my work in mathematics, as referenced here: x", or perhaps "here is a link to an academic paper that uses my equations to solve x problem in quantum mechanics, which potentially has applications in computing", etc etc.

If you can't show something tangible as I describe, then there is no real way to distinguish your posts from a very large number of monkeys let loose on a similarly large collection of typewriters.

[doronshadmi]

If you can't show something tangible as I describe,
If you can't ask detailed questions about http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583 or http://ijpam.eu/contents/2008-49-3/5/5.pdf it means that you want others to feed your mind.

I am not going to feed your mind, do some work by yourself.

[stokes234]

If you can't ask detailed questions about http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583 or http://ijpam.eu/contents/2008-49-3/5/5.pdf it means that you want others to feed your mind.

I am not going to feed your mind, do some work by yourself.

So, to cut a long story short, you have literally no way of showing that your work has any merit. Righty-o, i'm out.

[doronshadmi]

So, to cut a long story short, you have literally no way of showing that your work has any merit. Righty-o, i'm out.
You never was in because you can't ask detailed questions.

Wading through X and let others to feed your mind is not enough.

Actually this is a practical example of the development of the technology of the consciousness, which is something that persons who let others to feed their mind, have to learn.

[PiedPiper]

I'm sorry, but I absolutely have to comment at this point.

(Been following this thread for months).

Saying "you can't get XYZ" or "learn it yourself, I can't be bothered to explain it to you" (aka I can't explain it to you), combined with the inability to show a concrete real-world example of the benefits of a theory, means that the theory is absolutely worthless. Worse than worthless, actually. Even worthless theories are sometimes studied in order to see where previous researchers have gone wrong, to learn something about the way things have been (unsuccessfully) attempted in the past.

This theory is worse than that, because not only have people's requests for concrete, real-world benefits been denied, the theory isn't explained in sufficient clarity for people to be able to learn a lesson from it.

It just fails in every measure.

But, no doubt, this is because I don't "get" it. Since when was it always the audiences fault if they don't "get" the lecture? When does the teacher have to take some of the responsibility? I know that when I teach (chemistry), I take an awful lot of responsibility for my students understanding. How easy it would be to simply say my students don't "get" it!

[doronshadmi]

oppss...

[doronshadmi]

I know that when I teach (chemistry), I take an awful lot of responsibility for my students understanding. How easy it would be to simply say my students don't "get" it!
Then take some responsibility and ask some question about http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583 or http://ijpam.eu/contents/2008-49-3/5/5.pdf, there have to be at least two for tango , and without questions and answers that are related to the dance there is no dance and no real understanding of the dance for both the teacher and the student.


This theory is worse than that, because not only have people's requests for concrete, real-world benefits been denied, the theory isn't explained in sufficient clarity for people to be able to learn a lesson from it.

You can start with http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM or http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE in order to support your claims above.


(Been following this thread for months).
Why?

[jsfisher]

Then take some responsibility and ask some question about....

As you have already demonstrated repeatedly, you don't answer questions, Doron. You just repeat, post links to repeats, shift, evade, then eventually end up with some flavor of "you just can't get it".

Give it up. You got nothing.

[PiedPiper]

Then take some responsibility and ask some question about http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583 or http://ijpam.eu/contents/2008-49-3/5/5.pdf, there have to be at least two for tango , and without questions and answers that are related to the dance there is no dance and no real understanding of the dance for both the teacher and the student.


I've asked questions in this thread before. I'm not satisfied that I ever got an answer. I can throw a dart at this thread and hit half a dozen people whose questions you've never answered, so I won't get my hopes up re: my previous questions; this also explains why (and I'll hope you forgive me) I'm really not up to asking more questions.


You can start with http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM or http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE in order to support your claims above.


I don't have to go to another website and read a document in order to find someone who's asked for a real life application, and been denied. I've asked in the past. That fellow just a few posts up from me asked. I'm not sure why I'm being deflected off to scribd.com...? If all I need to understand your theory is on scribd.com, why has this thread been going on for months? Why not just post your ideas on scribd.com (I'm assuming that's what the document is, forgive me if not) and skip the middleman (JREF forum)?


Why?

Maybe I'm a hopeless optimist. Maybe in the search for new ways to express my own ideas, I've become fascinated by someone who - after months and months of trying - is unable to clearly say much of anything, despite his best efforts. Maybe I'm an AI and I've been programmed to spend my days scanning this thread. Maybe you should reflect less on how others waste their time, and more on how you waste your own?

[epix]

If you can't show something tangible as I describe, then there is no real way to distinguish your posts from a very large number of monkeys let loose on a similarly large collection of typewriters.
Well, the quote contains the answer why this thread is closer to God than anything else can be, coz it seems to be immortal and it's in a way a monument to an important concept of mathematics called infinity, which is responsible for the event concerning a monkey and a typewriter: The chance that the monkey will come up one day with something that will contribute to the solution of Riemann Hypothesis - considered No. 1 unsolved problem in mathematics - is virtual certainty. And that's why we support Doron in his monkey typing. It's just a cool, rational calculation requiring a bit of luck though.

[doronshadmi]

I've asked questions in this thread before. I'm not satisfied that I ever got an answer. I can throw a dart at this thread and hit half a dozen people whose questions you've never answered, so I won't get my hopes up re: my previous questions; this also explains why (and I'll hope you forgive me) I'm really not up to asking more questions.



I don't have to go to another website and read a document in order to find someone who's asked for a real life application, and been denied. I've asked in the past. That fellow just a few posts up from me asked. I'm not sure why I'm being deflected off to scribd.com...? If all I need to understand your theory is on scribd.com, why has this thread been going on for months? Why not just post your ideas on scribd.com (I'm assuming that's what the document is, forgive me if not) and skip the middleman (JREF forum)?



Maybe I'm a hopeless optimist. Maybe in the search for new ways to express my own ideas, I've become fascinated by someone who - after months and months of trying - is unable to clearly say much of anything, despite his best efforts. Maybe I'm an AI and I've been programmed to spend my days scanning this thread. Maybe you should reflect less on how others waste their time, and more on how you waste your own?
PiedPiper let's switch sides, here is my question to you:

Do you think that any afford to develop a comprehensive scientific framework, which enables Ethics and formal Logic to be its consistent factors, is important?

( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6611865&postcount=12851 )

[epix]

Since Mathematics is used as a tool for Natural sciences, its paradigm can't be anti-evolutionist if we wish to use its full potential as a tool for Natural sciences.
You're kidding yourself again. Your stubborn refusal to accept the existence of the limits that reside within the concept of infinity is just another cookie that you forgot to chew on when rummaging inside the math cookie jar. This universe is finite altogether with what is made of. So when the math folks introduce limits into the concept of infinity, then there is a practical reason for that - a reason that you can't possibly grasp, coz you are too busy seeking infinite godly precision in places where it is not needed.

You may proceed in your phantasmagoria . . .

[doronshadmi]

This universe is finite altogether with what is made of.

In terms of "hosted" (mathematical\physical) spaces it is finite or potentially infinite.

In terms of "host" (mathematical\physical) space it is actually infinite.

It terms of Unity the "host" and the "hosted" are organs of a one realm.

Your maths folks force actuality on potentially infinity.

This time please read very carefully http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7667692&postcount=16571.

Your cookie jar can't comprehend http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583.

Actually if you wish to insult pure mathematician, then please tell him\her that his\her work is valuable only if it has practical use.

In other words, you have a trivial view of math folks in addition to your trivial view of the mathematical science.

[epix]

In terms of "hosted" (mathematical\physical) spaces it is finite or potentially infinite.

In terms of "host" (mathematical\physical) space it is actually infinite.

It terms of Unity the "host" and the "hosted" are organs of a one realm.

Your maths folks force actuality on potentially infinity.

This time please read very carefully http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7667692&postcount=16571.

Your cookie jar can't comprehend http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583.

Actually if you wish to insult pure mathematician, then please tell him\her that his\her work is valuable only if it has practical use.

In other words, you have a trivial view of math folks.
Your pulpit talk is the only thing in the universe which is not finite, coz it became infinitely boring.

If you really want to insult a "pure mathematician," compare his or her work with Doronetics.

[doronshadmi]

Your pulpit talk is the only thing in the universe which is not finite, coz it became infinitely boring.


Since I care about your infinite boring of my work, you are going right away to my ignore list, bye.

[The Man]

I'm sorry, but I absolutely have to comment at this point.

(Been following this thread for months).

Saying "you can't get XYZ" or "learn it yourself, I can't be bothered to explain it to you" (aka I can't explain it to you), combined with the inability to show a concrete real-world example of the benefits of a theory, means that the theory is absolutely worthless. Worse than worthless, actually. Even worthless theories are sometimes studied in order to see where previous researchers have gone wrong, to learn something about the way things have been (unsuccessfully) attempted in the past.

This theory is worse than that, because not only have people's requests for concrete, real-world benefits been denied, the theory isn't explained in sufficient clarity for people to be able to learn a lesson from it.

It just fails in every measure.

But, no doubt, this is because I don't "get" it. Since when was it always the audiences fault if they don't "get" the lecture? When does the teacher have to take some of the responsibility? I know that when I teach (chemistry), I take an awful lot of responsibility for my students understanding. How easy it would be to simply say my students don't "get" it!


Don’t be sorry PiedPiper, looks like you nailed it right on the head. The fact of the matter is, by Doron’s notion of “direct perception”, we should just “get it”. That we don’t, obviously can’t be permitted to disprove his concept of “direct perception” so it must then be some lacking or defect in the audience. While Doron has been unable to show any benefits from his notions he has clearly demonstrated time and time again that he simply despises restrictions particularly those he imposes himself with his notions. So his notions in and of themselves can require no one and nothing to be bound by them, least of all himself. As such his nonsense even fails as just a personal philosophy just for himself, indeed his failure is complete.

[The Man]

Your pulpit talk is the only thing in the universe which is not finite, coz it became infinitely boring.


Since I care about your infinite boring of my work, you are going right away to my ignore list, bye.

Welcome to the club epix.

Any bets on how long before Doron has everyone even remotely willing to reply to him on his “ignore list”?

[Tricky]

Thread is getting to long that it is slow to open, so this thread is closed and continuation started here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=221845).