[Merged] Deeper than primes [Archive] - Page 9

doronshadmi

8th March 2009, 03:44 AM

Well for one, you edited your message after I posted my question and after you responded to my post. I believe that everything (including the additional graphic) after "... under the same framework." has been added.

Second, you did not answer my question. I will ask it again with more clarification.

How does rolling up a line upon itself show self reference? How does rolling up a plane (which now does not make it a standard plane) show self reference? How does rolling up a three dimentional object show self reference?

I invite you to show some self reference that is not abstractly based on this illustration:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/TSS-SR.jpg

Be aware of the fact that even if a point refers to itself, we need a line in order to do that, where a line is a different atom than a point.

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

By carefully research < or > relations, one can conclude that no pair of distinct objects can be found unless the relation itself is (inherently) simultaneously in more than a one state, which is non-local by nature. Also = relation cannot be but non-local with respect to the researched object. An example of = relation as non-local can be seen by an edge that is related to the same node, in Graph theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_(mathematics)):

The blue edge (which is non-local w.r.t the node) of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/GT.jpg is equivalent to =, where the black or red edges are equivalent to ≠. Actually no node is researchable unless it is observed by an edge. In the case of Graph Theory, Relation is called Edge, where Element is called Node. In general, elements are observable only by Relation Element Interaction (REI) (for example only A (where A is an element) is not observable, where A=A is observable. By using this notion one can understand that A is actually a short way to write A=A). An empty set's self-identity is its emptiness and since Distinction is a first-order property of Set, there is exactly one empty set (called the empty set) as follows:

A is the defined set.

X is any set.

A=A≠{X} and it is defined by using simultaneously = relation for element's self-identity and ≠ relation for element's non self-identity.

A=A≠{X} can be seen, for example, by ZF Axiom of the empty set, which states:

There is set A (A=A REI's self-identity) such that no set X (including A) is a member of it (≠{X} REI's non self-identity).

A non-empty set of distinct objects is based on REI as follows:

{a=a} = {a}
{a=b} = {a} = {b}
{a≠b} = {a,b} = {b,a} etc…

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf (Page 3)

doronshadmi

8th March 2009, 06:12 AM

A better version of the quote:

By carefully research = or ≠ relations, one can conclude that nothing is definable unless some relation is interacted with some element. For example, = relation cannot be but non-local with respect to the researched element, as can be seen by Edge\Node interaction in Graph Theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_(mathematics) ).

The blue edge in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/GT.jpg (which is non-local w.r.t the node) is equivalent to =, where the black or red edges are equivalent to ≠. Actually no node is researchable unless it is observed by an edge. In the case of Graph Theory, Relation is called Edge, where Element is called Node. In general, elements are observable only by Relation Element Interaction (REI) (for example only A (where A is an element) is not observable, where A=A is observable).

By using this notion one can understand that A set is actually a short way to write A=A. An empty set's self-identity is its emptiness and since Distinction is a first-order property of Set, there is exactly one empty set (called the empty set) as follows:

A is the defined set.

X is any set.

A=A≠{X} and it is defined by using simultaneously = relation for element's self-identity and ≠ relation for element's non self-identity.

A=A≠{X} can be seen, for example, by ZF Axiom of the empty set, which states:

There is set A (A=A REI's self-identity) such that no set X (including A) is a member of it (≠{X} REI's non self-identity).

A non-empty set of distinct elements is based on REI as follows:

{a=a} = {a}
{a=b} = {a} = {b}
{a≠b} = {a,b} = {b,a} etc…

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf (Pages 14-15).

jsfisher

8th March 2009, 06:35 AM

Gibberish = "I don't get it"

Not at all. In fact, let's go back to the post in question. It began:

So according to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4490477&postcount=1999....

The post reference is most odd. Therein, you asked a question about something you didn't understand. Now you cite it as support for your conclusion.

Very odd. First you admit you don't understand something; then you use that as the basis for making something up. Yes, very odd indeed.

Labeling your post gibberish was entirely appropriate. Your post also made it abundantly clear that you are the one that doesn't get it.

doronshadmi

8th March 2009, 07:11 AM

Not at all. In fact, let's go back to the post in question. It began:

The post reference is most odd. Therein, you asked a question about something you didn't understand. Now you cite it as support for your conclusion.

Very odd. First you admit you don't understand something; then you use that as the basis for making something up. Yes, very odd indeed.

Labeling your post gibberish was entirely appropriate. Your post also made it abundantly clear that you are the one that doesn't get it.
Why are you stuck in past time?

This is really odd.

I asked a question, you gave a correct answer, I use your correct answer in order to expand my understanding by invent\discover some general principle that stands at the basis of the result of any self reference.

And what a bout you, you give an answer but cannot follow its general conclusion.

This is really odd.

EDIT:

In http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4490447&postcount=1998 you write:

Your statement about the three-dimensional object is wrong, ...
Here are the statments again:

A 1D self reference intersects itself by exactly one 0D object (a one point).

A 2D self reference intersects itself by exactly one 1D object (a one line).

But a 3D self reference intersects itself by infinitely many 2D objects (infinitely many surfaces).

What is wrong about the 3D case with respect to the following diagram? :

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/TSS-SR.jpg

We can clearly see that a 2D object interacts with the D3 object infinitely many times through its width.

jsfisher

8th March 2009, 07:22 AM

I asked a question, you gave a correct answer, I use your correct answer in order to expand my understanding by invent\discover some general principle that stands at the basis of the result of any self reference.

Maybe you should actually read the post you cited. Your question has not been answered.

You should also look up self reference. It is another term you don't understand very well.

doronshadmi

8th March 2009, 07:35 AM

Maybe you should actually read the post you cited. Your question has not been answered.

What?!

Shell we conclude that you do not understand your own answer??

In this case let me explain your answer to you:

The reason that we get infinitely many interactions of some 2D surface with the 3D case is exactly because the self-reference is not expressed in a higher dimension than the 3D case.

So if the self-reference is expressed in 4D, then we get the same results of the following cases:

2D=self reference, where 1D it its non-local aspect and 0D is its local aspect.

3D=self reference, where 2D it its non-local aspect and 1D is its local aspect.

4D=self reference, where 3D it its non-local aspect and 2D is its local aspect.

… ad infinituum ...

and we have a general principle based on an invariant proportion between Self-recerence, Non-locality, Locality.

EDIT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-reference :

Self-reference is a phenomenon in natural or formal languages consisting of a sentence or formula referring to itself directly, or through some intermediate sentence or formula, or by means of some encoding.

1) My argument holds, by this definition.

2) I claim that there is no such a thing like direct self reference because even A=A is at least the result of REI, as clearly explained by http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496144&postcount=2010 .

jsfisher

8th March 2009, 07:53 AM

What?!

Shell we conclude that you do not understand your own answer??

The post in question was post #1999. Why are you now substituting post #1998?

...
The reason that we get infinitely many interactions of some 2D surface with the 3D case is exactly because the self-reference is not expressed in a higher dimension than the 3D case.

So why the inconsistency? Why don't you have the one-dimensional case staying constrained within its one-dimensional world? Why don't you have the two-dimensional case staying constrained within its two-dimensional world? Why is it you completely change the rules for the three-dimensional case then claim the difference in result is significant?

So if the self-reference is expressed in 4D, then we get the same results of the following cases

Prove it. You are now just assuming. You don't actually know. I know whether it is or isn't true. It is easily determined. But the point, here, is you don't know. You have no clue, in fact.

Also, if you believe this to be true, why do you still promote your bogus diagram? Is it that you require contradiction and inconsistency in everything you do?

jsfisher

8th March 2009, 07:56 AM

I claim that there is no such a thing like direct self reference

This statement is false.

doronshadmi

8th March 2009, 08:01 AM

This statement is false.

The minimal direct self reference is A=A.

Show that this is not the case.

jsfisher

8th March 2009, 08:12 AM

I claim that there is no such a thing like direct self reference

This statement is false.

I fully expected you would completely miss the point of my post. It very succinctly proves your statement wrong.

If you actually knew what self-reference was, you might better appreciate my post.

The minimal direct self reference is A=A.

Show that this is not the case.

The formula, A=A, is not a self-reference. The formula makes no reference to itself whatsoever.

doronshadmi

8th March 2009, 08:15 AM

The post in question was post #1999. Why are you now substituting post #1998?

You claimed something in post #1998.

I asked you about it in post #1999 but you did not answer, so I asked you the same question again in post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496243&postcount=2012 and still you don't answer.

So why the inconsistency? Why don't you have the one-dimensional case staying constrained within its one-dimensional world? Why don't you have the two-dimensional case staying constrained within its two-dimensional world?

EDIT: Even A=A cannot be found without Relation(notated as =), which is not an element (notated as A).

Prove it.
It is a pre-axiomatic state that is based on Direct Abstract Perception.

doronshadmi

8th March 2009, 08:16 AM

The formula, A=A, is not a self-reference. The formula makes no reference to itself whatsoever.
Yes it is.

Without it self identity is undefined.

A alone is meaningless.

= alone is meaningless.

You simply do not get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496144&postcount=2010 .

jsfisher

8th March 2009, 08:20 AM

You claimed something in post #1998.

I asked you about it in post #1999 but you did not answer, so I asked you the same question again in post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496243&postcount=2012 and still you don't answer.

That doesn't explain your irrational behavior. You agree, here, post #1999 doesn't contain an answer, yet you cited it as a basis for a conclusion.

So, again I point out, you decide things based on assumption. You imagine the result you want, than you assume it to be so. Not very mathematical; not even very philosophical.

doronshadmi

8th March 2009, 08:24 AM

That doesn't explain your irrational behavior. You agree, here, post #1999 doesn't contain an answer, yet you cited it as a basis for a conclusion.

Maybe you have missed the EDIT part of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496243&postcount=2012 .

So please refreash you screen and please answer to what is written after the word EDIT.

jsfisher

8th March 2009, 08:25 AM

Yes it is.

Without it self identity is undefined.

A alone is meaningless.

= alone is meaningless.

Whether the component parts of the formula are meaningless alone or not (and, by the way, they are not) doesn't change the fact the formula, A=A, makes no reference to itself. It makes reference to another formula, A, twice in fact, but not to itself.

doronshadmi

8th March 2009, 08:30 AM

Whether the component parts of the formula are meaningless alone or not (and, by the way, they are not) doesn't change the fact the formula, A=A, makes no reference to itself. It makes reference to another formula, A, twice in fact, but not to itself.
OK,

Please demostrate a formula that is refer to itself.

jsfisher

8th March 2009, 08:30 AM

Maybe you have missed the EDIT part of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496243&postcount=2012 .

So please refreash you screen and please answer to what is written after the word EDIT.

You have already be scolded enough for this rude behavior of yours. It is bad enough you so significantly alter your posts after the fact, but to expect, no demand, others continually reread your twaddle looking for important updates is beyond the pale.

Be that as it may, Post #2012 is irrelevant with or without the belated revisions. Your citation blunder occurs at Post #2003.

jsfisher

8th March 2009, 08:32 AM

OK,

Please demostrate a formula that is refer to itself.

Perhaps you missed this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496333&postcount=2016).

doronshadmi

8th March 2009, 08:36 AM

Perhaps you missed this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496333&postcount=2016).

Which is A≠A and you still use at least REI.

jsfisher

8th March 2009, 08:43 AM

Which is A≠A and you still use REI.

The formula, A≠A, contains no self-reference just as the formula, A=A, contains no self-reference. Both refer to another formula, A, but neither refer to themselves. On the other hand, the sentence, "This statement is false", clearly makes a reference to itself in the form of this statement.

doronshadmi

8th March 2009, 08:53 AM

The formula, A≠A, contains no self-reference just as the formula, A=A, contains no self-reference. Both refer to another formula, A, but neither refer to themselves. On the other hand, the sentence, "This statement is false", clearly makes a reference to itself in the form of this statement.

In that case "This statment is itself" (A=A) , clearly makes a reference to itself in the form of this statement.

Also "This statment is not itself" (A≠A) , clearly makes a reference to itself in the form of this statement.

(Be aware that both of us distinguish between "This statmant" and "That statment").

jsfisher

8th March 2009, 09:03 AM

In that case "This statment is itself" (A=A) , clearly makes a reference to itself in the form of this statement.

Also "This statment is not itself" (A≠A) , clearly makes a reference to itself in the form of this statement.

Ah, no.

The formula, A=A, makes a reference to the formula, A. The formula, A, is not the same as the original formula, A=A.

The statement, "This statement is itself", makes a reference to the statement, "This statement is itself", which is, of course, itself.

Now, if you'd really like to show A=A and "This statement is itself" are equivalent, you just need to exhibit the correspondence between the two. Here, let me get you started: The equal sign corresponds to the word, "is".

doronshadmi

8th March 2009, 09:23 AM

Ah, no.

The formula, A=A, makes a reference to the formula, A.

No.

A has no meaning unless it refers at leat to itself.

jsfisher

8th March 2009, 09:34 AM

No.

A has no meaning unless it refers at leat to itself.

That's one twisted statement. The formula doesn't refer to itself. It is itself.

You really need to stop making up your own meaning for things.

doronshadmi

8th March 2009, 09:40 AM

That's one twisted statement. The formula doesn't refer to itself. It is itself.

You really need to stop making up your own meaning for things.

If you claim that "A is a formula", you still use A=A at the basis of this claim (A is itself).

You can't avoid it unless you use this fact as a hidden assumption, and this is exactly what you do.

Any correspondence is at least between a thing to itself (A=A).

EDIT: You can use A <--> A , to get this simple fact.

In general you use the concept "reference" (whether it is self reference, or not) without understand it.

Logic, Set, Number , etc... are at least the result of REI.

jsfisher

8th March 2009, 09:50 AM

If you claim that "A is a formula", you still use A=A at the basis of this claim (A is itself).

You can't avoid it unless you use this fact as a hidden assumption, and this is exactly what you do.

Any correspondence is at least between a thing to itself (A=A).

EDIT: You can use A <--> A , to get this simple fact.

In general you use the concept "reference" (whether it is self reference, or not) without understand it.

Logic, Set, Number , etc... are at least the result of REI.

Repeating the same nonsense two posts later doesn't make it any less nonsensical.

You don't understand the word, refer, just as you don't understand the word, cardinality, just as you don't understand so many, many things.

doronshadmi

8th March 2009, 10:11 AM

Repeating the same nonsense two posts later doesn't make it any less nonsensical.

You don't understand the word, refer, just as you don't understand the word, cardinality, just as you don't understand so many, many things.

No jsfisher,

You belong to some community of people that agree that A is a formula.

They first state "A is a formula" (A=formula=A = A=A) but they don't enter this first use to their formal framework.

In that case A alone that can be found in their formal framework is nothing but a short way of A=A (where A=A was unformally used and not entered to their formal framework).

This kind of "reasoning" is called Hidden Assumption.

Because A is a formula in this agreed framework, than A=A is not the same as A in this framework.

In other words, jsfisher, you and your friends are cheating yourselves for more than 2500 years.

The question is: Why do we have to agree with somebody how cheating himself.

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

EDIT:

X agrees on what A is.

In that case X uses "A is Y" (A = Y).

Without A = Y , A has no meaning (it is not useful) for X.

jsfisher

8th March 2009, 10:21 AM

They first use "A is a formula" (A=A)

Why do you juxtapose "A is a formula" and A=A? Are you trying to imply they are equivalent constructs, which of course they are not?

Be that as it may, you have successfully show you don't understand "self-reference" nor even the word, refer. Can we now return from this aside you your boner citation in post #2003?

doronshadmi

8th March 2009, 10:35 AM

Why do you juxtapose "A is a formula" and A=A? Are you trying to imply they are equivalent constructs, which of course they are not?

Be that as it may, you have successfully show you don't understand "self-reference" nor even the word, refer. Can we now return from this aside you your boner citation in post #2003?

jsfisher, you probably have no chance to get what I say in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496540&postcount=2035 , exactly because you and your community are unaware of yourselves when you are doing Math.

This lack of self-awareness cannot give you the chance to understand what self-reference is.

Your in-the-box mechanic thinking style that is not aware of itself, is exactly the reason of why your current reasoning is so dangerous to the survival of your own civilization.

It is clear to me more than ever that you have no chance to get http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMI2.pdf .

jsfisher

8th March 2009, 11:13 AM

Can we get back to the bogus citation in post #2003 now, or is there more hand-waving, foot-stomping, and other demonstrations of your ignorance you need to expose, first?

doronshadmi

8th March 2009, 11:20 AM

Can we get back to the bogus citation in post #2003 now, or is there more hand-waving, foot-stomping, and other demonstrations of your ignorance you need to expose, first?

Please refresh your screen an look again at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496540&postcount=2035 .

jsfisher

8th March 2009, 11:31 AM

Please refresh your screen an look again at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496540&postcount=2035 .

Why? That post has nothing to go with your bogus citation back in post #2003.

doronshadmi

8th March 2009, 12:16 PM

Why? That post has nothing to go with your bogus citation back in post #2003.
Because it is essentially connected to post #2003.

The Man

8th March 2009, 12:16 PM

jsfisher, you probably have no chance to get what I say in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496540&postcount=2035 , exactly because you and your community are unaware of yourselves when you are doing Math.

This lack of self-awareness cannot give you the chance to understand what self-reference is.

Your in-the-box mechanic thinking style that is not aware of itself, is exactly the reason of why your current reasoning is so dangerous to the survival of your own civilization.

It is clear to me more than ever that you have no chance to get http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMI2.pdf .

Oh, here we go again, with you identifying anyone who does not agree with you as ‘lacking self-awareness’ and “dangerous to the survival of your own civilization”.

Well, do not exclude your own lack of self –awareness when making such statements as above by ignoring your own proclamations as below.

This is exactly the way of thinking of dictators. They create an extreme conditions for the rest of the population which is based on trivial Black or White points of view, such that it is clear who is the total enemy and who is the total friend etc …

Funny, that is exactly what you are doing, using a trivial black and white point of view (what you refer to as “self-awareness” or the “lack” thereof) “such that it is clear who is the total enemy and who is the total friend etc …” or whom, as you put it, is “dangerous to the survival of your own civilization”. Clearly you lack the self-awareness that you require since you do not even perceive your own exemplification of what you call “exactly the way of thinking of dictators”. Before you claim that anyone or any “community are unaware of ” themselves, you should actually make at least some effort to be aware of yourself or more specifically what you claim to oppose and then subsequently do yourself..

doronshadmi

8th March 2009, 04:28 PM

Funny, that is exactly what you are doing, using a trivial black and white point of view (what you refer to as “self-awareness” or the “lack” thereof) “such that it is clear who is the total enemy and who is the total friend etc …”

The Man,

I am no doing it, I simply expose your manifest that is based on not using your self-awareness as a significant factor of any research, in order to get objective results.

For example, you are using a hammer against your own head in order to show that the hammer's existence is stronger than your knowledge about it.

Jsfisher claims that A is a formula that carries its identity even if no one defines it, and this identity can be connected to other identities of other formulas, etc …

In that case we can ask: How can A formula be in interaction with B formula without Non-locally (where only Non-locality can by used as a Relation between A,B formulas) or how a superposition of identities can be defined by a framework, where any given formula has already its clear identity?

Your universe is trivial The Man and jsfisher, because it is nothing but the particular case of clear Distinction of OM, which is used as the one and only first-order property of your framework.

jsfisher

8th March 2009, 06:23 PM

Jsfisher claims that A is a formula that carries its identity even if no one defines it, and this identity can be connected to other identities of other formulas, etc …

I made no such claim. Now, what about that bogus citation in post #2003?

doronshadmi

9th March 2009, 08:31 AM

I made no such claim. Now, what about that bogus citation in post #2003?
jsfisher you do not understand your own claims.

You are not able to get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496540&postcount=2035 .

AGAIN:

X agrees on what A is.

In that case X uses "A is Y" (A = Y).

Without A = Y , A has no meaning (it is not useful) for X.

You are unable to get it.

In that case you are unable to distinguish between bogus and non-bogus.

The Man

9th March 2009, 08:44 AM

The Man,

I am no doing it, I simply expose your manifest that is based on not using your self-awareness as a significant factor of any research, in order to get objective results.

So you claim you are not identifying others as ‘lacking self-awareness’ and “dangerous to the survival of your own civilization” because you “simply expose” what you perceive as the lack of “using your self-awareness” in others? When you actual get some self-awareness and stop trying to blame your actions on others, please let us know.

For example, you are using a hammer against your own head in order to show that the hammer's existence is stronger than your knowledge about it.

Jsfisher claims that A is a formula that carries its identity even if no one defines it, and this identity can be connected to other identities of other formulas, etc …

Neither one of us ever claimed to be doing any such things. Once again you have created some interpretation in your own mind and then ascribed it to someone else instead of simply accepting it as your own interpretation. For one extolling the virtues of self-awareness you certainly go out of your way not to be aware of yourself or what you do.

In that case we can ask: How can A formula be in interaction with B formula without Non-locally (where only Non-locality can by used as a Relation between A,B formulas) or how a superposition of identities can be defined by a framework, where any given formula has already its clear identity?

Your universe is trivial The Man and jsfisher, because it is nothing but the particular case of clear Distinction of OM, which is used as the one and only first-order property of your framework.

As jsfisher did actually remark and ask before, you keep using the term “first-order property” but can you actual define that term? Once again you resort to duron tactic number two. Doron tactic number one is asserting (or ‘exposing’ as you prefer to imagine it) your opponent simply lacks self-awareness and is thus “dangerous to the survival of your own civilization”. Doron tactic number two is simply claim anything as just some “the particular case of clear Distinction of OM, which is used as the one and only first-order property of your framework” without being able to effectively explain that “OM”, “clear Distinction of OM” or even the “framework” you claim is a “clear Distinction of OM”. Again yours is more of an ameba paradigm that just tries to ingest everything into one amorphous blob then it is a mathematical, scientific or even sociological paradigm shift.

jsfisher

9th March 2009, 08:49 AM

jsfisher you do not understand your own claims

No, you lied about what my claim was. In the formula, A=A, I merely referred to A as another formula. That goes along with conventional usage and the concept of well-formed formulae, but since you have proven time and again that you don't understand basic mathematics terminology, I am not surprised you missed that.

You, in your own imagination, then "enhanced" my statement into the following. The bolded part is your fantasy, not mine:

Jsfisher claims that A is a formula that carries its identity even if no one defines it, and this identity can be connected to other identities of other formulas, etc …

Basically, a lie.

doronshadmi

9th March 2009, 09:31 AM

No, you lied about what my claim was. In the formula, A=A, I merely referred to A as another formula. That goes along with conventional usage and the concept of well-formed formulae, but since you have proven time and again that you don't understand basic mathematics terminology, I am not surprised you missed that.

You, in your own imagination, then "enhanced" my statement into the following. The bolded part is your fantasy, not mine:

Basically, a lie.

Your fundamental mistake is this:

= and A are indeed two different things that complement each other under a one framework, where = is Relation and A is Element.

In your world you do not distinguish between Relation and Element and call them Formula. You are right about the difference between what you call "formula =" and and what you call "formula A", but "formula =" is not en Element (as A is) but it is a Relation, which is used as a self relation of A to itself in the expression A=A (where also to this thing you call formula).

You are unable to get it, and claim that A has a meaning without at least A=A ,

A=A is the self-reference of Element A to itself by Relation =, exactly as I show by Graph Theory in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496144&postcount=2010 .

Since you don't get it you are unable to distinguish between bogus and non-bogus.

Basically you lie to yourself.

That goes along with conventional usage and the concept of well-formed formulae
No you don't have any well-formed formulae, because you are using a hidden assumption, as clearly shown in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496540&postcount=2035 and in this post.

doronshadmi

9th March 2009, 10:14 AM

For example, you are using a hammer against your own head in order to show that the hammer's existence is stronger than your knowledge about it.
Neither one of us ever claimed to be doing any such things.

Really? (and in this case this is only you, and has nothing to do with jsfisher)

Philosophical claptrap, the fact is that our minds only exist in our minds as for the existence of everything else; well you can pay that no mind if you want but that is not advisable. If you think a hammer does not exist (except in your mind) then try to think the hammer away as you bash yourself in the head with it (or have someone else do it if they don’t mind) until you prove the hammer does not exist, your mind does not exist or you finally choose to mind the existence of the hammer (and perhaps the other person) outside of your mind and bashing you in the head. I doubt you will execute the first blow before you recognize the existence of the hammer over the existence of your mind. Should you execute one or more blows and even choose the claw side of the hammer to strike with, then I might doubt the applicability of the existence of your mind but not the applicability of the existence of the hammer.**

** This research project is not recommended and would be considered illegal under existing law.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4117846&postcount=40

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4330725&postcount=1355

The Man

9th March 2009, 10:51 AM

Really?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4330725&postcount=1355

I know exactly what I have written Doron; unlike you I do not limit self-awareness to just something that can be said to be lacking in others. Please show us in that quote from a thread that was closed because you derailed it, where I claimed to be, as you put it, "using a hammer against" my "own head in order to show that the hammer's existence is stronger than" my "knowledge about it.". Your preference for your own misinterpretation of what you read does not make that what is written. Once again you lack awareness of yourself as a significant factor in what you misread but most importantly you lack the understanding of what was written as the most significant factor in what you should read.

ETA:

For anyone who wants to see that post in its proper context (as well a Doron’s closing contributions to that thread)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4117597#post4117597

doronshadmi

9th March 2009, 11:03 AM

I know exactly what I have written Doron; unlike you I do not limit self-awareness to just something that can be said to be lacking in others. Please show us in that quote from a thread that was closed because you derailed it, where I claimed to be, as you put it, "using a hammer against" my "own head in order to show that the hammer's existence is stronger than" my "knowledge about it.". Your preference for your own misinterpretation of what you read does not make that what is written. Once again you lack awareness of yourself as a significant factor in what you misread but most importantly you lack the understanding of what was written as the most significant factor in what you should read.

ETA:

For anyone who wants to see that post in its proper context (as well a Doron’s closing contributions to that thread)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4117597#post4117597

I doubt you will execute the first blow before you recognize the existence of the hammer over the existence of your mind. Should you execute one or more blows and even choose the claw side of the hammer to strike with, then I might doubt the applicability of the existence of your mind but not the applicability of the existence of the hammer.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4117846&postcount=40

you are using a hammer against your own head in order to show that the hammer's existence is stronger than your knowledge about it.

We do not need more than that, and it does not matter if you or anyone else using a hammer against his own head.

The Man

9th March 2009, 11:11 AM

We do not need more than that.

So you can not show where I claimed to be using a hammer on my own or anyone else’s head to prove anything. So just like with jsfisher you are simply lying about what we have written. Your lack of ethics and logic are on par with your lack of self-awareness.

doronshadmi

9th March 2009, 11:15 AM

So you can not show where I claimed to be using a hammer on my own or anyone else’s head to prove anything. So just like with jsfisher you are simply lying about what we have written. Your lack of ethics and logic are on par with your lack of self-awareness.

You really have fundamental understanding proplems:

I doubt you will execute the first blow before you recognize the existence of the hammer over the existence of your mind. Should you execute one or more blows and even choose the claw side of the hammer to strike with, then I might doubt the applicability of the existence of your mind but not the applicability of the existence of the hammer.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4117846&postcount=40

you are using a hammer against your own head in order to show that the hammer's existence is stronger than your knowledge about it.

We do not need more than that, and it does not matter if you or anyone else using a hammer against his own head.

The Man

9th March 2009, 11:30 AM

You really have fundamental understanding proplems:

We do not need more than that, and it does not matter if you or anyone else using a hammer against his own head.

So it does not matter if what you asserted…

For example, you are using a hammer against your own head in order to show that the hammer's existence is stronger than your knowledge about it.

….is a valid statement or not. As usual the lack of understanding, ethics, logic and self-awareness is simply yours.

doronshadmi

9th March 2009, 11:49 AM

So it does not matter if what you asserted…

….is a valid statement or not. As usual the lack of understanding, ethics, logic and self-awareness is simply yours.

The Man, the principle of using a hammer against someone's head is the important thing here.

Your maneuvers around the exact technical expression of this principle discover again how much your understanding is limited.

doronshadmi

9th March 2009, 12:18 PM

Jsfisher claims that he uses a well-defined formula.

Let us check what a well-formed formula is (the mathematical interpretation):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_(mathematical_logic)

In computer science and mathematical logic, a well-formed formula or simply formula[1] (often abbreviated WFF, pronounced "wiff" or "wuff") is a symbol or string of symbols that is generated by the formal grammar of a formal language.

I made some words bold in order to show that a well-formed formula is clearly Relation\Element Interaction, where:

symbol(s), is some name for Element(s)

string, generator are some names for Relation.

More general: Formal grammar or Formal language is some result of REI.

jsfisher

9th March 2009, 12:44 PM

Jsfisher claims that he uses a well-defined formula.

Your low reading comprehension skills are showing again.

Let us check what a well-formed formula is (the mathematical interpretation):

I made some words bold in order to show that a well-formed formula is clearly Relation\Element Interaction, where:

symbol(s), is some name for Element(s)

string, generator are some names for Relation.

More general: Formal grammar or Formal language is some result of REI.

And, again again, your low reading comprehension skills are showing, but this time coupled with wild auto-erotic fantasy.

doronshadmi

9th March 2009, 12:54 PM

Your low reading comprehension skills are showing again.

And, again again, your low reading comprehension skills are showing, but this time coupled with wild auto-erotic fantasy.

Let me tell you a secret jsfisher,

The existence of some WFF is not less than WFF or X is WFF , where ____ is REI's non-local aspect and each symbol is REI's local aspect.

In other words, you are using ____ as a hidden assumption that actually enables separated symbols to express some meaning.

More general: You don't understand how you understand (whether it is formal, or not).

You simply can't get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4499166&postcount=2048 and this inability is not a wild auto-erotic fantasy, but it is a hard fact.

Actually your abstraction ability is similar to Simpson v. Zwinge ( http://simpsonlitigation.googlepages.com/1JREFComplaint.pdf ) abstraction ability that uses 66 ( http://www.etcorngods.com/language.htm ) in order to find some hidden messages in English.

The Man

9th March 2009, 01:55 PM

The Man, the principle of using a hammer against someone's head is the important thing here.

Your maneuvers around the exact technical expression of this principle discover again how much your understanding is limited.

I never claimed to do or have done anything of the sort and specifically recommend that others do not attempt it as well. You claimed specifically that I was using a hammer against my own head to prove something then asserted that it does not matter if I was using a hammer on my own head or not. You’re maneuvers to claim that the validity of your own assertion “does not matter” explains why you think the validity of your own assertions “does not matter”.

jsfisher

9th March 2009, 03:03 PM

The existence of some WFF is not less than WFF or X is WFF , where ____ is REI's non-local aspect and each symbol is REI's local aspect.

Existence is well-ordered? Interesting fabrication you've made, there. How are you coming with those definitions for local and non-local, by the way? Any progress, or you still can't figure it out?

...
Actually your abstraction ability is similar to Simpson v. Zwinge ( http://simpsonlitigation.googlepages.com/1JREFComplaint.pdf ) abstraction ability that uses 66 ( http://www.etcorngods.com/language.htm ) in order to find some hidden messages in English.

Curious you'd poke fun at George. You and he are a lot alike in many respects. Have you a fear of cats, by any chance?

jsfisher

9th March 2009, 03:17 PM

In your world you do not distinguish between Relation and Element and call them Formula. You are right about the difference between what you call "formula =" and and what you call "formula A", but "formula =" is not en Element (as A is) but it is a Relation, which is used as a self relation of A to itself in the expression A=A (where also to this thing you call formula).

You are again lying when you allege I ever referred to the equal size as a formula. Why do you lie about such things? If you'd honesty like to discus things, why to you continually resort to such childish antics?

You are unable to get it, and claim that A has a meaning without at least A=A

Another lie. I never made such a claim.

A=A is the self-reference of Element A to itself by Relation =

In order to be a self-reference to A, A would need to refer to itself. Notice the occurrence of "self" in "self-reference"? That's the tip-off.

"A=A" does indeed include a reference to "A", but it is not a self-reference. "A=A" isn't the same as "A". A self-reference for "A=A" would require "A=A" to somehow reference itself (itself being "A=A"), which it does not do.

doronshadmi

9th March 2009, 04:17 PM

I never claimed to do or have done anything of the sort and specifically recommend that others do not attempt it as well. You claimed specifically that I was using a hammer against my own head to prove something then asserted that it does not matter if I was using a hammer on my own head or not. You’re maneuvers to claim that the validity of your own assertion “does not matter” explains why you think the validity of your own assertions “does not matter”.
You still don't get the principle, do you The Man.

doronshadmi

9th March 2009, 04:22 PM

Existence is well-ordered?
WFF is at least REI.

Curious you'd poke fun at George. You and he are a lot alike in many respects. Have you a fear of cats, by any chance?
You are a proud member of your ignorence.

doronshadmi

9th March 2009, 04:36 PM

QUOTE=jsfisher;4500286]You are again lying when you allege I ever referred to the equal size as a formula. Why do you lie about such things? If you'd honesty like to discus things, why to you continually resort to such childish antics?[/quote]
Is this your best? to use the word "lie" , "lier" again and again?

How boring jsfisher, your proud is based on attacking people like Simpson v. Zwinge.

You are really a big hero.

Another lie. I never made such a claim.
First you have to understan the claim before you conclude something about it.

In order to be a self-reference to A, A would need to refer to itself. Notice the occurrence of "self" in "self-reference"? That's the tip-off
No.

Just A is not a formula.

The least is "A is …" and the least formula is A=A.

But you are too proud to get it.

More you proud, more you ignorent.

The Man

9th March 2009, 04:54 PM

You still don't get the principle, do you The Man.

What, the principle that you do not think the validity of your assertions matters? I got your devotion to that “principle” a long time ago Doron.

jsfisher

9th March 2009, 04:54 PM

You are again lying when you allege I ever referred to the equal size as a formula. Why do you lie about such things? If you'd honesty like to discus things, why to you continually resort to such childish antics?
Is this your best? to use the word "lie" , "lier" again and again?

I have used the word with accuracy and precision. You have deliberately made false statements, again and again. Liar is the appropriate appellation.

How boring jsfisher, your proud is based on attacking people like Simpson v. Zwinge.

People like Simpson v. Zwinge? What does that mean? Simpson v. Zwinge was a court case. Moreover, since it was filed by Simpson, logic would suggest he was the one on the attack.

Just A is not a formula....

The fact you don't understand very much about mathematics does not give you leave to decide for yourself what terms mean.

Formula has a meaning, just not the one you assume. Self-reference has a meaning, just not the one you assume. Cardinality has a meaning, just not the one you assume.

Care to get back to discussing the citation in post #2003?

doronshadmi

10th March 2009, 01:15 AM

What, the principle that you do not think the validity of your assertions matters? I got your devotion to that “principle” a long time ago Doron.
No,

The general prinpiple that clealy and simply explained in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4499565&postcount=2055, which is something that you don't get, and your inability to get that clearly exploses your ignorence.

doronshadmi

10th March 2009, 02:33 AM

I have used the word with accuracy and precision.

Prove it.

People like Simpson v. Zwinge? What does that mean? Simpson v. Zwinge was a court case. Moreover, since it was filed by Simpson, logic would suggest he was the one on the attack.
We wonder why it was filed by Simpson.

Your Logic is a bad joke.

What I know is this:

1) Simpson v. Zwinge has ideas that he wishes to share with others.

2) jsfisher and other persons disagree with these ideas.

3) By based on this disagreement, jsfisher and other persons claim that Simpson v. Zwinge is a liar.

4) This claim is not based on some facts, but it is based on a disagreement about ideas.

5) Simpson v. Zwinge understands the difference between saying lies about facts, and disagreeing with his ideas.

6) Because of this understanding Simpson v. Zwinge believes that his reputation was damaged and goes to court.

7) jsfisher is a proud member of the Simpson 15+7 because he does not understand the difference between a lie about facts and a disagreement about ideas.

If I am wrong about the facts, then please correct me.

The fact you don't understand very much about mathematics does not give you leave to decide for yourself what terms mean.

The fact that I show that you don't understand how you understand, in the first place, gives the validity to my arguments.

Formula has a meaning, just not the one you assume. Self-reference has a meaning, just not the one you assume. Cardinality has a meaning, just not the one you assume.
The general question is:

How X has a meaning, in the first place?

Care to answer to this question? (without your explicit answer to this question there is no use to talk about post #2003)

If your answer is "By definiton", then I ask "How Definiton is defined, in the first place?"

If your answer to this question is still "By definiton", you are clearly use self-reference (Definition is defined by itself).

So, How X (where X can be anything, including Definition) has a meaning, in the first place?

sympathic

10th March 2009, 03:21 AM

...which is something that you don't get, and your inability to get that clearly exploses your ignorence.

for someone who appears to be troubled by the implications of violence, you seem to be using a lot of it. Maybe you should become more aware of this as part of your self-awarness agenda.

Also, for someone who claims his theory ionates destruction, you seem to be doing everything possible to destroy the chance of any fruitful discussion here.

doronshadmi

10th March 2009, 03:34 AM

for someone who appears to be troubled by the implications of violence, you seem to be using a lot of it. Maybe you should become more aware of this as part of your self-awarness agenda.

Also, for someone who claims his theory ionates destruction, you seem to be doing everything possible to destroy the chance of any fruitful discussion here.
Non-tolerance about violence is not a violence.

Please read http://www.cecilram.com/Brief_Introduction.pdf .

Do you think that non-violence is possible without non-tolerance to violence?

Did you read the Head\Hammer Interaction violent model of The Man ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4499437&postcount=2051 )?

I don't see that you read both sides before you reply.

Shell I agree with fundamental things that I disagree with, in order to enable some sterile dialog?

I don't think so.

This dialog is fruitful even if there is no agreement.

Skeptic

10th March 2009, 04:40 AM

Folks --

You all seem to be laboring under the delusion that it's possible to logically explain to a lunatic where he's wrong. If that could be done, there would be no need for mental hospitals. Doron's insistence that he is correct has nothing to do with mathematics, just like someone claiming to be Napoleon has nothing to do with history.

You can no more convince him he made a mistake in his calculations by explaining (real) set theory to him, than you can convince someone they're not Napoleon by explaining the history of 19th century France to them. Yes, of course his axiom system is self-contradictory and pointless. No, pointing this out a zillion times will make not a dent in his belief it's pure gold.

The best advice for dealing with people like Doron is the same advice Vergil gave Dante somewhere in The Inferno: "Speak not to them, but look, and pass them by".

jsfisher

10th March 2009, 04:46 AM

Prove it.

Already done. See prior posts on this subject.

We wonder why it was filed by Simpson.
...
If I am wrong about the facts, then please correct me.

This derail serves no point. You can review the facts quite clearly in the now-legendary ET Corn Gods thread. It is long, though, so I understand why you have twisted the details.

There are probably enough reports already of this thread being a train wreck. Do you really want to continue this derail and risk its closure?

zooterkin

10th March 2009, 05:10 AM

1) Simpson v. Zwinge has ideas that he wishes to share with others.
...

3) By based on this disagreement, jsfisher and other persons claim that Simpson v. Zwinge is a liar.

...

5) Simpson v. Zwinge understands the difference between saying lies about facts, and disagreeing with his ideas.

6) Because of this understanding Simpson v. Zwinge believes that his reputation was damaged and goes to court.

...

If I am wrong about the facts, then please correct me.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that "Simpson v. Zwinge" is someone's name. It is not. It refers to a court case, the 'v' stands for "versus".

doronshadmi

10th March 2009, 06:15 AM

Already done. See prior posts on this subject.

Where exactly ?

This derail serves no point. You can review the facts quite clearly in the now-legendary ET Corn Gods thread. It is long, though, so I understand why you have twisted the details.
These are not facts. These are ideas.

It sims that you do not distinguish between facts and ideas.

If you disagree with someone's ideas it does not mean that it is a liar.

I am wrong only if you show that Simpson lies about facts, so please provide such a lie and I will agree with you in this case.

There are probably enough reports already of this thread being a train wreck. Do you really want to continue this derail and risk its closure?

I do not care if this thread will be closed or not.

Now please answer to my question in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4501925&postcount=2068 .

Here it is again:

How X has a meaning, in the first place?

Care to answer to this question? (without your explicit answer to this question there is no use to talk about post #2003)

If your answer is "By definiton", then I ask "How Definiton is defined, in the first place?"

If your answer to this question is still "By definiton", you are clearly use self-reference (Definition is defined by itself).

So, How X (where X can be anything, including Definition) has a meaning, in the first place?

doronshadmi

10th March 2009, 06:21 AM

You seem to be under the misapprehension that "Simpson v. Zwinge" is someone's name. It is not. It refers to a court case, the 'v' stands for "versus".

Thank you.

You are right.

The name is George R. Simpson.

doronshadmi

10th March 2009, 06:35 AM

Folks --

You all seem to be laboring under the delusion that it's possible to logically explain to a lunatic where he's wrong.

Ye, Skeptic will you share with us what you call Logic in details, or are you going to play again the armature psychiatrist?

Yes, of course his axiom system is self-contradictory and pointless.
I do not see that you wrote anything that is related directly to my system.

I asked you to do this, but all you do is chip propaganda that usually used by lazy people.

From time to time you appear like a wise observer that really understands what is going on, then you throw your armature pseudo-psychiatrist diagnostics and then disappear, until the next pseudo-psychiatrist round.

jsfisher

10th March 2009, 07:27 AM

Where exactly ?

This post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4499065&postcount=2047) provided the details of one such example.

...
I am wrong only if you show that Simpson lies about facts, so please provide such a lie and I will agree with you in this case.

George claimed his friend at Columbia University had invented the first microprocessor. He didn't, that was an easily verified falsehood, and that earned Mr. Simpson the label of liar.

Now please answer to my question in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4501925&postcount=2068
...
Care to answer to this question? (without your explicit answer to this question there is no use to talk about post #2003)

That's just silly. Post #2003 precedes post #2068, and the objection raised to post #2003 is the relevance of the citation in the first line. None of this has anything to do with your esoteric question about the meaning of meaning.

doronshadmi

10th March 2009, 10:08 AM

In the formula, A=A, I merely referred to A as another formula. That goes along with conventional usage and the concept of well-formed formulae,

This is the whole point jsfisher, I show in details that the conventional usage is fundamentally wrong because it is clearly based on a hidden assumption, as I explain in details at:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496540&postcount=2035

and

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4499166&postcount=2048

and

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496144&postcount=2010

In all of these cases you did not provide any detailed reply that is directly related to core of the notions of these posts.

Instead of doing it, you repeated again and again on the same "you don't know Math" mantra.

Furthermore, if I define Cardinality as the magnitude of the existence of X and show in details exactly how the conventional understanding of this concept is a particular case of a wider and deeper understanding of this concept, you call me a liar.

In other words, you are using this word too easily and too often until you don't really understand its meaning.

George claimed his friend at Columbia University had invented the first microprocessor. He didn't, that was an easily verified falsehood, and that earned Mr. Simpson the label of liar.

Please provide the exact quotes that are related to this particular case from both sides.

That's just silly. Post #2003 precedes post #2068
That's just silly.

The physical order of the posts , has nothing to do with the discussed subject.

Again, if you wish to understand what I said in #2003, you first have to deal in details with:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496540&postcount=2035

and

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4499166&postcount=2048

and

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496144&postcount=2010

If you don't do that, there is no dialog on #2003.

Simple as that.

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

Since forgot it again:

This is a philosophical thread here, so if you are unable to re-search things at this most fundamental level, we have no dialog.

----------

EDIT:

Jsfisher,

I invite you to define Formula in such a way that it will be immediately understood by anyone that this is Formula.

You have to do it by using no more than a single symbol and you are not allow to used any preliminary explanation.

The Man

10th March 2009, 11:26 AM

Non-tolerance about violence is not a violence.

Please read http://www.cecilram.com/Brief_Introduction.pdf .

So I guess you just skipped over that whole part about the non-violent lifestyle specifically requiring tolerance. So your own stated non-tolerant lifestyle is in direct conflict with the non-violent lifestyle in the documentation you referenced.

Do you think that non-violence is possible without non-tolerance to violence?

Doron, tolerance of violence (amongst other things) and specifically violence enacted against the non-violent is a requirement of a non-violent lifestyle. You think all those non-violent protests in the US during the sixties would have been that way if those non-violent protesters were not able to tolerate the violence enacted upon them?

Do you even understand that just intolerance itself is one of the primary causes of violence in the first place?

Did you read the Head\Hammer Interaction violent model of The Man ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4499437&postcount=2051 )?

A model that, the execution of which, was specifically not recommended.

I don't see that you read both sides before you reply.

Shell I agree with fundamental things that I disagree with, in order to enable some sterile dialog?

I don't think so.

This dialog is fruitful even if there is no agreement.

“I don’t see that you read” your own referenced material. As usual Doron, your idea of dialog is more along the lines of diatribe. It is fruitless because you only see things from your own perspective, you consider that perspective to be “fundamental” and you do not even agree with your own professed perspective (your intolerant non-violence above as an example). You seem to confuse tolerance with agreement and the non-violent lifestyle exemplified in your referenced documentation does not make that confusion as it specifically requires the tolerance of what one does not agree with.

doronshadmi

10th March 2009, 03:29 PM

So I guess you just skipped over that whole part about the non-violent lifestyle specifically requiring tolerance.
No.

I added the missing part about the non-tolerance to violence. Being non tolerant about violence does not mean that you have to be violent. Only in a Black\White trivial logic like yours non-tolerance = violence.

non-violent protesters

Non-violent protest is the best way to reduce violence.

It does not mean that we have to be tolerant about violent ideas like your ideas, specially if you claim that Head\Hammer Interaction is not a bad philosophical view of existence:

Come to think of it, a hummer might not be a bad philosophical view of existence. Thanks, Doron you’re finally starting to make sense, that blowing/sucking complementation/interaction and all.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4327246&postcount=1347

I am very precise and not tolerant about persons if they encouraging violence, as you do.

Non tolerant does not mean to be violent. Non tolerant means that I do the best I can in order to expose models like yours to criticism.

Tolerance actually shows its strength exactly where there is no agreement but people still open enough to listen to new\other ideas.

I don't see that you did even the slightest move in order to really understand my ideas.

Also I do not see that you understand the principle that stands at the basis of your violent model, and it does not matter if you add a warning about it.

In your warning you tell us that "** This research project is not recommended and would be considered illegal under existing law." not because we can harm ourselves but because it is against some existing law, which is not related to the existence of any awareness, by its ignorance of itself.

jsfisher

10th March 2009, 04:05 PM

This is the whole point jsfisher, I show in details that the conventional usage is fundamentally wrong because....

Your attempt to evade the issue noted. You claimed I said something I did not say. You lied. I have provided evidence you lied. The best you can offer in defense is a weak try to change the subject.

Furthermore, if I define Cardinality...

Cardinality already has a definition. The word is not yours to redefine.

Please provide the exact quotes that are related to this particular case from both sides.

You made the bogus claim regarding George Simpson. You need to provide evidence supporting your position.

That's just silly.

The physical order of the posts , has nothing to do with the discussed subject.

Sometimes not, but the issue I raised with post #2003 has nothing to do with the nonsense that followed.

...
I invite you to define...

How ironic you should be asking others to define their terms. You can't define anything of your own, but you expect a higher standard of others.

doronshadmi

10th March 2009, 04:17 PM

How ironic you should be asking others to define their terms.

By your terms you claim that A is a formula.

I invite you to define Formula in such a way, which will be immediately understood by anyone that this is Formula.

You have to do it by using no more than a single symbol and you are not allowed to use any preliminary explanation.

So, please show us how it can be done.

The Man

10th March 2009, 04:30 PM

No.

I added the missing part about the non-tolerance to violence. Being non tolerant about violence does not mean that you have to be violent. Only in a Black\White trivial logic like yours non-tolerance = violence.

Again with the lies, labeling and misrepresentations, I said specifically that your non-tolerance perspective is in direct conflict with the tolerance required by the non-violent lifestyle express in the documentation you provided. The rest are just the usual fantasies you create in your own mind.

Non-violent protest is the best way to reduce violence.

So finding yourself unable to response to what I actually said you simply truncate two words out to make up your own quote that you think you can respond to? You can make up all the quotes you want to respond to, but then the only dialog you are interested in is with yourself and that surprises no one.

It does not mean that we have to be tolerant about violent ideas like your ideas, specially if you claim that Head\Hammer Interaction is not a bad philosophical view of existence:

I never claimed that as apparently you still do not know the difference between a hammer and a hummer. Likewise you apparently have no idea what tolerance means, particularly if you are now going to express an intolerance of just some ideas as you have now done. Remember your opposition to dictators Doron, that is usually how it starts as an intolerance of, at first, simply some ideas.

I am very precise and not tolerant about the targets if they encouraging violence, as you do.

Stop kidding yourself Doron you have never been precise about anything on this tread and I have never encouraged violence or (unlike you) intolerance.

Non tolerance does not mean to be violent. Non tolerance means that I do the best I can in order to expose models like yours to criticism.

Non-tolerance means intolerant (an intolerance that you have extended to include even just some ideas) and you specifically referenced a document extolling a non-violent lifestyle that explicitly requires tolerance (particularly of ideas), clearly that is not a lifestyle that (by your own assertions) you practice. By the way critical examination does not require or infer intolerance, but no one would expect you to understand that, as critical examination is not trait you display or seem to tolerate.

Tolerance actually shows its strength exactly where there is no agreement but people still open enough to listen to new\other ideas.

Intolerance as your expressed preferred lifestyle generally shows it weakness by resulting in or being a driving factor of violence. Of course that was part of the previous post that you did not quote or respond to.

I don't see that you did even the slightest move in order to really understand my ideas.

I see that you did not even take the slightest interest in understanding your own “ideas” the document you referenced, the non-violent lifestyle and tolerance it exemplifies or the intolerant lifestyle you claim to promote.

doronshadmi

10th March 2009, 04:43 PM

I said specifically that your non-tolerance perspective is in direct conflict with the tolerance required by the non-violent lifestyle express in the documentation you provided.

Please give some concrete example taken form my material that supports what you say.

jsfisher

10th March 2009, 04:45 PM

By your terms you claim that A is a formula.

I invite you to define Formula in such a way, which will be immediately understood by anyone that this is Formula.

You have to do it by using no more than a single symbol and you are not allowed to use any preliminary explanation.

Wow, you want me to define something using only one symbol (like perhaps the ampersand), and no lead up to what I mean by the ampersand. You set the bar pretty high, don't you?

So, please show us how it can be done.

I have a better idea. Please define non-locality. I won't be as restrictive as you in what is allowed, though. Please, show us that you can do this.

doronshadmi

10th March 2009, 04:56 PM

Wow, you want me to define something using only one symbol (like perhaps the ampersand), and no lead up to what I mean by the ampersand. You set the bar pretty high, don't you?
It is based on your claim that there is a meaning to something like A alone (after all you claim that A=A is a reference from one formula to another formula, where A (which is a formula by your argument) is not A=A).

So please do it, please show us by using formalism that A alone (without using any other expression, exactly as you claim) is a formula.

The Man

10th March 2009, 05:04 PM

Please give some concrete example taken form my material that supports what you say.

What, so you have not actually read the material you presented or is it that you simply do not understand the word tolerance?

Since you ask so politely…

Ahimsa and tolerance are two main anchors of non-violence. Ahimsa means nonviolence, and it holds that all living things are equal. Since all things are equal, a nonviolent person respects life in all its forms and shapes. Tolerance guarantees multiplicity of views. Tolerance implies acceptance, brotherhood love and equality. This tolerance permeates all activities in life, gives equal rights to women and men, and breaks down the division that exists in class and caste. Therefore non-violence removes the need for paternalistic and hierarchical systems, and this can lead to peace and tranquility among people and nations. (1)

You can be intolerant to whatever you what even just some ideas (something I do not recommend), but that is not the view expressed by the material you submitted.

jsfisher

10th March 2009, 05:14 PM

It is based on your claim that there is a meaning to something like A alone (after all you claim that A=A is a reference from one formula to another formula, where A (which is a formula by your argument) is not A=A).

So please do it, please show us by using formalism that A alone (without using any other expression, exactly as you claim) is a formula.

A is not a formula by my argument. A is a formula by definition of formula. Did you not read the very Wikipedia article you, yourself, cited for formula? Did you miss the part that went something like this:

The well-formed formulae of the propositional calculus are recursively defined as follows:

Each propositional variable is, on its own, a formula.
If φ is a formula, then ~φ is a formula.
If φ and ψ are formulas, and • is any binary connective, then ( φ • ψ) is a formula. Here • could be ∨, ^, →, or ↔.

I'll assume you can make the leap to other formulae types where equality is an admissible operator. Perhaps I assume too much.

Now, how are you coming with a definition for non-locality? Still nothing?

doronshadmi

10th March 2009, 05:18 PM

Let us look at this part:
Tolerance guarantees multiplicity of views. Tolerance implies acceptance, brotherhood love and equality.

Your Hammer\Head Ineraction violates what is written above.

Furthermore, you say that this might not be a bad philosophical view of existence:

Come to think of it, a hummer might not be a bad philosophical view of existence. Thanks, Doron you’re finally starting to make sense, that blowing/sucking complementation/interaction and all.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1347

Shell I smile and love you for this?

doronshadmi

10th March 2009, 05:44 PM

Each propositional variable is, on its own, a formula.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_(mathematical_logic)

"On its own" means that each propositional variable is itself.

"A=A" = "A is itself".

Also you used a string of symbols in order to define A as a formula.

Each symbol in this string has a reference to another symbol in this string (in order to define A as a formula) by using Elements (symbols) that have Relation to each other by some rules (where the rules are not the related symbols (Elements)).

But first each symbol in the string of symbols has to be its own identity (again "A=A" = "A is itself").

In other words "A" is a short way to write "A is itself" or "A=A".

You can't avoid it.

Also in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496144&postcount=2010 I use Graph Theory in order to
explicitly show how "A=A" is "A" that refers to itself by "=".

jsfisher

10th March 2009, 06:37 PM

"On its own" means that each propositional variable is itself.

Well, if you are going to interpret English in whatever nonsensical way you wish, then there is no end to what illogic you can master.

"On its own" means by itself, alone, unaccompanied by anything else.

How's that definition for non-locality coming along?

doronshadmi

10th March 2009, 06:48 PM

Well, if you are going to interpret English in whatever nonsensical way you wish, then there is no end to what illogic you can master.

"On its own" means by itself, alone, unaccompanied by anything else.

It does not matter.

"By itself" = "by its own self" = "A is itself" = "A=A"

Only by first understand the above, you can use "A" as a short way to write "A=A".

Self-identity is the simplest form of self-reference.

On its own" means by itself, alone, unaccompanied by anything else
You wrote "alone".

In that case your researched thing is actually not reseachable at all (what I call totally isolated) and cannot be defined even as a formula.

jsfisher

10th March 2009, 06:52 PM

It does not matter.

"By itself" = "by its own self" = "A is itself" = "A=A"

Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/on%20ones%20own) disagrees.

Only by underdand the above, you can use "A" as a short way to write "A=A".

Easily refuted. Let A = "The moon is made of cheese." Clearly, A is a false proposition whereas A=A is true.

Now, about that definition of non-locality. Anything, or are you willing to admit you don't know that it means either?

The Man

10th March 2009, 06:57 PM

Let us look at this part:

Your Hammer\Head Ineraction violates what is written above.

I was not the one who presented that material, you did specifically to exemplify your views of a non-violent lifestyle, to which you then “added” your own “missing” intolerance in direct conflict with that materials requirement of tolerance. Obviously you have no idea what tolerance means and why it is so important to a non-violent lifestyle.

So you think that telling people it is “not advisable” to bash themselves in the head with a hammer (not a hummer) just because they hold a view that the hammer exists only in their mind, that injury will result in spite of that belief, perhaps eliminating their mind but not the hammer (again not hummer), also to further stipulate that such a test is “not recommended” and against current laws, somehow violates “multiplicity of views”, “acceptance, brotherhood love and equality”?

Furthermore, you say that this might not be a bad philosophical view of existence:

Shell I smile and love you for this?

So you obviously still do not know the difference between the words “hammer” and “hummer”, but I assure you everyone else here does. Smile all you want, but considering where you seem to keep your head stuck up; you’re going to want to brush your teeth afterwards.

doronshadmi

10th March 2009, 07:06 PM

Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/on%20ones%20own) disagrees.
It agrees (it uses "belonging to oneself" which is clearly a self-reference).

Easily refuted. Let A = "The moon is made of cheese." Clearly, A is a false proposition whereas A=A is true.
No. you are using two levels: A and "bla bla bla".

I am using one level "A=A".

Little 10 Toes

10th March 2009, 07:11 PM

"A=A" does not mean "A is itself". It is self-identity. It is not self-reference. "I am hungry" is since you, the speaker, is referring back to himself. "You" is not equal to "hungry".

And why should group X define A=Y since we already have A?

doronshadmi

10th March 2009, 07:14 PM

I was not the one who presented that material, you did specifically to exemplify your views of a non-violent lifestyle, to which you then “added” your own “missing” intolerance in direct conflict with that materials requirement of tolerance.
In other words, you ignored http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4504437&postcount=2089 .

Please show us your non-violent lifestyle.

Little 10 Toes

10th March 2009, 07:14 PM

It agrees (it uses "belonging to oneself" which is clearly a self-reference). Nope. Belonging to oneself is not self-reference.

doronshadmi

10th March 2009, 07:20 PM

"A=A" does not mean "A is itself". It is self-identity. It is not self-reference. "I am hungry" is since you, the speaker, is referring back to himself. "You" is not equal to "hungry".

Self-identity is the simplest form of self-reference, where identity is not something that you say about A, but it is the very existence of A.

doronshadmi

10th March 2009, 07:23 PM

Nope. Belonging to oneself is not self-reference.

We are talking about the meaning of "On its own".

In this case "Belonging to oneself" is self-reference.

jsfisher

10th March 2009, 07:26 PM

It agrees (it uses "belonging to oneself" which is clearly a self-reference).

It's that reading deficiency again, isn't it? The definition in question would be for the phrase, "on ones own". "Belonging to oneself" does not appear in any part of the definition for "on ones own".

Any news on the meaning of non-locality? No?

doronshadmi

10th March 2009, 07:33 PM

"Belonging to oneself" does not appear in any part of the definition for "on ones own".

Look again at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/on%20ones%20own row 6 from top.

Also we are talking about "on its own" and not on "on ones own"

EDIT: Care to reply to the second part of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4504773&postcount=2095 ?

jsfisher

10th March 2009, 07:45 PM

we are talking about "on its own" and not on "on ones own"

Clearly you don't understand the English pronoun, one. Perhaps before you start those classes in Mathematics you might want to consider taking a few in English syntax and grammar.

Never mind about defining non-locality. You can't, and any attempt you made likely would be filled with words with imaginary meanings. Not much point really.

The Man

10th March 2009, 07:46 PM

In other words, you ignored http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4504437&postcount=2089 .

Ignored? I specifically and precisely addressed it, more lies and misrepresentations on your part. Oh, would you actually care to address what I did say in not ignoring your post.

Please show us your non-violent lifestyle.

Well, I’d have to get a wedcam for that, but then of course I’m not the one who asserted a non-violent lifestyle based on tolerance then added his own "missing" intolerance to that mix.

doronshadmi

10th March 2009, 08:00 PM

Clearly you don't understand the English pronoun, one. Perhaps before you start those classes in Mathematics you might want to consider taking a few in English syntax and grammar.

Never mind about defining non-locality. You can't, and any attempt you made likely would be filled with words with imaginary meanings. Not much point really.

It does not belong only to English.

"A is itself" = "On its own".

In both cases something is equal to itself not by the level of some property as you did in the case of A = "blab la bla" , but by the level of existence of a researchable thing, written as "A=A"

A alone is total isolation and not researchable.

= alone is total connectivity and not researchable.

doronshadmi

10th March 2009, 08:02 PM

Ignored? I specifically and precisely addressed it,

Really?

I don't see it.

jsfisher

10th March 2009, 08:02 PM

It does not belong to English.

"A is itself" = "On its own".

Now, click your heels together three times and say, "There's no place like home."

doronshadmi

10th March 2009, 08:09 PM

Now, click your heels together three times and say, "There's no place like home."

You will not get the trick, because you don't get how you get A, in the first place.

You don't get "own".

You don't get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4504999&postcount=2105 or http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4504532&postcount=2090 .

Your two-levels example of A = "false" is not my one-level example of A=A.

A alone is too weak for research exactly as a single point alone is not reseachable.

In order to get it, please try to define a reseachable framework by using just A, for example:

A

After you get it, you are able to understand that the identity of a thing to itself is the least reseachable framework, for example:

A=A

where A is an example of Element of this framework and = is an example of Relation of this framework.

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

The value of A is not important at one-level.

And again you ignored http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496144&postcount=2010 .

The Man

10th March 2009, 08:20 PM

Really?

I don't see it.

No you "see it" you just do not care to address what I did say in response to you.

As far as my “non-violent lifestyle” goes I will say that I have stood up to bullies for a good part of my life. The most proficient way was to take their best hit and laugh in their face, again tolerating the violence that might be enacted upon you.

So please tell us, Doron, how have you enacted the principles of non-violence and tolerance?

doronshadmi

10th March 2009, 08:29 PM

No you "see it" you just do not care to address what I did say in response to you.

As far as my “non-violent lifestyle” goes I will say that I have stood up to bullies for a good part of my life. The most proficient way was to take their best hit and laugh in their face, again tolerating the violence that might be enacted upon you.

So please tell us, Doron, how have you enacted the principles of non-violence and tolerance?

“non-violent lifestyle” for me is to do my best in order to save and develop diversity that is based on simplicity, in any aspect of my life.

The Man

10th March 2009, 08:46 PM

“non-violent lifestyle” for me is to do my best in order to save and develop diversity that is based on simplicity, in any aspect of my life.

So, you have never had to remain non-violent while violence directly confronts you, good to know and I am glad that it is an experience you have not had. However, I must say that it seems to have given you a rather distorted view of violence, non-violence and tolerance in the real world.

doronshadmi

10th March 2009, 08:57 PM

So, you have never had to remain non-violent while violence directly confronts you, good to know and I am glad that it is an experience you have not had. However, I must say that it seems to have given you a rather distorted view of violence, non-violence and tolerance in the real world.

Do do my best in order to save and develop diversity that is based on simplicity in any aspect of my life, is clearly an actual principle for non-violence and tolerance in the real world.

Try to use this principle and you will get it by yourself.

This is an ideal principle and I don't always able to act according to it.

The Man

10th March 2009, 09:37 PM

Do do my best in order to save and develop diversity that is based on simplicity in any aspect of my life, is clearly an actual principle for non-violence and tolerance in the real world.

Try to use this principle and you will get it by yourself.

This is an ideal principle and I don't always able to act according to it.

What, “clearly an actual principle for non-violence and tolerance in the real world”? No, actual principals of non-violence and tolerance in the real world are exemplified by actually being non-violent while tolerating violence against you in the real world, your self serving fantasies are in no way related to the real world.

doronshadmi

10th March 2009, 09:45 PM

What, “clearly an actual principle for non-violence and tolerance in the real world”?

Yes. Try it.

The Man

11th March 2009, 12:15 AM

Yes. Try it.

Try what, your fantasies? Sorry, Doron, I have actually been there in the real world, non-violent while being tolerant as violence is attempted upon me. As far as fantasies go, yours is naive at best and hardly meaningful to anyone but you.

If you are unable to live out your own fantasies, I am sorry to hear that, but do not ask others to do it vicariously for you.

doronshadmi

11th March 2009, 05:50 AM

Try what, your fantasies? Sorry, Doron, I have actually been there in the real world, non-violent while being tolerant as violence is attempted upon me. As far as fantasies go, yours is naive at best and hardly meaningful to anyone but you.

If you are unable to live out your own fantasies, I am sorry to hear that, but do not ask others to do it vicariously for you.
The real world is the result of the developed interaction between the complex and the simple.

Your Head\Hammer philosophy of existence ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4504437&postcount=2089 ) is an act of regression of this reality, and its is not a fantasy exactly as the developed interaction between the complex and the simple is not a fantasy.

My criticism about your destructive philosophy air its view exactly because it is a real destruction, and you will not find any tolerance by this criticism, because I expose your destructive philosophy and take off any nice mask that you wish to address it.

doronshadmi

11th March 2009, 06:28 AM

Now, click your heels together three times and say, "There's no place like home."

Ok let us show how jsfisher uses his fantasy in order to define A as a formula.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_(mathematical_logic)

Each propositional variable is, on its own, a formula

This definition can be reduced to:

"A is a formula"

Pay attention that at this fundamental level we don't care about the value of the formula, but at this fundamental level all we care is about the existence of such a formula.

In that case "A is a formula" is reduced to the general form "A=A".

Jsfisher's fantasy is that A alone is definable.

doronshadmi

11th March 2009, 09:43 AM

Little 10 Toes

11th March 2009, 11:58 AM

doronshadmi

11th March 2009, 12:01 PM

Now let us examine this jsfisher's argument:

Easily refuted. Let A = "The moon is made of cheese." Clearly, A is a false proposition whereas A=A is true.

By this argument jsfisher proves that A is not A=A.

Well, I agree with jsfisher because A="…" is not A=A.

1) In A = "…" jsfisher can't avoid the use of at least A AND = in order to define something, so also in this case A alone or = alone is not a formula.

2) A = "…" is equivalent to I am …, where … is some property of I, but first I has to be defined, and as shown in I definition ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4506506&postcount=2118 ) it is not less than I=I.

3) I without self-reference is undefined and so is A.

In that case A is not defined unless A=A , and we are not talking here about any property of A, but we are talking here about the least term that enables to define A as a formula, in the first-place, which is a fundamental level that jsfisher does not get yet.

doronshadmi

11th March 2009, 12:03 PM

Proof and/or external reference?
I do not understand your question.

Little 10 Toes

11th March 2009, 12:06 PM

Now let us examine this jsfisher's argument:

By this argument jsfisher proves that A is not A=A.

Well, I agree with jsfisher because A="…" is not A=A.

1) In A = "…" jsfisher can't avoid the use of at least A AND = in order to define something, so also in this case A alone or = alone is not a formula.

2) A = "…" is equivalent to I am …, where … is some property of I, but first I has to be defined, and as shown in I definition is not less I=I.

3) I without self-reference is undefined and so is A.

In that case A is not defined unless A=A , and we are not talking here about any property of A, but we are talking here about the least term that enables to define A as a formula, in the first-place, which is a fundamental level that jsfisher does not get yet.

When I say "The moon is made of cheese", there is no self reference. Is Little 10 Toes the moon? Is Little 10 Toes cheese? No. I am stating the moon (which you may or may not be seeing) is made of cheese.

Little 10 Toes

11th March 2009, 12:08 PM

I do not understand your question.
Well, you said:
Surprisingly, there is a way to use a single symbol in such a way that it will be immediately understood as a valid formula without any preliminary explanation, definition etc, …

But in order to do that, we have to go beyond the current mechanic approach of the formal framework.

This symbol is:

I

where I is immediately understood because of self-awareness, where self-awareness is actually the result of self-reference (the self refers to itself).

I have asked you to provide proof that the symbol I is used in such a mannor.

doronshadmi

11th March 2009, 12:09 PM

When I say "The moon is made of cheese", there is no self reference. Is Little 10 Toes the moon? Is Little 10 Toes cheese? No. I am stating the moon (which you may or may not be seeing) is made of cheese.

All you say is: I

and we are not talking about any property of I, what I is, etc ...

At this fundamental level we reseach what we need in order to define I.

That's all (at this fundamental level).

Little 10 Toes

11th March 2009, 12:11 PM

All you say is: I

Um, no I didn't. Did you understand what I posted? I DID NOT refer back to me in my statements.

Little 10 Toes

11th March 2009, 12:19 PM

All you say is: I

and we are not talking about any property of I, what I is, etc ...

At this fundamental level we reseach what we need in order to define I.

That's all (at this fundamental level).

Nice. Standard operating procedure for doronshadmi is to go back and re-edit a post.

And no, we are not talking about I, we are talking about the lack of self-reference of A and the lack of documention of the symbol I. We havn't even talked about the definition of I yet.

jsfisher

11th March 2009, 12:24 PM

1) In A = "…" jsfisher can't avoid the use of at least A AND = in order to define something, so also in this case A alone or = alone is not a formula.

Non-sequitur.

zooterkin

11th March 2009, 12:30 PM

I do not understand your question.

At last, I think we may be getting somewhere...

The Man

11th March 2009, 09:52 PM

The real world is the result of the developed interaction between the complex and the simple.

More of your fantasy gibberish.

Your Head\Hammer philosophy of existence ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4504437&postcount=2089 ) is an act of regression of this reality, and its is not a fantasy exactly as the developed interaction between the complex and the simple is not a fantasy.

I never claimed to have a “Head\Hammer philosophy of existence” the philosophy of existence that I remarked ‘might not be bad’ was a ‘head/hummer interaction’, but I also never claimed it to be my philosophy. Obviously you still do not understand the difference between the words “hammer” and “hummer”, try looking them up.

My criticism about your destructive philosophy air its view exactly because it is a real destruction, and you will not find any tolerance by this criticism, because I expose your destructive philosophy and take off any nice mask that you wish to address it.

I subscribe to no particular “philosophy” destructive or otherwise just as I subscribe to no particular “school of thought”. Is this the only way that you can address others by labeling them so you can only deal with the inferences of the label that you ascribe to them and not what they actually say.

So again you assert your lack of tolerance even to just some philosophical considerations. Clearly you do not tolerate ‘diversity’ as you have previously claimed.

The Man

11th March 2009, 10:35 PM

Surprisingly, there is a way to use a single symbol in such a way that it will be immediately understood as a valid formula without any preliminary explanation, definition etc, …

But in order to do that, we have to go beyond the current mechanic approach of the formal framework.

This symbol is:

I

where I is immediately understood because of self-awareness, where self-awareness is actually the result of self-reference (the self refers to itself).

Immediately understood as what? A letter in the alphabet and what alphabet would that be, perhaps it is a variable, even the current in an electric circuit (often represented as “I”) or just some other abstract representation?

I does not need any preliminary explanation, definition etc … because it is immediately and directly understood as its own thing.

All is needed is a thing and self-reference, so I is actually a short way of I=I, where I is the Element and = is the self-Relation of the Element to itself.

A=I

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

In other words, a valid formula is not less than Relation Element Interaction (REI).

Why jsfisher can't get it?

Because he is not aware of himself during his logical reasoning.

Nothing is mystical here, actually self-awareness is the core of reasoning, whether it is formal or not.

So you are saying that because you understand the symbol I to represent something based on your preconceived notions that I represents your preconceived notions without, well, your preconceived notions. Even your ascription of it as a “symbol” represents a “preliminary explanation” in that it is an abstract as apposed to a pictorial representation. That ascription of “symbol” requires an “explanation” of what that symbol represents. The simple fact that you explained how you were using I after presenting that symbol does not change the fact that it requires some explanation. So by your application no symbol requires a “preliminary explanation, definition etc, …” as long as one makes a subsequent “explanation, definition etc, …” as you just did. Did you figure that out all on your own or do you simply not understand that an explanation is an explanation whether is preliminary or subsequent?

doronshadmi

12th March 2009, 02:58 AM

Non-sequitur.

Non-sequitur ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) ):

in formal logic, is an argument where its conclusion does not follow from its premises ...
You are right jsfisher, A alone or = alone are non-sequitur because there is no way to conclude that they are formulas, unless they are interact with each other.

doronshadmi

12th March 2009, 03:05 AM

Immediately understood as what? A letter in the alphabet and what alphabet would that be, perhaps it is a variable, even the current in an electric circuit (often represented as “I”) or just some other abstract representation?
Here is another proof of how The Man ignores himself during research.

As a result he does not recognize I (himself).

Since he does not recognize himself during research, he cannot understand that I is not less than I=I (Relation = \ Element I Interaction)

doronshadmi

12th March 2009, 03:11 AM

More of your fantasy gibberish.

I never claimed to have a “Head\Hammer philosophy of existence” the philosophy of existence that I remarked ‘might not be bad’ was a ‘head/hummer interaction’, but I also never claimed it to be my philosophy. Obviously you still do not understand the difference between the words “hammer” and “hummer”, try looking them up.

I subscribe to no particular “philosophy” destructive or otherwise just as I subscribe to no particular “school of thought”. Is this the only way that you can address others by labeling them so you can only deal with the inferences of the label that you ascribe to them and not what they actually say.

So again you assert your lack of tolerance even to just some philosophical considerations. Clearly you do not tolerate ‘diversity’ as you have previously claimed.
You have a philosophy of life The Man, the philosophy of the unaware of themselves.

As long as this is your philosophy, you can't get OM.

doronshadmi

12th March 2009, 03:20 AM

Nice. Standard operating procedure for doronshadmi is to go back and re-edit a post.

And no, we are not talking about I, we are talking about the lack of self-reference of A and the lack of documention of the symbol I. We havn't even talked about the definition of I yet.

Any definition is based on X is ....

If someone aware of himself\herself, it can be represented by a single symbol like I, but also in this case we see that self-awareness is not less than I=I, as explained in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4506506&postcount=2118 .

doronshadmi

12th March 2009, 04:01 AM

The minimal terms for research are:

Element (the local aspect of research)

Relation (the non-local aspect of research)

Self-reference (the interaction aspect of research)

No research holds unless it is REI.

doronshadmi

12th March 2009, 07:42 AM

Um, no I didn't. Did you understand what I posted? I DID NOT refer back to me in my statements.

3 times you referred to yourself in this quote.

The Man

12th March 2009, 07:44 AM

Here is another proof of how The Man ignores himself during research.

As a result he does not recognize I (himself).

Since he does not recognize himself during research, he cannot understand that I is not less than I=I (Relation = \ Element I Interaction)

Oh so your explaining and defining your use of the symbol I as ‘ones self’. The very symbol you claimed required no explanation or definition to be understood, how typically contradictory of you.

doronshadmi

12th March 2009, 07:52 AM

Oh so your explaining and defining your use of the symbol I as ‘ones self’. The very symbol you claimed required no explanation or definition to be understood, how typically contradictory of you.

Typical poor understanding of the unaware of themselves during re-search.

I simply show that even in the case of the most direct re-search like self-awareness we can't avoid Relation Element Interaction.

The Man

12th March 2009, 07:56 AM

You have a philosophy of life The Man, the philosophy of the unaware of themselves.

As long as this is your philosophy, you can't get OM.

So having stated that I ascribe to no particular philosophy of life you find it necessary to label me with one of your own creation. Thank you Doron, for answering my previous question and conclusively demonstrating that you must label people within the confines of your own perspectives as opposed to addressing them, their perspectives or what they say directly

The Man

12th March 2009, 08:01 AM

Typical poor understanding of the unaware of themselves during re-search.

I simply show that even in the case of the most direct re-search like self-awareness we can't avoid Relation Element Interaction.

By explaining a symbol you claimed required no explanation to be understood? Typical, the poor understanding, contradictions and demonstrative lack of self-awareness is again yours and yours alone.

doronshadmi

12th March 2009, 08:01 AM

So having stated that I ascribe to no particular philosophy of life you find it necessary to label me with one of your own creation. Thank you Doron, for answering my previous question and conclusively demonstrating that you must label people within the confines of your own perspectives as opposed to addressing them, their perspectives or what they say directly

You used I in this quote.

A=I

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

In other words, a valid formula is not less than Relation Element Interaction (REI).

Why you can't get it?

Because you are not aware of yourself during your logical reasoning.

Nothing is mystical here, actually self-awareness is the core of reasoning, whether it is formal or not.

doronshadmi

12th March 2009, 08:14 AM

By explaining a symbol you claimed required no explanation to be understood? Typical, the poor understanding, contradictions and demonstrative lack of self-awareness is again yours and yours alone.

First, Self-awareness is a meaningful direct experience that can be symbolized by a single symbol.

Second, further re-search discovers that this meaningful direct experience that is symbolized by a single symbol is not enough, because even this most intimae experience is not less than Relation Element Interaction.

A=I

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

In other words, a valid formula is not less than Relation Element Interaction (REI).

AGAIN:

The minimal terms for re-search are:

Element (the local aspect of re-search)

Relation (the non-local aspect of re-search)

Self-reference (the interaction aspect of re-search)

No re-search holds unless it is REI.

The Man

12th March 2009, 08:32 AM

You used I in this quote.

A=I

So what, I never claimed I can be understood without definition or explanation and the usage and syntax of my application of “I” is well defined and therefore understood. Oh but wait you did make the claim that it could be understood without explanation.

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

In other words, a valid formula is not less than Relation Element Interaction (REI).

Why you can't get it?

Because you are not aware of yourself during your logical reasoning.

Nothing is mystical here, actually self-awareness is the core of reasoning, whether it is formal or not.

So you continue to explain your usage of I, obviously you must understand that symbols require explanation yet you claimed your usage of that symbol did not require explanation thus demonstrating your lack of self-awareness of even your own understanding.

The Man

12th March 2009, 08:36 AM

First, Self-awareness is a meaningful direct experience that can be symbolized by a single symbol.

Second, further re-search discovers that this meaningful direct experience that is symbolized by a single symbol is not enough, because even this most intimae experience is not less than Relation Element Interaction.

A=I

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

In other words, a valid formula is not less than Relation Element Interaction (REI).

AGAIN:

The minimal terms for re-search are:

Element (the local aspect of re-search)

Relation (the non-local aspect of re-search)

Self-reference (the interaction aspect of re-search)

No re-search holds unless it is REI.

More explanations of your usage of a symbol you claimed required no explanation to be understood. It seems you are becoming less and less aware of yourself or what you have written with each subsequent post.

doronshadmi

12th March 2009, 08:41 AM

More explanations of your usage of a symbol you claimed required no explanation to be understood. It seems you are becoming less and less aware of yourself or what you have written with each subsequent post.
No The Man.

What is shown by your replies is that you don't understand what a meaningful re-search is, where the I case is an example of such a re-search that you don't get, simply because you are not aware of yoursef during re-search and then move to the second stage of re-search.

In that case you can't understand a single word or symbol of what I say as long as you don't get what I say.

It can be done only if you move from first to second stage of re-search ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4509833&postcount=2142 ), somthing that you don't do.

The Man

12th March 2009, 08:57 AM

No The Man.

What is shown by your replies is that you don't understand what a meaningful re-search is, where the I case is an example of such a re-search that you don't get, simply because you are not aware of yoursef during re-search.

In that case you can't understand a single word or symbol of what I say as long as you don't get what I say.[/QUOTE]

So your usage of the symbol I is not understandable without explanation and further your attempts at explanation do not make your usage of that symbol any more understandable. Your requirement is an understanding of your usage of that symbol so your usage can be understood without requiring you explaining that usage. So you revert back to your typical stance that one must simply accept your assertions in order to find your assertions, well, acceptable.

doronshadmi

12th March 2009, 10:17 AM

In that case you can't understand a single word or symbol of what I say as long as you don't get what I say.

So your usage of the symbol I is not understandable without explanation and further your attempts at explanation do not make your usage of that symbol any more understandable. Your requirement is an understanding of your usage of that symbol so your usage can be understood without requiring you explaining that usage. So you revert back to your typical stance that one must simply accept your assertions in order to find your assertions, well, acceptable.

I subscribe to no particular “philosophy” destructive or otherwise just as I subscribe to no particular “school of thought”.

What is this I that has no particular “philosophy” ?

Does it needs any definition, opinion, philosophy etc. ... in order to be aware of itself?

Little 10 Toes

13th March 2009, 07:07 AM

3 times you referred to yourself in this quote. Hurrah! You can count! Too bad you can't comprehend.

Let's review what I actually asked:

When I say "The moon is made of cheese", there is no self reference. Is Little 10 Toes the moon? Is Little 10 Toes cheese? No. I am stating the moon (which you may or may not be seeing) is made of cheese.

Your edited reply is:

All you say is: I

and we are not talking about any property of I, what I is, etc ...

At this fundamental level we reseach what we need in order to define I.

That's all (at this fundamental level).

So, once again, I'll ask a basic question. Please show me where there is self reference when I say "The moon is made of cheese."

The follow-up to that question is, why do we need to define I when I haven't used it and when you claim that the symbol I, "will be immediately understood as a valid formula without any preliminary explanation, definition"?

Surprisingly, there is a way to use a single symbol in such a way that it will be immediately understood as a valid formula without any preliminary explanation, definition etc, …

doronshadmi

13th March 2009, 07:21 AM

Hurrah! You can count! Too bad you can't comprehend.

Let's review what I actually asked:

Your edited reply is:

So, once again, I'll ask a basic question. Please show me where there is self reference when I say "The moon is made of cheese."

The follow-up to that question is, why do we need to define I when I haven't used it and when you claim that the symbol I, "will be immediately understood as a valid formula without any preliminary explanation, definition"?

There is necessarily self-reference at I first-level (I=I), before we say what I is (which is I's second-level, and the second-level is not necessarily self-referential).

Little 10 Toes

13th March 2009, 07:27 AM

You still didn't answer my questions. So, once again, I'll ask a basic question. Please show me where there is self reference when I say "The moon is made of cheese."

The follow-up to that question is, why do we need to define I when I haven't used it and when you claim that the symbol I, "will be immediately understood as a valid formula without any preliminary explanation, definition"?

doronshadmi

13th March 2009, 07:34 AM

You still didn't answer my questions.
You do not understand my answer.

The follow-up to that question is, why do we need to define I when I haven't used it and when you claim that the symbol I, "will be immediately understood as a valid formula without any preliminary explanation, definition"?
I am talking about the direct experience of self-awareness.

Do you need any further explanation in order to immediately expiriance it and be sure of it?

EDIT: A = "bla bla bla" is not not necessarily a direct self-referential as A=A is.

It does not mean that from a meta-view A = "bla bla bla" is the result of self-referece (REI).

Little 10 Toes

13th March 2009, 07:40 AM

You do not understand my answer.

I am talking about the direct experience of self-awareness, do you need any further explanation in order to immediately expiriance it and be sure about it?

No, you don't understand my questions. I'll high-light some of the basic info:

Please show me where there is self reference when I say "The moon is made of cheese."

The follow-up to that question is, why do we need to define I when I haven't used it and when you claim that the symbol I, "will be immediately understood as a valid formula without any preliminary explanation, definition"?

doronshadmi

13th March 2009, 07:57 AM

No, you don't understand my questions. I'll high-light some of the basic info:

Please show me where there is self reference when I say "The moon is made of cheese."

The follow-up to that question is, why do we need to define I when I haven't used it and when you claim that the symbol I, "will be immediately understood as a valid formula without any preliminary explanation, definition"?

I do not need to define I in order to show that from a meta-view any researchable framework is the result of an interaction between Locality and Non-locality.

I used I in order to show that also this direct experience is not less than REI.

By showing this I show why jsfisher is wrong when he claims that A alone or = alone are formulas.

As for "The moon is made of cheese." , please look at this diagram
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/SR.jpg

and exchange any intersection point by some letter from the above sentence.

If you do that, you are able to understand why "The moon is made of cheese" is some result the interaction between Locality and Non-locality, where Interaction is based on Self-reference.

Why don't you have the one-dimensional case staying constrained within its one-dimensional world?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496320&postcount=2015

Because no thing alone is a formula.

ddt

13th March 2009, 10:06 AM

As for "The moon is made of cheese." , please look at this diagram
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/SR.jpg
There is neither moon nor cheese in the diagram. I don't see any relevance.

and exchange any intersection point by some letter from the above sentence.

That makes no sense at all. You destroy the diagram, and besides, there are not enough intersection points for all the letters.

doronshadmi

13th March 2009, 01:59 PM

There is neither moon nor cheese in the diagram. I don't see any relevance.

That makes no sense at all. You destroy the diagram, and besides, there are not enough intersection points for all the letters.
The abstract principle ddt, the abstract principle that is based on Relation Element Interaction, as the minimal term for a Well Formed Formula (WFF is based on REI).

After all you are a mathematician, isn't it?

jsfisher

13th March 2009, 03:00 PM

The abstract principle ddt, the abstract principle that is based on Relation Element Interaction, as the minimal term for a Well Formed Formula (WFF is based on REI).

This quote is not a sentence. This quote is not semantically meaningful. This quote includes gibberish.

After all you are a mathematician, isn't it?

This quote is not semantically meaningful.

doronshadmi

13th March 2009, 08:47 PM

This quote is not a sentence. This quote is not semantically meaningful. This quote includes gibberish.

This quote is not semantically meaningful.
Ye,

A alone is

The Man

14th March 2009, 08:44 AM

What is this I that has no particular “philosophy” ?

Once again my usage and syntax of “I” is well defined, established and therefore well understood by others. Your claim that…

Surprisingly, there is a way to use a single symbol in such a way that it will be immediately understood as a valid formula without any preliminary explanation, definition etc, …

with regard to your use of the symbol I is refuted by you in your need and continuing desire to attempt to explain and define your usage of that symbol.

Does it needs any definition, opinion, philosophy etc. ... in order to be aware of itself?

Well since whether or not something could be considered ‘self-aware’ would depend on the “definition, opinion, philosophy etc. ...” of self-awareness being applied at the time, the answered is quite obviously ‘yes’. How do you identify something as ‘self-aware’ without first defining what constitutes ‘self-awareness’ in the first place? Oh wait, how silly of me, you do not bother with things like defining your notions since it usually shows your notions as self contradictory and you as lacking self-awareness about your self contradictory notions.

doronshadmi

14th March 2009, 10:44 AM

Once again my usage and syntax of “I” is well defined

How it is well-defined if first I (or "my", as written by you) has do define what is well-defined?

Your first usage is not less than what you call "my" where "my" does not hold without self-reference.

So is I, it is not less than I=I (self relation of I to itself, which is not less than I=I).

You are stack in I (or "my", as written by you) at the level of direct experience, without understand it.

The direct experience of I does not depend on its understanding, exactly as some apple falling on your head even if you don't understand the laws of Gravitation.

A Well Formed Formula holds only if I is understood and not just directly experienced.

So is the case of A alone or = alone,

They are not understood unless they are interact with each other under a one framework, where the minimal interaction is Element's self-relation, notated, for example, as A=A, where A is the Element aspect of that interaction and = is the Relation aspect of that interaction.

doronshadmi

14th March 2009, 10:45 AM

AGAIN:

A=I

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

In other words, a valid formula is not less than Relation Element Interaction (REI).

The minimal terms for re-search are:

Element (the local aspect of re-search)

Relation (the non-local aspect of re-search)

Self-reference (the interaction aspect of re-search)

No re-search holds unless it is REI.

ddt

14th March 2009, 01:30 PM

How it is well-defined if first I (or "my", as written by you) has do define what is well-defined?

So do you mean "I" as the first person singular personal pronoun?

The Man

14th March 2009, 01:43 PM

How it is well-defined if first I (or "my", as written by you) has do define what is well-defined?

What the hell are you on about now? The use and syntax of “I” in a sentence in the English language is well defined and that is how I was using it.

Your first usage is not less than what you call "my" where "my" does not hold without self-reference.

No, it does not hold without external reference, specifically to the English language in this case, which gives us the definition and correct syntax of the usage of “I” or “my”.

So is I, it is not less than I=I (self relation of I to itself, which is not less than I=I).

You are stack in I (or "my", as written by you) at the level of direct experience, without understand it.

No, I am specifically using well defined symbols and syntax to communicate with others, try it sometime.

The direct experience of I does not depend on its understanding, exactly as some apple falling on your head even if you don't understand the laws of Gravitation.

Yet communicating that experience to others does depend on at least an understanding of communication and then an understanding of what it is you are trying to communicate, areas in which you are woefully lacking. Your lack of understanding does not remove dependence, an apple falling on your head still depends on gravity whether you understand it or not.

A Well Formed Formula holds only if I is understood and not just directly experienced.

A Well Formed Formula holds if it meets the well formed definition of a well formed formula. Clearly a well formed definition is something you have not “directly experienced”

So is the case of A alone or = alone,

They are not understood unless they are interact with each other under a one framework, where the minimal interaction is Element's self-relation, notated, for example, as A=A, where A is the Element aspect of that interaction and = is the Relation aspect of that interaction.

No, they are not understood unless they are defined, do you have any ‘well formed definitions’ in your notions?

AGAIN:

A=I

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

In other words, a valid formula is not less than Relation Element Interaction (REI).

The minimal terms for re-search are:

Element (the local aspect of re-search)

Relation (the non-local aspect of re-search)

Self-reference (the interaction aspect of re-search)

No re-search holds unless it is REI.

Nope, as I expected you obviously don’t. You can not define your local and non-local yet you want to use those as the basis of your REI? Well I will have to say that you notion of “re-search” is very simplistic. With “Self-reference” as “the interaction aspect of re-search” then all “re-search” is just that things are what they are. Figured that out all on your own did you? To think the rest or us have been wasting all of our time doing actual research (not your “re-search”) where we determine more “interaction”, relationships and what things are then just your naive “Self-reference”.

jsfisher

14th March 2009, 01:44 PM

The Man

14th March 2009, 01:45 PM

So do you mean "I" as the first person singular personal pronoun?

That is how I have been using it, which I am sure comes as a surprise to no one.

ETA:
Now I am just being silly.

Little 10 Toes

14th March 2009, 02:49 PM

So do you mean "I" as the first person singular personal pronoun?

No he doesn't. He has used the phrase (more or less) "the symbol I" in several posts.

doronshadmi

14th March 2009, 03:57 PM

So do you mean "I" as the first person singular personal pronoun?

1) jsfisher claims that A alone or = alone are Well Formed Formulas.

2) I claim that it is impossible to define A alone or = alone as WFF unless they are mutually independent.

It means that they save their identities under Interaction, where this interaction is self–reference of Element A to itself by Relation = , notated as A=A, such that:
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/AAA.jpg

3) Only Relation Element Interaction enables to define A (Element) or = (Relation) as WFF.

4) Furthermore, I show that even the most direct and intimate experience of one's self, is not less then self-relation of one to itself (I=I).

5) Also I show that one's self experience does not depend on the understanding of this direct and intimate experience, exactly as things are falling down even if we do not define the laws of Gravitation.

6) In means that re-search is exactly what it is: to search again some natural phenomena in order to understand the principles that enable it.

7) EDIT: This understanding is achieved only if mutual independency holds, as explained in (2).

Your inability to get what I say is based on your inability to directly know yourselves by any need of any language.

EDIT:

Only if you directly get yourselves, you are able to understand the need to go beyond this direct experience, in order to understand it (to research the principles that enable it).

It is achived by Relation Element Interaction.

doronshadmi

14th March 2009, 04:23 PM

Some claims:

But A=A is still not A alone.

Well, he is right. A alone is not WFF where A=A is WFF.

EDIT:

Furthermore, one has to explain how A alone or = alone refer to each other (interact with each other), in the first place.

REI explains it.

I do not see how it can be done without REI, so please open my eyes to something that is not REI and can do it.

ddt

14th March 2009, 04:52 PM

So do you mean "I" as the first person singular personal pronoun?

How could he? That would require a prior definition, an understanding of how the symbol was being used. He already told us it was self-evident. You, ddt, are just being silly.
:D
As in "We hold these truths to be self-evident"? :)

That is how I have been using it, which I am sure comes as a surprise to no one.
Quelle surpise! I happen to do that too when writing English. :)

No he doesn't. He has used the phrase (more or less) "the symbol I" in several posts.
Hmm. These discussions with doron are so long-winded that I lost track of it. But in the post I reacted to, he said:
How it is well-defined if first I (or "my", as written by you) has do define what is well-defined?
and from the reference to the first person singular possessive pronoun, I get the impression that he indeed meant the personal pronoun - and meant so all along.

Anyway, it's again a fine example of doron's excellent communication skills.

jsfisher

14th March 2009, 04:53 PM

1) jsfisher claims that A alone or = alone are Well Formed Formulas.

I have never made this claim.

ddt

14th March 2009, 04:54 PM

1) jsfisher claims that A alone or = alone are Well Formed Formulas.

[...]

I asked a simple yes/no question. Your reaction still gives no answer to my yes/no question. Another fine example of doronic communication.

doronshadmi

15th March 2009, 12:55 AM

I have never made this claim.
Since you agree with this definition http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4504420&postcount=2088, which claims that:

Each propositional variable is, on its own, a formula.

and since you claim that "on its own" = "alone" ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4504700&postcount=2091 ) , you are actually claim that A alone is a Well Formed Formula.

Furthermore, in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496377&postcount=2023 you claim that each A (where, according to your claim, A alone is WFF) is another formula (where formula means Well Formed Formula).

I disagree with this definition and your use of this definition and claim that any definition (even the definition of the most intimate expiriance of your own self to itself) is not less than the form A=A.

You disagree with it and claim that A alone (this is your interpretation to "on its own") is a different Well Formed Formula than A=A.

In other words, you indeed claim that A alone is WFF.

In other words, http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496540&postcount=2035 holds.

Actually jsfisher, our last dialog is a concrete example of why http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496540&postcount=2035 holds.

doronshadmi

15th March 2009, 01:58 AM

doronshadmi

15th March 2009, 02:02 AM

I asked a simple yes/no question. Your reaction still gives no answer to my yes/no question. Another fine example of doronic communication.
I give you the whole hand (including the answer "YES" in (4) of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4516817&postcount=2166 ), you want only the finger.

Nice ddt, nice.

zooterkin

15th March 2009, 04:34 AM

Some correction of the bolded sentence in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4516817&postcount=2166 .

It has to be:

Your inability to get what I say is based on your inability to directly know yourselves by no need of any language.

Sadly, the rest of us tend to be limited by the fact that we do use recognised languages. Could you put your sentence into one of those, preferably English?

ddt

15th March 2009, 04:44 AM

I give you the whole hand (including the answer "YES" in (4) of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4516817&postcount=2166 ), you want only the finger.

Nice ddt, nice.
The word "yes" does not occur in that post. You're lying. And I couldn't care less for your whole hand - the numbered points in that post are either gibberish or more lies, as at least one pointed out by jsfisher. As for the rest:

Your inability to get what I say is based on your inability to directly know yourselves by any need of any language.

No, you have a fundamental communication problem. You're unwilling to even answer yes/no questions with a simple yes/no, even when asked for. That you meant "I" as the first person singular personal pronoun clearly was not self-evident, as you've never stated that you meant that and used it in a context where everyone expected a mathematical symbol. You knowingly fostered this confusion by referring to "the symbol I" - Little 10 Toes was right in pointing that out, see, e.g., post #2118.

You're a serial liar, you're intentionally deceptive in your communication, and as for mathematics, you're a 100% crackpot.

The Man

15th March 2009, 06:16 AM

6) In means that re-search is exactly what it is: to search again some natural phenomena in order to understand the principles that enable it.

Try searching again (or again and again) for the origin of the word and do some actual research this time. The prefix “re” can mean “again” or “again and again” to indicate ‘repetition’ (or to ‘petition again’) but it also means “back” or “backward” to indicate withdrawal or backwards motion as in ‘revert’ (backwards application of ‘vertere’ or to ‘turn’ back or backwards). In fact both are applicable to the meaning in the word ‘research’ indicating a repeatedly backwards search for a cause, supporting documentation or just general information about someone or something. In your personal and obscure usage “re-search” just means to search again and again, which probably is more applicable to you since you never seem to find anything thus requiring you to “re-search”. So please “re-search” research and keep doing it again and again until you understand its common meaning. Oh but wait you do note it as a search of “some natural phenomena in order to understand the principles that enable it.” and thus a search going backwards for causes and contributing factors, then again backwards from that for causes and contributing factors, then again backwards from that for causes and contributing factors... (ect). Too bad you simply are not self-aware of your own understanding and (or should I say demonstrative lack of) usage of research.

The Man

15th March 2009, 06:40 AM

Let’s look at another or your ridiculously contradictory assertions

It means that they save their identities under Interaction, where this interaction is self–reference of Element A to itself by Relation = , notated as A=A, such that:
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/AAA.jpg

3) Only Relation Element Interaction enables to define A (Element) or = (Relation) as WFF.

So interaction is “A=A” and you have also referred to ‘definition’ as just yyyy ‘=’ xxx. So in order to define a relation like ‘=’ as you note above requiring your ‘interaction’ of ‘self-reference’ that definition then becomes ‘= = =’ where ‘=’ is the ‘element’, the ‘relation’ and the entire ‘interaction’. Your ‘REI’ falls apart when applied to ‘=’ the primary ‘element’ of ‘relation’ in your ‘interaction’.

4) Furthermore, I show that even the most direct and intimate experience of one's self, is not less then self-relation of one to itself (I=I).

Hey, what you do to yourself with your REI in the privacy of your own home is your business. We do not need to hear about your “most direct and intimate experience of one's self” or what it “is not less then”.

jsfisher

15th March 2009, 07:52 AM

Since you agree with this definition...
In other words, you indeed claim that A alone is WFF.

Yes, that is true. I have claimed the A in A = A is a formula, a well-formed formula in fact.

1) jsfisher claims that A alone or = alone are Well Formed Formulas.

No, that is untrue. I never claimed that.

Doron, if you cannot understand what you yourself wrote, why do you expect others to understand it.

doronshadmi

15th March 2009, 10:21 AM

Yes, that is true. I have claimed the A in A = A is a formula, a well-formed formula in fact.

In other words, you agree with me that A (some Element) is WFF only if Relation is used also.

In that case there are not two A formulas, but one and only one formula A that is related to it self by at least one relation notated by = :
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/AAA.jpg

doronshadmi

15th March 2009, 10:29 AM

Try searching again (or again and again) for the origin of the word and do some actual research this time. The prefix “re” can mean “again” or “again and again” to indicate ‘repetition’ (or to ‘petition again’) but it also means “back” or “backward” to indicate withdrawal or backwards motion as in ‘revert’ (backwards application of ‘vertere’ or to ‘turn’ back or backwards). In fact both are applicable to the meaning in the word ‘research’ indicating a repeatedly backwards search for a cause, supporting documentation or just general information about someone or something. In your personal and obscure usage “re-search” just means to search again and again, which probably is more applicable to you since you never seem to find anything thus requiring you to “re-search”. So please “re-search” research and keep doing it again and again until you understand its common meaning. Oh but wait you do note it as a search of “some natural phenomena in order to understand the principles that enable it.” and thus a search going backwards for causes and contributing factors, then again backwards from that for causes and contributing factors, then again backwards from that for causes and contributing factors... (ect). Too bad you simply are not self-aware of your own understanding and (or should I say demonstrative lack of) usage of research.

No.

Backwards cannot be less than Locality (its cardinal has not predecessor).

Forward cannot be more than Non-locality (its cardinal has no successor).

doronshadmi

15th March 2009, 10:38 AM

Let’s look at another or your ridiculously contradictory assertions

So interaction is “A=A” and you have also referred to ‘definition’ as just yyyy ‘=’ xxx. So in order to define a relation like ‘=’ as you note above requiring your ‘interaction’ of ‘self-reference’ that definition then becomes ‘= = =’ where ‘=’ is the ‘element’, the ‘relation’ and the entire ‘interaction’. Your ‘REI’ falls apart when applied to ‘=’ the primary ‘element’ of ‘relation’ in your ‘interaction’.
Nonsense.

A=A is REI general form where A is a placeholder for Element.

The position in the formula A=A is important.

In that case = = = is the same as A = =

A = =

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

Hey, what you do to yourself with your REI in the privacy of your own home is your business. We do not need to hear about your “most direct and intimate experience of one's self” or what it “is not less then”.
Your rudeness blocks your brain.

jsfisher

15th March 2009, 10:42 AM

In other words, you agree with me that A (some Element) is WFF only if Relation is used also.

No, I do not.

doronshadmi

15th March 2009, 10:45 AM

No, I do not.

OK, show us WFF where no relation is used in order to define it.

jsfisher

15th March 2009, 10:48 AM

OK, show us WFF where no relation is used in order to define it.

Can you state that in English, please.

doronshadmi

15th March 2009, 10:55 AM

Can you state that in English, please.

Please define some Well Formed Formula, where no relation is used in this definition (do not forget your reaction in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4504307&postcount=2085 ).

For example:

Since you disagree with me ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4518439&postcount=2182 ), then any definition of the form:

A is ...

Let A be ...

etc.

cannot be used by you.

The Man

15th March 2009, 11:14 AM

Nonsense.

A=A is REI general form where A is a placeholder for Element.

The position in the formula A=A is important.

In that case = = = is the same as A = =

A = =

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

So your ‘REI’ is meaningless since it is only ‘= = =’, with “A” as a “placeholder” for ‘=’ would just make it ‘A A A’.

Your rudeness blocks your brain.

While your arrogance and ignorance defines yours.

The Man

15th March 2009, 11:24 AM

No.

Backwards cannot be less than Locality (its cardinal has not predecessor).

Forward cannot be more than Non-locality (its cardinal has no successor).

So you do not understand the word ‘research’, it is better then that you continue to use your own personal delineation of it as “re-search” exemplifying your propensity to search the same areas again and again yet still find nothing.

jsfisher

15th March 2009, 11:43 AM

Please define some Well Formed Formula, where no relation is used in this definition

You either don't understand at all what a formula is, or you are asking for the trivial, or both. One doesn't define a formula. A string of symbols either does or does not obey the rules for what constitutes a formula. The formula, A, obeys all the rules.

Now, if you want meaning attributed to the formula or any of its sub-formulae, that's a different matter.

(do not forget your reaction in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4504307&postcount=2085 ).

That would be my request for your definition of non-locality. Still working on that, are you?

doronshadmi

15th March 2009, 03:06 PM

So your ‘REI’ is meaningless since it is only ‘= = =’, with “A” as a “placeholder” for ‘=’ would just make it ‘A A A’.
No.

There are at least two types of placeholders, one for Relation and one for Element, where Relation is Non-local w.r.t Element and Element is Local w.r.t Relation.

Relation can be: Equation, Operation, Logical connective, Class, etc.

Element can be: Value, Member, Object, etc.

doronshadmi

15th March 2009, 03:09 PM

So you do not understand the word ‘research’, it is better then that you continue to use your own personal delineation of it as “re-search” exemplifying your propensity to search the same areas again and again yet still find nothing.
In your realm research is an endless regresion because you understand Atom as a composite thing.

doronshadmi

15th March 2009, 03:12 PM

One doesn't define a formula. A string of symbols either does or does not obey the rules for what constitutes a formula. The formula, A, obeys all the rules.

What determines the rules for what constitutes a formula?

EDIT: If you say definition, I'll ask what defines the definition?

jsfisher

15th March 2009, 03:21 PM

What determines the rules for what constitutes a formula?

Are you going somewhere with this? It's not very interesting so far.

The Man

15th March 2009, 03:42 PM

No.

There are at least two types of placeholders, one for Relation and one for Element, where Relation is Non-local w.r.t Element and Element is Local w.r.t Relation.

Relation can be: Equation, Operation, Logical connective, Class, etc.

Element can be: Value, Member, Object, etc.

In your self-referencing definition of your primary ‘relation’ ‘=’ of your ‘interaction’ all of your ‘placeholders’ are holding those places for ‘=’, your ‘placeholder’ dodge doesn’t cut it. In your notions ‘=’ can be and must be ‘relation’, ‘element’ and your whole ‘interaction’ as ‘= = =’. You can play this ‘placeholder’ game if you want by replacing one or more of the ‘=’ with some other symbol so it does not look quite as ridiculous but your ‘REI’ notion still comes down to just ‘= = =’ in its most precise ‘self-referencing interaction relation defining’ form.

The Man

15th March 2009, 03:51 PM

In your realm research is an endless regresion because you understand Atom as a composite thing.

No, in the real world research is an endless regression as well as an endless progression because, well, we don’t know everything. If we did know everything there would be no need to do any research. Is that why you never seem to do any research?

doronshadmi

15th March 2009, 03:52 PM

In your self-referencing definition of your primary ‘relation’ ‘=’ of your ‘interaction’ all of your ‘placeholders’ are holding those places for ‘=’, your ‘placeholder’ dodge doesn’t cut it. In your notions ‘=’ can be and must be ‘relation’, ‘element’ and your whole ‘interaction’ as ‘= = =’. You can play this ‘placeholder’ game if you want by replacing one or more of the ‘=’ with some other symbol so it does not look quite as ridiculous but your ‘REI’ notion still comes down to just ‘= = =’ in its most precise ‘self-referencing interaction relation defining’ form.

No.

In = = = only the middle is Relation.

You did not get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4518433&postcount=2181 .

doronshadmi

15th March 2009, 03:57 PM

Are you going somewhere with this? It's not very interesting so far.
Are you or are you still standing under your street light?

Please look again at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4519081&postcount=2191 .

doronshadmi

15th March 2009, 04:01 PM

No, in the real world research is an endless regression as well as an endless progression because, well, we don’t know everything. If we did know everything there would be no need to do any research. Is that why you never seem to do any research?
We don't know everything and cannot know everything also because any research changes the realm in some way, whether it is micro or macro.

It does not mean that there are no constants (atoms), but knowing the constants is not enough, similarly as knowing the keys of some musical instrument, does not able to know what music can be composed by using them.

Any non-trivial result is the outcome on non-trivial interactions between constants.

The Man

15th March 2009, 04:15 PM

What determines the rules for what constitutes a formula?

If you say definition, I'll ask what defines the definition?

Well lets take the ‘REI’ ‘= = =’ “placeholder” approach since in your ‘REI’ you have already stated ‘=’ as the primary relation for ‘definition’ as well as for your ‘self-reference interaction’. So replacing your “placeholders” and correcting tenses for readability we have ‘definition defines defining’.

If you had actually done some research on what defines a well formed formula you would have found that it is the formal grammar of the formal language that is being applied to that formula.

Do you have any formal grammar and formal language for your formulas, so far all the formulas we have from you are ‘I’, ‘A = A’ and ‘= = =’ or ‘A = =’ if you prefer your pretend ‘placeholders’ all these formulas are the same so your language only says one thing ‘= = =’.

The Man

15th March 2009, 04:27 PM

We don't know everything and cannot know everything also because any research changes the realm in some way, whether it is micro or macro.

Well then, welcome to the realm of never ending research. Are you planning on actually do some anytime soon or are you just going to stick with you “re-search” going over the same old ground again and again, finding nothing and explaining nothing.

It does not mean that there are no constants (atoms), but knowing the constants is not enough, similarly as knowing the keys of some musical instrument, does not able to know what music can be composed by using them.

Being constant does not make something an “atom” especially not in your usage of the term as a non-composite thing. The speed of light is constant yet it is still a speed requiring both time and space for the composition of that proportion.

Any non-trivial result is the outcome on non-trivial interactions between constants.

More gibberish the result of the interactions between constants is, well, constant and therefore ‘immediately evident’ or ‘trivial’

jsfisher

15th March 2009, 04:30 PM

Are you or are you still standing under your street light?

Please look again at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4519081&postcount=2191 .

I see. So the answer to my question, "Are you going somewhere with this?", is a resounding, "No!"

The Man

15th March 2009, 04:35 PM

No.

In = = = only the middle is Relation.

You did not get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4518433&postcount=2181 .

So ‘= ≠ =’ when ‘=’ is not in the middle? How about ‘A = B = C’? ‘B’ is in the middle so it must be the ‘relation’? Again your ‘placeholder’ dodge does not cut the mustard.

ETA:

To put it more succinctly Doron you are now claiming that your ‘relation’ is not a ‘relation’ when defined in your ‘self-reference interaction of definition’ so then how does one define a specific ‘relation’ in your ‘REI’. If your ‘REI’ can not define the relations it uses and depends upon then it can not define the ‘elements’ or 'interactions' either as you note, ‘element’, ‘relation’ and ‘interaction’ are all need for definitions in your ‘REI’.

doronshadmi

16th March 2009, 02:38 AM

So ‘= ≠ =’ when ‘=’ is not in the middle? How about ‘A = B = C’? ‘B’ is in the middle so it must be the ‘relation’? Again your ‘placeholder’ dodge does not cut the mustard.

ETA:

To put it more succinctly Doron you are now claiming that your ‘relation’ is not a ‘relation’ when defined in your ‘self-reference interaction of definition’ so then how does one define a specific ‘relation’ in your ‘REI’. If your ‘REI’ can not define the relations it uses and depends upon then it can not define the ‘elements’ or 'interactions' either as you note, ‘element’, ‘relation’ and ‘interaction’ are all need for definitions in your ‘REI’.

This time really try to understand http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496144&postcount=2010 .

Also you did not get yet http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4519061&postcount=2189 , which shows that = is some particular case of Relation.

As for ‘A = B = C’ the Relation = is in the middle between Elements A,B or B,C .

Element is the related.

Relation is the relator.

Well Formed Formula is not less than Relator\Related Interaction.

doronshadmi

16th March 2009, 05:29 AM

Being constant does not make something an “atom” especially not in your usage of the term as a non-composite thing. The speed of light is constant yet it is still a speed requiring both time and space for the composition of that proportion.
The speed of light is not changed no matter what are the values of Space or Time.

The speed of light is the atom (the invariant) where Space or Time are changed relatively to it.

This kind of relation is similar to the relation between atoms and composed results that are based on these atoms.

Your abstraction ability has to be developed, if you don't get that.

doronshadmi

16th March 2009, 05:42 AM

I see. So the answer to my question, "Are you going somewhere with this?", is a resounding, "No!"

No, you don't see.

The Man

16th March 2009, 06:27 AM

This time really try to understand http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496144&postcount=2010 .

Also you did not get yet http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4519061&postcount=2189 , which shows that = is some particular case of Relation.

As for ‘A = B = C’ the Relation = is in the middle between Elements A,B or B,C .

Element is the related.

Relation is the relator.

Well Formed Formula is not less than Relator\Related Interaction.

A particular case that is the ‘relation’ of your ‘self-reference interaction’ that you call ‘definition’. In defining that ‘relation’ in your ‘REI’ it is just ‘= = =’ thus ‘relation’, ‘element’ and your ‘interaction’ are all the same thing. Obviously you have ignored and continue to ignore this fundamental lack of distinction between your ‘relation’, ‘element’ and ‘interaction’ of your ‘REI’ when it is applied to defining your stated ‘relation’ and ‘interaction’ of ‘self-reference’, however I can assure you that not everyone else will be as willfully ignorant as you.

The Man

16th March 2009, 06:41 AM

The speed of light is not changed no matter what are the values of Space or Time.

The speed of light is the atom (the invariant) where Space or Time are changed relatively to it.

This kind of relation is similar to the relation between atoms and composed results that are based on these atoms.

First that constant is an “atom” which in your usage means that it is not a composite. Yet you also assert that it is composed of both time and space making it not one of your “atoms”. Further you then describe it as a relation between “atoms and composed”, again refuting your previous and continuing statements that it is an “atom” in your usage of that term.

Your abstraction ability has to be developed, if you don't get that.

Your self-awareness needs to be developed because you have just directly contradicted yourself at fist in the same sentence then reinforced that contradiction in the next sentence and clearly you just don’t get that.

doronshadmi

16th March 2009, 08:23 AM

The Man,

= = = is not relation only but a relation between related things where related things are always Elements, no matter what their names are, for example:

In the expression "Relation = Relation" Element is called "Relation" and Relation is called "=" .

You do not distinguish between some particular name of X and X, where X in this example is Element, no matter what name it has.

In general nothing is researchable if it is less than Relation Element Interaction, where Interaction is at least Element's self-reference:

Element is marked as A, Relation is marked as = , and REI in this case is:
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/AAA.jpg

So ‘= ≠ =’ when ‘=’ is not in the middle?

This is a REI but a false one.

By using = and ≠ we get:

'= = =' is true

'≠ ≠ ≠' is false

'≠ = ≠' is true

'= ≠ =' is false

'= = ≠' is false

They are WFFs exactly because what's in the middle is Relation and what's in the sides is Element(s).

Furthermore, WFF is at least REI no matter if Relation is not in the middle, as can be seen by some Lisp expression, for example:

(+ 2 3) is equivalent to 2+3 and in both cases + is Relation and 2 or 3 are Eement(s).

First that constant is an “atom” which in your usage means that it is not a composite. Yet you also assert that it is composed of both time and space making it not one of your “atoms”.

No.

You, The Man, claim that the constant of the speed of light is made of the values of Space AND Time.

It is clearly not the case exactly as Pi is not made by any particular values of Diameter AND Circumference.

Further you then describe it as a relation between “atoms and composed”, again refuting your previous and continuing statements that it is an “atom” in your usage of that term.

You simply do not get (yet) that from a general abstraction point of view, the relation between an atom and some composed expression that is based on it, is similar to the Pi (or the speed of light) and some composed expression that is based on it.

The atoms of OM are Relation (Non-local w.r.t Element) AND Element (Local w.r.t Relation), and any OM's reseachable expression is some composition of REI.

The Invariant is the signature of the atomic state that stands at the basis of the composed things.

jsfisher

16th March 2009, 03:03 PM

I see. So the answer to my question, "Are you going somewhere with this?", is a resounding, "No!"

No, you don't see.

If and when you decide on a destination, do let me know.

doronshadmi

16th March 2009, 03:47 PM

If and when you decide on a destination, do let me know.
To show what is beyond the box.

sympathic

17th March 2009, 08:42 AM

can you show us a mathematical problem solved using your approach? for example provide us with a proof using your approach that the sum of two even integers is always even.

The Man

17th March 2009, 12:27 PM

The Man,

= = = is not relation only but a relation between related things where related things are always Elements, no matter what their names are, for example:

Well that is one of the problems with your ‘REI’ if you always consider what is related to be ‘elements’ and never ‘relations’ then your ‘REI’ can never define the ‘relations’ it depends upon, but only ‘elements’ that are not ‘relations’

In the expression "Relation = Relation" Element is called "Relation" and Relation is called "=" .

So then ‘= = =’ is ‘relation’ ‘relation’ ‘relation’. Thanks for directly contradicting yourself again as usual.

You do not distinguish between some particular name of X and X, where X in this example is Element, no matter what name it has.

What I do not do is make distinctions for your ‘REI’ that it does not define and can not maintain itself. You on the other hand prop up you ‘REI’ notion by maintaining some distinctions in your mind that the notion itself can not sustain or support.

In general nothing is researchable if it is less than Relation Element Interaction, where Interaction is at least Element's self-reference:

Quite specifically nothing is researchable with your ‘REI’ fantasy since all it really says is ‘= = =’ and trivial.

Element is marked as A, Relation is marked as = , and REI in this case is:
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/AAA.jpg

This is a REI but a false one.

By using = and ≠ we get:

'= = =' is true

'≠ ≠ ≠' is false

'≠ = ≠' is true

'= ≠ =' is false

'= = ≠' is false

They are WFFs exactly because what's in the middle is Relation and what's in the sides is Element(s).

You have not established a formal language or grammar for your ‘REI’ thus there can be no Well-Formed Formulas, so you must be meaning ‘WFF’ as in ‘Wildly Fictional Fantasy.’

Furthermore, WFF is at least REI no matter if Relation is not in the middle, as can be seen by some Lisp expression, for example:

(+ 2 3) is equivalent to 2+3 and in both cases + is Relation and 2 or 3 are Eement(s).

Or again as in’= = =’ where ‘relation’ ‘=’ is in the middle and on the sides. You have painted yourself into a corner Doron. If the ‘=’ on the sides are not relations but the middle ‘=’ is then your ‘REI’ can not define the 'relations' it requires within it own tenets. If all ‘=’ are relations then your ‘Relation’ ‘Element’ ‘Interaction’ just becomes a ‘Relation’ ‘Relation’ ‘Relation’ in its most basic form. More simply put your ‘REI’ is not self consistent or fails to support itself when applied to itself.

No.

You, The Man, claim that the constant of the speed of light is made of the values of Space AND Time.

No it is not a ‘claim’ it is a fact, speed has the units of distance over time.

It is clearly not the case exactly as Pi is not made by any particular values of Diameter AND Circumference.

Clearly you are ignorant; Pi has no units as the proportion of a distance over a distance. I would explain that difference to you but you generally ignore explanations and have a demonstrative problem distinguishing differences or the lack thereof.

You simply do not get (yet) that from a general abstraction point of view, the relation between an atom and some composed expression that is based on it, is similar to the Pi (or the speed of light) and some composed expression that is based on it.

While you simply do not get that both Pi and the speed of light represent proportions, one unitless and the other not, however as proportion they are both the division of some value by another. That was one of your first definitions of your ‘atom’ Doron, indivisibility, now you claim your “atoms” to not only be divisible but specifically the result of a division as in the speed of light or Pi. Once again your propensity to contradict yourself surprises no one.

The atoms of OM are Relation (Non-local w.r.t Element) AND Element (Local w.r.t Relation), and any OM's reseachable expression is some composition of REI.

The Invariant is the signature of the atomic state that stands at the basis of the composed things.

More of your ‘Wildly Fictional Fantasy’ Doron? Until you can establish a formal language and grammar that supports your ‘REI’ that is the only ‘WFF’ you can get out of it.

By the way ‘Invariant’ just means that it does not vary and has nothing to do with your contradictory indivisible ‘atomic’ states that you have now directly asserted are the result of, well, divisions.

jsfisher

17th March 2009, 03:16 PM

Well that is one of the problems with your ‘REI’ if you always consider what is related to be ‘elements’ and never ‘relations’ then your ‘REI’ can never define the ‘relations’ it depends upon, but only ‘elements’ that are not ‘relations’

A very real problem with much of doronetics is it vacillates between the incomprehensible and the trivial. These REIs appear to be no exception.

doronshadmi

17th March 2009, 03:26 PM

Well that is one of the problems with your ‘REI’ if you always consider what is related to be ‘elements’ and never ‘relations’ then your ‘REI’ can never define the ‘relations’ it depends upon, but only ‘elements’ that are not ‘relations’

Relation is the relator.

Element is the related.

It does not matter what names are given to the relator, it is still relator.

It does not matter what names are given to the related, it is still related.

These states are invariant under interaction, and the rest of your post is based on your inability to get this invariance.

EDIT:

While you simply do not get that both Pi and the speed of light represent proportions,...

As for proportion, x/y is not necessarily a division but it is an invariant (constant) state between x and y.

Furthermore, even if the expression is a composed thing like x divided by y, it does not mean that the invariant proportion is changed by these divisions, or in other words, an indivisible atom is similar to some invariant proportion that is not changed under division.

Again:

The Invariant is the signature of the atomic state that stands at the basis of the composed things.

The Man

17th March 2009, 04:05 PM

A very real problem with much of doronetics is it vacillates between the incomprehensible and the trivial. These REIs appear to be no exception.

Indeed, I do not think we will ever be able to obtain anything else from him. Can one actually get any more trivial then ‘= = =’?

doronshadmi

17th March 2009, 04:19 PM

You have not established a formal language or grammar for your ‘REI’ thus there can be no Well-Formed Formulas, so you must be meaning ‘WFF’ as in ‘Wildly Fictional Fantasy.’

I do better than that.

I show exactly what are the must have terms (REI) that enable WFF, in the first place.

The Man

17th March 2009, 04:32 PM

Relation is the relator.

Element is the related.

It does not matter what names are given to the relator, it is still relator.

It does not matter what names are given to the related, it is still related.

These states are invariant under interaction, and the rest of your post is based on your inability to get this invariance.

Which means you can only ‘relate’ your ‘elements’ and not your own ‘relations’ or even your own ‘interaction’ and thus the only ‘invariant’ aspect of your ‘REI’ is its self-inconsistency.

As for proportion x/y is not necessarily a division but it is an invariant (constant) between x and y.

No “x/y” is specifically a division of x by y and does not need to be a “state between” x and y, just as ½ is not between 1 and 2 and a proportion does not have to be constant either, such as the proportion of peoples height to their weight. Some proportions do happen to be constant like the speed of light and Pi, but neither of them is a “state between” the numerator and denominator of those proportions while both are quite specifically the result of division. So once again you choose parade your ignorance by claming division is “not necessarily”, well, division. Being Saint Patrick’s Day here in the US today, it is a day we are accustomed to watching a parade, although you seem to parade your ignorance about everything everyday.

The Man

17th March 2009, 04:41 PM

I do better than that.

I show exactly what are the must have terms (REI) that enable WFF, in the first place.

Yes Doron we understand that your ‘REI’ are “the must have terms” that enable your ‘Wildly Fictional Fantasy’, but what is not incomprehensible about your notions, apparently even for you since you can not explain them without always contradicting yourself, is in fact quite literally trivial.

doronshadmi

17th March 2009, 04:53 PM

Which means you can only ‘relate’ your ‘elements’ and not your own ‘relations’ or even your own ‘interaction’ and thus the only ‘invariant’ aspect of your ‘REI’ is its self-inconsistency.
Which means that you don't understand what you read.

Relator and related are mutually independent, which is something that you simply don't get.

Please refreash your screen and look again at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4525984&postcount=2213.

No “x/y” is specifically a division of x by y and does not need to be a “state between” x and y, just as ½ is not between 1 and 2 and a proportion does not have to be constant either,...
½ is also the ratio between 1 and 2.

And I am talking about an invariant proportion as a signature of atomic state at the basis of some x/y expression.

The Man

17th March 2009, 05:09 PM

Which means that you don't understan what you read.

Please refreash you screen and look again at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4525984&postcount=2213 .

Absolutely not Doron! I have told you time and time again that I will not read or respond to your surreptitious editing practices. This childish behavior of yours, where you significantly alter a post and expect someone has quoted and responded to everything in your original post to then go back and address additions that you yourself are not willing to clearly identify, is not a habit I will indulge you in. If there is something you added to that post you want me to respond to then you can simply add it to a new post. I should caution you however, your insistence that I respond to something you have written never does seem to bode well for you.

doronshadmi

17th March 2009, 05:13 PM

Absolutely not Doron!

No problem, enjoy your ignorence.

The Man

17th March 2009, 06:49 PM

No problem, enjoy your ignorence.

Sorry Doron if you think that berating your ignorance is something I enjoy or could possibly miss, you again over estimate your significance. I would much rather have you able to discuss the topics you claim to be supplanting with at least some semblance of knowledge. This is one of the reasons I still continue to actively engage you on this thread. If you want to consider your inability to explain your paradigm shifting notions without directly contradicting yourself as the ignorance of others, that is you prerogative. I am certain you will continue to provide such inconstancies to address without looking at what you have surreptitiously added to a pervious post.

Little 10 Toes

17th March 2009, 07:04 PM

I do better than that.

I show exactly what are the must have terms (REI) that enable WFF, in the first place.

And yet we've had this in place for how long before your "ideas"?

sympathic

18th March 2009, 05:04 AM

can you show us a mathematical problem solved using your approach? for example provide us with a proof using your approach that the sum of two even integers is always even.

I see you prefer ignoring posts that involve more than just hand-waving and drawings.

doronshadmi

18th March 2009, 07:43 AM

Sorry Doron if you think that berating your ignorance is something I enjoy or could possibly miss, you again over estimate your significance. I would much rather have you able to discuss the topics you claim to be supplanting with at least some semblance of knowledge. This is one of the reasons I still continue to actively engage you on this thread. If you want to consider your inability to explain your paradigm shifting notions without directly contradicting yourself as the ignorance of others, that is you prerogative. I am certain you will continue to provide such inconstancies to address without looking at what you have surreptitiously added to a pervious post.
The Man, you are an ignorant because you cannot distinguish between true/false REIs or meaningful\meaningless REIs, for example:

'/ / /' is a meaningless REI

'x/y' is a meaningful REI, where 'x','y' are Elements and '/' is Relation.

Also I show that REI stands at the basis of any meaningful representation method, for example Lisp:

(= a b) = a=b, where 'a','b' are Elements and '=' is Relation.

(/ x y) = x/y, where 'x','y' are Elements and '/' is Relation.

(/ (/ a b) c) = (a/b)/c where '(a/b)','c' are Elements and '/' is Relation.

(= (/ a b) c) = (a/b)=c where '(a/b)','c' are Elements and '=' is Relation.

'/ = /' is true

'= = =' is true

'≠ ≠ ≠' is false

'≠ = ≠' is true

'= ≠ =' is false

'= = ≠' is false

In other words, I invite you to define a Well Formed Formula which is not a meaningful REI.

If you can do that, then and only then my theory does not hold.

doronshadmi

18th March 2009, 10:43 AM

I see you prefer ignoring posts that involve more than just hand-waving and drawings.

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

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

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

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

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

jsfisher

18th March 2009, 01:47 PM

I invite you to define a Well Formed Formula which is not a meaningful REI.

If you can do that, then and only then my theory does not hold.

Looking past your obtuse misuse of the word, define, we already did this.

Looking past your circular justification for REI's, we already pointed out that you belabor the trivial.

doronshadmi

18th March 2009, 02:32 PM

Looking past your obtuse misuse of the word, define, we already did this.

Looking past your circular justification for REI's, we already pointed out that you belabor the trivial.

What you did is http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4517684&postcount=2171 .

jsfisher

18th March 2009, 02:52 PM

What you did is http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4517684&postcount=2171 .

Nope. That would be your summary post of all your twisted ramblings trying to make the trivial X=X some how vitally important and at the same time identical to the semantically distinct X.

doronshadmi

18th March 2009, 03:06 PM

Nope. That would be your summary post of all your twisted ramblings trying to make the trivial X=X some how vitally important and at the same time identical to the semantically distinct X.

Nope, that is your inability to get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4529310&postcount=2227 and your twisted ramblings that forcing A alone as WFF.

To say that A alone in A=A is a Well Formed Formula, is similar to "the hand alone of some body is an organ of this body".

In both cases the word alone is meaningless because in both cases the examined thing has a meaning only if it is inseparable of the whole (A=A in the case of A, or the body in the case of the hand).

Since we are talking on the atomic level, only A(Element) or only =(Relation) are too weak (isolated Element) or too strong (isolated Relation) for research.

If you agree that A is WFF only if it is an organ of A=A, you actually agree with Relation Element Interaction as the minimal basis of any WFF.

In this case the minimal WFF is A=A, where A refers to itself by =, as follows:
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/AAA.jpg

A=A is simple, not trivial (and you do not distinguish between the simple and the trivial).

You still do not get that 2 alone is not the same as 2 as a member of some set, notated at least as {2}.

The Man

18th March 2009, 03:51 PM

The Man, you are an ignorant because you cannot distinguish between true/false REIs or meaningful\meaningless REIs, for example:

'/ / /' is a meaningless REI

'x/y' is a meaningful REI, where 'x','y' are Elements and '/' is Relation.

Also I show that REI stands at the basis of any meaningful representation method, for example Lisp:

(= a b) = a=b, where 'a','b' are Elements and '=' is Relation.

(/ x y) = x/y, where 'x','y' are Elements and '/' is Relation.

(/ (/ a b) c) = (a/b)/c where '(a/b)','c' are Elements and '/' is Relation.

(= (/ a b) c) = (a/b)=c where '(a/b)','c' are Elements and '=' is Relation.

'/ = /' is true

'= = =' is true

'≠ ≠ ≠' is false

'≠ = ≠' is true

'= ≠ =' is false

'= = ≠' is false

In other words, I invite you to define a Well Formed Formula which is not a meaningful REI.

If you can do that, then and only then my theory does not hold.

We continue to invite you to show that you ‘REI’ is meaningful in and of itself. Without ‘relations’ you have no ‘interaction’ since your ‘REI’ can not exhibit your minimal requirement of definition a ‘self-reference’ of a ‘relation’ as a ‘relation’ you have no ‘relations’ in your ‘REI’. As your ‘REI’ can only relate ‘elements’ your ‘relations’ have no ‘self-reference’ as ‘relations’ within your ‘REI’ and thus remain indefinable by your ‘REI’.

Under First Order Predicate Logic True and False are both well formed formulas as is the atomic formula P(x,y) where P is the predicate name with x and y as variables, which are all themselves well formed formula as well under the requirements of First Order Predicate Logic .

It is up to you, Doron, to establish the language and grammar of your ‘REI’ to determine what is or is not a WFF in your ‘REI’. So far the requirements you have given are ‘relation’, ‘element’ and ‘interaction’ with ‘self-reference’ as the basis of definition within your ‘REI’ and the fundamental ‘interaction’. Unfortunately you also require ‘elements’ to be the only things that can be ‘related’, so you have defined a language that does not permit the ‘relations’ it requires to be defined or ‘self-referenced’ as ‘relations’ within that language.

jsfisher

18th March 2009, 04:25 PM

If you agree that A is WFF only if it is an organ of A=A, you actually agree with Relation Element Interaction as the minimal basis of any WFF.

I don't.

Little 10 Toes

18th March 2009, 08:10 PM

Nope, that is your inability to get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4529310&postcount=2227 and your twisted ramblings that forcing A alone as WFF.

That's freakin' funny since your post is:

What you did is http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4517684&postcount=2171 .

sympathic

19th March 2009, 12:45 AM

doronshadmi

19th March 2009, 02:29 AM

We continue to invite you to show that you ‘REI’ is meaningful in and of itself. Without ‘relations’ you have no ‘interaction’ since your ‘REI’ can not exhibit your minimal requirement of definition a ‘self-reference’ of a ‘relation’ as a ‘relation’ you have no ‘relations’ in your ‘REI’. As your ‘REI’ can only relate ‘elements’ your ‘relations’ have no ‘self-reference’ as ‘relations’ within your ‘REI’ and thus remain indefinable by your ‘REI’.

Under First Order Predicate Logic True and False are both well formed formulas as is the atomic formula P(x,y) where P is the predicate name with x and y as variables, which are all themselves well formed formula as well under the requirements of First Order Predicate Logic .

It is up to you, Doron, to establish the language and grammar of your ‘REI’ to determine what is or is not a WFF in your ‘REI’. So far the requirements you have given are ‘relation’, ‘element’ and ‘interaction’ with ‘self-reference’ as the basis of definition within your ‘REI’ and the fundamental ‘interaction’. Unfortunately you also require ‘elements’ to be the only things that can be ‘related’, so you have defined a language that does not permit the ‘relations’ it requires to be defined or ‘self-referenced’ as ‘relations’ within that language.

If we use Lisp as an example, then X is the function where y is the parameters (where the parameters can be also functions),
such that (X y1 y2 y3 ...)

The function is a form of Relation where the parameter is a form of Element, even if some parameter is a function.

Furthermore, the parameter can be the function in the case of recursion, such that (X y1=X)

It does not change the fact that the fundamental form is (Relation Element1 Element2 Element3 …)

True is WFF, or False is WFF exactly because it is based on REI, where where 'True' OR 'False' are Element(s) and 'is' is Relation.

So is P(x,y), where P is Relation and x,y are Element(s).

"under the requirements of First Order Predicate Logic" is based REI as shown in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4512946&postcount=2153

doronshadmi

19th March 2009, 02:39 AM

I think it is quite evident that Doron's ideas have no mathematical substance whatsoever. Maybe we should all take Skeptic's advice and stop wasting Doron's time and ours. There is no real dialog here, just a huge waste of time.
I think it is quite evident that you do not wish to read http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4528548&postcount=2225 and do not with to research the philosophical foundations of the mathematical science, which is OK with me.

You are a participator of a philosophy forum here. No one forces you to do that.

doronshadmi

19th March 2009, 02:53 AM

I don't.

Ho yes you do in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4518092&postcount=2178 , where you write:

Yes, that is true. I have claimed the A in A = A is a formula, a well-formed formula in fact.

In other words: "A in A = A is a formula" = "A is an organ of A = A, and it is WFF only if A in A=A"

You simply don't get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4512946&postcount=2153 .

jsfisher

19th March 2009, 08:36 AM

Ho yes you do in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4518092&postcount=2178 , where you write:

In other words: "A in A = A is a formula" = "A is an organ of A = A, and it is WFF only if A in A=A"

You simply don't get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4512946&postcount=2153 .

No. You continue to twist and warp simple declarations into odd and unidentifiable claims. My claim is a simple one; please stop trying to contort it into something it is not. The rules for what constitute well-formed formulae accept a lone term as a formula. Something as simple as A, therefore, can be a well-formed formula, just as A=A can be. And there is no dependence on the latter for the former.

doronshadmi

19th March 2009, 09:08 AM

The rules for what constitute well-formed formulae accept a lone term as a formula.

These rules cannot avoid Relation Element Interaction in order to do that, for example:

Each propositional variable is, on its own, a formula.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_(mathematical_logic)

Element = "propositional variable"

Relation = "is"

In other words, this rule cannot be expressed unless REI is used, and it is used by you as a hidden assumption as clearly explained in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496540&postcount=2035 .

AGAIN:

In this case the minimal WFF is A=A, where A refers to itself by = (it is not less than REI) as follows:
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/AAA.jpg

A=A is simple, not trivial (and you do not distinguish between the simple and the trivial).

You still do not get that 2 alone is not the same as 2 as a member of some set, notated at least as {2}.

You simply don't get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4512946&postcount=2153

You continue to twist and warp simple declarations into odd and unidentifiable claims.
You continue to use REI as a hidden assumption of your simple (formal) declarations.