Deeper than primes - Continuation

[doronshadmi]

Continued from this thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=7676055#post7676055)
Notion #1:

If we use partitions in order to define Entropy, then a multiset (a repetition of the same identity) has an entropy that is equivalent to the number of the repetitions that exists within it.

Since a set has no repetitions, it has no entropy.

Let us examine the partitions that exist within any given n > 1

{x} = Full entropy
{x} = Intermediate entropy
{x} = No entropy

2
---
{1,1}


3
---
{1,1,1}
{2,1}


4
---
{1,1,1,1}
{2,1,1}
{2,2}
{3,1}


5
---
{1,1,1,1,1}
{2,1,1,1}
{2,2,1}
{3,1,1}
{3,2}
{4,1}


6
--
{1,1,1,1,1,1}
{2,1,1,1,1}
{2,2,1,1}
{2,2,2}
{3,1,1,1}
{3,2,1}
{3,3}
{4,1,1}
{4,2}
{5,1}


7
---
{1,1,1,1,1,1,1}
{2,1,1,1,1,1}
{2,2,1,1,1}
{2,2,2,1}
{3,1,1,1,1}
{3,2,1,1}
{3,2,2}
{4,1,1,1}
{4,2,1}
{5,1,1}
{5,2}
{6,1}

...

As can be seen, Prime numbers have the least entropy, from this point of view.




Notion #2:

If we understand the Sieve of Eratosthenes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes ) as a whole\part framework, than number 0 is the most dense part of it, and the set of primes is the least dense part of it.

In order to see it, let as represent the Sieve of Eratosthenes by non-finite frequencies notated by half circles, along a non-finite straight-line.

The first frequency is the non-finite collection of half circles that are representing the frequency level 1.

The next frequency is the non-finite collection of half circles that are representing the frequency level 2.

….

The next frequency is the non-finite collection of half circles that are representing the frequency level n.

Etc., … etc. …

Since the non-finite frequencies are synchronized with each other in Zero point, then 0 is the most dense part of the Sieve of Eratosthenes.

The least dense part of the Sieve of Eratosthenes is the set of prime numbers, because each prime number is a synchronization between no more than 3 frequencies, which are level 0, level 1 and the level of the prime itself.

Here is the diagram of the Sieve of Eratosthenes, represented as non-finite levels of synchronized half circles:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/Tedarim6.jpg

At the left side of this diagram we can see the Zero point, and the first 20 primes are mareked along the 0_level line.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please read pages 13-14 of my work called Eventors ( http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/Eventors.pdf ).

I think that the organic approach (the associations between the non-local and the local) is the accurate way to understand the realm that we are an inseparable part of it.

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

Let us re-examine these cases:

Case 1: associated realms have more than one entropy level.

Case 2: isolated realms have maximum entropy.

In case 1 NXOR is associated with XOR and we get an open realm because both NXOR and XOR go beyond their self state of maximum (and opposite state of) entropy.

In case 2 there is no association between NXOR and XOR, and each opposite is closed upon its own maximum entropy, and nothing exists beyond these closed and isolated opposite maximum entropies.

In a complementary realm, each opposite is opened to an "off spring" outcome, which is beyond its own isolated state (an isolated realm has maximum entropy).

About dimensions:

If an organic realm is the result of the associations between the non-local and the local, than our measurement tools must express this association.

For example, let us take the place value method.

If we look at it from both parallel and serial points of view, we get a fractal-like structure, which is a mixed pattern of both parallel and serial parts upon finite/non-finite scales.

Let us examine this structure by using bases 2,3 and 4:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/234.jpg

The traditional place value system is based only on the serial broken-symmetry building-block, which is used to define non-finite fractals upon non-finite scale levels, where the structure of each fractal is determine by the serial broken-symmetry building-block that is used.

Furthermore, the traditional method ignores the whole/part relations that exists in such fractals and uses single paths along them as measurements tools, for example:
Pi representation in base 10 is a single path along a base 10 fractal, and this single path is notated as 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 10 …
where each numeral represents a different scale level along this fractal.

The organic approach changes at least two things here:

1) The fractal-like structure is based on both parallel and serial building-blocks.

2) There can be simultaneously more than a one path , and as a result our measurement tool is not limited to a single path of numerals, but it can be a tree of several paths made of several building-blocks with different symmetrical states, which simultaneously determine the structure of what I call Organic fraction. Here is an example of an organic fraction that is based on different bulging-blocks taken from bases 2,3 and 4:

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

So as can be seen, the 4D model is just the standard approach to start with.

In order to deal with Organic fractions, a parallel/serial Turing-like model has to be formulated.

I am in a state of "Michael Faraday"-like* here that seeks for "James Clerk Maxwell"-like** in order to do that.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell

I think that since non-locality is involved here, then any formulation of Organic fractions must be incomplete and therefore open (this is a positive interpretation of Gödel's work).

Please read this message to Prof. Mandelbrot http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/2Mandelbrot.pdf .

In my opinion, meaningful frameworks exist as long as there is a difference between X-model and X (which is also a positive interpretation of Gödel's work).

[The Man]

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


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

Welcome to the club epix.

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

[Tricky]

First and last posts from old thread copied to this new thread. The old thread is closed.

[doronshadmi]

PiedPiper please look at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7673671&postcount=16604

[doronshadmi]

It has to be stressed that the first post does not represent the developments that were done for the past 4 years of this thread.

Also all the links (Wikipedia is excluded) of the first post are not available anymore because Yahoo closed Geocities.

So the following links are some of the last developments with are related to concepts like Entropy, Complexity, Unity awareness, and the Mathematical science as a comprehensive framework of Ethics (in terms of evolutionary scale) and formal Logic:

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

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583

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

I wish to share with you my reasoning about the concept of Complexity, and how it is related to Ethics and Logic.

It is well known that one of the most powerful tools that our civilization uses is The Mathematical Science.

One of the main reasons of the efficiency of this science is the universal principles that stand at its foundations.

Because of these universal principles our civilization achieved its current technology, but the motivations and use of these technologies are not based on universal principles.

In my opinion non-universal principles that are fragmented to different cultures, religions, nations etc… + technology that is derived from universal principles, is a very dangerous cocktail that may lead us to self-made destruction.

In my opinion one of the ways to reduce the chance of self-made destruction is to define a universal framework that may be used as a common base ground for both Ethics and Logical reasoning.

For the past 30 years I am trying to develop such a framework, and this goal is definitely beyond the abilities of a single person.

Anyway, I wish to share with you some of my last results (and please forgive me about my English (my language is Hebrew)) which draw some sketches of this universal framework.

I call this framework Organic Mathematics, or OM.

OM ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/17039028/OMDP ) demonstrates Direct Perception ( Unity awareness, as demonstrated by analogy in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583 ) as the common foundation of both Intuition and Logical reasoning. Furthermore, Direct Perception is actually the base ground of any mantel activity, whether it is expressed by senses, emotions, or logical reasoning.

Direct Perception is actually the silent presence of any mantel activity, which enables to bridge our ethical aspects with our logical\technological aspects under a one framework.

The lack of Direct Perception as the base ground of a powerful language like the mathematical science, can easily lead us to manipulate deeper forces of Nature, which are not balanced by universal ethical principles (universal ethical principles must not be limited to any particular religion, culture or civilization).

In my opinion if our species will not learn very soon how to develop the universal bridge between Ethics and Logics under a one comprehensive framework, we shell not survive further manipulations of Nature's forces.

Please look at:

Mathematics As a Tool For Survival:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM

and http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE
for clearer representation of my argument (and again, sorry about my English).

More comprehensive papers abut this subject are:

Zeno's Achilles\Tortoise Race and Reconsiderations of Some Mathematical Paradigms
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21967511/TOC-NEW2

Organic Mathematics (A Non-formal Introduction):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT

ORGANIC MATHEMATICS, Proposing a way to solve Hilbert's 6th Problem:
http://ijpam.eu/contents/2008-49-3/5/5.pdf [1]

[1] Moshe Klein, Doron Shadmi : Organic Mathematics, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, volume 49 No. 3 2008, 329-340

[epix]

Welcome to the club epix.

Any bets on how long before Doron has everyone even remotely willing to reply to him on his “ignore list”?
You can "hack" into Doron's Ignore List and un-ignore yourself pretty quickly. Just peruse again his "Foreword," which includes the map that shows you how to get to his Ignore List. Here is a lovely pond with young woods nearby.

Pi representation in base 10 is a single path along a base 10 fractal, and this single path is notated as 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 10 …
where each numeral represents a different scale level along this fractal.

At that time, Doron didn't suspect that his pupils suffer from "complete lack of visual_spacial skills" and so he didn't include the visual_spacial rendition of the Pi fractal. Maybe he thought that his intriguing opening would captivate his audience to the point of googling up the fractal to see its intricacies. But the attempt leads to uncertainty.
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-97491.html

Obviously, the curiosity of seeing Pi fractal grows when one realizes that the word fractal wasn't chosen randomly: fractal --> fraction --> division --> Cantor dust

http://paulbourke.net/fractals/gasket/gasket1.gif

Since Pi is an infinite number, it cannot be broken or divided the way the classic fractals can or self-repeated on a diminishing scale. In order to negotiate this obstacle take the digits of Pi 314159265..., break them apart and, voila, here is the fractal 3 1 4 1 5 9 2 6 5... Simple.

Interestingly enough, there are options to various quasi-fractals and it took a PhD to identify such a case:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027178/Easy-pi-Astrophysicist-solves-riddle-Britains-complex-crop-circle.html

Now it takes a few key strokes more (describing Doron's inability to grasp the concept of a fractal) and "Enter" to get un-ignored. But I don't want to venture that far coz I cherish my membership in that club.

[PiedPiper]

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


I'd like to keep an open mind about the subject - as I try to do with most subjects - but I have to say, up until this point I haven't yet been convinced of the validity / worthiness of OM. Some may say it's because I don't have the training in mathematics that I need to "get" OM, or I'm not thinking correctly in order to understand the topic, but let me share a quick (relevant) story.

When I was attending grad school for a chemistry degree, we candidates had to have a four person faculty committee. This committee would judge our thesis defense and all of our presentations over the four years. The regulations were that the four members were:

1. Our thesis advisor
2. Another professor in the same specialty (organic chemistry)
3. Another professor in the same general area (chemistry)
4. A professor from the University but in a different field (mechanical engineering, in my case)

I sent my thesis (300+ pages) to member #4 in preparation for my thesis defense. She replied that she was definitely not going to bother reading the document, because it was so far outside her field that she probably couldn't understand much of it anyway, it being a highly technical document with a lot of specialized vocabulary. She asked that I send her a one page email that clearly + concisely outlined a real world application of my research, and for me to explain to her in an educated but simple to understand manner how my research would enable / make possible this actual application. To do so, she argued, would show that I had a very high level of understanding of the material, and would also make things accessible to her.

That's what I asked for months ago in this thread: an example of what OM could do, broken down into simple language. I'm not the only person who has asked for this. In response, I got a quick reply that basically said "this work won't be appreciated in my lifetime, it's too much work for one person to do, etc".

Well, I think that poster was right...I probably won't appreciate this work in my lifetime, either. I'm prepared to think differently - every scientist should be prepared to do that! But I'm going to need a short, easy to understand, result - of some consequence - before I can even make that evaluation.

[doronshadmi]

I'd like to keep an open mind about the subject - as I try to do with most subjects - but I have to say, up until this point I haven't yet been convinced of the validity / worthiness of OM. Some may say it's because I don't have the training in mathematics that I need to "get" OM, or I'm not thinking correctly in order to understand the topic, but let me share a quick (relevant) story.

When I was attending grad school for a chemistry degree, we candidates had to have a four person faculty committee. This committee would judge our thesis defense and all of our presentations over the four years. The regulations were that the four members were:

1. Our thesis advisor
2. Another professor in the same specialty (organic chemistry)
3. Another professor in the same general area (chemistry)
4. A professor from the University but in a different field (mechanical engineering, in my case)

I sent my thesis (300+ pages) to member #4 in preparation for my thesis defense. She replied that she was definitely not going to bother reading the document, because it was so far outside her field that she probably couldn't understand much of it anyway, it being a highly technical document with a lot of specialized vocabulary. She asked that I send her a one page email that clearly + concisely outlined a real world application of my research, and for me to explain to her in an educated but simple to understand manner how my research would enable / make possible this actual application. To do so, she argued, would show that I had a very high level of understanding of the material, and would also make things accessible to her.

That's what I asked for months ago in this thread: an example of what OM could do, broken down into simple language. I'm not the only person who has asked for this. In response, I got a quick reply that basically said "this work won't be appreciated in my lifetime, it's too much work for one person to do, etc".

Well, I think that poster was right...I probably won't appreciate this work in my lifetime, either. I'm prepared to think differently - every scientist should be prepared to do that! But I'm going to need a short, easy to understand, result - of some consequence - before I can even make that evaluation.
Thank you for your reply, it helps me to understand your view of how a successful communication about a given subject can be done, and I actually agree with you.

In my opinion the current dichotomy between our Ethical skills and our Logical\Technological skills leading us very quickly to one of the dead ends to the Evolution.

The following document http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM briefly describes my motivations and the actual impotence of my work by avoiding as much as possible "(300+ pages) highly technical document with a lot of specialized vocabulary".

Before we deal with http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM, please this time answer to the following question by one (or more) of the following answers (please answer to this question by avoiding my work, at this stage):

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

Answer A: No.

Answer B: Yes.

Answer C: Your question is not clear enough.

Answer D: I don't know.


Thank you.

[jsfisher]

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


Well, certainly for an effort that works towards developing something that is neither comprehensive nor involving any sort of scientific framework, and that includes no ethics nor formal logic as factors, consistently or otherwise, the answer would be a resounding, "No!"

[doronshadmi]

In response, I got a quick reply that basically said "this work won't be appreciated in my lifetime, it's too much work for one person to do, etc".

PiedPiper, here is your first post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6611865&postcount=12851 in this thread.

Maybe http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7682481&postcount=8 is some fruitful step for the communication between us.

[PiedPiper]

Before we deal with http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM, please this time answer to the following question by one (or more) of the following answers (please answer to this question by avoiding my work, at this stage):

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

Answer A: No.

Answer B: Yes.

Answer C: Your question is not clear enough.

Answer D: I don't know.


Thank you.

By avoiding your work (at this stage, like you say), the answer to your question (in my opinion) is B: Yes. I think the development of any new mental framework built sturdily on sound scientific principles is important, and a good thing. It may or may not be a valuable thing, that has to be judged by the ability of the framework to open up new areas of thinking (previously inaccessible) or the ability of the framework to make previously difficult problems simpler.

I'm definitely with you so far - yes, the formation of a new framework of thinking is certainly a worthwhile goal and I applaud you for trying something so ambitious. I'm definitely not convinced, however, that you are coming anywhere near your goal. Which makes me sad :( because you've obviously put a great deal of work into this.

Just from the opening lines of one of your works, I read something similar to this (pardon the paraphrasing): "Without combining ethics and logic into one framework, I am afraid that mankind will not survive the effects of Nature" - something to that effect, anyways. If your theory is going to have such a dramatic effect on our society, that it's literally going to be our saviour, surely there must be some tangible effect of your theory that you can point to - even at this early stage of development. Something that is so profoundly new and powerful that it hints at the promise of great things to come. Something that transcends pure mathematics and whose worth is obvious to everyone. That's what I've been after, is that one example that makes everyone stop and say "...wow".

[doronshadmi]

By avoiding your work (at this stage, like you say), the answer to your question (in my opinion) is B: Yes. I think the development of any new mental framework built sturdily on sound scientific principles is important, and a good thing. It may or may not be a valuable thing, that has to be judged by the ability of the framework to open up new areas of thinking (previously inaccessible) or the ability of the framework to make previously difficult problems simpler.

I'm definitely with you so far - yes, the formation of a new framework of thinking is certainly a worthwhile goal and I applaud you for trying something so ambitious. I'm definitely not convinced, however, that you are coming anywhere near your goal. Which makes me sad :( because you've obviously put a great deal of work into this.

Just from the opening lines of one of your works, I read something similar to this (pardon the paraphrasing): "Without combining ethics and logic into one framework, I am afraid that mankind will not survive the effects of Nature" - something to that effect, anyways. If your theory is going to have such a dramatic effect on our society, that it's literally going to be our saviour, surely there must be some tangible effect of your theory that you can point to - even at this early stage of development. Something that is so profoundly new and powerful that it hints at the promise of great things to come. Something that transcends pure mathematics and whose worth is obvious to everyone. That's what I've been after, is that one example that makes everyone stop and say "...wow".
Do you think that the current dichotomy between our Ethical skills and our Logical\Technological skills leading us to one of the dead ends to the Evolution?

[doronshadmi]

By avoiding your work (at this stage, like you say), the answer to your question (in my opinion) is B: Yes. I think the development of any new mental framework built sturdily on sound scientific principles is important, and a good thing. It may or may not be a valuable thing, that has to be judged by the ability of the framework to open up new areas of thinking (previously inaccessible) or the ability of the framework to make previously difficult problems simpler.

I'm definitely with you so far - yes, the formation of a new framework of thinking is certainly a worthwhile goal and I applaud you for trying something so ambitious. I'm definitely not convinced, however, that you are coming anywhere near your goal. Which makes me sad :( because you've obviously put a great deal of work into this.

Just from the opening lines of one of your works, I read something similar to this (pardon the paraphrasing): "Without combining ethics and logic into one framework, I am afraid that mankind will not survive the effects of Nature" - something to that effect, anyways. If your theory is going to have such a dramatic effect on our society, that it's literally going to be our saviour, surely there must be some tangible effect of your theory that you can point to - even at this early stage of development. Something that is so profoundly new and powerful that it hints at the promise of great things to come. Something that transcends pure mathematics and whose worth is obvious to everyone. That's what I've been after, is that one example that makes everyone stop and say "...wow".
Here is my main claim (I think that it is very simple and no "wow" is involved here):

It is well known that one of the most powerful tools that our civilization uses is The Mathematical Science.

One of the main reasons of the efficiency of this science is the universal principles that stand at its foundations.

Because of these universal principles our civilization achieved its current technology, but the motivations and use of these technologies are not based on universal principles.

In my opinion non-universal principles that are fragmented to different cultures, religions, nations etc… + technology that is derived from universal principles, is a very dangerous cocktail that may lead us to self-made destruction.

In my opinion one of the ways to reduce the chance of self-made destruction is to define a universal framework that may be used as a common base ground for both Ethics and Logical reasoning.


Do you think that the current dichotomy (as claimed above) between our Ethical skills and our Logical\Technological skills can lead us to one of the dead ends to the Evolution?

[PiedPiper]

Here is my main claim (I think that it is very simple and no "wow" is involved here):



Do you think that the current dichotomy (as claimed above) between our Ethical skills and our Logical\Technological skills can lead us to one of the dead ends to the Evolution?

I think that anytime there is a mismatch between ethics and technology, there is the potential for trouble. Some of the worst horrors of the last century were carried out by very unlikely people. Some genuinely had good intentions, and then technology made things too easy and too quick, and very quickly those good intentions turned into bad intentions - sort of a slippery slope. They didn't have the ethical background needed to be able to say not only "How can we do this?" but also "Should we do this?". To paraphrase a saying I've heard before, "If you give someone the power of a God, you better hope they have the wisdom and morals of a God to match".

So yes...speaking very generally, I recognize that we're at a difficult point for our society. We're experiencing these technological growing pains when the line between good and bad becomes a little muddled, and sometimes it's not completely clear if a given technology should be pursued or not, or if it's "right" to pursue a certain area of research.

That's speaking about technology. Hard, rock-solid examples - don't give a maniac a gun, sort of thing. Don't release genetically-engineered mosquitos into the wild in order to more efficiently spread a vaccine, because you have no idea what the consequences might be.

What I fail to see, is how any of this has anything to do with mathematics. I agree that there is often a disconnect between ethics and actions, and that it could and often does cause great harm. I don't see how mathematics enters into this at all. You talk about combining ethics and logic - I don't necessarily agree that they should be combined, even if they could be. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be (see examples above). I would support any effort that places more weight on the side of considering ramifications of actions that are taken, so long as it doesn't unduly slow down the progress of science (we can't discuss things in committee for 150 years - we have to move forwards).

It seems that I'm not seeing the connection here, I'd appreciate some help. Ethics and mathematics, being combined? Why? Spend more time on ethics, if needed - if there are ethical questions / debates in mathematics, and I don't know if there are or not. Give ethics its due consideration and respect, taking everything into account, and then make a decision as to whether the research / project / technology should be pursued, and to what extent. Then, switch 100% of your effort into reaching that goal, or preventing yourself from doing anything along those lines, depending on what your ethical reasoning tells you is proper. Even if ethics and mathematics / logic could be combined - and I'm a far way away from being convinced that they could be - you'd have this weird amalgam, and I don't see how it would bring anything new to the table. I also don't see how it would help a person function better. If anything, it seems to be clouding the waters.

[doronshadmi]

Even if ethics and mathematics / logic could be combined - and I'm a far way away from being convinced that they could be -
Why are you "far way away from being convinced that they could be"?

[zooterkin]

Why are you "far way away from being convinced that they could be"?

Common sense?

[PiedPiper]

Why are you "far way away from being convinced that they could be"?

Because they're two different animals. Ethics answers questions about morality - whether something is morally right or wrong, good or bad. Mathematics doesn't answer questions about morality, it simply is. Math tells me that c^2=a^2 + b^2, but it doesn't tell me whether it's a "good" thing or an "evil" thing that c^2 has that value.

So we have two things that are fundamentally different, and we're trying to mix them. In chemistry, we usually need some degree of compatibility in order to mix two things together, or they separate. Trying to mix math and ethics would seem to be a similar situation. And as I say, if you did manage to mix them together, would it be any more valuable than the two components separately? Or would it just be a hopeless mixture of noncompatible parts?

[epix]

Because they're two different animals. Ethics answers questions about morality - whether something is morally right or wrong, good or bad. Mathematics doesn't answer questions about morality, it simply is. Math tells me that c^2=a^2 + b^2, but it doesn't tell me whether it's a "good" thing or an "evil" thing that c^2 has that value.

That's not true. Mathematics, especially the Pythagorean theorem, does address the issue of mortality:

Pythagoras’ religious and scientific views were, in his opinion, inseparably interconnected. Religiously, Pythagoras was a believer of metempsychosis. He believed in transmigration, or the reincarnation of the soul again and again into the bodies of humans, animals, or vegetables until it became immortal. His ideas of reincarnation were influenced by ancient Greek religion. Heraclides Ponticus reports the story that Pythagoras claimed that he had lived four lives that he could remember in detail, and, according to Xenophanes, Pythagoras heard the cry of his dead friend in the bark of a dog.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras#Religion_and_science

Btw, I never use the omnipresent Pythagorean theorem, coz it was conceived by a delusional pagan freak who obviously couldn't think straight and so the formula and its proof is very likely wrong. Religion, science and mathematics simply don't mix - I trust the opinion of the top thinkers:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=221346

[doronshadmi]

Because they're two different animals. Ethics answers questions about morality - whether something is morally right or wrong, good or bad. Mathematics doesn't answer questions about morality, it simply is. Math tells me that c^2=a^2 + b^2, but it doesn't tell me whether it's a "good" thing or an "evil" thing that c^2 has that value.

So we have two things that are fundamentally different, and we're trying to mix them. In chemistry, we usually need some degree of compatibility in order to mix two things together, or they separate. Trying to mix math and ethics would seem to be a similar situation. And as I say, if you did manage to mix them together, would it be any more valuable than the two components separately? Or would it just be a hopeless mixture of noncompatible parts?
Do you think that Mathematics is based on universal principles?

[jsfisher]

Do you think that Mathematics is based on universal principles?

Socrates would be so proud. Should we just rename it now, the Doronetic method?

[epix]

Pythagorean theorem is named after Greek philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras, even though he wasn't the one who conceived the formula that computes the length of the hypothenuse of a right angled triangle - he just promoted it, coz his friend who actually made the discovery lacked the necessary credibility for that task. The history tells us that . . .

Pythagoras’ religious and scientific views were, in his opinion, inseparably interconnected. Religiously, Pythagoras was a believer of metempsychosis. He believed in transmigration, or the reincarnation of the soul again and again into the bodies of humans, animals, or vegetables until it became immortal. His ideas of reincarnation were influenced by ancient Greek religion. Heraclides Ponticus reports the story that Pythagoras claimed that he had lived four lives that he could remember in detail, and, according to Xenophanes, Pythagoras heard the cry of his dead friend in the bark of a dog.

A detailed account of the highlighted further tells us . . .

Bark! Bark! Pyth! Bark!

:confused:

Bark! Hey, Pyth! Don't you recognize me?

Pitus Bullus! Is that you?

Of course it's me. I'm so glad that I've found you. I did some thinking, you know. Just check this out:
d2 = o2 + g2.

[doronshadmi]

My view is close some how to Sam Harris' view about Ethics and Science (I disagree with Sam Harris about Free will if he gets it at the level of thoughts).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29

http://lifewithoutfaith.com/?p=3384

EDIT:

More about Free will

Actually as long as one's awareness is at the level of thoughts (and this is how Sam Harris gets awareness, for example: "This, he thinks, is intuitive; "trains of thought...convey the apparent reality of choices, freely made. But from a deeper perspective...thoughts simply arise (what else could they do?)" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape:_How_Science_Can_Determine_Hum an_Values )), he\she is not aware of their calm source, which is the simplest state of awareness. Without being aware of the simplest state of awareness, one has no actual Free will because any aware thought has a finer level of unaware thought, so actual awareness (and actual Free will) is achieved only from the finest level of awareness, which is naturally free of thoughts (the finest level of awareness is not itself a thought).

Thoughts are infinitely many possible expressions of Free will, which is actually achieved only if one's awareness transcendents the level of expressions and directly aware of the finest level of awareness, which is not itself a thought.

[The Man]

My view is close to Sam Harris' view about Ethics and Science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29

http://lifewithoutfaith.com/?p=3384

No it isn't, Sam Harris makes no self-contradictory "belongs to AND does not belong to" claims. Stop lying Doron and stop simply trying to conflate your self-contradictory nonsense with work done by others.

[epix]

No it isn't, Sam Harris makes no self-contradictory "belongs to AND does not belong to" claims. Stop lying Doron and stop simply trying to conflate your self-contradictory nonsense with work done by others.

e = m*c2

conflat+e = m*c2 = a2+b2

[PiedPiper]

So in other words Doron, you *don't* have a simple, easy to understand example that a normal, well educated but ordinary individual (myself) would find truly amazing.

Thanks, that's all I needed to know...

P.S. You may want to tone down some of the opening paragraphs of your documents, because I was expecting something much more, and I'm sure others were as well.

Onwards!

[doronshadmi]

So in other words Doron, you *don't* have a simple, easy to understand example that a normal, well educated but ordinary individual (myself) would find truly amazing.

Thanks, that's all I needed to know...

P.S. You may want to tone down some of the opening paragraphs of your documents, because I was expecting something much more, and I'm sure others were as well.

Onwards!
PiedPiper, you did not answer to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7689633&postcount=19 , which can lead you to get things that are truly amazing, exactly because they are so close to you until your awareness misses them.

For example, if one tries to get the following paragraphs only at the level of thoughts

Without being aware of the simplest state of awareness, one has no actual Free will because any aware thought has a finer level of unaware thought, so actual awareness (and actual Free will) is achieved only from the finest level of awareness, which is naturally free of thoughts (the finest level of awareness is not itself a thought).

Thoughts are infinitely many possible expressions of Free will, which is actually achieved only if one's awareness transcendents the level of expressions and directly aware of the finest level of awareness, which is not itself a thought.
he/she is not directly aware of the finest level of awareness, which is not itself a thought and it is the actual (and non-subjective) source of Free will.

The level of thoughts is like a map that guides you to some actual place, but you do not reach the actual place at the level of the map.

In order to reach the actual place you have to go beyond the level of the map.

The same case is about thoughts, they are like a map, but in order to reach their non-subjective source your awareness has to transcendent them in order to directly reach the simplest state of awareness, which is itself not a thought or collection of thoughts.

[The Man]

Ah, not aware of awareness, amazing, and “a finer level of unaware thought” “which is itself not a thought or collection of thoughts”, stupendous. As expected Doron the only thing that remains consistent about your transcendental musing is their self-inconsistency.

[doronshadmi]

In addition to post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7694417&postcount=26 , if one uses the following diagram

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

one easily gets the difference between being finer (the level of curved lines) and being finest (the level of the straight line).

[jsfisher]

I thought Doron was ignoring you, The Man.

[punshhh]

PiedPiper, you did not answer to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7689633&postcount=19 , which can lead you to get things that are truly amazing, exactly because they are so close to you until your awareness misses them.

For example, if one tries to get the following paragraphs only at the level of thoughts


he/she is not directly aware of the finest level of awareness, which is not itself a thought and it is the actual (and non-subjective) source of Free will.

The level of thoughts is like a map that guides you to some actual place, but you do not reach the actual place at the level of the map.

In order to reach the actual place you have to go beyond the level of the map.

The same case is about thoughts, they are like a map, but in order to reach their non-subjective source your awareness has to transcendent them in order to directly reach the simplest state of awareness, which is itself not a thought or collection of thoughts.

Nicely put:)

[zooterkin]

I thought Doron was ignoring you, The Man.

Only incompletely.

[doronshadmi]

Nicely put:)
Thank you.

[The Man]

In addition to post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7694417&postcount=26 , if one uses the following diagram

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

one easily gets the difference between being finer (the level of curved lines) and being finest (the level of the straight line).

So your "being finest" is not "being finer"? Your purported difference, attempting to exclude your "being finest" from your "being finer", is simply, explicitly and expectedly self-contradictory. Just to give to a hint "being finest" explicitly asserts that it is "being finer" than anything else. As such you explicitly ascribe your own "level of the straight line" to your own "level of curved lines".

I thought Doron was ignoring you, The Man.

Evidently, as usual, he is mainly just ignoring himself and in that deliberate ignorance of himself takes himself as profound, "being finest" without "being finer".


Reminds me of "The Sphinx" from "Mystery Men".


PKGX9tdPeN0

[epix]

So your "being finest" is not "being finer"? Your purported difference, attempting to exclude your "being finest" from your "being finer", is simply, explicitly and expectedly self-contradictory. Just to give to a hint "being finest" explicitly asserts that it is "being finer" than anything else. As such you explicitly ascribe your own "level of the straight line" to your own "level of curved lines".

The study of turbo-superlatives is usually initiated after the number of traffic tickets satisfies the Mosquer-Altarnikoff inequality.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,899019,00.html

[doronshadmi]

In addition to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7703657&postcount=28 it must be stressed that no finer curved lines can reach the finest state of straight line, no matter how many finer levels of curved lines are involved.

The transition between a collection of curved lines and a straight line is always resulted by a finite amount of such collection.

This finite amount is exactly the naturally open (and therefore non-entropic) space for ever finer levels of curved lines that can't be (can't reach the state of) a straight line.

Also the transition between curved or straight line and a point, is always resulted by a finite amount of points (there is no homeomorphism between 0-dimensional space and 1-dimensioanl space).

So the same principle holds by the inability of collection of points to fully cover a given line (straight or curved), exactly because such collection does not have the power of the continuum of a line, no matter how many point are involved.

Some example: An object is considered as a circle only if pi (circumference\diameter) is found, so by following this reasoning a point or a straight are not circles, so a point is smaller than any circle but it is not the smallest circle, and a straight line is bigger than any circle but it is not the biggest circle.

Exactly as no collection of smaller or bigger circles reach the state of a point or a straight line, so is the case between a collection of curved lines and a straight line, or a collection of points on straight or curved line.

These notions are known only by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

[jsfisher]

The transition between a collection of curved lines and a straight line is always resulted by a finite amount of such collection.

In this single statement Doron again exposes his lack of understanding of mathematical concepts (limits in this case) and basic mathematical terms (curve). There is not end to his lack of understanding it would seem.

...
These notions are known only by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

No, these notions are known only to those who use unfounded fabrication as a substitute for knowledge.

[doronshadmi]

In addition to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7713240&postcount=35 it must be stressed that "traditional" mathematics (which is actually based on verbal_symbolic skills) can't comprehend the inaccessibility of, for example, any amount of circles to the state of a point (we get a non-finite collection of ever finer convergent circles) or the inaccessibility of any amount of circles to the state of a straight line (we get a non-finite collection of ever wider divergent circles).

Infinite interpolation or extrapolation can't be known by using only verbal_symbolic skills, and unfortunately this is exactly the (in)ability of "traditional" mathematics comprehend this profound subject.

Cantor's awareness, which is closed under the concept of Collection, simply missed the right notion of aleph-0 or omega, which actually transcendent the concept of Collection.

As a result the concept of Collection has no choice but to use the non-elegant garbage can of proper classes.

[The Man]

In addition to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7703657&postcount=28 it must be stressed that no finer curved lines can reach the finest state of straight line, no matter how many finer levels of curved lines are involved.

The transition between a collection of curved lines and a straight line is always resulted by a finite amount of such collection.


Wait, first it was “no finer curved lines can reach the finest state of straight line, no matter how many finer levels of curved lines are involved.”, then it is “The transition between a collection of curved lines and a straight line is always resulted by a finite amount of such collection.”? So which is it never “no matter how many finer levels of curved lines are involved.” or “always” “by a finite amount of such collection”?

Do you seriously propose resolving the self-contradiction of your “being finest” not “being finer” by simply claiming that your “no matter how many” “transition” “is always resulted by a finite amount of such collection”?

As always Doron how can anyone even possibly agree with you when you expressly and empathically just can’t agree with yourself? Simply Disagreeing with yourself again (about your “no matter how many” yet “always” “finite” “transition”) in no way makes your pervious disagreement with yourself (about your “finest” that’s expressly not “finer”) any less, well, disagreeable. The only thing more ridiculous than these self-contradictory assertions is your obvious expectation that the former self-contradictory assertion should somehow mitigate the latter.

[doronshadmi]

In addition to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7714133&postcount=37, a reasoning that is based only on verbal_symbolic skills, can't comprehend the result of the transition of finer states to the finest state (which is resulted by a finite collection that no one of its objects is the finest state) and the inaccessibility of finitely or infinitely (which is any amount of) finer states to the finest state (where in the case of infinitely finer states, no transition to the finest state is involved).

Using only Verbal_symbolic_only skills has devastating results on the mathematical science in general, and on the mind of some Verbal_symbolic_only skill(er), in particular.

[jsfisher]

In addition to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7714133&postcount=37, a reasoning that is based only on verbal_symbolic skills, can't comprehend the result of the transition of finer states to the finest state (which is resulted by a finite collection that no one of its objects is the finest state) and the inaccessibility of finitely or infinitely (which is any amount of) finer states to the finest state (where in the case of infinitely finer states, no transition to the finest state is involved).

Using only Verbal_symbolic_only skills has devastating results on the mathematical science.


Translation: "Even though I make up stuff out of my own ignorance, and it is all horribly, horribly wrong, I can pretend it is correct by declaring it beyond the abilities of anyone who sees it for the junk it is."

[The Man]

In addition to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7714133&postcount=37, a reasoning that is based only on verbal_symbolic skills, can't comprehend the result of the transition of finer states to the finest state (which is resulted by a finite collection that no one of its objects is the finest state) and the inaccessibility of finitely or infinitely (which is any amount of) finer states to the finest state (where in the case of infinitely finer states, no transition to the finest state is involved).

Evidently you just can’t comprehend that “the transition of finer states to the finest state” requires your, well, “transition” which your “no one of its objects is the finest state” implicitly asserts is lacking while your further assertions of “no transition to the finest state is involved” “finitely or infinitely” explicitly asserts no “transition” in your “transition”. Since just your "finest state" is "any amount of) finer states" it is just 'inaccessable' to itself. Thank you for finaily admitting the "inaccessibility" of your notions to just your notions.


Using only Verbal_symbolic_only skills has devastating results on the mathematical science in general, and on the mind of some Verbal_symbolic_only skill(er), in particular.

What you think has obviously devastated your mind is irrelevant to this thread but since you now do bring your mental stability into question, pretending to ignore posts while replying to them does not bode well for such stability, as noted by other before I recommend you consult a professional therapist or physiatrist.

[doronshadmi]

In addition to what is written in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7714559&postcount=39 , verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) simply can't comprehend that the transition from the finer to the finest does not change the fact that no finer object is the finest object.

In other words, no finer object of a given collection is accessible to the finest object state, exactly as (for example) no circle (where a circle has a measured constant pi) is accessible to a point or a straight line.

Once again, since verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) don't use also visual_spatial skills they simply can't get the following example:

An object is considered as a circle only if pi (circumference\diameter) is found, so by following this reasoning a point or a straight are not circles, so a point is smaller than any circle but it is not the smallest circle, and a straight line is bigger than any circle but it is not the biggest circle.

Exactly as no collection of smaller or bigger circles reaches the state of a point or a straight line (the point or the line are inaccessible to the collection of circles, whether this collection is finite or infinite) , so is the case between a collection of curved lines and a straight line, or a collection of points on straight or curved line.

Again these notions are known only by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

When verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't deal with their mind's limitations they reflect it on others, which is a typical response of their imbalanced mind's skills (after all they are using only partially their potential abilities).

Furthermore, they can't comprehend that ignore list can be used in order to ignore a particular person, but it does not mean that given notions are also ignored if they can be useful in order to explain better a given subject.

In other words, ignore list does not necessarily obey "black\white" reasoning, and this is one of the main notions of this thread.

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills it is easily understood that A or B forms are inaccessible to all curves between them (whether the amount of curves is finite or not):

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6056/6296000182_d37f5a6074.jpg

[The Man]

In addition to what is written in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7714559&postcount=39 , verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) simply can't comprehend that the transition from the finer to the finest does not change the fact that no finer object is the finest object.

Once again you simply assert no “transition” in your “transition”.


In other words, no finer object of a given collection is accessible to the finest object, exactly as (for example) no circle (where a circle has a measured constant pi) is accessible to a point or a straight line.

Once again your “finest object” is a “finer object” than any other in your “collection” (hint: that’s what makes it your “finest object”). Which is also why your so called “example” simply fails.


Once again, since verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) don't use also visual_spatial skills they simply can't get the following example:

An object is considered as a circle only if pi (circumference\diameter) is found, so by following this reasoning a point or a straight are not circles, so a point is smaller than any circle but it is not the smallest circle, and a straight line is bigger than any circle but it is not the biggest circle.

Exactly as no collection of smaller or bigger circles reaches the state of a point or a straight line (the point or the line are inaccessible to the collection of circles, whether this collection is finite or infinite) , so is the case between a collection of curved lines and a straight line, or a collection of points on straight or curved line.

“a point or a straight are not circles” by definition, while your “finest object” is definitively a “finer object” than any other in your “collection”. Your example fails once again simply by your apparently deliberate ignorance.




Again these notions are known only by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

No Doron they are simply asserted by you, obviously due to deliberate ignorance.

When verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't deal with their mind's limitations they reflect it on others, which is a typical response of their imbalanced mind's skills (after all they are using only partially their potential abilities).
We already know why you continually try to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others and as to your “imbalanced mind's skills” again please seek professional help .


Furthermore, they can't comprehend that ignore list can be used in order to ignore a particular person, but it does not mean that given notions are also ignored if they can be useful in order to explain better a given subject.
Evidently you just can’t comprehend that you would not be able to see the posts of those who are on your ignore list, so a usual and as already obvious your “ignore list” is just a lie.
In other words, ignore list does not necessarily obey "black\white" reasoning, and this is one of the main notions of this thread.
Again pretending to ignore people when you obviously aren’t isn’t going to fool anyone but you. Again please seek professional help as your delusion no longer has even just the pretence of reality.

[epix]

What you think has obviously devastated your mind is irrelevant to this thread but since you now do bring your mental stability into question, pretending to ignore posts while replying to them does not bode well for such stability, as noted by other before I recommend you consult a professional therapist or physiatrist.
http://www.hospitalscout.com/images/hospitalhomepages/hs-hp.http-www-fourwindshospital-com-thumb.png

While we believe that we offer the finest in psychiatric care, Four Winds has never been content to simply make assumptions about the effectiveness of our treatment programs.

http://www.fourwindshospital.com/westchester/outcomewes.html

Become the finer part of the finest: four winD.S.

[The Man]

http://www.hospitalscout.com/images/hospitalhomepages/hs-hp.http-www-fourwindshospital-com-thumb.png

http://www.fourwindshospital.com/westchester/outcomewes.html

Become the finer part of the finest: four winD.S.

nhv_1v0X0HA

[doronshadmi]

Once again, by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills it is easily understood that A or B forms are inaccessible to all curves between them (whether the amount of curves is finite or not):

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6056/6296000182_d37f5a6074.jpg

Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't comprehend this simple fact because everything is defined by them only in terms of Verbal_symbolic_only skills (visual_spatial skills are not used).

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills the difference between the suffix "er" and the suffix "st", is easily understood.

For example: "finer than all X" simply means that "all X" is at most finer w.r.t to that is "finer than all X" (where only "finer than all X" is translatable to "finest", which a property that "all X" does not have) but Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't comprehend this simple fact.

Moreover, they will argue that that is "finer than all X" is not defined in terms of X, but by this argument they are actually exclude that is "finer than all X" from "all X", and this exclusion is exactly the term that distinguishes between that is "finer than all X" (whether it is called "finer than all X" or "finest") and "all X".

But Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't get their own arguments, exactly as they can't comprehend the difference between "finer than all X" and " "all X" is at most finer w.r.t to that is "finer than all X" ".

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

"Finer than all thoughts" is not itself a thought exactly as a point or a straight line are not circles' curves (please see the diagram above).

[jsfisher]

Once again, by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills it is easily understood that A or B forms are inaccessible to all curves between them (whether the amount of curves is finite or not):

Once again, by using his superior powers of self-delusion, Doron gets the wrong result.

[doronshadmi]

That have only verbal_symbolic skills, can response only by these skills (they are ignore visual_spatial skills).

[jsfisher]

That have only verbal_symbolic skills, can response only by these skills (they are ignore visual_spatial skills).

Still trying to pretend you are ignoring us, Doron? Your unlabeled responses fool no one, except probably you.

Be that as it may, you are wrong, and pretending everyone else lacks some cognitive skill doesn't change the fact you are wrong. It is trivial to demonstrate the depth of your failures because your ideas lack self-consistency and they are riddled with self-contradiction. No amount of pretend alternate reasoning skills you claim to have can alter basic reality.

But do carry on with your fantasy. It does provide amusement.

[epix]

nhv_1v0X0HA

But Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't get their own arguments, exactly as they can't comprehend the difference between "finer than all X" and " "all X" is at most finer w.r.t to that is "finer than all X" ".


HUH? (http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_327/1225254714J78yZ4.jpg)

[doronshadmi]

In addition to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7715050&postcount=4 verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) even can't get the difference between "True" and "False" by their non-exclusion approach about verbal_symbolic_only expressions, because "True" can be define only in therms of "False".

For example "False False" is "True", so by their non-exclusion approach about verbal_symbolic_only expressions "True is not excluded form "False", because it is defined by using "False" as the verbal_symbolic_only expression.

"Nice", isn't it?

[doronshadmi]

Here is an improved version of post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7715050&postcount=46 .

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills it is easily understood that A or B forms are inaccessible to all curves between them (whether the amount of curves is finite or not):

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6056/6296000182_d37f5a6074.jpg

Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't comprehend this simple fact because everything is defined by them only in terms of Verbal_symbolic_only skills (visual_spatial skills are not used), and according to this partial used skills the term "finest" is not excluded from the term "finer", because "finest" can be defined as "finer than all X".

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills the difference between the suffix "er" and the suffix "st", is easily understood.

For example: "finer than all X" simply means that "all X" are at most finer with respect to that is "finer than all X" (where only "finer than all X" is translatable to "finest", which is a property that "all X" do not have) but Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't comprehend this simple fact.

Moreover, they are also argue that that is "finer than all X" is not defined in terms of "all X" (for example: a point or a straight line are not defined in terms of circles) , but by this argument they are actually exclude that is "finer than all X" from "all X" (which contradicts their argument about the non-exclusion between "finer" and "finest, as argued above) and this exclusion is exactly the term that distinguishes between that is "finer than all X" (whether it is called "finer than all X" or "finest with respect to all X") and "all X".

But Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't get their own arguments, exactly as they can't comprehend the difference between "finer than all X" and " "all X" is at most finer with respect to that is "finer than all X" ".

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

"Finer than all thoughts" is not itself a thought exactly as a point or a straight line are not circles' curves (please see the diagram above).

Yet, if only 1-dimesional space is considered, then it is the Unity among (for example) "all curved lines" and a straight line, even if a straight line (whether it is called "finer than all curved lines" or "finest with respect to all curved lines") is excluded from all curved lines, in terms of curvatures, as can be understood by the following diagram:

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

This is the beauty of a non-trivial realm, it is Unified AND has entropy-free different expressions, which are changeable by mutations (this realm is developed according to evolutionary principles).

[zooterkin]

Here is an improved version of post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7715050&postcount=46 .


Like so many other words, I think the meaning of 'improved' has eluded you.

[doronshadmi]

Like so many other words, I think the meaning of 'improved' has eluded you.
Not only words are involved here, zooterkin, which is a fact that has eluded you.

[epix]

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills it is easily understood that A or B forms are inaccessible to all curves between them (whether the amount of curves is finite or not):

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6056/6296000182_d37f5a6074.jpg

That's the Neander-Wersten theorem (http://www.petroglyphs.us/gb07_hohokam_concentric_circle_petroglyph.jpg) postulated a few years back. (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6K4an3_7Kkk/TAvzIdSp7BI/AAAAAAAACW8/19FYWur0uLo/s1600/Neanderthal+3.jpg) It says the opposite.

[The Man]

Once again, by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills it is easily understood that A or B forms are inaccessible to all curves between them (whether the amount of curves is finite or not):

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6056/6296000182_d37f5a6074.jpg

Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't comprehend this simple fact because everything is defined by them only in terms of Verbal_symbolic_only skills (visual_spatial skills are not used).

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills the difference between the suffix "er" and the suffix "st", is easily understood.

For example: "finer than all X" simply means that "all X" is at most finer w.r.t to that is "finer than all X" (where only "finer than all X" is translatable to "finest", which a property that "all X" does not have) but Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't comprehend this simple fact.

Moreover, they will argue that that is "finer than all X" is not defined in terms of X, but by this argument they are actually exclude that is "finer than all X" from "all X", and this exclusion is exactly the term that distinguishes between that is "finer than all X" (whether it is called "finer than all X" or "finest") and "all X".

But Verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't get their own arguments, exactly as they can't comprehend the difference between "finer than all X" and " "all X" is at most finer w.r.t to that is "finer than all X" ".

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

"Finer than all thoughts" is not itself a thought exactly as a point or a straight line are not circles' curves (please see the diagram above).

You can argue with yourself as much as you like Doron, that is nothing new here. Please let us know when you can spare some time from simply arguing with yourself and do manage to bring yourself to actually agree with yourself.

[The Man]

Yet, if only 1-dimesional space is considered, then it is the Unity among (for example) "all curved lines" and a straight line, even if a straight line (whether it is called "finer than all curved lines" or "finest with respect to all curved lines") is excluded from all curved lines, in terms of curvatures, as can be understood by the following diagram:


How about just understanding “curvatures” in terms of, well, curvature ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature)? That would be quite a start for you Doron.

Oh and by the way just what is it about “a straight line” that you think is “finer than all curved lines" or "finest with respect to all curved lines"? If it is in fact curvature then please see above.

[doronshadmi]

In addition to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7716750&postcount=52 verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) even can't get verbal_symbolic expressions like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature
curvature is the amount by which a geometric object deviates from being flat, or straight in the case of a line, but this is defined in different ways depending on the context.
As can be seen, the ugly head of context-dependent-only approach spits its limited view, if things do not fit to the notions of verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers).

Another example of the limited abilities of verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) is their failure to distinguish between "approach" and "reach" (as demonstrated in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7540470&postcount=16339, and by the following quote:

Second off, "approaches" does not mean "can't actually reach". Learn the meanings of words.).

[The Man]

Let’s see..

First you bemoan the relation and dependence of the definition of a word to the context within which it is used…



In addition to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7716750&postcount=52 verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) even can't get verbal_symbolic expressions like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature

As can be seen, the ugly head of context-dependent-only approach spits its limited view, if things do not fit to the notions of verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers).

Then you claim some “failure to distinguish” between the different contexts in which two words can be related.

In
Another example of the limited abilities of verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) is their failure to distinguish between "approach" and "reach" (as demonstrated in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7540470&postcount=16339, and by the following quote:
).

Is it even possible for you to ever just agree with yourself Doron.

[doronshadmi]

Oppss...

[doronshadmi]

In addition to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7719349&postcount=58 verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't distinguish between curved and straight lines (where the line is cross-contexts state and curved or straight states are different and context-dependent expressions of the line, such that no curved line is a straight line and vice versa).

The same case can be seen as follows:

The line is cross-contexts state and approached curves or reached straight state are different and context-dependent expressions of the line, such that no approached curved line is the reached straight line and vice versa.

But, as usual, verbal-only_skill(ers) can't get the Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent comprehensive framework (the partial use of their potential skills is limited only to Context-dependent frameworks, and therefore they can't get a post like http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7719349&postcount=58, as follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature

curvature is the amount by which a geometric object deviates from being flat, or straight in the case of a line, but this is defined in different ways depending on the context.

As can be seen, verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) use the dependency on context (where each context has its own definitions) in order to claim that there can be a context that according to it "curvature is the amount by which a geometric object does not deviate from being flat, or straight in the case of a line". This is exactly the meaning of "but this is defined in different ways depending on the context" as understood by verbal_symbolic_only Context-dependent_only skill(ers).

Acctually the following quote:

Second off, "approaches" does not mean "can't actually reach". Learn the meanings of words.

Third off, the whole thing is a definition. Learn to comprehend.

completely supports my claim as represented above, because by this quote there can be a context that according to it ""approaches" does not mean "can't actually reach"". In other words, by using context-dependent_only framework, there can be some context, where "approaches" and "reaches" are the same).

[doronshadmi]

In addition to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7720195&postcount=61 in has to be stressed that (according to verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers)) definitions are considered as such only if they are expressed by verbal_symbolic_only skills, and this limitation is one of the factors that shape the current mathematical science as a collection of context-dependent frameworks (no cross-contexts attitude is developed in addition to the context-dependent attitude, and so is the case about the development of verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, as a one comprehensive framework of the mathematical science).

[jsfisher]

In addition to [useless link to previous doronshadmi post] verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't distinguish between curved and straight lines (where the line is cross-contexts state and curved or straight states are different and context-dependent expressions of the line, such that no curved line is a straight line and vice versa).

Even your favorite source of information for you to misrepresent disagrees. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve) has this to say about curves:
In mathematics, a curve (also called a curved line in older texts) is, generally speaking, an object similar to a line but which is not required to be straight. This entails that a line is a special case of curve, namely a curve with null curvature.

It is only in the muddled world of doronetics that reality is lost and words have no fixed meaning except for what you choose at any give moment.

[doronshadmi]

Again, if only 1-dimesional space is considered, then it is the Unity among (for example) "all curved lines" and a straight line, even if a straight line (whether it is called "finer than all curved lines" or "finest with respect to all curved lines") is excluded from all curved lines, in terms of curvatures, as can be understood by the following diagram:

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

This is the beauty of a non-trivial realm, it is Unified AND has entropy-free different expressions, which are changeable by mutations (this realm is developed according to evolutionary principles), but verbal_symbolic skill(ers) can't get this beauty, because their reasoning is only context-dependent framework of verbal_symbolic expressions (the visual_spatial expressions are ignored).

The result of such ignorance is verbal_symbolic nonsense like: "a line is a special case of curve".

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills a line is the Unified form of curved AND straight states, where curved or straight states are its special (and distinguished from each other) expressions.

It is about time to stop the idiotic definitions of the form: "X with null X (namely a curve with null curvature)" and start by understanding Unity and its possible expressions, which are an amplitude between superposition of identities and strict identities (where curved or straight states are special cases of strict identities).

URDT-2 is such amplitude, as follows:

A="curved"
B="straight"

(AB,AB) (AB,A) (AB,B) (AB) (A,A) (B,B) (A,B) (A) (B) ()

A * * A * * A * . A * . A * * A . . A * . A * . A . . A . .
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
B *_* B *_. B *_* B *_. B ._. B *_* B ._* B ._. B *_. B ._.

(2,2) = (AB,AB)
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)
(2,0)= (AB)
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)
(1,0)= (A),(B)
(0,0)= ()

[jsfisher]

Again, if only 1-dimesional space is considered, then it is the Unity among (for example) "all curved lines" and a straight line, even if a straight line (whether it is called "finer than all curved lines" or "finest with respect to all curved lines") is excluded from all curved lines, in terms of curvatures....

Add "1-dimensional space" to the list of things beyond Doron's comprehension.

[doronshadmi]

Unity is beyond the comprehension of a person, which gets it in terms of some special expression of it.

Furthermore, even an analogy about this subject is beyond the comprehension of such person.

[the PC apeman]

Obscurantism. It was bound to happen. It's the last refuge of woo.

[doronshadmi]

Obscurantism. It was bound to happen. It's the last refuge of woo.
You are right.

"X with null X (namely a curve with null curvature)" is an example of Obscurantism.

[the PC apeman]

You are right.

"X with null X (namely a curve with null curvature)" is an example of Obscurantism.
No it's not. I introduced the word and you can't have it. Sorry. Redefine your own words.

[jsfisher]

No it's not. I introduced the word and you can't have it. Sorry. Redefine your own words.

Not his style. He redefines everyone else's terms, but never discloses what he means by them. It's much simpler for him to maintain a defensible position that way.

[epix]

URDT-2 is such amplitude, as follows:

A="curved"
B="straight"

Another, taller monument of self-deception. This topic has been already covered by others.

Poirino homoglobal zero curvature theorem: Stau = exp (lambda peron)x - mtv

where m is the first La Magnione moment and tv is any non-negative parameter.

Visual_spacial_only skills version of the theorem:
A = "curved" (http://healthy-meal-plan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/spaghetti-bolognese1.jpg)
B = "straight" (http://www.mentalfloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/why-doesnt-spaghetti-break.jpg)

[The Man]

In addition to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7719349&postcount=58 verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) can't distinguish between curved and straight lines (where the line is cross-contexts state and curved or straight states are different and context-dependent expressions of the line, such that no curved line is a straight line and vice versa).

The same case can be seen as follows:

The line is cross-contexts state and approached curves or reached straight state are different and context-dependent expressions of the line, such that no approached curved line is the reached straight line and vice versa.

But, as usual, verbal-only_skill(ers) can't get the Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent comprehensive framework (the partial use of their potential skills is limited only to Context-dependent frameworks, and therefore they can't get a post like http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7719349&postcount=58, as follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature


As can be seen, verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) use the dependency on context (where each context has its own definitions) in order to claim that there can be a context that according to it "curvature is the amount by which a geometric object does not deviate from being flat, or straight in the case of a line". This is exactly the meaning of "but this is defined in different ways depending on the context" as understood by verbal_symbolic_only Context-dependent_only skill(ers).

Acctually the following quote:

completely supports my claim as represented above, because by this quote there can be a context that according to it ""approaches" does not mean "can't actually reach"". In other words, by using context-dependent_only framework, there can be some context, where "approaches" and "reaches" are the same).





Ah, so now you’ve changed your tune and agree that meaning and definition is dependent upon context, though as we already know you simply prefer your own personal context. While, as already noted many times before a limit does not have to be a member of a set. Or to put it in your current preferred vernacular simply approaching some limit does not mean that it can be reached. However, reaching a limit (as you assert) does infer that it was approached and thusly reached (implicitly and explicitly respectively). You still seem to have problems understanding that your personal language is not going to be effective at relating anything to anyone, particularly when you simply change tunes at your whim. ‘Reach’ carries the implication of traveling or moving as opposed to something simply being “at” some location (which does not imply any motion or “reaching” the location). So while all poodles are dogs not all dogs are poodles. Similarly all limits reached can be approached but not all limits approached are reached (or even reachable). You apparently simply want to claim that your personal “poodle” (reached limit) is not a dog (approachable).

[doronshadmi]

Verbal_symbolic_only context-dependent_only skill(ers) can't comprehend that http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7720195&postcount=61 is an argument that explicitly adds Cross-contexts in additional to Context-dependent, such that it does not agree with the Context-dependent_only reasoning.

This is another concrete example of the inability of Verbal_symbolic_only context-dependent_only skill(ers) to comprehend the Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent one comprehensive framework.

Furthermore, Verbal_symbolic_only context-dependent_only skill(ers) can't comprehend that "approach" and "reach" are not processes, but they are distinct states that are defined w.r.t to each other exactly because they are not the same.

Once again, by using the analogy of 1-dimesional space, it is the Unity among "approach" and "reach", where "approach" and "reach" are some special (and distinct from each other) expressions of it.

Since "approach" and "reach" are not processes (they are permanent states, where time is not involved), then an expression like "that is reached can be approached, but not all that is approached can be reached" is an asymmetric nonsense (again, this is nonsense because no process is involved here (time is not involved)).

Again, the problem is derived from the attempt to know X in terms of some special expression of it.

For example: "A non-empty set with null non-emptiness" is nonsense exactly as "X with null X (namely a curve with null curvature)" is nonsense.

[doronshadmi]

Another example: while all poodles or terriers are dogs, no terrier is a poodle (and vice versa).

Another one: while all curved lines or straight lines are lines, no curved line is a straight line (and vice versa).

[doronshadmi]

No it's not. I introduced the word and you can't have it. Sorry. Redefine your own words.
You indeed introduced the word AND you can't have it.

[punshhh]

Another example: while all poodles or terriers are dogs, no terrier is a poodle (and vice versa).

Another one: while all curved lines or straight lines are lines, no curved line is a straight line (and vice versa).

Yes, I was surprised to see someone hinting that a curved line can be a straight line, if it happens to have no curvature.

I can see flat earthers raising their heads above the horizon now.

[doronshadmi]

Yes, I was surprised to see someone hinting that a curved line can be a straight line, if it happens to have no curvature.

I can see flat earthers raising their heads above the horizon now.
Such one can't get the Cross-context state of being a line and the Context-dependent state of being curved line or straight line.

As a result he\she defines Context-dependent state of being curved line in terms of Context-dependent state of being a straight line (namely a curve with null curvature).

[the PC apeman]

You indeed introduced the word AND you can't have it.
By your use of "can't" (which I redefine as "can") I declare victory. Thank you.

[doronshadmi]

By your use of "can't" (which I redefine as "can") I declare victory. Thank you.
You can declare victory, but still it is limited only to verbal_symbolic_only context-dependent_only realm (no visual-spatial skills are involved).

[the PC apeman]

You can declare victory, but still it is limited only to verbal_symbolic_only context-dependent_only realm (no visual-spatial skills are involved).
You have your solipsistic dictionary and I now have my own. In mine, the above translates into complete and utter submission. Please, get up off your knees. It's embarrassing.

[epix]

You can declare victory, but still it is limited only to verbal_symbolic_only context-dependent_only realm (no visual-spatial skills are involved).
there's no winning without a fight
that's why we must exit right
left is hell and right is heaven
that's why we take exit 7 (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41keENdA2JL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_AA278_PIkin4,BottomRight,-46,22_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg)
(we love it!)

BBOQiMxwk1o

[doronshadmi]

You have your solipsistic dictionary and I now have my own.
Well, this is a concrete example of the mind of verbal_symbolic-only context-dependent-only skill(er) works ("you have your context-dependent-only framework, and I have mine context-dependent-only framework").

[doronshadmi]

Verbal_symbolic_only context-dependent_only skill(ers) can't comprehend that http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7721309&postcount=64 is an argument that explicitly adds Cross-contexts in addition to Context-dependent, such that it does not agree with the Context-dependent_only reasoning.

The problem with verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) is derived from the attempt to know X in terms of some special (context-dependent) expression of it.

For example: "A non-empty set with null non-emptiness" is nonsense exactly as "X with null X (namely a curve with null curvature)" is nonsense.

This nonsense is expressed, for example, by wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve ), as follows:

In mathematics, a curve (also called a curved line in older texts) is, generally speaking, an object similar to a line but which is not required to be straight. This entails that a line is a special case of curve, namely a curve with null curvature

Let's correct this nonsense, for example:

While all poodles or terriers are dogs (where being a dog is a cross-contexts state), no terrier is a poodle (and vice versa) (where being a terrier or a poodle is a context-dependent state).

While all curved lines or straight lines are lines (where being a line is a cross-contexts state), no curved line is a straight line (and vice versa)(where being curved or straight is a context-dependent state).

[zooterkin]

Let's correct this nonsense, for example:

While all poodles or terriers are dogs (where being a dog is a cross-contexts state), no terrier is a poodle (and vice versa) (where being a terrier or a poodle is a context-dependent state).

While all curved lines or straight lines are lines (where being a line is a cross-contexts state), no curved line is a straight line (and vice versa)(where being curved or straight is a context-dependent state).

Well, go on then, correct it.

[doronshadmi]

Well, go on then, correct it.
These are correct examples, in case that you have missed it.

[The Man]

Verbal_symbolic_only context-dependent_only skill(ers) can't comprehend that http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7721309&postcount=64 is an argument that explicitly adds Cross-contexts in addition to Context-dependent, such that it does not agree with the Context-dependent_only reasoning.

The problem with verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) is derived from the attempt to know X in terms of some special (context-dependent) expression of it.

As you're the only one who asserts " verbal_symbolic-only skill" that problem remains entirely yours. As usual you are simply confused no one but you are attempting to " know X in terms of some special (context-dependent) expression of it" we are classifying X by some defined aspect of it.


For example: "A non-empty set with null non-emptiness" is nonsense exactly as "X with null X (namely a curve with null curvature)" is nonsense.

Here we see a concrete example of your problem and confusion as well as some irony. A set can be classified as empty or non-empty you are deliberately trying to classify it as both then try to blame your own nonsense on others. This is not just your own nonsense by your "A non-empty set with null non-emptiness" claim but primarily due to your previous "belongs to AND does not belong to" assertions. Hence the irony, you claim the assertion above as nonsense but your previous assertion you take as a fundamental basis of your own notions. That you can perceive the nonsense in the assertion you simply want to attribute to others but not in that one you want to depend upon yourself indicates that your ignorance of your own nonsense is simply deliberate until you simply want to ascribe that nonsense to others.

I'm sure all unemployed people will be surprised to find that classifying them by employment is nonsense under Doronics as they currently have no employment. Just as I'm sure it will not surprise them that such claims of nonsense in that classification won't change their classification of lacking employment.


This nonsense is expressed, for example, by wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve ), as follows:

If you have a problem with how that article is worded I suggest you bring it up with them.




Let's correct this nonsense, for example:

While all poodles or terriers are dogs (where being a dog is a cross-contexts state), no terrier is a poodle (and vice versa) (where being a terrier or a poodle is a context-dependent state).

Doron " poodles", "terriers", "dogs", "lines", "curved", "straight" and even "state" are all words and thus have meanings that are dependent upon the context they are used within.



While all curved lines or straight lines are lines (where being a line is a cross-contexts state), no curved line is a straight line (and vice versa)(where being curved or straight is a context-dependent state).


Amazing, you have found that lines can be classified as curved or straight just as dogs can be classified as say "poodles or terriers". The truly bizarre and ridiculous part is that you somehow think this is something new, unknown or not understood by others that you tend to refer to as "visual_spatial skills" or "cross-contexts attitude" that you simply like to claim that others lack. As always Doron when your assertions aren't directly self contradictory they are simply trivial.

[punshhh]

Well, go on then, correct it.

Are you surfing in to rescue The Man from descending into the the plug hole, or just to spectate?

[punshhh]

Can a line be straight and curved at the same time?

ie, can a straight line also be curved? or can a curved line also be straight?

[jsfisher]

Can a line be straight and curved at the same time?

ie, can a straight line also be curved? or can a curved line also be straight?


Why not? A straight line is simply a curve with curvature = 0 at every point.

Doron cannot get that, of course, because Doron is so wrapped up in trying to disprove definitions rather than understand them.

[epix]

Why not? A straight line is simply a curve with curvature = 0 at every point.

But according to the First Law of Doronetics, a line cannot be fully covered by points. It follows that there exist pointless sub-segments of a line segment and therefore the curvature in these pointless regions cannot be determined - unless a person masters and applies the visual_spatial_only skills to see "if it's bended" or not.

[punshhh]

Why not? A straight line is simply a curve with curvature = 0 at every point.Is it curved?

Doron cannot get that, of course, because Doron is so wrapped up in trying to disprove definitions rather than understand them.It appears that its you other guys who are attempting to wrap Doron up in definitions rather than consider what he's saying.

[doronshadmi]

Can a line be straight and curved at the same time?

ie, can a straight line also be curved? or can a curved line also be straight?

Context-dependent-only skill(ers) can't get a Cross-context state like "belongs to AND does not belong to".

Context-dependent-only skill(ers) can't get that being a line is a Cross-contexts state among being curved or straight line, where being curved or straight is a context-dependent state of being a line.

Once again it is demonstrated that Context-dependent-only skill(ers) can't get X, unless it is classified by special (context-dependent) case of it.

Organic Mathematics is not less than Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework, which is inaccessible to Context-dependent-only skill(ers) that get everything in terms of a collection of classified closed boxes.

The irony is the attempt of Context-dependent-only skill(ers) to fit Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework to some classified Context-dependent box.


It appears that its you other guys who are attempting to wrap Doron up in definitions rather than consider what he's saying.
Thank you punshhh for get it and clearly express it.

I would add that there is nothing wrong about definitions, if they are not limited only to verbal_symbolic or context-dependent frameworks.

This is exactly the novelty of Organic Mathematics, it is not less than Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework, and this long thread is a concrete example of the inability of Context-dependent-only skill(ers) to get it.

I'm sure all people will be surprised to find that classifying them as unemployed or employment people, actually define them as people.

Context-dependent-only skill(ers) are doing exactly this, they define people only by some classification (context-dependent state) of them.

Another example:

"poodles", "terriers", "dogs", "lines", "curved", "straight" and even "state" are all nothing but words for verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) and thus have meanings that are dependent only upon the context they are used within the verbal_symbolic-only classified boxes.

[The Man]

Why not? A straight line is simply a curve with curvature = 0 at every point.

Doron cannot get that, of course, because Doron is so wrapped up in trying to disprove definitions rather than understand them.

Not only that but some parts of a line can have non-zero curvature while other parts do not.

Doron insists upon considering a line as an indivisible whole, which gives him considerable problems.


Is it curved?

It appears that its you other guys who are attempting to wrap Doron up in definitions rather than consider what he's saying.


We are considering what Doron is saying but what he is saying specifically and intentionally lacks definition merely so he doesn't wrap himself up in any definitions least of all his own.

Are you surfing in to rescue The Man from descending into the the plug hole, or just to spectate?

Would that be a curved or un-curved plug hole?

[zooterkin]

Are you surfing in to rescue The Man from descending into the the plug hole, or just to spectate?

I don't think The Man or jsfisher need rescuing by me. I haven't been here from beginning, but nor have I only just arrived. I hope you have done your homework by reading the first thread for this topic (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=7676055#post7676055).

[The Man]

Context-dependent-only skill(ers) can't get a Cross-context state like "belongs to AND does not belong to".


We have been over this before Doron your "belongs to AND does not belong to" is either simply self-contradictory or simply self-inconsistent. So which is it, are you being deliberately self-contradictory or just deliberately being self-inconsistent? Since you seem to attribute it to what you like to call a "Cross-context state" indicates the latter.




Context-dependent-only skill(ers) can't get that being a line is a Cross-contexts state among being curved or straight line, where being curved or straight is a context-dependent state of being a line.

Really, then please tell us what different contexts you are using the word "line" within? Both a "curved or straight line" appear to be referring to a geometrical line within the context of curvature. Now a "straight line" in terms of comedy (a line of dialogue used to set up a joke) that would be a different context indeed. It seems, as usual, that there is simply nothing that crosses contexts in your assertion of, well, " Cross-contexts".




Once again it is demonstrated that Context-dependent-only skill(ers) can't get X, unless it is classified by special (context-dependent) case of it.

Organic Mathematics is not less than Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework, which is inaccessible to Context-dependent-only skill(ers) that get everything in terms of a collection of classified closed boxes.

The irony is the attempt of Context-dependent-only skill(ers) to fit Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework to some classified Context-dependent box.


Thank you punshhh for get it and clearly express it.

I would add that there is nothing wrong about definitions, if they are not limited only to verbal_symbolic or context-dependent frameworks.

This is exactly the novelty of Organic Mathematics, it is not less than Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework, and this long thread is a concrete example of the inability of Context-dependent-only skill(ers) to get it.

Doron there is absolutely nothing novel about simply being self-inconsistent, we see it all the time on this forum.





I'm sure all people will be surprised to find that classifying them as unemployed or employment people, actually define them as people.

Evidently no one would be surprised but you that the definition of people is what classifies them as, well, people.



Context-dependent-only skill(ers) are doing exactly this, they define people only by some classification (context-dependent state) of them.

Wrong again Doron, just to give you a hint: "people" is a classification as well that is based upon some definition.




Another example:

"poodles", "terriers", "dogs", "lines", "curved", "straight" and even "state" are all nothing but words for verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) and thus have meanings that are dependent only upon the context they are used within the verbal_symbolic-only classified boxes.


Ah so your "Cross-contexts state" "words" like "poodles", "terriers", "dogs", "lines", "curved", "straight" and even "state" have no meanings. Glad to see you have finally realized that.

[doronshadmi]

Context-dependent-only skill(ers) are unable to get X, unless it is classified by one (or more) of its possible partial expressions (only the method of verbal_symbolic classified boxes is used).

For example, they are ague that: "some parts of a line can have non-zero curvature while other parts do not."

This argument is a perfect example of how Context-dependent-only skill(ers) can't get Line, unless it is classified by one (or more) of its possible partial expressions ( only the method of verbal_symbolic classified boxes is used, so there is no wonder why they can't comprehend, for example, http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7617572&postcount=16472 ).

By being limited only to the method of verbal_symbolic classified boxes, there is no wonder why they can't get X (Line, for example) as "that belongs AND does not belong" to a given domain.

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, one easily know that, for example, a line is Cross-contexts ("belongs AND does not belong" to a given domain) AND Context-dependent (it is classified by one (or more) of its possible partial expressions).


For the past 9 years of Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework development over the internet, I am aware more and more of the inability verbal_symbolic_only context-dependent_only skill(ers) to comprehend it.


punshhh becomes aware of this inability, and he does not hesitate to argue about it.

[epix]

Not only that but some parts of a line can have non-zero curvature while other parts do not.

In that case the line is defined by a piecewise function.

C2qRtAQqp4E&feature=related

(There is no single function that can draw a curve as well as a straight line - but only when we look at it w.r.t. cross_context_dependent_only_non-local viewing.)
;)

[doronshadmi]

The equation of a circle is X2 + Y2 = R2, where X,Y is the circle's center coordinate and R is the size of the circle's radius.

pi's existence is an essential property of a form that is considered as a circle.

This is a verbal_symbolic-only expression that ignores the visual-spatial fact of the existence of pi , as follows:

X2 + Y2 = 0 is actually a point, but by the verbal_symbolic-only expression it is still considered as a circle, even if pi does not exist.

X2 + Y2 = ∞ is actually a straight line, but by the verbal_symbolic-only expression it is still considered as a circle, even if pi does not exist.

Not only that this verbal_symbolic-only expression ignores pi, but in also ignores the difference between a point and a line (whether the line is curved or not).

We actually realize that X,Y,R,+,=,2 verbal_symbolic-only expressions can't express visual_spatial expressions.

So we actually need verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial expressions, in order to get the complexity of a given realm, where verbal_symbolic or visual_spatial are some special expressions of it (no one of them alone is the Unity of that realm).

By unify verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial expressions http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7617572&postcount=16472 is known.

[jsfisher]

Is it curved?

Yes, at least in the mathematical sense.

It appears that its you other guys who are attempting to wrap Doron up in definitions rather than consider what he's saying.

Welcome to the thread. Doron ignores definitions, and therefore he ignores meaning. He also makes up his own terminology, but he won't define anything (nor is he even consistent in his own usage). So, say what you like, but it would be nice if Doron would at least adopt the conventional vocabulary and attempt to communicate rationally instead of obfuscate then hide behind his "you can't get it" shield.

[doronshadmi]

punshhh, please pay attention of the ignorance of verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) to the following:

I would add that there is nothing wrong about definitions, if they are not limited only to verbal_symbolic or context-dependent frameworks.

Definitions for them are known only in terms of verbal_symbolic-only skills that are closed in classified context-dependent boxes (no cross-contexts\visual_spatial methods are also considered in addition to context-dependent\verbal_symbolic methods).

punshhh, please pay attention of the ignorance of verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) to the novelty of the unified framework of cross-contexts\visual_spatial AND context-dependent\verbal_symbolic methods:

it would be nice if Doron would at least adopt the conventional vocabulary

[epix]

So, say what you like, but it would be nice if Doron would at least adopt the conventional vocabulary and attempt to communicate rationally instead of obfuscate then hide behind his "you can't get it" shield.
That would be a continuous disaster for Doron, an example of which follows:

The equation of a circle is X2 + Y2 = R2, where X,Y is the circle's center coordinate and R is the size of the circle's radius.

According to Doronetics, X and Y are the coordinates of the circle's center.
:confused: :rolleyes:
There is naturally the other option that treats X as the independent and Y as the dependent variables:

X2 + Y2 = R2

Y2 = R2 - X2

Y = f(x) = SQR(R2 - X2)

The function simply draws a semicircle. (http://www.wyzant.com/help/images/rf14.gif) The equation for a full circle is given by the implicit form, coz there are actually two functions employed to draw a full circle. (Cartesian coordinates.)

But Doron has a different mission for X and Y. It's a monument to his total ignorance of anything which is even slightly scented with rationality and high school math, as "prophesied" in the OP.

BUT....! Considering the circle equation from the grossly_crossly_context_dependency_locality_spacia l_glacial_only prospect, X and Y are indeed the coordinates of the circle's center and also are the coordinates of the centroid of every galactic dust. But only top thinkers can comprehend that.

[doronshadmi]

Some verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) play with their verbal_symbolic-only expressions, but it does not change the fact that http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7731016&postcount=98 is not understood by them ( and so is http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583 ).

Their manipulations with symbols can't get, for example, the difference between a line (whether it is curved or straight) and a point.

[The Man]

In that case the line is defined by a piecewise function.

C2qRtAQqp4E&feature=related

(There is no single function that can draw a curve as well as a straight line - but only when we look at it w.r.t. cross_context_dependent_only_non-local viewing.)
;)

While I was aware of the latter I was not of the former, thank for the link epix.

[The Man]

Context-dependent-only skill(ers) are unable to get X, unless it is classified by one (or more) of its possible partial expressions (only the method of verbal_symbolic classified boxes is used).

For example, they are ague that: "some parts of a line can have non-zero curvature while other parts do not."

This argument is a perfect example of how Context-dependent-only skill(ers) can't get Line, unless it is classified by one (or more) of its possible partial expressions ( only the method of verbal_symbolic classified boxes is used, so there is no wonder why they can't comprehend, for example, http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7617572&postcount=16472 ).

By being limited only to the method of verbal_symbolic classified boxes, there is no wonder why they can't get X (Line, for example) as "that belongs AND does not belong" to a given domain.

So again which is it, are you being deliberately self-contradictory or just deliberately self-inconsistent? Indications are still to the latter. Evidently it is just still you and your imaginary “Context-dependent-only skill(ers)” that haven’t got it yet. If you are having problems with your imaginary “Context-dependent-only skill(ers)” then I suggest you come up with a less troublesome fantasy.



By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, one easily know that, for example, a line is Cross-contexts ("belongs AND does not belong" to a given domain) AND Context-dependent (it is classified by one (or more) of its possible partial expressions).


For the past 9 years of Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework development over the internet, I am aware more and more of the inability verbal_symbolic_only context-dependent_only skill(ers) to comprehend it.

punshhh becomes aware of this inability, and he does not hesitate to argue about it.

So you just don’t know or just won’t say what different contexts you are using the word "line" within when you refer to a "curved or straight line"?

Either all those words are dependent on the inferred context of geometry or you have some other context(s) you are applying or attempting to apply.


That you simply can not or will not express what that other context might be is indicative of the probability that there just isn’t any “Cross-contexts” aspect to your pervious assertion. Not to worry Doron given your history I don’t think anyone expected anything to cross contexts in your “Cross-contexts”.

[doronshadmi]

Once again.

Context-dependent-only skill(ers) are unable to get X, unless it is classified by one (or more) of its possible partial expressions (only the skills of verbal_symbolic classified boxes is used, where visual_spatial skills are ignored).

For example, being a line is Cross-contexts among context-dependent classifications like curved or straight, such that line is the unity among the context-dependent (and therefore special) classifications known as curved or straight, but Context-dependent-only skill(ers) are unable to get Cross-contexts in addition to Context-dependent, because they try to fit Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework to some classified Context-dependent box.

This subject is discussed in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583 and this is my last post on this subject to Context-dependent-only skill(ers).

They are indeed closed cases of their own context-dependent (and therefore special) classifications, and get only what is defined in terms of their closed boxes.

punshhh, you did not fall into one of their closed boxes.

[epix]

While I was aware of the latter I was not of the former, thank for the link epix.
Since I missed this pic that shows it all,

http://www.math.brown.edu/help/discontinuities%203.gif

I included that "verbal_symbolic_only" video.

[doronshadmi]

People that define, for example, a line only in terms of its special cases (like curved or straight) are doing it exactly because they are using only their verbal_symbolic skills (they can't get the Cross-contexts factor of the definition (which enables to get a line beyond its special cases) simply because their visual_spatial skills are not used as inseparable factor of the definition).

Only by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills one enables to get also the Cross-contexts factor of a given definition.

[doronshadmi]

Let re-examine X2 + Y2 = R2 (the circle's equation), which is a verbal_symbolic skill, to comprehend and use geometric forms.

By using this skill such that the essential property of the geometric form is a curve, X2 + Y2 = 0 has an infinite curvature, known as point,
where X2 + Y2 = ∞ has 0 curvature, known as a straight line.

So, by using only verbal_symbolic skills in order to get visual_spatial forms (where a visual_special case of a line, known as curve, wrongly used as its essential property) we realize that the verbal_symbolic skill fails to distinguish between the non-locality of a line (whether it is curved or straight) and the locality of a point.

By using the visual_spatial skills AND the verbal_symbolic skills, one easily knows that a line (whether it is curved or straight) can be at AND not at point's given location, where a point can't be but at XOR not at line's given location (it has a strict location w.r.t a given curved or straight line, where the line's given location can be also non-strict w.r.t a given point on it).

[doronshadmi]

A better version of the previous post:

Let's re-examine how X2 + Y2 = R2 (the circle's equation), which is a verbal_symbolic skill, is used to comprehend visual_spatial forms.

By using this skill such that the essential property of the visual_spatial form is a curve, X2 + Y2 = 0 has an infinite curvature, known as a point, where X2 + Y2 = ∞ has 0 curvature, known as a straight line.

So, by using only verbal_symbolic skills in order to get visual_spatial forms (where a visual_special case of a line, known as curve, wrongly used as its essential property) we realize that the verbal_symbolic skill fails to distinguish between the non-locality of a line (whether it is curved or straight) and the locality of a point.

By using the visual_spatial skills AND the verbal_symbolic skills, one easily knows that a line (whether it is curved or straight) can be at AND not at point's given location, where a point can't be but at XOR not at line's given location (it has a strict location w.r.t a given curved or straight line, where the line's given location can be also non-strict w.r.t a given point on it).

[epix]

Let re-examine X2 + Y2 = R2 (the circle's equation), which is a verbal_symbolic skill, to comprehend and use geometric forms.

By using this skill such that the essential property of the geometric form is a curve, X2 + Y2 = 0 has an infinite curvature, known as point,
where X2 + Y2 = ∞ has 0 curvature, known as a straight line.

So, by using only verbal_symbolic skills in order to get visual_spatial forms (where a visual_special case of a line, known as curve, wrongly used as its essential property) we realize that the verbal_symbolic skill fails to distinguish between the non-locality of a line (whether it is curved or straight) and the locality of a point.

Doron's consistency in making wrong statements is simply amazing.

Exhibit 1: "X2 + Y2 = 0 has an infinite curvature, known as point."

The equation doesn't have a real solution for both X and Y. Since the equation for a circle drawn on the complex plane is different, Doron keeps on sodomizing geometric figures of various kind.

Exhibit 2: "X2 + Y2 = ∞ has 0 curvature, known as a straight line."

Here, two issues on display: Since he can't grasp the concept of limits, Doron treats ∞ as a number. Then he comes with the idea that the equation can actually describe a straight line. That's not possible, coz for any equation that describes a straight line, there exists a variable exponent that equals either 1 or 0. The presence of other values in the exponent result in equations that describe curves, and we know that curves are lines where at every point the curvature is different from zero.

[The Man]

Once again.

Context-dependent-only skill(ers) are unable to get X, unless it is classified by one (or more) of its possible partial expressions (only the skills of verbal_symbolic classified boxes is used, where visual_spatial skills are ignored).

We are more than well aware, Doron, of your inclination to simply profess that you “get X” by not expressing any aspect of it at all.



For example, being a line is Cross-contexts among context-dependent classifications like curved or straight, such that line is the unity among the context-dependent (and therefore special) classifications known as curved or straight, but Context-dependent-only skill(ers) are unable to get Cross-contexts in addition to Context-dependent, because they try to fit Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework to some classified Context-dependent box.

Once again where does the word “line” cross contexts in your purported “Cross-contexts”? Just what the heck do you think is so “special” about being “curved or straight”, particularly in reference to a line? By all means please tell us what describes a line that is neither “curved” nor “straight”? Are you deliberately or simply erroneously confusing different descriptions (”curved”, “straight” and “line”) within a singular context (geometry) as somehow crossing contexts? As expected there is simply nothing that crosses any contexts in your purported “Cross-contexts”. Just for your own edification Doron using a word or words in different contexts (crossing contexts) has been a staple of comedy for centuries.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pun



Homonymic puns, another common type, arise from the exploitation of words which are both homographs and homophones. The statement "Being in politics is just like playing golf: you are trapped in one bad lie after another" puns on the two meanings of the word lie as "a deliberate untruth" and as "the position in which something rests". An adaptation of a joke repeated by Isaac Asimov gives us "Did you hear about the little moron who strained himself while running into the screen door?", playing on 'strained' as "to give much effort" and "to filter".[7] A homonymic pun may also be polysemic, in which the words must be homonymic and also possess related meanings, a condition which is often subjective. However, lexicographers define polysemes as listed under a single dictionary lemma (a unique numbered meaning) while homonyms are treated in separate lemmata.






This subject is discussed in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583 and this is my last post on this subject to Context-dependent-only skill(ers).


They are indeed closed cases of their own context-dependent (and therefore special) classifications, and get only what is defined in terms of their closed boxes.

punshhh, you did not fall into one of their closed boxes.

Once again if your fantasy “skill(ers)” give you trouble I would recommend you having fantasies that are more appealing to you. Though it would seem that simply imagining most others as somehow deficient is as appealing to you, if not more so, as anything else.

[jsfisher]

Let re-examine X2 + Y2 = R2 (the circle's equation)...

No, it's not. It only applies to circles centered at the origin. There are considerably more circles on the cartesian plane than that.

where X2 + Y2 = ∞ has 0 curvature, known as a straight line.

Even if we were to give your silly expression some sort of reasonable interpretation, it still wouldn't be an equation for any line, straight or otherwise.

Once again, Doron, with you unique skills, you get everything wrong.

[epix]

Even if we were to give your silly expression some sort of reasonable interpretation, it still wouldn't be an equation for any line, straight or otherwise.

Doron won't stop believing that if the length of the radius of a circle keeps getting longer without bound (or is heading toward infinity), the curvature of the circumference wouldn't respond in kind and wouldn't be heading toward its limit which is zero. That's very clear by his clumsy equation and comment

where X^2 + Y^2 = ∞ has 0 curvature, known as a straight line.


He believes that if R^2 "equals" infinity, then both end-points of the drawn semi-circle with the center point at [0,0] will never intersect the X axis. This is a classic example of wrong premise --> wrong conclusion. There is no point in proving the wrongness, coz Doron either can't grasp the concept of limits and infinity involved in the premise no matter what, or he deliberately rejects it in order to bathe in his mathematical phantasmagoria. I would bet on the former horse though leaving the effect of the latter to the necessity.

[doronshadmi]

Let us take for example the following diagram:

http://www.math.brown.edu/help/discontinuities%203.gif

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, one knows that a line is the essential (cross-context) form of its spacial (context-dependent) curved or straight expressions.

So the line is the "host" (non-local) state w.r.t its "hosted" (local) states, and this "host"\"hosted" linkage is actually the essence of the mathematical science, which is not less than a one comprehensive Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework, known by actually using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) can't get ∞ as a number, exactly because their visual_spatial skills are not used in additions to their verbal_symbolic skills (they get Number only in terms of strict values that are defined by verbal_symbolic-only skills).

Also using arguments like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pun is a concrete example of the inability of verbal_symbolic skill(ers) to use also their visual_spatial skills as a one comprehensive framework.

It has to stressed that my argument about forcing Curvature as an essential property of a line by verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers), holds whether X2 + Y2 = R2 or (X-a)2 + (Y-b)2 = R2 verbal_symbolic expressions are used.

[jsfisher]

It has to stressed that my argument about forcing Curvature as an essential property of a line by verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers)....


The only person "forcing curvature" is you, Doron.

Be that as it may, I see you are still trying to disprove definitions. Good luck with that.

[epix]

Also using arguments like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pun is a concrete example of the inability of verbal_symbolic skill(ers) to use also their visual_spatial skills as a one comprehensive framework.

:confused:

Wiki " "

In computing, esoteric programming languages (EPLs) are based in or contain what may be regarded as conceptual puns, as they typically misuse common programming concepts in ways which are absurd, or functionally useless. Some EPL puns may be obvious, such as in the usage of text images, while other puns are highly conceptual and understandable to experts only.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bird_converted_to_ASCII_characters.png <-----------------
:)

just another fall from grace
zipping through a verbal_space
like icarus' bogged down flight
nothing ever gets done right

[doronshadmi]

Infinite is not in finite.

Finite is in finite.

In this case the pun is the difference between the verbal (sound) aspect and the symbolic aspect.

[punshhh]

:confused:

Wiki " "


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bird_converted_to_ASCII_characters.png <-----------------
:)

just another fall from grace
zipping through a verbal_space
like icarus' bogged down flight
nothing ever gets done rightAre you dissecting my name now?

Puns...shhh.

[punshhh]

Would that be a curved or un-curved plug hole?Its all about spinning, the greater the curvature the faster the spin.

When it reaches a point you will be spinning at an infinite rate.

[punshhh]

Lets put the maths to one side now and use pure thought.

Lets say we have an infinitely large circle, is the line around the edge of the circle curved or straight?

[doronshadmi]

Here is an example of verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial pun:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6039/6324768529_704db34253.jpg

It was taken from http://www-e.openu.ac.il/geninfor/openletter/ol18/pages12.pdf which researches brian's Glogal (non-local) Local linkage.

[doronshadmi]

By being aware of the non-locality of a line with respect to some point on it, it can be described as “curved” AND “straight” with respect to the point's domain, as shown in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7737500&postcount=114.

By understanding this fact it is realized that non-locality is the primary property of a line, where being “curved” OR “straight” is definitely secondary property of it.

Since verbal-only skill(ers) can't get the non-local primary property of a line (which can't be done without using also visual_spatial skills), they are wrongly defines a line by some secondary property of it (curvature, for example).

[jsfisher]

Lets put the maths to one side now and use pure thought.

Lets say we have an infinitely large circle, is the line around the edge of the circle curved or straight?


(a) Where would this circle be?
(b) Why do you assume curved and straight are mutually exclusive?

[epix]

Lets put the maths to one side now and use pure thought.

Lets say we have an infinitely large circle, is the line around the edge of the circle curved or straight?
Circles possess certain properties which they retain regardless of the their sizes. One of them is that to any point that lies on the circumference, a tangent line can be drawn. Since tangent line cannot be drawn to a straight line, the circumference of the circle must be always a curve for any radius larger than zero.

Now let's the "pure thought" deliver some hint. How do you draw one straight line? Here is an example: You make an initial point and drag your pencil in one direction - toward the east, for example. When you stop, one straight line is drawn. But when you start changing the direction of the straight line in the orthogonal manner (left, right, up, down), you draw a multitude of straight lines. Depending on you intention, the result may look like this:

http://ciks.cbt.nist.gov/garbocz/paper32/fig1.gif

Now think about it... "Is the line around the edge of the circle curved or straight?"

(Which one do you mean? There are many.)

[epix]

Since verbal-only skill(ers) can't get the non-local primary property of a line (which can't be done without using also visual_spatial skills), they are wrongly defines a line by some secondary property of it (curvature, for example).
Doron continuously takes issues with "traditional mathematics," and so it's safe to assume who the "verbal-only skill(ers)" may be.

Straight line:

"That which lies evenly between its extreme points."
~ Euclid ~

"The shortest line between two points."
~ Chauvenet ~

"A line which has the same direction through its whole length."
~ Newcomb ~

No mentioning of any curvature...

Doronetics and hostile-to-religion atheism were born in the same sewer where bubonic_plague_carrying_rats bit off the umbilical cords. Both disorders share the same pulpit to ooze their catechism from.

[doronshadmi]

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) can get things only if they are packed in context-dependent frameworks.

From these fragmented boxes they can't comprehend the actuality of a one unified Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework, where Ethics AND Logic\Technological skills are organs of a one coherent organism.

In terms of Mathematics, the can't comprehend the difference between primary and secondary properties of a given form.

For example, if the considered form is a line, they get it only by its secondary properties, which are being curved OR straight.

By using also Cross-contexts knowledge of a line, its primary non-local property among its curved AND straight secondary properties (which are local w.r.t to the primary non-local property) is known, exactly as demonstrated, for example, by the following diagram:

http://www.math.brown.edu/help/discontinuities%203.gif

The primary non-local property of a line w.r.t its curved AND straight secondary properties, is easily known, if one uses verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) get Ethics only if it is expressed by context-dependent frameworks, exactly as observed by the local-only view of different religions, cultures etc.

A one unified Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework, where Ethics AND Logic\Technological skills are organs of a one coherent realm, is exactly the framework that is developed beyond the current Context-dependent-only local-only view of different religions, cultures, logical\technological skills, etc.

[doronshadmi]

Being curved or straight is mutually exclusive (local and secondary property) w.r.t the non-local primary property of a form like a line, where by the non-local primary property of a line can be curved AND straight.

The following diagram clearly demonstrates the primary\secondary properties as a one comprehensive framework:

http://www.math.brown.edu/help/discontinuities%203.gif

[punshhh]

Circles possess certain properties which they retain regardless of the their sizes. One of them is that to any point that lies on the circumference, a tangent line can be drawn. Since tangent line cannot be drawn to a straight line, the circumference of the circle must be always a curve for any radius larger than zero.

Now let's the "pure thought" deliver some hint. How do you draw one straight line? Here is an example: You make an initial point and drag your pencil in one direction - toward the east, for example. When you stop, one straight line is drawn. But when you start changing the direction of the straight line in the orthogonal manner (left, right, up, down), you draw a multitude of straight lines. Depending on you intention, the result may look like this:

http://ciks.cbt.nist.gov/garbocz/paper32/fig1.gif

Now think about it... "Is the line around the edge of the circle curved or straight?"

(Which one do you mean? There are many.)

Thankyou Epix,
So the line around the edge of a circle is an infinite number of infinitely short straight lines arranged as a zigzag. Or perhaps an infinite number of tangents/facets?

Is this also the case for an infinitely large circle?

[punshhh]

(a) Where would this circle be?
(b) Why do you assume curved and straight are mutually exclusive?

(a) in a hypothetical unlimited space, 2 or 3 dimensions.

(b) one is straight and the other is curved, unless you can explain how one can be the other?

[doronshadmi]

Thankyou Epix,
So the line around the edge of a circle is an infinite number of infinitely short straight lines arranged as a zigzag. Or perhaps an infinite number of tangents/facets?

Is this also the case for an infinitely large circle?
punshhh, please be aware of the fact that if the circumference has zigzag shape, pi is not an invariant value, or in other words, the considered form is not a circle.

[jsfisher]

(a) in a hypothetical unlimited space, 2 or 3 dimensions.

Yes, but where? Let's say for the sake of discussion the circle's center is at the origin. Now, can you tell me where any point on the circle is located? If you'd prefer, put the center somewhere else of your choosing, then locate any point on the circle.

(b) one is straight and the other is curved, unless you can explain how one can be the other?

You are substituting colloquial meanings of words for the more precise meanings used in Mathematics. That is acceptable to a point, because it can certainly facilitate communication were the nit-picky details and qualifications are understood. On the other hand, when it is used as Doron does, to confuse and obfuscate the nit-picky details and qualifications -- in effect to disprove a definition -- then it is totally unacceptable.

In Mathematics, straight is a special case of curved, not an alternative. Curves include the straight lines.

Doron's disagreement with this is strictly to just disagree; he has no salient point.

[epix]

Thankyou Epix,
So the line around the edge of a circle is an infinite number of infinitely short straight lines arranged as a zigzag. Or perhaps an infinite number of tangents/facets?

Is this also the case for an infinitely large circle?
Essentially yes. It is the task that defines an objects. Calculus sees curves as a collection of straight lines. In other words, any curve segment is made of infinitely many straight lines, like in this semicircle:

http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/pi3.gif

You can see now that it's easy to compute the area of the semicircle by computing the area of each rectangle and by adding them together - there are infinitely many of them though, but the technique of integration can handle the task:

http://www.vias.org/calculus/img/04_integration-37.gif


http://www.vias.org/calculus/img/04_integration-279.gif

[The Man]

Its all about spinning, the greater the curvature the faster the spin.

When it reaches a point you will be spinning at an infinite rate.

If by spinning you mean angular velocity, then a smaller diameter disc (more curved) would have to have a greater angular speed (RPM) to obtain the same tangential speed as a larger diameter (less curved) disc. What “point” “will be spinning at an infinite rate” and when do you ’reach’ it?

If by spinning you mean twisting words and phrases to suit ones needs then I seriously doubt Doron could be spinning any faster.

[doronshadmi]

By verbal_symbolic-only Mathematics, secondary properties like straight or curved block the ability to get the primary non-local property of, for example, a line.

More details about this fine subject are found in:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7744169&postcount=126

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7744317&postcount=127

punshhh, verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) can offer you only "packed in boxes" Mathematics, that has no ability to get things also beyond their context-dependent restrictions.

More you communicate with them more you realize how they simply can't get Mathematics in terms of verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills as a one comprehensive framework.

[punshhh]

If by spinning you mean angular velocity, then a smaller diameter disc (more curved) would have to have a greater angular speed (RPM) to obtain the same tangential speed as a larger diameter (less curved) disc. What “point” “will be spinning at an infinite rate” and when do you ’reach’ it?

A true point and you can't reach it. Can you imaging a spin of infinite rate?
Can it be represented mathematically?

[epix]

A true point and you can't reach it. Can you imaging a spin of infinite rate?
Can it be represented mathematically?
It can be imagined physically using Einstein's theory of relativity. In other words, a physical object cannot exceed the speed of light - there is no source of energy to make it happen. So your scenario wouldn't materialize.

In purely abstract, non-physical sense, anything can be infinitely accelerating, even a bowl of mashed potatoes. (http://cdn.buzznet.com/media/jjr/headlines/2011/06/jason-dolley-glc-new-shoes.jpg)

[epix]

punshhh, verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) can offer you only "packed in boxes" Mathematics, that has no ability to get things also beyond their context-dependent restrictions.

More you communicate with them more you realize how they simply can't get Mathematics in terms of verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills as a one comprehensive framework.
Punshhh, Doron has only two pics of his own that he keeps exhibiting (Doronian side-orders). Otherwise his sermon is the "verbal_symbolic_only" style that he finds alone insufficient to understand the depths of mathematics doronized beyond recognition.

[The Man]

A true point and you can't reach it. Can you imaging a spin of infinite rate?
Can it be represented mathematically?

"A true point"? Well a mathematical point has no dimensions (thus no spinning) itself. A spin rate (as angular change per unit time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rpm)) requires two dimensions, angle and time. Can you imagine a spin of zero rate? It can be represented mathematically; 0 change in angle (since a point has no angle, circumference, diameter or any other dimensional attribute itself), we can even represent that lack of anglular change for a mathematical point in radians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radian) (a dimensionless quantity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_number)), over X seconds (wait as long as you want the non-dimensionality of a mathematical point wont change), gives a rate of 0 radians /X seconds =0 radians/ second. The only real difference is that we are now considering a different point in time as time is a dimension, so the point of contention would still be back at that original time no matter how much one might like to just “spin” it into the future.

[epix]

"A true point"? Well a mathematical point has no dimensions (thus no spinning) itself. A spin rate (as angular change per unit time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rpm)) requires two dimensions, angle and time. Can you imagine a spin of zero rate? It can be represented mathematically; 0 change in angle (since a point has no angle, circumference, diameter or any other dimensional attribute itself), we can even represent that lack of anglular change for a mathematical point in radians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radian) (a dimensionless quantity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_number)), over X seconds (wait as long as you want the non-dimensionality of a mathematical point wont change), gives a rate of 0 radians /X seconds =0 radians/ second. The only real difference is that we are now considering a different point in time as time is a dimension, so the point of contention would still be back at that original time no matter how much one might like to just “spin” it into the future.
Punshhh lives in rural England and that affects his questions regarding objects that move "infinitely fast." People who live on the farm sometimes share their experience with others regarding the phenomenon where they moved infinitely fast when the friction forces didn't work for them and the ladder that they must often climb started to slip beneath them.

A ladder leans against a wall. It begins to slide, the top end moving down the wall and the bottom end across the floor away from the wall.

Such a scenario is the basis for a variety of calculus problems. For example, if the ladder's bottom end moves away from the wall at a constant speed, what is the velocity of the top of the ladder at any given instant? Curiously, the mathematical model indicates that the velocity of the top approaches infinity when the ladder hits the floor.

Aaah, those symbolic_verbal_only skill(ers)! They can't get anything right. ;)

http://www.maa.org/mathtourist/mathtourist_11_11_08.html

[The Man]

Punshhh lives in rural England and that affects his questions regarding objects that move "infinitely fast." People who live on the farm sometimes share their experience with others regarding the phenomenon where they moved infinitely fast when the friction forces didn't work for them and the ladder that they must often climb started to slip beneath them.

Aaah, those symbolic_verbal_only skill(ers)! They can't get anything right. ;)

http://www.maa.org/mathtourist/mathtourist_11_11_08.html


Well, I live in rural New York, though I did have to study mechanics of materials ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanics_of_materials) (compression, elongation, stress, strain and such physical attributes that you allude to) before I was employed as a mechanical engineer.

[doronshadmi]

By using abstraction, an infinite curvature has exactly 0-dimesional space, where 0-dimensional space can be at one and only one location w.r.t a give domain.

This is not the case about 1-demensional space (weather it is curved or straight), because by define it as an element (an atom) w.r.t a given domain like 0-dimnsional space, it can be at AND not at the given 0-dimnsional space location (where the given 0-dimnsional space is also an atom).

I used the words "host" (for the relation of 1-demensional space w.r.t a given 0-dimnsional space) and "hosted" (for the relation of 0-demensional space w.r.t a given 1-dimnsional space) in order to clarify that these dimensions are verbally_symbolically defined as non-local\local w.r.t each other, but they are not made of each other visually_spatially since they are elements (atoms).

So, the "host" AND "hosted" notion actually known only by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills in order to really define the relations among different dimensional spaces.

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers)' reasoning can't get the invariance of the atomic state of the relations among different dimensional spaces.

Furthermore, they force their context-dependent-only "packed in boxes" reasoning on the entire population, at least for the past 500 years.

One of the devastating results of context-dependent-only "packed in boxes" reasoning is its built-in inability to grasp and develop a unified comprehensive and balanced framework for our ethical and logical\technological skills.

The results of this inability are daily seen by the race after mass destruction weapon, exactly because of the non-unified and imbalanced framework among our ethical and logical\technological skills.

Take, for example, the Iran case.

If it is fulfilled, then you can say good-bye to the rest of the life-supporting technological results of the past 5000 years.

Another devastating results are the technological developments, winch harm planet Earth's Ecosystem, exactly because these technologies are based on imbalanced minds, which can't comprehend the development of the unified framework among our ethical and logical\technological skills, which can't be achieved without using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills as a one comprehensive framework.

After 9 years of discussion over the internet, it is clear that the current community of mathematicians uses almost only verbal_symbolic skills and as a result they can't comprehend http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7676943&postcount=5 or this post.

Without Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework development, we are going to be impacted very quickly by the imbalanced framework that was developed for the past 5000 years mostly by verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) (this imbalanced development was accelerated for the past 500 years).

[epix]

Well, I live in rural New York, though I did have to study mechanics of materials ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanics_of_materials) (compression, elongation, stress, strain and such physical attributes that you allude to) before I was employed as a mechanical engineer.
That's why it's unlikely that the ladder slips under you.
;)

[epix]

By using abstraction, an infinite curvature has exactly 0-dimesional space, where 0-dimensional space can be at one and only one location w.r.t a give domain.

Abstraction is of no use here. One really needs to wait for the autopsy to learn in what degree of mental decomposition the above idea actually is. "...An infinite curvature has exactly 0-dime[n]sional space..."

[doronshadmi]

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) do not have the needed skills in order to realize that Non-locality and Locality are the primary properties among mathematical or physical dimensional spaces, exactly because they wrongly get these dimensional spaces by their secondary properties.

For example, they try to define mathematical or physical dimensional spaces in terms of secondary property like curvature.

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, as done by the following diagram:

http://www.math.brown.edu/help/discontinuities%203.gif

one really understands that a 1-dimesional space is non-local w.r.t any given curvature's degree along it, including infinite curvature, known as 0-dimesional space (in this example, 1-dimensional space is at AND not at w.r.t to any curvature degree along it, or in other words, Non-locality is a primary property w.r.t to curvature's property).

Again, by using an example used by set theory, no collection of different "hosted" curvatures reaches the power of the continuum (the non-locality) of a given "host" mathematical or physical space, such that {|(collection of all possible curvatures)|} < |{(collection of all possible curvatures)}|, as explained in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7665090&postcount=16566 and http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7666664&postcount=16568 (and can't be known by verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers)).

This understanding is generalized to all possible mathematical or physical dimensional spaces, such that all dimensional spaces > 0 are non-local w.r.t all dimensional spaces that are smaller than them AND all smaller dimensional spaces are local w.r.t these greater dimensional spaces, no matter what curvature degree is considered among all smaller and greater dimensional spaces, exactly because curvature degree is a secondary property among mathematical or physical dimensional spaces (again, this fact is known only by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, something that verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) can't do).

[epix]

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, as done by the following diagram:

http://www.math.brown.edu/help/discontinuities%203.gif

one really understands that a 1-dimesional space is non-local w.r.t any given curvature's degree along it, including infinite curvature, known as 0-dimesional space (in this example, 1-dimensional space is at AND not at w.r.t to any curvature degree along it, or in other words, Non-locality is a primary property w.r.t to curvature's property).

In case someone may wonder what the graph is actually all about, here is a brief explanation of the broad kind: By monitoring the behavior of some object under Condition A, we receive data. When we organize the data, they form a curve. When Condition A is no longer in effect, the behavior of the object is theorized to change and indeed it is so, as the data organization results in the straight line. What draws both lines are functions:

Condition A ~ "function that draws a curve"
Condition not A ~ "function that draws a straight line"

Since there is only one object displaying certain property under two different conditions - the property we are interested about - there is also only one function, but divided into two parts. Such a function f(x) is called "piecewise function." This type of function can have many parts depending on the number of conditions under which the studied object behaves. Here is another example of piecewise function y:

http://kerbaugh.uncfsu.edu/piecewise/piecewise_function.gif

You can use piecewise function to monitor the speed of a car over certain distances. For example, when a car accelerates to a certain speed and then keeps going at that constant speed, the result is a curve and a straight line, coz curves describe acceleration of an object, whereas straight lines describe the speed of an object moving at a constant speed.

[doronshadmi]

By understating the "host"\"hosted" principle, one understands that given any mathematical or physical space, no collection of "hosted" spaces is the "host" space.

For example, a given function is the "host" space of the collection of all the possible "hosted" results, where being "host" means that the function is at AND not at the domain of all possible results, exactly because it is an invariant rule w.r.t to all the possible results.

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) get only the collection of all possible results but they don't understand the invariant and non-local property of the rule, which is the "host" space of all the "hosted" results, such that being "host" space means that it is defined but not made of the "hosted" spaces (the collections of particular results).

[doronshadmi]

In addition to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7754750&postcount=146 , for example, the collection of all natural numbers is not the "host" class, where the "host" class is at AND beyond all natural numbers, otherwise the natural numbers (the "hosted" objects) are not gathered by a common rule.

The "host" class is at the domain of the "hosted" objects, such that the terms "host" and "hosted" are defined w.r.t each other AND it is also not at the domain of the "hosted" objects, because it is not made of the "hosted" objects (for example: 1-dimensional space is not made of 0-dimensional spaces, yet it is defined as the "host" space w.r.t 0-dimensional spaces, where 0-dimenrsional spaces are defined as "hosted" spaces w.r.t 1-dimensional space).

In terms of Cardinality aleph-0 is related but also beyond all natural numbers (and so is the case with all transfinite cardinals w.r.t to the classified objects).

Cantor missed the notion of the non-locality of transfinite cardinality, exactly because he used verbal_symbolic-only skills in order to get them.

[jsfisher]

Cantor missed the notion of the non-locality of transfinite cardinality, exactly because he used verbal_symbolic-only skills in order to get them.


Such an odd and baseless thing for Doron to claim. But, then again, most of what Doron has to say is odd and baseless.

Cantor's concepts still work so he must have done something right. Doron's, not so much, and it is reasonably certain he has yet to do anything right.

[epix]

Cantor missed the notion of the non-locality of transfinite cardinality, exactly because he used verbal_symbolic-only skills in order to get them.

The agreement between plurals


Cantor missed the notion of the non-locality of transfinite cardinality, exactly because he used verbal_symbolic-only skills in order to get them.


suggests that Cantor used verbal_symbolic-only skills in order to get verbal_symbolic-only skills. :boggled:

Note that the term "non-locality of transfinite cardinality" is rendered in its verbal_only form, like any other Doron's idea that cannot be meaningfully visualized without invoking the work of Hieronymus Bosh.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wafnR4B40ak/TNISO9yXukI/AAAAAAAACMU/3_XERNexeUk/s1600/Hieronymus+Bosch.jpg

[The Man]

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) do not have the needed skills in order to realize that Non-locality and Locality are the primary properties among mathematical or physical dimensional spaces, exactly because they wrongly get these dimensional spaces by their secondary properties.

So the “primary properties among mathematical or physical dimensional spaces” aren’t their, well, dimensionality but just some deliberately ill defined “Non-locality and Locality” that you also deliberately (later in your post) associate directly with their dimensionality? You continue to amaze only yourself Doron.



For example, they try to define mathematical or physical dimensional spaces in terms of secondary property like curvature.

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, as done by the following diagram:

http://www.math.brown.edu/help/discontinuities%203.gif

one really understands that a 1-dimesional space is non-local w.r.t any given curvature's degree along it, including infinite curvature, known as 0-dimesional space (in this example, 1-dimensional space is at AND not at w.r.t to any curvature degree along it, or in other words, Non-locality is a primary property w.r.t to curvature's property).

Wait, “1-dimesional space is non-local w.r.t any given curvature's degree along it”, so your “1-dimesional space” is “non-local w.r.t” to itself, since that is what has the curvature? “Non-locality is a primary property w.r.t to curvature's property”? So your “0-dimesional space” is “non-local w.r.t” to itself as you use what you call “infinite curvature” as the defining attribute. Can you ever even just agree with yourself Doron? Again until you can no one can ever possibly agree with you. Please tell use what exactly has “infinite curvature” in your “0-dimesional space”.


Again, by using an example used by set theory, no collection of different "hosted" curvatures reaches the power of the continuum (the non-locality) of a given "host" mathematical or physical space, such that {|(collection of all possible curvatures)|} < |{(collection of all possible curvatures)}|, as explained in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7665090&postcount=16566 and http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7666664&postcount=16568 (and can't be known by verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers)).

What “example used by set theory” makes such claims?



This understanding is generalized to all possible mathematical or physical dimensional spaces, such that all dimensional spaces > 0 are non-local w.r.t all dimensional spaces that are smaller than them AND all smaller dimensional spaces are local w.r.t these greater dimensional spaces, no matter what curvature degree is considered among all smaller and greater dimensional spaces, exactly because curvature degree is a secondary property among mathematical or physical dimensional spaces (again, this fact is known only by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, something that verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) can't do).

And now here we come full circle with you now directly linking your “non-local” and “local” to the dimensionality of your “dimensional spaces”. Of course with your assertions before of your “1-dimesional space is non-local wrt any given curvature’s degree along it,” and your “infinite curvature, known as 0-dimesional space”. Your “curvature” is also thrown into the deliberately ill defined, self-contradictory and jumbled up mix. If you’re as concerned about the state of the world and nuclear proliferation as you allude to before, then stop wasting your time with this self-contradictory nonsense, learn something, get involved and make a difference instead of just pretending that more nonsense is what such a situation would require.

[epix]

So the “primary properties among mathematical or physical dimensional spaces” aren’t their, well, dimensionality but just some deliberately ill defined “Non-locality and Locality” that you also deliberately (later in your post) associate directly with their dimensionality? You continue to amaze only yourself Doron.

Doron is just lazy to explain the concept of the locality using both types of skills that basically relate to the verbal AND the visual rendering. Take for example the Newton Laws. You can translate the formulas using a descriptive language, but if you see the actual demonstration at the same time, then everything can be easily understood. But as far as the locality is concerned, there is a need for a third element that would enter the explaining: verbal AND visual AND host (the concept that Doron is now very particular to). Not everyone can demonstrate the locality w.r.t. Newton Laws though. In the following video - it's in the middle of the page - the locality, which has fascinated Doron and very likely interested even Isaac Newton, appears at 12:30 of the video. Since the locality is superbly hosted, no other question should follow.
http://www.ceskatelevize.cz/porady/10319921345-rande-s-fyzikou/211563230150003-newtonovy-zakony/

[doronshadmi]

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) get the phrase “1-dimesional space is non-local w.r.t any given curvature's degree along it” as if 1-dimesional space is non-local w.r.t itself, exactly because they get 1-dimesional space in terms of collection of particular (and therefore limited domains of) curvatures (again, it has to be stressed that dimensional spaces are defined but not made of each other, which is a fact that verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) can't comprehend).

But all curvatures have their own values, where 1-dimesional space is not any particular value (it is at AND not at any particular curvature along it, whether this curvature is finite or not).

In other words, it is non-local w.r.t the property of curvature, where each given curvature is some local case w.r.t 1-dimesional space.

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) claim that they can define two distinct infinite curvatures without any finite curvature between them.

By avoiding the finite curvature between the infinite curvatures, they miss the non-locality of the 1-dimesional space w.r.t the different curvatures along it, which is at AND not at the domain of any particular curvature, where each particular curvature (finite or not) is local w.r.t it.

Once again, Non-locality and Locality are defined by each other, but they are not made of each other exactly as 1-dimensioal space is not made of the particular (and therefore limited domains of) curvatures along it.

Furthermore, the terms "host" and "hosted" is used in order to clarify that different given spaces are defined but not made of each other.

If one takes Curvature as the primary property of dimensional spaces, then one actually claims that, for example, 0-curvature is made of a collection of infinitely many infinite curvatures, which is a wrong notion.

[epix]

If one takes Curvature as the primary property of dimensional spaces, then one actually claims that, for example, 0-curvature is made of a collection of infinitely many infinite curvatures, which is a wrong notion.
If one takes Curvature as the primary property of dimensional spaces, then he won't be able to use this primary property to locate the primary components of constructions called points. That's why one doesn't take Curvature as the primary property of dimensional spaces and choses something else instead:

In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it.


The second reason why one doesn't take Curvature as the primary property of dimensional spaces is that such a choice lacks any meaning when visualized, as opposed to the common sense definition of dimension.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dimension_levels.svg (No pun intended with the :D in the link. It's a part of ':' followed by D[imension]).

Once again, we see that Doron's inventions can't become a feast for the "visual_spacial skill(ers)." Not a complete loss though, coz the blah_blah_blah_blah_only skill(ers) will be fed.

[The Man]

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) get the phrase “1-dimesional space is non-local w.r.t any given curvature's degree along it” as if 1-dimesional space is non-local w.r.t itself, exactly because they get 1-dimesional space in terms of collection of particular (and therefore limited domains of) curvatures (again, it has to be stressed that dimensional spaces are defined but not made of each other, which is a fact that verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) can't comprehend).

What “limited domains of) curvatures” are you restricting your fantasy “Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers)” to? Again if for some reason you just don’t like the limits you place on your own fantasies, then you should strive to at least have better fantasies.


But all curvatures have their own values, where 1-dimesional space is not any particular value (it is at AND not at any particular curvature along it, whether this curvature is finite or not).

As other “dimesional space”s can have zero and/or non-zero curvature your “1-dimesional space” is a particular value of “dimesional space”s that can have zero and/or non-zero curvature. Oh and your “straight line” is a “1-dimesional space” with a very “particular value” of curvature, 0.


In other words, it is non-local w.r.t the property of curvature, where each given curvature is some local case w.r.t 1-dimesional space.

Again the curvature of a line is specifically a property of that line so you just claim your “line” is “non-local w.r.t” to itself.




Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) claim that they can define two distinct infinite curvatures without any finite curvature between them.

By avoiding the finite curvature between the infinite curvatures, they miss the non-locality of the 1-dimesional space w.r.t the different curvatures along it, which is at AND not at the domain of any particular curvature, where each particular curvature (finite or not) is local w.r.t it.

Again if you have problems with your fantasy “Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers)” you should probably try to have fantasies that are less problematic for you.




Once again, Non-locality and Locality are defined by each other, but they are not made of each other exactly as 1-dimensioal space is not made of the particular (and therefore limited domains of) curvatures along it.

As already noted many times before that just makes your purported “Non-locality and Locality” ‘definitions’ circular.



Furthermore, the terms "host" and "hosted" is used in order to clarify that different given spaces are defined but not made of each other.

If one takes Curvature as the primary property of dimensional spaces, then one actually claims that, for example, 0-curvature is made of a collection of infinitely many infinite curvatures, which is a wrong notion.

No one but you has made such a claim, too bad for you then.

[doronshadmi]

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) do not get their own phrases.

For example let's take the phrase:

"Again the curvature of a line is specifically a property of that line"

This phrase actually means that the property of curvature is context dependent ("specifically a property of that line"), such that no measured curvature is the one and only one possible curvature of the 1-dimesional space.

In other words, the 1-dimensional space is the "host" (cross-contexts) w.r.t all infinitely many particular (specifically) "hosted" (context-dependent) curvatures along it.

Furthermore, being dimensional space is cross-contexts w.r.t to all particular (and therefore context-dependent) dimensional spaces, such that no particular (specifically) dimensional space is, by definition, the one and only one possible dimensional space.

So is the case about Set, it is cross-contexts w.r.t to all classified (and therefore context-dependent cases) where, for example, being empty set or non-empty are particular (specifically) context-dependent w.r.t to the cross-contexts concept of Set.

In other words, any given framework (no matter what concept is used) is not less than Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent.

The terms "host" and "hosted" is used in order to clarify that different given mathematical or physical spaces are defined but not made of each other, such that being "host" is cross-contexts or non-local w.r.t being "hosted", where being "hosted" is context-dependent or local (specifically) w.r.t being "host".

[doronshadmi]

A phrase like:" “1-dimesional space” is a particular value of “dimesional space”s that can have zero and/or non-zero curvature." clreary demostrate that AND among different curvatures is possible exactly becuse 1-dimesional is cross-context w.r.t the different curvatures along it.

Varbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) simply can't get it.

[epix]

A phrase like:" “1-dimesional space” is a particular value of “dimesional space”s that can have zero and/or non-zero curvature." clreary demostrate that AND among different curvatures is possible exactly becuse 1-dimesional is cross-context w.r.t the different curvatures along it.

Varbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) simply can't get it.
Well, they can do something that really matters - something that Doron can't do: they can actually compute the curvature of the line. And that, as opposed to Doronetics, is the primary object of not only the topic but the whole of mathematics.

[doronshadmi]

No matter how many times Cross-context AND Context-dependent framework is introduced to Context-dependent-only skill(er), he\she will get only by its Context-dependent accept.

Because of this limitation they can't comprehend non-local numbers like 0.111...2 or calculation like 0.111...2 + 0.000...12 = 1

[doronshadmi]

Some verbal_symbolic-only skill(er) claims: "“1-dimesional space” is a particular value of “dimesional space”"

He is right, 1-dimesional space is some particular (context-dependent or local) form of the Cross-contexts concept of Dimensional space w.r.t its all particular (context-dependent or local) forms.

Once again Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent holds, but Context-dependent-only skill(ers) get only its Context-dependent accept.

[The Man]

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) do not get their own phrases.

For example let's take the phrase:

"Again the curvature of a line is specifically a property of that line"

This phrase actually means that the property of curvature is context dependent ("specifically a property of that line"), such that no measured curvature is the one and only one possible curvature of the 1-dimesional space.

In other words, the 1-dimensional space is the "host" (cross-contexts) w.r.t all infinitely many particular (specifically) "hosted" (context-dependent) curvatures along it.

Furthermore, being dimensional space is cross-contexts w.r.t to all particular (and therefore context-dependent) dimensional spaces, such that no particular (specifically) dimensional space is, by definition, the one and only one possible dimensional space.

So is the case about Set, it is cross-contexts w.r.t to all classified (and therefore context-dependent cases) where, for example, being empty set or non-empty are particular (specifically) context-dependent w.r.t to the cross-contexts concept of Set.

In other words, any given framework (no matter what concept is used) is not less than Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent.

The terms "host" and "hosted" is used in order to clarify that different given mathematical or physical spaces are defined but not made of each other, such that being "host" is cross-contexts or non-local w.r.t being "hosted", where being "hosted" is context-dependent or local (specifically) w.r.t being "host".

So you still just don’t (or just don’t want to) understand context. Whatever your fantasy “Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers)” may or may not get, the statement “Again the curvature of a line is specifically a property of that line" is explicit. By all means, please, tell us what other curvatures (other than 0) your “straight line” has?


So which is it Doron, your “straight line” is not entirely straight (given your history you claiming your “straight line” does not involve being straight wouldn’t surprise anyone) or your claim that “the property of curvature is context dependent ("specifically a property of that line"), such that no measured curvature is the one and only one possible curvature of the 1-dimesional space.” is just nonsensical gibberish that you don’t even agree with?


If all this blather is just intended to assert that different lines can have different curvatures then once again you simply belabor the trivial just as different lines can have the same curvature.

[The Man]

Some verbal_symbolic-only skill(er) claims: "“1-dimesional space” is a particular value of “dimesional space”"

He is right, 1-dimesional space is some particular (context-dependent or local) form of the Cross-contexts concept of Dimensional space w.r.t its all particular (context-dependent or local) forms.

Once again Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent holds, but Context-dependent-only skill(ers) get only its Context-dependent accept.




What different context other than geometry are you using your “concept of Dimensional space” in? Without such a different context there is again nothing that crosses contexts in your “Cross-contexts”. Once again you seem to be simply and deliberately confusing different dimensional spaces within the same context (geometry) as somehow being different contexts.

[epix]

What different context other than geometry are you using your “concept of Dimensional space” in? Without such a different context there is again nothing that crosses contexts in your “Cross-contexts”. Once again you seem to be simply and deliberately confusing different dimensional spaces within the same context (geometry) as somehow being different contexts.
Doron simply continues his assault on non-existing issues. That's why his claims, such as

Some verbal_symbolic-only skill(er) claims: "“1-dimesional space” is a particular value of “dimesional space”"

always lack a citation. The second and related reason for the deliberate omissions is that by including the source, he runs a high risk of being shown that he misinterpreted the idea in the source, as it was the case many times.

[The Man]

Doron simply continues his assault on non-existing issues. That's why his claims, such as

always lack a citation. The second and related reason for the deliberate omissions is that by including the source, he runs a high risk of being shown that he misinterpreted the idea in the source, as it was the case many times.

Well as I’ve said before, epix, Dorons current pretend ignorance of other posters works quite well as it clearly demonstrates that he is deliberately not addressing (and never has been) the assertions and questions of other posters but just some fantasy “verbal_symbolic-only skill(er)”, yet still finds such problematic and can’t even agree with just himself. That he seems driven to fantasies that trouble him so, then sees himself and/or his notions as the savoir from such troubles but just can’t seem to save himself from his own troubling fantasies, is irony of the saddest kind.

[epix]

Well as I’ve said before, epix, Dorons current pretend ignorance of other posters works quite well as it clearly demonstrates that he is deliberately not addressing (and never has been) the assertions and questions of other posters but just some fantasy “verbal_symbolic-only skill(er)”, yet still finds such problematic and can’t even agree with just himself. That he seems driven to fantasies that trouble him so, then sees himself and/or his notions as the savoir from such troubles but just can’t seem to save himself from his own troubling fantasies, is irony of the saddest kind.
Maybe Doron lost his own definition of 'local' and 'non-local' and so he keeps going thinking 'local' in the wrong place.

That way, Doron, that way --------------> (http://viad.tv/img/2011/05/Monologue-Reel-2011.jpg)

[The Man]

Maybe Doron lost his own definition of 'local' and 'non-local' and so he keeps going thinking 'local' in the wrong place.

That way, Doron, that way --------------> (http://viad.tv/img/2011/05/Monologue-Reel-2011.jpg)

Remember epix, "belongs to AND does not belong to" is a perfectly valid and in fact a critical fundamental expression of Doronics. So "belongs to" "local" "AND does not belong to" "local" (thus "non-local") must ensue. So rather than that direct self-contradiction being an artifact of some simple lack of self-consistency it seems to be the primary goal. Which of course simply makes Doronics self-refuting as disagreeing with it is an explicit and fundamental requirement of agreeing with it.

[epix]

Remember epix, "belongs to AND does not belong to" is a perfectly valid and in fact a critical fundamental expression of Doronics. So "belongs to" "local" "AND does not belong to" "local" (thus "non-local") must ensue. So rather than that direct self-contradiction being an artifact of some simple lack of self-consistency it seems to be the primary goal. Which of course simply makes Doronics self-refuting as disagreeing with it is an explicit and fundamental requirement of agreeing with it.
Stupid me! That's the heart of the issue: (monologue AND not-monologue) = (monologue AND dialogue)!!! That's why Doron hangs around Religion rather than Philosophy to share the art of seeing Oneness in Mutual Exclusivity. Now the question is who Doron really is. (http://theresurgence.com/files/2009/09/18/20090918_how-jesus-made-disciples-monologue-dialogue_poster_img.jpg)

:jaw-dropp

This is big! The moment so many folks have been waiting for with reverence AND joy already arrived a few years back - largely unnoticed. :rolleyes:

[doronshadmi]

So you still just don’t (or just don’t want to) understand context. Whatever your fantasy “Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers)” may or may not get, the statement “Again the curvature of a line is specifically a property of that line" is explicit. By all means, please, tell us what other curvatures (other than 0) your “straight line” has?


So which is it Doron, your “straight line” is not entirely straight (given your history you claiming your “straight line” does not involve being straight wouldn’t surprise anyone) or your claim that “the property of curvature is context dependent ("specifically a property of that line"), such that no measured curvature is the one and only one possible curvature of the 1-dimesional space.” is just nonsensical gibberish that you don’t even agree with?


If all this blather is just intended to assert that different lines can have different curvatures then once again you simply belabor the trivial just as different lines can have the same curvature.

The claim that there are different 1-dimensional spaces according to different curvatures is just nonsensical gibberish, simply because being 1-dimesinal space is Cross-contexts (invariant) realm w.r.t all different (variant) Context-dependent curvatures, which are partial and therefore local accepts w.r.t Cross-contexts (invariant) 1-dimensional space realm.

Again, a considered realm is at least Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent, such that Cross-contexts is the common (and therefore non-local) rule wr.t all possible partial Context-dependent (and therefore local) expressions of the common and therefore non-local) rule.

The given curvature of 1-dimensional space is explicitly a partial property of that 1-dimensional space.

By this notion 1-dimensional space is the unified realm among partial expressions of it.

But before we get the unified realm of 1-dimensional space, we are aware of 0 curvature as the finest and therefore objective aspect of 1-dimensional space, such that observing the rest of the curvatures from 0 curvature view all curvatures > 0 are fully known as partial (and therefore subjective aspects) of 1-dimensional space.

For example from the observation of 0 noise, no noise > 0 is escaped from ones awareness, and by not losing 0 noise during noises > 0, ones awareness is Unified into a one realm, exactly as being aware of 1-dimesional space is actually being aware of the unified Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent one realm.

[The Man]

Stupid me! That's the heart of the issue: (monologue AND not-monologue) = (monologue AND dialogue)!!! That's why Doron hangs around Religion rather than Philosophy to share the art of seeing Oneness in Mutual Exclusivity. Now the question is who Doron really is. (http://theresurgence.com/files/2009/09/18/20090918_how-jesus-made-disciples-monologue-dialogue_poster_img.jpg)

:jaw-dropp

This is big! The moment so many folks have been waiting for with reverence AND joy already arrived a few years back - largely unnoticed. :rolleyes:

Nope, it's reverence AND irreverence OR sorrow AND joy. Don't you go messing up that self-contradictory Oneness, Doron continues to stress what the consequences of such will be.

[The Man]

The claim that there are different 1-dimensional spaces according to different curvatures is just nonsensical gibberish, simply because being 1-dimesinal space is Cross-contexts (invariant) realm w.r.t all different (variant) Context-dependent curvatures, which are partial and therefore local accepts w.r.t Cross-contexts (invariant) 1-dimensional space realm.

"partial"? So now only part of your "straight line" indivisible "atom" is well, straight?


Again, a considered realm is at least Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent, such that Cross-contexts is the common (and therefore non-local) rule wr.t all possible partial Context-dependent (and therefore local) expressions of the common and therefore non-local) rule.

Once again you are apparently simply, and most likely deliberately, confusing different descriptions within a singular context as different contexts.




The given curvature of 1-dimensional space is explicitly a partial property of that 1-dimensional space.

Again your "1-dimensional space" "atom" can have no " partial", you simply disagree with yourself and one of the basic tents of your notions again.



By this notion 1-dimensional space is the unified realm among partial expressions of it.

So now your "line" "atom" does have parts that are, well, unified. See union ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_(set_theory)), you may be learning something in spite of yourself Doron.



But before we get the unified realm of 1-dimensional space, we are aware of 0 curvature as the finest and therefore objective aspect of 1-dimensional space, such that observing the rest of the curvatures from 0 curvature view all curvatures > 0 are fully known as partial (and therefore subjective aspects) of 1-dimensional space.

So before your unified "straight line" "atom" has a curvature greater than 0 (is no longer straight) it is straight? Amazing!!!




For example from the observation of 0 noise, no noise > 0 is escaped from ones awareness, and by not losing 0 noise during noises > 0, ones awareness is Unified into a one realm, exactly as being aware of 1-dimesional space is actually being aware of the unified Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent one realm.

"noise > 0" might be "escaped from" some aspect of your "awareness" (or lack thereof) when you hear "no noise" but not from the awareness of most (particularly if they happen to have a dB meter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel_Meters))


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decible

[doronshadmi]

Verbal-symbolic skill(ers) get mathematical or physical dimensional space only in terms of the verbal_symbolic expression "Geometry".

Ones again Dimensional space is really known by verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

Getting Dimensional space only in terms of visual_spatial skills does not hold exactly as getting Dimensional space only in terms of verbal_symbolic skills does not hold.

[doronshadmi]

It is not amazing at all how context-dependent-only skill(ers) (whether they get a given realm by verbal_symbolic-only skills or visual_spatial-only skills) can't get that the "host" (the atomic state) of a given mathematical or physical dimensional space is defined but not made of its "hosted" expressions, exactly as a 1-dimensional space is defined as non-local w.r.t all possible curvatures, but it is not made of these curvatures, exactly because they are localities w.r.t it (the 1-dimensional space is at-once at all possible curvatures (it is a non-local atomic state) where no possible curvature is at-once at all possible curvatures (it is a local atomic state).

[doronshadmi]

Finer than all thoughts is not itself a thought, exactly as silence is not itself a noise.

Exactly as one's attention is naturally aware of more and more excited levels of mental activity (no matter what meaning is given to it), one's attention is naturally aware of more and more calmer levels of mental activity (no matter what meaning is given to it).

At the calmest awareness one naturally transcends any mantel activity (any thoughts’ process) and actually aware of the source of space\time, which transcends space\time, where this awareness is naturally free of any mental activity (any thoughts’ process).

By actually use one's natural abilities to be aware of the space\time source without losing it during mental activity (during thoughts’ process), one's awareness is developed into Unity awareness, which enables to act in real harmony w.r.t other space\time expressions.

For example, please look at http://www.tm.org/blog/maharishi/transcendental-meditation-mantra/


Maharishi Mahesh Yogi:

“The practice (of Transcendental Meditation) involves thinking of a word, a word devoid of meaning.

Meaning is a static thing. The sound changes in its pitch—it can be loud sound, or low sound. The meaning is the same at every pitch. If the mind is on the meaning, there is no chance of refining the meaning. If the mind is not on the meaning, there is a chance of refining the sound, there is a chance of experiencing the sound in its finer values till the finest could be transcended and the awareness could reach that inner wakefulness devoid of any perception. This will be Transcendental Consciousness….

This unbounded awareness where the perception is no longer within boundaries—it is unbounded. This is a silent state of the mind, and it is so fulfilling that the physiology having tasted this kind of quietness of activity it cherishes that. And because it is cherishing to the whole physiology, to the whole experience, the physiology tends to maintain that state naturally even when there are activities. So by nature that state is experienced, and by nature, through practice, it becomes stabilized in the field of activity….

The whole thing is very simple. It is an absolutely natural process.”


One naturally gets space/time as all there is, as long as one does not actually transcendent it (there is no evidence of anything beyond space/time from space/time standpoint).

[epix]

Nope, it's reverence AND irreverence OR sorrow AND joy. Don't you go messing up that self-contradictory Oneness, Doron continues to stress what the consequences of such will be.
Double-stupid me! The glorious moment hasn't arrived yet, coz Doronetics draws inspiration from elsewhere:

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi:

“The practice (of Transcendental Meditation) involves thinking of a word, a word devoid of meaning.

In other words, the practice (of Doronetics) involves thinking of many words - words devoid of any meaning.

[doronshadmi]

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) can't transcendent the thinking process exactly because they are captured by meanings, where meanings are given only at the level of thoughts process.

The practice TM involves awareness beyond thoughts' process meaning.

[jsfisher]

The claim that there are different 1-dimensional spaces according to different curvatures is just nonsensical gibberish

For one so vocal about open thinking, Doron is certainly narrow in his ideas. Too bad, really. There's so much of Mathematics he just doesn't get because, well, he just doesn't get it.

[epix]

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) can't transcendent the thinking process exactly because they are captured by meanings, where meanings are given only at the level of thoughts process.

The practice TM involves awareness beyond thoughts' process meaning.

Space is curved due to gravitational influences of various masses, some of which transparently move, such as planets, so the realities are more complex than the concept example of a curved space and its curvature at a given point:

http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/Einstein/curv.negative.jpg

There are two approaches to the problem:

One was used by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

http://www.yogamax.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/transcendental-meditation.gif

and the other was used by

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tNzXK_LznaY/TFcTM-fuH6I/AAAAAAAAAMQ/hKnyPR8_Xyk/s1600/einstein-chalkboard-thumb.jpg

(That Ri k doesn't really directly relate to Riemann - it denotes Ricci Curvature Tensor.)

I think I pick the former option in its renegade version, coz it includes One Word that HAS actually meaning despite the fact that it IS NOT even spoken:

XU4yAk6qYUs

[doronshadmi]

Space is curved due to gravitational influences of various masses, some of which transparently move, such as planets, so the realities are more complex than the concept example of a curved space and its curvature at a given point:

http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/Einstein/curv.negative.jpg

There are two approaches to the problem:

One was used by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

http://www.yogamax.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/transcendental-meditation.gif

and the other was used by

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tNzXK_LznaY/TFcTM-fuH6I/AAAAAAAAAMQ/hKnyPR8_Xyk/s1600/einstein-chalkboard-thumb.jpg

(That Ri k doesn't really directly relate to Riemann - it denotes Ricci Curvature Tensor.)

I think I pick the former option in its renegade version, coz it includes One Word that HAS actually meaning despite the fact that it IS NOT even spoken:

XU4yAk6qYUs
By Unity awareness, consciousness in varying degrees is actually many expressed levels of a one realm.

For example, verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) do not understand that thoughts and their related meanings are simply finer levels of consciousness, of the spoken.

The spoken level is realty aware of Unity only if silence is known during the spoken.

Only by Unity awareness the spoken level fulfills its real meaning, where real meaning is archived only if it is an organ of a one unified framework, such that meanings are mutually developed (contradiction is naturally avoided among organs of a one unified realm).

Actually contradiction is the signature of the failure of the spoken level to be expressed without loosing the awareness of silence during the spoken expressions (verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) fulfill their limited skills by not get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7763358&postcount=172).

(B.T.W the curvature at the red point is infinite, simply because by using Curvature as the essential concept, any given point has an infinite curvature)

[doronshadmi]

Let's clarify the universality of Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework.

Some examples:

The expression "2 = 1+1" holds exactly because 2 is Cross-contexts w.r.t each 1, where each 1 is Context-dependent w.r.t 2, or in other words, "2 = 1+1" is Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework.

The expression "0 = 1-1" holds exactly because 0 is Cross-contexts w.r.t 1 or -1, where 1 or -1 are Context-dependent w.r.t 0, or in other words, "0 = 1-1" is Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework.

Please pay attention that being Cross-contexts is defined as the common state among several things, such that the sum of several things is first of all the common state among them.

By following Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework, 1-dimesional space as the sum of all possible curvatures along it, is Cross-contexts w.r.t all possible curvatures along it, where each possible curvature is Context-dependent w.r.t the 1-dimesional space.

So is the case of the concept of Dimensional space w.r.t the particular possible dimensional spaces, it is Cross-contexts w.r.t them exactly because no particular dimensional space is the common property of that concept.

So is the case of the concept of Set w.r.t the particular possible sets, it is Cross-contexts w.r.t them exactly because no particular set is the common property of that concept.

In other words, Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent is the universal framework of all possible frameworks.

By Cross-contexts “the top” of given Context-dependent boxes “is open”, which enables to gather them as a one comprehensive framework.

[doronshadmi]

In addition to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7766547&postcount=178 it has to be stressed that the the common state can have the same value of one of the context-dependent values, for example in the expression "1 = 1+0" the left side of the expression is the Cross-contexts common state and the right side of the expression is the Context-dependent things.

Again, please pay attention that being Cross-contexts is defined as the common state among several things, such that the sum of several things is first of all the common state among them (among several things, no matter what value each one of them has).

In other words, the structure of Cross-contexts AND Context dependent one framework has at least Y shape, where the Cross-contexts aspect of it is the "trunk" of that shape, and the Context-dependent aspect is the "branches" of that shape.

[The Man]

Verbal-symbolic skill(ers) get mathematical or physical dimensional space only in terms of the verbal_symbolic expression "Geometry".

Ones again Dimensional space is really known by verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

Getting Dimensional space only in terms of visual_spatial skills does not hold exactly as getting Dimensional space only in terms of verbal_symbolic skills does not hold.

Indeed geometry is a term, that you and your fantasy "Verbal-symbolic skill(ers)" apparently have no "visual_spatial skills" within that context of geometry is again simply your problem. Have better fantasies Doron or at least some more related to reality. Oh, and just for your edification just reading requires "visual_spatial skills" that we can relate to " verbal_symbolic skills". So everyone here is engaging in the skills you claim your fantasy "Verbal-symbolic skill(ers)" lack.

[The Man]

It is not amazing at all how context-dependent-only skill(ers) (whether they get a given realm by verbal_symbolic-only skills or visual_spatial-only skills) can't get that the "host" (the atomic state) of a given mathematical or physical dimensional space is defined but not made of its "hosted" expressions, exactly as a 1-dimensional space is defined as non-local w.r.t all possible curvatures, but it is not made of these curvatures, exactly because they are localities w.r.t it (the 1-dimensional space is at-once at all possible curvatures (it is a non-local atomic state) where no possible curvature is at-once at all possible curvatures (it is a local atomic state).

Amazing!! So a singular possible curvature is not all possible curvatures (are there impossible curvatures?). Once again you simply belabor the trivial.

ETA:

Oh again for your edification try (though I've mentioned it before) Non-Euclidian Geometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-euclidian_geometry). While in Euclidian geometry the curvature of a line is intrinsically an aspect of that line in Non-Euclidian Geometry it need not be (it can be an aspect of the space that line is imbedded within). Consider a straight line on the surface of a sphere. Please learn something Doron.

[The Man]

Finer than all thoughts is not itself a thought, exactly as silence is not itself a noise.

Exactly as one's attention is naturally aware of more and more excited levels of mental activity (no matter what meaning is given to it), one's attention is naturally aware of more and more calmer levels of mental activity (no matter what meaning is given to it).

At the calmest awareness one naturally transcends any mantel activity (any thoughts’ process) and actually aware of the source of space\time, which transcends space\time, where this awareness is naturally free of any mental activity (any thoughts’ process).

By actually use one's natural abilities to be aware of the space\time source without losing it during mental activity (during thoughts’ process), one's awareness is developed into Unity awareness, which enables to act in real harmony w.r.t other space\time expressions.

For example, please look at http://www.tm.org/blog/maharishi/transcendental-meditation-mantra/




One naturally gets space/time as all there is, as long as one does not actually transcendent it (there is no evidence of anything beyond space/time from space/time standpoint).

Awareness is a mental activity, Doron. We are all well aware of your fantasy of being aware without any mental activity. Get some better fantasies Doron.

[The Man]

Double-stupid me! The glorious moment hasn't arrived yet, coz Doronetics draws inspiration from elsewhere:


Well he would certainly like to ascribe it as such, "non-local" to be inexact.


In other words, the practice (of Doronetics) involves thinking of many words - words devoid of any meaning.

Your direct perception is showing through epix.

[The Man]

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) can't transcendent the thinking process exactly because they are captured by meanings, where meanings are given only at the level of thoughts process.

The practice TM involves awareness beyond thoughts' process meaning.


So once agian your assertions deliberately have no meaning, we already know that Doron.

[The Man]

By Unity awareness, consciousness in varying degrees is actually many expressed levels of a one realm.

For example, verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) do not understand that thoughts and their related meanings are simply finer levels of consciousness, of the spoken.


The spoken level is realty aware of Unity only if silence is known during the spoken.


Ah, so a deaf mute can't think! A man I work with would dispute that vehemently though non-verbally.


Only by Unity awareness the spoken level fulfills its real meaning, where real meaning is archived only if it is an organ of a one unified framework, such that meanings are mutually developed (contradiction is naturally avoided among organs of a one unified realm).

The meanings of words are mutually developed, any lexicographer will explain this to you or you can just open a dictionary, it is full of mutually developed visually spatial symbols with verbal meanings. Personal meanings, as in your case, lack the ability to communicate any meaning. Though given your previous post that is apparently your intent.

[The Man]

Actually contradiction is the signature of the failure of the spoken level to be expressed without loosing the awareness of silence during the spoken expressions (verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) fulfill their limited skills by not get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7763358&postcount=172).

(B.T.W the curvature at the red point is infinite, simply because by using Curvature as the essential concept, any given point has an infinite curvature)

Nope, we have been over this before, a contradiction is simply a proposition that always evaluates to FALSE regardless of the truth values of its elements , like "belongs to AND does not belong to".

[The Man]

Let's clarify the universality of Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework.

Oh, by all means, please, let's


Some examples:

The expression "2 = 1+1" holds exactly because 2 is Cross-contexts w.r.t each 1, where each 1 is Context-dependent w.r.t 2, or in other words, "2 = 1+1" is Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework.

Again what other context other than numerical values are you using your "2" in? Without any additional context once again nothing crosses any context in your " Cross-contexts".




The expression "0 = 1-1" holds exactly because 0 is Cross-contexts w.r.t 1 or -1, where 1 or -1 are Context-dependent w.r.t 0, or in other words, "0 = 1-1" is Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework.

Once again you cross no other contexts with your purported " Cross-contexts". Now you are simply confusing, deliberately, different numerical values with different contexts. Please at least learn the meaning of context.



Please pay attention that being Cross-contexts is defined as the common state among several things, such that the sum of several things is first of all the common state among them.

Please pay attention to the mutually developed meaning of the English word 'context'.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/context



By following Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework, 1-dimesional space as the sum of all possible curvatures along it, is Cross-contexts w.r.t all possible curvatures along it, where each possible curvature is Context-dependent w.r.t the 1-dimesional space.

So is the case of the concept of Dimensional space w.r.t the particular possible dimensional spaces, it is Cross-contexts w.r.t them exactly because no particular dimensional space is the common property of that concept.

So is the case of the concept of Set w.r.t the particular possible sets, it is Cross-contexts w.r.t them exactly because no particular set is the common property of that concept.

In other words, Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent is the universal framework of all possible frameworks.

By Cross-contexts “the top” of given Context-dependent boxes “is open”, which enables to gather them as a one comprehensive framework.

Nope, as already noted just making up your own meanings for words makes you unable to communicate, stop being so lazy and learn what the words mean or come up with and define your own. Stop just stealing words for your own personal ill (if at all) defined meanings. As a liar and a thief for just your own personal goals makes your claims of any ethical system simply solipsistic.

[doronshadmi]

Considering a 1-dimensional space on the surface of a sphere, demonstrates that 1-dimensional space and all curvature's degree of 1 and 2 dimensional spqaces, are both context-dependent aspects of the 2-dimensional space, which is the "host" Cross-context w.r.t all dimensional spaces < 2-dimensional space and all possible curvature's degrees that are related to all dimensional spaces <= 2-dimensional space.

[doronshadmi]

We are all aware of verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) to get only the active aspect of awareness, but not its calm state, which is the natural source of any possible activity, exactly as transparency is the natural source that enables each color its fool expression.

[doronshadmi]

Verbal_symbolic only skill(ers) are unable to get that deaf persons can think and also be aware of the calm level of awaeness even if thay can't hear the spoken level of awarness.

Verbal_symbolic only skill(ers) can't get that the meaning of words fulfilled only by being aware of their silent source, exactly as transparency is the natural source that enables each color its fool expression.

They do no understand that Lexicography or Dictionary are fulfilled only by being aware of the silent source of all possible expressions.

[doronshadmi]

Again, contradiction is the mutual destruction of expressions, because of the lack of harmony among them, where harmony is actually achieved by being aware of their common calm source during their mutual expression.

[doronshadmi]

The universality of Y shape (Cross-contexts AND Context dependent one framework) is not known by the limitation's awareness of verbal_symbolic-only or visual_spatial-only skill(ers), or by any awareness that is based on dichtomy between these skills (Unity awareness is not fulfilled).

[epix]

The expression "2 = 1+1" holds exactly because 2 is Cross-contexts w.r.t each 1, where each 1 is Context-dependent w.r.t 2, or in other words, "2 = 1+1" is Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework.


Since + is the Greek cross (http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/crosses/greek.html), the writer's Unconscius has made an attempt to communicate with us through a linear scattergram where the true-valued statement implies, "It's all (math) greek to me."

[doronshadmi]

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) understand Cross only in terms of the location of 0-dimesional space between two perpendicular 1-dimesional spaces, which are actually at AND not at this location (but the don't know this fact).

Once again some verbal_symbolic-only skill(er) demonstrates his inability to get the non-locality of 1-dimesional space w.r.t to 0-dimesional space, no matter what meaning is given to + symbol.

[doronshadmi]

Some typo correction of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7769380&postcount=190 .

Instead of "transparency is the natural source that enables each color its fool expression."

it has to be "transparency is the natural source that enables each color its full expression."

[epix]

Some typo correction of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7769380&postcount=190 .

Instead of "transparency is the natural source that enables each color its fool expression."

it has to be "transparency is the natural source that enables each color its full expression."
In the global_cross_context, the original sentence makes more sense.

[doronshadmi]

http://www.tm.org/blog/enlightenment/helen-keller-woman-could-see/ and http://www.tm.org/blog/enlightenment/albert-einstein/ may help verbal_symbolic-only noisy minds to get the calm source of all expressions.

[The Man]

Considering a 1-dimensional space on the surface of a sphere, demonstrates that 1-dimensional space and all curvature's degree of 1 and 2 dimensional spqaces, are both context-dependent aspects of the 2-dimensional space, which is the "host" Cross-context w.r.t all dimensional spaces < 2-dimensional space and all possible curvature's degrees that are related to all dimensional spaces <= 2-dimensional space.


Nope, a line can be curved in a way that the surface it is part of is not. This is clearly exemplified in Euclidian geometry. Learn some geometry, please, Doron.




We are all aware of verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) to get only the active aspect of awareness, but not its calm state, which is the natural source of any possible activity, exactly as transparency is the natural source that enables each color its fool expression.

Verbal_symbolic only skill(ers) are unable to get that deaf persons can think and also be aware of the calm level of awaeness even if thay can't hear the spoken level of awarness.

Verbal_symbolic only skill(ers) can't get that the meaning of words fulfilled only by being aware of their silent source, exactly as transparency is the natural source that enables each color its fool expression.

They do no understand that Lexicography or Dictionary are fulfilled only by being aware of the silent source of all possible expressions.

Once again whatever problems you have with your fantasy “Verbal_symbolic only skill(ers)” are simply yours. If your fantasies trouble you so much then have better fantasies Doron.




Again, contradiction is the mutual destruction of expressions, because of the lack of harmony among them, where harmony is actually achieved by being aware of their common calm source during their mutual expression.

Ah, so now your “harmony” makes your ‘contradictions’ vanish. As the later has not happened (your contradictions have not vanished) the former must not be true either (so you clearly lack any “harmony”). Here’s a hint, work on being more harmonious with yourself (agreeing with yourself) by specifically eliminating your self contradictions and then you won’t have to simply pretend either of those demonstrably false assertions are true.





The universality of Y shape (Cross-contexts AND Context dependent one framework) is not known by the limitation's awareness of verbal_symbolic-only or visual_spatial-only skill(ers), or by any awareness that is based on dichtomy between these skills (Unity awareness is not fulfilled).


Let’s see, first you claim some “universality of Y shape” then immediately assert it “is not known by” some ‘limitation’ thus directly refuting your claim of any “universality of Y shape”. There’s your disharmony with yourself again Doron, no one can even possibly agree with you if you just can’t ever agree with just yourself. Stop being such a lazy, lying thief and learn what words like ‘universality’ mean, then you might finally be in harmony with not only just yourself but perhaps others as well.





Some typo correction of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7769380&postcount=190 .

Instead of "transparency is the natural source that enables each color its fool expression."

it has to be "transparency is the natural source that enables each color its full expression."


Nope, it is still just a “fool expression." Just to give to a hint “transparency” is the result of the least amount of interaction with photons (of say a particularly wavelength). Reflection and more specifically absorption are not the results of "transparency”.

[doronshadmi]

Verbal_symbolic-only or visual_spatial-only skill(ers) can't the universality of Y shape, which is actually Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework, which is not less than the calm being as the natural source of all possible expressions, which actually enables the harmony among them, because they are organs of a one omnipresent realm.

Limited skill(ers) can't get the unified omnipresent calm source among expressions, and this ignorance prevent them to actually reach the natural harmony among these expressions as organs of the universal Y shape.

Here is some concrete example of their ignorance, as given by the following phrase:

"Nope, a line can be curved in a way that the surface it is part of is not."

In that case the ignorant skill(er) misses the fact that the curvatures of 1 or 2 dimensional spaces are the "branches" (context-dependent) of, for example, "trunk" (cross-contexts) 3 dimensional space, of the one organic universal Y shape.

Here’s a hint, the ignorant skill(er) has to work on being more harmonious with him\her self (where the self is the calm presence of awareness during expressions, which is exactly the universal Y one realm.

Also be aware of the fact that the ignorant skill(er) ignores http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7773990&postcount=197 in order to hold his\her ignorant view about deaf persons' awareness.

[The Man]

Verbal_symbolic-only or visual_spatial-only skill(ers) can't the universality of Y shape, which is actually Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework, which is not less than the calm being as the natural source of all possible expressions, which actually enables the harmony among them, because they are organs of a one omnipresent realm.

Limited skill(ers) can't get the unified omnipresent calm source among expressions, and this ignorance prevent them to actually reach the natural harmony among these expressions as organs of the universal Y shape.

Here is some concrete example of their ignorance, as given by the following phrase:

"Nope, a line can be curved in a way that the surface it is part of is not."

In that case the ignorant skill(er) misses the fact that the curvatures of 1 or 2 dimensional spaces are the "branches" (context-dependent) of, for example, "trunk" (cross-contexts) 3 dimensional space, of the one organic universal Y shape.

Here’s a hint, the ignorant skill(er) has to work on being more harmonious with him\her self (where the self is the calm presence of awareness during expressions, which is exactly the universal Y one realm.

Also be aware of the fact that the ignorant skill(er) ignores http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7773990&postcount=197 in order to hold his\her ignorant view about deaf persons' awareness.



So once again you simply claim your “universality of Y shape” isn’t, well, universal. That your demonstrable disharmony with just yourself is so obvious to just about anyone but you exemplifies how utterly useless your notions are at anything other than just hiding your disharmony from yourself. Seek professional physiological help Doron, please.

[doronshadmi]

Limited skill(ers)' reflexive response is to avoid any actual practice that may help them to be aware of their subjective limitations, simply because by being aware of their subjective limitations they are also aware of their responsibility to be changed from within right from the objective calm level of awareness, where only this change enables to be aware and act in terms of Universality.

In other words, limited skill(ers)' stay limited exactly because they get everything only in terms of their subjective awareness at the level of thoughts.

[jsfisher]

Limited skill(ers)' reflexive response is to avoid any actual practice that may help them to be aware of their subjective limitations, simply because by being aware of their subjective limitations they are also aware of their responsibility to be changed from within right from the objective calm level of awareness, where only this change enables to be aware and act in terms of Universality.

In other words, limited skill(ers)' stay limited exactly because they get everything only in terms of their subjective awareness at the level of thoughts.


Doron, why are you now so focused on your imaginary friends and what they can or cannot avoid rather than discuss actual mathematics? Is this pretend conversation you are having with no one so fulfilling you have abandoned any rational communication with real people?

[epix]

Here’s a hint, the ignorant skill(er) has to work on being more harmonious with him\her self (where the self is the calm presence of awareness during expressions, which is exactly the universal Y one realm.

"Here's a hint..."

Y

Something has been feeding you with crap, and the name of that something starts with Y. Let me take a wild guess . . .

Yahweh?

Things like that happened before.

Cantor's theory of transfinite numbers was originally regarded as so counter-intuitive—even shocking—that it encountered resistance from mathematical contemporaries such as Leopold Kronecker and Henri Poincaré and later from Hermann Weyl and L. E. J. Brouwer, while Ludwig Wittgenstein raised philosophical objections. Some Christian theologians (particularly neo-Scholastics) saw Cantor's work as a challenge to the uniqueness of the absolute infinity in the nature of God, on one occasion equating the theory of transfinite numbers with pantheism.

There was a way to appease some of those Christian theologians, though.

Cantor believed his theory of transfinite numbers had been communicated to him by God.


There is surely a difference between neural intervention caused by God and by Yahweh - the GY ending.

bioloGy
theologY

Doron, you are not the only one who gets "inspired" around here, coz Yahweh, in his pagan form, used to be the god of everlasting rigidity. Since the other gods laughed at him, he tried to open his mind, but whenever he did it, a swarm of flies flew out and a rotten banana peel fell from his head.

[doronshadmi]

http://www.youtube.com/user/meditationchannel?blend=21&ob=5#p/u/13/t_dJkjND5AQ

http://www.youtube.com/user/meditationchannel?blend=21&ob=5#p/u/56/xYFOECodaKo

http://www.youtube.com/user/meditationchannel?blend=21&ob=5#p/u/54/_0rbfSaRwCU

[doronshadmi]

What is experienced within one's mind as immaterial entity (one's awareness) recognizes what is out of one's mind as material entity.

This in\out dichotomy is the way of how reasoning actually distinguishes between different levels of awareness, but this dichotomy has no actual existence exactly because these different levels are like different levels of waves of the same sea, such that there is actually no dichotomy but only the Unity of one being, which is aware of itself.

In order to be aware of the Unity of one being, the mind actually has to transcendent the level of thoughts (the realm of expressed waves) and directly know the calm source of any possible expression, which is actually not itself a thought.

By regularly practicing techniques that enable the mind to be aware of its calm source (to actually directly be aware of itself), Reasoning, as known in terms of dichotomy, is transformed to Unity awareness, such that the calm state is known (is not lost) during the different levels of awareness.

Furthermore, what is known as love and compassion is exactly the properties of one's awareness that are not restricted by reasoning, such that more they are developed, more one's mind become aware of the Unity of one being, until Reasoning and Heart are fulfilled as the unbounded Unity.

Only then awareness achieves its ability to express itself by actual harmony among its expressions, by naturally avoiding contradictions (mutual destruction), such that each expression is an organ of a one realm.

Furthermore, only by actually being a one organism, real creativity is expressed by infinitely many complex ways that are derived from one simplicity that naturally prevents contradictions among its expressed organs.

[doronshadmi]

A better version of the previous post:

Organic Mathematics' goal is to achieve actual harmony among Reasoning and Heart.

What is experienced within one's mind as immaterial entity (one's awareness) recognizes what is out of one's mind as material entity.

This in\out dichotomy is the way of how reasoning actually distinguishes between different levels of awareness, but this dichotomy has no actual existence exactly because these different levels are like different levels of waves of the same sea, such that there is actually no dichotomy but only the Unity of one being, which is aware of itself.

In order to be aware of the Unity of one being, the mind actually has to transcendent the level of thoughts (the realm of expressed waves) and directly know the calm source of any possible expression, which is actually not itself a thought.

By regularly practicing techniques that enable the mind to be aware of its calm source (to actually directly be aware of itself), Reasoning, as known in terms of dichotomy, is transformed to Unity awareness, such that the calm state is known (is not lost) during the different levels of awareness.

Furthermore, what is known as love and compassion is exactly the properties of one's awareness that are not restricted by reasoning's dichotomy, such that more they are developed, more one's mind become aware of the Unity of one being, until Reasoning and Heart are fulfilled as the unbounded Unity.

Only then awareness achieves its ability to express itself by actual harmony among its expressions, by naturally avoiding contradictions (mutual destruction of diversity) such that each expression is an organ of a one realm.

By actually being a one organism, real creativity is expressed by infinitely many complex ways that are derived from one simplicity that naturally prevents contradictions among its expressed organs.

[The Man]

What is experienced within one's mind as immaterial entity (one's awareness) recognizes what is out of one's mind as material entity.

This in\out dichotomy is the way of how reasoning actually distinguishes between different levels of awareness, but this dichotomy has no actual existence exactly because these different levels are like different levels of waves of the same sea, such that there is actually no dichotomy but only the Unity of one being, which is aware of itself.

So as usual you assert some “dichotomy” just to claim “this dichotomy has no actual existence”. Next time just skip the first step (claiming some dichotomy) then you won’t have to waste time asserting such “dichotomy has no actual existence”. Who knows you then you might even find yourself in agreement with yourself.



In order to be aware of the Unity of one being, the mind actually has to transcendent the level of thoughts (the realm of expressed waves) and directly know the calm source of any possible expression, which is actually not itself a thought.

By regularly practicing techniques that enable the mind to be aware of its calm source (to actually directly be aware of itself), Reasoning, as known in terms of dichotomy, is transformed to Unity awareness, such that the calm state is known (is not lost) during the different levels of awareness.

Or you could just skip all that dichotomy nonsense (since you claim it doesn’t exist anyway) and actually learn how the brain functions.




Furthermore, what is known as love and compassion is exactly the properties of one's awareness that are not restricted by reasoning, such that more they are developed, more one's mind become aware of the Unity of one being, until Reasoning and Heart are fulfilled as the unbounded Unity.

Only then awareness achieves its ability to express itself by actual harmony among its expressions, by naturally avoiding contradictions (mutual destruction), such that each expression is an organ of a one realm.

Furthermore, only by actually being a one organism, real creativity is expressed by infinitely many complex ways that are derived from one simplicity that naturally prevents contradictions among its expressed organs.

Once again you demonstrate the failure of your notions to have any use whatsoever, your assertion of a dichotomy to simply then claim such “dichotomy has no actual existence” exemplifies your profound lack of harmony and the prevalent self contradictions in your assertion shows that opposed to the assertion that your nonsense “naturally prevents contradictions among its expressed organs”, your nonsense specifically requires them.

So the gist of this seems to be that if you pretend your mind is based on a “dichotomy” that “has no actual existence” you can also pretend your self-contradictions have “no actual existence”. Guess what Doron, most of us figured that out already. Here’s a hint Doron, get rid of the first self-contradiction (asserting your mind is based on a “dichotomy” that “has no actual existence”) and perhaps the rest will follow.



A better version of the previous post:

Organic Mathematics' goal is to achieve actual harmony among Reasoning and Heart.

What is experienced within one's mind as immaterial entity (one's awareness) recognizes what is out of one's mind as material entity.

This in\out dichotomy is the way of how reasoning actually distinguishes between different levels of awareness, but this dichotomy has no actual existence exactly because these different levels are like different levels of waves of the same sea, such that there is actually no dichotomy but only the Unity of one being, which is aware of itself.

In order to be aware of the Unity of one being, the mind actually has to transcendent the level of thoughts (the realm of expressed waves) and directly know the calm source of any possible expression, which is actually not itself a thought.

By regularly practicing techniques that enable the mind to be aware of its calm source (to actually directly be aware of itself), Reasoning, as known in terms of dichotomy, is transformed to Unity awareness, such that the calm state is known (is not lost) during the different levels of awareness.

Furthermore, what is known as love and compassion is exactly the properties of one's awareness that are not restricted by reasoning's dichotomy, such that more they are developed, more one's mind become aware of the Unity of one being, until Reasoning and Heart are fulfilled as the unbounded Unity.

Only then awareness achieves its ability to express itself by actual harmony among its expressions, by naturally avoiding contradictions (mutual destruction of diversity) such that each expression is an organ of a one realm.

By actually being a one organism, real creativity is expressed by infinitely many complex ways that are derived from one simplicity that naturally prevents contradictions among its expressed organs.

Nope no better.

[doronshadmi]

Once again, Contradiction is the mutual destruction of expressions because of the lack of harmony among them, where harmony is actually achieved by being aware of their common calm source during their mutual expression.

Mutual destruction of at least two expressions has no actual existence in terms of being fundamental, and it is resulted by great pain and suffering, exactly because it is ruled by the ignorance of the Unity of the one being (where this ignorance gives the illusion that mutual destruction is fundamental) exactly as shown by minds that are trapped at the level of thoughts, and can't get the Unity the common calm source during mutual expression.

Aristotle’s law of noncontradiction states that “One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction ).

Being at AND not at a given context is not a contradiction, but it is the non-locality of Cross-contexts w.r.t a given Context-dependent domain, which is local w.r.t Cross-contexts.

This is exactly the awareness of the one being, which is not limited to any of its context-dependent expressions, or to any Polychotomy (where dichotomy is some case of it).

Context-dependent-only skill(ers) get Non-locality only in terms of Locality and therefore only in terms of Contradiction.

"Non-locality AND Locality" are defined verbally-symbolically w.r.t each other, but they are not made of each other, because the Cross-contexts non-local common calm source transcendent its particular expressions, whether they are verbal-symbolic or visual-spatial.

By understanding the Unity of Y organism, no Polychotomy is fundamental (it has no invariant actuality).

Context-dependent-only skill(ers) can't get that, because their mind is trapped only at the level of the branches (at the level of thoughts) of Y organism, and we see their ignorance all along this thread.

For example, “this dichotomy has no actual existence” is a verbal_symbolic expression and so is any given assertion.

Verbal_symbolic-skill(ers) wrongly get such verbal_symbolic expressions as actual existence (by missing the fact that no expression is actual (where actuality is the calm source of all expressions)), and because they verbal_symbolic expressions as actual existence they produce claims like the following:

"So as usual you assert some “dichotomy” just to claim “this dichotomy has no actual existence”. Next time just skip the first step (claiming some dichotomy) then you won’t have to waste time asserting such “dichotomy has no actual existence”. Who knows you then you might even find yourself in agreement with yourself."

As can be seen, the flat mind of Verbal_symbolic-skill(ers) is trapped at the level of thoughts, but they blame others by their own flatness.

Furthermore, they are celebrating their ignorance of, for example:

http://www.youtube.com/user/meditationchannel?blend=21&ob=5#p/u/13/t_dJkjND5AQ

http://www.youtube.com/user/meditationchannel?blend=21&ob=5#p/u/56/xYFOECodaKo

http://www.youtube.com/user/meditationchannel?blend=21&ob=5#p/u/54/_0rbfSaRwCU

[doronshadmi]

Once again.

Limited skill(ers)' reflexive response is to avoid any actual practice that may help them to be aware of their subjective limitations, simply because by being aware of their subjective limitations they are also aware of their responsibility to be changed from within right from the objective calm level of awareness, where only this change enables to be aware and act in terms of Universality.

In other words, limited skill(ers)' stay limited exactly because they get everything only in terms of their subjective awareness at the level of thoughts.

As a result they do not understand that Polychotomy (where dichotomy is some case of it) has no actual (invariant) existence, and they express their ignorance by using claims that are trapped at the level of Polychotomy (at the level of thoughts), and prevent any chance to get the calm (actual) source of Polychotomy.

[epix]

By understanding the Unity of Y organism, no Polychotomy is fundamental (it has no invariant actuality).

Context-dependent-only skill(ers) can't get that, because their mind is trapped only at the level of the branches (at the level of thoughts) of Y organism, and we see their ignorance all along this thread.

Are you blind or what? Can't you see the hole in that Y-joint? (http://www.directconnectwholesale.com/Acura/dv8_y.jpg)

You better learn how to set the weld time right:

JohBHzhOyPg

[doronshadmi]

Ignorant persons indeed fulfill their subjective-only view of ignorance.

For example, instead of getting Y as a one organism, they get only the gaps between its organs.

There are gaps between the waves, which made them temporary and subjective level of the invariant and objective calm state of the sea, which transcendent its subjective and temporary states.

Yet the sea is the same sea whether it is objective or subjective.

Problems start if the temporary level wrongly recognizes itself as the objective level of the sea (it is trapped at the level of thoughts).

One of the signatures of this ignorance is to get the gaps between waves as objective states (Polychotomy is wrongly understood as objective).

If the mind transcendent the level of waves it becomes aware of the temporal and subjective state of both waves AND the gaps between them.

Only then the objective calm state of the sea is fulfilled among the subjective level of the sea, such that the gaps preserve the unique expression of any given temporal subjective wave, instead of being used as a cause for dis-communication that is resulted by mutual destruction among different expressions.

If Y is known as one unified organism, then each wave (each organ) "vertically" appears and disappears w.r.t the calm state of the sea, without "horizontally" destroying the other unique subjective expressions which surround it.

By achieving this quality of mutual expression Y Unity awareness fulfills itself upon infinitely many finer and ever correlated subjective (temporarily) creative expressions that are gently appears and disappears w.r.t the calm state of the sea, and give space to ever newer expressions.

[The Man]

Once again, Contradiction is the mutual destruction of expressions because of the lack of harmony among them, where harmony is actually achieved by being aware of their common calm source during their mutual expression.

Nope, contradiction has an actual meaning that has already been explained to you multiple times and you continue to display your obvious lack of “harmony” by constantly contradicting yourself.


Mutual destruction of at least two expressions has no actual existence in terms of being fundamental, and it is resulted by great pain and suffering, exactly because it is ruled by the ignorance of the Unity of the one being (where this ignorance gives the illusion that mutual destruction is fundamental) exactly as shown by minds that are trapped at the level of thoughts, and can't get the Unity the common calm source during mutual expression.

So now your climing your nonsenseical “Mutual destruction of at least two expressions has no actual existence in terms of being fundamental”, guess what, we already know that. Hopefully now you’ll relize that and stop your own “great pain and suffering” in belaboring your nonsense that even you assert “has no actual existence in terms of being fundamental”.



Aristotle’s law of noncontradiction states that “One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction ).

Oh people can certainly say such things but as a contradiction they are always false regardless of the truth values of their elements.



Being at AND not at a given context is not a contradiction, but it is the non-locality of Cross-contexts w.r.t a given Context-dependent domain, which is local w.r.t Cross-contexts.

Again giving a different meaning to “not at” other than the negation of the meaning given to “at” is simply self inconsistent. So which is it are you deliberately being self-inconsistent or deliberately self –contradictory. The fact that you repeatedly fail to demonstrate the use of any other context in your purported “Cross-contexts” indicates the latter.



This is exactly the awareness of the one being, which is not limited to any of its context-dependent expressions, or to any Polychotomy (where dichotomy is some case of it).

Context-dependent-only skill(ers) get Non-locality only in terms of Locality and therefore only in terms of Contradiction.

Again using “Non-locality” to mean something other than the negation of “locality” is simply self-inconsistent.



"Non-locality AND Locality" are defined verbally-symbolically w.r.t each other, but they are not made of each other, because the Cross-contexts non-local common calm source transcendent its particular expressions, whether they are verbal-symbolic or visual-spatial.

By understanding the Unity of Y organism, no Polychotomy is fundamental (it has no invariant actuality).

Context-dependent-only skill(ers) can't get that, because their mind is trapped only at the level of the branches (at the level of thoughts) of Y organism, and we see their ignorance all along this thread.

Again whatever problem you have with your fantasy “Context-dependent-only skill(ers)” is simply yours, have better fantasies Doron.




For example, “this dichotomy has no actual existence” is a verbal_symbolic expression and so is any given assertion.

Nope technically, as it was written and not spoken, it is a visually spatial symbolic expression, that can also have a verbal expression. Once again you are the only one asserting a difference based on a dichotomy that even you claim “has no actual existence”. Written language is a perfect example of that it is visually spatial symbols with verbal representations. Your Verbal symbolic / Visual spatial dichotomy that you depend upon so much is simply false, as already explained to you.



Verbal_symbolic-skill(ers) wrongly get such verbal_symbolic expressions as actual existence (by missing the fact that no expression is actual (where actuality is the calm source of all expressions)), and because they verbal_symbolic expressions as actual existence they produce claims like the following:

"So as usual you assert some “dichotomy” just to claim “this dichotomy has no actual existence”. Next time just skip the first step (claiming some dichotomy) then you won’t have to waste time asserting such “dichotomy has no actual existence”. Who knows you then you might even find yourself in agreement with yourself."

As can be seen, the flat mind of Verbal_symbolic-skill(ers) is trapped at the level of thoughts, but they blame others by their own flatness.

Furthermore, they are celebrating their ignorance of, for example:

http://www.youtube.com/user/meditationchannel?blend=21&ob=5#p/u/13/t_dJkjND5AQ

http://www.youtube.com/user/meditationchannel?blend=21&ob=5#p/u/56/xYFOECodaKo

http://www.youtube.com/user/meditationchannel?blend=21&ob=5#p/u/54/_0rbfSaRwCU

To bad for you, your fantasy “Verbal_symbolic-skill(ers)” and your non-existent (as claimed by even you) Verbal symbolic/ Visually spatial dichotomy. Get some better fantasies Doron or at least ones you can agree with then perhaps you can find some harmony within at least yourself and display that to others.

Once again.

Limited skill(ers)' reflexive response is to avoid any actual practice that may help them to be aware of their subjective limitations, simply because by being aware of their subjective limitations they are also aware of their responsibility to be changed from within right from the objective calm level of awareness, where only this change enables to be aware and act in terms of Universality.

In other words, limited skill(ers)' stay limited exactly because they get everything only in terms of their subjective awareness at the level of thoughts.

As a result they do not understand that Polychotomy (where dichotomy is some case of it) has no actual (invariant) existence, and they express their ignorance by using claims that are trapped at the level of Polychotomy (at the level of thoughts), and prevent any chance to get the calm (actual) source of Polychotomy.

Once again your problems with your ignorant, limited, Polychotomistic and non-existent fantasies are simply yours, get some better fantasies Doron and/or seek some professional psychological help.

[epix]

By achieving this quality of mutual expression Y Unity awareness fulfills itself upon infinitely many finer and ever correlated subjective (temporarily) creative expressions that are gently appears and disappears w.r.t the calm state of the sea, and give space to ever newer expressions.
http://s.shld.net/is/image/Sears/08736986000_20100330160313849?hei=248&wid=248&op_sharpen=1&resMode=sharp&op_usm=0.9,0.5,0,0

[doronshadmi]

We can find many examples of mind's limitations of context-dependent-verbal-symbolic-only skill(ers).

Here are some of them:

About contradiction: "contradiction has an actual meaning"

Here the ignorant mind can't get that contradiction is the lack of harmony among expressions, which is resulted by mutual destruction, exactly because the ignorant mind is trapped at the subjective (non-actual) level of thoughts and can't be aware of the calm (objective and actual) common source of all expressions (mantel of physical) which is itself beyond any expression (mantel of physical) and naturally enables the harmonious interactions among its expressions (exactly as found among different organs of the same organism).

About verbal-symbolic and visual-spatial skills:

"Nope technically, as it was written and not spoken, it is a visually spatial symbolic expression, that can also have a verbal expression."

Here the ignorant mind wrongly takes the shapes of some symbolic expression as the visual-spatial skills of the mind.

But it is well known that there is no necessary relation between the shape of the symbols and the visual-spatial brain's skills that they may represent, for example:

Z = O where Z is a symbol (based on verbal-symbolic skills) and O is a circle (based on visual-spatial skills).

Indeed context-dependent-verbal-symbolic-only skill(ers) can't get the following links even if they are trying their best:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7790810&postcount=211

http://www.youtube.com/user/meditationchannel?blend=21&ob=5#p/u/13/t_dJkjND5AQ

http://www.youtube.com/user/meditationchannel?blend=21&ob=5#p/u/56/xYFOECodaKo

http://www.youtube.com/user/meditationchannel?blend=21&ob=5#p/u/54/_0rbfSaRwCU

[Little 10 Toes]

We can find many examples of mind's limitations of context-dependent-verbal-symbolic-only skill(ers).

Here are some of them:

About contradiction: "contradiction has an actual meaning"

Here the ignorant mind can't get that contradiction is the lack of harmony among expressions, which is resulted by mutual destruction, exactly because the ignorant mind is trapped at the subjective (non-actual) level of thoughts and can't be aware of the calm (objective and actual) common source of all expressions (mantel of physical) which is itself beyond any expression (mantel of physical) and naturally enables the harmonious interactions among its expressions (exactly as found among different organs of the same organism).

[snip]Thank you for confirming that contradiction has a meaning. What (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contradiction) would (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contradiction) I (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contradiction) do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction) without (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/contradiction) you (http://definitions.dictionary.net/contradiction)?

We all understand that, "contradiction is the lack of harmony among expressions". Based on your definition, who should have problems understanding there is a contradiction in this statement: "Turn left and right at the exact same time"?

What about a glass that is up in the air and buried underground at the same time?

[doronshadmi]

Thank you for confirming that contradiction has a meaning. What (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contradiction) would (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contradiction) I (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contradiction) do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction) without (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/contradiction) you (http://definitions.dictionary.net/contradiction)?

We all understand that, "contradiction is the lack of harmony among expressions". Based on your definition, who should have problems understanding there is a contradiction in this statement: "Turn left and right at the exact same time"?

What about a glass that is up in the air and buried underground at the same time?
You have a problem to get the objective non-local "host" state w.r.t the subjective "hosted" states like left OR right.

The "host" is exactly "left" AND "right" of the "hosted" left OR right, so the attempt to get the "host" in terms of the "hosted" is resulted by the illusion of actual contradiction.

[epix]

But it is well known that there is no necessary relation between the shape of the symbols and the visual-spatial brain's skills that they may represent, for example:

Z = O where Z is a symbol (based on verbal-symbolic skills) and O is a circle (based on visual-spatial skills).

:rolleyes:
Why is O a circle when it's preceded by Z? Even that squirrel who comes through the window to steal my nuts can figure out that Z stands for Zero when it's followed by a circular shape, like O.

But when O is preceded by multiple Z, then O is a symbolic circle,

ZZZ => O (http://www.naturalherbalsreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/stop-snoring.jpg)

and a letter as well.

(snOring)

[doronshadmi]

What (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contradiction) would (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contradiction) I (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contradiction) do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction) without (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/contradiction) you (http://definitions.dictionary.net/contradiction)?
You are flourish by harmony, instead of waste your life by ever lasting confrontation which is resulted by mutual destruction.

If Contradiction is actual it means that there is no common source for expressions.

In this case the fundamental state of existence is an ever lasting confrontation between at least two fundamental opposites, which equally destroy each other.

In other words, Dichotomy and ever lasting confrontation is actual.

The awareness of Y as one organism, transcendent the ever lasting confrontation, into the state of harmony and collaboration among different organs of one organism.

Minds that get Contradiction as actual are simply trapped the the level of the "branches" of Y one organism, and therefore wrongly get it as an ever lasting confrontation between at least two different fundamental states (Dichotomy is actual for these trapped minds).

So the phrase: "contradiction has an actual meaning" comes from a trapped mind (Dichotomy is actual for a trapped mind).

Without being directly aware of the calm source of all expressions, one's mind is trapped at the level of thoughts, which is definitely not the Common ground that is naturally free of any contradiction.

The following links directs the mind to actually achieve the Common ground:

http://www.youtube.com/user/meditationchannel?blend=21&ob=5#p/u/56/xYFOECodaKo

http://www.youtube.com/user/meditationchannel?blend=21&ob=5#p/u/54/_0rbfSaRwCU

http://www.youtube.com/user/meditationchannel?blend=21&ob=5#p/u/13/t_dJkjND5AQ

[doronshadmi]

In nature Phase velocity (marked by the red point) can be greater than Group velocity (marked by the green points) as follows:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Wave_group.gif ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_velocity )

Since information moves only in Group velocity (according to the current agreement among the majority of the physicians) then Phase velocity is not considered as information that moving faster than the speed of light (SRT is not violated).

Careful observation of Phase velocity shows that it is unlimited (can be infinite).

Actual unlimited Phase velocity is achieved only if the observed space is taken at-once (no local observation of some point along a given path is measured), or in other words, the measured space is a non-composed whole.

This is exactly the state of the finitely curved "host" space w.r.t the infinitely curved "hosted" space.

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

If given spaces are defined in terms of curvature’s degree, then 0-space has infinite curvature, where finite curvature’s degree is at least 1-space.

No amount of collection of infinite curvatures is some finite curvature’s degree.

In other words, no amount of 0-spaces is 1-space, and non-local numbers are the measurement tools of this inability.

[Little 10 Toes]

You have a problem to get the objective non-local "host" state w.r.t the subjective "hosted" states like left OR right.

The "host" is exactly "left" AND "right" of the "hosted" left OR right, so the attempt to get the "host" in terms of the "hosted" is resulted by the illusion of actual contradiction.

Please note that you did not answer my questions. Let me ask again.

Based on your definition, who should have problems understanding there is a contradiction in this statement: "Turn left and right at the exact same time"?

What about a glass that is up in the air and buried underground at the same time?


You are flourish by harmony, instead of waste your life by ever lasting confrontation which is resulted by mutual destruction.

If Contradiction is actual it means that there is no common source for expressions.

In this case the fundamental state of existence is an ever lasting confrontation between at least two fundamental opposites, which equally destroy each other.

In other words, Dichotomy and ever lasting confrontation is actual.

The awareness of Y as one organism, transcendent the ever lasting confrontation, into the state of harmony and collaboration among different organs of one organism.

Minds that get Contradiction as actual are simply trapped the the level of the "branches" of Y one organism, and therefore wrongly get it as an ever lasting confrontation between at least two different fundamental states (Dichotomy is actual for these trapped minds).

So the phrase: "contradiction has an actual meaning" comes from a trapped mind (Dichotomy is actual for a trapped mind).

Without being directly aware of the calm source of all expressions, one's mind is trapped at the level of thoughts, which is definitely not the Common ground that is naturally free of any contradiction.

This message does not parse into English. Please try again.

[epix]

Based on your definition, who should have problems understanding there is a contradiction in this statement: "Turn left and right at the exact same time"?


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/06/premier.jpg

[doronshadmi]

Please note that you did not answer my questions.
Please note that your local-only view prevents your mind to get my answer.

[doronshadmi]

oppss...

[doronshadmi]

There are scientists that are getting out of the agreed local boxes.

Take for example K. Ghosh ( http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0503/0503003v21.pdf , page 13):

To illustrate let us consider two “set”s each containing a single object: a line-element. The line-elements are intersecting but non-coincident everywhere. The intersection of these two “set”s is a “set” containing points which are fundamentally different from line elements (we can not say that a point is a line-element with one point as the arguments in this section prove that a line-element is not a collection of points). Similar arguments can be extended to higher dimensions.


K. Ghosh ( http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0605/0605061v148.pdf , page 2):

In this section we will demonstrate that a line-element is not a collection of points. Line-elements, area elements and volume-elements are as fundamental as points.


These notions are going to be the main stream, whether the Context-dependent-only skill(esr) like it or not.

[doronshadmi]

Here are some persons that get things right:
http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=140626&tstart=0 :

I believe this is related to the mystery of how a line, which
is one-dimensional and therefore has spatial extension, can
be constructed from points, each of which is zero-dimensional
and has no spatial extension. You simply can't get a line
from any number, not even a nondenumerably infinite number,
of points, because even a non-denumerably infinite number of
points has no collective extension: you can't put a point "next
to" a point because there is no such thing as "next to" something
having no spatial extension.

A line is not a collection of points. You can, however, always
pick points out of a line. There are always as many as you need,
and therefore always more than you need. If each point is
associated with some ordinal number, then any line segment, no
matter how short, describes ALL possible ordinals (not just the
members of the set of real numbers). But assuming that the
collection of all ordinals is a set leads to a set theoretical
paradox using the usual rules and assumptions, thus it is usually
assumed that this entity is NOT a set. The "points in a line"
constitute some sort of absolute infinity, not a set and therefore
not a transfinite cardinal: whereas the point subsets people pick
out of a line by mapping other sets to them (such as the real
numbers) are sets and therefore are transfinite cardinals.

The mistake people made was in assuming that a continuum (like a
line) could be completely described by any incomplete subset of
ordinal numbers (like the real numbers). If C is the cardinality
of the continuum, then the cardinality of the set of real numbers
is less than C. All of the alephs are less than C.

[epix]

There are scientists that are getting out of the agreed local boxes.

Take for example K. Ghosh ( http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0503/0503003v21.pdf , page 13):


We consider a homogeneous linear array of marbles touching each other. If we now shrink the volume of each marble keeping them in contact (so that the array is always homogeneous) then in the limit that the volume of the marbles is zero we will get a single point.

These discussions lead us to conclude that a line-element is not just a collection of points but is a fundamental
geometric object.

No, we will not get a single point. We will get a collection of spheres whose volume approches zero. Plain and simple.

[jsfisher]

The best part is at the end.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0503/0503003v21.pdf
Any one, who had thept any aspect of this article and/or unduly disturbed the author seriously using e.m radiation in a biological way (telepathy) during the last six years, in particular while the article was getting prepared, or/and encouraged to do so is a descendant of Avatar of Dharmaraj


Doron, has anyone been disturbing you seriously using electro-magnetic radiation in a biological way (telepathy) during the last, oh, what is it now, twenty five years?

[doronshadmi]

The belief of Ramanujan (Ramanujan credited his acumen to his family Goddess, Namagiri of Namakkal. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan )) do not change the quality of his scientific work.

So is the case about K. Ghosh in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7799483&postcount=224 .

Western atheist persons can't comprehend that.

As for myself, I claim that belief is not sufficient in order to actually be aware of the considered subject, and it can be done only by one's mind, which enables to transcendent its subjective expressed aspects, in order to directly be aware of the objective non-local calm source of all expressions.

Western atheist persons that can't comprehend that, are simply trapped at level of thoughts, which is subjective no matter what model of reality is used by them.

[epix]

The belief of Ramanujan (Ramanujan credited his acumen to his family Goddess, Namagiri of Namakkal. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan )) do not change the quality of his scientific work.


Ramanujan was a mathematician so great his name transcends jealousies, the one superlatively great mathematician whom India has produced in the last hundred years. "His leaps of intuition confound mathematicians even today, seven decades after his death. ..the brilliant, self-taught Indian mathematician whose work contains some of the most beautiful ideas in the history of science. His legacy has endured. His twenty-one major mathematical papers are still being plumbed for their secrets, and many of his ideas are used today in cosmology and computer science. His theorems are being applied in areas - polymer chemistry, computers, cancer research - scarcely imaginable during his lifetime. His mathematical insights yet leave mathematicians baffled that anyone could divine them in the first place.

The inexhaustible Ramanujan was an observant Hindu, adept at dream interpretation and astrology. His work was marked by bold leaps and gut feelings. Growing up he had learned to worship Namagiri, the consort of the lion god Narasimha. Ramanujan believed that he existed to serve as Namagiri´s champion - Hindu Goddess of creativity. In real life Ramanujan told people that Namagiri visited him in his dreams and wrote equations on his tongue.

Ramanujan could never explain to G H Hardy (an atheist) how he arrived at his deep insights in mathematical terms; but he did say many of his discoveries came to him in dreams, from the goddess Namakkal, and that he had a morning ritual of awakening and writing them down.

He was intensely religious. He often united mathematics and spirituality together. He felt, for example, that zero represented Absolute Reality, and that infinity represented the many manifestations of that Reality. Ramanujan felt that each mathematical discovery was a step closer to understanding the spiritual universe. He once told a friend, "An equation for me has no meaning unless it expresses a thought of God."


Say hi to your divine link. (http://www.whitegadget.com/attachments/pc-wallpapers/75656d1315887643-devil-devil-photo.gif)

[jsfisher]

Hey, Doron, good to see you have a new nut-job hero, but you are evading my question:

Doron, has anyone been disturbing you seriously using electro-magnetic radiation in a biological way (telepathy) during the last, oh, what is it now, twenty five years?

[epix]

The belief of Ramanujan (Ramanujan credited his acumen to his family Goddess, Namagiri of Namakkal. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan )) do not change the quality of his scientific work.

So is the case about K. Ghosh in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7799483&postcount=224 .

Ramanujan was delusional by today's advanced concept of atheism, whereas K. Ghosh is just a certified pretender. That's why G. H. Hardy, who was the only one at Cambridge to recognized Ramanujan's mathematical brilliance, isn't too often mention as a notable atheist. The modern philosophy of atheism holds that whatever an atheist cannot comprehend is automatically the result of delusion. So that's why you're hanging around here taking your chances.

Goddess Namagiri of Namakkal set up a little test for you. If you pass, your name will be removed from the Center of Phantasmagorical Sphere of the Perpetual Bounce. And so, what is 1729?

[doronshadmi]

Western atheists simply ignore any answer ( as given, for example about belief in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7802875&postcount=228 ) that does not fit to their box.

[doronshadmi]

Advanced concept of atheism is not achieved if the atheist's fundamental principles are based on dichotomy between concepts like Ethics and Logical reasoning, or based on ever lasting confrontation between expressions (for example: Contradiction is considered as actual), exactly because the atheist's mind is trapped at the level of thoughts (in this case it does not matter if the the person is an atheist or a religious one, in both cases it is not directly aware of its objective (actual) non-local calm source, which actually enables the harmony among all possible expressions, whether they are abstract or physical).

Ignorance may hold whether the people are atheists (for example: Nazism, Communism, Piggish Capitalism or any other atheist dictatorship) or religious (Active fundamentalism, which is not really fundamental because it is trapped at the level of thoughts).

[jsfisher]

Western atheists simply ignore any answer ( as given, for example about belief in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7802875&postcount=228 ) that does not fit to their box.


So, since your empty nonsense about verbal vs. visual thinking got you nowhere, you've jumped to deriding atheism as you next ineffective approach.

Well done, Doron. You manage to do so much with so little.

[epix]

Goddess Namagiri of Namakkal set up a little test for you. If you pass, your name will be removed from the Center of Phantasmagorical Sphere of the Perpetual Bounce. And so, what is 1729?



Ignorance may hold whether the people are atheists (for example: Nazism, Communism, Piggish Capitalism or any other atheist dictatorship) or religious (Active fundamentalism, which is not really fundamental because it is trapped at the level of thoughts).

Miracle! How could you possibly figure out that number 1729 is linked with ignorance?

There is only one possible explanation:

A common anecdote about Ramanujan relates to the number 1729. Hardy arrived at Ramanujan's residence in a cab numbered 1729. Hardy commented that the number 1729 seemed to be uninteresting. Ramanujan is said to have stated on the spot that it was actually a very interesting number mathematically, being the smallest natural number representable in two different ways as a sum of two cubes:

1729 = 13 + 123 = 93 + 103

Generalizations of this idea have created the notion of "taxicab numbers". Coincidentally, 1729 is also a Carmichael Number.


Being closed in a box of performing mathematics, both Hardy and Ramanujan didn't notice that 1729 is also the union of two subsequent Ramanujan primes 17 and 29.
http://oeis.org/A104272

I guess that was too easy for you. So I give you a problem to solve - it's similar to the 1729 being a sum of two cubes in two different ways.

Which number satisfies the identity

a2 + b2 = c3 + d3

where a<b and c<d?

If you answer the right way, you will be released from the Prison of Phantasmagorical Thought on parol.

[doronshadmi]

Ignorant persons are like rigid boxes that are floating upon the wavy surface of the sea, and as a result they get contradiction as an actual realm (the calm state of the sea as the natural base ground for harmony among waves, is beyond their wavy-only awareness).


Ignorant persons can't get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7796111&postcount=218 and http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7790810&postcount=211 and this is a problem that leads ignorant persons to one of the dead-ends of the evolution.

If they are being aware of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7796111&postcount=218 and http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7790810&postcount=211 the dead-end problem can be solved.

[jsfisher]

I see the Doron Word ShiftTM (patent pending) continues. Got no rise with "atheist" so he's giving "ignorant person" a whirl.

Doron, why not go with substance worthy of an adult rather than kindergarten taunts?

[epix]

I give you a problem to solve - it's similar to the 1729 being a sum of two cubes in two different ways.

Which number satisfies the identity

a^2 + b^2 = c^3 + d^3

where a<b and c<d?

If you answer the right way, you will be released from the Prison of Phantasmagorical Thought on parol.


Ignorant persons are like rigid boxes that are floating upon the wavy surface of the sea, and as a result they get contradiction as an actual realm (the calm state of the sea as the natural base ground for harmony among waves, is beyond their wavy-only awareness).


You answer us with awesome and righteous deeds,
God our Savior,
the hope of all the ends of the earth
and of the farthest seas,
who formed the mountains by your power,
having armed yourself with strength,
who stilled the roaring of the seas,
the roaring of their waves,
and the turmoil of the nations.
Psalm, Chapter 65

65 = 12 + 82 = 13 + 43

I see that your extraearthly guide (http://www.whitegadget.com/attachments/pc-wallpapers/75656d1315887643-devil-devil-photo.gif) is very good. It stilled the roaring of the waves, made the sea calm and chose the lowest number that satisfies the identity. But your extraearthly guide to the mental pandemonium has a weakness called "analytic proof." And therefore I shall say onto you that your head will ooze cottage cheese when exposed to the follow up.

Conjecture:

There is no prime number p that would satisfy

p = a2 + b2 = c3 + d3

where a<b and c<d.

If you prove or disprove the conjecture, your numerophobia will go away and your phantasmagoria will be replaced by divine insights:


Ramanujan could never explain to G H Hardy how he arrived at his deep insights in mathematical terms; but he did say many of his discoveries came to him in dreams, from the goddess Namakkal, and that he had a morning ritual of awakening and writing them down.



Cantor believed his theory of transfinite numbers had been communicated to him by God.

[doronshadmi]

Here is Dr. Ghosh answer about the "telepathy" case:

"Firstly the attached manuscripts have been accepted in IJPAM
each with two reviewers. So there are a few persons who agree
with us.

The point is, the whole structure of Mathematics, depending on the
set theory is not in accordance with what we are doing. The intersection
of two same objects is a different object: is surely shattering to mathematicians.

The other article which brings out a contradiction to the "tensorial
character of the connection coefficients" is also severe to a conservative
mathematician. Since when I had started writing these things I had
been suspended by the arxiv.

But it is also fact that there had always been a few people bothered
about these issues. Regarding the second article you can look at
the book by Wald (cited in the article). You will never be able to
convince all people.

Lastly, regarding those silly comments. You tell them there is nothing
like that in the past 3/4 years and surely some people used to disturb me
at that time with reference to a few mistakes in the article.

I now know that they came to know about these things from those who read the article.
Hence the telepathy.... things were silly in this context. I was unable to understand that
a few persons are reading the versions (> 5) which did not come out in the arxiv.


I will try to talk with people after the article will get published.



Wishes,

Dr. K. Ghosh"

[jsfisher]

Here is Dr. Ghosh answer about the "telepathy" case:

That's nice, but what was the question? ...Where's the rest of his answer?

[jsfisher]

...been accepted in IJPAM...

Oh, yeah, that would be the organization that accepts just about anything on a first-come, first-served basis.

...I had been suspended by the arxiv...

Gee, how do you get banned from ARXIV? They also accept anything and everything (but unlike IJPAM, they don't pretend to review things).

[epix]

The point is, the whole structure of Mathematics, depending on the
set theory is not in accordance with what we are doing. The intersection of two same objects is a different object: is surely shattering to mathematicians.

I think it can be solved. I mean to answer the question who made such a claim and where the inspiration came from.

The standard set theory issues easily verifiable counter-claim.

A = 12345
B = 12345

A ∩ B = 12345 ∩ 12345 = 12345

It means that the mysterious person defines intersection different way to arrive at the "math-shattering" conclusion. It looks that the function of that special intersection is virtually identical with the highway intersection of the form X.

Suppose there are two highways built one after another. Highway 39 was built first and then came Highway 27. You CANNOT switch from 39 to 27 without entering the intersection of both highways. So let's denote this fact by ODD numbers, which 39 and 27 are. It follows that the part of both highways called intersection - a place where you can switch from 39 to 27 and vice versa - must be an even number.

Now let [] be the symbol for intersection.

39 [] 27 = 3[92]7

The intersection of Highway 39 and Highway 27 is now defined as 92. Since 92 is EVEN number, you CAN make the switch from one highway to another there.

Since CAN doesn't equal MUST, there are two options upon entering Intersection 92: either you turn and switch the roads (YES), or you don't (NO). Since YES applies to '+' and NO to '-', both options can be numerically expressed using 92 as

YES: 9 + 2 = 11
NO: 9 - 2 = 7

Since 11=K and 7=G in the alphabet, the initials of the mystery person are K.G. or G.K.

Here the binary (logical opposites) analytic part pretty much ends to make room for the real-life analysis that mathematicians, scientists, and engineers use all the time. It's called the "hunch analysis," and I have a hunch that the initials belong to

Dr. Kaushik Ghosh,

Department of Physics, ST. Xavier's College, 30, Mother Teresa Sarani, Kolkata - 700016, India.
http://ijpam.eu/en/files/journals/1/articles/138/supp/138-256-1-SP.txt

Now the second part: Where did the inspiration that made Dr. Ghosh to switch from the standard definition of set intersection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersection_(set_theory)
to his special definition come from?

Well, we mentioned only one intersection where Dr. Gosh could make the switch: it was Intersection 92 - the place where Highway 39 and Highway 27 meet. 3[92]7.

Due to

39 = "number of books in The Old Testament
27 = "number of books in The New Testament

the inspiration must have come from someone who thinks that

OLD is to ODD as NEW is to ODD.

(The atheists always say that religion isn't logical, but they seem to have a great deal of difficulty to make a brief and effective point.)

[jsfisher]

Uhoh!

Doron's latest crank good buddy denies Doron's bogus claim that 1 and 0.999... are different numbers. Oh, dear!! Now, Kaushik Ghosh does practice his own sort of insanity, but at least he knows more about limits than Doron.

On the other hand, he does have this as a foundational argument:

We consider a homogeneous linear array of marbles touching each other. If we now shrink the volume of each marble keeping them in contact (so that the array is always homogeneous) then in the limit that the volume of the marbles is zero we will get a single point.

This may be true for any finite array of marbles. It is not true for an infinite array. Maybe being so wrong so quickly in his writings is what Doron finds so attractive.

Continuing, just a few paragraphs later, we find this dementia:

An arbitrary real rational number may be expressed as r = n.x1x2x3...xp where n is an integer, xi = 0,...9 for i < p, xj = 0 for j > p, p may be arbitrarily large but finite and xp <> 0, i.e., the sequence of the decimal places is finite.

In Ghosh's world, 1/7 is not a rational number. Who knew?


So, Doron, is he right or wrong? Do 1 and 0.999... represent the same number? Is 1/7 rational? At what point does an infinite linear array of shrinking marbles switch from having infinite extent to being just a point?

[epix]

Well, we mentioned only one intersection where Dr. Gosh could make the switch: it was Intersection 92 - the place where Highway 39 and Highway 27 meet. 3[92]7.

Due to

39 = "number of books in The Old Testament
27 = "number of books in The New Testament

the inspiration must have come from someone who thinks that

OLD is to ODD as NEW is to ODD.

Who is that "someone," Doron?

I'm afraid that there is no solution stuffed with rigor. Picture this: Ghosh is waiting in the intersection for his extra-earthly contact to bring him the math-shattering formula. Would his contact arrive driving alongside Highway 39 or Highway 27?

Both options are mutually exclusive and so you can expect binary operations to enter the solution. The binary numbers used are 1 and 0; the "binary letters" are consonants and vowels. Since there are 21 consonants and 5 vowels in the alphabet, it follows that

1>0 <=> c>v

and that c=1 and v=0.

That leads to the binary transformation of Ghosh's name:

GHOSH = 11011

The extra-earhtly guide understands this very well. It cannot approach Ghosh by driving alongside Highway 39, coz

11011(binary) = 27(decimal)

and therefore must drive alongside Highway 27. But since Highway 27 = 27 books of The New Testament, the Ghosh's mentor come from the second part of the Bible.

Do you know how many guys are "driving alongside The New Testament?"

That's right. A lot. And one of them is sharing his "wisdom" with Ghosh. That part of the search is not entirely supported by binary logic, so it's not that straightforward. You need to redefine the intersection, coz there would be TWO persons talking. The big clue is what Ghosh said, namely, "The intersection of TWO same objects is a different object." That does the trick.

But you better work on the conjecture. No tricks there - just the old-fashioned "traditional" math.

[doronshadmi]

A chain of some emails:



From: Doron Shadmi <shadmi_doron@yahoo.com>
Subject: A FEW COMMENTS ON "A FEW COMMENTS ON CLASSICAL ELECTRODYNAMICS"
To: kaushikhit10@yahoo.co.in
Date: Thursday, 14 April, 2011, 7:45 AM

Dear K. Ghosh,

I read http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0605/0605061v148.pdf and I agree with you that a line is not a collection of points, etc...

In page 2 you wrote the following:

We will consider the fact that real numbers form a dense set: for real numbers only the concept of ”two numbers separated by an interval” or “two numbers are same” have meaning but “two numbers adjacent” is not defined.

According to my observations “two numbers adjacent” is the result of an ever smaller 1-dimensional element, which is irreducible to any one of the ever closer 0-dimensional elements along it, simply because a 1-dimensional element is at most an ever smaller element with respect to the smallest element, which is an 0-dimensional element, known as a point, in this case.

The same principle is found between 2-dimensional element with respect to 1 and 0 dimensional elements.

In general, given any n>0 dimensional element, it is en ever smaller element with respect to any dimensional element < n.

The smallest n-dimensional elements (where n>0) can be found only if there is a finite amount of them in some researched framework.

But this is not the case if there are ifnitiely many n-dimensional elements (where n>0) in some researched framework.

In that case the following generalization holds:

Given any n>0 dimensional element, it is en ever smaller element with respect to any dimensional element < n.


I will appreciate very much your reply.

Sincerely yours,

Doron Shadmi



From: Kaushik Ghosh <kaushikhit10@yahoo.in>
To: Doron Shadmi <shadmi_doron@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: A FEW COMMENTS ON "A FEW COMMENTS ON CLASSICAL ELECTRODYNAMICS"

Dear Mr. Shadmi,

Thank you for your mail. Actually what you have said is related with breaking the dense set character of the real numbers. This is discussed in reference 32,33,34 in my article. You need to adopt something like this if you want to consider a line as a collection of points and give completeness to the real number system.

When you do not consider the line as a collection of points you dont have to
break the dense set character of the real numbers for completeness. Both the line-elements and the real numbers form dense set. But whether there will exist a one-to-one relation between them (which I have naively said) is to be researched.

It would be better if you look at v139, I have finished SUPP:III there. v138
contains some mistakes in that section.


Wishes,

Dr. K. Ghosh.



From: Doron Shadmi <shadmi_doron@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: A FEW COMMENTS ON "A FEW COMMENTS ON CLASSICAL ELECTRODYNAMICS"
To: "Kaushik Ghosh" <kaushikhit10@yahoo.in>
Date: Sunday, 2 October, 2011, 12:50 PM
...

the Real-line has a non-empty collection of non-local numbers between 0 dimensional space and 1 dimensional space.


...



From: Kaushik Ghosh <kaushikhit10@yahoo.in>
To: Doron Shadmi <shadmi_doron@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: A FEW COMMENTS ON "A FEW COMMENTS ON CLASSICAL ELECTRODYNAMICS"

Dear Mr. Shadmi,

Can you explain in more detail what you mean by the statement:

the Real-line has a non-empty collection of non-local numbers between 0 dimensional space and 1 dimensional space.


This will be something related with the completeness of the real number system.

I am reading your last e-mail.

Wishes,

Ghosh.



From: Doron Shadmi <shadmi_doron@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: A FEW COMMENTS ON "A FEW COMMENTS ON CLASSICAL ELECTRODYNAMICS"
To: "Kaushik Ghosh" <kaushikhit10@yahoo.in>
Date: Tuesday, 25 October, 2011, 8:51 AM

Dear Dr. Ghosh,


First, thank you for your reply.

As I observe it, by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial brain's skills, one enables to distinguish between "defined by" and "made of".

Without a loss of generality 1-space is a "host" space (mathematical or physical) with respect to a 0-space,
where 0-space is a "hosted" space (mathematical or physical) with respect to 1-space, where the terms "host"\"hosted" is used in order to clarify that the involved spaces are defined by each other in terms of verbal_symbolic brain's skills, but they are not made of each other in terms of visual_spatial brain's skills (one realizes that "host" or "hosted" (mathematical or physical) are different types of elements (where an element is a non-composed thing)).

Also without a loss of generality, given an infinitely long 1-space, no segment along it (where a segment is a composed object (0-space element AND 1-space element are its (atomic) building blocks) is extensible into an infinitely long 1-space OR reducible into 0-space.

In the case of the non-extensibility of a given segment into an infinitely long 1-space, the "hosted" is a collection of at least two 0-spaces.

In the case of the irreducibility of a given segment into 0-space, the "hosted" is a single 0-space.

A given complex phenomenon can based on finitely or infinitely many "host"\"hosted" building-blocks, such that it is not extensible OR reducible into their non-composed (atomic) state.

The tool that measures the non-extensibility OR irreducibility of a composed object into a non-composed (atomic) state is called non-local number, which expresses the inability of a composed object to reach the non-composed state(by using expressions that are based on verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial brain's skills).

Yours,

Doron



From: Kaushik Ghosh <kaushikhit10@yahoo.in>
To: Doron Shadmi <shadmi_doron@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: A FEW COMMENTS ON "A FEW COMMENTS ON CLASSICAL ELECTRODYNAMICS"


Dear Mr. Shadmi,

You are right. You can look at the point contraction mapping th. in this regard.

If possible pl. let me know whether you are doing any thing new and related.

Lastly, thank you for your communications that I have been able to publish
two article in IJPAM.

Thanks and wishes,

Dr. Ghosh



From: Doron Shadmi <shadmi_doron@yahoo.com>
To: Kaushik Ghosh <kaushikhit10@yahoo.in>
Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2011 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: A FEW COMMENTS ON "A FEW COMMENTS ON CLASSICAL ELECTRODYNAMICS"
Dear Dr. Ghosh,
Your view about dimensional spaces is in agreement with my view on this subject.

I believe that you are aware of the fact that by the current paradigm higher dimensional spaces are not elements, but they are collections of lower dimensional spaces.

So you and I actually disagree with the current paradigm (and I am very interested in the success of your research).

In that case the current community of mathematicians will try to find any reason in order to show that your work is worthless, including personal attacks on your reasoning's ability.

I shared your work with other mathematicians, and instead of replying about your work, they used this part:

XVII. SAMAPTA

Any one, who had thept any aspect of this article and/or unduly disturbed the author seriously using e.m radiation in a biological way (telepathy) during the last six years, in particular while the article was getting prepared, or/and encouraged to do so is a descendant of Avatar of Dharmaraj.

in order to claim that your work is worthless.

So my question is this:

Do you claim that few people were disturbing your personal life by using telepathy?

Again, I am asking these questions exactly because I am interested in the success of your research, and therefore I wish that other scientists will take your research seriously.

Thank you.

Yours,

Doron



From: Kaushik Ghosh <kaushikhit10@yahoo.in>
To: Doron Shadmi <shadmi_doron@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2011 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: A FEW COMMENTS ON "A FEW COMMENTS ON CLASSICAL ELECTRODYNAMICS"

Dear Mr. Shadmi,

Firstly the attached manuscripts have been accepted in IJPAM
each with two reviewers. So there are a few persons who agree
with us.

The point is, the whole structure of Mathematics, depending on the
set theory is not in accordance with what we are doing. The intersection
of two same objects is a different object: is surely shattering to matehmaticians.
The other article which brings out a contradiction to the "tensorial
character of the connection coefficients" is also severe to a conservative
mathematician. Since when I had started writing these things I had
been suspended by the arxiv.

But it is also fact that there had always been a few people bothered
about these issues. Regarding the second article you can look at
the book by Wald (cited in the article). You will never be able to
convince all people.

Lastly, regarding those silly comments. You tell them there is nothing
like that in the past 3/4 years and surely some people used to disturb me
at that time with reference to
a few mistakes in the article. I now know that they came to know about
these things from those who read the article. Hence the telepathy....
things were silly in this context. I was unable to understand that a few persons
are reading the versions (> 5) which did not come out in the arxiv.


I will try to talk with people after the article will get published.



Wishes,

Dr. K. Ghosh

[jsfisher]

You must have missed this:

So, Doron, is he right or wrong? Do 1 and 0.999... represent the same number? Is 1/7 rational? At what point does an infinite linear array of shrinking marbles switch from having infinite extent to being just a point?

[doronshadmi]

kaushikhit10@yahoo.co.in is available to any one, who really wishes to communicate with Dr. K. Ghosh about his work.

[jsfisher]

kaushikhit10@yahoo.co.in is available to any one, who really wishes to communicate with Dr. K. Ghosh about his work.

Yes, we all know that, and if and when he starts peddling his crankery, here, I'll be happy to engage him. But that's not currently the case. Currently, it is doronshadmi who is peddling his crankery, here. So, I ask again the question you continue to dodge:

So, Doron, is he right or wrong? Do 1 and 0.999... represent the same number? Is 1/7 rational? At what point does an infinite linear array of shrinking marbles switch from having infinite extent to being just a point?

Surely, your latest mathemangled hero couldn't be wrong, now could he?

[epix]

Here is Dr. Ghosh answer about the "telepathy" case:

"Firstly the attached manuscripts have been accepted in IJPAM
each with two reviewers. So there are a few persons who agree
with us.

I know how to send attachments by email, but I wonder how to do it when you send them via telepathy.

This is a part which deserves some attention, coz you can learn a few things about association. The starting point is the acronym IJPAM, which could be somewhat decoded given the context where it appears. Do you know something about the evolution of species, Doron? If not, then it's time to learn: We evolve specie IJPAM using intelligent design.

IJPAM ---> I AM J.P.

Now you have only two letters to decode and those are the initials J.P. Whom do the initials belong to?

It depends on the context, but in this case there is none. That's the end, but not for those who suspect that the evolution is not a solely the work of the nature. If you need some context to create the list of possible solutions to the initials J.P. that is supposed to evolve into a full name, you need to create the context. But how?

Well, the initials J.P. are not standalone; they are preceded by I AM. That wouldn't do much good with college graduates, but just as an example that I AM, or "I am," can narrow the long list of possibilities, interpret I not as a Latin letter, but as a Roman numeral. In that case, the re-assignment yields

I AM => 1 AM

Now you can narrow the list of possibilities and consider only the folks with initials J.P. who were born at 1 AM, for example. But this is not just an example of creating a context from a data that are not explicitly bred to become the context; it is very instrumental in creating the context to J.P. with respect to the evolution process.

Evolution can be observed through similarity. You find a fossil 12543 in sediment A and fossil 12345 in sediment B. If you make the comparison

12543 <=> 12345

and you know that sediment A is older than sediment B, you can consider the degree of similarity between both fossils and draw a conclusion to the origin of the well-organized specimen 12345. Unfortunately, no matter how much you dig around, there are no fossils that would show the intermediate evolutionary steps. But the degree of similarity between 12543 and 12345 is good enough for a theory to be taught in schools.

We know that the original specie IJPAM was "homogeneous" - there were no spaces between the letters. Then it evolved into a reorganized form with spaces: I AM P.J. with two periods. We don't know what or who is P.J. but we got lucky by digging and finding an intermediate evolutionary step 1 AM P.J. Mind you that 'I' and '1' are very similar and this "DNA" was found a few millions years later in species Roman and Arabic. In this view, even though we don't know what P.J. stand for, we can settle for less and make a very educated guess that AM stands for Ante Meridiem. Let's analyze this part of the fossil:

Is it possible that the genetic block AM could evolve from Ante Meridiem into something else?

Given the short time, the answer is no, but you can help it - if you are not the nature. We are going to design a clever evolutionary step:

1 AM = 13 Hours

13 Hours is not the step; it's a concept:

If 1 AM = 13 Hours then AM = Arithmetic Modular

That amounts to a significant scientific discovery: there is a meaningful relation between Ante Meridiem and Arithmetic Modular.

http://nrich.maths.org/content/id/4350/Clock2.gif

The drawing pretty much shows what modular arithmetic is all about. For example, if you organize alphabet in the circular fashion, the numbers that reflect upon the order of letters will take on different values. Obviously, the letters A and M are in the focus. Since the short hand on the face of clock goes twice around, there are two assignments to A and M.

A = 1 = 27 (1+26)
M = 13 = 39 (13+26]

Now looking at the "evolutionary clock," do we go to the past or to the future? Since A=27 and M=39, we go to the past. That's because

http://newsone.com/files/2011/02/bible2.jpg

there are 27 books in The New Testament and 39 books in The Old Testament. Since Old precedes New, and OldNew=3927, and AM=2739 modulo 26, we must go the other way - we go to the past.

Now here is the instrumental association that eluded the Vatican Th.D.s.

The difference between "The Old Testament" and "The New Testament" are obviously the adjectives OLD and NEW. These adjectives are time related so are the acronyms AM and PM. Given the Bible, would you chose AM or PM?

Would you write AM on the cover of the Bible or PM?

I don't know. It can go either way.

So now we can make the last two evolutionary steps:

IJPAM ---> I AM P.J.---> I am J.P. ---> I am John Paul

Like that pope, John Paul II? Or is it John Paul I?

There is always a set of choices, but they are not equal to each other.

So that's the opener of the IJPAM "telepathic" message. There is no logical mistake in it, and that scares me. Fortunately, we are extremely ignorant species in this department, so there is no reason to be afraid of.

IJPAM is a collection of five letters and so let's put it among the equals.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ahc7GZSLNhc/TLRntekpmkI/AAAAAAAAABk/57mS79mRI3A/s1600/enigma+code.gif
http://www.mishalov.com/Enigma.html

Speaking of association . . . Someone should look in the Bible and find out what it really says.

yoy4_h7Pb3M

[dafydd]

I know how to send attachments by email, but I wonder how to do it when you send them via telepathy.

This is a part which deserves some attention, coz you can learn a few things about association. The starting point is the acronym IJPAM, which could be somewhat decoded given the context where it appears. Do you know something about the evolution of species, Doron? If not, then it's time to learn: We evolve specie IJPAM using intelligent design.

IJPAM ---> I AM J.P.

Now you have only two letters to decode and those are the initials J.P. Whom do the initials belong to?

It depends on the context, but in this case there is none. That's the end, but not for those who suspect that the evolution is not a solely the work of the nature. If you need some context to create the list of possible solutions to the initials J.P. that is supposed to evolve into a full name, you need to create the context. But how?

Well, the initials J.P. are not standalone; they are preceded by I AM. That wouldn't do much good with college graduates, but just as an example that I AM, or "I am," can narrow the long list of possibilities, interpret I not as a Latin letter, but as a Roman numeral. In that case, the re-assignment yields

I AM => 1 AM

Now you can narrow the list of possibilities and consider only the folks with initials J.P. who were born at 1 AM, for example. But this is not just an example of creating a context from a data that are not explicitly bred to become the context; it is very instrumental in creating the context to J.P. with respect to the evolution process.

Evolution can be observed through similarity. You find a fossil 12543 in sediment A and fossil 12345 in sediment B. If you make the comparison

12543 <=> 12345

and you know that sediment A is older than sediment B, you can consider the degree of similarity between both fossils and draw a conclusion to the origin of the well-organized specimen 12345. Unfortunately, no matter how much you dig around, there are no fossils that would show the intermediate evolutionary steps. But the degree of similarity between 12543 and 12345 is good enough for a theory to be taught in schools.

We know that the original specie IJPAM was "homogeneous" - there were no spaces between the letters. Then it evolved into a reorganized form with spaces: I AM P.J. with two periods. We don't know what or who is P.J. but we got lucky by digging and finding an intermediate evolutionary step 1 AM P.J. Mind you that 'I' and '1' are very similar and this "DNA" was found a few millions years later in species Roman and Arabic. In this view, even though we don't know what P.J. stand for, we can settle for less and make a very educated guess that AM stands for Ante Meridiem. Let's analyze this part of the fossil:

Is it possible that the genetic block AM could evolve from Ante Meridiem into something else?

Given the short time, the answer is no, but you can help it - if you are not the nature. We are going to design a clever evolutionary step:

1 AM = 13 Hours

13 Hours is not the step; it's a concept:

If 1 AM = 13 Hours then AM = Arithmetic Modular

That amounts to a significant scientific discovery: there is a meaningful relation between Ante Meridiem and Arithmetic Modular.

http://nrich.maths.org/content/id/4350/Clock2.gif

The drawing pretty much shows what modular arithmetic is all about. For example, if you organize alphabet in the circular fashion, the numbers that reflect upon the order of letters will take on different values. Obviously, the letters A and M are in the focus. Since the short hand on the face of clock goes twice around, there are two assignments to A and M.

A = 1 = 27 (1+26)
M = 13 = 39 (13+26]

Now looking at the "evolutionary clock," do we go to the past or to the future? Since A=27 and M=39, we go to the past. That's because

http://newsone.com/files/2011/02/bible2.jpg

there are 27 books in The New Testament and 39 books in The Old Testament. Since Old precedes New, and OldNew=3927, and AM=2739 modulo 26, we must go the other way - we go to the past.

Now here is the instrumental association that eluded the Vatican Th.D.s.

The difference between "The Old Testament" and "The New Testament" are obviously the adjectives OLD and NEW. These adjectives are time related so are the acronyms AM and PM. Given the Bible, would you chose AM or PM?

Would you write AM on the cover of the Bible or PM?

I don't know. It can go either way.

So now we can make the last two evolutionary steps:

IJPAM ---> I AM P.J.---> I am J.P. ---> I am John Paul

Like that pope, John Paul II? Or is it John Paul I?

There is always a set of choices, but they are not equal to each other.

So that's the opener of the IJPAM "telepathic" message. There is no logical mistake in it, and that scares me. Fortunately, we are extremely ignorant species in this department, so there is no reason to be afraid of.

IJPAM is a collection of five letters and so let's put it among the equals.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ahc7GZSLNhc/TLRntekpmkI/AAAAAAAAABk/57mS79mRI3A/s1600/enigma+code.gif
http://www.mishalov.com/Enigma.html

Speaking of association . . . Someone should look in the Bible and find out what it really says.

yoy4_h7Pb3M

Very funny gibberish.