Deeper than primes - Continuation

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by doronshadmi

What You Get Is What You See, and you don't see, as usual.

Doron, you are 1 in 7,010,000,000 (or there abouts). Enjoy your uniqueness.

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by doronshadmi

What You Get Is What You See, and you don't see, as usual.

Translation: you don't get it.

The funny thing here is that all this 'peekaboo' by Doron provides the best proof that this is a nonstarter of a non-theory.

In all the years not giving 1 single straight, coherent and correct answer, Doron is truly unique...

[Little 10 Toes]

Originally Posted by doronshadmi

For example 2 is not considered as a member unless it belongs to a wider environment like {2}, {2,{2}}, {2,35.56767,"love"} etc...


I am not talking about any particular size of a non-empty set.

I do talking about the minimal terms that are needed in order to define some object as a member of some set.


What exactly does not need to be invented, in this case?

I'm not talking about any size either. Your claim is:

Originally Posted by doronshadmi

According to Set-Theory, objects are considered as members only in terms of in-vivo (they are always belong to a wider environment).

Please show exactly where in "Set-Theory" that objects are considered as members as they belong to a wider environment. Your claim, your proof.

Originally Posted by doronshadmi

Do you really use pictures in order to support your argument?

Sez the one that fills this thread full of meaningless pictures.

[Little 10 Toes]

Originally Posted by doronshadmi

OM is a framework that is defined by verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial brain's skills, which easily enables one to understand the non-entropic nature of collections, which are irreducible into NOthing AND non-extensible into YESthing, as rigorously shown in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1440, which uses verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning.

All you have to do is to cross the Rubicon of your verbal_symbolic-only reasoning.

But your Yesthing is {}. Not the null set , but the actual characters of "{" and "}". What if my set is the "{" and "}". What then?

[doronshadmi]

Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes

Please show exactly where in "Set-Theory" that objects are considered as members as they belong to a wider environment. Your claim, your proof.

2 is an a example of an object that does not belong to a wider environment, and therefore it is not a member.

{2} is an a example of an object that belongs to a wider environment, and therefore it is a member.

Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes

Sez the one that fills this thread full of meaningless pictures.

You have missed the irony.

[doronshadmi]

Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes

But your Yesthing is {}. Not the null set , but the actual characters of "{" and "}". What if my set is the "{" and "}". What then?

If {} is the whole possible universe (NOthing;YESthing dichotomy) then "{" and "}" are outer and represent YESthing, which is not a member of that universe.

Furthermore, given the universal set U (which is NOthing;YESthing polychotomy), it also has outer "{" and "}" that represent YESthing, which is not a member of that universe.

NOthing is below membership (it is too weak in order to be a member).

YESthing is above membership (it is too strong in order to be a member).

[sympathic]

Originally Posted by doronshadmi

2 is an a example of an object that does not belong to a wider environment, and therefore it is not a member.

{2} is an a example of an object that belongs to a wider environment, and therefore it is a member.



You have missed the irony.

2 is a natural number, {2} is the set containing 2 as its sole member. You do not get to redefine maths.

[doronshadmi]

Originally Posted by sympathic

2 is a natural number, {2} is the set containing 2 as its sole member. You do not get to redefine maths.

It does not change the fact that 2 is considered as a member only if it at least belongs to {2} wider environment ( as seen in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1464 and http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1466 ).

In other words, I do not redefine Maths in this case.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by doronshadmi

It does not change the fact that 2 is considered as a member only if it at least belongs to {2} wider environment ( as seen in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1464 and http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1466 ).

You mean 2 is a member of a set only if it's a member of the set?

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

You mean 2 is a member of a set only if it's a member of the set?

It's worse than that. Not only is 2 a member of a set only if it is a member of the set, 2 may or may not be a member of the set containing 2 as a member. Doron said it; it must be true.

[doronshadmi]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

You mean 2 is a member of a set only if it's a member of the set?

No, 2 is in-vitro where, for example, {2} is in-vivo, as sown in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1488 .

More details are given in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1485 and http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1486 .

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by doronshadmi

No, 2 is in-vitro where, for example, {2} is in-vivo, as sown in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1488 .

More details are given in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1485 and http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1486 .

Ah, "details". Yet another word that has a different meaning in the world of OM.

[sympathic]

Originally Posted by doronshadmi

It does not change the fact that 2 is considered as a member only if it at least belongs to {2} wider environment ( as seen in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1464 and http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1466 ).

In other words, I do not redefine Maths in this case.

Surprise: 2 is also a member of {2,3} not just {2}. Stop dismissing concepts that have proven to be well defined and productive, and learn them.

[doronshadmi]

Originally Posted by sympathic

Surprise: 2 is also a member of {2,3} not just {2}. Stop dismissing concepts that have proven to be well defined and productive, and learn them.

You have missed the term "at least".

[doronshadmi]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Ah, "details".

Ye, details, which you ignore, so?

[doronshadmi]

Originally Posted by sympathic

... have proven to be well defined and productive ...

The mathematical science is actually productive (can't be destructive) only if Ethics (in terms of evolutionary scale) and Logical reasoning are established at Unity awareness.

[sympathic]

Originally Posted by doronshadmi

The mathematical science is actually productive (can't be destructive) only if Ethics (in terms of evolutionary scale) and Logical reasoning are established at Unity awareness.

No. It is productive because it is useful. Learn what productive means and stop attempting to hijack posts.

[Little 10 Toes]

Originally Posted by doronshadmi

2 is an a example of an object that does not belong to a wider environment, and therefore it is not a member.

{2} is an a example of an object that belongs to a wider environment, and therefore it is a member.

I did not ask for examples. I asked:

Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes

Please show exactly where in "Set-Theory" that objects are considered as members as they belong to a wider environment. Your claim, your proof.

Try again.

[realpaladin]

This is going to be a full on remake of the last few years...

Groundhog day with Doron Shadmi... the horror!

My predictions for further posts:

1) Doron feels the obsessive compulsion to be the last poster. No matter what you post, be it on-topic (what *is* the topic?) or off-topic, Doron *will* post something, whether it is meant(!) to be a reply or not.
2) Doron will never answer any question straight, will post daisy-chained links to posts that say nothing and hide behind word-salad.
3) Everytime he gets caught with his hand in the cookiejar he will state the obvious, as if he actually noticed it (which he didn't) and then append a ',so?' just so he does not have to answer for his goof.
4) More pictures, anecdotal evidence and evasion will ensue.
5) At some point he will start insulting his opponents, first by saying things like 'you did not get ....' and 'your verbal notion of something something pink unicorn does not get...', then more directly and in the end he will ignore them.
6) He will not, in no case at all, even though this is the one thing that would be his saving grace regarding the mess he has made the last 30 years, write up 1 (one, the first natural number after zero/0) single coherent paragraph or section somewhere on a blogpage and refer to it.

[jsfisher]

It has become very obvious that Doron stole the whole "organic numbers" idea from Moshe Klein. With Moshe, it was a bit ethereal, but suggestive of an underlying concept. With Doron, is has become confused gibberish, intellectually bankrupt of content. In fact, everything Doron proffers is confused gibberish, intellectually bankrupt of content.

Pakleds, take notice.

[doronshadmi]

Originally Posted by sympathic

No. It is productive because it is useful. Learn what productive means and stop attempting to hijack posts.

Usefulness is not less than non-destructive results.

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by jsfisher

It has become very obvious that Doron stole the whole "organic numbers" idea from Moshe Klein. With Moshe, it was a bit ethereal, but suggestive of an underlying concept. With Doron, is has become confused gibberish, intellectually bankrupt of content. In fact, everything Doron proffers is confused gibberish, intellectually bankrupt of content.

Pakleds, take notice.

When, if ever, have you seen Doron ventilate an idea that was wholly his own? I dare to say never.

He links like a possessed to a selection of previous posts and to other gibberish, but never, ever, ever, to a paper that he wrote and which clearly states from a to z his thoughts.

He is now content with sunday-morning cartoon like 'wisdom'.

The specific method is 'do never answer what is said, but mention a Yoda like construction in which you can read anything except a clear answer'.

I concur, Pakleds, take notice.

[doronshadmi]

Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes

I did not ask for examples. I asked:



Try again.

Try again to understand that 2 is not a member unless it is an object of a wider environment, which is notated by the outer "{" and "}" of a given set, where the the outer "{" and "}" are not members.

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by doronshadmi

Try again to understand that 2 is not a member unless it is an object of a wider environment, which is notated by the outer "{" and "}" of a given set, where the the outer "{" and "}" are not members.

Here we see that Doron, limited to his own verbal/mental jail, demonstrates that he is unable to grasp the concept of 'convention'.

Were we to say that 2 without any other characters is the complete set of natural numbers between 1 and 3 then that convention would enable us to denote the full and complete set without any nonsense as 'wider environment'.

Quite the programmers' talk and get into math, Doron.

[sympathic]

Originally Posted by doronshadmi

Try again to understand that 2 is not a member unless it is an object of a wider environment, which is notated by the outer "{" and "}" of a given set, where the the outer "{" and "}" are not members.

Translation from gibberish: "Try to understand that 2 is a member of some set only if it is a member of some set" --

wow! that's an astonishing observation!

[doronshadmi]

Originally Posted by sympathic

Translation from gibberish: "Try to understand that 2 is a member of some set only if it is a member of some set" --

wow! that's an astonishing observation!

Your translation, your gibberish, your astonishing observation, so?

For example, http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1491 or http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1494 are not in your scope.

B.T.W some white noises' convention disables to get the difference between, for example, in-vitro 2 and the wider in-vivo {2}.

[sympathic]

Originally Posted by doronshadmi

Your translation, your gibberish, your astonishing observation, so?

For example, http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1491 or http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1494 are not in your scope.

B.T.W some white noises' convention disables to get the difference between, for example, in-vitro 2 and the wider in-vivo {2}.

Mathematics is not in your scope, so?

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by doronshadmi

Your translation, your gibberish, your astonishing observation, so?

For example, http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1491 or http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1494 are not in your scope.

B.T.W some white noises' convention disables to get the difference between, for example, in-vitro 2 and the wider in-vivo {2}.

And I score 3 points in my prediction! That is already more than Doron made in 30 years!

Let's see if I can get all of them.

Edit: Let's act like a total Doron about it and keep including the link to my predictions: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1499

[doronshadmi]

Originally Posted by sympathic

Mathematics is not in your scope, so?

Wrong sympathic, what you get as mathematics is restricted to the verbal_symbolic and context-dependent only aspects of this science.

[sympathic]

Originally Posted by doronshadmi

Wrong sympathic, what you get as mathematics is restricted to the verbal_symbolic and context-dependent only aspects of this science.

Mathematics is not in your scope, so?

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by sympathic

Mathematics is not in your scope, so?

+1

[sympathic]

Originally Posted by realpaladin

+1

Two can play this game...

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by sympathic

Two can play this game...

In the first thread it ended up being a moderation hell

In this second thread he shows that he has learned a few simple debating tricks, but in substance, it is even more shallow than in the first thread.

I do agree with the observation that without Moshe Klein, Doron has absolutely nothing from himself. All it actually is, is copy/paste from others with very tight circles around what the others say so the risk of him actually being caught is as small as possible.

And when he get's caught he will always respond with a '..., so?'

This thread is a good one to bump up your posting score, since Doron will never ever concede and he can always be caught in the same way; by putting an actual math problem in front of him, which he then can not solve, after which he reverts to a strawman and ends with a '..., so?' or insults.

I wish you the tenacity you need

[doronshadmi]

Originally Posted by sympathic

Mathematics is not in your scope, so?

Mathematics that is derived from verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning, which enables to deal with Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework, is naturally not restricted to the verbal_symbolic and context-dependent only aspects of this science.

Personal attacks are not going to change this simple fact ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1330 ).

Furthermore, personal attacks actually prevent the distinction between in-vitro and in-vivo as novel view of Set ( as expressed, for example, by the links in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1506 ).

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by doronshadmi

Personal attacks are not going to change this simple fact.

You are ignoring me Doron, and Sympathic just asked you a question... nobody attacked you personally, all that was done was just a description of your modus operandi and a qualification of your character.

Both which you have confirmed most splendidly!



Edit: Let's act like a total Doron about it and keep including the link to my predictions: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1499

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by doronshadmi

Personal attacks are not going to change this simple fact.

It wasn't a personal attack. It was a statement based on evidence you, yourself, have provided. And since the subject is Mathematics (which you so richly misunderstand), it is a fair point to bring up, as are many of your other comprehension and reasoning defects.

Quote:

Furthermore, personal attacks actually prevent the distinction between in-vitro and in-vivo as novel view of Set.

This is a fantasy of your own creation. You really need better fantasies.

[sympathic]

Originally Posted by realpaladin

In the first thread it ended up being a moderation hell

In this second thread he shows that he has learned a few simple debating tricks, but in substance, it is even more shallow than in the first thread.

I do agree with the observation that without Moshe Klein, Doron has absolutely nothing from himself. All it actually is, is copy/paste from others with very tight circles around what the others say so the risk of him actually being caught is as small as possible.

And when he get's caught he will always respond with a '..., so?'

This thread is a good one to bump up your posting score, since Doron will never ever concede and he can always be caught in the same way; by putting an actual math problem in front of him, which he then can not solve, after which he reverts to a strawman and ends with a '..., so?' or insults.

I wish you the tenacity you need

Thanks for you support. Indeed it takes perseverance to have some sort of dialog with Doron. It is encouraging that he sees his responses thrown back to him as attacks -- maybe he will learn something from this.

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by realpaladin

Edit: Let's act like a total Doron about it and keep including the link to my predictions: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1499

You need to add, "Why do you ignore..." to it. Then, if and when he ever responds to it, you change it to "Please read the entire post before responding." Then, you have to link to the link, then you, well, you know already.

[doronshadmi]

The white noise ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1330 ) can't agree with itself if I can create new notions or only grab notions from others.

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by sympathic

maybe he will learn something from this.

Ehm... well, he managed to learn where the ignore option is on the forum. Now he still needs to learn to not be so obsessive and actually ignore people.

I wonder what will happen if we just started our own discussion on what we would consider deeper than primes...