Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
dlorde said:
As I said before, if you were to rewrite it in intelligible English, you might get a better response from readers - I doubt it, but it's worth a shot. Have you yet had any responses from anyone that indicate that they understood what you meant by any of it ?
Click to expand...

Yes, 15 physicists that Moshe met at http://www.vxu.se/msi/konferens/QTRF5/Program_June4.pdf were very interesed in OM, and we are going to write a paper with one of them.
 
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher said:
Doron,

I've noticed your posts for the past several days have been free of any intellectual content, just school yard taunts and retorts. Any prospect for this changing, or will your current modus operandi continue unabated?
Click to expand...


You are not in position to notice anything, jsfisher.

Still can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4805347&postcount=3645 , isn't it :boxedin:?


Go, take a walk with "up to" zooterkin, you are a good company for each other. And do not forget also The head\hammer Man.
Click to expand...

I think we can take that as an affirmation of the “continue unabated” option.

doronshadmi said:
You have missed the "..." isn't it?
Click to expand...


"Isn't it" what? Obviously you continue to miss the meaning of infinite.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
Anyone else think that the "tree" looks like the Legion of Doom's headquarters from the old Super Friends cartoon?
Click to expand...

Good catch L10T, I did not recognize it, but since you mention it I can't see how I missed it. Perhaps now we have a clue as to who is behind Doron's 'research'.
 
doronshadmi said:
Yes, 15 physicists that Moshe met at http://www.vxu.se/msi/konferens/QTRF5/Program_June4.pdf were very interesed in OM, and we are going to write a paper with one of them.
Click to expand...
<sigh> by 'your paper or article or whatever it is' in which I was unable to find significant significant interest or meaning, I clearly wasn't referring to the talk by Moshe. As you seem unable to either understand my posts or write explanations I can understand, and are unwilling or unable to explain your ideas more clearly, I'll close my contribution here.

Although perhaps Moshe might be able to translate for you?
 
Last edited:
dlorde said:
<sigh> by 'your paper or article or whatever it is' in which I was unable to find significant significant interest or meaning, I clearly wasn't referring to the talk by Moshe. As you seem unable to either understand my posts or write explanations I can understand, and are unwilling or unable to explain your ideas more clearly, I'll close my contribution here.

Although perhaps Moshe might be able to translate for you?
Click to expand...
Please try this http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE
 
With Doron now in his insult/spam mode, I thought maybe the rest of us might like a little puzzle: The following has been appearing with greater frequency in Doron's latest cut-and-paste documents. How many errors can you spot? (The space after the "d" in define(s) is mine, not Doron's. The Latex processor doesn't seem to like the word define.)



[latex]
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
First we observe the partitions of number $n$: &$\Gamma(n)$\\
\\
Every $\alpha \in \Gamma(n)$ has an inner structure: &$\alpha \equiv (a_{1}, a_{2}, a_{3},\dotsc,a_{n})$\\
&$\sum_{i=1}^{n} i a_{i} = n$\\
\\
We d efine the following function: &$g(a,b) = \frac{(a+b-1)!}{(a-1)!b!}$\\
\\
Every Partition $O(\alpha)$ d efines a different Organic &\\
Numbers that are calculated by the recursion: &$O(\alpha) = \prod_{i=1}^{n} g(Or(i), a)$\\
\\
The value of $Or(n)$ is based on the following algorithm:
&$Or(n) = \sum_{\alpha \in \Gamma(n)} O(\alpha)$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
[/latex]
 
jsfisher said:
With Doron now in his insult/spam mode, I thought maybe the rest of us might like a little puzzle: The following has been appearing with greater frequency in Doron's latest cut-and-paste documents. How many errors can you spot? (The space after the "d" in define(s) is mine, not Doron's. The Latex processor doesn't seem to like the word define.)



[latex]
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
First we observe the partitions of number $n$: &$\Gamma(n)$\\
\\
Every $\alpha \in \Gamma(n)$ has an inner structure: &$\alpha \equiv (a_{1}, a_{2}, a_{3},\dotsc,a_{n})$\\
&$\sum_{i=1}^{n} i a_{i} = n$\\
\\
We d efine the following function: &$g(a,b) = \frac{(a+b-1)!}{(a-1)!b!}$\\
\\
Every Partition $O(\alpha)$ d efines a different Organic &\\
Numbers that are calculated by the recursion: &$O(\alpha) = \prod_{i=1}^{n} g(Or(i), a)$\\
\\
The value of $Or(n)$ is based on the following algorithm:
&$Or(n) = \sum_{\alpha \in \Gamma(n)} O(\alpha)$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
[/latex]
Click to expand...

jsfisher, thank you very much for your affords, but as usual you are using an obsolete stuff, which clearly shows that you don't read
our work.

The right one is this:
doronshadmi said:
[latex]
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
First we observe the partitions of number $n$: &$\Gamma(n)$\\
\\
Every $\alpha \in \Gamma(n)$ has an inner structure: &$\alpha \equiv (a_{1}, a_{2}, a_{3},\dotsc,a_{n})$\\
&$\sum_{i=1}^{n} i a_{i} = n$\\
\\
We d efine the following function: &$g(a,b) = \frac{(a+b-1)!}{(a-1)!b!}$\\
\\
Every Partition $\alpha$ d efines different Organic &\\
Numbers $D(\alpha)$ that are calculated by the recursion: &$D(\alpha) = \prod_{i=1}^{n} g(Or(i), a)$\\
\\
The value of $Or(n)$ is based on the following algorithm:
&$Or(n) = \sum_{\alpha \in \Gamma(n)} D(\alpha)$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
[/latex]
Click to expand...
You insult youself by avoiding this (this is a new version):
doronshadmi said:
According to Standard Math, there is one and only one set of elements, called real numbers, along the real-line, which are filtered according to some principles.

We can use Ford Circle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_circle ) in order to rigorously demonstrate it:

FordC.jpg


The whole numbers are the result of a filter that ignores the existence of elements between some two given locations (the whole numbers are based only on elements like these two given locations).

The rational numbers are the result of a filter that ignores the existence of elements that are not based on tangent circles, between some two given locations (the two given locations are included in the collection of rational numbers).

The irrational numbers are the result of any location between some two given locations that are not the results of the previous two filters.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher, thank you very much for your affords, but as usual you are using an obsolete stuff, which clearly shows that you don't read
my work.

The right one is this:
Click to expand...

So you replaced in the formulae O(alpha) by D(alpha) and now it's suddenly different? :jaw-dropp

A rose by any other name...
 
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher, thank you very much for your affords, but as usual you are using an obsolete stuff, which clearly shows that you don't read
our work.
Click to expand...


The point of this exercise is that you don't read your work. You just cut-and-paste the same tired gibberish from document to document without a clue what you really wrote or drew. The superficial renaming of one function isn't a material change and hadn't been included in the error count. I guess we have to reconsider that.

Doron, you can play along, too. Even if you are unable to spot any errors, you could at least take a guess at number. Are there more than 10 or are there 10 or fewer? What would you guess? Intervals and cardinality. You like intervals and cardinality.
 
jsfisher said:
With Doron now in his insult/spam mode, I thought maybe the rest of us might like a little puzzle: The following has been appearing with greater frequency in Doron's latest cut-and-paste documents. How many errors can you spot? (The space after the "d" in define(s) is mine, not Doron's. The Latex processor doesn't seem to like the word define.)
Click to expand...

You mean this appeared in the PDF's he's been linking to? I long stopped downloading those.

Anyway, now that Doron has vindicated that the formulae are right (up to renaming), let's take a stab at it. I can see two glaring errors:

1) In the formula for D(alpha), on the rhs an 'a' pops up right out of nowhere

2) There's an infinite recursion. In order to calculate D(alpha), you need OR(n), but to calculate OR(n), you need D(alpha).

and as an aesthetic one, I'd say

3) Lose the definition of g. We all know the Binomium of Newton.
 
jsfisher said:
The point of this exercise is that you don't read your work. You just cut-and-paste the same tired gibberish from document to document without a clue what you really wrote or drew. The superficial renaming of one function isn't a material change and hadn't been included in the error count. I guess we have to reconsider that.

Doron, you can play along, too. Even if you are unable to spot any errors, you could at least take a guess at number. Are there more than 10 or are there 10 or fewer? What would you guess? Intervals and cardinality. You like intervals and cardinality.
Click to expand...
I'll be glade to know what is wrong in:

[latex]
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
First we observe the partitions of number $n$: &$\Gamma(n)$\\
\\
Every $\alpha \in \Gamma(n)$ has an inner structure: &$\alpha \equiv (a_{1}, a_{2}, a_{3},\dotsc,a_{n})$\\
&$\sum_{i=1}^{n} i a_{i} = n$\\
\\
We d efine the following function: &$g(a,b) = \frac{(a+b-1)!}{(a-1)!b!}$\\
\\
Every Partition $\alpha$ d efines different Organic &\\
Numbers $D(\alpha)$ that are calculated by the recursion: &$D(\alpha) = \prod_{i=1}^{n} g(Or(i), a)$\\
\\
The value of $Or(n)$ is based on the following algorithm:
&$Or(n) = \sum_{\alpha \in \Gamma(n)} D(\alpha)$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
[/latex]

This is nothing but the serial view of Organic Numbers that was written by Moshe, so even if there is a mistake in this algorithm Moshe will check it again.

The main point here is that this algorithm has no impact on OM's reasoning, because it is nothing but using Standard Mathematics in order to calculate the number of forms of a given Organic Number. The knowledge of the numbers of forms is only a tiny part of the knowledge of what Organic Number is.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
I'll accept credit for that one. The a should have been ai, which is how it appeared in the original.
Click to expand...

However, Doron corrected your quiz question and didn't change that one. So, according to Doron's latests insights, it is 'a' and not 'a_i' :p As far as I'm concerned, he can't backpedal from that one now.

(and yes, I had suspected as much).

ETA: In post #3858, Doron again uses 'a' without the index. So it really is his wish that it is without the index.
 
Last edited:
ddt said:
You edited your post again, didn't you?

Anyway, read carefully. I commented on the formulae. And I'm confident that jsfisher can quote from which of your "papers" he got it.
Click to expand...

OMPT.pdf, Non-Euclidean Probability (An Informal Introduction), 15 February 2009 version.
 
doronshadmi said:
I'll be glade to know what is wrong in:

<snip>
Click to expand...
First of all, you presumably mean "glad" and not "glade". Check up on your English.

Secondly, look first at post #3855. I even used your name 'D'.

doronshadmi said:
This is nothing but the serial view of Organic Numbers that was written by Moshe, so even if there is a mistake in this algorithm Moshe will check it again.
Click to expand...
So you admit you're just copying his work without understanding it? You've been bleating here for over a year about "Organic Numbers" and it's only now that you - sorry, Moshe - comes up with a definition for them?

<Dirty Harry mode on>
Give it up, punk!
</Dirty Harry>
 
doronshadmi said:
I'll be glade to know my English errors in http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE .
Click to expand...

1) Why are you bringing types of Government into a "Math" discussion?
2) USSR was in existence after WWII. What "emergency atmosphere" was needed?
3) "The raise of Complexity"
4) What is "Complexity"?
5) "Fellows, when the doors of the bank are opened?"
6) "Does a civilization survives the power of its developed technologies?"
7) Destruction does not equal the collapse of complexity. Ask the Incas.
8) Why the case change in "complexity"?
9) What is/are "specials"?
10) Why the case change in "complexity"?

All this before page 9.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
1) Why are you bringing types of Government into a "Math" discussion?
2) USSR was in existence after WWII. What "emergency atmosphere" was needed?
3) "The raise of Complexity"
4) What is "Complexity"?
5) "Fellows, when the doors of the bank are opened?"
6) "Does a civilization survives the power of its developed technologies?"
7) Destruction does not equal the collapse of complexity. Ask the Incas.
8) Why the case change in "complexity"?
9) What is/are "specials"?
10) Why the case change in "complexity"?

All this before page 9.
Click to expand...

Where are the English mistakes?
 
ddt said:
So you admit you're just copying his work without understanding it?
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
Yes, this is Moshe's part and if there is a mistake there he will fix it, so?
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
Again, I will send http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4837549&postcount=3855 to Moshe.
Click to expand...

So, here we have the unequivocal admission of Doron that he doesn't understand a word of what he's doing. He doesn't even understand his own formulae - yes, Doron, your name is on the paper, so these are your formulae as far as anyone's concerned.
 
doronshadmi said:
Please try this http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE
Click to expand...
Incomprehensible gibberish also. At least you're consistent... e.g. a couple of excerpts at random:
X is an element. Identity is a property of X which allows distinguishing among it.
Click to expand...
... a point and a line are two abstract observations that if associated, enable to define things mathematically, where Distinction is their first-order property.
Click to expand...
'Speaks' for itself really, doesn't it?

Perhaps you could just present or demonstrate one of the (surely many) wonderful achievements made possible by this stuff? Something that shows its practical advantage over 'classical' maths?

I have to admit I'm no great shakes at maths theory (although I can usually follow the logic of most propositions), so perhaps some kind soul in the forum could summarize what this document is about ?
 
ddt said:
So, here we have the unequivocal admission of Doron that he doesn't understand a word of what he's doing. He doesn't even understand his own formulae - yes, Doron, your name is on the paper, so these are your formulae as far as anyone's concerned.
Click to expand...

Again,

This is nothing but the serial view of Organic Numbers that was written by Moshe, so even if there is a mistake in this algorithm Moshe will check it again.

The main point here is that this algorithm has no impact on OM's reasoning, because it is nothing but using Standard Mathematics in order to calculate the number of forms of a given Organic Number. The knowledge of the numbers of forms is only a tiny part of the knowledge of what Organic Number is.
 
dlorde said:
At least you're consistent...
Click to expand...
At least you are consistent by your inability to get simple things.
dlorde said:
Perhaps you could just present or demonstrate one of the (surely many) wonderful achievements made possible by this stuff?
Click to expand...

All we need is to develop a mathematical framework that an inseparable aspect of it is based on EEM, as clearly written in http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM .

Since you are unable to get EEM, there is no use to talk with you on this subject.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
This is nothing but the serial view of Organic Numbers that was written by Moshe, so even if there is a mistake in this algorithm Moshe will check it again.
Click to expand...
You're glossing over the main fact here.

And that is that you have admitted yourself that you are talking out of your posterior orifice (please look that up before you react).


doronshadmi said:
The main point here is that this algorithm has no impact on OM's reasoning, because it is nothing but using Standard Mathematics in order to calculate the number of forms of a given Organic Number. The knowledge of the numbers of forms is only a tiny part of the knowledge of what Organic Number is.
Click to expand...

You've been posting here over a year about "Organic Numbers" and failed to come up with a formula. Now there is one, and there's a glaring hole in it. That's the main point. The emperor is still naked; there is no knowledge of what "Organic Numbers" are, it's all smoke and mirrors.
 
dlorde said:
Perhaps you could just present or demonstrate one of the (surely many) wonderful achievements made possible by this stuff? Something that shows its practical advantage over 'classical' maths?
Click to expand...
A reasonable request, and you are, not surprisingly, not the first to make it. A reasonable response is so far unforthcoming.


I have to admit I'm no great shakes at maths theory (although I can usually follow the logic of most propositions), so perhaps some kind soul in the forum could summarize what this document is about ?
Click to expand...
I don't have any more experience than you, but I think you were pretty close with "incomprehensible gibberish".
 
ddt said:
You've been posting here over a year about "Organic Numbers" and failed to come up with a formula.
Click to expand...
ddt, since all your reasoning is based on the existence of formula, you have no ability to get what OM really is.
ddt said:
Now there is one, and there's a glaring hole in it. That's the main point.
Click to expand...
There is a mistake in this formula that will be corrected soon by Moshe.

This formula has nothing to do with OM's reasoning, it was written in order to communicate with people that get anything only by a step-by-step serial reasoning.
 
doronshadmi said:
ddt, since all your reasoning is based on the existence of formula, you have no ability to get what OM really is.
Click to expand...
The existence of formula is not disputed here. However, the existence of a formula for "Organic Numbers" is. And frankly, it's all that matters. Without it, OM is bollocks to begin with.

And how is that remedial course English going?

doronshadmi said:
There is a mistake in this formula that will be corrected soon by Moshe.
Click to expand...
We have no dealings with Moshe. You're the one promoting that formula here. You're responsible.

doronshadmi said:
This formula has nothing to do with OM's reasoning, it was written in order to communicate with people that get anything only by a step-by-step serial reasoning.
Click to expand...
What "OM's reasoning"? All the gibberish that you've been writing here? Nobody has managed to make head or tail out of it.
 
doronshadmi said:
Where are the English mistakes?
Click to expand...
They are throughout, as ddt has mentioned. Some are obviously grammatical errors, but mostly they are English words strung together nonsensically and non-grammatically:

"The raise of Complexity"
"Fellows, when the doors of the bank are opened?"
"Identity is a property of X which allows distinguishing among it."
"Does a civilization survives the power of its developed technologies?"

The difficulty in comprehension comes from the mix of incorrect words and incorrect grammar in the same sentence. String such sentences together, and you get gibberish. Try to explain obscure and/or opaque ideas in this 'language', replete with undefined concepts and unexplained geometric diagrams whose annotations appear to bear no relation to them, and the reader is lost in a surreal, nonsensical trip.

Consistency in Complementary Logic is the ability to find the bridges between opposites under a one framework by avoiding self-contradiction.
Click to expand...
What does that actually mean ? a 'consistent' theory does not contain contradictions, by definition, but what are the 'bridges between opposites under a one framework'(sic) and how can they be found 'by avoiding contradiction'?

Goal: Bridging Logic\Technologic and Ethics
Way: Development of a formal language which reduces the abilities of its users to ignore current and future influences on user's ecosystem
Click to expand...
This is followed by pages of dodgy-looking maths, supposedly defining this formal language, with no explanation at all of where ethics is involved or 'bridged', or how it might affect a user's view of influences on their ecosystem - which was supposed to be the main point of it. That's not just linguistic gibberish, it's conceptual gibberish.

Since you seem to be able to write (slightly) more coherent sentences in this forum than in those, presumably carefully prepared, papers, I wonder if they are actually Moshe's writings. If so, I feel sorry for his audience in that presentation...
 
jsfisher said:
Oh, too bad. You guessed 1. Thanks for playing, but the number of errors exceeds 10.
Click to expand...

I am not guessing here. Let us give Moshe the time to fix it, and then we will see.

Please show some error that was not written by ddt.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom