Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
dlorde said:
"The raise of Complexity"
Click to expand...
Plese write your version.
dlorde said:
"Fellows, when the doors of the bank are opened?"
Click to expand...
Plese write your version.
dlorde said:
"Identity is a property of X which allows distinguishing among it."
Click to expand...
Plese write your version.
dlorde said:
"Does a civilization survives the power of its developed technologies?"
Click to expand...
Plese write your version.
dlorde said:
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.
Click to expand...
In order to get it you have no choice but to read and understand http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT (at least pages 18-20)
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
X > 0

Let us look at (0,X] interval.

According to "up to" zooterkin and jsfisher, 0 is an immediate predecessor of (0,X].

Zooterkin and jsfisher think that there is a meaning to < relation by ignoring the content of interval [0,0] or interval (0,X].

Let us demonstrate their failure by using this diagram:

SportsCar.jpg



We can clearly see that d and e are the same value only if there is no Sports Car.

We can also see that since there are infinitely many Sports Cars between X and 0, then for any e there is d such that 0<d<e and as a result 0 cannot be an immediate predecessor of a mathematical object that is a collection of infinitely many 0<d<e relations ( infinitely many Sports Cars between X and 0, that cannot be 0 ( e=d does not hold in (0,X] )).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
According to "up to" zooterkin and jsfisher, 0 is an immediate predecessor of (0,X].
Click to expand...

By definition, 0 is the immediate predecessor of (0, X].

Zooterkin and jsfisher think that there is a meaning to < relation by ignoring the content of interval [0,0] or interval (0,X].
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you are trying to communicate by that sentence.
Let us demonstrate their failure by using this diagram:

[qimg]http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/SportsCar.jpg[/qimg]


We can clearly see that d and e are the same value only if there is no Sports Car.

We can also see that since there are infinitely many Sports Cars between X and 0, then for any e there is d such that 0<d<e and as a result 0 cannot be an immediate predecessor of a mathematical object that is a collection of infinitely many 0<d<e relations ( infinitely many Sports Cars between X and 0, that cannot be 0 ( e=d does not hold in (0,X] )).
Click to expand...

Proof by sports car. What's the Latin for that?
 
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher,

Where are the more than 10 errors ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4837967&postcount=3880 ), please provide one, which is not in the list of ddt.
Click to expand...


Doron,

You have admitted it isn't your work, and you have admitted you don't understand it. You just blindly paste into one document after another. So, what's the point? If Moshe cares to join the forum and discuss it, that would be fine, but - by your own admission - any discussion with you would be wasted.
 
jsfisher said:
Doron,

You have admitted it isn't your work, and you have admitted you don't understand it. You just blindly paste into one document after another. So, what's the point? If Moshe cares to join the forum and discuss it, that would be fine, but - by your own admission - any discussion with you would be wasted.
Click to expand...

In other words, you can't demonstrate your 10 or more errors.

Here are some of my corrections:

[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: $k=n-1$ &$D(\alpha) = \prod_{i=1}^{k} g(Or(i), a_{i})$\\
\\
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]

I have added index i to a in D(alpha) equation.

I have changed index n to index k in D(alpha) equation.

Any way this is Moshe's stuff, so I am still waiting to his reply about this case,
which is, again, a minor problem that has no influence on OM's reasoning.
 
Last edited:
dlorde said:
They are throughout, as ddt has mentioned.
Click to expand...
To be fair, it was Little 10 Toes who mentioned that. I only nitpicked about a missing article.

dlorde said:
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.
Click to expand...
Of course, the incorrect English does not help. But the gamma of topics strung together - math, democracy, ethic, etc. etc. - in one presentation without any explanation whatsoever what they have to do with each other - is of course the main culprit here.

dlorde said:
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...
Click to expand...
Actually, the PowerPoint of Moshe's talk is a lot less cooky - it doesn't have all these wild associations, to boot.
 
doronshadmi said:
I have changed index n to index k in D(alpha) equation.
Click to expand...
And what's that supposed to help?

doronshadmi said:
Any way this is Moshe's stuff, so I am still waiting to his reply about this case,
Click to expand...
No, you post it here, so it's your stuff. Otherwise, get Moshe to post here.

doronshadmi said:
which is, again, a minor problem that has no influence on OM's reasoning.
Click to expand...
You're right. It remains nonsense.

ETA:

4) so which one is the "Organic Number"? Is it Or or is it D?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
ddt said:
No, you post it here, so it's your stuff. Otherwise, get Moshe to post here.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

Two minutes ago I'v asked Moshe to re-write this algorithm, including its initialization values, references and examples.

When it is done, I'll write it in the forum.
 
doronshadmi said:
Fair enough.

Two minutes ago I'v asked Moshe to re-write this algorithm, including its initialization values, references and examples.

When it is done, I'll write it in the forum.
Click to expand...

You didn't read what I wrote, did you? Tell Moshe to sign up here and explain it himself. After all, he also participated on IIDB, and a couple of other forums.

We don't need your mangled English as transmission form. We're not playing Chinese whispers here.
 
doronshadmi said:
In other words, you can't demonstrate your 10 or more errors.
Click to expand...

No, I expressed myself quite well. There is no need for you to misunderstand and misinterpret my remarks.

Here are some of my corrections:...
Click to expand...

Bad move on your part. I've already admitted you don't understand it, so what makes you think you can "correct it"?

Any way this is Moshe's stuff, so I am still waiting to his reply about this case, which is, again, a minor problem that has no influence on OM's reasoning.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is a major problem since this is at the core of the OM reasoning. But, since you don't understand this stuff, why am I telling you?
 
ddt said:
You didn't read what I wrote, did you? Tell Moshe to sign up here and explain it himself. After all, he also participated on IIDB, and a couple of other forums.

We don't need your mangled English as transmission form. We're not playing Chinese whispers here.
Click to expand...
Here is Moshe's detailed explanation:

Or.jpg


Some examples:

n=3

3=1+1+1
(3,0,0)
g(or(1),3)=g(1,3)=3!/0!/3!=1
D(1,1,1)=1

3=2+1
(1,1,0)
g(or(1),1)=g(1,1)=1
g(or(2),1)=g(2,1)=2!/1!/1!=2
D(2+1)=1*2=2

Or(3)=D(1,1,1)+D(2+1)=1+2=3



n=4

4=1+1+1+1
(4,0,0,0)
g(or(1),4)=g(1,4)=4!/0!/4!=1
D(1+1+1+1)=1

4=2+1+1
(2,1,0,0)
g(or(1),2)*g(or(2),1)=g(1,2)g(2,1)=1*2=2
D(2+1+1)=2

4=2+2
(0,2,0,0)
g(2,2)=3!/1!/2!=3
D(2+2)=3

4=1+3
(1,0,1,0)
g(1,1)=1
g(3,1)=3!/2!/1!=3
D(1+3)=3

or(4)=D(1+1+1+1)+D(2+1+1)+D(2+2)+D(1+3)=1+2+3+3=9
 
jsfisher said:
Actually, it is a major problem since this is at the core of the OM reasoning.
Click to expand...
No it is not.

It is nothing but some nice way to calculate the amount of different forms of some Organic Number n.

Sins OM's reasoning is not limited to crisp distinction, then even if Moshe's recursive function is wrong, it has no impact on OM's reasoning.

All we have to do is simply to correct it in order to define the following sequence:

1,2,3,24,76,236, … where this sequence is nothing but the serial case of Organic Numbers.
 
jsfisher said:
So, will Moshe be showing up anytime soon to discuss his mistakes, or is he still dependent on his Minion of Misunderstanding?
Click to expand...

Some facts about Moshe:

1) He is a first degree in Mathematics from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

2) He has a second degree in Mathematical education from the Technion in Haifa city.

3) His English writing skills are less than mine, but I believe that you will find a common language in formal language with him.

4) He will not make a registration to this forum, unless you will show his mistakes, according to my last post ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4839507&postcount=3906 ) about this case.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Sins OM's reasoning is not limited to crisp distinction, then even if Moshe's recursive function is wrong, it has no impact on OM's reasoning.
Click to expand...


Yes, you have made that very clear. Being completely wrong has no impact on your reasoning.

Will Moshe be coming anytime soon to defend his mistakes, or will we just continue to hear from you that his mistakes don't matter?
 
jsfisher said:
Yes, you have made that very clear. Being completely wrong has no impact on your reasoning.
Click to expand...
Using a wrong function to calculate the amount of the different forms of some Organic Number, simply force me to calculate each OR(n) value by hand, because I know exactly the algorithm of how to do that by hand. Moshe simply tries to define
the function that enables to do it not by hand, that's all.

If he uses the wrong function, then he will have to find or correct the function until it will do correctly its job.

This is nothing but a technical problem that has no impact even on the serial case of Organic Numbers.

Please read http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4839597&postcount=3909 .
 
doronshadmi said:
Plese write your version.
Plese write your version.
Plese write your version.
Plese write your version.
Click to expand...
Plese ? do you mean 'please'?
I can't write my version because I don't know what you meant by those phrases - because they don't make sense. You may the only one who can translate them (doesn't that feel good?), because you're the only one who knows what they were supposed to mean (if anything). If you can explain them in different words, perhaps we can get some idea of what you meant by them.

In order to get it you have no choice but to read and understand http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT (at least pages 18-20)
Click to expand...
No way I can understand that until it's translated into meaningful English - if that's possible.

Anyone else here understand what it says?
 
ddt said:
To be fair, it was Little 10 Toes who mentioned that. I only nitpicked about a missing article.
Click to expand...
Sorry, my mistake.

Actually, the PowerPoint of Moshe's talk is a lot less cooky - it doesn't have all these wild associations, to boot.
Click to expand...
So how can we explain why the carefully prepared papers for publication read like Lewis Carroll on acid, and doron's posts are broadly intelligible (if content-free)? Or should we just not bother (increasingly my preference).
 
doronshadmi said:
Using a wrong function to calculate the amount of the different forms of some Organic Number, simply force me to calculate each OR(n) value by hand, because I know exactly the algorithm of how to do that by hand. Moshe simply tries to define
the function that enables to do it not by hand, that's all.
Click to expand...

If you know the function, how come you can't write it down?

Please read http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4839597&postcount=3909 .
Click to expand...

I read the original. It was of no importance. You've rewritten it since then. I cannot be bothered with your rude after-the-fact major rewrites.
 
dlorde said:
Plese ? do you mean 'please'?
I can't write my version because I don't know what you meant by those phrases - because they don't make sense. You may the only one who can translate them (doesn't that feel good?), because you're the only one who knows what they were supposed to mean (if anything). If you can explain them in different words, perhaps we can get some idea of what you meant by them.
Click to expand...

"The raise of Complexity" = "The spontaneous development of Complexity"


"Fellows, when the doors of the bank are opened?"=" Fellows, at what time the bank is opened?"

"Identity is a property of X which allows distinguishing among it." =" Identity is a property of X which allows to identify it from other ids.

"Does a civilization survive the power of its developed technologies?" = "Can our civilization survive the power of its own technologies"?
 
jsfisher said:
I read the original. It was of no importance. You've rewritten it since then. I cannot be bothered with your rude after-the-fact major rewrites.
Click to expand...

Here it is:

Some facts about Moshe:

1) He is a first degree in Mathematics from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

2) He has a second degree in Mathematical education from the Technion in Haifa city.

3) His English writing skills are less than mine, but I believe that you will find a common language in formal language with him.

4) He will not make a registration to this forum, unless you will show his mistakes, according to my last post ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4839507&postcount=3906 ) about this case.

No mistakes, no registration.
 
Last edited:
Wow, some of that actually made sense. :eye-poppi

doronshadmi said:
" Fellows, at what time the bank is opened?"
Click to expand...
Nope - close but still not grammatical. Could mean either 'When does the bank open?' or 'When is the bank open?', which are subtly different. I guess it doesn't matter for this particularly pointless sentence.

" Identity is a property of X which allows to identify it from other ids."
Click to expand...
Still ungrammatical and opaque - assuming 'ids' are 'identities', inserting a missing personal identifier, e.g. 'us', and swapping 'distinguish for 'identify':

"Identity is a property of X which allows [us] to distinguish it from other ids."

But it's still unclear whether 'it' refers to X or X's identity property. If the former, the sentence is nonsensical - distinguish X from other identities? If the latter, trivially obvious - identity is a unique property.

You believe you know what you mean, but you're unable to communicate it effectively (if at all). You can't blame us for that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom