Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
Are forms like:

(A,A), (B,B)

(A,A,A), (B,B,B), (C,C,C)

etc.. are also valid in your ONs game?
Click to expand...

No. That would violate the definition laid out for distinction. I know you don't worry about consistency, but it is one of those important aspects fo Mathematics.
 
dlorde said:
Operators and operands are well defined and well understood.
Click to expand...
No, they are not understood as REI (Relation Element Interaction), where Distinction, Non-locality and Locality play main roles.

In order to understand REI you have to read http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf pages 15-17.

It will help you to think about Relation as a line, and about en Element as a point, where a result that is not 0 is an interaction between a line and point(s) (negative results are simply a mirror image of some REI).
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
No. That would violate the definition laid out for distinction. I know you don't worry about consistency, but it is one of those important aspects fo Mathematics.
Click to expand...

Here is the definition:

Distinction refers to the amount of the distinct levels of a thing.

Please explain how (A,A,A) etc... violates this definition.

(A,A,A) ... and so on, is simply the case where Distinction is based on Redundancy without Uncertainty.

On the contrary (ABC) ... and so on, is simply the case where Distinction is based on Uncertainty without Redundancy.

(A,A,A) is shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4859114&postcount=4198 .

x is an element.

Definition 1:
Identity is a property of x, which allows distinguishing among it.

Definition 2:
Copy is a duplication of a single identity.

Definition 3:
If x has more than a single identity, then x is called Uncertain.

Definition 4:
If x has more than a single copy, then x is called Redundant.

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

Until now ONs are played on Uncertainty\Redundancy matrix, but you can add more Axis if you like.

But the important thing here that no matter what ONs' games you play, they are all based of Distinction, Non-locality and Locality as their main principles, where the player is a significant factor of any game.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Yes, you are wrong.

The Fibonacci sequence can be defined by:

F(1) = 1
F(2) = 1
F(n+2) = F(n+1) + F(n)

The first two parts of this definition are necessary to the recursion. It cannot work without it. Moreover, there is nothing in the definition that makes one part contradict any other part.

For your definition of Or(n), you included unnecessary components. Worse, those unnecessary component contradict other components. Your definition for Or(n) is not self-consistent.

For Or(1), your formula devolves to a summation over an empty set and requires no explicit definition for value. The definition for Or(1), therefore, is unnecessary. Worse, the definition doesn't agree with the formula.

Also, the Fibonacci sequence recursion requires two "starting values" because of its formulation. Your recursion for Or(n), just by its form, doesn't require two starting values.

To be proper, your starting values for a recursion must be (1) necessary and (2) consistent. Yours are neither.
Click to expand...


Hi jsfisher,

I have read the answer of Doron and accept it

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4857707&postcount=4185

2=1+1 is a special case
it include the most uncertainty case n=1+1+..+1
and the case when the first id of and element is appear

only in 3 there is a real separation between them

3=1+1+1
3=2+1

this explane why 2 is unique in or(n)

So my algorithm should start to work only at 3.

Sorry
Moshe:D
 
The Man said:
No problem let my try to make it clearer. For the value 4 it is apparently being claimed that this must be 4 ‘things’ which may or may not be distinct from each other. So we label these things as A, B, C and D, giving the each distinct identifications. As there is only 1 A, 1 B 1 C and 1 D in this case of complete distinction then when we sum these things we get 4 in total. At lower levels of distinction we may have 2 As 1 B and 1 C but still only 4 total items. The problem is ordering is another type of distinction that specifically comes into play the more independent those individual distinctions become. In fact ordering distinctions become the most significant in the first instance I gave of complete distinctions. Now ordering is not that critical when simply discussing math or specifically summation, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about things, specifically potentially uniquely identifiable things, and in that respect ordering can be an important if not essential factor. Let’s add some very specific identification to those things and see what we get when we change ordering. If we take 1 slab of butter, 1 slice bread, 1 slice of cheese and 1 application of heat we have lunch as a grilled cheese sandwich. If we gather, combine or add these things together then we are ready to eat. However if we do not gather them in a suitable order we do not end with the same “total” (lunch) but still have brought together 4 items in total. If we add the heat to the butter or cheese with out having gathered the bread first we just end up with mess to clean up and our elements go into the trash instead of in our stomachs. Other orderings might not be as unpalatable as this but still will not result in the same total of a grilled cheese sandwich. The proper ordering would be gather beard, add butter to bread add cheese then add heat. We can reverse the butter and cheese ordering without much consequence, so some identities can require more specific or singular ordering while others do not.


If you are just going to start assigning distinctions to possible elements of 4 then you must consider all the ramification of such assignment otherwise that assignment is just arbitrary and insignificant. If you are going to specifically base such assignments on the possibility or insistence that they must represent real things then again the consequences of complete consideration are required invoked. Otherwise there is absolutely no point in making such distinctions and any 1 is no different then any other 1. When you do make such distinctions particularly such that some 1 is some how different then some other 1 then ordering distinctions must come into play otherwise you are simply claiming that this particular 1 is no different then that particular 1 and your ascribed distinctions have absolutely no meaning.
Click to expand...

Dear Man

haven't you understand already
that I am dyslectic in English.
It's like a black board for me
many red colors in the speller of word..

can't you explain yourself much shortly
what is the main problem ?

Sincerely
Moshe:con2:
 
MosheKlein said:
2=1+1 is a special case
it include the most uncertainty case n=1+1+..+1
and the case when the first id of and element is appear

only in 3 there is a real separation between them

3=1+1+1
3=2+1

this explane why 2 is unique in or(n)
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. It is just backpedaling and hand-waving. You also didn't address the arbitrary rule introduced for 1. Apparently, though, we all agree the whole organic number scheme is inconsistent and founded on special cases and exceptions. How is this useful?
 
The Man said:
No problem let my try to make it clearer. For the value 4 it is apparently being claimed that this must be 4 ‘things’ which may or may not be distinct from each other. So we label these things as A, B, C and D, giving the each distinct identifications. As there is only 1 A, 1 B 1 C and 1 D in this case of complete distinction then when we sum these things we get 4 in total. At lower levels of distinction we may have 2 As 1 B and 1 C but still only 4 total items. The problem is ordering is another type of distinction that specifically comes into play the more independent those individual distinctions become. In fact ordering distinctions become the most significant in the first instance I gave of complete distinctions. Now ordering is not that critical when simply discussing math or specifically summation, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about things, specifically potentially uniquely identifiable things, and in that respect ordering can be an important if not essential factor. Let’s add some very specific identification to those things and see what we get when we change ordering. If we take 1 slab of butter, 1 slice bread, 1 slice of cheese and 1 application of heat we have lunch as a grilled cheese sandwich. If we gather, combine or add these things together then we are ready to eat. However if we do not gather them in a suitable order we do not end with the same “total” (lunch) but still have brought together 4 items in total. If we add the heat to the butter or cheese with out having gathered the bread first we just end up with mess to clean up and our elements go into the trash instead of in our stomachs. Other orderings might not be as unpalatable as this but still will not result in the same total of a grilled cheese sandwich. The proper ordering would be gather beard, add butter to bread add cheese then add heat. We can reverse the butter and cheese ordering without much consequence, so some identities can require more specific or singular ordering while others do not.


If you are just going to start assigning distinctions to possible elements of 4 then you must consider all the ramification of such assignment otherwise that assignment is just arbitrary and insignificant. If you are going to specifically base such assignments on the possibility or insistence that they must represent real things then again the consequences of complete consideration are required invoked. Otherwise there is absolutely no point in making such distinctions and any 1 is no different then any other 1. When you do make such distinctions particularly such that some 1 is some how different then some other 1 then ordering distinctions must come into play otherwise you are simply claiming that this particular 1 is no different then that particular 1 and your ascribed distinctions have absolutely no meaning.
Click to expand...

The Man, one of the first things that are needed is to define the basic environment (the playground) where the game takes place.

In this case the environment is nxn matrix, where one axis measures the uncertainty of the played element(s) and the other axis measures the redundancy of the played element(s).

The game is considered as a one thing with many different situations that are measured by the nxn matrix, where each salutation is both local and global case of the game. Also all along the game the player is a significant factor of the game.

But the most important thing is to define the invariant properties that are not changed even if the playgrounds, the games (they rules), or the players are changed.

And this is exactly what OM is all about, where its invariant properties are Distinction, Non-locality and Locality.

You and Jsfisher looking only on the "branches" of the ecosystem (playgrounds, games' rules (in your case you ignore the players)), and totally ignore its "trunk" (these invariant properties that are not changed even if the playgrounds, the games (they rules), or the players are changed).

You still continue to ignore it, and as a result you continue not to get OM.

Nobody but you can help you to get OM's ecosystem as a one complex organism, which is the result of Non-locality\Locality Intercation.

EDIT:

I wish to add that your analogies are limited to the macro realm and ignore QM micro realm.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
That's not a usable definition. Keep trying, though.
Click to expand...
I admire your patience. The generation of Organic Numbers is now referred to as 'a game' that takes place in a 'playground', and the rules for generating them are not fixed. It's like pinning jelly to the wall.

Truly a construction built on shifting sands - or perhaps a game played with moving goalposts :D
 
dlorde said:
I admire your patience. The generation of Organic Numbers is now referred to as 'a game' that takes place in a 'playground', and the rules for generating them are not fixed.
Click to expand...

No, the rules for generating them are determined by the player's agreed principles , the playground properties and the invariant properties of the ecosystem (where the ecosystem is both abstract or non-abstract realm).

Do you think that Standard Math is different (the words of God or something)?

By using Distinction, Non-locality and Locality as "trunk" properties, I clearly show that Standard Math gets only the "branches" (it does not have any "trunk" principles) and as a result it has no real fundamental understanding of that "branches", exactly as an inability to understand a tree if one ignore its trunk.
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
Are we talking about shapes, size (not cardinality), area, volume, or something else?
Click to expand...
What ever you wish (abstract or not) that can work separately or together .

Let us provide even a better definition:

Distinction refers to the amount of the identified states of a thing, that can be used both as globel and local property of a given system.
 
Last edited:
Let us do it even better:

Distinction refers to the identified states of a thing, that can be used both as globel and local property of a given system.


Now all is needed is at least a n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy matrix, and let your play begin, according to some consistant rules.


We can play a game called "all possible identified states of a given n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy matrix".

My first introduction of Organin Numbers uses n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy matrix but it does not play the game of "all possible identified states of a given n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy matrix", because I use my first untroduction only as an example, where Distinction, Non-locality and Locality are used as the invariant properties (the "trunk" properties) and my OMPT paper is dedicated to the "trunk"\"branches" intercation in general, and not to the particular ONs example.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
No, it doesn't. It is just backpedaling and hand-waving. You also didn't address the arbitrary rule introduced for 1. Apparently, though, we all agree the whole organic number scheme is inconsistent and founded on special cases and exceptions. How is this useful?
Click to expand...

One is the only case were there is no real distinction.
So 1 in OM is the same as in Euclidian Mathematics.
OM will help us/you to have a direct perception of Mathematics !
Intuitive and not formalist what P.Erdos name as the book of God
for the most simple prove to a theorem.

Moshe:boxedin:
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Distinction refers to the amount of the identified states of a thing.
...Think about the most geneal notion of "identified states".
Click to expand...
Are you talking about uniquely identifying properties (unique identifiers) ? Distinction being the number of unique identifiers an object has?

So the number 4 can be uniquely identified by its value, the character '4' by its shape, this particular character '4' by its position in this piece of text... ?

So a collection of four objects can be uniquely identified in a number of ways, depending on the identities of the objects that comprise it, and the OM of four objects is the sum of the different ways this collection can be uniquely identified - according to a set of rules that arbitrarily exclude certain ways ?

So how does this introduce morals and ethics into science, exactly?
And how are they used in any practical way (examples welcome) ?

Didn't I ask this before? Wasn't I studiously ignored?
 
dlorde said:
Are you talking about uniquely identifying properties (unique identifiers) ? Distinction being the number of unique identifiers an object has?

So the number 4 can be uniquely identified by its value, the character '4' by its shape, this particular character '4' by its position in this piece of text... ?

So a collection of four objects can be uniquely identified in a number of ways, depending on the identities of the objects that comprise it, and the OM of four objects is the sum of the different ways this collection can be uniquely identified - according to a set of rules that arbitrarily exclude certain ways ?

So how does this introduce morals and ethics into science, exactly?
And how are they used in any practical way (examples welcome) ?

Didn't I ask this before? Wasn't I studiously ignored?
Click to expand...

please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4859722&postcount=4217 .

The word "amount" is not important.

What important here is what number really is as a result of the real-time interaction between the knower and the known.

The mathematician talk about mathematical "branches", but they have no answer about the "trunk" of this science.

Please tell me how can one talks about the "branches" of a thing if he is ignorant about its "trunk"?

People like jsfisher will tell you that Consistency is the "trunk's" principle, but there are "branches" like "Paraconsistent Logic" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic ) which are weaker than Classical Logic, but still ar considered as a valid branch of the mathematical science. So Consistency is not a "trunk's" principle.

Also Logic has many branches that some of them have no common principles, so also Logic is not a "trunk's" principle of the mathematical science.

OM defines Distinction, Non-locality and Locality as common properties of the mathematical science, where the mathematician's cognition is a significant and real-time factor of that science.

Furthermore, by using Non-Locality it shows that things that are considered as contradiction from a local point of view are not a contradiction from a non-local point of view.

In order to get it please read http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf pages 22-30.

jsfisher and his friends can't grasp this new stuff because they never learned this novel knowledge and their standard knowledge can't help them to comprehend it.

Instead they are using their standard knowledge and techniques on particular technical aspects of it, and by this behavior they miss time after time the novel OM's "trunk" knowledge.

To tell you the true, I am getting tiered of their inabilities to get things beyond their :boxedin:
 
Last edited:
MosheKlein said:
One is the only case were there is no real distinction.
Click to expand...

If there are no distinctions for 1, then Or(1) should be 0. But it isn't, is it? In actual fact, you get Or(1) = 1 by using the only partition of 1, and that action is an inconsistency in your process, just as your forced definition for Or(1) is an inconsistency in your formulae.

So 1 in OM is the same as in Euclidian Mathematics.
Click to expand...

Euclidean Mathematics?

OM will help us/you to have a direct perception of Mathematics !
Click to expand...

Not likely. Your OM is founded on an inconsistent set of special cases and arbitrary results. That makes it totally incompatible with Mathematics.

By the way, neither you nor Doronshadmi have shown any utility for OM. Got any?

Also, even though you and Doronshadmi agreed to the description I presented for distinction, Doronshadmi has been back-pedaling ever since, but he has been unable to define his meaning for distinction. Can you provide a definition?
 
MosheKlein said:
Dear Man

haven't you understand already
that I am dyslectic in English.
It's like a black board for me
many red colors in the speller of word..

can't you explain yourself much shortly
what is the main problem ?

Sincerely
Moshe:con2:
Click to expand...

Well I tried that before, but I'll try it again.

Why are ordering distinctions excluded? You referred to them as being significant in serial observations, but did not answer as to why they are excluded. So the question simply became why are ordering distinctions or significant serial observations excluded?
 
dlorde said:
I admire your patience. The generation of Organic Numbers is now referred to as 'a game' that takes place in a 'playground', and the rules for generating them are not fixed. It's like pinning jelly to the wall.

Truly a construction built on shifting sands - or perhaps a game played with moving goalposts :D
Click to expand...

Doron seems almost compelled to change the wording of his references from time to time. I think he believes it might confuse others as much as he confuses himself and once in a ‘state’ of common stupor, they might just agree with him.
 
doronshadmi said:
The Man, one of the first things that are needed is to define the basic environment (the playground) where the game takes place.
Click to expand...

Your fantasies are clearly where you are playing your “game”. So step one: Done.

doronshadmi said:
In this case the environment is nxn matrix, where one axis measures the uncertainty of the played element(s) and the other axis measures the redundancy of the played element(s).

The game is considered as a one thing with many different situations that are measured by the nxn matrix, where each salutation is both local and global case of the game. Also all along the game the player is a significant factor of the game.

But the most important thing is to define the invariant properties that are not changed even if the playgrounds, the games (they rules), or the players are changed.

And this is exactly what OM is all about, where its invariant properties are Distinction, Non-locality and Locality.
Click to expand...

“invariant properties”? Doron, your arbitrary ascriptions of “Distinction, Non-locality and Locality” are only “invariant properties” of your fantasy.

doronshadmi said:
You and Jsfisher looking only on the "branches" of the ecosystem (playgrounds, games' rules (in your case you ignore the players)), and totally ignore its "trunk" (these invariant properties that are not changed even if the playgrounds, the games (they rules), or the players are changed).
Click to expand...

No Doron we are looking at the roots, which are firmly entrenched only in your fantasies.

doronshadmi said:
You still continue to ignore it, and as a result you continue not to get OM.

Nobody but you can help you to get OM's ecosystem as a one complex organism, which is the result of Non-locality\Locality Intercation.
Click to expand...

Again with the ‘you won’t get it unless your get it’ assertion.


doronshadmi said:
EDIT:

I wish to add that your analogies are limited to the macro realm and ignore QM micro realm.
Click to expand...

What you mean like the micro-organisms, that I mentioned before, of our ecosystem which are currently trying to consume you?
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Your fantasies are clearly where you are playing your “game”. So step one: Done.



“invariant properties”? Doron, your arbitrary ascriptions of “Distinction, Non-locality and Locality” are only “invariant properties” of your fantasy.



No Doron we are looking at the roots, which are firmly entrenched only in your fantasies.



Again with the ‘you won’t get it unless your get it’ assertion.




What you mean like the micro-organisms, that I mentioned before, of our ecosystem which are currently trying to consume you?
Click to expand...

You can't grasp:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4859114&postcount=4198

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4859508&postcount=4207

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4859722&postcount=4217

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4859878&postcount=4220



Go clime a tree The Man, maybe you will get things better from a higher point of view.

Oppss... you can't because you don't know where the trunk is, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Doron seems almost compelled to change the wording of his references from time to time. I think he believes it might confuse others as much as he confuses himself and once in a ‘state’ of common stupor, they might just agree with him.
Click to expand...

Actually, wording shifts is about all Doron does. He can't dissect things into explainable units that others can understand (sort of a downward movement concepts and complexity), nor can he generalize things in any tangible way (sort of an upward movement). The best he has been able to do is move sideways by renaming things from time to time.

Anyone else remember when symmetry was the first-order property at the basis of organic numbers? Currently, distinction is the reigning undefined term, but soon it will evolve, possibly into an uncertainty x redundancy matrix where the matrix is a direct consequence of the line\point interaction.
 
doronshadmi said:
Let us do it even better:

Distinction refers to the identified states of a thing, that can be used both as globel and local property of a given system.

[snip]
Click to expand...

Nope, you didn't do one better. Please define "identified states of a thing". Do you mean liquid, solid, gas, plasma? Or the color of "a thing"? The shape? The number of sides? The Manufacturer's Suggested retail price? The usage of "the thing"?
 
Little 10 Toes said:
Nope, you didn't do one better. Please define "identified states of a thing". Do you mean liquid, solid, gas, plasma? Or the color of "a thing"? The shape? The number of sides? The Manufacturer's Suggested retail price? The usage of "the thing"?
Click to expand...

Little 10 Toes said:
Nope, you didn't do one better. Please define "identified states of a thing". Do you mean liquid, solid, gas, plasma? Or the color of "a thing"? The shape? The number of sides? The Manufacturer's Suggested retail price? The usage of "the thing"?
Click to expand...

Oh, it is just a confabulation of terminology. It is just what they refer to as identity states or more specifically states of identity. Meaning how one might uniquely identify something. Thus a superposition of identity states, that in this case is simply a liner addition of said ‘states’. However Doron specifically conflates such a superposition with Quantum Mechanics, which would actually be a vector addition of state vectors not ‘identities’ and involves complex numbers or real numbers combined with ‘imaginary’ numbers. Not physical states like phases of materials (referring to degrees of freedom) or even state vectors like Quantum Mechanics that are intrinsic properties of those elements being considered. Instead just distinctions arbitrary ascribed and specifically stated as not information carried by some given value. Further exacerbated by the fact that OM or “On”s specifically do not involve vectors, integers, real numbers or imaginary numbers (the square root of a negative number), but simply whole numbers. It is simply a rather limited form of discrete math, if OM can even be called math since the apparent inconsistencies of its foundations and thus applications do not seem to support such an ascription, as jsfisher has already noted.
 
:rolleyes:

bunnyn.jpg



:D
 
Little 10 Toes said:
Go outside, look at one of the stars. That's how "over-my-head" your post is. :D
Click to expand...

In other words

Capricious References Asserting Pomposity


or simply CRAP.

Little 10 Toes said:
If doronshadmi continues to use "a thing" when he is descibing something specific, he needs to be specific. It's like a reporter saying, "Something happened somewhere, sometime, involving some person."
Click to expand...

Basically what I have been saying, as the 'degrees of freedom' for information not carried by a value (or specific parameter) is infinite. So Doron must limit that freedom of information to just the information he puts in so he can claim to get it back out and ‘research’ what he claims is not researchable.

See also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom_(physics_and_chemistry)
 
jsfisher said:
No argument there. Unfortunately, because they are arbitrary, they have are of no inherent value.
Click to expand...

Since you are unable to grasp a definition like:

Distinction refers to the identified states of a thing, that can be used both as globel and local property of a given system.

we shell start by more concrete example like n-Redundancy x n-Uncertainty matrix:

Code: 
1x1            
               
A .            
               
(A)            
               
               
               
2X2            
               
A . .          
               
B . .          
               
(AB,AB)        
(AB,A)         
(AB,B)         
(A,A)          
(B,B)          
(A,B)          
               
               
               
3X3            
               
A . . .        
               
B . . .        
               
C . . .        
               
(ABC,ABC,ABC)  (Uncertainty and Redundancy)
(AB,ABC,ABC)   
(AC,ABC,ABC)   
(BC,ABC,ABC)   
(AB,AB,ABC)    
(AC,AB,ABC)    
(BC,AB,ABC)    
(AC,AC,ABC)    
(BC,BC,ABC)    
(AB,AB,AB)     
(AC,AB,AB)     
(BC,AB,AB)     
(AC,AC,AB)     
(BC,BC,AB)     
(AB,AB,A)      
(AC,AB,A)      
(BC,AB,A)      
(AC,AC,A)      
(BC,BC,A)      
(AB,AB,B)      
(AC,AB,B)      
(BC,AB,B)      
(AC,AC,B)      
(BC,BC,B)      
(AB,AB,C)      
(AC,AB,C)      
(BC,AB,C)      
(AC,AC,C)      
(BC,BC,C)      
(ABC,ABC,A)    
(ABC,ABC,B)    
(ABC,ABC,C) 
(A,B,ABC) (only Uncertainty)   
(A,A,A) (only Redundancy)
(B,B,B)
(C,C,C)
etc...  (I did not finish the 3x3 case)
...
...
(A,B,C) (no Redundancy and no Uncertainty)


Another (more clear) representation:
Code: 
1x1                                        
                                           
A .                                        
                                           
(1) = (A)                                  
                                           
                                           
                                           
2X2                                        
                                           
A . .                                      
                                           
B . .                                      
                                           
(2,2) = (AB,AB)                            
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)                      
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)                  
                                           
                                           
                                           
3X3                                        
                                           
A . . .                                    
                                           
B . . .                                    
                                           
C . . .                                    
                                           
(3,3,3) = (ABC,ABC,ABC)                    
(3,3,2) = ...                              
(3,3,1) = ...                              
(3,2,1) = ...                              
(2,2,2) = ...                              
(2,2,1) = ...                              
(1,1,3) = (A,A,ABC),(B,B,ABC),(A,B,ABC)    
(1,1,2) =                                  
(A,A,AB),(A,A,AC),(A,A,BC)                 
(B,B,AB),(B,B,AC),(B,B,BC)                 
(A,B,AB),(A,B,AC),(A,B,BC)                 
(A,C,AB),(A,C,AC),(A,C,BC)                 
(B,C,AB),(B,C,AC),(B,C,BC)                 
(1,1,1) = (A,A,A),(B,B,B),(C,C,C),(A,B,C)


So as you see, ONs are not n! lists.

You simply don't wish to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4859722&postcount=4217 .
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
I must have missed that party.
Click to expand...

ChristopherA was a CT nut. He was convinced the World Trade Center towers had concrete cores and that during the construction of the towers, the steel rebar had been deliberately coated with spray-on C4 explosives.

How did he know all this? Spirits from an (American) Indian burial ground in California revealed the truth to him. He also got confirmation from a PBS documentary he saw about 15 years ago. The documentary itself has since been destroyed, and all records of its existence, systematically wiped.

He also won several minor court cases in California in which a simple reading of the judge's decision might lead you to believe the judge decided against him.
 
The Man said:
Basically what I have been saying, as the 'degrees of freedom' for information not carried by a value (or specific parameter) is infinite. So Doron must limit that freedom of information to just the information he puts in so he can claim to get it back out and ‘research’ what he claims is not researchable.
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense,

The Man, by your illusion you claim that you can completely cover a 1-dim element by infinitely many 0-dim elements.

Your "dragging point" is an example of your inability to understand the difference between 0-dim element and 1-dim element.

A 0-dim element can't be dragged, because any change of a position of a 0-dim element is a disjoint 0-dim element, and this fact is invariant, no matter what scale is used.

In other words the "memory" of a "dragging point" is exactly one 0-dim and disjoint element.

This is not the case with a 1-dim element. Such an element exists at-once in at least two given locations (which is a property that no 0-dim element has).

The ability of a 1-dim element to be at-once in at least two given locations, gives it its non-local property.

The inability of you, jsfisher, ddt, zooterkin , and more posters to get the 1-dim element as an example of Non-locality, and the 0-dim element as an example of Locality, prevents from you to get the following:

1) No collection of 0-dim elements can completely cover a 1-dim element.

2) As a result no collection of 0-dim elements is complete (there are always uncovered domains along the 1-dim element, no matter how many
0-dim elements exists along the 1-dim element).

3) There is a universe which is the result of the bridging between Non-locality and Locality, where the results of the bridging are measured at least by n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy matrix.

Since you have no ability the get (1),(2),(3) all you do in this thread is running after your own illusionary tails and\or scratch each other's back.

Your social behavior is nice and cozy, but it makes you an ignorant community that can't get anything that is out of its :boxedin:.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom