Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
According to some paradigm that is not based on the ontological research of this subject.

What you call actual reserach was done only on the level of using the agreed paradigm, without any ontological research of it, so?
Click to expand...

Not based on your “ontological research” fantasies, you’ll get no argument from me there. What you call “ontological research” is just you making up self-contradictory and self-inconsistent gibberish. So?
 
doronshadmi said:
The result of I/O determines if something is unary or binary operator, and not just the Input. This is exactly where you fail to understand what a two-valued system is.
Click to expand...

Since you must have missed it before here is the definition of unary again.

u⋅na⋅ry
–adjective Mathematics.
pertaining to a function whose domain is a given set and whose range is contained in that set.
Click to expand...




doronshadmi said:
Furthermore, this is the reason of why you think that =T or =F are meaningless, because you do not get that =T is not T and =F is not F, because =T or =F is a unary connective that its I/O is the same.
Click to expand...

No Dorn “=T” is meaningless simply because it is an incomplete statement, you are asserting nothing as equal to T. Unless of course you mean (that =T), (and =F), (because =T) as well as (or =F), none of which would actually surprise me coming from you.


doronshadmi said:
T or F alone are not researchable exactly as = or ~ alone are not researchable.
Click to expand...

“T or F alone” would be a one value system and it would tell you just as much as your “X = X” tautology does.



doronshadmi said:
For you not-researchable = meaningless exactly because you are nothing but a user of the discussed subject.
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary, I have repeatedly stated that your claims that your “atoms” are “not-researchable” independently gives you no basis for your claims about your “atoms” being independent within your own notions. Although that means your claims about your “atoms” being independent are meaningless even just within your own notions it certainly does not mean that your claims that they are “not-researchable” independently is meaningless.
 
doronshadmi said:
The limitation is the notion that unary connective is determined only by Input.
Click to expand...

Negation is a unary operation Doron, which determines your “I/O” output from an input, making it also a logical connective of that input to that output. Your limitations are showing again.

ETA:
bi⋅na⋅ry
–adjective
d. (of an operation) assigning a third quantity to two given quantities, as in the addition of two numbers.
Click to expand...



The operation of addition (or logical AND) is a binary operation giving an output from two inputs. Of course in a two value system that output is limited to one of those two values. AND is a binary operation as well as a logical connective.


Again for further understanding and when you decide to stop limiting your research to your fantasies, please see at least…

http://dictionary.reference.com
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
you define the operator to do something.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Doing something is first of all to define the must have terms that enables one to research.

By using an ontological view of this subject, things remains the same or things are different.

= is an operator, such that any given input is the same as the output.

By ontology = is called unary connective because I/O is the same.

~ is an operator, such that any given input is different than the output.

By ontology ~ is called binary connective because I/O is different.

At the level of ontology we do not care of how many inputs are given, in order to determine if the operator is unary or binary.

Furthermore, the operators = or ~ are non-local w.r.t Input or Output.

For example: in “~(=()) --> ~()” expression the ~ operator is non-local w.r.t Input =() and output ~(), where Input =() is: “Nothing is itself”, and Output ~() is: “different than Nothing” .

Please pay attention that by the non-locality of the operator w.r.t the I/O we actually define the ontological base of existence (the definition of Nothing as =() and Something as ~()).

At this fundamental level ~(~()) --> =(), which is “Nothing”, and =(~()) --> ~(), which is “Something”.

In the particular case of two valued logic we have opposite things called True and False.

Let us research what happen if = and ~ operators are used in two valued logic:

=(T) --> =T , =(F) --> =F and = is called unary operator because I/O is the same.

~(T) --> =F , ~(F) --> =T and ~ is called binary operator because I/O is different.

The last case is known as “Negation under two-values”, where the Input is different than the Output.

Two valued Logic exists by =(T,F) --> =T,=F (=F and =T exist).

Two valued Logic is eliminated by ~(T,F) --> =() (nothing).

Actually any n-valued logic exists by = operator and eliminated by ~ operator, as follows:

=(n-values) --> =n-values (=n-values exist).

~(n-values) --> =() (nothing).

If only parts of the n-values are used as inputs for ~ operator, then the output is anything but the input.

In all cases a researchable framework holds only if both Input and Output are considered under = or ~ operations.
 
Last edited:
I'll repeat my post and ask for doron's agreement or disagreement.

AvalonXQ said:
All right, so let's make sure that we're on the same page as to what we're talking about.
I assume we're referring to two-dimensional Euclidean space, yes? A plane that can be mapped out in Cartesian coordinates?
If so, then a point is defined as a specific location on the plane, which can be uniquely determine by its coordinate, such as (3,5).
A line is defined as the set of all of the points whose coordinates obey a specific algebraic relationship, namely y = a*x + b for some set values of a and b.
A line segment is defined as the set of all of the points within a given line that fall between two established points -- all (x,y) where y = a*x + b, c<=x and x<=d for some set values of a, b, c, and d.
Are we in agreement on the above definitions?
Click to expand...
 
zooterkin said:
I'm guessing you've not read all this thread. I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!


Let me refer you to
Lines not made of points: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5248966#post5248966 and
.999... < 1 : http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4904597#post490459

For intervals, try here - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4752231#post4752231
Click to expand...

Okay, so what you're telling me here is that he's using terms that have only abstract, defined meanings (no real-world examples exist), but he's not using the standard accepted meanings of the terms? Then what the heck is he even talking about?
 
AvalonXQ said:
Okay, so what you're telling me here is that he's using terms that have only abstract, defined meanings (no real-world examples exist), but he's not using the standard accepted meanings of the terms? Then what the heck is he even talking about?
Click to expand...

That is a very good question,only Doron knows the answer and he's not telling.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Okay, so what you're telling me here is that he's using terms that have only abstract, defined meanings (no real-world examples exist), but he's not using the standard accepted meanings of the terms? Then what the heck is he even talking about?
Click to expand...


Zooterkin left out my favorite doronism: 2 is not a member of the set containing 2 as a member. That is, 2 is not a member of {2}.
 
jsfisher said:
Zooterkin left out my favorite doronism: 2 is not a member of the set containing 2 as a member. That is, 2 is not a member of {2}.
Click to expand...
"The thing that contains X" has a meaning only if it is taken as a one phrase.

"X" phrase is not "The thing that contains X" phrase.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
You may have to repeat it more than once. That's the experience that I've had with him. I've had to repeat the same question three times, on two separate occasions.
Click to expand...

And did you get an answer? My experience is that the pertinent questions to doronshadmi go unanswered.
 
(Sigh)

Folks, in this post, the poster confesses he (she?) had a strange math dream where Einstein, who was a dinosaur part of the dream, told them he had proof Pi is, in fact, a rational number in base 8.

While that is not true, and shows a lack of understanding of what "rational" mean on the part of this figment of the poster's imagination, it is at least a coherent statement, which is more than one can say about doron's "math".

It tells us something that an imaginary dead reptilian celebrity in a dream nevertheless manages to make more math sense than our resident mathematical crank.

And you're arguing with him?
 
Last edited:
Membership is the relation of X w.r.t Inclusion\Exclusion.

The non-local aspect of Membership w.r.t Inclusion\Exclusion, is defined as follows:

If the truth values of X are the same w.r.t Inclusion\Exclusion, then X Membership is called non-local w.r.t Inclusion\Exclusion.

The local aspect of membership w.r.t Inclusion\Exclusion, is defined as follows:

If the truth values of X are the different w.r.t Inclusion\Exclusion, then X Membership is called local w.r.t Inclusion\Exclusion.
 
Skeptic said:
(Sigh)

Folks, in this post, the poster confesses he (she?) had a strange math dream where Einstein, who was a dinosaur part of the dream, told them he had proof Pi is, in fact, a rational number in base 8.

While that is not true, and shows a lack of understanding of what "rational" mean on the part of this figment of the poster's imagination, it is at least a coherent statement, which is more than one can say about doron's "math".

It tells us something that an imaginary dead reptilian celebrity in a dream nevertheless manages to make more math sense than our resident mathematical crank.

And you're arguing with him?
Click to expand...

You can't comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5394070&postcount=7364 , so?
 
I've seen this thread on the forum list for a long time now, and I thought I'd pop in to see what was going on in here.*

You mean there has been 185 pages of this?!?



* the last time I remember seeing a long-lived thread that I eventually decided to pop in on, it was mysteriously titled something having to do with "Loose Change." I think that was 2005 or 2006, and turned out to be a black hole for anyone who entered.
 
doronshadmi said:
Exactly.

Doing something is first of all to define the must have terms that enables one to research.
Click to expand...

Your fantasizing still does not constitute research Doron. So far all you have been doing is fantasizing that you are defining terms and doing research.

doronshadmi said:
By using an ontological view of this subject, things remains the same or things are different.
Click to expand...

Again a simple tautology Doron.

doronshadmi said:
= is an operator, such that any given input is the same as the output.

By ontology = is called unary connective because I/O is the same.
Click to expand...

An operator that does nothing, Doron, is not an operator as there is no, well, operation being performed on the operand(s). The equal sign is not an operator, but simply an assertion of equality.

doronshadmi said:
~ is an operator, such that any given input is different than the output.

By ontology ~ is called binary connective because I/O is different.
Click to expand...

Different indeed, but still specifically the negation of the operand.

doronshadmi said:
At the level of ontology we do not care of how many inputs are given, in order to determine if the operator is unary or binary.
Click to expand...

So your so called “level of ontology” is simply ignorant of the number of operands required to perform a given operation as well as if your “operator” actually involves a, well, operation. How surprising.

doronshadmi said:
Furthermore, the operators = or ~ are non-local w.r.t Input or Output.

For example: in “~(=()) --> ~()” expression the ~ operator is non-local w.r.t Input =() and output ~(), where Input =() is: “Nothing is itself”, and Output ~() is: “different than Nothing” .

Please pay attention that by the non-locality of the operator w.r.t the I/O we actually define the ontological base of existence (the definition of Nothing as =() and Something as ~()).

At this fundamental level ~(~()) --> =(), which is “Nothing”, and =(~()) --> ~(), which is “Something”.

In the particular case of two valued logic we have opposite things called True and False.

Let us research what happen if = and ~ operators are used in two valued logic:

=(T) --> =T , =(F) --> =F and = is called unary operator because I/O is the same.

~(T) --> =F , ~(F) --> =T and ~ is called binary operator because I/O is different.

The last case is known as “Negation under two-values”, where the Input is different than the Output.

Two valued Logic exists by =(T,F) --> =T,=F (=F and =T exist).

Two valued Logic is eliminated by ~(T,F) --> =() (nothing).

Actually any n-valued logic exists by = operator and eliminated by ~ operator, as follows:

=(n-values) --> =n-values (=n-values exist).

~(n-values) --> =() (nothing).

If only parts of the n-values are used as inputs for ~ operator, then the output is anything but the input.
Click to expand...

Again “anything but the input” is simply an assertion of ‘output ≠ input’, while negation is a specific operation. That the operation of negation results in an inequality between the operand and the result does not constitute “anything but the input” as being equal to the negation of the input. As demonstrated before in the 5, 3 ,-3 example. If your “level of ontology” can not even distinguish ‘not equal to’ from negation as well as an assertion of equality or inequality from an operation and simply ignores the number of operands required for a given operation as well as if there is any operation being preformed at all, then the only existence your “level of ontology” demonstrates is simply the existence of your level of ignorance.



doronshadmi said:
In all cases a researchable framework holds only if both Input and Output are considered under = or ~ operations.
Click to expand...


Wait you said before that

doronshadmi said:
At the level of ontology we do not care of how many inputs are given, in order to determine if the operator is unary or binary
Click to expand...

So either your “level of ontology” ascriptions of “if the operator is unary or binary” does not hold as a “researchable framework” or you must “care of how many inputs are given”. In that case the operation of addition (as well as many other operations) would be a ‘trinary operator’ as it requires two operands to give one result. The fact is Doron at your “level of ontology” you may “not care of how many inputs are given”, but most others certainly care specifically about the number of operands given and required by an operation, which is why operations are distinguished as unary or binary based on the number of operands they require.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Okay, so what you're telling me here is that he's using terms that have only abstract, defined meanings (no real-world examples exist), but he's not using the standard accepted meanings of the terms? Then what the heck is he even talking about?
Click to expand...

Basically that everyone should just use his ill-defined, self-contradictory and self-inconsistent assertions instead of actually trying to understand math. As he thinks it will make the world a better place.

Welcome to the thread anyway AvalonXQ.
 
Last edited:
CurtC said:
I've seen this thread on the forum list for a long time now, and I thought I'd pop in to see what was going on in here.*

You mean there has been 185 pages of this?!?



* the last time I remember seeing a long-lived thread that I eventually decided to pop in on, it was mysteriously titled something having to do with "Loose Change." I think that was 2005 or 2006, and turned out to be a black hole for anyone who entered.
Click to expand...

Yep that about sums it up, now that you have crossed the event horizon it is impossible to escape the singularity of ignorance. Unfortunately we have had little luck in shedding any light on the subject, but it’s still fun to try and watch the ensuing dance. Anyway welcome to the thread CurtC, I hope you will take a more active role or just sit back and watch the show. Just because we can’t seem to help Doron does not mean that we can’t help each other.
 
jsfisher said:
Zooterkin left out my favorite doronism: 2 is not a member of the set containing 2 as a member. That is, 2 is not a member of {2}.
Click to expand...

Sorry! It took me long enough to track down the examples I did find.

The Man said:
Yep that about sums it up, now that you have crossed the event horizon it is impossible to escape the singularity of ignorance. Unfortunately we have had little luck in shedding any light on the subject, but it’s still fun to try and watch the ensuing dance. Anyway welcome to the thread CurtC, I hope you will take a more active role or just sit back and watch the show. Just because we can’t seem to help Doron does not mean that we can’t help each other.
Click to expand...

I've certainly learned a few things from this thread, and had my memory refreshed about some things I learnt long ago. It's also good for the occasional pith nomination. It would be nice to see Doron suddenly 'get' some basic idea of maths, however unlikely it may be after all this time.
 
zooterkin said:
Sorry! It took me long enough to track down the examples I did find.



I've certainly learned a few things from this thread, and had my memory refreshed about some things I learnt long ago. It's also good for the occasional pith nomination. It would be nice to see Doron suddenly 'get' some basic idea of maths, however unlikely it may be after all this time.
Click to expand...


Indeed I would like nothing more (at least in this thread) then for Doron to actually get something. I thought that was the case with “not equal to” not being the same as negation, but Doron still seems to have considerable problem distinguishing the two. Exactly like you I have learned a few thing on this thread and it has been a excellent refresher course as well, not only from other posters, but even just in double checking what I’m going to say.
 
The Man said:
Indeed I would like nothing more (at least in this thread) then for Doron to actually get something. I thought that was the case with “not equal to” not being the same as negation, but Doron still seems to have considerable problem distinguishing the two. Exactly like you I have learned a few thing on this thread and it has been a excellent refresher course as well, not only from other posters, but even just in double checking what I’m going to say.
Click to expand...


No, doron's ignorance is willful. He so wants Mathematics to be wrong that he deliberately misunderstands and misrepresents things.
 
The Man said:
An operator that does nothing, Doron, is not an operator as there is no, well, operation being performed on the operand(s).
Click to expand...
Ho yes it does, It keeps the values of Input and Output to be the same.

Since you get anything only it terms of Negation, then form this cyclopean point of view = does nothing, but this is your problem, not mine.

The Man said:
Different indeed, but still specifically the negation of the operand.
Click to expand...

Still Both Input (what you call operand) and Output (the result of the operation on the operand) are considered.

The Man said:
So your so called “level of ontology” is simply ignorant of the number of operands required to perform a given operation as well as if your “operator” actually involves a, well, operation. How surprising.
Click to expand...
At the ontological level all we care is if the Input is the same or different than the Output.

If I/O is the same, it is called unary operation.

If I/O is different, it is called binary operation.

The Man said:
… while negation is a specific operation.
Click to expand...
Negation is exactly "anything but" the Input (the operand), where in the particular case of 2-valued framework "anything but" the Input (the operand) is exactly the opposite value.

The Man said:
doronshadmi said:
In all cases a researchable framework holds only if both Input and Output are considered under = or ~ operations.
Click to expand...

Wait you said before that
doronshadmi said:
At the level of ontology we do not care of how many inputs are given, in order to determine if the operator is unary or binary
Click to expand...
So either your “level of ontology” ascriptions of “if the operator is unary or binary” does not hold as a “researchable framework” or you must “care of how many inputs are given”. In that case the operation of addition (as well as many other operations) would be a ‘trinary operator’ as it requires two operands to give one result. The fact is Doron at your “level of ontology” you may “not care of how many inputs are given”, but most others certainly care specifically about the number of operands given and required by an operation, which is why operations are distinguished as unary or binary based on the number of operands they require.
Click to expand...
As I have said, at the ontological level:

If I/O is the same, it is called unary operation.

If I/O is different, it is called binary operation.

It does not say that the result remains the same if the number of operands of ~ is different, for example:

If our framework is 2-valued system, then:

~(T,F)-->=(), but ~(T)-->=F and ~(F)-->=T

Still it does not change the fact that I/O is different in the case of ~, and this fact is used to define ~ as a binary operator at the ontological level.

= operator is unary exactly because I/O is the same.

- or + operators are not ~ or = operators, because – or + works only on existing things where = and ~ operators works on both nothing or something, as clearly shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5394070&postcount=7364.

So,– or + are not defined according to I/O sameness\difference as it is done about = or ~.
 
doronshadmi said:
At the ontological level all we care is if the Input is the same or different than the Output.

If I/O is the same, it is called unary operation.

If I/O is different, it is called binary operation.
Click to expand...

No. An operation is a function with an established range of inputs and a defined output. Each allowed input must output a well-defined value. It is exactly the set of outputs, and the way they line up with the inputs, that define the operation.
A unary operation is one where exactly one input goes in. The classic example is the NOT operation, or ~.
A binary operation is one where exactly two inputs go in. Examples include traditional arithmetic operations +, -, *, as well as exponent ^, and logic operations AND, OR.

Separate from operations, there are also relations. Relations are statements about whether two (usually) quantities have a certain property together. Relations include equality =, inequality !=, less than <, greater than >, is a subset of, is a member of, etc. Although a relation can potentially be considered a binary operation onto the set of boolean values {true,false}, relations are generally distinct from operations.
 
Last edited:
I left the thread for a while, came back to this page just to see nothing's changed...

RANT!
This raises an important question: how much proof would someone need to realize doron is beyond any reason, beyond any help and just leave the poor schmuck to his thoughts? I mean it's been 185 pages of this. Give or take a few. It's just something I cannot grasp. He's clearly got some wires mixed up in his head. There's absolutely no point in continuing this "debate". Everyone has had their fun. Let's turn off the lights and close the door. There's nothing more to see here.


Having said that, I realize it's not likely that's going to happen. There's always someone bored enough to take a stab at it, thereby taking advantage of a sick person. It's almost like beating up a paralyzed blind guy.
 
doronshadmi said:
Ho yes it does, It keeps the values of Input and Output to be the same.
Click to expand...

Who are you calling a “Ho”?

So it results in no operation, hence is not an operator. Doron your OM may need an “operator” to keep things the same, but for everyone else things stay the same unless they are changed by something like say performing an operation. Perhaps that explains why your OM keeps changing?

doronshadmi said:
Since you get anything only it terms of Negation, then form this cyclopean point of view = does nothing, but this is your problem, not mine.
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary I have specifically stated in several posts that it asserts equality, quite distinct from an operation. That the symbol for equals represents something does not infer that it represents any kind of operation. That your OM apparently requires some operation to keep its values, assertions and terminology from spontaneously changing is your problem not anyone else’s. As evidenced on this thread that no change operation of yours does no seem to be working for you or your OM.


doronshadmi said:
Still Both Input (what you call operand) and Output (the result of the operation on the operand) are considered.
Click to expand...

Try actually including the operation into your ‘considerations’.

doronshadmi said:
At the ontological level all we care is if the Input is the same or different than the Output.

If I/O is the same, it is called unary operation.

If I/O is different, it is called binary operation.
Click to expand...

I really can’t add anything more to what AvalonXQ has already so eloquently presented.

doronshadmi said:
Negation is exactly "anything but" the Input (the operand), where in the particular case of 2-valued framework "anything but" the Input (the operand) is exactly the opposite value.
Click to expand...

No Doron you have it backasswards as usual, Negation is exactly the opposite value of the operand, however in a two value system (where one value is the negation of the other) “anything but” that operand or not equal to that operand can only be the negation of that operand. Since you still can’t grasp it here is the example again 5 is “anything but” 3 however -3, the negation of 3, is “anything but” 5. You continue to conflate negation with not equal to. That you have such difficulty distinguishing two specifically different concepts clearly demonstrates that you do not even have the most basic grasp of what you are trying to talk about.

doronshadmi said:
As I have said, at the ontological level:

If I/O is the same, it is called unary operation.
Click to expand...

So multiplication is a “unary operation” at your “ontological level” since in 1 x 1 = 1 the “I/O is the same”.

Addition too is a “unary operation” at your “ontological level” since in 0 + 0 = 0 the “I/O is the same”.

Subtraction is also a “unary operation” at your “ontological level” since in 0 - 0 = 0 the “I/O is the same”.

doronshadmi said:
If I/O is different, it is called binary operation.
Click to expand...

So multiplication is a “binary operation” at your “ontological level” since in 2 x 3 = 6 the “I/O is different”.

Addition too is a “binary operation” at your “ontological level” since in 2 + 1 = 3 the “I/O is different”.

Subtraction is also a “binary operation” at your “ontological level” since in 0 - 1 = -1 the “I/O is different”.



Your “ontological level” is simply inconsistent nonsense.

doronshadmi said:
It does not say that the result remains the same if the number of operands of ~ is different, for example:

If our framework is 2-valued system, then:

~(T,F)-->=(), but ~(T)-->=F and ~(F)-->=T
Click to expand...

Negation only has one operand, what value that operand might take determine the result of the operation of negation on that operand.

doronshadmi said:
Still it does not change the fact that I/O is different in the case of ~, and this fact is used to define ~ as a binary operator at the ontological level.
Click to expand...

Which also "defines" addition, subtraction and multiplication "as a binary operator at the ontological level".

doronshadmi said:
= operator is unary exactly because I/O is the same.
Click to expand...

Just as "I/O is the same" for addition, subtraction and multiplication thus they must be "unary" at your "ontological level"

doronshadmi said:
- or + operators are not ~ or = operators, because – or + works only on existing things where = and ~ operators works on both nothing or something, as clearly shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5394070&postcount=7364.
Click to expand...


So 1 + 0 , 1 - 0, 0 - 1 or 1 x 0 do not work in your “ontological level” or your OM because one represents “something” and zero represents “nothing”?


doronshadmi said:
So,– or + are not defined according to I/O sameness\difference as it is done about = or ~.
Click to expand...

You do understand that the negation of nothing or zero value is still zero value or nothing, quite distinct from zero value not being equal to some value, don’t you? The primary reason is that the sum of some value with it’s negation always equals zero or nothing.
 
Last edited:
laca said:
I left the thread for a while, came back to this page just to see nothing's changed...

RANT!
This raises an important question: how much proof would someone need to realize doron is beyond any reason, beyond any help and just leave the poor schmuck to his thoughts? I mean it's been 185 pages of this. Give or take a few. It's just something I cannot grasp. He's clearly got some wires mixed up in his head. There's absolutely no point in continuing this "debate". Everyone has had their fun. Let's turn off the lights and close the door. There's nothing more to see here.


Having said that, I realize it's not likely that's going to happen. There's always someone bored enough to take a stab at it, thereby taking advantage of a sick person. It's almost like beating up a paralyzed blind guy.
Click to expand...

I have already stated my reasons for continuing to engage Doron here and it has absolutely nothing to do with "taking advantage of a sick person" or “beating up a paralyzed blind guy”. If you do not wish to post then do not post, but do not presume to dictate what others should do or project your reasoning onto the actions of others.
 
I'd like to chime in here, because I have a somewhat different take on Doron Shadmi than the majority of posters who have encountered him here and elsewhere.

He's not insane. He has a unique way of thinking, almost a different culture of thought, but it doesn't add up to him being a loony.
He's pretty fixated on his way as far as Internet communications go. We know nothing of his life outside this context, and even if he were constantly annoying his friends and loved ones with his subject of enthusiasm, that's not a trait of insanity.

I've found that my first impressions about the drift and structure of his way of thought were correct. Though since they are not the "Direct Perception" to me that they are to him, I had to work through his verbiage.
You could say I kept throwing things at the wall to see what would stick.
Lots of stuff fell off, even stuff that should have stuck, but Doron didn't recognize his own idea in my vocabulary.
Anyway, over time there was a clear diffraction pattern.

I get his structure of polar, independent, interacting principles and a Metaphysical Infinity. He consistently restates these concepts in new constructions.
It seems gibberish to the first reading, but it does have repeated concepts I've articulated in previous posts in this thread.

Doron presents his views as a "new paradigm."
It's more than that, since his point of departure is way back at Euclid.
To me it's more like someone of an alien culture tried to express his alien intellectual culture in our language.
He'd choose words that ranged from somewhat a correspondence to very little, and lots would be lost in the translation.
Doron takes the language of Earth Mathematics and inevitable twists and breaks the vocabulary in his attempt to impose his own meaning on the words and the body they live in.
Yes, it would be much better if he created his own vocabulary organic to his own body of thought.
His basic idea isn't translating.
But then again, I think most people would balk at having to learn new words for concepts they don't get intuitively.
(I lived in Japan for a number of years and found words bound to concepts and ways of feeling that just don't translate into the nearest so-called English equivalent and make strange translations like a style of feeling being translated as a "flavor.")

Yeah, most people would then say "jabberwocky" instead of calling his writing "gibberish."

The other thing he does with Mathematical Language is to use terms that designate mathematical objects as symbols for metaphysical concepts.
His line stands for the concept of non-locality as a metaphysical infinity.
It is an "ontological" expression.
He's not misusing the word "ontological."
His Line is a metaphor for an ontological entity or being (Not in the god sense): Metaphysical Infinity, existing of its own self as a fundamental component or as he puts it, "atom." (not the physics atom)

His way of approaching Mathematics throws most everything from Euclid out.
He aspires to building a new edifice on his unique foundation.
This hasn't got much of anywhere, since some of the very analytic tools used in our mathematics are disallowed by his culture.

When asked to give practical examples of what his math can do that the math we know can't, he repeats his basic foundation or speaks in an ethical context.
It seems to me that his intention is more ethical and even religious (in a secular sense).

My difference with him is ontological. Perhaps I'll some day find a way to communicate to him why I don't find his ontological entities necessary.
Most likely I won't.
But it's not that big a deal, since he and I can still agree on matters ethical notwithstanding.
Of mathematical matters, I've left the professionals in this thread to take Doron to task.

Again he's not spouting insane gibberish. It's just a language problem and that we don't get his bit of intellectual culture intuitively, as he finds his own view.

Yes, I've been frustrated too at this humongous thread seeming to get no where.
But I've learned stuff. And coming to the place where I could read Doron and understand what he was driving at was fun.
And I'm keeping notes for a possible use of Doron's ideas as part of a story of a clash of cultures on an alien world.

I don't like the bickering and the name-calling.
I absented myself from the thread for a month once, because I was falling into that as well.

Each person who continues to post in this thread is getting his or her own value out of it. Even if that includes some snarkiness.

So let the wild rumpus continue!

BTW I know some would prefer it if Doron were speaking "gibberish" and that my understanding of him was merely a delusion of my own. It's easier than having to work behind the garble of misused mathematical terms.
But there is a guy behind the curtain after all.
 
Apathia said:
BTW I know some would prefer it if Doron were speaking "gibberish" and that my understanding of him was merely a delusion of my own. It's easier than having to work behind the garble of misused mathematical terms.
But there is a guy behind the curtain after all.
Click to expand...


I agree with some of your points, but I disagree with most of your theme. He does have a, oh, let's call it novel perspective on some things. I don't know which is the root, but it seems tied up in a concept of infinity some how. Points cannot accumulate into lines. Lines must therefore be atomic. And so on.

That's fine. If we wanted to explore and build on those concepts, hey, several of us would help. But he doesn't. It is not just an alternate view he has, it is the only possible view. In that regard, he is delusional. Not insane. Delusional.
 
jsfisher said:
I don't know which is the root, but it seems tied up in a concept of infinity some how. Points cannot accumulate into lines. Lines must therefore be atomic. And so on.
Click to expand...

There are two roots to his way.
One, as you've rightly pointed out is his concept of an absolute metaphysical Infinity.
As an absolute entity, it cannot be contained.
For Doron the endless line is the metaphor for The Infinite.
No segment of that line can contain an infinite number of points.

The second root is his ubiquitous structure of polarized paired (a recent example: Isolation/Connectivity) concepts that produce in mutual idependent interaction fractals of logical or numerical values.

Or you could say his two roots are The Point: metaphorical of The Finite and The Line (unbounded): metaphorical of The Infinite.

This is not at all the same way mathematicians from Euclid on have thought about the mathematical objects called points and lines.
The seperate "cultures" of Euclid and Doron do not mesh in a consistant fashion. You cannot get to Analytic Geometry from Doron. Nor a logic that must come to an exclusive conclusion.

We have multi-valued, modal, and fuzzy logics that account for a sense in which A is ~A. Doron's is unique with its Concept/~Concept Linkage structure.
As you said, there's room under the True Big Tent Party of Mathmatics for a game with these specialized rules. (Provided the rigor.)
But, of course Doron's stated intention is to provide the ultimate rules of thought that will unify every act under the big top in a single ring.
But nobody is getting the rules.

I'll just say he's persistant in his particular cultural norm. :D
 
The Man said:
So 1 + 0 , 1 - 0, 0 - 1 or 1 x 0 do not work in your “ontological level” or your OM because one represents “something” and zero represents “nothing”?
Click to expand...

The ontological level deals with the building-block of being (Something or Nathing) and = or ~ are the operators of this level.

- + * ^ sqrt etc. deal with Something (existing things) and 0 or 1 are existing (abstract or not) things.

The rest of your post does not hold because of this misunderstanding.
 
Apathia said:
There are two roots to his way.
One, as you've rightly pointed out is his concept of an absolute metaphysical Infinity.
As an absolute entity, it cannot be contained.
For Doron the endless line is the metaphor for The Infinite.
No segment of that line can contain an infinite number of points.

The second root is his ubiquitous structure of polarized paired (a recent example: Isolation/Connectivity) concepts that produce in mutual idependent interaction fractals of logical or numerical values.

Or you could say his two roots are The Point: metaphorical of The Finite and The Line (unbounded): metaphorical of The Infinite.

This is not at all the same way mathematicians from Euclid on have thought about the mathematical objects called points and lines.
The seperate "cultures" of Euclid and Doron do not mesh in a consistant fashion. You cannot get to Analytic Geometry from Doron. Nor a logic that must come to an exclusive conclusion.
Click to expand...

Apathia, well done for understanding the roots of Doron's OM.
I understood it a while back because of my interest in Projective Geometry .
PG deals with the same roots as OM with its principle of duality and in a much more elegant and PRACTICAL way.
When I first read this thread in July I continued a short communication by email with Moshe Klein about the relationships between OM and PG. He had never thought about the relationship and found it most interesting. However Doron was immune to any comparisons I brought up in this thread.
Which is a pity and cannot be excused as a culture clash.
 
The Man said:
I have already stated my reasons for continuing to engage Doron here and it has absolutely nothing to do with "taking advantage of a sick person" or “beating up a paralyzed blind guy”.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Would you mind reiterating what those reasons would be? I'm just curious.

The Man said:
If you do not wish to post then do not post, but do not presume to dictate what others should do or project your reasoning onto the actions of others.
Click to expand...

It was a rant, so it shouldn't be taken literally. I did not try to dictate anything, it was merely a suggestion that seems reasonable to me. You could point out why it is not reasonable, i.e. what is the point in continuing this thread.
 
Nice posts, Apathia.

Apathia said:
But, of course Doron's stated intention is to provide the ultimate rules of thought that will unify every act under the big top in a single ring.
But nobody is getting the rules.

I'll just say he's persistant in his particular cultural norm. :D
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly, and that is why all this discussion seems so futile.

!Kaggen said:
When I first read this thread in July I continued a short communication by email with Moshe Klein about the relationships between OM and PG. He had never thought about the relationship and found it most interesting. However Doron was immune to any comparisons I brought up in this thread.
Which is a pity and cannot be excused as a culture clash.
Click to expand...

... and also proves my point. There's no reasoning with him. A bunch of people tried, using different approaches like pointing out contradictions, inconsistencies within OM, questioning its practicality, mocking it etc. Nothing worked. Is there anything else that can be tried? Is there some other goal except reaching some sort of conclusion with regard to OM? If so, shouldn't that be in a separate thread? :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom