Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your view of = are ~ is trivial.

For example , in a 2-valued system any two concepts are given even if they are not opposites.

The two values can be 5,-3 or wind,piano or even something, nothing.

Since ~ is "anything but" then:

~(-3)-->5 (and vice versa)

~(wind)-->piano (and vice versa)

~(something) -->nothing (and vice versa)

~(something,nothing)--> =() and we can understand that operands an operators a mutually independent concepts.

If we are not limited to 2-valued system, then:

~(something,nothing)--> anything but somthing,nothing.
 
doronshadmi said:
The ontological level deals with the building-block of being (Something or Nathing) and = or ~ are the operators of this level.
Click to expand...

= is a relation, not an operation.
~ is an operation.
The rest of your post is wrong because of this misunderstanding.
 
!Kaggen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ah yes.
I know. Doron's two pillars will always stand for him, and the discussion will ever come to an impass.
Fortunately we have the option to leave the the discussion and return when we have something interesting to make of it, like your tie ins with Projective Geometry.

My own reaction was to the people who simply dismiss Doron as frothing at the mouth and contribute no more than a teen driver shouting obcenities at a pedestrian.
 
laca said:
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:
Click to expand...

What I said to !Kaggen above.
We have the option of changing the channel.
That in part is why Doron's polemic has been contained in one thread.
When a new one is statrted it comes back toi the same base topic of Doron's OM, and the moderators merge the threads.
This is the place for all things Doron, inasmuch as all things Doron are the same two notes.

Yes, he plays them over and over again for some (not all) critics who have yet to identfy them. It's a tragi-comedy in one act.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, I would agree that seems to be his position.

Do you think this is something that was arrived at deliberately, or simply a misunderstanding? (He seemed confused about a 'finite line' seemingly taking that to imply the number of points on it were finite.) If he wants to propose an alternate model to mathematics which has a finite number points on a line segment, then he needs to explain how that works, and where the gaps between points on the line are.
 
AvalonXQ said:
= is a relation, not an operation.
~ is an operation.
The rest of your post is wrong because of this misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

You are using a partial view of the operation concept.

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

~ is an operator, such that any given input it is different than the output.
 
AvalonXQ said:
So, wait, you're talking about summing together line segments and determining whether or not their sum can equal a straight line?
Click to expand...

No sum of segments is an endless (edgeless) straight line, simply because a line is not an aggregation of elements, exactly as a point is not an aggregation of elements.

By OM a line is called a non-local atom and a point is called a local atom.

By OM an endless (edgeless) straight line is actual infinite element.

By OM a point is actual finite element.

A segment is a complex result of both line and point, where no aggregation of complexities is an actual element, whether it is an endless (edgeless) straight line or a point.

As a result no amount of interpolated segments is a point and no amount of extrapolated segments is an endless (edgeless) straight line.

AvalonXQ said:
A line segment is defined as the set of all of the points within a given line that fall between two established points
Click to expand...
The line part of the complex called segement, is not an aggregation of sub-segmenets or points.

A line (whether it is a part of a complex called segment, or an endless (edgeless) straight line) is the minimal representation of a non-local atom.

A point is the minimal representation of a local atom.

The logical foundation of the membership of these atoms is as follows:

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.

EDIT:

Here is a 2-valued view of these definitions:

Code: 
Inclusion\Exclusion 
  F            F          [ ]    (Non-locality)  (NOR)

  T            F          [.]    (Locality)--|
                                             |-- (XOR) 
  F            T          [ ].   (Locality)--|

  T            T          [[u] ][/u]_   (Non-locality)  (AND)

NOR+AND ---> NXOR so we are dealing here with NXOR\XOR Logic, where both Non-local and Local Memberships are logically defined.
 
Last edited:
AvalonXQ said:
= isn't an operator. = is a relation.
You don't give = an input. You relate two things with =.
Click to expand...

I think I'd give doron this one. Equality can be viewed in a few different ways. As a logic-valued function is one such way.

Actually, the notions of "input" and "output" bother me more. They are too restrictive for my taste, and a bit too computer sciency. The complement of something (e.g. ~A) simply exists in a mathematical sense; it doesn't require some procedure being applied to some input to yield some result.


ETA: Now, as for this whole nonsense of "=" being a monadic operator, that's just silly invention for no reason other than to be contrary.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No sum of segments is an endless (edgeless) straight line, simply because a line is not an aggregation of elements, exactly as a point is not an aggregation of elements.
Click to expand...

No. A line in Euclidean space is defined as a set of points whose coordinates meet a certain relationship.
A line, by definition, is a set of points.
If you refuse to accept this, then you need to offer another definition.
 
zooterkin said:
Yes, I would agree that seems to be his position.

Do you think this is something that was arrived at deliberately, or simply a misunderstanding?
Click to expand...

From what he's written here and elsewhere, I think it's an idea he arrived at outside the field of Mathematics. It made an overarching sense to him, and he then sought to frame it in mathematical terms.
But I can't answer a question that ought to be asked of him.


Doron,

When did your seed idea first occur to you and in what context?
A little autobiography on this might help us understand better.
 
laca said:
Fair enough. Would you mind reiterating what those reasons would be? I'm just curious.
Click to expand...

No problem, primarily it is what this forum and JREF are all about, addressing such misinterpretations and misrepresentations concerning, in part, math and science. Even if Doron will not accept the help provided it can still be useful to others including myself. So if we ignore people like Doron they may just go away, but what really has been accomplished, particularly on a forum sponsored by an educational foundation intended to address such misinterpretations and misrepresentations. Indeed all we will do is provide a basis for the claim that he was simply ignored by the skeptics. By actively engaging him we remove the pretense of validity for that claim and perhaps educate some people, if not Doron than at least hopefully myself.

On a somewhat more personal note, Doron has a problem holding to his assertions, they wax and wane about as it suits him. He has repeatedly stated that he will not respond on this and other threads before, but soon returns. He has specifically stated that he would no longer respond to my posts numerous times, yet can not keep himself from doing so, he says it is a waste of his time. I have told him that I have time to waste, which I do, and that I would respond to his posts. Actually I do not consider the potential for me or anyone to learn something to be a waste of time and replying to his posts does not take a whole lot of time. So I remain active on this thread (other then the reasons given above) because I said I would and even if I or anyone is learning nothing it will at least demonstrate to Doron that people can actually hold to their assertions.




laca said:
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.
Click to expand...

My apologies, my post was a bit of a rant as well. I’m just getting tired of people simply posting on this thread that others should not post on this thread. My reasons were given before and repeated above, you might not find them valid. However, if you do find your own reasons for not posting on this thread to be valid then don’t post. Doron’s here of his own volition (as is everyone else) actively seeking input and discussion on a skeptics forum, I see no valid reason to deny him that input and discussion.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Your view of = are ~ is trivial.

For example , in a 2-valued system any two concepts are given even if they are not opposites.

The two values can be 5,-3 or wind,piano or even something, nothing.
Click to expand...

Which is why I specifically stated…

The Man said:
...however in a two value system (where one value is the negation of the other)...
Click to expand...

Also remember the sum of a value and it negation is zero or nothing, the sum of “something” and “nothing” is still something. The sum of 5 and -3 is 2, the negation of nothing or 0 is still nothing or 0, the negation of “something” is negative “something”.

doronshadmi said:
Since ~ is "anything but" then:
Click to expand...

“Not equal” to is still “anything but”. The negation of 5 (-5) or the negation of -3 (3) are not values in your 5,-3 above stated two value system. The negation of “nothing” is a value in your “something, nothing” system as the negation of nothing is still nothing. The negation of something (-something) is not a value in that system. Again negation (logical NOT) has a specific definition you are simply confusing it with a more colloquial definition of “not” that tends to imply “not equal to”.

doronshadmi said:
~(-3)-->5 (and vice versa)

~(wind)-->piano (and vice versa)

~(something) -->nothing (and vice versa)


~(something,nothing)--> =() and we can understand that operands an operators a mutually independent concepts.
Click to expand...

Wow Doron again just when I think you could not possibly contradict yourself any further you do. Pleas explain how and why you think “that operands an operators a mutually independent concepts”.


doronshadmi said:
If we are not limited to 2-valued system, then:

~(something,nothing)--> anything but somthing,nothing.
Click to expand...

Again the 5,3,-3 example was not a two value system and shows your assertion as clearly wrong.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The ontological level deals with the building-block of being (Something or Nathing) and = or ~ are the operators of this level.
Click to expand...

“Nathing” is a “building-block of being”?


doronshadmi said:
- + * ^ sqrt etc. deal with Something (existing things)
Click to expand...

As do “= or ~”


doronshadmi said:
and 0 or 1 are existing (abstract or not) things.
Click to expand...

Which represents “something” 1 or “Nothing” 0, something or nothing are existing abstract concepts as well Doron. Pleas tell us, Doron, what abstract concept does not exist, if you think you can then you can’t, because that concept would now exist.

doronshadmi said:
The rest of your post does not hold because of this misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

Your entire notions are based on this misunderstanding about the existence (or lack thereof) of abstract concepts.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Which is why I specifically stated…
Click to expand...

I clearly talk about any n-valued system where the case 2-valued system of opposites is some particular case of it.

The Man, your limited view of this subject is not of my concern.

The Man said:
something or nothing are existing abstract concepts as well Doron.
Click to expand...
You do not distinguish between the name of X, and X.

"Silence" is not Silence exactly as "Nothing" is not
 
Last edited:
Do you have a definition for the term "line"?
Are we talking about Euclidean space or not?
 
jsfisher said:
I think I'd give doron this one. Equality can be viewed in a few different ways. As a logic-valued function is one such way.

Actually, the notions of "input" and "output" bother me more. They are too restrictive for my taste, and a bit too computer sciency. The complement of something (e.g. ~A) simply exists in a mathematical sense; it doesn't require some procedure being applied to some input to yield some result.


ETA: Now, as for this whole nonsense of "=" being a monadic operator, that's just silly invention for no reason other than to be contrary.
Click to expand...

Time is not involved in my I/O framework, jsfisher.
 
AvalonXQ said:
I don't see the definition of "line" in there. Can you isolate that definition, please?
Click to expand...

NXOR.

I am not limiting my definition to the geometrical aspect.

A line is the minimal geometrical form of Non-locality, and it is also defined as non-local Membership.
 
doronshadmi said:
I clearly talk about any n-valued system where the case 2-valued system of opposites is some particular case of it.

The Man, your limited view of this subject is not of my concern.
Click to expand...

Your only concern Doron appears to be you limiting this subject to your imagination.

doronshadmi said:
You do not distinguish between the name of X, and X.

"Silence" is not Silence exactly as "Nothing" is not
Click to expand...

Not what, Doron? It seems now you are even having problems just using “not” in a colloquial sense.


Beside that Doron what does your claim to “clearly talk about any n-valued system where the case 2-valued system of opposites is some particular case of it.” or your assertion that I “do not distinguish between the name of X, and X.” have to do with you simply misrepresenting a basic and simple concept like negation as meaning “anything but”?

ETA:

Are you claiming that "Something" or "Nothing" are not already existing abstract concepts?
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Not what, Doron? It seems now you are even having problems just using “not” in a colloquial sense.
Click to expand...
The Man said:
Are you claiming that "Something" or "Nothing" are not already existing abstract concepts?
Click to expand...

"nothing" (the name) is not (where actual nothing is the empty space after the words "is not").


If nothing is what between ( ), then ~( ) ---> =(X), where X is a place holder of something.

If X is a place holder of something, then ~(X) ---> =( ), where nothing is what between ( ).
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
No problem, primarily it is what this forum and JREF are all about, addressing such misinterpretations and misrepresentations concerning, in part, math and science. Even if Doron will not accept the help provided it can still be useful to others including myself. So if we ignore people like Doron they may just go away, but what really has been accomplished, particularly on a forum sponsored by an educational foundation intended to address such misinterpretations and misrepresentations. Indeed all we will do is provide a basis for the claim that he was simply ignored by the skeptics. By actively engaging him we remove the pretense of validity for that claim and perhaps educate some people, if not Doron than at least hopefully myself.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree 100% with this, but who can accuse the skeptics here of ignoring doron after 180+ pages of actively engaging him?

The Man said:
On a somewhat more personal note, Doron has a problem holding to his assertions, they wax and wane about as it suits him. He has repeatedly stated that he will not respond on this and other threads before, but soon returns. He has specifically stated that he would no longer respond to my posts numerous times, yet can not keep himself from doing so, he says it is a waste of his time. I have told him that I have time to waste, which I do, and that I would respond to his posts. Actually I do not consider the potential for me or anyone to learn something to be a waste of time and replying to his posts does not take a whole lot of time.
Click to expand...

Of course it's not a waste of time to learn something, but is there anything left to be learned here?

The Man said:
So I remain active on this thread (other then the reasons given above) because I said I would and even if I or anyone is learning nothing it will at least demonstrate to Doron that people can actually hold to their assertions.
Click to expand...

Well, I have to admit that seems like a valid reason. :)

The Man said:
My apologies, my post was a bit of a rant as well. I’m just getting tired of people simply posting on this thread that others should not post on this thread. My reasons were given before and repeated above, you might not find them valid. However, if you do find your own reasons for not posting on this thread to be valid then don’t post. Doron’s here of his own volition (as is everyone else) actively seeking input and discussion on a skeptics forum, I see no valid reason to deny him that input and discussion.
Click to expand...

Of course, you are assuming he's really looking for input. His "output" doesn't seem like it's dependent on any level with the input he's getting :rolleyes:
 
jsfisher said:
The complement of something (e.g. ~A) simply exists in a mathematical sense; it doesn't require some procedure being applied to some input to yield some result.
Click to expand...
Again, there is no procedure here, anything but A and A are compared simultaneously.
 
laca said:
Of course it's not a waste of time to learn something, but is there anything left to be learned here?
Click to expand...
It depends if you are closed or opened to non-standard view of the discussed subject.

For example: The Man is not opened to the notion that "anything but" is the general definition of ~ operator, where one of its particular cases is known as Negation, which is used under 2-valued system of opposite values such as True\False system.

At the moment that you understand that Negation is a particular case of ~ operator, you are opened to new frameworks, which exist beyond the particular case of 2-valued system of opposite values.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
"nothing" (the name) is not (where actual nothing is the empty space after the words "is not").


If nothing is what between ( ), then ~( ) ---> =(X), where X is a place holder of something.

If X is a place holder of something, then ~(X) ---> =( ), where nothing is what between ( ).
Click to expand...

So are or were you claiming that "nothing" or "something" are not existing abstract concepts?

The negation of nothing is still nothing, regardless of the problems you seem to have with the simple concepts of negation and names.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
But NOT and Negation are two separate things. For example, if you solve the equation (X + ~X) your answer can be anything, but (X + -X) your answer is zero.

And in a two-value system, you have opposite values anyway. There is nothing beyond it.
Click to expand...

"NOT" is a representation of the operation of negation, just as ~ and - are.
 
laca said:
Yes, I agree 100% with this, but who can accuse the skeptics here of ignoring doron after 180+ pages of actively engaging him?
Click to expand...

Doron, he is still claiming that we 'just don't get' his assertions and are ignoring what he is actually trying to say.


laca said:
Of course it's not a waste of time to learn something, but is there anything left to be learned here?
Click to expand...

I don’t know, but if there is I won’t know that there is or what it is until I learn it.


laca said:
Well, I have to admit that seems like a valid reason. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks.


laca said:
Of course, you are assuming he's really looking for input. His "output" doesn't seem like it's dependent on any level with the input he's getting :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Actually he has already stated that he is just looking for some scholarly people to accept and develop his notions particularly his dream of “no-local” technology. That would seem to indicate that he can acknowledge his limitations, but unfortunately he does not seem willing to do anything about them himself, like becoming more ‘scholarly’ himself.
 
doronshadmi said:
It depends if you are closed or opened to non-standard view of the discussed subject.

For example: The Man is not opened to the notion that "anything but" is the general definition of ~ operator, where one of its particular cases is known as Negation, which is used under 2-valued system of opposite values such as True\False system.

At the moment that you understand that Negation is a particular case of ~ operator, you are opened to new frameworks, which exist beyond the particular case of 2-valued system of opposite values.
Click to expand...


Simply because, Doron, “the notion that "anything but" is the general definition of ~ operator” is inconsistent and contradictory to the actual definition of the operation of negation, which is the definition of the “~ operator”. It does not matter if it “is used under 2-valued system of opposite values such as True\False system.” or any other system, that operation of negation is the same. Your attempts to limit negation as some “particular case of 2-valued system of opposite values” is absolutely and demonstrably wrong, indicating again that you simply do not understand the operation of negation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom