Whoosh!
Deeper than primes
- Thread starter doronshadmi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- deeper than primes
- Status
Whoosh!
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
It is truth jsfisher.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
If I understood you then it can be written as:Apathia said:
D=Domain
(X not belong AND not not belong to D) AND (belongs AND does not belong to D) is Non-locality.
This is wrong since:
(X not belong AND not not belong to D) is The atomic state.
(belongs AND does not belong to D) is Non-locality.
(The atomic state) AND (Non-locality) is false.
Furthermore, we can exchange (belongs AND does not belong to D) -which is Non-locality- with (belongs XOR does not belong to D) -which is locality, and then write:
(The atomic state) AND (Locality), which is also false.
The Atomic state is the un-manifested at its self state, where Non-locality OR Locality are the minimal atomic manifestations (which are not the atomic self-state) that their linkage (based on their common and un-manifested atomic self state) enables Complexity.
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
You are a liar, doronshadmi. Please show where I said your so-called proof-without-words was Geometry.
Since you so easily lie for no reason, how can you expect any credibility for any you post?
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
What kind of dressing would you like on your salad?
Thank's for the reply.
I'm glad to see it was what I expected. But then again I see another way one could go with the matter of Non-Locality.
Anyway, your point to me being that I must remember to distingish Non-Locality as it is of itself, in its "self state" from how it works in linkage with Locality.
Again this structure of linkage is what creates a populated realm of numerical entities that are supposed to have both quantitative and qualitative properties.
Locality in its self state is purely qualitative.
Non-Locality in its self state is purely qualitative.
Quantity only exists in the structure of their linkage.
(Under which there is a linkage of quantity and quality)
In the mathematics we all learned in school, numbers are just a matter of how many objects there are in given classes.
In OM a number is a complex of the various ways locality and non-locality can link up. How many (fixed values) is just one aspect of that.
I'd still like to see some examples of number used in a qualitative way.
Please.
(And plaese don't simply repeat the use of 0 and ∞
to denote the atomic states as your sole example.)
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
You don't have to write it jsfisher.
Your abstraction inability to grasp
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5818172&postcount=9446 , http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5795672&postcount=9323 ,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5799260&postcount=9332 or
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5799837&postcount=9339.
is sufficient enough in order to support my claim.
Actually your demand to show the string of symbols where you wrote that my diagrams is Geometry, actually reinforce my claim that all your communication and reasoning skills are totally depend on strings of symbols, such that no other representation of some notion is acceptable (exactly becuae you think that my diagrams are limited to Metric Space).
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
A number is a measurment tool that is derived from Memory\Object Linkage, which has also qualitative properties that are related to Ethics:
Please show it.
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Plain nude is the best.
Last edited:
Ah, so your understanding of how language works is on a par with your understanding of mathematics?
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Giggywig
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 31, 2007
- Messages
- 2,851
You do know what the unit circle is, right?
That was another example of your failure to comprehend, yes.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
No, Doron I am not, which is why a label is simply a label. That a label can be used to reflect some aspect of a particular space does not infer that any label reflects some aspect of some particular space. While you on the other hand continue to just make up labels like “atomic” stick them on to things and claim it is “by nature” when it is simply your own nature to just (and perhaps deliberately) confuse your own contrived labels with some “property” “by nature” you think that label imbues.
“labelled-oriented”? Sorry Doron that accurately describes your approach and “reasoning”. as we see below.
So once again you assert your “measurment” is based on “measured labels” making your assertions and “reasoning” “labelled-oriented”.
Once again Doron that failure remains yours as does you again asserting “your labelled-oriented reasoning” above.
“not local AND not non-local”? Those were your “atomic” aspects, so now you have another atomic aspect “atomic nature” that is “not local AND not non-local”?
No Doron we understand and utilize spaces all the time. What have you ever done with yours except to give them labels “like 0-space, n-space, ∞-space or ∞-space” and profess “your labelled-oriented reasoning “?
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Once again Doron your “belongs to AND does not belong to” ascription of your “Non-locality” simply disagrees with itself. You can label it an “axiomatic disagreement about Non-locality all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that your “Non-locality” ascription is simply in “disagreement” with itself.
Yep the starting point of your EMM coloring book, thus it’s foundation. You do remember foundation don’t you?
Sorry Doron I’m just not interested in coloring books, although I did notice that you managed to stay within the lines when coloring yours.
Accident? The involvement of collections is intentional when considering, well, collections.
Last edited:
I forgot that's as good as it gets.
There is no application of number as quality. The value for ethics is simply that we are to recognize that a numbers are born of
Local/Non-Local,
QualityQuantity,
Memory/Object Interaction (or Linkage)
And there for realize the world is not merely objects set appart from our selves.
I confess the CK diagrams do nothing for me.
I understand that they are another graphic of Something/Something Else Linkage.
As such they are simply a repeat of the whole complements linkage structure thingy and not the example I was wrongfully asking for.
On a number of a occaisons I've spoken of the Buddhist perspective regarding the Non-Local.
I have to get to work now
but in brief, there are no "Atomic" (Doron's Atomic) entities.
There are just images.
And Non-Locality is as reflection in a mirror.
The mirror reflects a changing panorama of images, but none are of the mitrror or the reflecting itself.
Reflection is free of any content. Not a single rflected image sullies or taints it.
But reflection doesn't exist without the reflections and reflected.
Its all reflections of reflections, images of images.
So that there is no reflection without the reflections or reflections without reflection.
(I realize this is a crude analogy.)
Non-Locality is not without Locality,
Locality is not without Non-Locality.
They have no "Atomic" independence.
To advance them into Atomic independence is to posit a metaphysical ideology. (But anyone is free to get metaphysical if they like.)
(The Taoist perspective on this is interdependence.)
Warning another very crude analogy:
You cannot capture the mirror in a mirrior, much less itself.
There are only relfected images.
Set one mirror before another, and you get the celebrated infinite hall of mirrors. All just an unbounded image.
Yet the mirrors have only a finite space between them.
The Infinite is just an image.
And there is not infinite without the finite, no finite without the infinite.
And they can be found within each other, because both aren't "Atoms" but ideological images of a reality that is truly Complex.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
I know exactly what I wrote Doron, do you have any actual points or questions?
Those pertaining to assault and assault with a deadly weapon as well as those pertaining to human experimentation.
No just from the stated futility of the experiment, the subject/experimenter could never know the conclusion.
Actually I have no knowledge of any “non-actual existence of such an experiment” and the actual evidence certainly does not sustain your assertions of “the goal to protect and develop Complexity and specially the Complexity that is aware of itself and it is also responsible for the results of its actions”. Self injurious (as well as that injuring others) behavior is often a simple fact of the human condition (which is also why I specifically did not recommend such experimentation)
As I have said before they often do “reinforce each other”. As to a “comprehensive framework” I simply do not see that as a requirement as ethics and logic can and often do “reinforce each other”. Any additional “framework” would just restrict some of that reinforcement while simply not accommodating those conditions where “Etichs and Logics” do not “reinforce each other”.
All I am opposing Doron is you simply not developing your notions and your false claims about math in general. As well as the imposition of some self-contradictory, naive, coloring book ethics nonsense such as yours as any kind of acctual “framework” whatsoever.
Don’t you think it’s time you actually started reading posts? You can start with where I specifically stated the disadvantages of those perspectives and limitations.
Your OM has no direction, oh you certainly have some lofty dreams about what you would like your OM to do, but that does not give you or your OM any direction particularly considering the self-contradiction that still stands as the basis of your OM.
Pleas let us know when you actually gain some understanding of logic, ethics or both. Then you might be able to understand that non-naive ethics is not a “Black\White view”, but binary logic is.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
No The Man, again you demonstrate how your local-only reasoning leads you to see "facts" that are exactly the result of your local-only reasoning.The Man said:
Actually you do not understand your own reseach project ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5829316&postcount=9480 ).
Yes I know The Man, this "profound" statement is a demonstration of your best ability to grasp notions, exactly as shown about your ability to grasp OM.The Man said:
Sorry The Man, did you forget so quickly that "a label is simply a label"? (as we see above).The Man said:
Since all you get can't be developed beyond "a label is simply a label" you have missed the notion that a definition of some space is not the labels that are used to measure it. But we can't expect much from a person that uses "a label is simply a label"-reasoning.The Man said:
Another example of the inability of The Man (which uses only "a label is simply a label"-reasoning) to grasp the difference between the atomic self-state (which is not local AND not non-local) and some aspect of that state (which is Local OR Non-local).The Man said:
Such a person can't distinguish, for example, between "silence" and silence itself, which is not the word (or the label) "silence".
You can drive a car without any understanding of the technology and/or physical laws that enables to do that.The Man said:
I am talking about driving and understanding a car.
Now The Man's step-by-step thinking style airs its view. How "lovely".The Man said:
At last something new from The Man's shop. Instead of "a label is simply a label"-reasoning, we have the "new" product known as "a collection is simply a collection"-reasoning.The Man said:
The Man said:
So you are able know the conclusion (the result) of such an experiment, otherwise you can't recommend not doing such experimentation. So your mind plays a main role in your experiment, which claims that the subject/experimenter could never know the conclusion.The Man said:
Well, OM's reasoning is more optimistic than your "the subject/experimenter could never know the conclusion"-reasoning.
Call it naïve-reasoning, but I prefer it over your "the subject/experimenter could never know the conclusion"-reasoning.
Yes, why not The Man? We really must not interfere when some politicians intend to do some genocide by using only Logics. After all we have to save also those conditions where “Ethics and Logics” do not “reinforce each other”, isn't it The Man?The Man said:
So, once again, how do you develop a non-naïve framework that can help us to survive a technology that currently is mostly derived from binary logic?The Man said:
Are you going to write about me again instead of at least try to answer to that question?
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
I'll take that as an admission that you knowingly, deliberately lied. I'm not sure what sort of world you live in, Doronshadmi, but in mine, deliberate liars have the ethics of pond scum.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Apathia said:
By OM, true Complexity is the result of the infinite irreducibility of Non-locality to Locality and/or the infinite non-increaseability of Locality to Non-locality, under Non-locality/Locality Linkage.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Your world jsfisher is based on stings of symbols. As a result you can't get abstractions that are represented by diagrams, exactly because for you rigorous abstraction must be done by string of symbols (diagrams are nothing but some limited and non-rigorous tool that is limited to metric-space, isn't it The Man?)
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Apathia;5830482I confess the CK diagrams do nothing for me. I understand that they are another graphic of Something/Something Else Linkage. As such they are simply a repeat of the whole complements linkage structure thingy and not the example I was wrongfully asking for.[/QUOTE said:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5818172&postcount=9446
Who is the liar here jsfisher?
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Still you.
You claimed I stated something I did not. You have even admitted I did not. So, you are now and continue to be the only liar present.
This is not the first time you have done this. We can all scroll back through this very thread to find other examples. It seems to be one of your talents. You make stuff up. Some you claim as Mathematics. Some you claim as statements by, points of views of, etc., etc. of others posting in this thread. One good lie deserves another, eh?
At least in this country, we teach our kindergarten kids not to lie. Since you identify so readily with 5-year-old thinking, I can only assume the schools you hang about don't have the same sense of decency we do here.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Another excellent post Apathia, sorry I missed it when I posted before. Although I would argue that a reflection without content reflects nothing. It is inversion (much like negation, although more just a change in, or reversal of, perspective) that is the central aspect of reflection. Though I did like your finite/infinite “linkage” in reflection, even though the apparent effect still requires some skewing in the perspective so you see the multiple reflections. Also as we had discussed before the “Taoist perspective” accuracy asserted as “interdependence”. An aspect I think Doron misses when considering eastern philosophies. Again you come to the rub of it Apathia, Doron’s independent “atoms” that even he claims can not be “researched” independently. It is local and (addition not a logical connective, a distinction between math and logic that Doron also seems to miss) non-local that generally comprise some space. Although you can consider an entire space as local (that one might refer to as a globel perspective) you can only consider some subspace (less any intersections) as non-local with regard to some local sub-space in some encompassing ‘global’ space.
Ah, Doron. I get the Memory/Object Interaction presentation and your intention to move from it to a mathematical-symbological language that expresses not only objects in quantity but stages in awareness.
But I don't get the Cybernetic Kernals thing at all.
Is it some kind of feedback learning loop running between whatever two conceptual poles until the skill or state of consciousness is consolidated?
It's not the way my personal ethical life operates.
Mine is one where people are more important than concepts, principles, and ideologies. My decisions in that regard have more to do with empathy and compassion than a playing out between two contributing moral principles ("Atoms")
I personally find more resonance with the Buddhist perceptive because it asserts the interdependence and integration of all we experience and sweeps away all potential attachments emotional and intellectual.
It dismisses all fundamentals.
Of course if I were to be dogmatic about Buddhism's minimalist metaphysic and insist others must follow "The Middle Way," I'd undo the intention of it all in a pathological attachment.
Hence the Zen saying, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."
We are all still here because compassionate people who connect with others from their hearts always find ways to work around whatever their belief systems or logical-ethical languages.
Acting in responsibility entails awareness and an ability to respond; respond from the heart.
That's where I find the ground of Ethics.
As for Mathematics, it's a tool and language that can be used ethically, but is ethically neutral itself.
It's like an axe. Of course it's use is upon objects, not the wielder of the axe.
And the likes of Raskolnikov can objectify and demonize a person he intends to use it upon.
But there's no way to build an axe that tells its user, "your neighbor isn't firewood."
(I take that back. There's a good chance that many appliances in the later part of this century will have interactive computer processors.)
It's up to us to act responsibly with our tools and languages.
I know the intention of OM is to create a language of science in which awareness and compassion are integral to its methodology, so it cannot make and do evil and exploitive things.
But awareness isn't an equation. It isn't denotable by a sign, as is a number.
We express it in mytho-poetic metaphors.
So your program uses the language of mathematics and number metaphorically while every mathematician who participates in this thread finds a mishmash of math terms that don't cohere and compute in a system of signs.
I think your symbology works for you. You bring your self awareness into the picture when you use that X/Y Interactive framework because of the transcendental meaning you have ascribed to that language.
But alas it doesn't have the same affect on us.
The sight of those CKs doesn't draw me into a state of heightened awareness.
They just confuse me.
While my morning meditation in which I use a single Sanskrit alphabetical syllable as a mantra and yantra, serves me well to open my heart, but would leave you and most anyone else in the thread cold.
I don't see how we could all have the same all purpose scientific-religious-ethical language, even though there are always zealots who want to impose theirs on everyone.
The direction of spirituality is always to transcend, even and especially in the midst of its use, any religious tongue and dwell in the Heart.
Otherwise you get people hawking varieties of golden calves and stone tablets without ever listening to each other.
Admittedly the mirror analogy is clumsy and crude.
But I remember now my original point of use for it.
The mirror has nothing in it but the images it reflects.
It has no special content to impose upon and structure them (aside from as you say to reverse the images.), not X/Y apparatus.
It is empty of itself, period.
The X/Y Linkage is a linguistic, ideological construct that has no fundamental, inherent reality.
It may be of linguistic, metaphorical use in an individual's (In this case Doron's) intellectual culture (His very own. And I should say it's a somewhat admirable thing for an individual to create hir (his or her) own culture.)
But awareness itself doesn't get captured as a symbol object in a language.
It always transcends its symbols and certainly transcends the attempt to make it a sign, precisely because it has no self nature and is inherently nothing of its own.
Infinity is an image, not a fixed metaphysical entity (or "Atom").
So it does not object to being found in paradoxical places.
Perhaps the matter that Ethics does have in common with Logic is that paradox (when we try to completely formalize) is inescapable.
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
I was thinking more along the lines of blue cheese or sesame ginger.
(He really doesn't get anything, does he?)
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
I think doronshadmi is an attempt at a program that might pass the Turing test.
Sort of a deranged Eliza.
Not a very successful attempt, since no one seems to think they are interacting with a human being. Interesting, none the less.
It reminds me of a random-insult generator that I used to have students write.
Fun to read its output at first, but it got old pretty quickly.
Sort of a deranged Eliza.
Not a very successful attempt, since no one seems to think they are interacting with a human being. Interesting, none the less.
It reminds me of a random-insult generator that I used to have students write.
Fun to read its output at first, but it got old pretty quickly.
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Again with your loco-only labeling Doron.
Again you confuse (I think deliberately) the trivial for the “profound”.
Nope, when are you going to start considering a label as just a label?
Since you can not understand what is written, that labels can represent some particular aspect, but do not have to, you end up with this ridiculous “labels that are used to measure” nonsense.
Oh so once again you divide your indivisible “atomic self-state” into ‘aspects’ of “that state” that you label as “Local OR Non-local”. Yes we got that before and I have specifically pointed out that “atomic” failure of yours before.
You fail once again Doron, is this going to be a litany of your failures, a stroll down memory lane if you will, or do you have something new? Has that "can't distinguish, for example, between silence" and silence itself, which is not the word (or the label) "silence"” claim ever work for anyone but you Doron? Perhaps it’s time to give it up.
I understand the “technology and/or physical laws” involved in a car and driving a car. Also as I have told you before the electrical connectors that might be bringing electricity to wherever you are now, and if I did not design those connectors (or was involved in their design, production and development) I might have tested that design or perchance written the criteria that they were tested to. What was it that you have done or understand with your OM, other than your fantasies?
Again you are talking about things you do not understand, which could well include “driving and understanding a car”.
So I guess you do want to forget about your own assertions concerning “foundations” particularly when applied to, well, you.
Doesn’t sound like anything new to me. Exactly where did I say “a collection is simply a collection” that you quote? If you are going to paraphrase you should do it like ‘this’.
Where did I say I “know the conclusion (the result) of such an experiment”. Certainly I can “recommend not doing such experimentation” since its futility is the whole point.
I still do not recommend such experimentation even with your purportedly “optimistic” “OM's reasoning”, do not attempt it!!!!
Your preference in that rearguard is already well known.
Are you actually inferring politics as logical and/or ethical? You go to one extreme and your own consideration of “the goal to protect and develop Complexity and specially the Complexity that is aware of itself and it is also responsible for the results of its actions.” does not exclude that genocidal extreme. Perhaps you are claiming that there are ethical considerations against genocide that might not be logically consistent with your “goal to protect and develop Complexity and specially the Complexity that is aware of itself and it is also responsible for the results of its actions.”? Your goal is to save our civilization from the “L value of the drake equation”, but if it took killing half the world’s population right now to achieve that goal, would you consider that ethical? Such are the ethical conundrums not evident in your “naïve-reasoning”. Ethics ain’t pretty, simple or ‘black/white’ Doron nor is it your “EMM” coloring book.
So is it just a fear of technology employing binary logic that makes you so paranoid? You do understand that matters of ethics are still determined by people (boards, committees, judges and juries), don’t you (and why that is)? What you apparently want is ethics that can or simply will be decided by calculators and computers. Study ethics and you will find non-naïve (not black/white) frameworks for dealing with ethical issues almost everywhere (particularly in a modern technological society).
Unlike you I always try to answer questions.
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Well again it is Doron’s label oriented reasoning that can not deal with his labels being reversed. While the normal ascriptions of local and non-local are reversible. Much as you assert I do believe that it is a cultural aspect of semantics that is the dividing factor here. Also as you note it is the preoccupation with the consideration of “natural” or “organic” ‘definitions’ and ‘math’ that makes Doron think his assertions should be obtained by what he calls “direct perception”. Certainly binary logic has only two values, true/false right/wrong, while ethics is a multi-valued generally normative system being of a prominently subjective, well, nature. Expounding not perhaps as things are, but how they should be, again based on that subjective interpretation.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
I do think we are interacting with a human being, unfortunately one that apparently can not resolve or has not even considered the Frame Problem. Ok, so maybe he is just a turning machince.
No, I think a program would not make the silly spelling errors, and would spot the difference between 'hammer' and 'hummer' (I don't think he's yet spotted that, let alone worked out what 'hummer' means).
It looks silly only because we use string/word reasoning in our local only limited world. Doron only get's things through graphic representation so here it is:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
I did not claim that you stated that.
According to what you wrote (seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5832266&postcount=9504) I wrote:
Do you get the difference between my conclusion (you can say that it is wrong) about what you wrote, and your reaction to call me a liar?doronshadmi said:
Your aggressive attitude is unethical.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
EMM development is a way to do our best in order to avoid L as a resultof self made-destruction, which is derived from the ignorance of Complexity, exactly because the current understanding about Ethics is not developed beyond local understanding of that concept.The Man said:
Here you are speaking about a situation, which is beyond our abilities to change it, and under this condition we have to decide to choose between total elimination and partial survival. EEM's principles clearly choose the second option.
Politics is not one some external thing (non self-made Force-majeure) beyond our abilities to change it. Politics is definitely one of the areas that can be developed by EEM, exactly because it is one of our self-made mirrors of our civilization.The Man said:
The Man, your fundamental problem is that you do not distinguish between self-made conditions and non self-made conditions that are derived from conditions that are beyond our abilities to change them (non self-made Force-majeure). In this extreme situation EEM will choose to save as much as possible, in order to avoid the final value of L.
Again your naïve understanding of EEM is exposed.
Furthermore, your understanding of Politics as non self-made Force-majeure clearly demonstrates how misleading and dangerous is your notion's ability about this crucial and fine subject.
The "Car case" is an analogy. You have missed the analogy because of your naïve understanding of the considered subject. The non-analogy aspect is the needed activity (abstract or not) that has to be done in order to develop our understanding of Complexity, exactly because we are some of its actual manifestations.The Man said:
This is good enough for my conclusion about your claim:The Man said:
The Man said:
Again you attack me instead of answering the question, which is:The Man said:
What are your suggestions to reinforce the linkage between Ethics and Logics, in order to avoid, us much as possible self-made destruction.
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Wrong, as clearly shown by http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5818172&postcount=9446 .
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
The Man said:
They are independent simply because they are not sub-elements of each others.
Actually the accurate statement is "mutually independent of each other", where
Mutuality is:
D=Domain
(not belong AND not not belong to D)
And independency is:
(belongs XOR does not belong to D) OR (belongs AND does not belong to D)
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
By spaces linkage.
- Status