Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic, in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5912283&postcount=9752 you wrongly get 0.000…1/2 in terms of 2X=X, where X must be 0.

By doing that you are using a sum to get a sum.

But invariant proportion as defined in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5914283&postcount=9755 is based on X/2X ratio, where X is any value > 0, such that 0.000...X/2X is a fog.

If X=0 then the invariant proportion X/2X can't be defined upon infinitely many different scale levels (there is no self similarity over scales).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Since when direct perception is a very poor cartoon of reality?
Click to expand...

When a lingustic conceptual device is mistaken for a direct perception.


You have missed it. I say that quantity is the result of the linkage between opposite qualities.
Click to expand...

But your Organic Numbers, nevertheless, are both quantity and quality, some, depending on thre bridging, more qulitative or more quantitative.
If you are now saying they are all quantity in nature, and merely derived from qualiity, then your bridging method to produce them, gives us no more than the ordinary numbers traditional math already uses.

But please elaborate some more about quality and number.
I may have misunderstood you.
I would be delighted to find that I had.


I also claim that your little story of cutting fingers in order to be enlightened has nothing to do with compassion, so if this is your complex reality, I am not a participator of it.
Click to expand...

It's a traditional Zen Koan meant to shock the listener into into a different perspective.
It was never offered a model for behavior.
I'm glad you wouldn't participate in such a thing, as I wouldn't.

BTW I have David Lynch's Inland Empire.
This surrealistic film has some distubing scenes, also meant to alter the consciouness of the viewer.
I don't judge TM by Lynch's Films, or think that TM advocates the kind of dark and twisted stuff you get in them.
And because I understand his elaborate dramatic koan,
I think he does TM well with his films.
 
doronshadmi said:
Where 1 , -1 are the local aspect and + , = are the non-local aspect of this statement, so?
Click to expand...

To quote myself:
Precisely!
Click to expand...


If your contention is simply that the concept of quantity arises from qualitative mental processes, and that we inately know this to be the case,
I very much agree.

The special modes ("bridgings") of number you present as OMs expansion of number into a new "Magnitude" are confusing and misleading to me.
What the asperagus are these for?
 
Last edited:
Apathia, Bridging is the compassioned ability of two opposites to share each others ids in non-destructive ways, and develop this compassion by defining ever finer bridging among them.

Fogs are some trivial example of ever finer bridging.

Shocking the listener into a different perspective is a brutal technique, which is based on a violent confrontation between opposites, in order to direct the listener away from this violent act and choose the ever finer bridging, which is exactly the vivid progressive enlightenment.

In other words, Ethics is the way of both avoiding violent activities AND acting in ways that develop finer bridging between opposites, which are resulted by further complexity's expression.

In my opinion, this is also the core of the Mathematical Science, which uses contradictions in order to be developed beyond them and refine consistency.

For example: a proof by contradiction (where a contradiction is id A AND id not-A, and then we are losing A's id) direct us to understand how to develop the bridging between opposites in such a way the their ids will be reinforced and developed under ever finer bridging.

In the case of Non-locality\Locality Bridging, Standard Logics forces a single id, for example A, where not-A does not change the standard reasoning of dealing with one and only one id, called A.

By using that one-id reasoning A AND not-A is resulted by losing A's id, where losing A's id is called contradiction.

By OM, A AND not-A (or more generally A NXOR not-A) is the complement A's non-one-id reasoning (known as Non-locality) of A's one-id reasoning (A XOR not-A), where both non-one-id reasoning and one-id reasoning are derived from that has no id (where "that has not id"(the definition of X) is not the same as that has no id (X itself)).

The Man, for example gets only the A's one-id reasoning (Locality), and by this limited view he can't get the non-local complement, where that has no id (the atomic self-state) is understood by him in terms of one-id reasoning.

Because of this limited view, The Man can't get non-locality and not the source of thoughts, which is not a thought (or in this case: the source of all forms of ids, which is not an id).

Being a beginner's mind is the ability to use your current state of mind as a footstep of more developed state of mind ("It refers to having an attitude of openness, eagerness, and lack of preconceptions when studying a subject, even when studying at an advanced level, just as a beginner in that subject would" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginner's_mind).

A one-id reasoning is the "best" way to be stacked on some footstep because you have a one-id(leg) reasoning, and the notion of Limit of infinite added positive values is exactly being stacked on some footstep for the past 3,000 years.

Please do not igbore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5909248&postcount=9739.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
He already knows you have reading comprehension issues, doron.
Click to expand...

Skeptic said:
It's just that it's often convenient to speak of the "infinite sum" 1+1/2+1/4+... instead of being precise and saying what this colloquial term really means, namely, that it's the limit of the sequence {1, (1+1/2), (1+1/2+1/4),...}.
Click to expand...

So jsfisher now you have changed your song to 2 as the limit of {1, 1.1[base 2], 1.11[base 2], …} , where 1.111…[base 2] is out of your Limit game?

Will you make up your mind?
 
Last edited:
Doron said:
You have missed it. I say that quantity is the result of the linkage between opposite qualities.
Click to expand...

Doron could we please focus on this.
It seems to me that you may be correcting a long misunderstanding I've had about your Organic Numbers.
I've been thinking that you intended them to partake of both quantitative and qualitative natures, and that you wanted to have number expressing more than just how many, but expressing a quality of being.

Your statement above seems to be saying that I'm not getting where Quality and Value apply to Organic Numbers.
They are just quantities as number has always been.
Your point is that they are created by qualitative linkages.
Your desire is to exhibit from whence the concept of number arises.

Am I right that I misunderstood so acutely?

My original opinion back in your very first thread was that your work was about the roots and origin of the concept of number. This is a far less problematic approach than claiming numbers as qualitative expressions.

I think my error was that I thought you were saying that numbers in "parallel" are qualitative and numbers in "serial" are quantitative.
Actually, numbers are always just quantities, right?
The quality of it is in the bridging of qualities.

I kept asking you for an example of how numbers are used qualitatively.
It was a dumb question. I hope.
OM does not create a special quality and value kind of numbers. It just means to show that numbers are born from analogical and symbological thought.
So the use of it isn't some kind of ethical calculation but the awareness that mere quantity does not come first.

Help me, Doron. Make sure I understand how I was misunderstanding you.
Or make sure I understand I wasn't.
 
doronshadmi said:
So jsfisher now you have changed your song to 2 as the limit of {1, 1.1[base 2], 1.11[base 2], …} , where 1.111…[base 2] is out of your Limit game?
Click to expand...

What are you on about now? I have not altered any of my statements. If you are asking is 2 = 1.111... in base 2, the answer is, of course, "No." I am curious, though, if you can figure out why I'd say that.

Will you make up your mind?
Click to expand...

I have not been inconsistent in any of my statements, unlike you.
 
doronshadmi said:
Apathia, Bridging is the compassioned ability of two opposites to share each others ids in non-destructive ways, and develop this compassion by defining ever finer bridging among them.
Click to expand...


Doron “two opposites to share each others ids” just means that you have made your “ids” meaningless. There is hardly anything that could be considered “compassioned” or involving “compassion” in just you being meaningless with your “ids”


doronshadmi said:
Fogs are some trivial example of ever finer bridging.
Click to expand...

No it is just some nonsense you made up based on your misunderstanding and misapplication of certain symbols.

doronshadmi said:
Shocking the listener into a different perspective is a brutal technique, which is based on a violent confrontation between opposites, in order to direct the listener away from this violent act and choose the ever finer bridging, which is exactly the vivid progressive enlightenment.

In other words, Ethics is the way of both avoiding violent activities AND acting in ways that develop finer bridging between opposites, which are resulted by further complexity's expression.
Click to expand...

You mean those “Ethics” of yours that consider destroying the entire human race as both ethical and logical as long as the result is to “further complexity's expression”.


doronshadmi said:
In my opinion, this is also the core of the Mathematical Science, which uses contradictions in order to be developed beyond them and refine consistency.

For example: a proof by contradiction (where a contradiction is id A AND id not-A, and then we are losing A's id) direct us to understand how to develop the bridging between opposites in such a way the their ids will be reinforced and developed under ever finer bridging.
Click to expand...

Doron you’re the only one “losing A's id” as well as the “id” of its negation.

doronshadmi said:
In the case of Non-locality\Locality Bridging, Standard Logics forces a single id, for example A, where not-A does not change the standard reasoning of dealing with one and only one id, called A.
Click to expand...

You still don’t understand negation.

doronshadmi said:
By using that one-id reasoning A AND not-A is resulted by losing A's id, where losing A's id is called contradiction.
Click to expand...

No Doron, again you are the only one “losing A's id” (mostly because you never had it to begin with). Again a contradiction is a propositional statement that is always false regardless of the TRUE/FALSE values contained with in that statement.

doronshadmi said:
By OM, A AND not-A (or more generally A NXOR not-A) is the complement A's non-one-id reasoning (known as Non-locality) of A's one-id reasoning (A XOR not-A), where both non-one-id reasoning and one-id reasoning are derived from that has no id (where "that has not id"(the definition of X) is not the same as that has no id (X itself)).
Click to expand...

Again “AND” is not “generally” “NXOR” as FALSE AND FALSE is FALSE while FALSE NXOR FALSE is TRUE. A AND NOT A as well as A NXOR NOT A are both contradictions, as their result will always be FALSE. This is specifically due to NOT A being the negation of A. You still don’t understand negation.

doronshadmi said:
The Man, for example gets only the A's one-id reasoning (Locality), and by this limited view he can't get the non-local complement, where that has no id (the atomic self-state) is understood by him in terms of one-id reasoning.
Click to expand...

Wait, so you claim to have one “id” “A” and then claim to add some “non-local complement” “that has no id (the atomic self-state)”? Guess what you are still claiming that you have only one “id” “A”. The “limited view” is still entirely yours.

doronshadmi said:
Because of this limited view, The Man can't get non-locality and not the source of thoughts, which is not a thought (or in this case: the source of all forms of ids, which is not an id).
Click to expand...

Once again Doron your thinking on “the source of thoughts” are just you thoughts, much that you would apparently prefer they were not.


doronshadmi said:
Being a beginner's mind is the ability to use your current state of mind as a footstep of more developed state of mind ("It refers to having an attitude of openness, eagerness, and lack of preconceptions when studying a subject, even when studying at an advanced level, just as a beginner in that subject would" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginner's_mind).
Click to expand...

We are still waiting for you to actually show you have studied any subject Doron, instead of you just proclaiming you have some “non-local” “direct perception” of that subject.

doronshadmi said:
A one-id reasoning is the "best" way to be stacked on some footstep because you have a one-id(leg) reasoning, and the notion of Limit of infinite added positive values is exactly being stacked on some footstep for the past 3,000 years.

Please do not igbore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5909248&postcount=9739.
Click to expand...

Doron your OM has not helped you, you have been “stacked on some footstep” for decades and have accomplished absolutely nothing for all your wasted time and blustering.
 
Apathia said:
Doron said:


Doron could we please focus on this.
It seems to me that you may be correcting a long misunderstanding I've had about your Organic Numbers.
I've been thinking that you intended them to partake of both quantitative and qualitative natures, and that you wanted to have number expressing more than just how many, but expressing a quality of being.

Your statement above seems to be saying that I'm not getting where Quality and Value apply to Organic Numbers.
They are just quantities as number has always been.
Your point is that they are created by qualitative linkages.
Your desire is to exhibit from whence the concept of number arises.

Am I right that I misunderstood so acutely?

My original opinion back in your very first thread was that your work was about the roots and origin of the concept of number. This is a far less problematic approach than claiming numbers as qualitative expressions.

I think my error was that I thought you were saying that numbers in "parallel" are qualitative and numbers in "serial" are quantitative.
Actually, numbers are always just quantities, right?
The quality of it is in the bridging of qualities.

I kept asking you for an example of how numbers are used qualitatively.
It was a dumb question. I hope.
OM does not create a special quality and value kind of numbers. It just means to show that numbers are born from analogical and symbological thought.
So the use of it isn't some kind of ethical calculation but the awareness that mere quantity does not come first.

Help me, Doron. Make sure I understand how I was misunderstanding you.
Or make sure I understand I wasn't.
Click to expand...

You have got it if you understand also that a number is not a totally external (objective) thing, because it is a result of memory\object linkage (http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT pages 18-19, 31-35).
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
What are you on about now? I have not altered any of my statements. If you are asking is 2 = 1.111... in base 2, the answer is, of course, "No." I am curious, though, if you can figure out why I'd say that.
Click to expand...

You can say whatever you like.

It goes not change the fact that 1.111...[base 2] = 1+1/2+1/4+1/8... where bothe of them < 2 (if you think that "2" is not a symbol of base 2 ( which are "1" or "0"), then you are right, but unlike you I am not talking about symbols, but I am talking on the notion of the invariant proportion
that stands at the basis of 1.111...[base 2] = 1+1/2+1/4+1/8... < 2[base 10] by 0.000...1[base 2] = 0.000...1/2

You are the one that distinguished between {0.9, 0.99, 0.999, …} and 0.999… , and know you agree with Skeptic that used {1, (1+1/2), (1+1/2+1/4),...} in order to say something on the limit of 1+1/2+1/4…

But 1+1/2+1/4… is equivalent to 0.999… and {1, (1+1/2), (1+1/2+1/4),...} is equivalent to {0.9, 0.99, 0.999, …} so why do you support Skeptic?
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Wait, so you claim to have one “id” “A” and then claim to add some “non-local complement” “that has no id (the atomic self-state)”? Guess what you are still claiming that you have only one “id” “A”. The “limited view” is still entirely yours.
Click to expand...

Still missing it. By OM there are two aspects of reasoning, which are: a one-id reasoning (local reasoning) and non-one-id reasoning (non-local reasoning) that are able to complement each other exactly because they are derived from that has no id (the atomic self-state).

You, The Man have only a one-id reasoning (local reasoning) that is too weak in order to get mutual indepencency ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5909248&postcount=9739 ).

Say no more.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but 2 (base 10) = 10 (base 2) = 1.111111........ (base 2) = 1+1/2+1/4+......... = 2+0+0+..................

Why? Because both 1.11111111....... (base 2) and 1+1/2+1/4+........ are merely convenient notations that MEAN (in both cases) "the limit of the infinite sequence 1*1, 1*1+1*1/2, 1*1+1*1/2+1*1/4, 1*1+1*1/2+1*1/4+1*1/8, ....while 10.000000....... (base 2) and 2+0+0+0+...... are merely convenient notations that MEAN (in both cases) "the limit of the infinite sequence 1*2, 1*2+0*1, 1*2+0*1+0*1/2, 1*2+0*1+0*1/2+0*1/4, ...".

This is what "the representation of a number in base 2" means.

As it happens, since the limit of both these two sequences happens to be 2 (base 10, of course), it is the case that 2, like many (not all!) real numbers, has two representations in base 2. It's not hard to prove rigorously that every real number as at least one, and at most two, such representations.

sqr(2), for example, or the repeating fraction 1/7, or 0, have only one representation in base 2 -- there is only one infinite sequence of the relevant type whose limit is the real numbers 0, sqr(2), or 1/7.

It is quite possible, by the way, for a number to have only one representation in one base and two different ones in another base. For example, 1/7 has only one representation in base 10 (0.142857142857...) and two in base 7 (0.100000000..... and 0.0999999999........).

Why is this so complicated, I have no idea.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You can say whatever you like.
Click to expand...


I see that you have once again made baseless statements--in this case that I had taken conflicting positions regarding limits--then, when your lie is challenged, you dodge and weave.

None of this changes the fact you have, once again, lied for no reason whatsoever. Why do you do that? Are you a compulsive liar or just a foolish one?
 
doronshadmi said:
You have got it if you understand also that a number is not a totally external (objective) thing, because it is a result of memory\object linkage (http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT pages 18-19, 31-35).
Click to expand...

Thanks Doron. I'm delighted. (if not enlightened).

You have got it if you understand also that a number is not a totally external (objective) thing, because it is a result of memory\object linkage
Click to expand...

Yup! That's a part of what I've contended all along. Numbers have no inherent, ontological existence.
This includes traditional mathematical infinity as an infinite quantity.
It is a concept, not a metaphysical reality.

But of course you find it an unacceptable concept because you work from qualitative Infinity, where you point out that no quantity can have the quality of Infinity. Quantity is derived from Qualitative Infinity and Qualitative Finitude.

I'm glad that my first impression was the correct one.
I think I got lost when I was trying to understand your special modes of organic Number.
Now I can return to those and ask you their purpose or application (apart from just an exercise in Memory/Object Linkage).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Still missing it. By OM there are two aspects of reasoning, which are: a one-id reasoning (local reasoning) and non-one-id reasoning (non-local reasoning) that are able to complement each other exactly because they are derived from that has no id (the atomic self-state).
Click to expand...

No Doron there is quite clearly only one aspect to your “reasoning” and that is whatever self-contradictory nonsense you think you ‘directly perceive”. So you claim they are “derived from that has no id” and then give the “id” as “(the atomic self-state)”, your direct perception fails you again.



doronshadmi said:
You, The Man have only a one-id reasoning (local reasoning) that is too weak in order to get mutual indepencency ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5909248&postcount=9739 ).
Click to expand...

Doron I have already explained the meaning of mutual independence to you several times


doronshadmi said:
Say no more.
Click to expand...

You first.
 
Skeptic said:
Sorry, but 2 (base 10) = 10 (base 2) = 1.111111........ (base 2) = 1+1/2+1/4+......... = 2+0+0+..................

Why? Because both 1.11111111....... (base 2) and 1+1/2+1/4+........ are merely convenient notations that MEAN (in both cases) "the limit of the infinite sequence 1*1, 1*1+1*1/2, 1*1+1*1/2+1*1/4, 1*1+1*1/2+1*1/4+1*1/8, ....while 10.000000....... (base 2) and 2+0+0+0+...... are merely convenient notations that MEAN (in both cases) "the limit of the infinite sequence 1*2, 1*2+0*1, 1*2+0*1+0*1/2, 1*2+0*1+0*1/2+0*1/4, ...".

This is what "the representation of a number in base 2" means.

As it happens, since the limit of both these two sequences happens to be 2 (base 10, of course), it is the case that 2, like many (not all!) real numbers, has two representations in base 2. It's not hard to prove rigorously that every real number as at least one, and at most two, such representations.

sqr(2), for example, or the repeating fraction 1/7, or 0, have only one representation in base 2 -- there is only one infinite sequence of the relevant type whose limit is the real numbers 0, sqr(2), or 1/7.

It is quite possible, by the way, for a number to have only one representation in one base and two different ones in another base. For example, 1/7 has only one representation in base 10 (0.142857142857...) and two in base 7 (0.100000000..... and 0.0999999999........).

Why is this so complicated, I have no idea.
Click to expand...

It is not complicated for someone who understands Math. Doron does not understand Math and does not wish to either because:

1. He BELIEVES with all his heart that Math is wrong.
2. He knows deep in his heart that if he kept is mind open to actually learn math and tried to understand its concepts and language he would find that HE was wrong all along; the endless frustration from not accepting his ideas, the hopes he was carrying, countless humiliations, etc. he had to cope with through the years sending his message, would have been in vain.

He carries on because his ideas (however wrong or useless) have become an inseparable entity in his being. To part them would be like cutting off your own limbs.
 
sympathic said:
It is not complicated for someone who understands Math. Doron does not understand Math and does not wish to either because:

1. He BELIEVES with all his heart that Math is wrong.
2. He knows deep in his heart that if he kept is mind open to actually learn math and tried to understand its concepts and language he would find that HE was wrong all along; the endless frustration from not accepting his ideas, the hopes he was carrying, countless humiliations, etc. he had to cope with through the years sending his message, would have been in vain.

He carries on because his ideas (however wrong or useless) have become an inseparable entity in his being. To part them would be like cutting off your own limbs.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but 2 (base 10) = 10 (base 2) > 1.111111........ (base 2) = 1+1/2+1/4+.........

You BELIEVE with all of your heart that Standard Math is right, but you are wrong, because you do not understand the qualitative foundations of quantity.

Again you deal with my personality (very poorly, I must say) instead of dealing with the subject.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Doron I have already explained the meaning of mutual independence to you several times
Click to expand...
You have no idea what mutual independence is.

You have no idea what Non-locality is.

Yoy have no idea what atomic self-state is (that has no id, which is the source of any id's form).
 
doronshadmi said:
You have no idea what mutual independence is.

You have no idea what Non-locality is.

Yoy have no idea what atomic self-state is (that has no id, which is the source of any id's form).
Click to expand...


Neither do you.

You're just making this stuff up, and doing it very badly.
 
Skeptic said:
I see.

Crap, everybody in the world except Doron had been doing math wrong for the last 400 years!
Click to expand...

Indeed. And this comes from someone who claims we don't understand infinity. He sees himself as the Einstein of Math. What he does not realize is that Einstein is actually the Cantor of Physics...
 
Apathia said:
Thanks Doron. I'm delighted. (if not enlightened).



Yup! That's a part of what I've contended all along. Numbers have no inherent, ontological existence.
This includes traditional mathematical infinity as an infinite quantity.
It is a concept, not a metaphysical reality.

But of course you find it an unacceptable concept because you work from qualitative Infinity, where you point out that no quantity can have the quality of Infinity. Quantity is derived from Qualitative Infinity and Qualitative Finitude.

I'm glad that my first impression was the correct one.
I think I got lost when I was trying to understand your special modes of organic Number.
Now I can return to those and ask you their purpose or application (apart from just an exercise in Memory/Object Linkage).
Click to expand...

Please start from self responsibility as a fundamental term of any application that is derived from the mathematical science, which by OM is the science of Complexity's development.
 
The Man said:
This is specifically due to NOT A being the negation of A. You still don’t understand negation.
Click to expand...
You still do not understand that you are using a one-id reasoning, where A has simultaneously one and only one id, called True, False or whatever.

A non-one-id reasoning deals with the simultaneity of being more than a one id, which is a contradiction only if it is understood in terms of a one-id reasoning.

Both one-id and non-one-id reasonings are derived form that has no id, which is the "transparent" base ground that enables the full expression of any given "color", where a "color" can be a one-id reasoning or a non-one-id reasoning, in this case.

You may claim: one-id reasoning AND non-one-id reasoning, is a contradiction (always False in your language).

By doing that you are simply using a one-id reasoning in order to conclude something about
one-id reasoning AND non-one-id reasoning, and get a contradiction (always False in your language), which is a must have result of a one-id reasoning, where A has simultaneously one and only one id, called True, False or whatever.

By taking a one-id reasoning as the one and only one valid reasoning, you simply miss the non-one-id reasoning and the base ground of any reasoning that has no id.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Please start from self responsibility as a fundamental term of any application that is derived from the mathematical science, which by OM is the science of Complexity's development.
Click to expand...

I should have added that the way you express things is often strongly confusing.
Any mathematical application does not have self responsibility as a property of itself.
It's simply that your Organic Number generation by bridging between parallel and serial perspectives illustrates the active choice of whoever is doing the counting.
Three oranges may be just two oranges, because I might decide to exclude one from the count. And I'm involved in identifying them as each being oranges.

The point of it all is that Mathematics is an act of creativity.

More fundamentally it arises from the decisive act of contrasting and separating one space from another, and then bridging back and forth between them.

Or in another way its a shifting of perspectives.
You count the number of trees in the forest by shifting between a collective view of forest and an individual tree view.

Come to think of it this thing of contrasting and crossing the contrasts is the most basic component of counting.
 
Apathia said:
Any mathematical application does not have self responsibility as a property of itself.
Click to expand...
Again, the mathematical science is a tool and not a goal.

This tool has to be developed by using self responsibility of the user during real time mathematical activity, which is aware of the possible results of this activity on Simplicity\Complexity Linkage reinforcing.

Furthermore, by using ON's (http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT pages 18-19 and in particular pages 31-35) I provide a model that explains why Mathematics actually works in what is called, the real life.

This time please try to get the connection between pages 18-19 and pages 31-35.
 
Complexity said:
Neither do you.

You're just making this stuff up, and doing it very badly.
Click to expand...

- W. Somerset Maugham said:
It is a great nuisance that knowledge can only be acquired by hard work."
Click to expand...

Where is your detailed hard work that supports your statment? Or maybe it is a great nuisance for you?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Again, the mathematical science is a tool and not a goal.

This tool has to be developed by using self responsibility of the user during real time mathematical activity, which is aware of the possible results of this activity on Simplicity\Complexity Linkage reinforcing.

Furthermore, by using ON's (http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT pages 18-19 and in particular pages 31-35) I provide a model that explains why Mathematics actually works in what is called, the real life.

This time please try to get the connection between pages 18-19 and pages 31-35.
Click to expand...


I see you are again recycling the same junk mathematics that resulted in Moshe leaving these fora in disgrace. If you can't get things right on page 1, why should anyone look beyond that and expect to find anything less wrong on pages 18?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Again, the mathematical science is a tool and not a goal.

This tool has to be developed by using self responsibility of the user during real time mathematical activity, which is aware of the possible results of this activity on Simplicity\Complexity Linkage reinforcing.

Furthermore, by using ON's (http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT pages 18-19 and in particular pages 31-35) I provide a model that explains why Mathematics actually works in what is called, the real life.

This time please try to get the connection between pages 18-19 and pages 31-35.
Click to expand...

On no. The Cybernetic Kernals again!
Maybe in another year's time I'll figure out what they are and why you use them.
In the meantime, just trying to read that derails my train of thought on this subject, covers my mouth with duct tape, and condemns me to mixed metaphors.
 
jsfisher said:
I see you are again recycling the same junk mathematics that resulted in Moshe leaving these fora in disgrace. If you can't get things right on page 1, why should anyone look beyond that and expect to find anything less wrong on pages 18?
Click to expand...

Things are there right from page 1.

EDIT: Cybernetic Kernels are discussed in pages 18-19 and 31-35.
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
On no. The Cybernetic Kernals again!
Maybe in another year's time I'll figure out what they are and why you use them.
In the meantime, just trying to read that derails my train of thought on this subject, covers my mouth with duct tape, and condemns me to mixed metaphors.
Click to expand...
Try pages 31-35.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom