doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Deeper than primes
- Thread starter doronshadmi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- deeper than primes
- Status
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
You raised this nonsense before. It was demonstrated wrong then; it has the same degree of wrongness now. Even your then only ally, Moshe, admitted it was bogus.
I don't feel obligated to repeat the arguments presented and accepted back then just because you've cycled back in your errors. The search function is your friend.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
It only demonstrated that Moshe's formula and ON's representation were a partial case of ONs. Nothing was demonstrated as wrong about the notion of parallel/serial observation or (a) < (b) < (c).
ONs were generalized at http://www.scribd.com/doc/21967511/...considerations-of-Some-Mathematical-Paradigms but your one-id reasoning can't get it.
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
And yet again, your reading comprehension skills and ability to hold a thought beyond one post have abandoned you.
The subject at hand is that your recently reference spewage in PDF form has math errors beginning on page 1. These very same errors have been trotted out by you some time ago. The errors were discussed then and exposed for what they were. Yet, now, you again trot them out, still bearing the very same errors, and you see nothing wrong with them.
Your math, starting on page 1, is now and always has been in error. You can't even get your generator formula to work properly, and that bodes poorly for the rest of your spewage in PDF.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
The generator formula in page 1 of http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT deals with a partial case of ONs and the article explicitly says that. Actually you are the one that showed that my ONs representation was a partial case of ONs, yet you were unable to understand that this article is not based on how many ONs forms are represented but about the notion of parallel/serial observation and Distinction as an additional property to Cardinality and Ordinality.
Furthermore, Moshe's generator formula is nothing but the serial case of ONs, but you can't get that because your reasoning is limited to a one-id reasoning ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5927914&postcount=9791 ).
In other words, you have no meaningful thing to say about this subject, because all you get is its serial aspect by using only one-id reasoning.
EDIT:
Actually I decided to stop working with Moshe on OM's development because he was able to get it only by one-id reasoning, exactly because he learned Mathematics in the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and simply was unable to see things beyond one-id reasoning.
He truly did his best in order to find ways to communicate with other one-id reasoning's scholars in order to open their mind to OM in a step-by-step fusion.
But it simply can't be done, because form a one-id reasoning you can't get OM.
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
I showed more than that. I showed that your original presentation was completely bogus. Why have you returned to it?
Another error on your part. You have no basis to presume what I do and do not "understand" about basis you claim in your spewage. You may assume, as I have stated, that your spewage begins with serious mathematical errors. Since your document makes such a bad start, the credibility of anything that follows is severely disadvantaged.
Again, you presume to know what I do and to not understand, while completely missing the point. The generator function as published is junk. It has all the same errors you started with the first time you presented.
Most of us here know you don't seem to get anything right. Buy could you at least make things less wrong when corrections are handed to you?
It is more the case that you keep changing the subject because your lack of focus and comprehension denies you basic abilities needed to maintain a dialogue.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
You showed that it is a partial case on ON's, that's all.
It was a minor error that has no impact on the main subject of that article, which deals with more than one-id reasoning.
You completely miss the fact that this function generator is a partial case under one-id reasoning, and therefore has no meaningful impact on that article.
Moshe has another generator that defines the amount of ONs that is based on your correction, but again, this is nothing but a minor subject of this article, that, again, has a minor impact on that article. You can't change the fact that you get this article only from a one-id reasoning, which is nothing but a particular case of it that was corrected by Moshe. I'll ask Moshe to give his new version of the formula, but again, it is nothing but a minor case of this article, which is a fact that you can't get because of your inability to get things that are not based on one-id reasoning.
It is exactly the case that you get things only by one-id reasoning, and as a result can't get that article.
Again, Moshe truly did his best in order to find ways to communicate with other one-id reasoning's scholars in order to open their mind to OM in a step-by-step fusion.
But it simply can't be done, because form a one-id reasoning you can't get OM and you jsfisher unable to see things beyond one-id reasoning, exactly as Moshe can't.
The limitation of one-id reasoning is shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5927914&postcount=9791.
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Your recollection is way faulty. It was only after you fixed come of the mistakes that were pointed out to you that we could get to the observation that "organic numbers" were nothing like you and Moshe claimed them to be.
You have restored all the original mistakes and started over.
There are several outright blunders.
No, you continue to completely miss the fact your generator is complete rubbish and doesn't work at all. At one point in the past it was less blunderous, to coin a word, but I see you have restored it all to its original ridiculous self.
You continue to evade the point. Your math is erroneous. Not just bothered by a minor defect, but thunderously wrong. That makes it a major subject of the article. Doron gets what should have been some simple formulations completely wrong on page 1. Oh, look, it continues onto page 2.
If you start so very, very wrong, why should anyone read any further?
You keep assuming things that aren't true. Do you do this for any reason other than evasion?
You are right. That are more than enough blunders elsewhere in the paper. Why spend any time fixing page 1.
So you continue to assume, but without any evidence, just your bare assertions...and we already know you do tend to lie a lot.
Your mistakes, on the other hand, are well documented.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
No Doron again it is a contradiction because one “id” you gave “A” contradicts the other “id” you gave “NOT A”. Two “id”s and still a contradiction simply because those two “id”s are, well, contradictory.
Your “direct perception” has failed you again as the contradiction specifically results from more than one “id”.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Let us try to change the attitude of this discussion.
Jsfisher, The Man, ddt and Skeptic I need your help in order to define the general formula which returns the number of the elements of the following mathematical structure:
First, some definitions:
x is an element.
Definition 1: Identity is a property of x, which allows its recognition.
Definition 2: Copy is a duplication of a single identity.
Definition 3: If x has more than one single identity, then x is called Uncertain.
Definition 4: If x has more than one single copy, then x is called Redundant.
k = 0 to n, where n is a natural number.
----------------------------------------------
The considered mathematical structure is k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, where its Y-axis is used in order to measure the Uncertainty of its elements, and its X-axis is used in order to measure the Redundancy of its elements.
For example, the 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy tree is:
Any appearance of that tree is called Distinction State (DS), where any DS is under a structure called Frame (F), for example: (AB,B) is a DS that is under (2,1) F.
The order in each DS or F has no significance (similar to {a,b}={b,a}) but any DS is the basis of any possible order (similar to the concept of Set as being the basis of permutations).
Here are the detailed examples of k=0 to 3:
Maybe I have missed something in 3x3 , so a general formula of k=0 to n (where n is some natural number) actually points out that more cases must be defined in a given k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree.
Jsfisher, The Man, ddt and Skeptic I need your help in order to define the general formula which returns the number of the elements of the following mathematical structure:
First, some definitions:
x is an element.
Definition 1: Identity is a property of x, which allows its recognition.
Definition 2: Copy is a duplication of a single identity.
Definition 3: If x has more than one single identity, then x is called Uncertain.
Definition 4: If x has more than one single copy, then x is called Redundant.
k = 0 to n, where n is a natural number.
----------------------------------------------
The considered mathematical structure is k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, where its Y-axis is used in order to measure the Uncertainty of its elements, and its X-axis is used in order to measure the Redundancy of its elements.
For example, the 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy tree is:
Code:
2x2
(AB,AB) (AB,A) (AB,B) (AB) (A,A) (B,B) (A,B) (A) (B) ()
A * * A * * A * . A * . A * * A . . A * . A * . A . . A . .
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
B *_* B *_. B *_* B *_. B ._. B *_* B ._* B ._. B *_. B ._.
(2,2) = (AB,AB)
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)
(2,0) = (AB)
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)
(1,0) = (A),(B)
(0,0) = ()Any appearance of that tree is called Distinction State (DS), where any DS is under a structure called Frame (F), for example: (AB,B) is a DS that is under (2,1) F.
The order in each DS or F has no significance (similar to {a,b}={b,a}) but any DS is the basis of any possible order (similar to the concept of Set as being the basis of permutations).
Here are the detailed examples of k=0 to 3:
Code:
0x0
(0)=()
1x1
A * .
(1) = (A)
(0) = ()
2X2
(AB,AB) (AB,A) (AB,B) (AB) (A,A) (B,B) (A,B) (A) (B) ()
A * * A * * A * . A * . A * * A . . A * . A * . A . . A . .
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
B *_* B *_. B *_* B *_. B ._. B *_* B ._* B ._. B *_. B ._.
(2,2) = (AB,AB)
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)
(2,0) = (AB)
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)
(1,0) = (A),(B)
(0,0) = ()
3X3
A . . .
| | |
B . . .
| | |
C ._._.
(3,3,3) = (ABC,ABC,ABC)
(3,3,2) = (ABC,ABC,AB),(ABC,ABC,AC),(ABC,ABC,BC)
(3,3,1) = (ABC,ABC,A),(ABC,ABC,B),(ABC,ABC,C)
(3,3,0) = (ABC,ABC)
(3,2,2) =
(ABC,AB,AB),(ABC,AB,AC),(ABC,AB,BC)
(ABC,AC,AC),(ABC,BC,BC)
(3,2,1) =
(ABC,AB,A),(ABC,AB,B),(ABC,AB,C)
(ABC,AC,A),(ABC,AC,B),(ABC,AC,C)
(ABC,BC,A),(ABC,BC,B),(ABC,BC,C)
(3,2,0) = (ABC,AB),(ABC,AC),(ABC,BC)
(2,2,2) =
(AB,AB,AB),(AB,AC,AB),(AB,BC,AB)
(AC,AC,AC),(AC,AB,AC),(AC,BC,AC)
(BC,BC,BC),(BC,AB,BC),(BC,AC,BC)
(2,2,1) =
(AB,AB,A),(AB,AB,B),(AB,AB,C)
(AB,AC,A),(AB,AC,B),(AB,AC,C)
(AB,BC,A),(AB,BC,B),(AB,BC,C)
(2,2,0) = (AB,AB),(AB,AC),(BC,BC)
(1,1,3) =
(A,A,ABC),(B,B,ABC),(A,B,ABC)
(A,C,ABC),(B,C,ABC)
(3,1,0) = (ABC,A),(ABC,B),(ABC,C)
(3,0,0) = (ABC)
(1,1,2) =
(A,A,AB),(A,A,AC),(A,A,BC)
(B,B,AB),(B,B,AC),(B,B,BC)
(A,B,AB),(A,B,AC),(A,B,BC)
(A,C,AB),(A,C,AC),(A,C,BC)
(B,C,AB),(B,C,AC),(B,C,BC)
(2,1,0) = (AB,A),(AB,B),(AB,C),(AC,A),(AC,B),(AC,C),(BC,A),(BC,B),(BC,C)
(2,0,0) = (AB),(AC),(BC)
(1,1,1) =
(A,A,A),(B,B,B),(C,C,C)
(A,A,B),(A,A,C),(B,B,A)
(B,B,C),(C,C,A),(C,C,B),(A,B,C)
(1,1,0) = (A,A),(B,B),(C,C),(A,B),(A,C),(C,B)
(1,0,0) = (A),(B),(C)
(0,0,0) = ()Maybe I have missed something in 3x3 , so a general formula of k=0 to n (where n is some natural number) actually points out that more cases must be defined in a given k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree.
Last edited:
Good place to start for me, because I have some dumb questions.
(I'll let the mathematicians answer if the above can be numerically represented without losing the "parallel" meanings to the "serial." As happened in the M.K. debacle.)
Looking at my desk now I see it has a number of distinct and unique items upon it. None are "copies" of others. All have singular individual identities and are singular elements of some class of objects.
A partial list:
1. Computer monitor (soon to be replaced by a flat screen thanks to a salery raise!)
2. Computer keyboard
3. My reading glasses
4. Mouse
5. Mouse pad
6. Pen
7. Lamp
8. a decorative sphere of malachite
9. Pill bottle of ibuprophen tablets
10. Key chain black cat (press the button and its eyes light up and it says "meow."
11. Whole toenail from left big toe. (One of those weird things that happens with aging)
12. Address book
But look, in the process of listing them I've done a count.
12 items.
Of course I could have gone on to list the paper clip, eraser, and so on.
But I did do a collection of twelve items.
What's this in regard to the "Copy"/"Identity" matrix, since none are copies?
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Let’s try to be more clear about your definitions first and their applications.
x=A is different “Identity” than x=B, correct?
Would x=AB be a different “Identity” than x=A or x=B? Would it be a union of those two 'identities'?
Would x=AA be different than x=A?
Again a variable can take on multiple values where x1 might be A and x2 might be B. The set X1 of those two values for x would be (A,B) not (AB). If x3 might be AA and x4 might be AB then the set X2 of those four values for x (x1,x2,x3,x4) would be (A,B,AA,AB).
x=AA would be a “duplication of a single identity”, but your examples seem to indicate that what you are referring to is x=A thus (x,x) meaning (A,A) is “duplication of a single identity”. So your “duplication of a single identity” refers only to duplication within the set and not duplication within the element, correct?
Also this goes back to your “Definition 1” if x=AB is a different “id” then x=A or x=B thus (AB,A,B) would have no “duplication of a single identity”. If your are considering duplication within and between the elements then x=AA would have duplication as would (AA,A) and (AB,A,B)
Again a variable represents “more than one single identity” with one identity, “x” in this case. It is by that very ascription “Uncertain” to, well, variable degrees. For the set of all values or ‘single identities’ of x as set X1 as (A,B) given before the maximum value of “n” in Xn might be considered a measure of its 'uncertainty'. Making the set of all values or ‘single identities’ of x in set X2 as (A,B,AA,AB) (also given before) twice as ‘uncertain’ as just (A,B) set X1 . If one were to assert that Q represents set X1 as (A,B) and W represents X3 as (AA,AB) with QW representing the union of those two sets, X2 as (A,B,AA,AB), then W would be as ‘uncertain’ as Q and QW would be twice as ‘uncertain’ as Q or W, again by the maximum “n” value in xn.
Your “Definition 1:” and “Definition 2:” are for too vague as indicated above to determine any specific ‘Redundancy’.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Excellent questions, let us improve it.
EDIT:
----------------------------------------------
x is an element.
Definition 1: Identity is a property of x, which allows its recognition.
For example x=A , x=B
Definition 2: If x has more than a single identity, then x is called Uncertain.
For example x=AB
Definition 3: Redundancy is a duplication of single or uncertain identities, in a given collection.
For example (A,A) , (B,B) , (AB,AB)
k = 0 to n, where n is a natural number.
----------------------------------------------
The considered mathematical structure is k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, where its Y-axis (a given branch of the given tree) is used in order to measure the Uncertainty of its elements, and its X-axis (of the given tree) is used in order to measure the Redundancy of its elements.
Please look at the structure of 2-Unertanty x 2-Reduncancy tree:
Code:
2X2
(AB,AB) (AB,A) (AB,B) (AB) (A,A) (B,B) (A,B) (A) (B) ()
A * * A * * A * . A * . A * * A . . A * . A * . A . . A . .
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
B *_* B *_. B *_* B *_. B ._. B *_* B ._* B ._. B *_. B ._.
(2,2) = (AB,AB)
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)
(2,0) = (AB)
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)
(1,0) = (A),(B)
(0,0) = ()As you see Uncertainty is at the level of the element (a given branch of the given tree), where Redundancy is at the level of the collection (the given tree).
Any appearance of that tree is called Distinction State (DS), where any DS is under a structure called Frame (F), for example: (AB,B) is a DS that is under (2,1) F.
The order in each DS or F has no significance (similar to {a,b}={b,a}) but any DS is the basis of any possible order (similar to the concept of Set as being the basis of permutations).
Here are the detailed examples of k=0 to 3:
Code:
0x0
(0)=()
1x1
A * .
(1) = (A)
(0) = ()
2X2
(AB,AB) (AB,A) (AB,B) (AB) (A,A) (B,B) (A,B) (A) (B) ()
A * * A * * A * . A * . A * * A . . A * . A * . A . . A . .
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
B *_* B *_. B *_* B *_. B ._. B *_* B ._* B ._. B *_. B ._.
(2,2) = (AB,AB)
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)
(2,0) = (AB)
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)
(1,0) = (A),(B)
(0,0) = ()
3X3
A . . .
| | |
B . . .
| | |
C ._._.
(3,3,3) = (ABC,ABC,ABC)
(3,3,2) = (ABC,ABC,AB),(ABC,ABC,AC),(ABC,ABC,BC)
(3,3,1) = (ABC,ABC,A),(ABC,ABC,B),(ABC,ABC,C)
(3,3,0) = (ABC,ABC)
(3,2,2) =
(ABC,AB,AB),(ABC,AB,AC),(ABC,AB,BC)
(ABC,AC,AC),(ABC,BC,BC)
(3,2,1) =
(ABC,AB,A),(ABC,AB,B),(ABC,AB,C)
(ABC,AC,A),(ABC,AC,B),(ABC,AC,C)
(ABC,BC,A),(ABC,BC,B),(ABC,BC,C)
(3,2,0) = (ABC,AB),(ABC,AC),(ABC,BC)
(2,2,2) =
(AB,AB,AB),(AB,AC,AB),(AB,BC,AB)
(AC,AC,AC),(AC,AB,AC),(AC,BC,AC)
(BC,BC,BC),(BC,AB,BC),(BC,AC,BC)
(2,2,1) =
(AB,AB,A),(AB,AB,B),(AB,AB,C)
(AB,AC,A),(AB,AC,B),(AB,AC,C)
(AB,BC,A),(AB,BC,B),(AB,BC,C)
(2,2,0) = (AB,AB),(AB,AC),(BC,BC)
(1,1,3) =
(A,A,ABC),(B,B,ABC),(A,B,ABC)
(A,C,ABC),(B,C,ABC)
(3,1,0) = (ABC,A),(ABC,B),(ABC,C)
(3,0,0) = (ABC)
(1,1,2) =
(A,A,AB),(A,A,AC),(A,A,BC)
(B,B,AB),(B,B,AC),(B,B,BC)
(A,B,AB),(A,B,AC),(A,B,BC)
(A,C,AB),(A,C,AC),(A,C,BC)
(B,C,AB),(B,C,AC),(B,C,BC)
(2,1,0) = (AB,A),(AB,B),(AB,C),(AC,A),(AC,B),(AC,C),(BC,A),(BC,B),(BC,C)
(2,0,0) = (AB),(AC),(BC)
(1,1,1) =
(A,A,A),(B,B,B),(C,C,C)
(A,A,B),(A,A,C),(B,B,A)
(B,B,C),(C,C,A),(C,C,B),(A,B,C)
(1,1,0) = (A,A),(B,B),(C,C),(A,B),(A,C),(C,B)
(1,0,0) = (A),(B),(C)
(0,0,0) = ()Maybe I have missed something in 3x3 , so a general formula of k=0 to n (where n is some natural number) actually points out that more cases must be defined in a given k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree.
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
In what way is the term, property, different from your invented term, identity? The "which allows its recognition" is superfluous. Are you just continuing a practice of new terms for old without adding any new content?
What are you trying to accomplish with this definition? Cardinality, for example, is a property of any set. Given two sets, both of which must have a cardinality property. Is one of them a copy of the other?
What are you trying to accomplish with this definition. Everything has more than one property. How is the set {1,3} "uncertain" just because it has both cardinality and members?
I think you are focused more on creating names than meaning.
Doron,
I hope I've got it clear now that a quantity arises from the linkage of Locality and Non-Locality, or in the current context: the bridging of "Uncertainty" and "Redundancy."
Items in "Parallel" are not yet counted in quantity. With bridging there is "Seriality" and a quantity.
What are numbers that aren't quantities?
I see in your required reading that somtimes you describe serial quantities as "cardinal," while the numbers in the merely Local, or "parallel" sense are called "ordinal."
But then you make the point that "order doesn't matter."
This, of course, smashes the definition of ordinality to pieces. Not that that bothers you any, but it smashes communication with others as well.
Especially mathematicians.
(I don't mind so much, because I failed Calculus and retreated to the Humanities and literature where ambiguity is welcome.)
But as I've suggested before, I think you mean number in the Nominal sense.
I'll give an old example again:
Secundus and Tertius.
These are Roman male names. They usually signified order of birth. (Ordinality, you see.)
But they are also names of individuals. And as names, you can line of Tertius and Sucundus in any order you please and they are still "parallel."
Nevertheless, whether you use the term "ordinal' or the term "nominal," something always gets lost in your translation to mathematical notation.
Those "( )" "[ ]" or "{ }" fail to distinguish the sense (cardinal, ordinal , or nominal) a number is in.
Any forumula that couldn't somehow indicate shifts and transformations between and to the different senses of number, would naturally be misunderstood by any mathematician.
You saw that happen with Moshe's contribution.
All numbers seen in the presentation were taken as serial quantities.
Mathmatical forumlas (as far as I know) all deal with quantities and cardinality (as math defines it).
Have you a formulary that can make clear the different senses of number in the recipe?
Or is this simple to show that full quanity may not always be clear?
or that 3rd + 2nd = 2?
I hope I've got it clear now that a quantity arises from the linkage of Locality and Non-Locality, or in the current context: the bridging of "Uncertainty" and "Redundancy."
Items in "Parallel" are not yet counted in quantity. With bridging there is "Seriality" and a quantity.
What are numbers that aren't quantities?
I see in your required reading that somtimes you describe serial quantities as "cardinal," while the numbers in the merely Local, or "parallel" sense are called "ordinal."
But then you make the point that "order doesn't matter."
This, of course, smashes the definition of ordinality to pieces. Not that that bothers you any, but it smashes communication with others as well.
Especially mathematicians.
(I don't mind so much, because I failed Calculus and retreated to the Humanities and literature where ambiguity is welcome.)
But as I've suggested before, I think you mean number in the Nominal sense.
I'll give an old example again:
Secundus and Tertius.
These are Roman male names. They usually signified order of birth. (Ordinality, you see.)
But they are also names of individuals. And as names, you can line of Tertius and Sucundus in any order you please and they are still "parallel."
Nevertheless, whether you use the term "ordinal' or the term "nominal," something always gets lost in your translation to mathematical notation.
Those "( )" "[ ]" or "{ }" fail to distinguish the sense (cardinal, ordinal , or nominal) a number is in.
Any forumula that couldn't somehow indicate shifts and transformations between and to the different senses of number, would naturally be misunderstood by any mathematician.
You saw that happen with Moshe's contribution.
All numbers seen in the presentation were taken as serial quantities.
Mathmatical forumlas (as far as I know) all deal with quantities and cardinality (as math defines it).
Have you a formulary that can make clear the different senses of number in the recipe?
Or is this simple to show that full quanity may not always be clear?
or that 3rd + 2nd = 2?
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Items in "Parallel" have cardinality is we deal with finite size, but the identity of each element is uncertain.Apathia said:
Not at all. {a,b}={b,a} and it is accepted by mathematicians.Apathia said:
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
The considered mathematical structure is k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, where its Y-axis (a given branch of the given tree) is used in order to measure the Uncertainty of its elements, and its X-axis (of the given tree) is used in order to measure the Redundancy of its elements.
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
...which doesn't answer any of my questions. How about you just address them directly, point by point.
I am completely lost again.
So, actually items in "Parallel" are counted in quantity, but serial bridging emliminates quantity?
Bridging does not collect, but eliminates?
Parallel items, apart from bridging and linkage have no identity, or uncertain identity.
But bridging gives them identity by a process of elimination?
Ok, maybe this:
Items in "Parallel" can be counted under the generality of items, but they don't have an identity under which the could be counted as members of a common class.
Last edited:
I asked:
"In a formula"
So you draw the Redundancy/Uncertainty Matrix and try to figure if that number is a cardinal or an ordinal on it?
Why does this always evaporate into nothing?
If numbers in "Parallel," prior to collection, prior to any seriality, prior to a common identity to gather them into a countable set, are quantites,
The matrix loses any meaning.
There's a puff of smoke, and when it clears, there's nothing there at all.
"In a formula"
So you draw the Redundancy/Uncertainty Matrix and try to figure if that number is a cardinal or an ordinal on it?
Why does this always evaporate into nothing?
If numbers in "Parallel," prior to collection, prior to any seriality, prior to a common identity to gather them into a countable set, are quantites,
The matrix loses any meaning.
There's a puff of smoke, and when it clears, there's nothing there at all.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Thanks, but how about just answering the questions directly.
Again
AB would be a “single identity” unless both AB represents a collection of “identities” or as asked before a union of two collections of “identities” represented by A and B respectively.
This would seem to be indicating that AB is a different “identity” than A or B thus (AB,A,B) would have no redundancy.
And seems to be supported by this assertion…
x=A or x=B would be ‘certain’ while x=AB would be ‘uncertain’ by your ascriptions thus as ‘certainty’ would be a different ‘property’ from ‘uncertainty’ those “id”s, would be different.
No need to simply keep repeating your previous posts or variations on it until we establish the meanings and application of your definitions. Actually answering the questions ask directly would be a start.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
No, serial bridging has simply 1-Uncertainy x 1-Redundancy of any n-Uncertainy x n-Redundancy, where n = 2 to ∞
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
The Man said:
(AB,A,B) is a DS under F (2,1,1) of 3-Uncertainy x 3-Redundancy tree:
Code:
(1,1,2) =
(A,A,AB),(A,A,AC),(A,A,BC)
(B,B,AB),(B,B,AC),(B,B,BC)
(A,B,AB),(A,B,AC),(A,B,BC)
(A,C,AB),(A,C,AC),(A,C,BC)
(B,C,AB),(B,C,AC),(B,C,BC)k = 0 to n, where n is some natural number.
Again, the considered mathematical structure is k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, where its Y-axis (a given branch of the given tree) is used in order to measure the Uncertainty of its elements, and its X-axis (of the given tree) is used in order to measure the Redundancy of its elements.
It does not mean that X-axis or Y-axis of a given k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree must have Uncertainty or Redundancy > 1
For example, please see DS of F (1,1,1) under 3-Uncertainy x 3-Redundancy tree:
Code:
(1,1,1) =
(A,A,A),(B,B,B),(C,C,C)
(A,A,B),(A,A,C),(B,B,A)
(B,B,C),(C,C,A),(C,C,B)
(A,B,C)
A * * * A . . . A . . .
| | | | | | | | |
B . . . B * * * B . . .
| | | | | | | | |
C ._._. C ._._. C *_*_*
A * * . A * * . A . . *
| | | | | | | | |
B . . * B . . . B * * .
| | | | | | | | |
C ._._. C ._._* C ._._.
A . . . A . . * A . . .
| | | | | | | | |
B * * . B . . . B . . *
| | | | | | | | |
C ._._* C *_*_. C *_*_.
A * . .
| | |
B . * .
| | |
C ._._*
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
So, in addition to avoiding even the simplest of questions, doron is dyslexic? By the way, (C,C,AC) sends hugs and kisses and apologizes for missing this great unveiling.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Again
Again
Again
If you can not directly answer some simple and direct questions about your “definitions” without simply referring to your subsequent nonsense then we must conclude that your “definitions” are in fact meaningless and only serve as a contrivance on your part for you to simply tout that subsequent nonsense.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
(C,C,AB) and (C,C,BC) would have also sent their regards, but were too uncertain and felt it would be redundant.
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
I know. This, by the way, is more or less a repeat of a tangent doron flew off on about a year ago. The tangent ended poorly for Moshe.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Again,
(AB,A,B) is a DS under F (2,1,1) of 3-Uncertainy x 3-Redundancy tree ( (C,C,AB),(C,C,AC),(C,C,BC) where added, thanks):
k = 0 to n, where n is some natural number.
Again, the considered mathematical structure is k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, where its Y-axis (a given branch of the given tree) is used in order to measure the Uncertainty of its elements, and its X-axis (of the given tree) is used in order to measure the Redundancy of its elements.
It does not mean that X-axis or Y-axis of a given k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree must have Uncertainty or Redundancy > 1
For example, please see DS of F (1,1,1) under 3-Uncertainy x 3-Redundancy tree:
(AB,A,B) is a DS under F (2,1,1) of 3-Uncertainy x 3-Redundancy tree ( (C,C,AB),(C,C,AC),(C,C,BC) where added, thanks):
Code:
(1,1,2) =
(A,A,AB),(A,A,AC),(A,A,BC)
(B,B,AB),(B,B,AC),(B,B,BC)
(C,C,AB),(C,C,AC),(C,C,BC)
(A,B,AB),(A,B,AC),(A,B,BC)
(A,C,AB),(A,C,AC),(A,C,BC)
(B,C,AB),(B,C,AC),(B,C,BC)k = 0 to n, where n is some natural number.
Again, the considered mathematical structure is k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, where its Y-axis (a given branch of the given tree) is used in order to measure the Uncertainty of its elements, and its X-axis (of the given tree) is used in order to measure the Redundancy of its elements.
It does not mean that X-axis or Y-axis of a given k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree must have Uncertainty or Redundancy > 1
For example, please see DS of F (1,1,1) under 3-Uncertainy x 3-Redundancy tree:
Code:
(1,1,1) =
(A,A,A),(B,B,B),(C,C,C)
(A,A,B),(A,A,C),(B,B,A)
(B,B,C),(C,C,A),(C,C,B)
(A,B,C)
A * * * A . . . A . . .
| | | | | | | | |
B . . . B * * * B . . .
| | | | | | | | |
C ._._. C ._._. C *_*_*
A * * . A * * . A . . *
| | | | | | | | |
B . . * B . . . B * * .
| | | | | | | | |
C ._._. C ._._* C ._._.
A . . . A . . * A . . .
| | | | | | | | |
B * * . B . . . B . . *
| | | | | | | | |
C ._._* C *_*_. C *_*_.
A * . .
| | |
B . * .
| | |
C ._._*
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
k = 0 to n, where n is some natural number.
You are missing the point here, the main principle here is the k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, which first needs a general formula to know how many DS there are under a given k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree.
The next stage is to find some algorithm that defines the structure of each DS of some k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, where the general quantitative formula is some part of that algorithm.
I explicitly wrote in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5932683&postcount=9814 this:
doronshadmi said:
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
This is a non sequitur.
No, not really. The Man and I would like you to actually read, comprehend, then respond to our posts, though. Your concerns cannot be addressed until you first clear up the ambiguity and lack of meaning in your definitions.
Can we start there, please?
"Element Level"
Collection Level"
It's certainly important to be able to distinguish these levels, isn't it?
Or there's just no point in Organic Numbers as a new mathematics.
So, I've got my three copper pennies.
Let's just assume I've already done the Memory/Object Linkage and the Local/Non-Local Linkage.
I'm concerned with Redundancy/Uncertainty, Element/Collection, and Element/Relation here.
Now I'm saying three pennies, because though they set on my desk in "Parallel" as unique items without a clear class identity to identify them as of a common class that I can count three elements of ...
Well, we've already said they have the quantity three.
Three on the element level, but not three on the collection level, because they have not been collected into three pennies with a redundant identity.
Stop!
We've already done the deed.
Speaking of the quantity three, it is already assumed we have identified all of them as pennies, so collecting them into the same class with a redundant ID of Penny and an amount of 3.
Quantity (how many) always assumes a collection.
The redundancy may be no more than object,
but count the objects and you have collected.
an "element" may be a unique item. but talk of one element and it's a collection of one.
So then why the asparagus introduce the act of collection after you have already claimed the results of collecting?
You speak of the element level as if it were a special, unrecognized state.
But then give elements quantity.
Not just ordinality. You claim quantity foo elements in the element level.
So it's an empty distinction.
Or are you trying to say that collection pertains to a special act of collection in addition to the background one.
So there are three oranges in the bowl on the kitchen table.
This is the collection level.
But on the element level, there are the oranges outside the bowl:
all the oranges in Orange County.
But do I need some special matrix to tell me the difference between what's in the bowl and what's in countless orchards in California?
(Never mind Florida and Valencia.)
What we normally do is specify the common class or location of the quantity.
Sure we can trivially say there are three oranges in the bowl and two on the table.
But these are both simple quantities that as quantities are all on the same level of quantity.
We don't have to keep an account of everywhere and everywhat and all the different groupings that may be going on.
We just specify what items of what collection we are counting.
Why do you have to make of this some special twist of mind that you think requires "hidden assumptions" and a new kind of "magnitude?"
Or a distinction between an Element Quantity and a Collection Quantity.
There's no real distinction.
Is there a problem here with manipulating classes and specifying sets?
That seems to fit not allowing a set to be complete because one has to tally up every possible thing that isn't as member of it,
but is
in the ambiguity of uncertainty.
I say, ambiguity is great in poetry,
but I don't want it in my bank account.
Collection Level"
It's certainly important to be able to distinguish these levels, isn't it?
Or there's just no point in Organic Numbers as a new mathematics.
So, I've got my three copper pennies.
Let's just assume I've already done the Memory/Object Linkage and the Local/Non-Local Linkage.
I'm concerned with Redundancy/Uncertainty, Element/Collection, and Element/Relation here.
Now I'm saying three pennies, because though they set on my desk in "Parallel" as unique items without a clear class identity to identify them as of a common class that I can count three elements of ...
Well, we've already said they have the quantity three.
Three on the element level, but not three on the collection level, because they have not been collected into three pennies with a redundant identity.
Stop!
We've already done the deed.
Speaking of the quantity three, it is already assumed we have identified all of them as pennies, so collecting them into the same class with a redundant ID of Penny and an amount of 3.
Quantity (how many) always assumes a collection.
The redundancy may be no more than object,
but count the objects and you have collected.
an "element" may be a unique item. but talk of one element and it's a collection of one.
So then why the asparagus introduce the act of collection after you have already claimed the results of collecting?
You speak of the element level as if it were a special, unrecognized state.
But then give elements quantity.
Not just ordinality. You claim quantity foo elements in the element level.
So it's an empty distinction.
Or are you trying to say that collection pertains to a special act of collection in addition to the background one.
So there are three oranges in the bowl on the kitchen table.
This is the collection level.
But on the element level, there are the oranges outside the bowl:
all the oranges in Orange County.
But do I need some special matrix to tell me the difference between what's in the bowl and what's in countless orchards in California?
(Never mind Florida and Valencia.)
What we normally do is specify the common class or location of the quantity.
Sure we can trivially say there are three oranges in the bowl and two on the table.
But these are both simple quantities that as quantities are all on the same level of quantity.
We don't have to keep an account of everywhere and everywhat and all the different groupings that may be going on.
We just specify what items of what collection we are counting.
Why do you have to make of this some special twist of mind that you think requires "hidden assumptions" and a new kind of "magnitude?"
Or a distinction between an Element Quantity and a Collection Quantity.
There's no real distinction.
Is there a problem here with manipulating classes and specifying sets?
That seems to fit not allowing a set to be complete because one has to tally up every possible thing that isn't as member of it,
but is
in the ambiguity of uncertainty.
I say, ambiguity is great in poetry,
but I don't want it in my bank account.
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Ok let us try this version:
k = 0 to n, where n is a natural number.
General description:
The considered mathematical structure is k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, where its Y-axis (a given branch of the given tree) is used in order to measure the Uncertainty (if > 1) of its branches, and its X-axis (of the given tree) is used in order to measure the Redundancy (if > 1) of its branches.
Some definitions:
x is a branch of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree as follows:
Definition 1: Identity is x recognition with respect to itself.
Definition 2: Superposition is a simultaneous identity of x with respect to itself.
Definition 3: Non-superposition of identities allows certain x recognition with respect to itself.
Example: x=A , x=B
Definition 4: Superposition of identities does not allow certain x recognition with respect to itself.
Example: x=AB
Definition 5: Redundancy is a duplication of certain or uncertain identities, with respect to a given tree.
For example (A,A) , (B,B) , (AB,AB)
----------------------------------------------
Here are the detailed example of k=0 to 2:
As you see Uncertainty is at the level of the a given branch of the given tree, where Redundancy is at the level of the given tree.
Any appearance of that tree is called Distinction State (DS), where any DS is under a structure called Frame (F), for example: (AB,B) is a DS that is under (2,1) F.
The order in each DS or F has no significance (similar to {a,b}={b,a}).
From the following definitions and examples x=AA is impossible, because AA is not a superposition of x with respect to itself.
k = 0 to n, where n is a natural number.
General description:
The considered mathematical structure is k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, where its Y-axis (a given branch of the given tree) is used in order to measure the Uncertainty (if > 1) of its branches, and its X-axis (of the given tree) is used in order to measure the Redundancy (if > 1) of its branches.
Some definitions:
x is a branch of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree as follows:
Definition 1: Identity is x recognition with respect to itself.
Definition 2: Superposition is a simultaneous identity of x with respect to itself.
Definition 3: Non-superposition of identities allows certain x recognition with respect to itself.
Example: x=A , x=B
Definition 4: Superposition of identities does not allow certain x recognition with respect to itself.
Example: x=AB
Definition 5: Redundancy is a duplication of certain or uncertain identities, with respect to a given tree.
For example (A,A) , (B,B) , (AB,AB)
----------------------------------------------
Here are the detailed example of k=0 to 2:
Code:
0x0
(0)=()
1x1
A * .
(1) = (A)
(0) = ()
2X2
(AB,AB) (AB,A) (AB,B) (AB) (A,A) (B,B) (A,B) (A) (B) ()
A * * A * * A * . A * . A * * A . . A * . A * . A . . A . .
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
B *_* B *_. B *_* B *_. B ._. B *_* B ._* B ._. B *_. B ._.
(2,2) = (AB,AB)
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)
(2,0) = (AB)
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)
(1,0) = (A),(B)
(0,0) = ()As you see Uncertainty is at the level of the a given branch of the given tree, where Redundancy is at the level of the given tree.
Any appearance of that tree is called Distinction State (DS), where any DS is under a structure called Frame (F), for example: (AB,B) is a DS that is under (2,1) F.
The order in each DS or F has no significance (similar to {a,b}={b,a}).
From the following definitions and examples x=AA is impossible, because AA is not a superposition of x with respect to itself.
Last edited:
This morning I find myself back at "beginner's mind,"
meaning in this case clueless.
For one, I really don't have any idea now what "Identity" means in the Doron context.
The above strengthens my feeling that none of these words mean what I would take them to mean.
I'm not making any real progress understanding Doron as presenting a coherent idea.
Once I think I've gotten clarity about some point, it's soon lost in statements that undo it.
It'd snakes and ladders again.
I've landed on another snake square instead of a ladder one. and I'm back to square one.
As usual I'll just go back offstsge and watch the surrealistic specticle till something moves me to post again.
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
We have been over this territory before. Not necessarily these specifics, but the same territory. Those menorah diagrams of his (for lack of a better name for them) are at the center of his thinking, and once again he is trying to reverse-engineer a foundation for them that somehow makes them significant.
His goal is significance, not clarity. For Doron, making up important-sounding names is sufficient to define something. As a result, his definitions each fail. He'll fix them by recycling the very same or similar definition after substituting new words for old. He never understands why his definition continues to fail.
We see this already. His first set of important-sounding labels was identity, uncertain, and redundant. (He used "copy", too, but that really wasn't all that important-sounding.) Just recently he has drifted every so slightly to identity, superposition, and redundancy. He has also convinced himself "recognition with respect to itself" means something.
The word-shift will continue for a while, then Doron will return to his "you don't get it" mode.
Unfortunately, most of what Doron has to offer is either completely wrong or completely trivial. (His menorah diagrams fall into the later category.) Honest attempts to explore Doron's version of Mathematics with him quickly reveal the lack of significance and lack of correctness in so much of what he posts. He cannot accept that, and so he doesn't.
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
What is “recognition with respect to itself”? If you mean “Identity” is some representation that we can recognize, then just say so.
Superposition is a linier addition so "Superposition" as “a simultaneous identity of x with respect to itself” would be x+x, 2x or xx if addition is assumed between the “x” representations or ‘identities’ in your "Superposition" notation.
So x=A and x=B are “certain” while x=AB is not? That does not coincide with AB being a superposition as A+B would be as certain as A and B. You seem to be confusing superposition for uncertainty as to whether x is A or B.
See above, superposition is specifically a linear addition (as you have been told before). For example 6 can be a superposition of 3 and 3, 4 and 2 or 7 and -1, so on and so forth. As you give the elements of the superposition, A and B in this case, and claim they are “certain” then their superposition is certain as A+B, or AB in your apparent "Superposition" notation.
Given your assertion that AB is a superposition of A and B it would not be the same "Identity" as A or B. Thus there would be no redundant "Identity" in (A,B,AB). Perhaps you are including the individual ’identities’ of the “Superposition” in your ‘redundant’ consideration. So (A,B,AB) would be one “Redundancy” and (A,B,AB) would be another. Making the total “Redundancy” of (A,B,AB) equal to 2. However that would also make (AA,BB) redundant by the same amount.
Also as you assert x=A to be certain as well as x=B to be certain then AB (as their superposition) would be certain. Again you seem to be confusing (and I think deliberately) superposition to infer that you simply do not know whether x=A or x=B in your AB “Superposition” notation.
To try and explain the actual quantum mechanics (and superposition principle) that I think you are basing your confusion on: A state vector can be considered to be comprised of two or more state vectors in superposition, the resulting state vector is the sum of those individual state vectors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle
We have been over all of this before Doron, but for some reason you continue to go around in circles. Perhaps you simply can not remember what was addressed before, but I can assure you that we do.
AA (in your notation) is specifically a “superposition of x with respect to itself”, when x=A. Nothing in your above given “definitions” restricts that and in fact your given…
specificaly requires it, as noted above.
Last edited:
They do look like that.
As an esoteric system of symbols, I see Doron's OM as having a strong kinship with the Kabbalah.
My recent mistake has been to again expect it to be itellectually or logically coherant, when it's actual purpose is in ambiguity, and as you say, "Significance."
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
I believe you think so because I said that self-state has no identity at all.apathia said:
But by definition 1, identity is exactly the recognition of branch x with respect to that has no identity at all, exactly as some color is identified with respect to transparency (not any color).
- Status