Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
A<B<C<D<E

We can describe the following single silt pattern by the ordered distinct values, as follows: (A,B,C,D,E,D,C,B,A). Actually it can be reduced to (A,B,C,D,E):
muls1.gif


By following the (A,B,C,D,E) reduction we can describe the following double silt pattern by the following redundant values
((A,B,C,D,E), (A,B,C,D,E), (A,B,C,D,E), (A,B,C,D,E), …) where order has a significance within each (A,B,C,D,E), in this case:

mulsi2.gif


Please pay attention, that Standard Math does not go beyond Redundancy, and as a result, it does not have the ability to deal with strong simultaneity, which is symmetric and defined as a superposition of ids (notated as (ABC...) where order has no significance).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I have already asserted that I do not use your asymmetric simultaneity (A,B) that is weaker than the strong superposition, which is symmetric simultaneity (AB).
Click to expand...

No Doron “asymmetric simultaneity” and “symmetric simultaneity” are just words you string together. Apparently without understanding them.

doronshadmi said:
This is an additional experiment that uses the double slit experiment.
Click to expand...

Cite the specific experiment you are referring to and we can discuss it.

doronshadmi said:
Aagain, by this experiment the wave patterns of the detector are changed into a single silt pattern. We can gradually use more energetic photons, and by doing that we can move between the wave pattern and the non-wave (the single silt) pattern.
Click to expand...

This was nonsense before and it is still nonsense now. Again…

The Man said:
You do understand the relationship between the energy and wavelength of the photon as well as the dependence of the distance between the slits on that wavelength, don’t you? Your assertions above indicate that you simply do not understand the double-slit experiment and simply want to ascribe your imaginary undefined nonsense as being somehow related to such experiments.
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
The DS of Organic Numbers are exactly these intermediate patterns, that are found between superposition of wave (non-localized) patterns and non-superposition of a single silt (localized) pattern.

A single silt pattern has a statistical dispersion of localization (a particle), where a double silt pattern has a statistical dispersion of non-localization (a wave).
Click to expand...

Again and interference pattern is more localized (in to specific bands).

doronshadmi said:
So Non-locality/Locality Linkage stands at the basis of QM, exactly as it stands the the basis of many measurements as seen in the macro level.
Click to expand...

Nope.
 
The Man said:
Again and interference pattern is more localized (in to specific bands).
Click to expand...

You are wrong (This was nonsense before and it is still nonsense now).

Your assertion above indicates that you simply do not understand the double-slit experiment and simply want to ascribe your imaginary undefined nonsense as being somehow related to such experiment. Bucause of this nonsense you are unable to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5976833&postcount=10001 .

The real results are clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5976519&postcount=9999 .
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Here is the result of a single silt pattern experiment:
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Single_slit_intensity_distribution.png[/qimg]
[qimg]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/muls1.gif[/qimg]


Here is the result of a double silt pattern experiment:

[qimg]http://sciencevault.net/11hscphys/82worldcommunicates/pics/822%20Diffraction%20pattern.png[/qimg]
[qimg]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/mulsi2.gif[/qimg]

As clearly be seen, a single silt pattern has a localized pattern, where a double silt pattern does not have a localized pattern.

Here you can learn about Diffraction and Interference (has a single silt envelop):
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/mulslid.html#c2

Here you can learn about Interference Only (does not have a single silt envelop):
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/mulslidi.html#c2

All these cases are described by Organic Numbers, which are used as their comprehensive framework.
Click to expand...

I am quite familiar with double slit experiments.

And again you will see the interference pattern is more localized into specific bands. In other words the single slit pattern is more distributed over the screen. While the double slit pattern is more highly localized to specific bands.


doronshadmi said:
A<B<C<D<E

We can describe the following single silt pattern by the ordered distinct values, as follows: (A,B,C,D,E,D,C,B,A). Actually it can be reduced to (A,B,C,D,E):
[qimg]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/muls1.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Actually we describe such a Patten as a superposition of sine waves of different freaqancies.

doronshadmi said:
By following the (A,B,C,D,E) reduction we can describe the following double silt pattern by the following redundant values
((A,B,C,D,E), (A,B,C,D,E), (A,B,C,D,E), (A,B,C,D,E), …) where order has a significance within each (A,B,C,D,E), in this case:

[qimg]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/mulsi2.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Actually we describe that pattern as simply a sine wave or a superposition of sine waves of the same frequency.

Again from the Uncertainty principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle


In quantum physics, a particle is described by a wave packet, which gives rise to this phenomenon. Consider the measurement of the absolute position of a particle. It could be anywhere the particle's wave packet has non-zero amplitude, meaning the position is uncertain – it could be almost anywhere along the wave packet. To obtain an accurate reading of position, this wave packet must be 'compressed' as much as possible, meaning it must be made up of increasing numbers of sine waves added together. The momentum of the particle is proportional to the wavelength of one of these waves, but it could be any of them. So a more accurate position measurement–by adding together more waves–means the momentum measurement becomes less accurate (and vice versa).
Click to expand...

*bolding added


As the peak of the wave packet becomes more localized the frequencies of the sine waves in superposition become more distributed around a single frequency. As the peak of the wave packet becomes less localized the frequencies of the sine waves in superposition become less distributed around a single frequency.

Again the single slit pattern can be described as a supposition of wave patterns distributed in frequency while the double slit pattern can be only by described as a superposition of waves of a single frequency.

The single photon however only strikes one place on the screen, its interaction with the screen is always very highly localized. The patterns only result from a significant number of photon interaction with the screen.

The patterns represent probability destitutions of finding a photon has impacted some part of the screen and those distributions are represented as I described above.

Again Doron please learn the actual math and the meaning of concept like superposition.




doronshadmi said:
Please pay attention, that Standard Math does not go beyond Redundancy, and as a result, it does not have the ability to deal with strong simultaneity, which is symmetric and defined as a superposition of ids (notated as (ABC...) where order has no significance).
Click to expand...

Pleas pay attention to actual math and physics including wave packet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_packet


The wave equation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_equation

And Fourier analysis


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_analysis
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
And again you will see the interference pattern is more localized into specific bands. In other words the single slit pattern is more distributed over the screen. While the double slit pattern is more highly localized to specific bands.
Click to expand...
You can claim this nonsense as much as you like.

The simple fact is this:

doronshadmi said:
Here is the result of a single silt pattern experiment:
Single_slit_intensity_distribution.png

muls1.gif



Here is the result of a double silt pattern experiment:

822%20Diffraction%20pattern.png

mulsi2.gif


As clearly be seen, a single silt pattern has a localized pattern, where a double silt pattern does not have a localized pattern.

And you still fail to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5976833&postcount=10001 and how Redundancy prevents the clear localization of the double silt pattern.

Here you can learn about Diffraction and Interference (has a single silt envelope):
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/mulslid.html#c2

Here you can learn about Interference Only (does not have a single silt envelope):
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/mulslidi.html#c2

All these cases are described by Organic Numbers, which are used as their comprehensive framework.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You can claim this nonsense as much as you like.

The simple fact is this:
Click to expand...

Ok so you just don’t see the very specific and highly localized bands of the double slit pattern or the defuse characteristics of the single slit pattern. That's OK Doron, I didn’t expect that you would understand what I was saying anyway. Just to give you a hint what I was trying to show to you is related to the slopes of the peaks rather than the height or number of peaks.


doronshadmi said:
No The Man, your "actual math and physics" do not have the tools to understand what is really going on.
Click to expand...

“what is really going on” Doron is that apparently you “do not have the tools to understand” the actual math and physics or even your own notions.
 
The Man said:
Just to give you a hint what I was trying to show to you is related to the slopes of the peaks rather than the height or number of peaks.
Click to expand...

The Man, replacement under redundancy is non-local, and this is exactly what happens in the Interference Only version of the double slit experiment (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/mulslidi.html#c2).

In the single silt experiment, there is no replacement under redundancy and no superposition, so all is left is based on an ordered single pick (A<B<C<D<E>D>C>B>A), which is definitely a localized pattern, as can be seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5977280&postcount=10006 .

The Man said:
That's OK Doron, I didn’t expect that you would understand what I was saying anyway.
Click to expand...
Speak for yourself The Man, you are failing to understand Non-locality all along this thread, because of your Local-only reasoning, which you call "Actual Math and Physics".

But I am not expecting that you would understand what I am saying anyway, for example http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5976410&postcount=9998 .
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Again? There is nothing wrong in his formula, it simply used to calculate the amount of a partial case of ON's DS.
Click to expand...


The formula is just as bogus as it was about a year ago. You admitted it was defective. Well, actually it was probably Moshe who explained to you that I was pointing out real defects in your formula, and you believed him even though you didn't understand the defects.

The defects haven't changed, so why are you surprised?

You can't fix it, though, can you? You never understood the formula nor what was wrong with it. It's math, and math isn't among your core competencies.


For more information, please refer back to earlier posts on the very same subject.
 
doronshadmi said:
You are invited to show my mistakes in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5957646&postcount=9921.
Click to expand...


Thank you so much for the invitation. However, you are the one making the Big Deal[SIZE=-3]TM[/SIZE] of all this kXk nonsense, so the task of being correct in its presentation falls to you.

If you can't get something as simple as the 3X3 case correct, we can conclude it is all just nonsense you imagined to be important but it really isn't.
 
The Arizona desert is a awful place to be in the summer.
But thank the All Embracing Universe for Ice-Cream!
And nothing takes you back to those easy summer days of your youth
than the carnival tunes from the ice-cream vendor's truck.

But beware old man Heisenberg's truck!
I saw it once when I was a boy.
We ran out to the street, eager for ice-cream cones
and unprepared to meet a strange old man.

The menu board on his truck said he had vanilla ice-cream and nut sprinkles or chocolate topping.

I told him I wanted a cone with nuts, and my sister wanted one with chocolate.

Right off, he said that was impossible. We could both have cones with nuts or both have cones with chocolate, but that she couldn't have a cone with chocolate topping at the same time I had one with nuts. That was not allowed.

I pointed to the menu board and said, "But look Mister. It says vanilla with nuts or vanilla with chocolate topping."

"No! It says nothing of the kind." he shouted.
"It only says vanilla and nuts or chocolate topping!"

"So why can't my sister have one with chocolate and I have one with nuts?"

"Because, Young Wisenheimer, Heisenberg's Ice-Creams don't answer to your local-only Law of Distribution!
Now make up your mind or leave. Will you and your sister have the Local nuts or the Non-Local chocolate sauce?"

I grabbed my sister's hand and we ran. :wackywink:
 
Apathia said:
The Arizona desert is a awful place to be in the summer.
But thank the All Embracing Universe for Ice-Cream!
And nothing takes you back to those easy summer days of your youth
than the carnival tunes from the ice-cream vendor's truck.

But beware old man Heisenberg's truck!
I saw it once when I was a boy.
We ran out to the street, eager for ice-cream cones
and unprepared to meet a strange old man.

The menu board on his truck said he had vanilla ice-cream and nut sprinkles or chocolate topping.

I told him I wanted a cone with nuts, and my sister wanted one with chocolate.

Right off, he said that was impossible. We could both have cones with nuts or both have cones with chocolate, but that she couldn't have a cone with chocolate topping at the same time I had one with nuts. That was not allowed.

I pointed to the menu board and said, "But look Mister. It says vanilla with nuts or vanilla with chocolate topping."

"No! It says nothing of the kind." he shouted.
"It only says vanilla and nuts or chocolate topping!"

"So why can't my sister have one with chocolate and I have one with nuts?"

"Because, Young Wisenheimer, Heisenberg's Ice-Creams don't answer to your local-only Law of Distribution!
Now make up your mind or leave. Will you and your sister have the Local nuts or the Non-Local chocolate sauce?"

I grabbed my sister's hand and we ran. :wackywink:
Click to expand...

In that case I suggest you to go to the other side of the street and buy your ice-creams from the Organic Numbers truck, because it also sells ice-creams by the weak simultaneous law of (A,B). The strong simultaneous law of (AB) is also available for people that wish to be uncertain of the taste of the ice-cream during lick.

Also any possible mixture of uncertain/certain taste is available without any additional cost.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
The formula is just as bogus as it was about a year ago.
Click to expand...

Proove it.

jsfisher said:
Well, actually it was probably Moshe who explained to you that I was pointing out real defects in your formula
Click to expand...
I did not write any formula, which calculates the amount of the Distinct States of a given k-Uncertainy x k-Redundancy tree, not before and not now, so what you say is wrong.

jsfisher said:
You never understood the formula nor what was wrong with it.
Click to expand...
It was wrong as a general formula because in started from n>2.

The new formula starts from 0, and because of this fact it is really a general formula that enables to calculate the exact amount of all the Distinct States of a given k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, after k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree distinct representation was expanded according to your remarks.

Still this expansion of the Distinct States of a given k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, provides only the serial case of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, which is something that you can't comprehend, because strong simultaneity of symmetric AB superposition, is beyond your reasoning, which is stuck in the level of replacement of distinct ids under Redundancy.

Your method to calculate smaller k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy trees by using particular cases of bigger k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy trees, does not provide any information of the real complexity of a given k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, which is not limited to the amount of the Distinct States under a given tree.

And you jsfisher, can't comprehend it, because your reasoning is based on serial-only reasoning of Distinct States.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Thank you so much for the invitation. However, you are the one making the Big Deal[SIZE=-3]TM[/SIZE] of all this kXk nonsense, so the task of being correct in its presentation falls to you.

If you can't get something as simple as the 3X3 case correct, we can conclude it is all just nonsense you imagined to be important but it really isn't.
Click to expand...

Jsfisher, why do you claim that it is easy to draw by hand any DS of kxk tree?

You are invited to show your simple method that draws any DS of kxk by hand.

But be aware that even if you provide this easy method; it does not provide any information of the complexity of a k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree (known also as Organic Number).
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
muls1.gif

Actually we describe such a Patten as a superposition of sine waves of different freaqancies.

…

mulsi2.gif

Actually we describe that pattern as simply a sine wave or a superposition of sine waves of the same frequency.
Click to expand...

The keywords hear are "different" and "same" , where "different" is based on (A,B,C,D,E,…) which is a weak simultaneity among distinct and ordered values that stand at the basis of any localized form.

"same" is based on (AB…) or (A,A,…) which is a strong simultaneity among non-distinct/distinct and unordered values that stand at the basis of any non-localized form (the simultaneity of (AB…) Uncertainty is more symmetric and therefore stronger than the simultaneity of (A,A,…) Redundancy).

Actually you have no clue with what you are dealing here, because you "superposition" (A quote from Wiki: "In physics and systems theory, the superposition principle, also known as superposition property, states that, for all linear systems") is based on linear reasoning.

The Man said:
Pleas pay attention to actual math and physics including wave packet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_packet


The wave equation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_equation

And Fourier analysis


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_analysis
Click to expand...

It is all based on linear reasoning, for example:

Wheeler-Feynman_absorber_theory said:
The Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory (also called the Wheeler–Feynman Time-Symmetric theory) is an interpretation of electrodynamics that starts from the idea that a solution to the electromagnetic field equations has to be symmetric with respect to time-inversion, as are the field equations themselves. The motivation for such choice is mainly due to the importance that time symmetry has in physics. Indeed, there is no apparent reason for which such symmetry should be broken, and therefore one time direction has no privilege to be more important than the other. Thus, a theory that respects this symmetry appears, at least, more elegant than theories with which one has to arbitrarily choose one time direction over the other as the preferred one. It is named after its originators, the late physicists Richard Feynman and John Archibald Wheeler.


…

Finally one could still consider that this formulation is still no more symmetric than the usual one as the retarded time direction still seems to be privileged. However, this is only an illusion as one can always reverse the process simply reversing who is considered as the emitter and who is considered the absorber. Any apparent 'privilege' of a time direction is only due to the arbitrary choice of which is the emitter and which the absorber.
Click to expand...
A= emitter= transmitter
B= absorber= receiver

(AB) is the strong simultaneity where A,B ids are in a superposition (the symmetry of uncertainty).

The Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory is based on the weak (A,B) simultaneity where ids are certain but their order has no significance (it is the symmetry of certainty, which is linear).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In that case I suggest you to go to the other side of the street and buy your ice-creams from the Organic Numbers truck, because it also sells ice-creams by the weak simultaneous law of (A,B). The strong simultaneous law of (AB) is also available for people that wish to be uncertain of the taste of the ice-cream during lick.

Also any possible mixture of uncertain/certain taste is available without any additional cost.
Click to expand...
Bolding mine,

Doron, your truck beats Old Heisenberg's Quantum Ice-Cream for weirdness.
That's some flavor you've got there, that remains uncertain even when you
taste it. If it has a different taste with each lick, you've got a winner there that's going to put the old guy out of business.

But that's not what's amazing about the flavor. Time has noting to do with it.
It is both chocolate and vanilla at the same time of taste.

It's like opening Schrodinger's box and finding the cat both alive and dead at the same observation.

Perhaps what you want to market are Many Worlds Ice-Creams, instead of Time Symmetric Ice Creams.

But that's not right, isn't it?

You offer the ice-cream of uncertain and ambiguous taste to the buyer in the same world.
At least I know you're favorite "flavor" now.

Apart from that there's the flavorless variety.
(No flavor is the "Trunk.")
I'll take that in a cone
and clap for you with one hand. :wackyspinny:
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
If it has a different taste with each lick, you've got a winner there that's going to put the old guy out of business.
Click to expand...

Again, also any possible mixture of uncertain/certain taste is available without any additional cost (including random distinct taste ice-cream).

Apathia said:
Perhaps what you want to market are Many Worlds Ice-Creams, instead of Time Symmetric Ice Creams.
Click to expand...
The word "many" is meaningless if there is no linkage among things, but then the linkage is strong (AB symmetry of uncertain ids, which is parallel) or weak (A,B asymmetry of certain ids, which is serial) or any possible mixture between them, which has both parallel/serial taste.
 
doronshadmi said:
Again, also any possible mixture of uncertain/certain taste is available without any additional cost (including random distinct taste ice-cream).


The word "many" is meaningless if there is no linkage among things, but then the linkage is strong (AB symmetry of uncertain ids, which is parallel) or weak (A,B asymmetry of certain ids, which is serial) or any possible mixture between them, which has both parallel/serial taste.
Click to expand...

Organic Mathematics is like a box of chocolates.
You never know.
You can never expect,
what you are going to get. :wackyunsure:
 
doronshadmi said:
The Man, replacement under redundancy is non-local, and this is exactly what happens in the Interference Only version of the double slit experiment (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/mulslidi.html#c2).
Click to expand...

Doron “replacement under redundancy” and your “non-local” are just figments of your imagination. “exactly what happens in the Interference” of the double slit experiment is, well, interference (constructive interference being a superposition of waves out of phase, while destructive interference is a superposition of waves in phase).

doronshadmi said:
In the single silt experiment, there is no replacement under redundancy and no superposition, so all is left is based on an ordered single pick (A<B<C<D<E>D>C>B>A), which is definitely a localized pattern, as can be seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5977280&postcount=10006 .
Click to expand...

Doron by your own assertion there is no superposition in your “superposition”.

Your supposed “replacement under redundancy” for the double slit refers specifically to your single peak “pattern” being repeated (that is your “redundancy”) and as I have been trying to explain and show to you, what defines one peak “pattern” as being more localized than another is the slope of its sides. Again the double slit “pattern” is more highly localized into bands.

doronshadmi said:
Speak for yourself The Man, you are failing to understand Non-locality all along this thread, because of your Local-only reasoning, which you call "Actual Math and Physics".
Click to expand...


I was speaking for myself Doron and I didn’t expect that you would understand what I was saying anyway, which you have again confirmed.



doronshadmi said:
The keywords hear are "different" and "same" , where "different" is based on (A,B,C,D,E,…) which is a weak simultaneity among distinct and ordered values that stand at the basis of any localized form.


"same" is based on (AB…) or (A,A,…) which is a strong simultaneity among non-distinct/distinct and unordered values that stand at the basis of any non-localized form (the simultaneity of (AB…) Uncertainty is more symmetric and therefore stronger than the simultaneity of (A,A,…) Redundancy).
Click to expand...

No Doron the “keywords” were “a superposition of sine waves of different frequencies” and “a sine wave or a superposition of sine waves of the same frequency”. All those words are the “keywords”. Unfortunately you don’t seem to understand those words much as your assertions above indicate that you do not understand the words "different", "same", “simultaneity” and “symmetric”.

doronshadmi said:
Actually you have no clue with what you are dealing here, because you "superposition" (A quote from Wiki: "In physics and systems theory, the superposition principle, also known as superposition property, states that, for all linear systems") is based on linear reasoning.



It is all based on linear reasoning, for example:
Click to expand...



You really don’t have any idea what you are claiming, do you Doron? You were the one claiming a line as your ‘minimal representation’ of your “non-locality” thus asserting your “non-locality” as specifically being linear (which means “pertaining to or represented by lines” in case you never bother to find out). Once again you demonstrate that it is you who is the primary opponent of your own notions.


doronshadmi said:
A= emitter= transmitter
B= absorber= receiver

(AB) is the strong simultaneity where A,B ids are in a superposition (the symmetry of uncertainty).

The Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory is based on the weak (A,B) simultaneity where ids are certain but their order has no significance (it is the symmetry of certainty, which is linear).
Click to expand...

Nope, it is just based on the fact that Maxwell’s field equations have both retarded (forward time) and advanced (reverse time) solutions. That is the symmetry it refers to Doron (that solutions to Maxwell’s field equations are symmetrical in time) not your “symmetry of uncertainty” and “symmetry of certainty”. Actually try to read the articles Doron instead of just looking for words like “symmetry” and “linear” that you demonstrably do not understand.
 
The Man said:
You really don’t have any idea what you are claiming, do you Doron? You were the one claiming a line as your ‘minimal representation’ of your “non-locality” thus asserting your “non-locality” as specifically being linear (which means “pertaining to or represented by lines” in case you never bother to find out). Once again you demonstrate that it is you who is the primary opponent of your own notions.
Click to expand...
You really don’t have any idea what you are claiming, do you The Man?

Your step-by-step local understanding of a line is not my parallel non-local understanding of a line.

The rest of your post expresses your failure to get the parallel non-local understanding of a line.

The Man said:
Your supposed “replacement under redundancy” for the double slit refers specifically to your single peak “pattern” being repeated
Click to expand...
No, it refers the double slit pattern, which expresses the non-local aspect of a photon also by “replacement under redundancy” (in additional to “symmetry of uncertainty”) ,whether it is constructive interference being a superposition of waves out of phase, or destructive interference of a superposition of waves in phase.

You simply can't understand the fact that the time gap between fired photons has no impact on their construction, which is exactly Non-local/Local Linkage.

The single silt pattern is an expression of the Local aspect of the Non-local/Local Linkage, where the double slit pattern is an expression of the Non-local aspect of the Non-local/Local Linkage, and how Non-local/Local Linkage is expressed as:

a) Asymmetry of no superposition of ids (A,B)(known as Certainty).

b) Symmetry of superposition of certain ids (A,A)(known as Redundancy).

c) Symmetry of superposition of ids (AB)(known as Uncertainty).

The Man said:
Doron by your own assertion there is no superposition in your “superposition”.
Click to expand...

You don't get it The Man. Your superposition is limited to (b) and you have no understanding of (c).


The Man said:
Nope, it is just based on the fact that Maxwell’s field equations have both retarded (forward time) and advanced (reverse time) solutions. That is the symmetry it refers to Doron (that solutions to Maxwell’s field equations are symmetrical in time)
Click to expand...
Actually read the articles and try to get “symmetry” and “linear” beyoned “replacement under redundancy”, which is limited to “symmetry of certainty” ( ((A,B),(B,A)) in this case, which is not (AB) “symmetry of uncertainty” ).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher said:
The formula is just as bogus as it was about a year ago.
Click to expand...

Proove it.
Click to expand...

Already done. There is no reason for me to repeat myself. You have this thread as reference.

Moreover, as you will admit, you didn't come up with the formulae, and you can't comprehend the formulae, so what point would there be to resurrecting the proof?

jsfisher said:
Well, actually it was probably Moshe who explained to you that I was pointing out real defects in your formula
Click to expand...
I did not write any formula, which calculates the amount of the Distinct States of a given k-Uncertainy x k-Redundancy tree, not before and not now, so what you say is wrong.
Click to expand...

Umm, yes, we know that, and you proved my previous comment. But that doesn't change the fact that since you didn't develop the formula, and you don't understand the formula, then it must have been someone else, Moshe in this case, who explained it to you.

We all know that you are incapable of writing any such formula and that you depended on Moshe to write the first couple of bogus versions of it. Nothing you say contradicts what I have said, here.

jsfisher said:
You never understood the formula nor what was wrong with it.
Click to expand...
It was wrong as a general formula because in started from n>2.

The new formula starts from 0, and because of this fact it is really a general formula that enables to calculate the exact amount of all the Distinct States of a given k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, after k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree distinct representation was expanded according to your remarks.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. It was wrong because it was wrong. It did not offer any method to calculate any case greater than 1 because it was...wrong.

Still this expansion of the Distinct States of a given k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, provides only the serial case of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, which is something that you can't comprehend, because strong simultaneity of symmetric AB superposition, is beyond your reasoning, which is stuck in the level of replacement of distinct ids under Redundancy.

Your method to calculate smaller k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy trees by using particular cases of bigger k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy trees, does not provide any information of the real complexity of a given k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, which is not limited to the amount of the Distinct States under a given tree.

And you jsfisher, can't comprehend it, because your reasoning is based on serial-only reasoning of Distinct States.
Click to expand...

So you say, but my methods get the correct answer. Surely that must count for something, no?

Moreover, what have you accomplished so far? Well, you have derived an important generalization of your kXk whatever it is into some significant result. Hmm, no, you haven't. You have waved your hands a lot, but you have no formal generalization that expands into anything.

Sure, but you at least have the basis for a complete system. Wrong, again. You have provided only cases that you try to enumerate. There is no operation or scheme that lets us do anything with the cases other than enumerate them.

Well, at least you have provided a method to enumerate all the cases, right? No, you failed at that as evidenced by your 3X3 case.

So, why is any of this important?


doronshadmi said:
Jsfisher, why do you claim that it is easy to draw by hand any DS of kxk tree?

You are invited to show your simple method that draws any DS of kxk by hand.

But be aware that even if you provide this easy method; it does not provide any information of the complexity of a k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree (known also as Organic Number).
Click to expand...

Well, (1) I already did just that, and (2) I revealed that the claimed complexity was really vacuous.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You really don’t have any idea what you are claiming, do you The Man?
Click to expand...

I know exactly what I am claiming Doron, that you have no idea what you are claiming which is apparently now that your “line” is not, well, linear .

doronshadmi said:
Your step-by-step local understanding of a line is not my parallel non-local understanding of a line.
Click to expand...

Your “step-by-step local” and “parallel non-local” labels are just your typical exercise of stringing words together . Given that your “parallel non-local understanding of a line” is apparently not linear it is rather fortunate that everyone else’s understanding of a line actually involves, well, a line.


doronshadmi said:
The rest of your post expresses your failure to get the parallel non-local understanding of a line.
Click to expand...

This entire thread Doron, demonstrates quite emphatically that you do not get your “parallel non-local understanding of a line” which apparently now can’t even be represented by a line since you apparently simply do not like the word linear.

doronshadmi said:
No, it refers the double slit pattern, which expresses the non-local aspect of a photon also by “replacement under redundancy” (in additional to “symmetry of uncertainty”) ,whether it is constructive interference being a superposition of waves out of phase, or destructive interference of a superposition of waves in phase.
Click to expand...

No Doron it is called an interference pattern for a reason, which is also why it is not called a “replacement under redundancy” or “symmetry of uncertainty” pattern.

Well I guess part of the error in your reply is my fault since I typed it wrong before, constructive interference is a superposition of waves in phase and destructive interference of a superposition of waves out of phase. Sorry if that confused anyone.


doronshadmi said:
You simply can't understand the fact that the time gap between fired photons has no impact on their construction, which is exactly Non-local/Local Linkage.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about “the time gap between fired photons”? Oh, by the way have you found that “additional experiment” you referred to before?

doronshadmi said:
The Man said:
there are no other "photons that are used to define from what silt the measured photon passes the barrier
Click to expand...

This is an additional experiment that uses the double slit experiment.

Aagain, by this experiment the wave patterns of the detector are changed into a single silt pattern. We can gradually use more energetic photons, and by doing that we can move between the wave pattern and the non-wave (the single silt) pattern.
Click to expand...


doronshadmi said:
The single silt pattern is an expression of the Local aspect of the Non-local/Local Linkage, where the double slit pattern is an expression of the Non-local aspect of the Non-local/Local Linkage, and how Non-local/Local Linkage is expressed as:

a) Asymmetry of no superposition of ids (A,B)(known as Certainty).

b) Symmetry of superposition of certain ids (A,A)(known as Redundancy).

c) Symmetry of superposition of ids (AB)(known as Uncertainty).
Click to expand...

Nope, just more of your word salad Doron.

doronshadmi said:
You don't get it The Man. Your superposition is limited to (b) and you have no understanding of (c).
Click to expand...


No Doron, no one is limited by your nonsensical fantasy claims.

Again Doron by your own assertions your “superposition” does not use superposition so your claims about superposition are just nonsense by your own assertion.

doronshadmi said:
Actually read the articles and try to get “symmetry” and “linear” beyoned “replacement under redundancy”, which is limited to “symmetry of certainty” ( ((A,B),(B,A)) in this case, which is not (AB) “symmetry of uncertainty” ).
Click to expand...


I have read the articles Doron and there is none of your “replacement under redundancy” or “symmetry of certainty” nonsense, so it is just you who needs to get beyond your own nonsense.
 
The Man said:
I have read the articles Doron and there is none of your “replacement under redundancy” or “symmetry of certainty” nonsense, so it is just you who needs to get beyond your own nonsense.
Click to expand...
It is typical to the rest of your post. You are like a religious person that read the holly scripts of his religion, instead of using your mind in order to get things beyond what is written.

For example: you say "it is called an interference pattern for a reason" where this reason is nothing but a step-by-step reasoning, which at its best, enables to deal with no more then “replacement under redundancy” among certain ids (for example: Wheeler–Feynman Time-Symmetric theory, which is based on ((A,B),(B,A)) “symmetry of certainty”) and can't deal with “symmetry of uncertainty” (Symmetry of superposition of ids (AB), known as Uncertainty).

Your "Nope, just more of your word salad Doron" demonstrates your religious attitude of the articles that you read.

The Man said:
Well I guess part of the error in your reply is my fault since I typed it wrong before, constructive interference is a superposition of waves in phase and destructive interference of a superposition of waves out of phase. Sorry if that confused anyone.
Click to expand...
This is another example of your asymmetric-only step-by-step only reasoning.

From a symmetrical view there is no impact on “replacement under redundancy” as observed in Interference Only (does not have a single silt envelope) if "in" and "out" are exchanged.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
So you say, but my methods get the correct answer. Surely that must count for something, no?
Click to expand...
You don't get it, do you?

Your method ignores uncertainty.

I also showed this:
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher said:
You little 2X2 collection, when stripped of all the nonsense you insist on adding, is nothing more than a set of unordered 2-tuples where each element of the pair is one of four symbols.
Click to expand...
jsfisher, I can strip of all the nonsense you insist on adding when using unordered 2-tuples, by using a 1-tuple (0-Uncertainty x 0-Redundancy) where each element is one of ten symbols (which is, by the way, the particular case of F (1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0) under 10x10 tree):

<A> < = = > (AB,AB)
<B> < = = > (AB,A)
<C> < = = > (AB,B)
<D> < = = > (AB)
<E> < = = > (A,A)
<F> < = = > (B,B)
<G> < = = > (A,B)
<H> < = = > (A)
<I> < = = > (B)
<J> < = = > ()

for 2x2 tree, so?

In other word, by ignoring Uncertainty or Redundancy you are not dealing with k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy trees.
Click to expand...

So we also can ignore Uncertainty and Redundancy, in order to provide the answer of "how many Distinct States (DS) there are in a given k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree?"

Again, this is the whole idea here, jsfisher, "how many?" is a too weak question that can't answer to questions where Uncertainty and Redundancy are involved, simply because an exact amount (or sum, if you wish) can't deal with real Complexity, where in real Complexity Uncertainty and Redundancy are significant and not some "white noise" that has to be eliminated, in order to discover your partial case of distinct things and their sum.


jsfisher said:
Sure, but you at least have the basis for a complete system. Wrong, again. You have provided only cases that you try to enumerate. There is no operation or scheme that lets us do anything with the cases other than enumerate them.
Click to expand...

Now you demonstrate that the following is beyond your understanding:

a) Asymmetry of no superposition of ids (A,B)(known as Certainty).

b) Symmetry of superposition of certain ids (A,A)(known as Redundancy).

c) Symmetry of superposition of ids (AB)(known as Uncertainty).

doronshadmi said:
5) Furthermore, even the algorithm (where your method is a part of it) that is used to draw the DS of a given of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, is nothing but a serial-only tool that draws the DS, but it can't be used in order to understand the Complexity of a given k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, because this complexity is not less than both parallel/serial form (where each part of it is both local AND global case of it) which can't be understood by parallel-only or serial-only reasoning.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Well, (1) I already did just that,
Click to expand...
Only for 2x2 tree by using the partial case of F (1,1,0,0) taken from 4x4 tree, so?

It was too difficult for you to define the distinct forms of your method in 3x3 case, isn't it jsfisher?

I did it for you in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5957646&postcount=9921 .

jsfisher said:
and (2) I revealed that the claimed complexity was really vacuous.
Click to expand...
All you did is to demonstrate your blindness because:

Your method (still no general formula of your method was given by you) is a part of an algorithm that defines the DS of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, (where also the algorithm can't be used to understand the complexity of a given k x k tree) that uses F and DS of greater k x k tree in order to define the amount of DS of smaller k x k tree by ignoring uncertainty, but uncertainty appears also in the greater k x k tree and so on ... ad infinitum.

In other words, you do not understand the complexity of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy trees, exactly because all you get is the amount of the DS of these trees.

-------------

jsfisher, since your method is so easy, please write down all the distinct forms of 4x4 tree (after all, all you get is the distinct forms of k x k trees).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Only for 2x2 tree by using the partial case of F (1,1,0,0) taken from 4x4 tree, so?
Click to expand...

Nope. Mine was a simple, general method, good for all cases.

It was too difficult for you to define the distinct forms of your method in 3x3 case, isn't it jsfisher?

I did it for you in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5957646&postcount=9921 .
Click to expand...

Nope. Mine was a simple, general method, good for all cases. The result you provided, on the other hand, was wrong. It is still wrong, and you refuse to correct your mistakes.

...
jsfisher, since your method is so easy, please write down all the distinct forms of 4x4 tree (after all, all you get is the distinct forms of k x k trees).
Click to expand...

You have no concept of how many such things there are, do you? None whatsoever.

Be that as it may, it is not my job to do your work, especially when it is of a trivial nature. If the 4X4 version is of such interest to you, you enumerate all the cases. You really should fix your 3X3 thing, first, though.
 
jsfisher said:
Yes, and that is the point that you don't get. Your so-called uncertainty doesn't change the answer. Ignoring it doesn't matter at all.
Click to expand...

Jsfisher, here ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4857137&postcount=4175 ) you show that Moshe's formula is not general because it uses 3 initial values that are not based on the complete amount of distinct states of 1x1,2x2 and 3x3 trees.

In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4859147&postcount=4199 I asked you a question that follows the notion of the extension of ON's Distinct states.

In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4859277&postcount=4201 we can see your limited view of the extension of ON's Distinct states.

You can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4862772&postcount=4237 .

jsfisher said:
Nope. Mine was a simple, general method, good for all cases.
Click to expand...
Only for distinct cases where Uncertainty is ignored.

jsfisher said:
You have no concept of how many such things there are, do you? None whatsoever.
Click to expand...

In general, you can't get ONs beyond the amounts of their Distinct States, or in other words, you can't get k-Uncertainy x k-Redundancy trees.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
You really should fix your 3X3 thing, first, though
Click to expand...
Since all you get is a collection of distinct things, then please show what has to be fixed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125220&page=249 .

After all you easily enable to show what is missing in the 3-Uncertainty x 3-Redundancy tree, by using your Redundancy-only distinct forms, isn't it?

Also pay attention that what was rejected by you in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4859277&postcount=4201 is now used in the basis of your method, which demonstrates your serial-only undertanding of Distinction.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher said:
Yes, and that is the point that you don't get. Your so-called uncertainty doesn't change the answer. Ignoring it doesn't matter at all.
Click to expand...

Jsfisher, here ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4857137&postcount=4175 ) you show that Moshe's formula is not general because it uses 3 initial values that are not based on the complete amount of distinct states of 1x1,2x2 and 3x3 trees.
Click to expand...


Nope. The post was about inconsistencies. You know, stuff that makes it wrong.

...additional non sequiturs snipped...
jsfisher said:
Nope. Mine was a simple, general method, good for all cases.
Click to expand...
Only for distinct cases where Uncertainty is ignored.
Click to expand...

No. It doesn't matter if "uncertainty is ignored" or not. The answer doesn't change.

That's the part you don't get.

jsfisher said:
You have no concept of how many such things there are, do you? None whatsoever.
Click to expand...

In general, you can't get ONs beyond the amounts of their Distinct States, or in other words, you can't get k-Uncertainy x k-Redundancy trees.
Click to expand...

The evidence indicates exactly the opposite.

For example, how are those corrections for the 3X3 version coming?
 
jsfisher said:
No. It doesn't matter if "uncertainty is ignored" or not. The answer doesn't change.
Click to expand...
It does not change as long as all you get is the amuont of distinct collections.

k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree's complexity is irreducible to distinct collections, which is something beyond your serial-only reasoning.
 
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher said:
For example, how are those corrections for the 3X3 version coming?
Click to expand...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5981478&postcount=10036
Click to expand...


Oh, so it is not going well for you. How disappointing. It's your invention, and you cannot even tell if its right or wrong, let along fix it when its wrong.


It probably would be a big help if only you knew how many cases you need to enumerate. Too bad there isn't a convenient, simple way to calculate that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom