Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Little 10 Toes said:
But wait, if a carrot cannot distinguish itself from a rabbit, does a rabbit eat it? No, since according to your logic, the carrot eats the rabbit. Why? The rabbit is A and you just said ~A eats A.
Click to expand...

A or ~A are not limited to any particular example, again you are using local-only "bla bla bla …" reasoning , by not distinguish between particular example and generalization.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In other words, under no time condition you miss the difference between singular comparison as the building-block of serial observation (which is local), and non-singular comparison as the building-block of parallel observation (which is non-local).
Click to expand...

In the same words as I used before, there is not, nor can there be, anything “serial” in or about your “serial observation” (as you described it), but there can be a serial aspect or aspects in your “parallel observation” (as you described it). If you just mean “singular comparison” and “non-singular comparison” then just call them that.

doronshadmi said:
The property of the building-block of serial observation is clearly the one and only basis of your reasoning, because you get only A=A (singular comparison) and ignore the building-block of non-serial observation, which is represented as A ~= ~A (non-singular comparison).
Click to expand...

Again, don’t try to posit your simple lack of reasoning on to others. Doron, the “building-block ” of anything serial is ordering.

doronshadmi said:
Your misunderstanding of the difference between the building-blocks is clearly exposed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6158689&postcount=10770 , and demonstrates the weakness of your reasoning.
Click to expand...


The lack of anything “serial” in your “serial observation” is clearly exposed in your description of your “serial observation” and again demonstrates that you simply have no idea what you are talking about.
 
The Man said:
If you just mean “singular comparison” and “non-singular comparison” then just call them that.
Click to expand...

The Man, singular comparison is self-referential and non-singular comparison is non self-referential, as clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6158689&postcount=10770 .

The logical reasoning that is used by you, can't distinguish between them.

Singular comparison like (A = A), (A ≠ A), (~A = ~A), (~A ≠ ~A) is fundamentally different than Non singular comparison like (A ≠ ~A), (A = ~A), and it does not matter if these expressions are True or False.

The considered framework is based on both serial and parallel observations, which are based on both singular and non singular comparisons.

Under serial observation (focused on Singular comparisons) we get anti-symmetric collection of certain ids.

Under parallel observation (focused on Non singular comparisons) we get symmetric collection of uncertain ids.

Each observed case (including intermediate states between parallel and serial observations) is both particular and general form of the observed system.

Serial-only observation simply can't get that Mutuality (connectivity among ids) and Independency (ids) are aspects of the same complex framework.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Actually, if you carefully research the fundamental condition of any axiomatic framework, you find that mutuality (connectivity)\independency (isolation) linkage plays the main role. Just try to avoid it and you do not get the minimal condition to compare between axioms in order to realize if they do not contradict each other (which is the fundamental condition for consistent framework, whether it is formal or not).
Click to expand...
I'm not that good in following verbal explanation of math/logic related issues. Can you please symbolize the following axioms, so I would understand your reply better?

1. Things which equal the same thing also equal one another.

2. If equals are added to equals, then the wholes are equal.

3. If equals are subtracted from equals, then the remainders are equal.

4. Things which coincide with one another equal one another.

5. The whole is greater than the part.
 
doronshadmi said:
The "con" part of the word "context" is derived form the word "connection"
Click to expand...

I see you are still making stuff up. Why this insistence on always being wrong, Doron? It is not that hard to look something up, then be able to say something that isn't so laughable.

The prefix, con-, is in no way derived from the word, connection.

...and "text" is derived from "words" ( "text" = "textus" = "words" in Latin), which are "a coherent set of symbols that transmits some kind of informative message" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_(literary_theory)).
Click to expand...

More invention, I see. The word, text, does indeed come from the Late Latin, textus, meaning a written account, but text is most certainly not derived from the word, words. That part you simply made up. Such a statement by you is just dumb.

Was that your goal?
 
doronshadmi said:
4153069414_3abcabc22e_o.jpg
Click to expand...

Doronetics too hard . . .


ringthebell.jpg



is that, them circles?
 
jsfisher said:
The prefix, con-, is in no way derived from the word, connection.
Click to expand...

It is derived from the word "together" and in the case of con-text, we are talking about the proprty that puts text together, or in other words, define the conection among text, where text is "a coherent set of symbols that transmits some kind of informative message" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_(literary_theory))

In other words, con-text has a meaning only if text is put together (symbols are connected coherently).

So without the connection of text no meaning can be defind.

jsfisher said:
I see
Click to expand...
You don't see.
 
Last edited:
In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6175451&postcount=10845 this is an example of how context is based on connection among text, which enables serial\parallel observation under a one form.

4618125873_6a57de20d4_o.jpg



By serial-only observation one can't get, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6016109&postcount=10078.

Again,

Traditional Math does its job very well, by calculate the amount of a partial case of k-Uncertainty x K-Redundancy tree.

The main thing here is not the "how many?" question, but what actually enables the terms to ask that question.

Since ONs are a linkage between Non-local and Local qualities, it is the fundamental term that enables Quantity, where Quantity is the basis of the "how many?" question.

"How many?" question is usually based on distinction between different ids that are added to each other in order to define a sum, which is a certain size.

But Non-locality\Locality Linkage is not limited to distinct ids, and in this case the "How many?" question is extended beyond the different ids that are added to each other in order to define a sum.

By this extension the "How many?" question can't capture the complexity of the parallel/serial linkage of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, where each part of it is both global AND local case of it, because of the qualitative principle that stands at the basis of Quantity.

k-Uncertainty x k- Redundancy are nothing but finite cases of a one and only one complex ∞-Uncertainty x ∞-Redundancy tree, yet they are based on the same principle of the ∞-Uncertainty x ∞-Redundancy tree, where this principle is the qualitative linkage between Non-locality and Locality.

The reasoning of the past 3,500 did not develop the understanding of the qualitative principle that stands at the basis of Quantity.

Organic Mathematics does exactly this, it discovers the qualitative foundations of Quantity, and step-by-step reasoning can't get that, because a step-by-step reasoning takes Quantity as a fundamental term for its development (by avoiding the understanding of its qualitative foundations) .

This is exactly the reason why Superposition is understood, for example as the sum over histories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation) of the paths of a quantum element from position A to position B, and by doing that it totally misses the qualitative linkage between Non-locality and Locality, that actually enables this sum, because a sum (which is caused by linear addition of each stimulus individually (see "serial observation" in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6175451&postcount=10845)) is nothing but some partial case of a framework that also deals with fogs and any possible mixture of sums/fogs.

This is also exactly the reason why infinite convergent elements are taken as sums and not as fogs, and this is how words like Superposition or Limit are used without any understanding (where the understanding here is exactly the qualitative foundations of Quantitiy).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
It is derived from the word "together"
Click to expand...


Why do you keep making stuff up? None of this agrees with reality. Is it your goal to post as many wrong things as you possibly can in every post?

The prefix, con-, comes from the Latin, cum, which means with.

Please stop covering your ignorance with more, willful ignorance. If you try even just a little bit you should be able to post something that isn't 100% wrong.
 
jsfisher said:
The prefix, con-, comes from the Latin, cum, which means with.
Click to expand...

Look at:

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

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/con-

You will find that also "together" and "joint" (see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/con- ) are used in the case of "con-" prefix.
jsfisher said:
If you try even just a little bit you should be able to post something that isn't 100% wrong.
Click to expand...
If you try even just a little bit you should be able to realize that your are an expert of partial observations of the considered subjects.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher said:
The prefix, con-, comes from the Latin, cum, which means with.
Click to expand...

Look at:

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

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/con-
Click to expand...

Yes, let's do that:

Wikipedia said:
Etymology 1

From the Latin prefix con-, from cum (“with”).
Click to expand...


Gee, it comes, is derived from the word, cum, which means with. Didn't someone already say that?

Doron, important tip: If you want to make a point, don't provide references that contradict it. Con- is not derived from "together".
 
jsfisher said:
Yes, let's do that:




Gee, it comes, is derived from the word, cum, which means with. Didn't someone already say that?

Doron, important tip: If you want to make a point, don't provide references that contradict it. Con- is not derived from "together".
Click to expand...

Jsfisher, important tip: In order to realize that you are an expert of partial observations please read all of what is written about con- in:

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

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/con-

before you reply.

EDIT:

You are right about one thing, con- is not derived from "together", "con-" has the same meaning as "together" in the case of con-text, and this is the important thing here.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
I did read it. And I actually understood the words. Why didn't you?

Perhaps you should look up the meanings of the words, derived (as in derived from) and means. You seem to have those confused.
Click to expand...

Let us put it this way.

You are right about one thing, con- is not derived from "together", "con-" has the same meaning as "together" in the case of con-text, and this is the important thing here, which you can't get because of your partial observation of this subject.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Let us put it this way.

You are right about one thing, con- is not derived from "together"
Click to expand...

More important is that you were wrong. You keep insisting otherwise, but you stuck to a bizarrely incorrect position--and obviously incorrect position--because, once again, you didn't understand the simple words you were using.

"con-" has the same meaning as "together" in the case of con-text, and this is the important thing here.
Click to expand...

Can have the same meaning. Can. There are other possibilities, but the exact meaning depends on the word in which con- is a prefix.

And, no, it is not really important here. You are strangely trying to invent some significance in English language etymology to Doronetics, mostly by getting in wrong. Given that Mathematics (or its foundational philosophical underpinning) and natural language have so few parallels, your insistence on trying to force correlations is truly strange.

Please stop just making stuff up.
 
doronshadmi said:
Let us put it this way.

You are right about one thing, con- is not derived from "together", "con-" has the same meaning as "together" in the case of con-text, and this is the important thing here, which you can't get because of your partial observation of this subject.
Click to expand...
What do you expect, if you write "con-" and leave the rest to the mice? A partially written word forces a partial observation. Just stop writing incomplete words, so we can go back to the full serial observation of words stuffed with dubious meaning.

Btw, con-brio means, "If you gonna play off key, I shall burn your violin." Composers used this expression in sheet music given to the orchestra players. I'm not kidding you. Just check it out:
http://www.all-music-sheets.com/images/BeethovenSymphonyNo5.jpg
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6175451&postcount=10845 this is an example of how context is based on connection among text, which enables serial\parallel observation under a one form.

[qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4016/4618125873_6a57de20d4_o.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
I tell you what, Doron. Let that OM take on the permutations and let's see some real results. Just take the whole alphabet and make the consonants line up in all possible ways. That makes about 3.36*(10^24) permutations. Do you think that the fancy multi-D manifolds can solve the problem of getting to a particular permutation faster by skipping parts of the generating algorithm?
I bet you that OM can't do that. You need to count 1, 2, 3 . . . like you need to count the order of primes, but permutations are "deeper than primes," coz they include the factorial (!):

31 is the 11th prime, but 31! = about 8.22*(10^33).

(That Orgasmic Mathematics is kind of weird; it doesn't compute anything; it just talks.)
 
doronshadmi said:
The Man, singular comparison is self-referential and non-singular comparison is non self-referential, as clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6158689&postcount=10770 .
Click to expand...

Nope, and we have already been over your “self-referential” nonsense before.

doronshadmi said:
The logical reasoning that is used by you, can't distinguish between them.
Click to expand...

Again don’t try positing your simply lack of reasoning onto others.

doronshadmi said:
Singular comparison like (A = A), (A ≠ A), (~A = ~A), (~A ≠ ~A) is fundamentally different than Non singular comparison like (A ≠ ~A), (A = ~A), and it does not matter if these expressions are True or False.
Click to expand...

Well, as simple statements of equality (or the lack thereof) and not a “comparison”, they are not “fundamentally different” even though the variables involved can be. However simply equating something with it self is just trivial. While not equating something with it self just demolishes any possible consistency. It is in equating or not equating something with something else that such statements can become practical and can maintain some consistency.

doronshadmi said:
The considered framework is based on both serial and parallel observations, which are based on both singular and non singular comparisons.
Click to expand...

Again…

The Man said:
In the same words as I used before, there is not, nor can there be, anything “serial” in or about your “serial observation” (as you described it), but there can be a serial aspect or aspects in your “parallel observation” (as you described it).
Click to expand...

So your “serial observation” is still just superfluous nonsense.

doronshadmi said:
Under serial observation (focused on Singular comparisons) we get anti-symmetric collection of certain ids.
Click to expand...

Nope, under your “Singular comparisons” you just get a trivial statement that something equals it self or the self-inconsistent statement that it does not. As both sides of those statements must be the same (by your own requirement) they must always be symmetrical.

doronshadmi said:
Under parallel observation (focused on Non singular comparisons) we get symmetric collection of uncertain ids.
Click to expand...

Nope, under your “Non singular comparisons” you just get statements of equality or inequality between something and something else. Although such statements can be practical and maintain consistency there is nothing inherently “symmetric” about them. Particularly in statements of inequality, which as a result of that inequality must be asymmetrical (not the same on both sides).



doronshadmi said:
Each observed case (including intermediate states between parallel and serial observations) is both particular and general form of the observed system.

Serial-only observation simply can't get that Mutuality (connectivity among ids) and Independency (ids) are aspects of the same complex framework.
Click to expand...

Again…


The Man said:
In the same words as I used before, there is not, nor can there be, anything “serial” in or about your “serial observation” (as you described it), but there can be a serial aspect or aspects in your “parallel observation” (as you described it).
Click to expand...

So your “Serial-only observation simply can't get” anything that is, well, serial.
 
Answering your posts in no particular order:

doronshadmi said:
Please refresh your screen and read it again.
Click to expand...
Little 10 Toes said:
No. I will not play your game. Make a new post.
Click to expand...
doronshadmi said:
So do not play it (he avoids editd posts like http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=10835), I don't care.
Click to expand...
You have a history of totally re-editing a post after several people have posted. I'm in the same boat as The Man. We're both getting tired of your "go back and refresh" game. I will not avoid your post. In fact, I typically wait for the 2hour limit to pass so you can't change your posts.

Like you did to 10835 and 10850. Very bad etiquette.

I already answered the unedited 10835 post at 10836, and the unmarked 1st edited portion at 10838.

You claim here:
doronshadmi said:
Just try to avoid the difference between A=A and A ~= ~A and you don't have the minimal conditions to survive as a complex system, whether the complexity is physical or moral.

For example: By reducing A ~= ~A to A = A complex system rabbit=A cannot distinguish between itself and complex system fox=~A.

As a result ~A eats A, and A does no have of springs.
Click to expand...
I asked that you define "complex system". You haven't. If rabbit = A then fox *and* carrot = ~A. So the carrot eats the rabbit?

I asked:
Little 10 Toes said:
Please show that a fox and a rabbit can do logical statements. [snip] There is no morality in math. Counting the dead, whether it be humans, bugs, or flowers, is no different then counting newborns, gold ingots, or concepts that you try to force people to accept as true.
Click to expand...

You replied to the two statements:
doronshadmi said:
They do better, they are using the logical reasoning of survival, which does not depent on "bla bla bla ...". [snip] Again a reasoning of disjoint domains is used.
Click to expand...

Great, so rabbits and foxes are using logical reasoning. Proof? Just saying they do, which you did in post #10843 is not proof. Which disjoint domains is used to show math has morality. Again, just saying it does isn't proof.

In regards to the word context, which you "defined" in post 10798, it was shown that you don't understand it in posts 10801, 10809, 10815, 10828, 10847, 10851,

You first asked where your error in using context was in post 10830

You even used a different meanings in 10812, 10833, 10854, 10855.

I'm sure there are things that I could have responded to or things that I missed, but I've taken way too long to respond, I'm tired, and I need to reboot.

PS: What about that clear definition of local and/or non-local that you still can't provide?
 
jsfisher said:
More important is that you were wrong.
Click to expand...
More important is that you are focused on insignificant details and miss the significant details about con- and specially its use in con-text, as can clearly see here (the bolded is mine):


1) http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/context
Main Entry: con-text

Pronunciation: \ˈkän-ˌtekst\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, weaving together of words, from Latin contextus connection of words, coherence, from contexere to weave together,
from com- + texere to weave
Click to expand...



2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_prefixes
Code: 
|          Prefix         |     Meaning      |
|-------------------------|------------------|
| Con-/com-/col-/cor-/co- | [B]together[/B] or [B]with[/B] |
Click to expand...



3) http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/con-
Prefix

con-

1. used with certain words to add a notion similar to those conveyed by with, together, or joint
Click to expand...


jsfisher said:
Please stop just making stuff up.
Click to expand...
Please stop forcing your narrow reasoning, in this case.
 
The Man said:
Nope, and we have already been over your “self-referential” nonsense before.



Again don’t try positing your simply lack of reasoning onto others.



Well, as simple statements of equality (or the lack thereof) and not a “comparison”, they are not “fundamentally different” even though the variables involved can be. However simply equating something with it self is just trivial. While not equating something with it self just demolishes any possible consistency. It is in equating or not equating something with something else that such statements can become practical and can maintain some consistency.



Again…



So your “serial observation” is still just superfluous nonsense.



Nope, under your “Singular comparisons” you just get a trivial statement that something equals it self or the self-inconsistent statement that it does not. As both sides of those statements must be the same (by your own requirement) they must always be symmetrical.



Nope, under your “Non singular comparisons” you just get statements of equality or inequality between something and something else. Although such statements can be practical and maintain consistency there is nothing inherently “symmetric” about them. Particularly in statements of inequality, which as a result of that inequality must be asymmetrical (not the same on both sides).





Again…




So your “Serial-only observation simply can't get” anything that is, well, serial.
Click to expand...

The Man, you simply can't get the difference between building-blocks and their use by collections.

Self-reference (whether it is True or False) is the building-block of certain ids, because it is the simultaneity of no more than one value.

Non self-reference (whether it is True or False) is the building-block of uncertain ids because it is the simultaneity of more than one value.

Since the considered framework is at least the linkage of Self-reference AND Non Self-reference, we get these different states:

a) A collection (which is actually based on both building-blocks) has an asymmetrical character if we are focused on the certain id's aspect (the simultaneity of no more than one value) of the linkage (we are able to define direction that is based on some order among certain id's).

b) A collection (which is actually based on both building-blocks) has symmetrical character if we are focused on the uncertain id's aspect (the simultaneity of more than one value) of the linkage (we are unable to define direction that is based on some order among uncertain id's, which is exactly the uncertainty of id's superposition).

c) A collection (which is actually based on both building-blocks) has several symmetrical degrees between Symmetry (superposition of ids) and Asymmetry (non superposition of ids)

d) Any given form is both global AND local state of the considered framework, for example:

Jsfisher and you clearly demonstrate that the number of given things cannot fully capture the non-trivial meaning of what Number is, simply because the traditional meaning of Number is based only on clear distinction of the involved.

By using Non-locality/Locality linkage as the qualitative foundation of Number, clear distinction is simply one of the options, for example:

Quantity 2 (and it does not matter if it is a whole number or two places of some 0.xx fraction) can't be used unless there is at least connector/connected linkage, where the connector has non-local quality and the connected has local quality.

From this qualitative foundation, Uncertainty and Redundancy are the fabric of the mathematical space that enables:

1) Strong symmetric observation of the linkage, which is resulted by superposition of identities (uncertain ids, for example: (AB)).

2) Weak symmetric observation, which is resulted by non-distinct replacement among clear ids (redundant ids, for example: (A,A), (B,B), (AB,AB) (in the last case AB superposition is ignored and taken as 'AB' notation for clear id of superposition representation)).

3) Asymmetric observation, which is resulted by clear ids (for example: (A,B))

By the way, the ( 1) , 2) , 3) ) explanation above uses the Asymmetric observation (3), but again, no one of the options above has any privilege and we as participators (and not only observers) of this mathematical universe actually design it for our purpose.

The coherence of this mathematical universe is guaranteed by its Non-local/Local linkage qualitative foundation, where Non-locality and Locality complement each other into a one fabric.
The Man said:
Nope, under your “Singular comparisons” you just get a trivial statement that something equals it self or the self-inconsistent statement that it does not. As both sides of those statements must be the same (by your own requirement) they must always be symmetrical.
Click to expand...

Yep, your "bla bla ..." reasoning simply can't get Symmetry and Asymmetry as observed in the following diagram:

4711080643_d71d687fc4_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
More important is that you are focused on insignificant details and miss the significant details about con- and specially its use in con-text, as can clearly see here (the bolded is mine):
Click to expand...


I focus on what you say, Doron. Words have meaning, and you use words very incorrectly. And almost invariably, it is from insignificant details that you attempt to derive (invariably incorrectly) ridiculous conclusions.

So, yes, your insignificant details come under scrutiny, as they should.

Unfortunately for you, on this whole "context" interlude, you have had no significant details. Neither the meaning of context nor its etymology provides any basis for Doronetics.

And your extended insistence through misrepresentation that it does only reinforces the conclusion Doronetics is without substance, basis, or result.
 
doronshadmi said:
More important is that you are focused on insignificant details and miss the significant details about con- and specially its use in con-text, as can clearly see here (the bolded is mine):

1) http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/context

Etymology: Middle English, weaving together of words, from Latin contextus connection of words, coherence, from contexere to weave together, from com- + texere to weave
Click to expand...
The word "con" is still used in modern languages as a preposition. In Italian, for example, "con" means the same as it meant in Latin - it means "with." But the two main influences on the development of English obscure the consistency of the meaning. If you split "control" on "con-trol" and regard the prefix as the clue to the etymology of the word, then your soup is outside the bowl, coz "control" splits on "cont" and "rol" where the first part derives from "count" and "rol" derives from "roll," like "payroll."

It's too bad that your limited serial observations missed the origin of the idea to weave special T-shirts, where 'T' stands for True, coz a T-shirt is the only true logical text-ile.

Do you have any idea what con-trolling the topic means?
 
doronshadmi said:
The Man, you simply can't get the difference between building-blocks and their use by collections.
Click to expand...

Doron you simply can not get that your “building-blocks” are used only by your fantasies. As exemplified below.

doronshadmi said:
Self-reference (whether it is True or False) is the building-block of certain ids, because it is the simultaneity of no more than one value.

Non self-reference (whether it is True or False) is the building-block of uncertain ids because it is the simultaneity of more than one value.

Since the considered framework is at least the linkage of Self-reference AND Non Self-reference, we get these different states:

a) A collection (which is actually based on both building-blocks) has an asymmetrical character if we are focused on the certain id's aspect (the simultaneity of no more than one value) of the linkage (we are able to define direction that is based on some order among certain id's).

b) A collection (which is actually based on both building-blocks) has symmetrical character if we are focused on the uncertain id's aspect (the simultaneity of more than one value) of the linkage (we are unable to define direction that is based on some order among uncertain id's, which is exactly the uncertainty of id's superposition).

c) A collection (which is actually based on both building-blocks) has several symmetrical degrees between Symmetry (superposition of ids) and Asymmetry (non superposition of ids)

d) Any given form is both global AND local state of the considered framework, for example:

Jsfisher and you clearly demonstrate that the number of given things cannot fully capture the non-trivial meaning of what Number is, simply because the traditional meaning of Number is based only on clear distinction of the involved.

By using Non-locality/Locality linkage as the qualitative foundation of Number, clear distinction is simply one of the options, for example:

Quantity 2 (and it does not matter if it is a whole number or two places of some 0.xx fraction) can't be used unless there is at least connector/connected linkage, where the connector has non-local quality and the connected has local quality.

From this qualitative foundation, Uncertainty and Redundancy are the fabric of the mathematical space that enables:

1) Strong symmetric observation of the linkage, which is resulted by superposition of identities (uncertain ids, for example: (AB)).

2) Weak symmetric observation, which is resulted by non-distinct replacement among clear ids (redundant ids, for example: (A,A), (B,B), (AB,AB) (in the last case AB superposition is ignored and taken as 'AB' notation for clear id of superposition representation)).

3) Asymmetric observation, which is resulted by clear ids (for example: (A,B))

By the way, the ( 1) , 2) , 3) ) explanation above uses the Asymmetric observation (3), but again, no one of the options above has any privilege and we as participators (and not only observers) of this mathematical universe actually design it for our purpose.

The coherence of this mathematical universe is guaranteed by its Non-local/Local linkage qualitative foundation, where Non-locality and Locality complement each other into a one fabric.


Yep, your "bla bla ..." reasoning simply can't get Symmetry and Asymmetry as observed in the following diagram:

[qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4068/4711080643_d71d687fc4_b.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

It has been obvious for quite some time that you simply do not understand the meaning of “Symmetry and Asymmetry” as well as a lot of other very basic concepts.
 
jsfisher said:
Be specific, please. I was very specific with you; can you not return the courtesy? You completely misused the phrase "derived from".

Which words did I misuse?
Click to expand...
Jsfisher, it is typical for you be stucked in irrelevant corners.

We already agreed that con- is derived from the Latin word cum ("with"), but con- has also the same meaning of the words "together" and "joint".

Furthermore, let us use con- as "with".

"Text X with text Y" means that X and Y share the same framework, where the shared property is not X or Y but something among them.

So also by "with" case we get the same result, which is derived form Non-locality("with)\Locality(text X,text Y) Linkage.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Doron you simply can not get that your “building-blocks” are used only by your fantasies. As exemplified below.



It has been obvious for quite some time that you simply do not understand the meaning of “Symmetry and Asymmetry” as well as a lot of other very basic concepts.
Click to expand...
It has been obvious for quite some time that you simply do not understand anything beyond your local-only asymmetric serial (step-by-step) reasoning.
 
doronshadmi said:
Jsfisher, it is typical for you be stucked in irrelevant corners.
Click to expand...

You accused me of misusing English words. Can you provide examples or not? You have a long history of making stuff up, and that extends to more than just your own pseudo-mathematics. I will assume, once again, you were lying.

We already agreed that con- is derived from the Latin word cum ("with"), but con- has also the same meaning of the words "together" and "joint".
Click to expand...

I see you still don't understand the difference between "derived from" and "can mean". Oh, well.

Yes, the English prefix, con-. is derived from the Latin, cum. As a prefix, it can modify the meaning of the root to include a concept of "together" or "joint" or "with" or it can suggest intensity.

Which of the things the prefix does, if any, depends on the word and not your fantasy reverse-engineering.

Furthermore, let us use con- as "with".
Click to expand...

You don't get to arbitrarily decide its meaning separate from actual usage. For example, the word, context, comes from the Late Latin, contextus. The word may begin with con, but it is not derived from the prefix, con-, appended to some root. In particular, it is not con+text, as you have asserted.

"Text X with text Y" means that X and Y share the same framework, where the shared property is not X or Y but something among them.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't, no more than "idea K with idea L" requires K and L share a framework.

And what does this have to do with your misuse and misunderstanding of the word, context, and the prefix, con-?

Why do you continue (oh, look, another instance of con- that is not a prefix) with these absurd asides? If you have a point that can be made, please just make it directly. There's not point showing off all the other things you don't understand.
 
jsfisher said:
You accused me of misusing English words. Can you provide examples or not? You have a long history of making stuff up, and that extends to more than just your own pseudo-mathematics. I will assume, once again, you were lying.



I see you still don't understand the difference between "derived from" and "can mean". Oh, well.

Yes, the English prefix, con-. is derived from the Latin, cum. As a prefix, it can modify the meaning of the root to include a concept of "together" or "joint" or "with" or it can suggest intensity.

Which of the things the prefix does, if any, depends on the word and not your fantasy reverse-engineering.

No, it doesn't, no more than "idea K with idea L" requires K and L share a framework.



You don't get to arbitrarily decide its meaning separate from actual usage. For example, the word, context, comes from the Late Latin, contextus. The word may begin with con, but it is not derived from the prefix, con-, appended to some root. In particular, it is not con+text, as you have asserted.



And what does this have to do with your misuse and misunderstanding of the word, context, and the prefix, con-?

Why do you continue (oh, look, another instance of con- that is not a prefix) with these absurd asides? If you have a point that can be made, please just make it directly. There's not point showing off all the other things you don't understand.
Click to expand...

Jsfisher, you are talking nonsense.

Look at http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/context:

Context is form the Latin word contextus and its meaning is: Connection of words.

But we do not stop there because contextus is from contexere and its meaning is: to weave together, but we do not stop there because contexere is from com- + texere and its meaning is: to weave.

Now look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_prefixes and you will find that Com- and Con- have the same meaning.


jsfisher said:
No, it doesn't, no more than "idea K with idea L" requires K and L share a framework.
Click to expand...
Idea K and Idea L are expressed by Text X and Text Y, so "with" does the same job by connecting them into a one framework.

If you do not understand what I say the please use "without" instead of "with" among them.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Jsfisher, you are talking nonsense.
Click to expand...

You are lying still. We've come to expect that, though. You have made it a habit.

Look at http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/context:

Context is form the Latin word contextus and its meaning is: Connection of words.
Click to expand...

I see you continue to confuse etymology and meaning. Yes, the Late Latin, contextus, meant "connection of words." So, what's your point? The English word, context, means something else, something more detailed.

But we do not stop there because contextus is from contexere and its meaning is: to weave together, but we do not stop there because contexere is from com- + texere and its meaning is: to weave.
Click to expand...

Yes, so? Contextus was derived from contexere which in turn was derived from com+texere. Etymology is a wonderful thing. What's your point? Context does not mean to weave together.

Now look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_prefixes and you will find that Com- and Con- have the same meaning.
Click to expand...

Can have the same meaning. Can. You made this same mistake before. And where are you trying to go with this point?

Idea K and Idea L are expressed by Text X and Text Y, so "with" does the same job by connecting them into a one framework.
Click to expand...

No, idea K with idea L is not expressed by text X with text Y. And there is not implicit or explicit requirement for any of them to share a framework. You have failed to establish any need for a common framework by the mere inclusion of the word, with.

If you do not understand what I say the please use "without" instead of "with" among them.
Click to expand...

What is it you expect that to show?
 
doronshadmi said:
It has been obvious for quite some time that you simply do not understand anything beyond your local-only asymmetric serial (step-by-step) reasoning.
Click to expand...


Doron you still simply do not understand and apparently refuse to accept that your “local-only asymmetric serial (step-by-step) reasoning” is, well, just yours. Again, do not try to posit your simple lack of reasoning onto others. So evidently you prefer simply labeling people with some aspect of your own failed reasoning as opposed to actually addressing the facts that, by your own assertions, your “superposition” does not involve superposition, your “serial observation” can observe nothing serial or serially and the related "asymmetry" of which your speak is required by you to be specifically, well, symmetrical. Once again you are the staunchest opponent of your own claims and notions.
 
The Man said:
Doron you still simply do not understand and apparently refuse to accept that your “local-only asymmetric serial (step-by-step) reasoning” is, well, just yours. Again, do not try to posit your simple lack of reasoning onto others. So evidently you prefer simply labeling people with some aspect of your own failed reasoning as opposed to actually addressing the facts that, by your own assertions, your “superposition” does not involve superposition, your “serial observation” can observe nothing serial or serially and the related "asymmetry" of which your speak is required by you to be specifically, well, symmetrical. Once again you are the staunchest opponent of your own claims and notions.
Click to expand...
The Man in Plato's cave :boxedin: sees :covereyes only the shadows on the wall.
http://www.thehamletenigma.com/images/cave04.jpg
cave04.jpg
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You indeed have to ask yourself this question.

Maybe you still Can help yourself sometime.
Click to expand...

Doron, this current aside into the realm of etymology is all of your doing. Do you really expect me to tell you what confusion drove you to this thread arc? It is clear from this last remark you haven't a clue what you were expecting to accomplish or what point you were trying to make.

Yet, again, Doron bounces from nonsense to nonsense without purpose or plan. Please let us know when you are finally about to make a point.
 
jsfisher said:
Doron, this current aside into the realm of etymology is all of your doing. Do you really expect me to tell you what confusion drove you to this thread arc? It is clear from this last remark you haven't a clue what you were expecting to accomplish or what point you were trying to make.

Yet, again, Doron bounces from nonsense to nonsense without purpose or plan. Please let us know when you are finally about to make a point.
Click to expand...
All you get is a point.

But this quality is not the whole story.
 
doronshadmi said:
All you get is a point.
Click to expand...

Yes, and when you finally present one, I am sure I will get it, too.

But this quality is not the whole story.
Click to expand...

So far, you have dealt entirely with quantity in the absolute absence of quality. Doronetics is inconsistent, undefined, contradictory, and without purpose or result. Change any one of these characteristics and you will have improved things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom