Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apathia said:
But the devil of confusion is always in the detail of how this is supposed to fit together.
Click to expand...

OM asks: "What enables the "How many?" question?"

OM asks: "What enables questions?"

OM's answer: "The Linkage among Non-local and Local qualities!"
 
doronshadmi said:
OM asks: "What enables the "How many?" question?"

OM asks: "What enables questions?"

OM's answer: "The Linkage among Non-local and Local qualities!"
Click to expand...


Your answer falls short of useful. It is figurative, not descriptive. It does not explain; it merely conflates.

Be that as it may, the questions may have some meta-physical significance, but none for Mathematics, to the answer you provided doesn't matter anyway.
 
doronshadmi said:
If X is all one gets, then ~X is undefined.
Click to expand...

Nope, you just defined it as, well, “~X”

doronshadmi said:
So what enables to get both X and ~X?
Click to expand...

Once again “~X” defines “X” (by the exclusion of “~X”, ~~X = X), just as “X” defines “~X” (by the exclusion of X, ~X=~X) that you simply don’t get that (or definition in general) does not make either undefined by the fact that it excludes the other. Again it is mutual dependence not your imaginary ‘mutual independence’.
 
doronshadmi said:
OM asks: "What enables the "How many?" question?"

OM asks: "What enables questions?"

OM's answer: "The Linkage among Non-local and Local qualities!"
Click to expand...

You'd think I had fully realized by now that I'm wrong in searching for that kind of rational coherence in OM.
Om isn't based upon the relation of classifying concepts but complexes of capricious juxtapositions of local-like/non-local-like qualities.

A = {1,2,3,4,5}
B = {1,3,5}
C = {2,4}

What's the relation of B and C?
Both subsets of A?
That's an acceptable answer, but it's not OM (or at least not the essence of it.)
Their essential relation in OM is that A, B, and C are all partial manifestations of the Local/Non-Local Complex where they are all on the same footing.
 
The Man said:
Again it is mutual dependence not your imaginary ‘mutual independence’.
Click to expand...

Worng The Man.

Mutuality and Dependency a synonyms, so if there are different things in the same system, then we are based on not less than mutual independency, exactly as two axioms are mutual independent w.r.t each other.
 
Apathia said:
You'd think I had fully realized by now that I'm wrong in searching for that kind of rational coherence in OM.
Om isn't based upon the relation of classifying concepts but complexes of capricious juxtapositions of local-like/non-local-like qualities.

A = {1,2,3,4,5}
B = {1,3,5}
C = {2,4}

What's the relation of B and C?
Both subsets of A?
That's an acceptable answer, but it's not OM (or at least not the essence of it.)
Their essential relation in OM is that A, B, and C are all partial manifestations of the Local/Non-Local Complex where they are all on the same footing.
Click to expand...

A = {1,2,3,4,5} = 1,2,3,4,5

B = {1,3,5} = 1,3,5

C = {2,4} = 2,4

So A,B and C are based on the same principle of Non-locality\Locality Linkage.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
No. If one gets X, then ~X is everything that one doesn't get.
Click to expand...

You have missed it.

The right one is: "If X is all one gets".

In that case one can't know the he can't get ~X.

The one who says: "If one gets X, then ~X is everything that one doesn't get" gets things beyond "the one who gets only X".

Getting things beyond only X in not less than X___~X.
 
So, what did you learn, Apathia? That's right, you need to underline your answers to get full credit!

doronshadmi said:
A = {1,2,3,4,5} = 1,2,3,4,5

B = {1,3,5} = 1,3,5

C = {2,4} = 2,4

So A,B and C are based on the same principle of Non-locality\Locality Linkage.
Click to expand...


And just to show you that I've learned, too: Answer: Safeway.
 
epix said:
Doron, can you check on that Time___Place local linkage? Today date is 8-3, and 8 - 3 = 5. If the place is the USA, then 5 means Connecticut, coz it is the 5th State of the Union. See, the date 8-3 is special due to the symmetry of the numbers: if you cut 8 vertically and take the right part away then you get 3. I know that there has been some problem with symmetry and asymmetry in your work, and that could cause a problem in the core processor. Can you check on the news coming from Connecticut, if there is any? The core processor becomes unstable under a certain condition and can negatively affect reasoning of the members that are linked to it.
Click to expand...

Are your eyes failing you, Doron? Or are you trying to run once again away from 1+1=2?

What is OM? What question does it ask? OM______?

OM____? = OMAR S. THORTON
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/nyregion/05shooting.html?src=mv

O(MAR S) THORTON.

Yep. The core processor that messes yours and other heads is located on the red planet. It's not easy to troubleshoot, coz it denies the fact that 1+1=2 -- meaning you can't reason with it. The only way is to "trap it." But that's a fancy procedure -- only a few can do it.
 
doronshadmi said:
You have missed it.

The right one is: "If X is all one gets".

In that case one can't know the he can't get ~X.

The one who says: "If one gets X, then ~X is everything that one doesn't get" gets things beyond "the one who gets only X".

Getting things beyond only X in not less than X___~X.
Click to expand...
Your answer doesn't match the question.

You said: If X is all one gets, then ~X is undefined.
I replied:If one gets X, then ~X is everything that one doesn't get.

What is "[t]he right one"?

All the things that I know are X. All the things I don't know are ~X. I know I don't know how many atoms there are in the Sun. Number of atoms in the Sun is ~X. The fact that I know "I don't know the number of atoms in the Sun" is X.

Remind us, what does ____ mean in X___~X?

Remind us, what does local mean?
 
jsfisher said:
So, what did you learn, Apathia? That's right, you need to underline your answers to get full credit!

And just to show you that I've learned, too: Answer: Safeway.
Click to expand...

I'll never learn. I was just at Albertson's again.

The underline is our old friend The Line as representative of the qualitative, principle of Non-Locality.
Each number on the line is a separate, definite Locality.
So you know the deal.
Together they form a "complex."
Each of those "sets" is a "complex."

Doron's organizing principle for relation of complex to complex isn't common class identity, but being in the matrix (Epix's going to run with this.) of the conjunctive relation of Locality and Non-Locality.
But as an organizing principle, of itself alone, it merely gives us amorphous complexity, which isn't very useful.

Doron asserts that Local/Non-Local Linkage generates not just complexes of uncertain group identity, but ordinary groups and sub-groups of common classifications.
I have been totally unsuccesful in figuring out how this is supposed to happen, or how it's supposed to create the concept of counting and numbers.
Needless to say, Doron's expositions do not fit together. He makes a leap.
As I said before, It's like the jump of a chess knight. It turns a corner before it lands on the board.

Doron wishes to present a way of thinking with complexes (or fogs). He even offers a "logic" of such, though it fails to exhibit any rules or procedures.

I've offered a sense of "The Complex" I understand when I suspend analytic thinking and relate to my environment as presences in their own light that include me.
However this kind of consciousness is not what Doron is trying to present.
He wants something "scientific" and to some extent a quantifiable metaphysic. So is Organic Numbers that attempt to give measurability to the "Complex."

I base all this on the most repeated things he says, though there are always some statements that contradict and undercut these ideas.

If this isn't what he's about, then no one can have any idea of what's going on in his head.
But I dare say it's his a-ha that explains everything.
Alas to have a vision that no one else can understand. :wackysad:
 
Little 10 Toes said:
All the things that I know are X. All the things I don't know are ~X.
Click to expand...

In that case you have a meta-view of X and ~X, which is not limited by any one of them (it is non-local w.r.t X or ~X).

This is not the case if X is all one gets.


Little 10 Toes said:
Remind us, what does ____ mean in X___~X?

Remind us, what does local mean?
Click to expand...

1) If Y belongs NXOR ~belongs w.r.t X, then Y is Non-local w.r.t X

2) If Y belongs XOR ~belongs w.r.t X, then Y is Local w.r.t X

According to (1) and (2) definitions, X or ~X are local w.r.t ___, and ___ is non-local w.r.t X or ~X.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Counting is not a process.

If you get that, you are opened to OM.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Doron. Either we aren't speaking the same language, or you are terribly deluded.
I won't quibble with you over the meaning of the word "process."
I know that will get nowhere.
I don't know what you mean by this or why you are saying it.
And since trying to sus that always comes to a dead end, I wish you a good night.
 
Apathia said:
I'm sorry Doron. Either we aren't speaking the same language, or you are terribly deluded.
I won't quibble with you over the meaning of the word "process."
I know that will get nowhere.
I don't know what you mean by this or why you are saying it.
And since trying to sus that always comes to a dead end, I wish you a good night.
Click to expand...

Apathia, you wrote this:
Apathia said:
Doron asserts that Local/Non-Local Linkage generates not just complexes of uncertain group identity, but ordinary groups and sub-groups of common classifications.

I have been totally unsuccesful in figuring out how this is supposed to happen, or how it's supposed to create the concept of counting and numbers.
Click to expand...
Apathia said:
Needless to say, Doron's expositions do not fit together. He makes a leap.
Click to expand...

1) If Y belongs NXOR ~belongs w.r.t X, then Y is Non-local w.r.t X

2) If Y belongs XOR ~belongs w.r.t X, then Y is Local w.r.t X

According to (1) and (2) definitions, X or ~X are local w.r.t ___, and ___ is non-local w.r.t X or ~X.

What does not fit together or where I make leaps in the following diagrams about the universality of Non-locality\Locality Linkage? :

4711080643_d71d687fc4_b.jpg



4861902179_6235c3d56c.jpg
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You have missed it.

The right one is: "If X is all one gets".

In that case one can't know the he can't get ~X.

The one who says: "If one gets X, then ~X is everything that one doesn't get" gets things beyond "the one who gets only X".

Getting things beyond only X in not less than X___~X.
Click to expand...
What's that? Romeo and Juliet?

Things are very easy when Mr. Negation enters the stage: If X is all one gets, then ~X is not all that one gets.

A = It's getting more ridiculous by the minute
~A = 1) It's getting less ridiculous by the minute
or
~A = 2) It's not getting ridiculous by the minute?

If A is true, then the answer must be (1).

The idea to use letters to substitute numbers came kind of late, but we now use a + b instead of 1 plus 8, or use some other particular numerical example. What we don't see in algebra are two arithmetic operators between two letters, such as a +/ b. But OM seems to have different rules. Do you remember what you did, Doron? You forgot, or were not aware of, that ~ (negation) is a logical connective (operator) that has its own truth table, and so you used it with another connective XOR. So you got

A XOR ~A

going, which is an expression similar to A +/ A, or A -* A, in algebra -- an expression that is not used, coz it doesn't produce a quantitative result that would make any sense.

That's how the mayhem started; the joy of aggravated assault on common sense sprang to life once again. How many more times?
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
No, Doron, saying that "X is all one gets" does not mean that there is nothing but X.
Click to expand...
In order to realize it, X is not all one gets, and what enables to realize it is Non-locality w.r.t X (getting things also beyond X) or w.r.t ~X (getting things also beyond ~X):

4789944385_7e4d198597.jpg
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In order to realize it, X is not all one gets, and what enables to realize it is Non-locality w.r.t X (getting things also beyond X) or w.r.t ~X (getting things also beyond ~X):

4789944385_7e4d198597.jpg
Click to expand...

Can I commend you on getting as much meaning in the words as in the picture?
 
JSFISHER said:
Unfortunately, line segments have a property, namely length, that guarantees their divisibility.
Click to expand...
Line segments are the result of Non-locality\Locality Linkage, as following:

1) If A belongs NXOR ~belongs w.r.t B, then A is Non-local w.r.t B

2) If A belongs XOR ~belongs w.r.t B, then A is Local w.r.t B

According to (1) and (2) definitions, X or ~X are local w.r.t ___, and ___ is non-local w.r.t X or ~X.

X or ~X are the local aspects of X___~X linkage that are located at the ends of ___, where ___ is the non-local aspect of X___~X linkage, which extends X location or ~X location (which is a property that X or ~X do not have w.r.t ___, under X___~X linkage).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Apathia, you wrote this:



1) If Y belongs NXOR ~belongs w.r.t X, then Y is Non-local w.r.t X

2) If Y belongs XOR ~belongs w.r.t X, then Y is Local w.r.t X

According to (1) and (2) definitions, X or ~X are local w.r.t ___, and ___ is non-local w.r.t X or ~X.

What does not fit together or where I make leaps in the following diagrams about the universality of Non-locality\Locality Linkage? :

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


[qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4079/4861902179_6235c3d56c.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Morning, and I look at those diagrams again with a fresh eye.
It seems there might be some significance there that I might interpret,
but my memory reminds me that my attempts to find solid meaning there have only gotten me into quicksand.

It would seem that if that were the basis of cognition and mathematics, at least some of the population would be able to look at it and intuitively grasp what it's about without having to struggle with it as some kind of puzzle.

I'm certainly not one of those people.

Doron, I hope you find them.
It's a lonely world without companions who understand you.
But then I gave up years ago expecting that anyone would understand my own ramblings.

escher27s_relativity.jpg
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
Morning, and I look at those diagrams again with a fresh eye.
It seems there might be some significance there that I might interpret,
but my memory reminds me that my attempts to find solid meaning there have only gotten me into quicksand.

It would seem that if that were the basis of cognition and mathematics, at least some of the population would be able to look at it and intuitively grasp what it's about without having to struggle with it as some kind of puzzle.

I'm certainly not one of those people.

Doron, I hope you find them.
It's a lonely world without companions who understand you.
But then I gave up years ago expecting that anyone would understand my own ramblings.
Click to expand...

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/2430257.jpg

2430257.jpg
 
Definitions, mabe!

doronshadmi said:
1) If Y belongs NXOR ~belongs w.r.t X, then Y is Non-local w.r.t X
2) If Y belongs XOR ~belongs w.r.t X, then Y is Local w.r.t X

According to (1) and (2) definitions, X or ~X are local w.r.t ___, and ___ is non-local w.r.t X or ~X.
Click to expand...

You've only given me examples, not definitions.

  1. What are X and Y? Are they sets, elements/atoms of a set or something else?
  2. What do you mean by "belongs"? (This question may be answered depending on your previous reply.
  3. Would you agree that XOR's definition basically means "one or the other, but not both"?
  4. Would you agree that NXOR (NOT XOR) definition is the opposite of XOR, meaning "either none or both"?
  5. What does ____ mean?
 
doronshadmi said:
Counting is not a process.
If you get that, you are opened to OM.
Click to expand...

I didn't get why you'd say such a thing at the time.
But at work this AM it surfaced in my mind.
(That's the way it is for me. I fuss over a question, then sometime later when I'm not thinking about it, an idea bubbles up)

In OM number is like the rainbow on your diagram.
4711080643_d71d687fc4_b.jpg

One color doesn't proceed from another.

Each number is a configuration or "complex" created by The Linkage.

Except for simple configurations, counting is a process (and I'm one of those people who uses his fingers.)
One might call that "serial" counting. Though your use of "serial" is confusing for me.
But there is a "parallel" sense of "counting," where we just recognize the number via the configuration.
Take dice for example. If a roll a fiver, I don't have to count the dots, I just see at a glance that it's a five.
I grasp it as a complex.

I hear that there are South American languages that are very concrete about number, some having just one, two, three, and many. Because the three is the maximum recognized just so number. After that it's many.
Roman numerals are an example of a number notation based on configuration.

A lot of other things you say make more sense in this light of concrete image quantity.

We're not used to this way of seeing number, because our language and arabic system of number notation encourages an abstract process of arriving at quantity.
But it's more recognizable to young children. (as Moshe Klein sees the kindergarten angle to OM.)

(Also since I write stories, how to begin a story containing the clash of these modes of number started bubbling up. I'll make my notes. I have other stories in progress at the moment.)

I still don't get how OM creates our abstract process counting, but it seems you are saying that there's no such process in OM, since numbers are merely concrete complexes born of The Linkage.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
You've only given me examples, not definitions.

  1. What are X and Y? Are they sets, elements/atoms of a set or something else?
  2. What do you mean by "belongs"? (This question may be answered depending on your previous reply.
  3. Would you agree that XOR's definition basically means "one or the other, but not both"?
  4. Would you agree that NXOR (NOT XOR) definition is the opposite of XOR, meaning "either none or both"?
  5. What does ____ mean?
Click to expand...

The song is a tribute to the A NXOR ~A and A XOR ~A nonsense with two operators between both identical operands:

Originally Posted by doronshadmi
1) If Y belongs NXOR ~belongs w.r.t X, then Y is Non-local w.r.t X
2) If Y belongs XOR ~belongs w.r.t X, then Y is Local w.r.t X

According to (1) and (2) definitions, X or ~X are local w.r.t ___, and ___ is non-local w.r.t X or ~X.
Click to expand...

This time the operand is "belongs," (Belongs NXOR ~Belongs).
That (1) basically says " If Y NXOR and Negation results w.r.t. X, then Y is Non-local w.r.t. X.

If it happens to be the case and you set your mind on finding perhaps a contradiction in Doron's logical schemes, then be advised that contradictions can be found only within legitimate logical constructs, which is not the case with the goulash Doron has been serving, even if you clean the table.
 
Refresher

doronshadmi said:
Context is exactly weaving together things into a common framework.
Click to expand...


I thought it would be better to invite a group of college students to help compact the ground, so to speak, for the GOD --> G0D change that Father Totti needs to make and justify in order to explain the mysterious burning of the Venn diagram.

The change from a letter to a number is a change like any other changes. The problem is that changes can occur randomly, or they could be perceived as being random; or they can be justified as being a consequence of some mechanism at work. Changes have also a magnitude -- there are big changes and there are changes that are too small to be even perceptible, but they can morph into the butterfly effect. And so, we ask the students to comment on this particular change:

Before: Milk, Cheese, Hammer
After: Milk_Cheese, Hammer

The change is the replacement of the comma with the underscore and the question is whether the change was likely random or not.

There is no way of telling unless there are more results. So after repeating the same Before/After change ten times, the result turned always the same: the underscore had replaced the comma between Milk and Cheese. This is statistically very significant outcome, and that means the choice for that particular replacement shouldn't be regarded as random. That also means that there is a very good reason to look for a cause that would justify the choice. That's also why we have those college kids on standby.

The general agreement among the college students was that the underscore had a function of connecting two words. In this particular case, the underscore pondered two options to make the change and based its criterion of choice on a relationship between words according to their meaning. For example, milk and cheese are dairy products, but the hammer is not; milk and cheese are usually found in the fridge, whereas the hammer likes to live in the toolbox. In other words, Milk and Cheese have more things in common than Cheese and Hammer.

But differences may not be always apparent. Let's test the 'comma --> underscore' change once again:

Before: Milk, Cheese, Yogurt
After: Milk Cheese_Yogurt

The ten times repetition showed that on each occasion the underscore connected Cheese and Yogurt. But that's strange, coz all three items are dairy products that also share a common place: the refrigerator. Of course, all three items look different, but does the difference warrant the same result as it was the case with Milk, Cheese and Hammer? In the previous example, Hammer was excluded 10 times, mainly because it is not a dairy product. How come that Milk has been also excluded 10 times from the population of dairy products? That doesn't figure. That's why we have the college kids on standby to provide the necessary assistance in the figuring.

After some inconclusive deliberation involving molecular characteristics of fermentation and so on, Natasha suggested to take the three dairy products from the fridge and do some lab tests. But the fridge was empty. What happened?

What happened to the Milk?
Someone has DRUNK it.

Where is the Cheese?
Someone has EATEN it.

And where is the Yogurt?
Someone has EATEN it too.

It became clear what the consistent choice was based upon. A host took over and became the criterion of choice when the dairy products characteristics were not clearly separable to warrant a near-consistent choice. The host took on the form of VERB_NOUN association: Drink Milk, Eat Cheese, Eat Yogurt. Through this association, the characteristic of the dairy products has been extended non-locally and became the criteria under which the choice has been made:

Before: Milk, Cheese, Yogurt
After: host(Drink, Eat_Eat) => Milk, Cheese_Yogurt

The role of the host is to provide a comprehensive extension of the properties so the differences necessary to tell things apart become apparent. ( Drink<>Eat=Eat.)

The term "host" may have a synonym in "a reason that is not apparent but logical to become the criterion of choice."

In order to get closer to the monastery and Father Totti, we can use the host to explain a hard-to-account-for difference between a sample of students from two colleges. We randomly select 100 students from college A and the same number of students from college B. The null hypothesis says that there will be no difference in the performance of both groups when they be presented with the "Underscore Test." Their task is to replace one period with an underscore, which has a function to relate the expressions:

Before: I am Alpha and Omega, I am the First and the Last, I am the Beginning and the End.
After: ?

Let's make an example of what is being meant by using a related example:

Before: I am Alpha and Omega, I am the First and the Last, I am the Walrus.
After: I am Alpha and Omega__I am the First and the Last, I am the Walrus.

(There are lots of quick choices made that are intuitive and correct as well . . .)

The result from the students that attend college A showed that the choice leaned toward 'I am Alpha and Omega__I am the First and the Last' with no statistical significance in the difference, and we expect no statistically significant difference in the result provided by the kids from college B. But there was a huge difference: 87 respondent out of 100 chose the 'I am the First and the Last__I am the Beginning and the End' option.

Those 87 students from college B had to use a pretty clear criterion of choice to make the result statistically very significant -- something that the students from college A couldn't see. But what was it?

If you investigate the ways Nature makes choices that cause changes, like the evolution of species, it won't reply to your questions -- you need to form theories. But in this case, we can ask those 87 students what was the reason for such surprising result that killed the null hypothesis of no difference.

There were only 7 students who gave a different reason for their choice. The rest -- 80 students -- used identical reasoning, which was this: The statement comprises three parts that form one category, namely a class called "Opposites." Unfortunately, the class doesn't have apparent subclasses, like the class of mammals does, and that makes it very difficult to spot a difference within the class. Under this condition, a statistically significant outcome is very unlikely. But the nature of the class -- Opposites -- may be favorable to the process of differentiation. Let's say that the choice to replace one comma out of those two by using a non-random choice is difficult. But the opposite of "difficult" is "easy." Is it possible to smuggle "easy" into the process of the decision making?

Actually there was a chance to do so -- there was a chance based on a comparison of opposites:

Right is to Difficult as Left is to Easy

Why is there this particular comparison and what would that accomplish?

Well, the statement that comprises three parts separated by commas always starts with "I am." That means someone can be credited with the statement. That someone would appear on the left side of the statement and serve as the host

Host (said): I am Alpha and Omega, I am the First and the Last, I am the Beginning and the End.

Unlike the students from college A, the students from college B could make the necessary comparison to identify the host: The statement is very similar to what Revelation 22:13 says. By defining the host as God, the statement now has two parts: one on the left(easy) of the colon and the second on the right(difficult):

God: I am Alpha and Omega, I am the First and the Last, I am the Beginning and the End.

It's apparent that the statement can be divided into three separate statements G, o, and d:

G: I am Alpha and Omega
o: I am the First and the Last
d: I am the Beginning and the End.

Having done that, the easy part is around the corner:

Before: G, o, d
After: G, o_d

As long as there is a difference between upper-case and lower-case letters, 'o_d' is justified. It will now "pass the reference" when we switch back from the parallel to the serial observation:

G, o_d: I am Alpha and Omega, I am the First and the Last_ I am the Beginning and the End.

And that concludes the example of the function of the host, which enables a group of respondents to make a strong (statistically significant) justifiable choice when nothing else works. The students from collage A -- The James Randi College -- obviously couldn't make any justifiable choice, unlike those bright kids from college B -- The Blessed Cloud College.


'Scuse me. Where can I find Father Totti?
I think he's in the garden.

This was all clear to Father Totti. But he had to go further and make more decisions. For example, does Revelation 22:13 works the same with Dio(Italian) and God(English)? It can actually work the same with Joe or any other host whose name has three letters . . .

God is said to be omniscient and that means He can't be at the same time stupid. He needed to resolve that problem before knocking on the island cave where John -- the dude who wrote The Book of Revelation -- lived.

Father Totti decided to turn the three-part statement in Revelation 22:13 into the "unlike any other" test. With the presence of the host, the text would look like this:

God: I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Then he separated the "unlike any other" option from the rest and reorganized the lines:

G_________? = I am the Alpha and the Omega

Now it became apparent to Father Totti why God used the specific opposite as the first:

G(reek letters) = Alpha and the Omega

The true statement above rendered the Italian word Dio dysfunctional for the purpose, coz "Greek" means "Greco" in Italian, and 'D' doesn't equal 'G'.

The Heavens gave it a rest for a day but were planning a frontal assault on Father Totti's gray matter the next day. The Heavens still got a job to do: to bring to Father Totti's mind the awareness of the switch from a letter to a number; the GOD --> G0D switch. The strategy was simple and based on the whole enchilada called "context": Zero is a number, so in order to bring about the subject of zero inside G0D, Father Totti's mind had to be turned toward numbers. The context became available with the publishing of the Geneva Bible featuring numbered chapters and verses.

Before: (Revelation 22:13) = ( I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End).
After: Revelation 22:1(3) = ( I am the Alpha and the Omega), (the First and the Last), (the Beginning and the End.)

But would Father Totti be able to notice this 3=3 coincidence to get even started?
Well, his very ancient predecessors had been already roaming what is today Southern France before the "out-of-Africa" hordes invaded. So there is a good chance that he cracks the mystery of the burning Venn diagram soon.


Next: Just another text.
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
You've only given me examples, not definitions.
[/LIST]
Click to expand...

Wrong, (1) and (2) are definitions.

Aagin, definitions (1) and (2):

1) If A belongs NXOR ~belongs w.r.t B, then A is Non-local w.r.t B

2) If A belongs XOR ~belongs w.r.t B, then A is Local w.r.t B

According to (1) and (2) definitions, X or ~X are local w.r.t ___, and ___ is non-local w.r.t X or ~X. in X__~X example, which is a complex result of Non-locality\Locality Linkage.

X or ~X are the local aspects of X___~X linkage that are located at the ends of ___, where ___ is the non-local aspect of X___~X linkage, which extends X location or ~X location (which is a property that X or ~X do not have w.r.t ___, under X___~X linkage).
 
epix said:
"Y NXOR and Negation results"
Click to expand...

:confused:

epix said:
then be advised that contradictions can be found only within legitimate logical constructs
Click to expand...
Let me help you.

The right one is: "... only within local logical constructs".
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom