Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
epix said:
If Mr. Negation doesn't enter the stage, then X is not all that one gets.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

If X is all one gets, then ~X is beyond what one gets.

In other words, the negation of X (Mr. Negation, as you call it) does not play with X by the observer's perception, exactly because X is all he (the observer) gets.

For example: " http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6199240&postcount=10959 is beyond epix's perception. ", as clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6197768&postcount=10957.
 
Last edited:
epix said:
So there is a good chance that he cracks the mystery of the burning Venn diagram soon.
Click to expand...


4866288016_8538f2c413.jpg
 
Last edited:
Doron,

You haven't replied to my post yet. But I know you're going to find fault with the way I used the word, "serial."
Never mind that. Let me back away a bit to make it more clear what I'm asking.

I take it that the ordinary mathemmatical set is a special case of a complex.
Or so it seems you have said in the past.
Complexes are basically amorphous and "foggy." Like clouds they gather and dissolve.
But there is the special case were a complex is somewhat solidified with class identities.

It seems to me that you want to present the complex in it's degrees of mistiness to mathmatical solidity, by "bridges" or "linkages" that map out the degrees of numerical and class certainty.

The presentation so far is still unclear to me. It's unclear how you arrive at the kind of (let's say local-only-like) set that our mathematicians are familiar with. It's one end of the complex spectrum. I want to understand how you construct that special case.
I have some ideas, but I've not been able to fit them together in a way that shows me how it works, or at least fits together the pieces of your exposition.
 
Apathia said:
Doron,

You haven't replied to my post yet. But I know you're going to find fault with the way I used the word, "serial."
Never mind that. Let me back away a bit to make it more clear what I'm asking.

I take it that the ordinary mathemmatical set is a special case of a complex.
Or so it seems you have said in the past.
Complexes are basically amorphous and "foggy." Like clouds they gather and dissolve.
But there is the special case were a complex is somewhat solidified with class identities.

It seems to me that you want to present the complex in it's degrees of mistiness to mathmatical solidity, by "bridges" or "linkages" that map out the degrees of numerical and class certainty.

The presentation so far is still unclear to me. It's unclear how you arrive at the kind of (let's say local-only-like) set that our mathematicians are familiar with. It's one end of the complex spectrum. I want to understand how you construct that special case.
I have some ideas, but I've not been able to fit them together in a way that shows me how it works, or at least fits together the pieces of your exposition.
Click to expand...

Dear Apathia,

Let's get, for example:
4711080643_d71d687fc4_b.jpg

4861902179_6235c3d56c.jpg


As you can see, the fundamental state for both parallel of serial Bridging is actually the Linkage of Non-local quality with Local quality.

Non-locality\Locality Linkage enables Quantity, where Quantity is not changed under the difference of certain or uncertain ids.

As for Sums and Fogs, since the Qualitative aspects that enable Quantity are not the components of each other, then no amount of Localities is Non-locality.

In that case a finite amount of localities that are aggregated by Non-locality, has a Sum, where an infinite amount of localities that are aggregated by Non-locality, has a Fog.
 
Last edited:
:wackycry:

I'm just lost again.
I don't even get what serial and parallel bridging are or how a Local/Non-Local linkage produces a quantity.

Interesting that it's a quantity that has nothing to do with collection by classes or Set Theory.

But then again, I suggested a visual configuration type perception of number.
Though I doubt now that is of any use or relevance to OM.

I'm not getting the foundation for number as contemporary mathematicians understand number. If what you are presenting actually has anything to do with that (as the supposed "special case.").

Anyway I'm back to cluelessness again.
 
doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Once again Doron not all dependencies or independencies are mutual, which is why mutual dependence refers specifically to a shared dependence (changes to one result in changes to the other) and mutual independence refers specifically to a shared independence (changes to one do not result in changes to the other). "different things in the same system" are not inherently independent nor is any independency inherently mutual. Again this is simply your imaginary “mutual independency”.
 
The Man said:
Once again Doron not all dependencies or independencies are mutual, which is why mutual dependence refers specifically to a shared dependence (changes to one result in changes to the other) and mutual independence refers specifically to a shared independence (changes to one do not result in changes to the other). "different things in the same system" are not inherently independent nor is any independency inherently mutual. Again this is simply your imaginary “mutual independency”.
Click to expand...
"Shared", "mutual", "dependence" describe the connectivity aspect among things, where things are the connected aspect.
 
doronshadmi said:
"Shared", "mutual", "dependence" describe the connectivity aspect among things, where things are the connected aspect.
Click to expand...


Still does not make “Mutuality and Dependency a synonyms”. In the case of mutual dependency or mutual independency it is specifically that dependence or independence that is the “thing” that is being, well, shared.
 
Originally Posted by epix
Before: G, o, d
After: G, o_d

doronshadmi said:
Before,Now and Afrer: G,o,d
Click to expand...

There is no Before, Now and After, as much there are no lower-case, middle-case and upper-case letters used in written English.

Do you understand this change?

From: %, A, B
To: %, A_B

The change is based on

Domain: Microsoft keypad
PQ = letters
~PQ = anything else but letters
 
doronshadmi said:
:confused:


Let me help you.

The right one is: "... only within local logical constructs".
Click to expand...

Aha. When "gi" inside "logical" becomes non-local to the word (bye, bye word), then "lo--cal" fuses into "local." Sounds etymological to me.
 
doronshadmi said:
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.

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...

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...

doronshadmi said:
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).
Click to expand...

It appears that you don't read things, you just regurgitate replies since your last few posts contain X and Y, not A and B.

Try reading my post again and answer my questions.
 
The Man said:
Still does not make “Mutuality and Dependency a synonyms”.
Click to expand...

EDIT:

You may say that by knowing A one knows also ~A, but in that case one know both A and ~A of a given realm (abstract or not).

This is possible if both Mutuality (the ability of getting more than a single thing) AND Independency (the ability of getting a single thing) are the linked qualitative foundations of a given realm (abstract or not).
 
Last edited:
epix said:
Originally Posted by epix
Before: G, o, d
After: G, o_d



There is no Before, Now and After, as much there are no lower-case, middle-case and upper-case letters used in written English.

Do you understand this change?

From: %, A, B
To: %, A_B

The change is based on

Domain: Microsoft keypad
PQ = letters
~PQ = anything else but letters
Click to expand...

Non-locality is included NXOR excluded w.r.t a given domain.

Locality is included XOR excluded w.r.t a given domain.

Do you get the qualitative difference?
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
In the case of mutual dependency or mutual independency it is specifically that dependence or independence that is the “thing” that is being, well, shared.
Click to expand...

What you call "mutual dependency" is "two things that depend on each other".

What you call "mutual independency" is "two things that are not depend on each other".

But first you have to ask yourself: "What enables two things?"

Traditional Mathematics does not ask this question, and as a result it does not understand Mutuality (the ability of getting more than a single thing) AND Independency (the ability of getting a single thing) as the linked qualitative foundations of a given realm (abstract or not).
 
Little 10 Toes said:
So then, you can't answer basic questions about your "idea". Generally.
Click to expand...
No.

You can't get basic questions and basic answers of basic ideas because you do not think general.


In order to think general you open your mind to the represented idea (or notion) and not to the particular tools (diagrams or strings of notations) that represent it.

If you really do that, then:

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

3) Linkage is the result of (1) (2) definitions.

X___~X is (3) example, where X or ~X represent (1) and ___ represent (2).

X or ~X are the local aspects of X___~X linkage, which 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:
Apathia said:
:wackycry:

I'm just lost again.
I don't even get what serial and parallel bridging are or how a Local/Non-Local linkage produces a quantity.

Interesting that it's a quantity that has nothing to do with collection by classes or Set Theory.

But then again, I suggested a visual configuration type perception of number.
Though I doubt now that is of any use or relevance to OM.

I'm not getting the foundation for number as contemporary mathematicians understand number. If what you are presenting actually has anything to do with that (as the supposed "special case.").

Anyway I'm back to cluelessness again.
Click to expand...

Let's try this way.

In order to really develop Quantitative thinking, one at least has to ask "What enables Quantity?" or "What are the foundations of Quantitative thinking?", etc ...

I'll be glad to know that these kinds of questions are asked by mathematicians.

Please use google to search:

"The foundations of Quantitative thinking"

or

"What enables Quantity?"

or

"What are the foundations of Quantitative thinking?"

or

"What enables Quantitative thinking?"

or

"The logical foundations of Quantitative thinking"

or

"The mathematical foundations of Quantitative thinking"

etc ...

and tell me what you get.
 
Last edited:
Using the exact phrases with quotes, I get "Returned no results,"
Which is a little bit surprising, because I expected at least one url leading to you.

concept of number

concept of quantity

These yield much more and a history of thought about numbers and counting.

A lot of that is too academically deep for me, at least without a foundation.

As for your approach (the Local/Non-Local Linkage), I keep trying to understand how that works, how that yields the concepts of number and quantity. And also how it's supposed to be the foundation of cognition.

In all your verbage, I'm not finding the how.

Imagine that I'm a child and show me. I need a concrete demonstration.
 
Apathia said:
Using the exact phrases with quotes, I get "Returned no results,"
Which is a little bit surprising, because I expected at least one url leading to you.

concept of number

concept of quantity

These yield much more and a history of thought about numbers and counting.

A lot of that is too academically deep for me, at least without a foundation.

As for your approach (the Local/Non-Local Linkage), I keep trying to understand how that works, how that yields the concepts of number and quantity. And also how it's supposed to be the foundation of cognition.

In all your verbage, I'm not finding the how.

Imagine that I'm a child and show me. I need a concrete demonstration.
Click to expand...

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

Two basic divisions of quantity, magnitude and multitude, imply the principal distinction between continuity (continuum) and discontinuity.

...

In mathematics, magnitudes and multitudes are not only two kinds of quantity but they are also commensurable with each other.
Click to expand...

How magnitudes and multitudes are also commensurable with each other?
 
Last edited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity

Quantity in logic and semantics

In respect to quantity, propositions are grouped as universal and particular, applying to the whole subject or a part of the subject to be predicated. Accordingly, there are existential and universal quantifiers. In relation to the meaning of a construct, quantity involves two semantic dimensions: 1. extension or extent (determining the specific classes or individual instances indicated by the construct) 2. intension (content or comprehension or definition) measuring all the implications (relationships and associations involved in a construct, its intrinsic, inherent, internal, built-in, and constitutional implicit meanings and relations).
Click to expand...
How do we know that the two semantic dimensions are involved under a one framework, called Logic ?
 
Last edited:
Some important correction of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6201867&postcount=10979.

In order to think general you open your mind to the represented idea (or notion) and not to the particular tools (diagrams or strings of notations) that represent it.

If you really do that, then:

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

The correction of definition (3):

3) Linkage is the manifested complex result of (1) (2) definitions ( (3) is possible because (1) or (2) are different aspects of the un-manifested atomic self-state).

X___~X is (3) example, where X or ~X represent (1) and ___ represent (2).

X or ~X are the local aspects of X___~X linkage, which 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).

The same notion that is represented above by strings of notations, is represented by the following diagram:

4748174621_de8c1f73f9.jpg
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No.

You can't get basic questions and basic answers of basic ideas because you do not think general.


In order to think general you open your mind to the represented idea (or notion) and not to the particular tools (diagrams or strings of notations) that represent it.

If you really do that, then:

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

3) Linkage is the result of (1) (2) definitions.

X___~X is (3) example, where X or ~X represent (1) and ___ represent (2).

X or ~X are the local aspects of X___~X linkage, which 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).
Click to expand...

But you can't even define what "belongs" mean. You invent "~belongs". You can't define what A, B, X, and ~X are. You can't even keep your variable names constant. If you're using A and B in examples 1 and 2, where do X and ~X come in? You won't acknowledge, let alone answer, someone asking if you use a layman's definition of NXOR or XOR.

If you don't want to, or can't, explain your ideas clearly, then perhaps you should stop, look over your notes, and come back after you've organized your thoughts.
 
Originally Posted by epix
Before: G, o, d
After: G, o_d
Click to expand...


doronshadmi said:
Non-locality is included NXOR excluded w.r.t a given domain.

Locality is included XOR excluded w.r.t a given domain.

Do you get the qualitative difference?
Click to expand...

In order to grasp the qualitative difference, I need to understand the aspect of quantity first. Your comparison construct is made of three opposites:

1) Locality and Non-locality
2) XOR and NXOR
3) Included and Excluded

There are two options to make a change from the separating comma to the underscore that symbolizes "more in common," whereas the comma symbolizes "less in common":

A)
From: 1, 2, 3
To: 1_2, 3

B)
From: 1, 2, 3
To: 1, 2_3

Do Locality and Non-Locality and XOR and NXOR
relate better than XOR and NXOR and Included and Excluded?

The choice between (A) and (B) depends on the above question. But the question is very difficult, and so another solution strategy must be employed: Just find someone who can see the difference if you can't, right? But who?

Well, your construct is made of three opposites, so I need to find someone who is an expert on three opposites. Like this guy:

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
Revelation 22:13


So what's the difference, Heavenly Father? Should I chose (A) or (B)?

And I say onto you that I don't have the slightest idea.

What do you mean? The whole Roman Catholic Church regards you as an omniscient being.

Yeah, that was the truth before Doron was born. But I can do this:
From: R, C, C
To: R, C_C and not to R_C, C

And I can spit farther than you can.

No, you can't.

Of course I can.

I betya you can't. See that three in the distance.

You mean the tree?

Yep. I can spit as far as there. Watch . . .
:boggled:

Well, here goes your favorite afternoon shade, Heavenly Father. You'll surely hear from the squirrels. LOL.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
If you don't want to, or can't, explain your ideas clearly, then perhaps you should stop, look over your notes, and come back after you've organized your thoughts.
Click to expand...

If he were to do that, he'd only discover his fantastic ideas are nothing more than metaphysical trivia and/or gibberish. Either would be unbearable for him, so he won't even try.

The mere fact he can't seem to coax a result, any sort of conclusion, out of all that grandeur should have forewarned him he was working in the landfill and not at the foundation of some extravagant high-rise.
 
To paraphrase De Morgan, contrary to appearances, Doron is not insane. The insane reason rightly from wrong premises (e.g., if they were actually super-secret agents, it would make sense to be scared of everybody as a potential enemy). Doron reasons wrongly based on no premises at all.
 
doronshadmi said:
EDIT:

You may say that by knowing A one knows also ~A, but in that case one know both A and ~A of a given realm (abstract or not).

This is possible if both Mutuality (the ability of getting more than a single thing) AND Independency (the ability of getting a single thing) are the linked qualitative foundations of a given realm (abstract or not).
Click to expand...


Nope, it is simply a result of the fact that A defines ~A as ~A defines A. Again they are mutually exclusive and mutually dependent (by that mutual exclusion). Again mutual just means “shared” and independent simply refers to a lack of dependence (shared or not). This “Mutuality (the ability of getting more than a single thing) AND Independency (the ability of getting a single thing)” is again just your imaginary “mutual independence”. Your professed “ability of getting more than a single thing” would in fact require “the ability of getting a single thing” (an ability you have yet to demonstrate). If you are positing them as limits as in ‘the ability of getting no less than more than a single thing’ “AND” ‘the ability of getting only a single thing’ then your assertion is simply self contradictory.




doronshadmi said:
What you call "mutual dependency" is "two things that depend on each other".

What you call "mutual independency" is "two things that are not depend on each other".
Click to expand...

That is what those phrases mean, though they are not limited to just “two things”.

doronshadmi said:
But first you have to ask yourself: "What enables two things?"
Click to expand...

No I don’t, but since your apparently “have to ask yourself: ”, in the case of the Venn diagram examples before it is the separating boundary that “enables two things”. Again a boundary can be part of one of those two things or even considered as a third domain, depending on how those domains are defined.

doronshadmi said:
Traditional Mathematics does not ask this question, and as a result it does not understand Mutuality (the ability of getting more than a single thing) AND Independency (the ability of getting a single thing) as the linked qualitative foundations of a given realm (abstract or not).
Click to expand...

Doron in “Traditional Mathematics” that question is trivial as the answer is just part of the definition of those domains in the Venn diagram. Again you simply demonstrate that it is you who “does not understand Mutuality” (something shared) “AND Independency” (a lack of dependence).
 
The Man said:
Again a boundary can be part of one of those two things or even considered as a third domain, depending on how those domains are defined.
Click to expand...

If the boundary can be part of one of those two things, then the other thing is totally isolated form that one thing and there are no two things.

If the boundary is considered as a third domain, then there are three totally isolated things.

More than a one thing is possible only if there is non-locality w.r.t any given thing, which is used as a connector among them.
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
But you can't even define what "belongs" mean. You invent "~belongs". You can't define what A, B, X, and ~X are. You can't even keep your variable names constant. If you're using A and B in examples 1 and 2, where do X and ~X come in? You won't acknowledge, let alone answer, someone asking if you use a layman's definition of NXOR or XOR.

If you don't want to, or can't, explain your ideas clearly, then perhaps you should stop, look over your notes, and come back after you've organized your thoughts.
Click to expand...
You simply can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6202461&postcount=10987, because you have no generalization skills.
 
The Man said:
Your professed “ability of getting more than a single thing” would in fact require “the ability of getting a single thing”
Click to expand...

Exactly, we need both Mutuality (getting more than a single thing) AND Independency (getting a single thing) under the same framework.

That's why the considered framework is Mutually-Independent.

The Man said:
it is simply a result of the fact that A defines ~A as ~A defines A.
Click to expand...
It can be done only by Mutually-Independent framework, where ~A,A are different but connected.

The Man said:
Doron in “Traditional Mathematics” that question is trivial
Click to expand...
No, it is fudamental and profound question, which you do not ask exactly because think it is trivial by taking things obviously, without understand their must-have foundations.

That's why you fail all along this thead.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
To paraphrase De Morgan, contrary to appearances, Doron is not insane. The insane reason rightly from wrong premises (e.g., if they were actually super-secret agents, it would make sense to be scared of everybody as a potential enemy). Doron reasons wrongly based on no premises at all.
Click to expand...

I do better, I ask fundamental questions like "What enables Quantity?"
 
jsfisher said:
If he were to do that, he'd only discover his fantastic ideas are nothing more than metaphysical trivia and/or gibberish. Either would be unbearable for him, so he won't even try.

The mere fact he can't seem to coax a result, any sort of conclusion, out of all that grandeur should have forewarned him he was working in the landfill and not at the foundation of some extravagant high-rise.
Click to expand...

jsfisher "What enables Quantity?"
 
doronshadmi said:
You simply can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6202461&postcount=10987, because you have no generalization skills.
Click to expand...

No. I don't get it because you speak gibberish. How can one get things when you can't define them. "~belongs"? How is one to know what A and B are? If A is the number of deaths from the Bubonic Plague in England between 1348 - 1350, how is it local to the class of sub-atomic particles found in the 1950's? What linkage is there?
 
Little 10 Toes said:
No. I don't get it because you speak gibberish. How can one get things when you can't define them. "~belongs"? How is one to know what A and B are? If A is the number of deaths from the Bubonic Plague in England between 1348 - 1350, how is it local to the class of sub-atomic particles found in the 1950's? What linkage is there?
Click to expand...

Better yet doronshadmi, if I'm using the above examples of A = "number of deaths from the Bubonic Plague in England between 1348 - 1350" and B = "the class of sub-atomic particles found in the 1950's", please tell me if A is local to B, and explain how. If A is non-local to A, please explain how.
 
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher "What enables Quantity?"
Click to expand...

Doron, as I have stated before, more than once, I have no interest in your philosophic ramblings between the trivial and gibberish. If you ever come up with a competent and interesting statement about Mathematics, then I'll likely be interested.

So, enjoy your landfill, but don't expect me to join in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom