It only clearly shows that you misspelled the term "ur-element" and that's why Wiki reference no worky.
An extension of a given element is another element, which shares a given concept with the given element and also has an additional property of that concept.The Man said:
No, OM claims to extend the universe under a given concept, where the concepts can be, for example:
That's nice, Doron. Any attempt to come up with novel methods to expand our knowledge of the universe is commendable, even though complex systems may not work when applied for the first time. It just a matter of some debugging. We do it some other time, coz the atheists have been chasing me around and I gotta run. Just don't venture elsewhere. Oh, maaan... LOL.
In this case the extension is the concept of Membership also among urelements, which is based on sharing a common concept with other urelements without being composed by them, as shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6276966&postcount=11362 under the concept of Dimension.epix said:
I think Doron is trying to adjust the fundamentals of Degrees of Freedom to fit OM:
Let us see: “0 extensions” is superfluous exactly “0 members” is superfluous in the case of the empty set.The Man said:
No the man, it would be an additional property which distinguishes between at least two kinds of building-blocks, where building-blocks are called elements (element is non-composed).The Man said:
Certainly not, each dimensional space that is represented by whole values is a building-block that has its own magnitude, and yet these building-blocks share the same concept (Dimension, in this case).The Man said:
You actually say: “identify some location (use 0 dimensional space) on that line (on 1 dimensional space) not covered by points (not covered by 0 dimensional spaces)” .The Man said:
“just the number of dimensions of some given space” requires magnitude X that enables more than 0 degrees of freedom for any given magnitude X w.r.t any given magnitude < magnitude X.The Man said:
You still do not get the notion that a line segment is a composed result of dimensional spaces, which its magnitude > 0 AND < 1, and in the case of 0.999...[base 10], this intermediate dimensional space is > 0 dimensional space and < 1 dimensional space by 0.000...1[base 10], which is the inaccessibility of magnitude of 0.999...[base 10] to magnitude 1, where both 0.999...[base 10] and 0.000...1[base 10] are fogs (non-local numbers, where summation is essentially not their property).The Man said:
Is that simply your problem, your inability to distinguish a 0 non-composed dimensional space (a point) from a 1 non-composed dimensional space (a line) , which are the building-blocks of a composed result like a line segment?The Man said:
Question bolded.
The Man.The Man said:
The concept lives in the abstraction realm only as necessary; this geometry was designed to be applied in the fields like robotics, for example. Mechanical systems maybe restricted in some ways -- a robotic arm has a certain degree of freedom to operate. So the task of this type of geometry is to maximize the modus operandi of mechanical objects. The math is done within 3-D, for obvious reasons. The extension to higher dimensions lacks purpose for the engineers -- unless Doron finds a killer app for it.
I think Doron works the opposite way, coz math has been almost always subordinate to the purpose of idealizing the real into a manageable form. Doron creates concepts that are "superordinate" to the real; OM seems to be subordinate to the task of understanding an artificial universe. That's a very interesting concept: a tool creates an object, and the same tool is used to understand the properties of the object.
I think Doron is on the right track to develop OM into something practical:
OM ---- development -----> OM(NISCIENCE)
God didn't create Man to his own image and likeness; it was just his intention, and he let Man to complete the task. I think someone is working on it...
How about adjusting to the circumstances by changing your nickname to "Little 10 Times?" Otherwise I don't know how to draw attention from Doron apart from pointing out slight inconsistencies in his theorems.
That's the issue that the Standard Model has been struggling with, namely the issue of an absence/presence relation.
No, 1-D object is actually a composition of 1-D magnitude AND 0-D magnitude, such that the magnitude of the composed object < magnitude of a 1-D element, which is non-composed.The Man said:
Which get expanded to
I posted that your definitions can even be expanded to this:
Then we started working on your definition of the word domain. (See top of this message)
Any concept is dependent on the nature of the problem to be solved. The problem needs to be well-described. Then, a conceptual solution follows. The exact solution depends on the definition of the terms that enter the solution. You are trying to force a pile of definitions on, well, 0-D problem -- something that doesn't exist. You think that "An Introduction to the Theory of Something" is some rigorous formalization of a subject that has never asked a question to be answered -- a real problem to be solved.
Get the universe of the challenge.
Any challenge needs a universe in order to be expressed.
Religion and philosophy section?
I am lost or this thread is lost?
It has long been understood that you and Traditional Math certainly don’t like talking about the existence of the universe that enables definitions.
The Man said:
And how does that answer the following questions that I am asking for the SEVENTHtime:
Please note that not only did I answer your "Who is asking" but questioned why you want to know twice. Why does it matter who asks "Who/what is the measurer"?
