Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Little 10 Toes said:
Yes, doronshadmi is trying to create something, but I wouldn't call it science. The problems that he has are that he can't explain clearly how it works, what it is, what good is it, or how to use it. He keeps introducing new terms without defining them, drops old terms that he hasn't defined, use extra words when just one or two will do, and give us proper definitions. He'll use words that already have a standard definition, and use them in his own way.

With me, he has taken about 10 pages to define something. It's mainly because he won't answer me. I've had to ask the same question about seven times.

If I remember correctly, he's even killed a thread that had nothing to do with his "idea".
Click to expand...

Why you keep repeating yourself, if you cannot have a answer?

Sorry to say, but the world do not adapt to our expectations.

This mean that if Doron did not answer until now, he/she will keep ignoring you, even if you reach the thousand prize number.

You are doing like a mental ill man, which insist to an wall to answer his questions about bricks.

I do not mean you are wrong and Doron right. Please, do not interpret this comment in a "binary" way.

I just giving you a advice, if you want really help with consistent information to this thread.

:D

Perhaps you can give me a explanation what is prime numbers and how much different this is from the "organic numbers" in Doron's theory.

I will be glad in learn something new.
 
doronshadmi said:
OM does it by distinguish between the magnitude of existence of a given concept and the magnitude of existence of that concept as one of the members of that concept.
Click to expand...
A magnitude of existence is a peculiar term, coz things just exist or they don't. You may consider "a magnitude of occurrence" instead. Earthquakes hit or they don't, but when they do, you can measure their magnitude. But if you feel that you exist more than someone else, then keep your terminology intact.

(Terminology is a scientific field that concerns itself with the study of termites -- it's a branch of Bugology.)
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Since you can't answer to the question "who is I?" you also have no ability to define the concept of Measurement, which is at least the linkage among the measured and the measurer.
Click to expand...

Pick your choice:

1) http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6264915#post6264915

2) Why does it matter who I am when your mom or the scale is doing the measuring?

3) Since you can't answer the question that I asked first, "Who/What is the measurer" you have no ability to understand simple questions.

4) You never mentioned "the concept of Measurement" until now. Whose fault is that when I have asked over six times "Who/What is the measurer"?

5) How can we determine the "linkage" when you can't explain who/what the measurer is?

6) I already have answered the question of "Who is I". And you never have explained why I need to answer "Who is I".
 
Last edited:
Here is an improved version of a little game.

It is called "The Source\Target Game".

It is played along a closed curve as follows:

1) The curve is a closed playground such that there is at least one player along it.

2) The players are points, such that each point is a source of one and only one target along the closed curve.

3) Reverse ordering is not allowed in this game, so it must be played in a certain direction along the closed curve.

4) The game is started by using an arbitrary player as a source of some target.

5) The game is completed only if each point along the closed curve is both a source AND a target.

By following the rules of this game, it is completed if there is a finite amount of players along the closed curve.

By following the rules of this game, please provide a proof that the game is completed (each point is source AND target) also if there is an infinite amount of players along the closed curve.
 
Last edited:
A correction of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6291665&postcount=11399.

Type theory "avoids Russell's paradox by first creating a hierarchy of types, then assigning each mathematical (and possibly other) entity to a type. Objects of a given type are built exclusively from objects of preceding types (those lower in the hierarchy), thus preventing loops." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory ).

OM does it by distinguish between the magnitude of existence of a given concept and the magnitude of existence of any given member of that concept.

For example the magnitude of existence of the concept of concepts, notated as C(), extends the magnitude of existence of a given member of the concept of concepts, notated as C(C()).

So the concept of concepts is not idendical to any one of its members.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
the negation of 0 is 0
Click to expand...

If the entire universe is 0 , the negation of 0 is what is between {}.

If 0 is one of the given things of a given universe, then ~0 is "anything but" 0.

In both cases the output is different than the input.

Your notion of Negation is limited to the concept of opposites.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
If the entire universe is 0 , the negation of 0 is what is between {}.

If 0 is one of the given things of a given universe, then ~0 is "anything but" 0.

In both cases the output is different than the input.

Your notion of Negation is limited to the concept of opposites.
Click to expand...

In the above post you claim The Man said, "the negation of 0 is 0" without linking to the original message. Please provide proof that The Man said it.
 
doronshadmi said:
Get the universe of the challenge.

Any challenge needs a universe in order to be expressed.
Click to expand...
The challenge was, is, and always will be to predict the movement of the planets of the universe.

And away they go... Venus stumbled at the gate.
Saturn takes the lead in the clubhouse turn...
Halfway down the backstretch, Saturn continues to lead the field by a length. Jupiter is second, Mars is third, four lengths behind the leader...
Going into the far turn, Jupiter is closing on Saturn -- both jockeys didn't ask their charges yet...
And down the stretch they come! Saturn on the inside, Jupiter on the outside -- head'n'head they go... And here comes Mercury from behind like an EXpress TRain! It's Mercury moooooving like a winner!
At the wire: it's Mercury followed by Jupiter and Saturn. Neptune finished fourth.


Pick4........1,5,6,8........$1022.80

To the windows we go now...
:D
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
In the above post you claim The Man said, "the negation of 0 is 0" without linking to the original message. Please provide proof that The Man said it.
Click to expand...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5414957&postcount=7495
The Man said:
As already shown the negation of 0 is 0. “~” is a mutually dependent relation, your “comparison (notated by -->)” is superfluous.
Click to expand...
In other words, The Man's negation is the particular case of opposites, and in the case of 0, this particular case does not hold.

Again.

If the entire universe is 0 , then ~0 is what is between {}.

If 0 is one of the given things of a given universe, then ~0 is "anything but" 0.

In both cases the output is different than the input.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5398677&postcount=7392
The Man said:
You do understand that the negation of nothing or zero value is still zero value or nothing, quite distinct from zero value not being equal to some value, don’t you? The primary reason is that the sum of some value with it’s negation always equals zero or nothing.
Click to expand...

The Man simply can't distinguish between ~ and - , where ~X is necessarily different than X and -X is not necessarily different than X.

Given X, ~X is "necessarily different than X".

Given X, -X is ~"necessarily different than X".

For example:

-Nothing ---> Nothing

-0 --> 0

~Nothing ---> Somthing

~0 ---> for example, 1 or what is between {}

In both cases ---> is used as a comparison between the input and the output.

EDIT:

Another example:

X = "necessarily different"

Given "necessarily different", ~"necessarily different" is "necessarily different than necessarily different".

Given "necessarily different", -"necessarily different" is ~"necessarily different than necessarily different".
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
How about you crack open the Bible or Torah every once and a while.

אהיה אשר אהיה (Hebrew text) Ex. 3:14

Tenth time asking: Who/What is the measurer, your mom or the scale?
Fifth time asking: Why does it matter who asks the question?
Click to expand...

According to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6293157&postcount=11414 and according the fact that you are not אהיה אשר אהיה , I'll ask again:

Who is "Little 10 Toes" which is also "I"?
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
Please provide proof that I am not Jehovah. Your claim, your proof.

11th time: Who/What is the measurer, your mom or the scale?
6th time: Why does it matter who asks the question?

Edit: Why do you keep asking the same question about me?
Click to expand...

If you are Jehovah then you are able to answer to this question, without any tools like books etc...

So who is Jehovah?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Why it is a Red herring question?
Click to expand...

I have asked, for the 13th time now, who/what is the measurer, your mom or the scale. You have gone off on a separate topic on asking me who I am. You are ignoring the original question.

13th time: Who/what is the measurer, your mom or the scale?
8th time: Why does it matter who asks the question?
2nd time: What is your point?
 
Little 10 Toes said:
I have asked, for the 13th time now, who/what is the measurer, your mom or the scale. You have gone off on a separate topic on asking me who I am. You are ignoring the original question.

13th time: Who/what is the measurer, your mom or the scale?
8th time: Why does it matter who asks the question?
2nd time: What is your point?
Click to expand...
In order to really understand my answers to your questions, you first must know the minimal terms that are needed for the existence of definitions or measurements.

Please prove that nor you neither I (or my mom) are one of the must have terms.

Edit:

As a bout the scale, it is an agent of my mom, which helps her to do the measurment.
 
Last edited:
SnakeTongue said:
Wow!

:jaw-dropp

This is very interesting.

Of course I am not a scientist in the fields of numbers, so I cannot say what I saw in the content of the first link is right with the present models of our age.

My impression is really of a new model.

I sense that you are trying to develop a different concept to use numbers.

Strange to say, but that picture of the homo sapiens with where the monkey at right side saying "Fellows, when the door of the bank are open?" made me think in a whole new model of how to use numbers.

Damn banks! They machines control every digit in the large scale system which was design to limit our individual financial power.

This binary system of debit and credit will not last forever... The comprehension of numbers must change, to a more complex level.

I understand, Doron, that your are proposing a new model to interpret the use of the numbers in the most important aspects of our contemporary (or perhaps future) demands.

I cannot just understand very well the mathematics concepts. I am better with words.

So I like the way you propose those changes together with ethics. This old knowledge from the ancient Greeks is not in use as should be.

I will give a time to digest the content and maker further comments.

In mean time, I wish good will in your quest.
Click to expand...

Please look also at http://scireprints.lu.lv/121/1/IJPAM-Volume-49.pdf .
 
Little 10 Toes said:
How about you crack open the Bible or Torah every once and a while.

אהיה אשר אהיה (Hebrew text) Ex. 3:14
Click to expand...

The Greek text makes the word considerably shorter: Pi.

did you ask me who I am
in the wee hour of 3 am?
3 is round and starts odd primes
and I shall answer 14 times

I abhor your interference
for my real name is Circumference
3 is prime and also odd
on your knees, for I'm your god

:jaw-dropp
 
doronshadmi said:
It has long been understood that you and Traditional Math certainly don’t like talking about the existence of the universe that enables definitions.
Click to expand...

Your understanding and direct perception has failed you again.

doronshadmi said:
The principle of extension is fundamental to any given concept, for example, the concept of Set:
Click to expand...

No Doron, it is just “fundamental” to the concept of, well, extension. If you need to ‘extend’ your “given concept” then you should have “given” a more adequate concept to start with.

doronshadmi said:
This concept extends members or their absence, or in other words, it is not identical with members or their absence.
Click to expand...

In other words, nonsense or to be more specific ‘extended’ nonsense.

doronshadmi said:
This notion is expressed by the outer "{" "}" whether the this concept has or does not have members.

Furthermore, Russell's paradox does not hold, because there is a difference between a concept as a member and a concept as an extension which is beyond the existence or absence of members.
Click to expand...

Again just your “extension” of your own nonsense as Russell's paradox is specifically about a set being a member of it self.



doronshadmi said:
You do understand that since D() extends 0(), 1(), 2() ... etc., then it is used as their common concept (or in your language: "a “dimensional space”" (for example 0(), 1(), 2(), ... etc.) "is based on the concept of, well, dimension," ( it is based on D() ).
Click to expand...

You do not understand that the concept of dimension does not require your fantasy “extension”.
 
doronshadmi said:
If the entire universe is 0 , the negation of 0 is what is between {}.

If 0 is one of the given things of a given universe, then ~0 is "anything but" 0.

In both cases the output is different than the input.

Your notion of Negation is limited to the concept of opposites.
Click to expand...

How about some context Doron? That would be helpful if you’re replying to post from almost a year ago.
 
doronshadmi said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5414957&postcount=7495

In other words, The Man's negation is the particular case of opposites, and in the case of 0, this particular case does not hold.
Click to expand...

No Doron, a “particular case of opposites” would be binary and in that case the negation of 0 is 1. We went over all of this about a year ago.

Thanks at least for linking the post.


doronshadmi said:
Again.

If the entire universe is 0 , then ~0 is what is between {}.

If 0 is one of the given things of a given universe, then ~0 is "anything but" 0.

In both cases the output is different than the input.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5398677&postcount=7392
Click to expand...

Once again it is “everything but” not “anything but”.

doronshadmi said:
The Man simply can't distinguish between ~ and - , where ~X is necessarily different than X and -X is not necessarily different than X.
Click to expand...

Doron we have been over this before negation (-) is the exclusion of that “X” giving the complementation (~) of “everything but” X. This “necessarily different” and “not necessarily different” nonsense is just yours, as usual.


doronshadmi said:
Given X, ~X is "necessarily different than X".

Given X, -X is ~"necessarily different than X".

For example:

-Nothing ---> Nothing

-0 --> 0

~Nothing ---> Somthing

~0 ---> for example, 1 or what is between {}

In both cases ---> is used as a comparison between the input and the output.

EDIT:

Another example:

X = "necessarily different"

Given "necessarily different", ~"necessarily different" is "necessarily different than necessarily different".
Click to expand...

So it’s “not necessarily different”.


doronshadmi said:
Given "necessarily different", -"necessarily different" is ~"necessarily different than necessarily different".
Click to expand...

Nope, once again it is “not necessarily different” which is “necessarily different" than “necessarily different”. The giveaway (in case you missed it) is the “not”.


In your stroll down memory lane of things we went over a year ago I suggest that you read all the posts and see how the story turns out.
 
Last edited:
The men, you have missed
doronshadmi said:
X = "necessarily different"

Given "necessarily different", ~"necessarily different" is "necessarily different than necessarily different".

Given "necessarily different", -"necessarily different" is ~"necessarily different than necessarily different".
Click to expand...

Look:

The Man said:
So it’s “not necessarily different”.
Click to expand...

No, "necessarily different" and ~"necessarily different" are "necessarily different".

The Man said:
Nope, once again it is “not necessarily different”
Click to expand...
No, "necessarily different" and -"necessarily different" are ~"necessarily different".

The Man said:
Once again it is “everything but” not “anything but”.
Click to expand...
No, “everything but” holds only in the case of finite amount, where “anything but” holds in both finite and infinite amounts. Play the game at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6292968&postcount=11405 to get this notion.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
If you need to ‘extend’ your “given concept” then you should have “given” a more adequate concept to start with.
Click to expand...
No, it is a built-in property, for example:

The existence of the concept of Set extends the existence of members, and this notion is notated by the outer "{""}", whether a given set is empty or not.


The Man said:
You do not understand that the concept of dimension does not require your fantasy “extension”.
Click to expand...

Do you understand that D() does not require 0(), 1(), 3() ... etc., exactly as {} does not require members?
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Russell's paradox is specifically about a set being a member of it self.
Click to expand...
Russell's paradox is a direct result of the misunderstanding of the difference between a given concept and the members of that concept (see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6293098&postcount=11410).

For example, the existence of the concept of Ideas I() extends the existence of any member of this concept, including I(I()).

So the member of I(I()) is not identical to the concept of Ideas I().

By this real non-naïve understanding of the concept of Set, There is no such a thing like a member of given set, which is identical to that set.

The Man, your reasoning does not hold water, and in the case of the concept of Dimension it can't be used to distinguish
between the absence of D(), and 0().
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The challenge was, is, and always will be to survive, and develop Complexity.
Click to expand...
Doron! Hey, what a surprise! Come on in . . .
Want something to drink? Goat milk? I'll get you some. Have a seat.


seat1h.jpg



OOOOOOOUCH!!!



:confused:



seat2r.jpg






seat3.jpg


Be aware of mischievous demon Ekklund.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom