Deeper than primes

doronshadmi · Sep 26, 2010

Little 10 Toes said:
Learn how to do ratios. 2:1 does not equal "100% 1 and 100% 0". Another math failure.

Let us correct something about probability and superposition of ids.

If we care only about Cardinality , where Cardinality is "the magnitude of existence" of the considered concept, then Emptiness has Cardinality 0 and Fullness has Cardinality ∞.

In the case of, for example, 2:1 we work in the universe of the "intermediate magnitude of existence", which is > 0 and < ∞.

In that universe, if we generalize the existing things to the number of ids, then we get, for example, the following forms:

A= some id (for example: "100% T")
B= another id (for example: "-23.567% F")

This form represents non-locality among superposition of ids (symmetry):

Code:

A   A 
B   B 
|___|

This form represents non-locality among ids (asymmetry):

Code:

A   B 
|___| 
|

The current mathematical science is based only on the second form.

doronshadmi · Sep 26, 2010

The Man said:
What? So you were answering some question in your head instead of what was asked?

Doron, most of us here have gotten your propensity for that quite early on.

Oh, so now “"+" and "-" are distinct.” in spite of what you have been claiming for pages.

Do you ever agree with yourself Doron?

“You simply can't get things”, evidently even just in your own fiat-land.

Still can't grap the notion of σ Cardinality as non-strict id, isn't it The Man?

The Man · Sep 26, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Let us correct something about probability and superposition of ids.

If we care only about Cardinality , where Cardinality is "the magnitude of existence" of the considered concept, then Emptiness has Cardinality 0 and Fullness has Cardinality ∞.

In the case of, for example, 2:1 we work in the universe of the "intermediate magnitude of existence", which is > 0 and < ∞.

In that universe, if we generalize the existing things to the number of ids, then we get, for example, the following forms:

A= some id (for example: "100% T")
B= another id (for example: "-23.567% F")

This form represents non-locality among superposition of ids (symmetry):

Code:

A A B B |___|

This form represents non-locality among ids (asymmetry):

Code:

A B |___| |

The current mathematical science is based only on the second form

Simply repeating your nonsense with additional supplementary (even negative percentage) nonsense just makes it more nonsensical.

Again stop just running around ‘extending’ any bit of nonsense you have any which way you can and sit down and get your notions into at least some semblance of a self-consistent and well defined form. Until you do that you will remain the biggest opponent of your own notions.

doronshadmi · Sep 26, 2010

The Man said:
Where was I using an example of "25% T and 25% F" and what was it specifically identified to be an example of?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6373064&postcount=11735 it was acctually "25% 1 and 25% 1" be it is equivalent to "25% T and 25% F", so plase answer the question: "what is the rest of 50%"?

The Man said:
Oh, so you’re just talking about your “extended” nonsense again. Who could have guessed? Doron you still haven’t established what your "magnitude of existence" is (other than very loosely associating it to cardinality) nor have you established how this “measurement” of yours is accomplished. So you go run off and extend anything you think you need to, but until you definitively establish it first you’re just extending your nonsense, again.

You simple can't grasp the notion of 0 < x < ∞ in terms of "magnitude of existence" that are expressed by Cardinality or by extension to any possible value from 0 to 1.

So first try to grap 0 < x < ∞ in terms of "magnitude of existence" that are expressed by Cardinality.

Without this first step, you simply have nothing to say, accsept

The Man said:
Nonsense

doronshadmi · Sep 26, 2010

The Man said:
Simply repeating your nonsense with additional supplementary (even negative percentage) nonsense just makes it more nonsensical.

So now negative probability is not an option anymore, The Man?

The Man said:
the total probability of having an outcome is always 1, which can be the sum of any combination of probabilities including negative probabilities and probability amplitudes (which is why some particle decay modes are suppressed).

doronshadmi · Sep 26, 2010

The Man said:
Doron you still haven’t established what your "magnitude of existence" is

Here it is in terms of Cardinality: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6372664&postcount=11731 .

jsfisher · Sep 26, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Here it is in terms of Cardinality: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6372664&postcount=11731 .

No, it isn't. You waste a lot of words in that post, but you don't define "magnitude of existence". The only thing you really do is assert properties of things you fail to define.

doronshadmi · Sep 26, 2010

jsfisher said:
No, it isn't.

Please demonstrate your claim in details.

The Man · Sep 26, 2010

doronshadmi said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6373064&postcount=11735 it was acctually "25% 1 and 25% 1" be it is equivalent to "25% T and 25% F", so plase answer the question: "what is the rest of 50%"?

As I said read the whole post.

The Man said:
Sure, as would your “100% 1 and 100% 0” or 25% 1 and 25% 0 and it is not my “reasoning” it is just the result of the values and ratio being expressed.

However, none of these variants represent a probability distribution totaling 100% while “50% 1 and 50% 0” does. To try to put it in simpler terms for you Doron it simply means the proposition P has an equal probability of evaluation to TRUE as it does to FALSE.

I've bolded the relevent part in case you keep missing it.

doronshadmi said:
You simple can't grasp the notion of 0 < x < ∞ in terms of "magnitude of existence" that are expressed by Cardinality or by extension to any possible value from 0 to 1.

You simply can’t grasp that it is just your as yet undefined notion and your own limitation.

doronshadmi said:
So first try to grap 0 < x < ∞ in terms of "magnitude of existence" that are expressed by Cardinality.

Try to first define your “magnitude of existence” and to grasp that your “0 < x < ∞” limitation limits only you.

doronshadmi said:
Without this first step, you simply have nothing to say, accsept

And nonsense is all you have without first some self-consistent definitions.

doronshadmi said:
So now negative probability is not an option anymore, The Man?

Where did I ever say that? Stop just making crap up Doron and then trying to ascribe it to someone else.

jsfisher said:
doronshadmi said:

Here it is in terms of Cardinality: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6372664&postcount=11731 .

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. You waste a lot of words in that post, but you don't define "magnitude of existence". The only thing you really do is assert properties of things you fail to define.

jsfisher beat me to it.

doronshadmi · Sep 26, 2010

The Man said:
jsfisher beat me to it.

No The Man, you beat each other on it.

Anyway, if one can't immediately get the notion that Emptiness has the minimal magnitude of existence and Fullness has the maximal magnitude of existence, there is no use to continue the dialog with him\her on that subject.

By ignoring your built-in inability about this subject, I continue to develop OM:

0 Dimensional space has Emptiness as its predecessor.

1 Dimensional space has 0 Dimensional space and Emptiness as its predecessors.

…

n Dimensional space has n-1 Dimensional space to Emptiness as its predecessors.

...

∞ Dimensional space has ∞-1 Dimensional space to ∞-∞ Dimensional space as its predecessors, where ∞ is non-strict.

doronshadmi · Sep 26, 2010

The Man said:
However, none of these variants represent a probability distribution totaling 100% while “50% 1 and 50% 0” does.

However your notion of probability is limited to distinct things that are summed to 100%.

I had no choice but to provided the answer, since you can't get it because of the limitations of your reasoning about the concept of Probability, for example:

The Man said:
proposition P has an equal probability of evaluation to TRUE as it does to FALSE.

In other words, distinct proposition P has an equal chance to be TRUE as it does to FALSE.

doronshadmi · Sep 26, 2010

The Man said:
Try to first define your “magnitude of existence” and to grasp that your “0 < x < ∞” limitation limits only you.

So from one hand you don't know what “magnitude of existence” is , but on the other hand it does not prevent from you
to conclude that “0 < x < ∞” is a limited framework.

How poor The Man, how low you go.

The Man said:
Where did I ever say that?

Problems to understand what you wrote in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6375883&postcount=11765?

The Man said:
Simply repeating your nonsense with additional supplementary (even negative percentage) nonsense just makes it more nonsensical.

As you know negative percentage is equivalent to negative probability.

The Man · Sep 27, 2010

doronshadmi said:
No The Man, you beat each other on it.

Anyway, if one can't immediately get the notion that Emptiness has the minimal magnitude of existence and Fullness has the maximal magnitude of existence, there is no use to continue the dialog with him\her on that subject.

You can stop responding to my posts anytime you want,

or can you?

doronshadmi said:
By ignoring your built-in inability about this subject, I continue to develop OM:

Heck, you’ve ignored just about everything else, including your own assertion, so why stop now.

doronshadmi said:
0 Dimensional space has Emptiness as its predecessor.

1 Dimensional space has 0 Dimensional space and Emptiness as its predecessors.

…

n Dimensional space has n-1 Dimensional space to Emptiness as its predecessors.

...

∞ Dimensional space has ∞-1 Dimensional space to ∞-∞ Dimensional space as its predecessors, where ∞ is non-strict.

Yep, looks like there’s no stopping your ignorance, even in an empty space.

doronshadmi said:
However your notion of probability is limited to distinct things that are summed to 100%.

Well when you find a 110% probability, you be sure to let us know what you do with the other 10%.

doronshadmi said:
I had no choice but to provided the answer, since you can't get it because of the limitations of your reasoning about the concept of Probability, for example:

Just what “answer” do you think you “provided”?

doronshadmi said:
In other words, distinct proposition P has an equal chance to be TRUE as it does to FALSE.

In the exact words I used “proposition P has an equal probability of evaluation to TRUE as it does to FALSE”. Had I needed “other words”, I would have used other words.

doronshadmi said:
So from one hand you don't know what “magnitude of existence” is , but on the other hand it does not prevent from you
to conclude that “0 < x < ∞” is a limited framework.

See those symbols on either side of your “x”? They limit the values of your “x”, in case you didn’t realize it. Or is that just something else you’re ignoring?

doronshadmi said:
How poor The Man, how low you go.

Why, down to zero…

, even in cardinality, but your “x” can’t because of your limits.

doronshadmi said:
Problems to understand what you wrote in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6375883&postcount=11765?

Still imaging just what you would have preferred that I had written, the problems once again Doron remains entirely yours.

Your “direct perception” as well as reading comprehension has failed you yet again.

Not only did the section you quoted not even mention negative probabilities in any way, it did not even assert that negative percentages were “not an option” as you put it. It simply asserted, as I will do now again, that what you were claiming (even with your inclusion of a negative percentage) was just nonsense.

I hope at least that makes you less confused.

doronshadmi said:
As you know negative percentage is equivalent to negative probability.

One can speak of and note probabilities in terms of percentages, but percentages aren’t always probabilities. In case you didn’t know.

jsfisher · Sep 27, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Please demonstrate your claim in details.

No, that's not how it works, and you know it. You made a claim; the burden falls to you to demonstrate your claim in detail.

Please, proceed: Show us where in your referenced post you define "magnitude of existence". We are all anxious to see where you broke your perfect record of never defining any of the made-up terminology you use.

epix · Sep 27, 2010

doronshadmi said:
epix, it is not about the concept "ratio".

It is about your claim that I do not alert the reader about non-standard treatment.

Please read again the provided links in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6372784&postcount=11733 , and you will find that your claim is wrong.

If you had explained the way you handle ratios beforehand, you wouldn't have experienced a profoundly embarrasing fall from Mt. Reason.

What is this?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT

For example, the Organic Numbers (their introduction in this article is based on partial but consistent example) are an extension to the Partition functionPr(n ) (see pages 6,7), where Distinction is their first-order property. The Organic SequenceOr (n ) : 1, 2, 3, 9, 24, 76, 236, … is the serial observation of Organic Numbers, as follows:

First we observe the partitions of numbern>2: Γ (partition+0 is ignored)

Did you get the Euler's Gamma Function in there going, or did you just decide that you will define the way you will do the partitions with Greek letter Gamma? Just answer YES or NO.

The devil (666) is in the details . . .
Since 6+6+6=18, we must partition number 18, such as a_i<= a_i+1

1+1+16
1+2+15
1+3+14
1+4+13
1+5+12
1+6+11
1+7+10
1+8+9
2+2+14
2+3+13
2+4+12
2+5+11
2+6+10
2+7+9
2+8+8
3+3+12
3+4+11
3+5+10
3+6+9
3+7+8
4+4+10
4+5+9
4+6+8
4+7+7
5+5+8
5+6+7
6+6+6

There are 27 partitions, and since the 27th book of The New Testament is Revelation where the devil is defined, you should learn from His Infinite Omniscience and Prognosticator Supreme God the Lord PhD how to alert readers what to expect.

The Unclean copulates your head -- I can see it right there in your "organic partitions."
Oh, maaaan . . . LOL.

Little 10 Toes · Sep 27, 2010

jsfisher said:
No, that's not how it works, and you know it. You made a claim; the burden falls to you to demonstrate your claim in detail.

Please, proceed: Show us where in your referenced post you define "magnitude of existence". We are all anxious to see where you broke your perfect record of never defining any of the made-up terminology you use.

Heck, I'm still waiting for him to prove that I'm not Jehovah, since he made that claim.

doronshadmi · Sep 27, 2010

jsfisher said:
No, that's not how it works, and you know it. You made a claim; the burden falls to you to demonstrate your claim in detail.

Please, proceed: Show us where in your referenced post you define "magnitude of existence". We are all anxious to see where you broke your perfect record of never defining any of the made-up terminology you use.

Definition A: That has no predecessor has "the minimal magnitude of existence".

Example: Emptiness has "the minimal magnitude of existence".

Definition B: That has no successor has "the maximal magnitude of existence".

Example: Fullness (the opposite of Emptiness) has "the maximal magnitude of existence".

If one can't immediately get the notion that Emptiness has the minimal magnitude of existence and Fullness (its opposite, which has no successor) has the maximal magnitude of existence, there is no use to continue the dialog with him\her on that subject.

You, jsfisher, is such one.

doronshadmi · Sep 27, 2010

The Man said:
See those symbols on either side of your “x”? They limit the values of your “x”, in case you didn’t realize it.

See those symbols on either side of my “x”? They are the totalities that enable x as a relative existence between them, such that x is an ever developed relative existence, which does not suffer from Russell's paradox and does not need the garbage can of proper classes.

Furthermore, if x magnitude of existence is extended beyond cardinality to any possible value that has both predecessor AND successor, then 0 < x < ∞ means that x is defined as that has infinite interpolation or infinite extrapolation, which is a clear signature that x is an ever developed existence, that is not limited by 0 or ∞, simply because they are its building-bocks (because x has 0 as its predecessor AND ∞ as its successor).

your 0 < x framework is limited because one of its building-blocks (∞) is missing.

As a result it suffers from Russell's paradox (ad hoc treatments are used in order to avoid it) and needs the garbage can of proper classes.

doronshadmi · Sep 27, 2010

Little 10 Toes said:
Heck, I'm still waiting for him to prove that I'm not Jehovah, since he made that claim.

You are misleading:

Here you claim that you are not-Jehovah or Jehovah (where or is different than xor):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6293447&postcount=11417

Since one of your options is that you are Jehovah, I asked you "Who is Jehovah?":
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6294370&postcount=11422

Here you demonstrate that you do not distinguish between "Who" and "What" by providing an answer is based on "What", where I asked you a question that is based on "Who":
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6294881&postcount=11424

According to the fact that you are not Jehovah, I asked you "Who is "Little 10 Toes" which is also "I"?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6295064&postcount=11425

Here you claim, that I claim that you are Jehovah, but this is a false claim, because in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6295064&postcount=11425
I explicitly say that you are not Jehovah, and in this case you have to answer only to this question: "Who is "Little 10 Toes" which is also "I"?:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6295076&postcount=11426

Here we see that you chose to be Jehovah, by ignoring my claim about the fact that you are not Jehovah. Since you, and not me, claim that you are Jehovah, I show you that your claim that you are Jehovah is false, because if you are Jehova then: "you are able to answer to this question, without any tools like books etc...":
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6295096&postcount=11427

The Man · Sep 27, 2010

doronshadmi said:
See those symbols on either side of my “x”? They are the totalities that enable x as a relative existence between them, such that x is an ever developed relative existence, which does not suffer from Russell's paradox and does not need the garbage can of proper classes.

So you just don’t see those symbols that assert some limitations on your “x”? Here is what they look like “<”, now see if you can find them.

doronshadmi said:
Furthermore, if x magnitude of existence is extended beyond cardinality to any possible value that has both predecessor AND successor, then 0 < x < ∞ means that x is defined as that has infinite interpolation or infinite extrapolation, which is a clear signature that x is an ever developed existence, that is not limited by 0 or ∞, simply because they are its building-bocks (because x has 0 as its predecessor AND ∞ as its successor).

Doron your “x” is limited by “0 or ∞” and even, by those “<” symbols you just can’t seem to find, limited from being “0 or ∞”

doronshadmi said:
your 0 < x framework is limited because one of its building-blocks (∞) is missing.

Once again Doron, no one has asserted “0 < x” as their “framework” other then you, so it remains just your “framework”.

Stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning or what you might naively assert as one of your ‘frameworks’ on to others.

doronshadmi said:
As a result it suffers from Russell's paradox (ad hoc treatments are used in order to avoid it) and needs the garbage can of proper classes.

Again Doron it is still just your own “framework”, so if you think it “suffers” then it is just your fault.

doronshadmi · Sep 27, 2010

The Man said:
Doron your “x” is limited by “0 or ∞” and even, by those “<” symbols you just can’t seem to find, limited from being “0 or ∞”

x has both predecessor AND successor, which exists relatively to that has no predecessor (0) or that has no successor (∞).

x is related to relativity, where 0 or ∞ are related to totality, where the framework has both properties, so there is no limitation of any kind here.

On the contrary, your 0 < x is relative only, because it does not understand 0 as the cardinality of totality like Emptiness, and starts by relative-only things like the concept of the empty set, which is an existing thing that has a predecessor (Emptiness), that is not understood by the relative-only notion.

doronshadmi · Sep 27, 2010

The Man said:
Not only did the section you quoted not even mention negative probabilities in any way,

The following part was taken from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6375173&postcount=11754 :

The Man said:
the total probability of having an outcome is always 1, which can be the sum of any combination of probabilities including negative probabilities and probability amplitudes (which is why some particle decay modes are suppressed).

Say no more.

epix · Sep 28, 2010

doronshadmi said:
You are misleading:

Here we see that you chose to be Jehovah, by ignoring my claim about the fact that you are not Jehovah. Since you, and not me, claim that you are Jehovah, I show you that your claim that you are Jehovah is false, because if you are Jehova then: "you are able to answer to this question, without any tools like books etc...":

As far as the Crafty One is concerned, "Jehovah" is a personal noun, and so the word starts with "big" letter J. 'J' is the 10th letter of the alphabet, or J=10, but the name of your opponent starts with "Little 10..." That's the same as "Little J..." But J is not "little" -- it's upper-case. So Little 10 Toes is not Jehovah, but jehovah. Since "jehovah" starts with "little" 'j', the word is just a common noun, and since the word isn't in the dictionary, there is no meaning to the word, as much there is no meaning to anything that was, is, and will be, as we scroll and troll through the Park of Tubular Moon heading for the galleria.
Totallyyyyyyyyyyy.

jsfisher · Sep 28, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Definition A: That has no predecessor has "the minimal magnitude of existence".

Example: Emptiness has "the minimal magnitude of existence".

Great! Thing A is also a minimal version of Thing B.

So, now, where is that long awaited, much extolled definition of Thing B? You know, that "magnitude of existence" thing.

Another fail for you, Doron. You make a claim, but it proves out empty. Care to try again? What is the definition of "magnitude of existence"?

doronshadmi · Sep 28, 2010

jsfisher said:
Another fail for you, Doron. You make a claim, but it proves out empty.

Another fail of you, jsfisher. You have failed to understand your own words, because:

Definition A does exactly this: It enters to the game Emptiness as a valid player as "that has no predecessor".

Definition B does exactly this: It enters to the game Fullness as a valid player as "that has no successor".

You make a claim, but it proves out your reasoning's limitations.

Care to try again?

epix · Sep 28, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Care to try again?

I did. But no matter what, I always find your opening salvo contradictory:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT

n
∑ i‧a_i = n
i=1

Can you expand the summands for at least n=5? Maybe you interpret the Sigma function differently and have failed to inform about it beforehand.

doronshadmi · Sep 28, 2010

epix said:
I did. But no matter what, I always find your opening salvo contradictory:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT

n
∑ i‧a_i = n
i=1

Can you expand the summands for at least n=5? Maybe you interpret the Sigma function differently and have failed to inform about it beforehand.

You have missed the part which says that "(their introduction in this article is based on partial but consistent example)".

This function is not used anymore as the general function of ON's distinct forms, for example:

For n=2, we have 10 distinct forms:

Code:

(AB,AB) (AB,A)  (AB,B)  (AB)    (A,A)   (B,B)   (A,B)   (A)     (B)     ()

A * *   A * *   A * .   A * .   A * *   A . .   A * .   A * .   A . .   A . .
  | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |
B *_*   B *_.   B *_*   B *_.   B ._.   B *_*   B ._*   B ._.   B *_.   B ._.

(2,2) = (AB,AB)
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)
(2,0)=  (AB)
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)
(1,0)=  (A),(B)
(0,0)=  ()

where by the pervious calc. we have 2 distinct forms.

I already told you in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6329946&postcount=11526 what you have to do, before you deal with this stuff.

These kinds of replies http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6332623&postcount=11541 will not help you to deal with this stuff.

doronshadmi · Sep 28, 2010

Let us continue to develop OM.

The concept of Zero is defined by at least two different notions.

In terms of Cardinality as the magnitude of existence, Zero is the cardinality of that has no predecessor.

But Zero can be understood also as the equilibrium between opposite values, for example: the equilibrium between x and –x.

In that case Zero has both predecessor AND successor.

In order to distinguish between the two notions, let us notate Zero in terms of Cardinality by 0 (0 < x < ∞), and zero in terms of equilibrium by Θ.

For example: Θ + 1 = +1 , Θ - 1 = -1, where -1 is the predecessor of Θ, +1 is the successor of Θ, and Θ is the equilibrium of -1 and +1.

The Man · Sep 29, 2010

doronshadmi said:
x has both predecessor AND successor, which exists relatively to that has no predecessor (0) or that has no successor (∞).

x is related to relativity, where 0 or ∞ are related to totality, where the framework has both properties, so there is no limitation of any kind here.

Fine, so now your “x” can be “0 or ∞” or would you like to reassert your limits on your “x” again?

doronshadmi said:
On the contrary, your 0 < x is relative only, because it does not understand 0 as the cardinality of totality like Emptiness, and starts by relative-only things like the concept of the empty set, which is an existing thing that has a predecessor (Emptiness), that is not understood by the relative-only notion.

On the contrary, Doron, your “0 < x” remains still just, well, yours.

The Man · Sep 29, 2010

doronshadmi said:
The following part was taken from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6375173&postcount=11754 :

So what? Where does that post say…

doronshadmi said:
…negative probability is not an option anymore,

doronshadmi said:
Say no more.

Oh, by all means, please, you first.

jsfisher · Sep 29, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Another fail of you, jsfisher. You have failed to understand your own words, because:

Definition A does exactly this: It enters to the game Emptiness as a valid player as "that has no predecessor".

Definition B does exactly this: It enters to the game Fullness as a valid player as "that has no successor".

You make a claim, but it proves out your reasoning's limitations.

Your confusion and befuddlement never ceases to amaze, Doron. The subject is the definition "magnitude of existence" and yet you write about other things. Your pseudo-definition for emptiness is in no way a definition for the term at hand.

Focus. M-a-g-n-i-t-u-d-e---o-f---e-x-i-s-t-e-n-c-e.

Again, I invite you to define "magnitude of existence". It may help to put it in the form, "Magnitude of existence means ...". Just make sure everything after the word "means" are terms with common, well-defined meanings.

Care to try again?

My thoughts exactly, but history has shown you are incapable.

The Man · Sep 29, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Let us continue to develop OM.

Say here’s an idea, why don’t you actually start “to develop OM” by defining your notions and making them self-consistent?

doronshadmi said:
The concept of Zero is defined by at least two different notions.

Oh perhaps, to at least some extent anyway, but I doubt your “different notions” of zero will be, well, different notions of zero.

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

doronshadmi said:
In terms of Cardinality as the magnitude of existence, Zero is the cardinality of that has no predecessor.

No Doron, “In terms of Cardinality” zero is the cardinality of the empty set. The empty set has no predecessor in cardinality simply because the set of all cardinal numbers excludes negative values.

doronshadmi said:
But Zero can be understood also as the equilibrium between opposite values, for example: the equilibrium between x and –x.

Sorry Doron, but that is not a different notion of zero, it is just that now you include negative values in the set you are considering the same notion of zero as a member. In other words (since you like them so much) it is simply that the set you are considering the notion of zero in is now symmetrical about zero.

doronshadmi said:
In that case Zero has both predecessor AND successor.

As it does in the set of all real numbers and the set of all integers, though it has no predecessor in the set of all non-negative integers, one of the sets considered to be the natural numbers (the set of all positive integers being the other, which does not include zero).

doronshadmi said:
In order to distinguish between the two notions, let us notate Zero in terms of Cardinality by 0 (0 < x < ∞), and zero in terms of equilibrium by Θ.

Nope, you’re not distinguishing between two notions of zero just between two different sets that include just one notion of zero. One set includes negative numbers and the other does not. Once again your “0 < x < ∞” limitation does not even let your “x” be zero, so the set of all your values for your “x” does not even include zero.

doronshadmi said:
For example: Θ + 1 = +1 , Θ - 1 = -1, where -1 is the predecessor of Θ, +1 is the successor of Θ, and Θ is the equilibrium of -1 and +1.

Nope, you just using two different symbols for the same notion of zero in different sets does not make your notion of zero, well, different.

epix · Sep 29, 2010

doronshadmi said:
You have missed the part which says that "(their introduction in this article is based on partial but consistent example)".

This function is not used anymore as the general function of ON's distinct forms, for example:

"Their introduction in this article is based on partial but consistent example," is not decidedly the equivalent to this notice.

The result of the Sigma function is particular to the rest of your attempt to "define" the organic numbers. If you say that "the function is not used anymore," then kindly stop using the links to the Organic Mathematics (A Non-formal Introduction) as some support for your attempt to destroy the universe by driving it silly. The universe is based on the standard interpretation of the ratios, such as the 2:1 that you altered without giving prior notice, the same way you discontinued the usage of the Sigma function.

God completed the heavens and the earth. What is the ratio between the completed and the "completer."

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
Genesis 2:1

That's right. The ratio is 2:1.
You should keep godly order in your mathematics and reject the advances of The Unclean Spirit (formerly the devil) that commands you to reorganize the denominators insane.

doronshadmi · Sep 29, 2010

jsfisher said:
Your confusion and befuddlement never ceases to amaze, Doron. The subject is the definition "magnitude of existence" and yet you write about other things. Your pseudo-definition for emptiness is in no way a definition for the term at hand.

Focus. M-a-g-n-i-t-u-d-e---o-f---e-x-i-s-t-e-n-c-e.

Again, I invite you to define "magnitude of existence". It may help to put it in the form, "Magnitude of existence means ...". Just make sure everything after the word "means" are terms with common, well-defined meanings.

My thoughts exactly, but history has shown you are incapable.

Magnitude of existence means: "The measurement value that is related to the ability to be, not to be, or any level between to be or not to be."

doronshadmi · Sep 29, 2010

The Man said:
Fine, so now your “x” can be “0 or ∞” or would you like to reassert your limits on your “x” again?

No, The Man, you have a problem to distinguish between the relative and the total:

The totals are: That has no predecessor or that has no successor.

The relative is: That has predecessor AND successor.

Exercise: Find the differences.

doronshadmi · Sep 29, 2010

The Man said:
No Doron, “In terms of Cardinality” zero is the cardinality of the empty set. The empty set has no predecessor in cardinality simply because the set of all cardinal numbers excludes negative values.

I write:

"In terms of Cardinality as the magnitude of existence"

You write:

"In terms of Cardinality"

Exercise: Find the differences.

doronshadmi · Sep 29, 2010

epix said:
The result of the Sigma function is particular to the rest of your attempt to "define" the organic numbers.

Not at all, this old Sigma function simply demonstrates a partial but consistent case of recursion over the partition function p.

The important notion here is the recursion, whether it is demonstrated partially or not.

By understanding this, please read http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT.

doronshadmi · Sep 29, 2010

The Mam said:
doronshadmi said:

0 Dimensional space has Emptiness as its predecessor.

Click to expand...

Yep, looks like there’s no stopping your ignorance, even in an empty space.

Yep, looks like there’s no limit to your ignorance, even in Emptiness.

The Man · Sep 29, 2010

doronshadmi said:
No, The Man, you have a problem to distinguish between the relative and the total:

The totals are: That has no predecessor or that has no successor.

The relative is: That has predecessor AND successor.

Exercise: Find the differences.

No Doron you have a problem identifying your own chosen limitations.

doronshadmi said:
I write:

"In terms of Cardinality as the magnitude of existence"

You write:

"In terms of Cardinality"

Exercise: Find the differences.

Cardinality is not “magnitude of existence” and if you are claiming it is, as your statement above alludes to, there is no difference.

doronshadmi said:
Yep, looks like there’s no limit to your ignorance, even in Emptiness.

Doron, “Emptiness” is limiting. However, by your OM you still just try to fill it with ignorance.

doronshadmi · Sep 29, 2010

epix said:
The result of the Sigma function is particular to the rest of your attempt to "define" the organic numbers.

Not at all, this old Sigma function simply demonstrates a partial but consistent case of recursion over the partition function p.

The important notion here is the recursion, whether it is demonstrated partially or not.

The Man said:
Cardinality is not “magnitude of existence” and if you are claiming it is, as your statement above alludes to, there is no difference.

There is no difference under you limited reasoning, your limitation, your problem.

The Man said:
Doron, “Emptiness” is limiting. However, by your OM you still just try to fill it with ignorance.

“Emptiness” is totality exactly as "Fullness" is totality.

If linked they are able the existence of that has predecessor AND successor.

I was too generous to your reasoning's abilities by say that your reasoning gets "0 < x" expression.

Actually your reasoning is x-only (relative-only), such that there is no awareness to the total building-blocs that actually enable that has cardinality x.

Your relative-only reasoning is indeed total loss (a loss of totality).

Deeper than primes

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

ETcorngods survivor

Banned

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Unbanned zombie poster

ETcorngods survivor

Unbanned zombie poster

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing