Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Repeatedly posting links to some of your silliest posts doesn't challenge in any way the substance of my post: You mis-assume what I know and understand of your fantastical OM. You fail to demonstrate any relevance for your fantastical OM.
Click to expand...
No detailed reply.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I can develop the mathematical science, such that the term "mathematical branches" gets its actual meaning.

In can be achieved only of both cross-contexts reasoning AND context-dependent reasoning are used.
Click to expand...

My apologies for being slightly ambiguous with my question.

Please show a real result from OM, not what you think you can do with it.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In both cases you have at least two dimensional spaces, where the smaller dimension is local w.r.t the greater dimension and the greater dimension is non-local w.r.t to the smaller dimension.
Click to expand...

So now you just don’t know how many “dim“s your "stretched 0-dim" or "totally reduced 1-dim" have in spite of your previous claim?


doronshadmi said:
There is no more then one element if there is no co-existence between at least two different dimensional spaces.
Click to expand...

Nope, you’ve still got two ‘elements’, you’re just claiming that they don’t ‘co-exist’

doronshadmi said:
You still do not comprehend the result of actuality of nothing between A and B.
Click to expand...

Evidently that is just you (please see below).


doronshadmi said:
Yes I know, it is actually a pink snail.
Click to expand...

Why how purty for you.



doronshadmi said:
What I actually say is that there is a domain starting with 0 and approaching infinity, where there are x and y variables in that domain, such that x<y.
Click to expand...

That doesn’t define your “x” or your “y” as approaching infinity, just your “domain”.



doronshadmi said:
x<y are not limited to the real-line so your reply has nothing to do with the fact that x<y and y-dimensional space exists between x-dimensional elements, where x and y approaching infinity.
Click to expand...

It still shows your claim to be demonstrably and trivially false.

doronshadmi said:
In that case "dimension has nothing to do with points", which is a false proposition based on your "reasoning".
Click to expand...

No, your assertion above is indeed false, but it is just your assertion and your purported "reasoning".

doronshadmi said:
Only if one can't generalize what he\she reads.
Click to expand...

Again “generalize” doesn’t mean you conflating simply everything you would like to.


doronshadmi said:
Once again, you demonstrate your inability the understand the proposition "different version".
Click to expand...

Once again, you demonstrate your inability to understand and deliberate ignorance of the details of “Hilbert's Hotel”



doronshadmi said:
If something is considered as the negation of nothing, then without the actuality of nothing, something can't be defined.
Click to expand...

Sure you can, once you define something you also define its negation. Neither is actually defined at first but once you define one the other is actually defined as its negation.


doronshadmi said:
Be aware that actual and existence are not synonyms.
Click to expand...

Be aware that no one has claimed they are “synonyms” (one is an adjective and the other a noun), but perhaps you should read the actual definition again.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/actual

And this…

http://thesaurus.com/browse/actual

Main Entry: actual
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: existing at the present time
Synonyms: current, exact, existent, extant, live, living, original, prevailing Antonyms: hypothetical, imaginary, nominal, past, reputed, theoretical, unreal
Click to expand...

“Actual” and “existent” are synonyms (both are adjectives).

doronshadmi said:
You still do not get the actuality of nothing, and as a result you can't comprehend the difference of the following:

1) nothing between A and B, is resulted by at most one thing.

2) something between A and B, is resulted by at least two things.
Click to expand...


You still don’t understand that just stringing words together does not give your assertions any meaning.

Part of your problem is that I think you are trying to use two different definitions for the word between.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/between

between (bɪˈtwiːn)
— prep
1. at a point or in a region intermediate to two other points in space, times, degrees, etc
2. in combination; together: between them, they saved enough money to buy a car
3. confined or restricted to: between you and me
4. indicating a reciprocal relation or comparison: an argument between a man and his wife
5. indicating two or more alternatives: a choice between going now and staying all night
Click to expand...


This is what is know as the equivocation fallacy.



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

Basically setting two different definitions of a word as equivalent simply because they are used for the same word. That a word can have more than one meaning makes those meanings related but it does not make them equivalent.
 
The first goal of Organic Mathematics (OM) is to develop the awareness of the mathematician to directly precept Mathematics as a one organism, such that all of its possible, so called, branches are consistent with each other.

Currently each branch is developed by using only context-dependent reasoning, which is mostly based on the auditory/verbal mathematician's mind skills.

Organic Mathematics current goal is to develop the mathematician's minds, such that he\she will be able to develop mathematics that also uses cross-contexts reasoning and visual/spatial skills.

By practically using this approach, the mathematician's mind will be developed as a result of the combined reasoning and mind's skills, which in turn will develop deeper (more profound) mathematics that is based on cybernetic principles between the developed and the developer.

One of the first steps for the development of this cybernetic ability is to develop the mathematician's self awareness in the most general sense, which is not limited to any particular mind's skills, where this approach actually reinforces the needed mind's balance, which enables it to use its visual/spatial and Auditory/verbal skills, in order to deal with both cross-contexts and context-dependent reasoning under a one cybernetic and organic realm.

In order to really achieve the mentioned goal, the mathematician's mind has to be able to be aware of finer levels of its thinking process until it is directly aware of the finest level of itself, which is naturally free of any process exactly because it is the silent source of any possible process.

The thinking process has many aspects that are expressed and known as reasoning, intuition, emotion, sensual experience etc … , so the first goal of Organic Mathematics is to lead the mathematician's mind beyond these expressions in order to directly aware of their common source, which is the finest level of the mind's activity that is beyond any activity and it is naturally the source of any possible activity.

The practical technique of such development is known as meditation, which enables one's mind to systematically be aware of finer levels of his\her thinking process until he\she directly aware of the finest level of awareness, which is naturally free of any thinking process.

When one's mind learns to express itself by not losing its self awareness (which is actually the finest level of awareness that is naturally beyond any subjective experience) then and only then the real development of the mathematical science air its view as a one organic realm, which is not limited anymore only to context-dependent reasoning that is mostly based on auditory/verbal skills, and it is actually a reflection of the subjective level of the thinking process (only the finest level of the mind's activity that is beyond any activity, is the actual non-subjective state of mind).
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
So now you just don’t know how many “dim“s your "stretched 0-dim" or "totally reduced 1-dim" have in spite of your previous claim?

Nope, you’ve still got two ‘elements’, you’re just claiming that they don’t ‘co-exist’
Click to expand...
The Man said:
Sure you can, once you define something you also define its negation. Neither is actually defined at first but once you define one the other is actually defined as its negation.
Click to expand...
Here is an example of a mind (known by the name "The Man") that is aware of itself only at the level of the thinking process. As a result he does not aware of the silent level of his awareness, which is the non-subjective state of his particular (and therefore subjective) thinking process.

In this case he does not aware of his non-subjective level that enables the co-existence of different and maybe opposite aspects, such that they actually complement each other.

The Man said:
That doesn’t define your “x” or your “y” as approaching infinity, just your “domain”.
Click to expand...
Here his mind, which is trapped only at the level of thinking process can't be aware of the invariant relation of < between x and y, such that there are always at least two dimensional spaces x and y, where x is local w.r.t y and y is non-local w.r.t x.

The Man said:
Once again, you demonstrate your inability to understand and deliberate ignorance of the details of “Hilbert's Hotel”
Click to expand...
Here The Man's trapped mind on the subjective level can't comprehend a variation of “Hilbert's Hotel”, which is different than the original “Hilbert's Hotel”.

The Man said:
Be aware that no one has claimed they are “synonyms” (one is an adjective and the other a noun), but perhaps you should read the actual definition again.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/actual

And this…

http://thesaurus.com/browse/actual



“Actual” and “existent” are synonyms (both are adjectives).
Click to expand...
Thank you for the correction about adjective and noun, it has to be actuality and existence.

But it does not matter because the subjective mind of The Man, uses notions of other subjective minds, in order to support his subjective mind.

As a result he does not understand that actuality and existence are not synonyms even if they are both nouns.


The Man said:
You still don’t understand that just stringing words together does not give your assertions any meaning.

Part of your problem is that I think you are trying to use two different definitions for the word between.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/between




This is what is know as the equivocation fallacy.



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

Basically setting two different definitions of a word as equivalent simply because they are used for the same word. That a word can have more than one meaning makes those meanings related but it does not make them equivalent.
Click to expand...
Here the subjective mind of The Man fails to comprehend the different results of "nothing between" and "something between".
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
And so is the a b c triangle where 0-dim,1-dim and 2-dim are in co-exitence, so?

Please read http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7239422&postcount=15553 .
Click to expand...
So? Are you completely out of order to ask, after refusing to accept that there can be "co-existence" of 3-dim universe with local 2-dim viewing frame?

The only thing that cannot be transformed or modified is your rigidity. Benedict XVI seems to be a fast, flexible and open-minded thinker in comparison to you. That answers the question of OM application. You can't use it even as a religion.
 
The Man said:
Part of your problem is that I think you are trying to use two different definitions for the word between.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/between

This is what is know as the equivocation fallacy.

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

Basically setting two different definitions of a word as equivalent simply because they are used for the same word. That a word can have more than one meaning makes those meanings related but it does not make them equivalent.
Click to expand...
You know, this could be a problem, coz languages have not developed with respect to describing highly abstract issues of special relationships. So I was thinking how to avoid Equivocation . . .

E is to Equivocation as ? is to the opposite of Equivocation.

It occurred to me that the symbol expressing the opposite of equivocation could be

FC_Exists_41756_mth.gif


Then there is other problem called Ambiguity. So I was thinking how to avoid Ambiguity . . .

A is to Ambiguity as ? is to the opposite of Ambiguity.

It occurred to me that the symbol expressing the opposite of ambiguity could be

universal-quantifier-for-all.png


And so I got inspired and developed a special language, which is fallacy-proof. Here is an example.

logic-equivs.gif


Unfortunately, the language became very unpopular with the OM mathematicians who continue to use the expressive means inherited from the cook-to-cook communication.
 
epix said:
So? Are you completely out of order to ask, after refusing to accept that there can be "co-existence" of 3-dim universe with local 2-dim viewing frame?

The only thing that cannot be transformed or modified is your rigidity. Benedict XVI seems to be a fast, flexible and open-minded thinker in comparison to you. That answers the question of OM application. You can't use it even as a religion.
Click to expand...
In other words epix, you can't comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7239422&postcount=15553 exactly because being flexible for you is the freedom to cut one of your legs in order to develop the framework of movement, which is based on jumping on one leg.

Enjoy your flexibility to do that.
 
epix said:
You know, this could be a problem, coz languages have not developed with respect to describing highly abstract issues of special relationships. So I was thinking how to avoid Equivocation . . .

E is to Equivocation as ? is to the opposite of Equivocation.

It occurred to me that the symbol expressing the opposite of equivocation could be

[qimg]http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/41700/41756/FC_Exists_41756_mth.gif[/qimg]

Then there is other problem called Ambiguity. So I was thinking how to avoid Ambiguity . . .

A is to Ambiguity as ? is to the opposite of Ambiguity.

It occurred to me that the symbol expressing the opposite of ambiguity could be

[qimg]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Y1sq15aWr_M/SrqN287brRI/AAAAAAAAAPQ/WEl6gOxuoW4/s200/universal-quantifier-for-all.png[/qimg]

And so I got inspired and developed a special language, which is fallacy-proof. Here is an example.

[qimg]http://homepage.mac.com/markcc/logic-equivs.gif[/qimg]

Unfortunately, the language became very unpopular with the OM mathematicians who continue to use the expressive means inherited from the cook-to-cook communication.
Click to expand...
According to your provided example you are ignorant about the meaning of being Organic, where people do not harm other people exactly because they are percepting themselves and other people as organs of a one shared organism.

Actually your context-dependent mathematics [qimg]http://homepage.mac.com/markcc/logic-equivs.gif[/qimg] easily tuned to lead to the cook-to-cook non-communication. among people.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7241076&postcount=15569 is developed in order to reduce the amount of subjective noisy and violent minds like you.

Here is another example of your noisy and violent mind: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7182459&postcount=15406.

There is no wonder that such violent mind can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7184678&postcount=15421.
 
Last edited:
Please carefully read M. F. ATIYAH's Concluding Remarks about THE UNITY OF MATHEMATICS ( http://www.ime.usp.br/~pleite/pub/artigos/atiyah/the-unity-of-mathematics.pdf ).

8. Concluding Remarks

The main theme of my lecture has been to illustrate the unity of mathematics by discussing a few examples that range from Number Theory through Algebra, Geometry, Topology and Analysis. This interaction is, in my view, not simply an occasional interesting accident, but rather it is of the essence of mathematics. Finding analogies between different phenomena and developing techniques to exploit these analogies is the basic mathematical approach to the physical world. It is therefore hardly surprising that it should also figure prominently internally within mathematics itself.

I feel that this needs to be emphasized because the axiomatic era has tended to divide mathematics into specialist branches, each restricted to developing the consequences of a given set of axioms. Now I am not entirely against the axiomatic approach so long as it is regarded as a convenient temporary device to concentrate the mind, but it should not be given too high a status.

A secondary theme implicit in my lecture has been the importance of simplicity in mathematics. The most useful piece of advice I would give to a mathematics student is always to suspect an impressive sounding Theorem if it does not have a special case which is both simple and non-trivial. I have tried to select examples which satisfy these conditions.

Both unity and simplicity are essential, since the aim of mathematics is to explain as much as possible in simple basic terms. Mathematics is still after all a human activity, not a computer programme, and if our accumulated experience is to be passed on from generation to generation we must continually strive to simplify and unify.
Click to expand...

I wish to add that the Unity Of Mathematics can't be systematically achieved without the mathematician's awareness of the non-subjective level of the mind, which is the natural source of any possible expression that is itself beyond expression.

For further reading please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7241076&postcount=15569 .
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Here is an example of a mind (known by the name "The Man") that is aware of itself only at the level of the thinking process. As a result he does not aware of the silent level of his awareness, which is the non-subjective state of his particular (and therefore subjective) thinking process.
Click to expand...

In this case he does not aware of his non-subjective level that enables the co-existence of different and maybe opposite aspects, such that they actually complement each other.[/quote]

Here Doron, as usual, simply tries to claim objectivity for his " his particular (and therefore subjective) thinking process".


doronshadmi said:
Here his mind, which is trapped only at the level of thinking process can't be aware of the invariant relation of < between x and y, such that there are always at least two dimensional spaces x and y, where x is local w.r.t y and y is non-local w.r.t x.
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm quite aware of the "<" relation and that it has nothing to do with your " such that there are always at least two dimensional spaces x and y, where x is local w.r.t y and y is non-local w.r.t x." nonsense

doronshadmi said:
Here The Man's trapped mind on the subjective level can't comprehend a variation of “Hilbert's Hotel”, which is different than the original “Hilbert's Hotel”.
Click to expand...

Nope.



doronshadmi said:
Thank you for the correction about adjective and noun, it has to be actuality and existence.
Click to expand...

No problem.

doronshadmi said:
But it does not matter because the subjective mind of The Man, uses notions of other subjective minds, in order to support his subjective mind.

As a result he does not understand that actuality and existence are not synonyms even if they are both nouns.
Click to expand...

Actually "existence" is the definition of "actuality", so please try again.
http://thesaurus.com/browse/actuality

http://thesaurus.com/browse/existence
Main Entry: existence

Part of Speech: noun
Definition: life
Synonyms: actuality, animation, being, breath, continuance, continuation, duration, endurance, entity, essence, hand one is dealt, individuality, journey, lifing, permanence, perseverance, presence, rat race, real world, reality, something, subsistence, survival, the big game, world

Antonyms: death, inanimateness
Click to expand...

Since you did not develop langue Doron (among a whole lot of other things) if you are going to use it (and them) effectively your going to have to use the notions of others. Please try harder in that regard.

doronshadmi said:
Here the subjective mind of The Man fails to comprehend the different results of "nothing between" and "something between".
Click to expand...

Nope.
 
doronshadmi said:
The first goal of Organic Mathematics (OM) is to develop the awareness of the mathematician to directly precept Mathematics as a one organism, such that all of its possible, so called, branches are consistent with each other.

Currently each branch is developed by using only context-dependent reasoning, which is mostly based on the auditory/verbal mathematician's mind skills.

Organic Mathematics current goal is to develop the mathematician's minds, such that he\she will be able to develop mathematics that also uses cross-contexts reasoning and visual/spatial skills.

By practically using this approach, the mathematician's mind will be developed as a result of the combined reasoning and mind's skills, which in turn will develop deeper (more profound) mathematics that is based on cybernetic principles between the developed and the developer.

One of the first steps for the development of this cybernetic ability is to develop the mathematician's self awareness in the most general sense, which is not limited to any particular mind's skills, where this approach actually reinforces the needed mind's balance, which enables it to use its visual/spatial and Auditory/verbal skills, in order to deal with both cross-contexts and context-dependent reasoning under a one cybernetic and organic realm.

In order to really achieve the mentioned goal, the mathematician's mind has to be able to be aware of finer levels of its thinking process until it is directly aware of the finest level of itself, which is naturally free of any process exactly because it is the silent source of any possible process.

The thinking process has many aspects that are expressed and known as reasoning, intuition, emotion, sensual experience etc … , so the first goal of Organic Mathematics is to lead the mathematician's mind beyond these expressions in order to directly aware of their common source, which is the finest level of the mind's activity that is beyond any activity and it is naturally the source of any possible activity.

The practical technique of such development is known as meditation, which enables one's mind to systematically be aware of finer levels of his\her thinking process until he\she directly aware of the finest level of awareness, which is naturally free of any thinking process.

When one's mind learns to express itself by not losing its self awareness (which is actually the finest level of awareness that is naturally beyond any subjective experience) then and only then the real development of the mathematical science air its view as a one organic realm, which is not limited anymore only to context-dependent reasoning that is mostly based on auditory/verbal skills, and it is actually a reflection of the subjective level of the thinking process (only the finest level of the mind's activity that is beyond any activity, is the actual non-subjective state of mind).
Click to expand...

So no real results, just some esoteric goals, after, what, 20 years at it now, how unfortunate.

Oh and you should probably look up the meaning of the word "cybernetic".


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cybernetic
 
The Man said:
So no real results, just some esoteric goals, after, what, 20 years at it now, how unfortunate.

Oh and you should probably look up the meaning of the word "cybernetic".


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cybernetic
Click to expand...
Another reply of a subjective-only mind, which is trapped at level of thinking process, and as a result reality for him is only the subjective aspect of particular expressions.

Actually he has no clue about the actual meaning of cybernetics, which is not less then the simple AND non-trivial communication between the observed and the observer.

The Man's subjective-only mind can't actually comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7243778&postcount=15576.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
According to your provided example you are ignorant about the meaning of being Organic, where people do not harm other people exactly because they are percepting themselves and other people as organs of a one shared organism.
Click to expand...

In other words epix, you can't comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=15553 exactly because being flexible for you is the freedom to cut one of your legs in order to develop the framework of movement, which is based on jumping on one leg.
Click to expand...
Your perpetual contradictory statements are leaking into anything you attempt to put forward.

Your idea of Organic line segment that cannot be entirely covered by points makes such a segment a discrete set of points and that means if point A which lies on the segment cuts its leg off, point B doesn't scream ouch, coz there is a disconnection between both points. But that contradicts the concept of shared organism that your OM feeds on. It follows that OM is riddled with inconsistencies that makes such a computing system unusable.

I recommend that you re-structure the fundamentals. Give it a break, relax, go to see a movie and then start again digging the foundations in a different place.
 
Last edited:
epix said:
coz there is a disconnection between both points.
Click to expand...
Wrong, any given arbitrary pair of closer points are connected by a line segment that is simultaneously located at both points, which is a property that no point has.

You still do not comprehend the organic structure of the co-existence of locality and non-locality, which are mutually independent w.r.t each other exactly like two axioms that share the same framework without contradicting each other (exactly because they complement each other).

epix said:
But that contradicts the concept of shared organism that your OM feeds on. It follows that OM is riddled with inconsistencies that makes such a computing system unusable.
Click to expand...
The contradiction is a direct result of your weak reasoning to comprehend the co-existence of locality and non-locality that complement each other into a one organic framework.

epix said:
I recommend that you re-structure the fundamentals. Give it a break, relax, go to see a movie and then start again digging the foundations in a different place.
Click to expand...
You have no clue about the actuality of relaxation because of your noisy violent mind, as clearly can be seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7243339&postcount=15574 and also in your last post.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Wrong, any given arbitrary pair of closer points are connected by a line segment that is simultaneously located at both points, which is a property that no point has.
Click to expand...
I never mentioned any "given arbitrary pair of closer points." It's just your decOMposing mind that translates for you what others write.
 
epix said:
I never mentioned any "given arbitrary pair of closer points."
Click to expand...
You don't have to.

For example, the real-line is defined in terms of metric-space.

By using metric-space please define two points that exist at the same location along the real-line.

If it can't be done, then please ask yourself why it can't be done?
 
doronshadmi said:
By understanding the co-existence of sameness AND difference, the following contradiction (points are indistinguishable AND distinct) as given by

Quote:
points in a pseudometric space need not be distinguishable; that is, one may have d(x,y) = 0 for distinct values x≠y ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudometric_space )

is simply avoided, because the used concepts (sameness;difference) are a generalization of concepts like distance and point.
Click to expand...


Er, Maybe one of the more mathmatically inclined here can go into detail, but why would we want to get rid of that contradiction? Especially if, as the Wikipedia article says, "Pseudometrics arise naturally in functional analysis." Won't explaining it away by re-defining terms be only temporary, since, as a concept, it is still needed by Functional analysis?
 
Trifikas said:
Er, Maybe one of the more mathmatically inclined here can go into detail, but why would we want to get rid of that contradiction? Especially if, as the Wikipedia article says, "Pseudometrics arise naturally in functional analysis." Won't explaining it away by re-defining terms be only temporary, since, as a concept, it is still needed by Functional analysis?
Click to expand...

Please read http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7239690&postcount=15563 .

As can be seen, the notions of Pseudometrics must not be limited only to Functional analysis, and in this case sameness is dimension and difference is the particular values of dimension.

By using this approach the mathematician's mind is educated to define the connections between the general and the particular as a one comprehensive framework.

Please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7243778&postcount=15576 .
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You don't have to.

For example, the real-line is defined in terms of metric-space.

By using metric-space please define two points that exist at the same location along the real-line.

If it can't be done, then please ask yourself why it can't be done?
Click to expand...
I wasn't referring to the metric space but pseudo-metric space if you feel like changing the subject again.

Here is your line segment that cannot be completely covered by points, meaning there exists a positive real number that according to OM cannot be divided by another real number different from zero.

A___ ______ ___ _________B

As you claim, Organic Mathematics is a one organism. In other words, if point A cuts its leg off, point B says ouch. But that contradicts your understanding of the real line that, according to you, cannot be completely covered by points and therefore a disconnection exists between A and B.

So tell me, Doron. A bullet leaves the gun muzzle M and hits target T twenty feet away. Which are the points between M and T that the bullet didn't travel through?

That's of course a hypothetical question, coz I don't expect any answer that would actually take into account the nature of the question.
 
doronshadmi said:
The practical technique of such development is known as meditation, which enables one's mind to systematically be aware of finer levels of his\her thinking process until he\she directly aware of the finest level of awareness, which is naturally free of any thinking process.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Just don't dump on me the idea that you, and you in particular, need to meditate in order to free your mind from any thinking process.
 
epix said:
I wasn't referring to the metric space but pseudo-metric space if you feel like changing the subject again.
Click to expand...
And how the real-line is defined in terms of pseudo-metric space?

Please provide such traditional mathematical framework.

For non-traditional mathematical framework of this subject, please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7248080&postcount=15586 .

epix said:
Here is your line segment that cannot be completely covered by points, meaning there exists a positive real number that according to OM cannot be divided by another real number different from zero.

A___ ______ ___ _________B
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Here is your line segment that cannot be completely covered by points: A_______________________B, meaning that given any amount of 0-dimensional spaces, there is always a room between any arbitrary closer pair of 0-dimensional spaces for more infinitely many 0-dimensional spaces, exactly because no amount of 0-dimensional spaces has the magnitude of a 1-dimensional space (|R| < the magnitude of 1-dimensional space).

The division of two distinct real numbers > 0 is resulted by some distinct real-number > 0, but it does not change the fact that each real-number is corresponded to some 0-dimensional space along the real-line, where the real-line is not less then the co-existence of 1-dimensional space with infinitely many 0-dimensional spaces that their summed magnitude |R| < the magnitude of 1-dimensional space.

Similarly to The Man's trapped mind on the subjective level, you also can't comprehend the variation of “Hilbert's Hotel” (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7207963&postcount=15484) , which is different than the original “Hilbert's Hotel” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel ).
 
Last edited:
epix said:
:rolleyes:

Just don't dump on me the idea ...
Click to expand...
To really be free of any thinking process, is not an idea but a real state of mind, which is the natural source of any possible idea, where ideas are always some particular thinking process.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Here The Man's subjective-only mind uses the word "Actually" in order to express that
Click to expand...


Here Doron tries to use his latest catch phrase (“subjective-only mind”) for simply ascribing some aspect of his own failed reasoning onto others, with no more result than all his others before (‘serial only’, ‘context dependent only’, ‘local only’….ect) . Stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.


doronshadmi said:
Another reply of a subjective-only mind, which is trapped at level of thinking process, and as a result reality for him is only the subjective aspect of particular expressions.
Click to expand...

Again stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.

doronshadmi said:
Actually he has no clue about the actual meaning of cybernetics, which is not less then the simple AND non-trivial communication between the observed and the observer.
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary, Doron, I have more than just a clue, my understanding of robotics and control systems is what earns me a living. Cybernetics is a very active and productive field of research Doron and it is not one of your buzz word fantasies.

How’s that 'OM' investment working out for you there? 20 years and still no real results, sounds like you’re the only victim of your own Ponzi scheme.

doronshadmi said:
The Man's subjective-only mind can't actually comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7243778&postcount=15576.
Click to expand...

Again stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.
 
doronshadmi said:
And how the real-line is defined in terms of pseudo-metric space?

Please provide such traditional mathematical framework.
Click to expand...
The real line is not defined in pseudometric space. What purpose would it serve?

Can you translate the following using your own words?

A pseudometric space (X,d) is a set X together with a non-negative real-valued function d: X x X → R ≥0 (called a pseudometric) such that, for every x, y, z in X,

1. d(x, x) = 0
2. d(x, x) = d(x, x)
3. d(x, z) ≤ d(x, y) + d(y, z)


You claimed previously that two distinct points cannot occupy the same location without even knowing that there are spaces where it can be allowed. If you want to do some hOMe improvement to math, you should get at least familiar with the subject.

The rest of your post is the usual nonsense.
 
doronshadmi said:
To really be free of any thinking process, is not an idea but a real state of mind, which is the natural source of any possible idea, where ideas are always some particular thinking process.
Click to expand...
I think it would be better if you show how that meditation works. There is a unit circle (radius=1) inscribed in an isosceles triangle -- one of the infinitely many which a unit circle can be inscribed to.

drawing2l.png



But infinitely many cases doesn't mean that the cases are all equal -- there is always a criterion of choice that makes a particular selection(s) unlike any other and therefore unique or special (more than one but very few in comparison with the whole).

In this particular case, the specialty lies in the relationship between 2-dim objects (areas) and 1-dim objects (lines) and the question is this: What is the altitude h so that the area of the unit circle equals the area not in the circle (lighter blue).

Now start meditating upon the strategy of the solution -- you may learn something about the real points. This way I can get a pretty good picture of what you meant in your reply. You can try to google help. Just show that the OM solution is superior to the one that traditional math can fetch.
 
epix said:
I think it would be better if you show how that meditation works.
Click to expand...
It can be done only by your ability to be aware of finer levels of your thinking process (no matter what meaning you give it) until you are aware of the finest state of awareness, which is naturally free of any thinking process.

The development of your awareness is its ability to be aware of its finest level without losing it during the thinking process, such that both calmness and activity are present in your mind without prevent each other.

By developing such state of mind, you are in the optimal conditions to express your abilities in any wished way, which is naturally free of contradiction w.r.t other expressions, exactly because your mind expresses itself right from the source of all possible expressions.

Organic Mathematics is first of all a systematic method that uses mathematical insights in order to open the mathematician's mind to the Unity of simplicity (calmness) and activity (complex expressions).

Your currently active-only state of mind still unables to get the analogy of 1-dimensional space as the Unity of both straight-line (calmness) and curved-lines (complex expressions), as provided by the following diagram:

5721561558_c5b78c3152_b.jpg


Please this time try to gently grasp the following diagram, before you try to analyze and define it by some already agreed mathematical tools.

If you do that your mind naturally begins to be opened to its non-subjective level of awareness (illustrated by the straight line), at least at the level of the analogy (which is not the actual non-subjective state of mind).
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Quite the contrary, Doron, I have more than just a clue, my understanding of robotics and control systems is what earns me a living.
Click to expand...
Thank you for sharing an actual aspect of your life.

Please share with the posters of this thread your view of current and future development of Robotics.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Your currently active-only state of mind still unables to get the analogy of 1-dimensional space as the Unity of both straight-line (calmness) and curved-lines (complex expressions), as provided by the following diagram:

[qimg]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3296/5721561558_c5b78c3152_b.jpg[/qimg]

Please this time try to gently grasp the following diagram, before you try to analyze and define it by some already agreed mathematical tools.
Click to expand...
Gently? That diagram of yours is a mutilated version of Cantor set

2002_47_cantor.png


which you've dismembered in a frenzy of irreversible desire to forcefully separate, chop, cut and tear apart. "Mother! Have you seen the red gas can? I think I hear a 75 Chevy pulling up in our yard; I think we have guests to take care of."
 
Last edited:
I was actually quite lost in the original explanation of the theory... and there was me thinking the my Physics degree counted for something. But **** me... ORGANIC numbers? Since when did numbers in their purist sense become associated with carbon atoms?
 
PadainFain said:
I was actually quite lost in the original explanation of the theory... and there was me thinking the my Physics degree counted for something. But **** me... ORGANIC numbers? Since when did numbers in their purist sense become associated with carbon atoms?
Click to expand...


If I recall correctly, it arises from an address given by Hilbert that Doron completely misunderstood. Hilbert spoke of the organic nature of Mathematics, alluding to characteristics of its interconnectedness and evolution.
 
jsfisher said:
If I recall correctly, it arises from an address given by Hilbert that Doron completely misunderstood. Hilbert spoke of the organic nature of Mathematics, alluding to characteristics of its interconnectedness and evolution.
Click to expand...

JFC... I hate the use of Organic in foods (because what food is NOT Organic!?), but in numbers! Now I have a new thing to hate! Based on observation, evidence hypotheses and reason of course!

I am also someone who wants to preserve language. I hate the way it "evolves". This whole concept of "Organic" meaning wholesome or interconnectedness is simply wrong from the outset.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom