Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
Thank you for sharing an actual aspect of your life.
Click to expand...

No problem, as you will find I share many.

doronshadmi said:
Please share with the posters of this thread your view of current and future development of Robotics.
Click to expand...

Hardly on topic or even germane to this discussion.


“Please share with the posters of this thread” any real results you’ve obtained using your “OM”.
 
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...
Not all numbers are organic; only the negligible minority of real numbers is. The numbers which are organic are 6, 12.011, 3823, 4098, 2.267, 18350, 0.5, and 2.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Hardly on topic or even germane to this discussion.


“Please share with the posters of this thread” any real results you’ve obtained using your “OM”.
Click to expand...
Cybernetics and Robotics are on topic subjects and fruitful ground of this thread.

All you have is to plant your seed (your expert view) in that ground, in order to realize that it has the chance flourish by discussion.

So please share with the posters of this thread your view of current and future development of Robotics, if you wish to see how OM is relevant to your expertise.
 
Last edited:
PadainFain said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hi PadainFain and welcome.

Do you suggest that a phrase like "mathematical branches" is simply wrong from the outset?
 
epix said:
Gently?
Click to expand...
Yes, gently.

For example, where is the straight line in the following diagram?:

2002_47_cantor.png


Where is your mind's ability to be aware of both straight and curved lines as aspects of 1-dimensional space, as given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7255966&postcount=15594 ?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Cybernetics and Robotics are on topic subjects and fruitful ground of this thread.
Click to expand...

No the topic of this discussion is your “OM”, if that is not what you want to discuss anymore then you should close this thread and start another.

So, “Please share with the posters of this thread” any real results you’ve obtained using your “OM”.

doronshadmi said:
All you have is to plant your seed (your expert view) in that ground, in order to realize that it has the chance flourish by discussion.

So please share with the posters of this thread your view of current and future development of Robotics, if you wish to see how OM is relevant to your expertise.
Click to expand...

You seem to be confusing me with someone who has not been engaging you for a number of years. Most of us here already know that no matter what is said you will misinterpret, misrepresent and simply conflate words and meanings to pretend your “OM is relevant to” anything but just your “OM” fantasies. So we can just cut to the chase and you can just pretend all that other stuff preceded what you already pretend. The fact remains Doron that you can’t show your “OM” is relevant to anything other than just your “OM” fantasies.

So again, “Please share with the posters of this thread” any real results you’ve obtained using your “OM”.
 
The Man said:
No the topic of this discussion is your “OM”, if that is not what you want to discuss anymore then you should close this thread and start another.

So, “Please share with the posters of this thread” any real results you’ve obtained using your “OM”.



You seem to be confusing me with someone who has not been engaging you for a number of years. Most of us here already know that no matter what is said you will misinterpret, misrepresent and simply conflate words and meanings to pretend your “OM is relevant to” anything but just your “OM” fantasies. So we can just cut to the chase and you can just pretend all that other stuff preceded what you already pretend. The fact remains Doron that you can’t show your “OM” is relevant to anything other than just your “OM” fantasies.

So again, “Please share with the posters of this thread” any real results you’ve obtained using your “OM”.
Click to expand...

The topic of that discussion is OM, and I wish to show how it is relevant to Robotics, which is, by your own words, what earns" you "a living".

Do you actually say that "understanding of robotics and control systems is what earns" you "a living", but you are unable to share with the posters of this thread your view of current and future development of Robotics?

The Man said:
The fact remains Doron that you can’t show your “OM” is relevant to anything other than just your “OM” fantasies.
Click to expand...
As long as you actually can't do that your "understanding of robotics and control systems is what earns me a living" simply does not hold water.

So please share with the posters of this thread your view of current and future development of Robotics, if you wish to see how OM is relevant to your expertise.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Partial awareness is not enough.

The superiority of OM is to develop the mathematician's awareness, such that its results will not be used for destruction, which is a result that is not in the scope of Traditional Mathematics.

Please try to answer to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7258971&postcount=15606 if you really wish to get what OM is, in the first place.
Click to expand...
The full awarness kicks in right after you show the superiority of OM by solving the entry level problem:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7251673&postcount=15593

Maybe you can start with a partial solution, like meditating upon the question how many real results the problem has. Give the OM chance to shine like the mid-summer sun. Or are you afraid of triangles, coz they have sharp vertices and can be used for destruction? Or is your fear of the aliens who abduct ships in Bermuda Triangle?

bermudatriangle.gif
 
doronshadmi said:
The topic of that discussion is OM, and I wish to show how it is relevant to Robotics, which is, by your own words, what earns" you "a living".
Click to expand...

So by all means do that and for that, you don't need me or how I earn a living. Just your "OM" and some actual, well, relevance to robotics (if you got any of that).

doronshadmi said:
Do you actually say that "understanding of robotics and control systems is what earns" you "a living", but you are unable to share with the posters of this thread your view of current and future development of Robotics?
Click to expand...

Nope, what I'm saying, as I and many have before, is that the encumbrance is specifically upon you and you alone to display your professed relevance of your "OM" to that or any topic. A task you have consistently failed at. Got that bijection of a set with its power set yet or a definition of your predecessor and successor without ordering? How about that definition of your “magnitude of existence” independent of cardinality or the difference between increasing and decreasing with “no past (before) and no future (after)”?

To those active and lurking, as I have said before this is a common tactic of cold readers and huckster. To get the audience to provide them with a road map within which to try to conform their assertions. A tactic we are more than familiar with here.

doronshadmi said:
As long as you actually can't do that your "understanding of robotics and control systems is what earns me a living" simply does not hold water.
Click to expand...

I never said it held "water", just that it holds my current employment, as it does. It is simply not an issue that you can in any way dispute as it is just a matter of fact. You can accept it as that or not, it really doesn't matter to me either way.

doronshadmi said:
So please share with the posters of this thread your view of current and future development of Robotics, if you wish to see how OM is relevant to your expertise.
Click to expand...

Again “Please share with the posters of this thread” any real results you’ve obtained using your “OM”.

If you think relevance to robotics can do that for you, then by all means, please, be my guest.

You seem to be operating under the delusion that the relevance of your "OM" to robotics somehow hinges upon my understanding, expertise or opinion "of current and future development of Robotics". Your "OM" relevance to that subject should be demonstrably independent of me. If it isn't, then you simply have no actual relevance to that subject but are just trying to find some relevance through my understanding, expertise or opinion "of current and future development of Robotics". Too bad for you and your "OM".
 
The Man said:
So by all means do that and for that, you don't need me or how I earn a living. Just your "OM" and some actual, well, relevance to robotics (if you got any of that).
Click to expand...
The Man, I can air OM's view about Cybernetic and Robotics by totally ignore your "understanding of robotics and control systems".

Instead of doing it in the easy way, I prefer to do it by not ignore your understanding of this subject.

I thing that your view is important exactly because you actually work in that field of science.

So please share with the posters of this thread your view about the current and future development of Robotics.

The Man said:
Nope, what I'm saying, as I and many have before, is that the encumbrance is specifically upon you and you alone to display your professed relevance of your "OM" to that or any topic. A task you have consistently failed at. Got that bijection of a set with its power set yet or a definition of your predecessor and successor without ordering? How about that definition of your “magnitude of existence” independent of cardinality or the difference between increasing and decreasing with “no past (before) and no future (after)”?
Click to expand...
I gave exact answers to these subjects. You insisted to use a reasoning (context-dependent-only reasoning) that is not sufficient in order to understand my answers that are derived from the association of both cross-contexts AND context-dependent reasoning, which provide a one organic framework, where both cross-contexts AND context-dependent reasoning reinforce each other, in order to provide non-destructive results.

The Man said:
To those active and lurking, as I have said before this is a common tactic of cold readers and huckster. To get the audience to provide them with a road map within which to try to conform their assertions. A tactic we are more than familiar with here.
Click to expand...
I do not think that you get yourself as a weak poster, that easily influenced by "common tactic of cold readers and huckster".

But maybe I make a mistake about this issue, and you actually afraid to air your view about a given subject, in order to not be exposed to other notions that do not fit to your current notions of a given subject.

Do I make such a mistake about you?

The Man said:
I never said it held "water", just that it holds my current employment, as it does. It is simply not an issue that you can in any way dispute as it is just a matter of fact. You can accept it as that or not, it really doesn't matter to me either way.
Click to expand...
Do you actually claim that the fact that Robotics "holds" your "current employment" do not give you any privilege to air your view about the current and future development of Robotics?
 
Last edited:
epix said:
Or are you afraid of triangles, coz they have sharp vertices and can be used for destruction?
Click to expand...
The fear of sharp vertices is a direct result of partial awareness, where the organic awareness of different expressions that complement each other, is not fully developed.

If organic awareness is fully developed, any given expression is actually an organ of a one organism, where this actuality expresses itself by reinforcing the expressions as a one simple AND non-trivial ever developed realm.

This time please to your best in order to grasp the following:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7243778&postcount=15576

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7255966&postcount=15594

Also please try to answer to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7258971&postcount=15606 .
 
Last edited:
epix said:
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.

[qimg]http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/1343/drawing2l.png[/qimg]


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.
Click to expand...

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/1343/drawing2l.png[/qimg]
.................[COLOR="Red"]--------X--------[/COLOR]

If h*X = (pi*r[SUP]2[/SUP]) then h = (pi*r[SUP]2[/SUP])/X

We deal with an isosceles triangle and a given circle if:

(r > 0 and r < ∞) and (X > r and X < ∞) and (h > 2r and h < ∞)
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
[qimg]http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/1343/drawing2l.png[/qimg]
.................--------X--------

If h*X = (pi*r2) then h = (pi*r2)/X

We deal with an isosceles triangle and a given circle if:

(r > 0 and r < ∞) and (X > r and X < ∞) and (h > 2r and h < ∞)
Click to expand...
Well, at least you didn't get the constraints wrong, but you doronized them to the image and likeness of OM. The inscribed circle is a unite circle and that means its radius is equal to one. Sometimes I bemuse myself by inventing geometric arrangements where only one parameter is known, and so in this case it is the radius of the inscribed circle.

That X is a half of the base line b of the triangle, coz the triangle is isosceles. So the constrains are

r = 1, b/2 > r, h > 2r

The expression "h < ∞" is a redundant addition to the works and its only purpose is to support the presence of the boolean operators as an opulent garnishment.

Since the area of a unit circle is equal to pi, your condition in the first line says

If h*X = pi then h = pi/X (where X = base/2)

which is formally correct, but useless to the purpose of finding the roots.

I think that there are only two theorems that are used to solve the problem altogether with a few basic laws of trigonometry. When all is done, the length of the altitude h which satisfies the given condition is given by the solution of this equation:

x3 - 4*x*pi2 + 8*pi2 = 0

You can see below that there exist two real roots.

func1.png


That means, the solution cannot be expressed in the exact format; it exists only as f(x) = 0 and that's the only way to draw the points onto the real line. The roots x = h are in the approximate format as

h1 = 2.313757093139...
h2 = 4.7982296547833...

So if you ever figure the geometry part, you can use the result to check if you got that right.

The next time OM gets tested through the "spaghetti triangles" -- the finite and the infinite cases.
 
epix said:
Well, at least you didn't get the constraints wrong,
Click to expand...

It is wrong.

The right one is:

drawing2l.png

.................--------X--------

If h*X-(pi*r2)=(pi*r2) then h=(2*(pi*r2))/X

We deal with an isosceles triangle and a given circle if:

(r > 0 and r < ∞) and (X > r and X < ∞) and (h > 2r and h < ∞)

So as you see, it is not limited only to r=1.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
It is wrong.


We deal with an isosceles triangle and a given circle if:

(r > 0 and r < ∞) and (X > r and X < ∞) and (h > 2r and h < ∞)
So as you see, it is not limited only to r=1.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that only a circle with r=1 can be inscribed to an isosceles triangle, did I? At least one parameter needs to be known for a problem to have a particular set of solutions, and in this case the known parameter is r=1. It's like the diference between a - x = 2 and 5 - x = 2.

When I say "constraints," I mean that highlighted stuff, and there is no mistake in it. So why don't you set pi*r2 = pi, and since isosceles triangle is a symmetrical figure, cut it in half along its altitude h and take it from X*h/2 - pi/2 = pi/2 to X*h/2 = pi and on. You need to figure out the length of that X though. Unfortunately I got nothing else to clue you with except the "obsolete, traditional views."
http://www.mathsrevision.net/gcse/pages.php?page=13
 
doronshadmi said:
Wrong.

Organism is both whole AND parts (individuals).
Click to expand...
:confused:

That was Kawasaki and not Organism.

Philosophy of Organism or Organic Realism is how Alfred North Whitehead
described his metaphysics. It is now known as process philosophy.

Central to this school is the idea of concrescence. Concrescence means
growing together (com/con from Latin for "together", crescence from Latin
crescere/cret- grow), the present is given by a consense of subjective
forms. We are multiple individuals, but there are also multiple individual
agents of consciousness operant in the construction of the given. Marvin
Minsky calls this the "society of mind" in his book Society of Mind.

Whitehead's "subjective forms" complement "eternal objects" in his
metaphysical system; eternal objects being entities not unlike Plato's
archetypal Forms. In Process and Reality, Whitehead proposes that his 'organic realism' be used in place of classical materialism.
Click to expand...
Shadmi proposes that his "Organic Mathematics" be used in place of
classical abacus.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
As a result he can't grasp http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7261813&postcount=15615 because he has a problem with sharp vertices.
Click to expand...
If I had any problem with sharp vertices I wouldn't have designed the sharp-wheeled Kawasaki. The problem lies elsewhere, kinda below.
If organic awareness is fully developed, any given expression is actually an organ of a one organism, where this actuality expresses itself by reinforcing the expressions as a one simple AND non-trivial ever developed realm.
Click to expand...
You argue organs but are unwilling to rearrange your name from DORON to DONOR. Do some changing and then I do some grasping.

Btw, you never get a flat with that Kawasaki, coz the wheels are sharp objects by themselves.

dull mind is to O as sharp mind is to V
one and one is two and one in one is three
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The Man, I can air OM's view about Cybernetic and Robotics by totally ignore your "understanding of robotics and control systems".
Click to expand...

I suspect you can "air OM's view about Cybernetic and Robotics" by totally ignoring "Cybernetic and Robotics" as well (if your history has shown us anything). By all means, please, show my suspicion (and your history) to be wrong.

doronshadmi said:
Instead of doing it in the easy way, I prefer to do it by not ignore your understanding of this subject.

I thing that your view is important exactly because you actually work in that field of science.
Click to expand...

"easy way"? I think you will find it is not as easy as you might like to perceive. Now me laying out a road map for you, that would be an easier way for you. Not to worry I certainly won't ignore my "understanding of this subject", so have at it and "air OM's view about Cybernetic and Robotics". If you can and actually want to.


doronshadmi said:
So please share with the posters of this thread your view about the current and future development of Robotics.
Click to expand...

Nope, again “Please share with the posters of this thread” any real results you’ve obtained using your “OM”.

If you think relevance to robotics can do that for you, then by all means, please, be my guest.

doronshadmi said:
I gave exact answers to these subjects. You insisted to use a reasoning (context-dependent-only reasoning) that is not sufficient in order to understand my answers that are derived from the association of both cross-contexts AND context-dependent reasoning, which provide a one organic framework, where both cross-contexts AND context-dependent reasoning reinforce each other, in order to provide non-destructive results.
Click to expand...

So you're claiming that your "exact answers to these subjects" are not understandable even just in the context of those "subjects"? That would make them "anything but" "exact answers to these subjects". Please try again, your prattling above only demonstrates that you do not understand "these subjects" let alone your professed " exact answers". Evidently you just don't know this or you would not be trying to claim some other context(s) non-destructively reinforces your demonstrably wrong answers (you see that would just make them even more wrong). Apparently what you also don't understand is the subject of reinforcement (destructive reinforcement of a negative makes it more positive and constrictive reinforcement of a negative just makes it more negative).

doronshadmi said:
I do not think that you get yourself as a weak poster, that easily influenced by "common tactic of cold readers and huckster".
Click to expand...

Which is why I won't fall for it, no matter how long you keep trying. It's your "OM" Doron and your claim of relevance to "Cybernetic and Robotics" so the onus is entirely upon you to demonstrate that relevance and it is not incumbent on anyone to give you the "easy way" you evidently so desperately want.

doronshadmi said:
But maybe I make a mistake about this issue, and you actually afraid to air your view about a given subject, in order to not be exposed to other notions that do not fit to your current notions of a given subject.

Do I make such a mistake about you?
Click to expand...

Well you've obviously made a serious mistake about me if you think suggesting I might be "afraid" is going to get you anything or anywhere.

doronshadmi said:
Do you actually claim that the fact that Robotics "holds" your "current employment" do not give you any privilege to air your view about the current and future development of Robotics?
Click to expand...

Nope, again the claim was made quite clear and here it is again...

"...what I'm saying, as I and many have before, is that the encumbrance is specifically upon you and you alone to display your professed relevance of your "OM" to that or any topic. A task you have consistently failed at. Got that bijection of a set with its power set yet or a definition of your predecessor and successor without ordering? How about that definition of your “magnitude of existence” independent of cardinality or the difference between increasing and decreasing with “no past (before) and no future (after)”?"

Again simply claiming that your "exact answers to these subjects" can't be understood just in the context of those subjects means that they are irrelevant to "these subjects" and that context making them in no way "exact answers to these subjects" and directly attesting to the fact that they are not " answers to these subjects".



And once again you have obviously made a serious mistake about me if you think appealing to me having some kind of " privilege" is going to work for you.
 
A circle is a set of points which are all a certain distance from a fixed point known as the centre.
Click to expand...
( http://www.mathsrevision.net/gcse/pages.php?page=13 )

A circle is a closed 1-dimensional element which is curved w.r.t a given 0-dimensional element according to a certain distance > 0.

If there are points along a circle, then they are located w.r.t a given 0-dimensional element according to a certain distance > 0.
 
The Man said:
Again simply claiming that your "exact answers to these subjects" can't be understood just in the context of those subjects means that they are irrelevant to "these subjects" and that context making them in no way "exact answers to these subjects" and directly attesting to the fact that they are not " answers to these subjects".
Click to expand...
Well again, your context-dependent-only reasoning airs it blind view about a reasoning that is both Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent reasoning, simply because you get everything (including Cross-contexts reasoning) only in terms of Context-dependent reasoning.

I made a serious mistake by giving you the credit of being afraid to air your view about current and future development of Robotics. A person that has no view about a given subject is simply blind to that subject.

Being afraid of X needs at least some awareness of X which helps to avoid destructive use of X, but in your case this awareness does not exist.

So please forgive me by giving you a credit that you don't deserve.

-----------------------------------------------------

Let us start by at least two aspects that, in my opinion, are important to current and future development of Robotics.

In my opinion a responsible current and future development of Robotics has to carefully define the non-trivial dynamic balance between greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them.

Responsibility is developed only if we express our awareness abilities by non-destructive ways, such that any scientific development is derived from
the non-subjective state of mind, which is the natural source of any possible expression, including our mental and physical realm.

So in order to wisely use Cybernetics responsibly in the field of Robotics, we first have to develop the Cybernetics between our subjective and non-subjective aspects.

This is exactly the aim of Organic Mathematics, as briefly illustrated, for example, in:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7243778&postcount=15576

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7255966&postcount=15594
 
doronshadmi said:
I made a serious mistake by giving you the credit of being afraid to air your view about current and future development of Robotics. A person that has no view about a given subject is simply blind to that subject.
Click to expand...
You start your sermon with a guesswork regarding the reason for The Man not complying with your request that concerns robotics, but then you conclude that he doesn't actually have any view -- not that he is "afraid" to voice it. :confused:

So you are saying that parts are inseparable from the whole right? Well, let's see...
SNOOOOOOPYYYYY! Com'ere, boy!
 
epix said:
The circle has other property . . .
Click to expand...

In this case you demonstrate homeomorphism between forms, which are based on the co-existence of 0-dimensional spaces, 1-dimensional spaces and 2-dimensional space.

But still the organic notion is used in order to avoid such forms as components of destructive technology.
 
epix said:
You start your sermon with a guesswork regarding the reason for The Man not complying with your request that concerns robotics, but then you conclude that he doesn't actually have any view -- not that he is "afraid" to voice it. :confused:
Click to expand...
Yes, this is my conclusion, and it is opened to criticism by The Man or any other poster.

epix said:
So you are saying that parts are inseparable from the whole right?
Click to expand...

I claim that the whole is not a sum of parts under whole/parts co-existence.

My claim is demonstrated by the open-space version of Hilbert's Hotel: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7205990&postcount=15478 .
 
doronshadmi said:
Yes, this is my conclusion, and it is opened to criticism by The Man or any other poster.



I claim that the whole is not a sum of parts under whole/parts co-existence.

My claim is demonstrated by the open-space version of Hilbert's Hotel: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7205990&postcount=15478 .
Click to expand...
This version of Hilbert's hotel is the precise description of any arbitrary part of the real-line, which is not less than co-existence of infinity many 0-dim spaces that can't fully fill (or completely cover) Hilbert's hotel 1-dim space room.
Click to expand...
You used insufficient comparatives to express your dim idea but called your description "precise."

You just ignore whatever can be ignored. Cantor proved the uncountability of R in such a way that a normal person cannot ask for further explanation. You don't measure points -- they don't have any dimension -- but you can count some of them when they become visible as a location where two lines intersect, for example. That's essential in geometry.

Hilbert's hotel is an outdated paradox.
 
epix said:
Cantor proved the uncountability of R in such a way that a normal person cannot ask for further explanation.
Click to expand...
No he didn't simply because there is no such a thing like a complete infinite collection, which is a fact that your context-dependent-only reasoning can't comprehend.

epix said:
You don't measure points -- they don't have any dimension -- but you can count some of them when they become visible as a location where two lines intersect, for example. That's essential in geometry.
Click to expand...
It is essential that no amount of 0-dimensional spaces has the magnitude of 1-dimensional space under co-existence.

epix said:
Hilbert's hotel is an outdated paradox.
Click to expand...
Hilbert's hotel open space version is not a paradox, it is the simple fact that no amount of 0-dimensional spaces has the magnitude of 1-dimensional space under co-existence.

epix, your context-dependent-only reasoning can't deal with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7207963&postcount=15484 .
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No he didn't simply because there is no such a thing like a complete infinite collection, which is a fact that your context-dependent-only reasoning can't comprehend.
Click to expand...
Cantor never mentioned any "complete infinite collection." That's your term that can thank for its existence to your inability to grasp the concept of infinite sets.

It is essential that no amount of 0-dimensional spaces has the magnitude of 1-dimensional space under co-existence.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a great deal of difficulty distinguishing between measurement and counting.

Hilbert's hotel open space version is not a paradox, it is the simple fact that no amount of 0-dimensional spaces has the magnitude of 1-dimensional space under co-existence.
Click to expand...

Look once again at what I wrote
Hilbert's hotel is an outdated paradox.
Click to expand...
and tell me where you see any reference to an "open space version."

epix, your context-dependent-only reasoning can't deal with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7207963&postcount=15484 .
Click to expand...
Your context-independent-only reasoning causes you to consider infinity also in terms of MPH, which delivers your phantasmagorical conclusions later.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
For The Man and other posters:

A = (that has no predecessor) AND (that has no successor)

B = (that has no successor) AND (that has no predecessor)

((A AND B) is the same as (B AND A)) is unordered.

((A AND B) is different than (B AND A)) is ordered.
 
doronshadmi said:
Well again, your context-dependent-only reasoning airs it blind view about a reasoning that is both Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent reasoning, simply because you get everything (including Cross-contexts reasoning) only in terms of Context-dependent reasoning.

I made a serious mistake by giving you the credit of being afraid to air your view about current and future development of Robotics. A person that has no view about a given subject is simply blind to that subject.

Being afraid of X needs at least some awareness of X which helps to avoid destructive use of X, but in your case this awareness does not exist.

So please forgive me by giving you a credit that you don't deserve.
Click to expand...

Nope, since you have been advised many times before to stop simply tying just to posit some aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others, your continuation of such is entirely deliberate. So just keep your “credit” to yourself and you won’t have to ask for forgiveness form anyone but yourself.






doronshadmi said:
-----------------------------------------------------

Let us start by at least two aspects that, in my opinion, are important to current and future development of Robotics.

In my opinion a responsible current and future development of Robotics has to carefully define the non-trivial dynamic balance between greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them.

Responsibility is developed only if we express our awareness abilities by non-destructive ways, such that any scientific development is derived from
the non-subjective state of mind, which is the natural source of any possible expression, including our mental and physical realm.

So in order to wisely use Cybernetics responsibly in the field of Robotics, we first have to develop the Cybernetics between our subjective and non-subjective aspects.

This is exactly the aim of Organic Mathematics, as briefly illustrated, for example, in:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7243778&postcount=15576

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7255966&postcount=15594
Click to expand...

See, I as I suspected, you could "air OM's view about Cybernetic and Robotics" by totally ignoring "Cybernetic and Robotics".

So no real results, just some esoteric goals, after, what, 20 years at it now, how unfortunate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom