Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...


For what? To simply show that you still have no comprehension of ordering? I don’t think anyone here has any doubts of that, but thanks for clearly demonstrating it again.


Oh, and you should probably look up the commutative property of “AND”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction#Properties

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


To try to put it more succinctly for you Doron…

“(A AND B)” is a different ordering than “(B AND A)” but since “AND” has the property of Commutativity such changes in ordering do not change the results so “(A AND B)” gives the same results as “(B AND A)”. The orderings are different but the results are not.
 
The Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Man, according to your last several replies about this subject you have no view about the current and future development of Cybernetic and Robotics, so your criticism has no value what so ever.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
For what? To simply show that you still have no comprehension of ordering? I don’t think anyone here has any doubts of that, but thanks for clearly demonstrating it again.


Oh, and you should probably look up the commutative property of “AND”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction#Properties

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


To try to put it more succinctly for you Doron…

“(A AND B)” is a different ordering than “(B AND A)” but since “AND” has the property of Commutativity such changes in ordering do not change the results so “(A AND B)” gives the same results as “(B AND A)”. The orderings are different but the results are not.
Click to expand...
The Man, it is not about Commutativity or Non-commutativity.

((A AND B) is the same as (B AND A)) is resulted by the unordered and symmetrical form
Code: 
B     B
A [I]AND[/I] A
that has both redundancy and uncertainty with superposition of A;B ids.


((A AND B) is different than (B AND A)) is resulted by the ordered form and non-symmetrical form

(A AND B) OR (B AND A) that have 0 redundancy or uncertainty without superposition of A;B ids.


Your limited serial-only (and therefore ordered-only and non-symmetrical-only) reasoning fails again, similarly to your inability to grasp cross-contexts reasoning by using only context-dependent reasoning.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The Man, according to your last several replies about this subject you have no view about the current and future development of Cybernetic and Robotics, so your criticism has no value.
Click to expand...

Doron, according to all you posts in this tread you still have no real results, just some esoteric goals, after, what, 20 years at it now. Again, how unfortunate.
 
doronshadmi said:
The Man, it is not about Commutativity or Non-commutativity.
Click to expand...

So just something else you’re just going to deliberately ignore, color me unsurprised.


doronshadmi said:
((A AND B) is the same as (B AND A)) is resulted by the unordered and symmetrical form
Code: 
B     B
A [I]AND[/I] A
that has both redundancy and uncertainty with superposition of A;B ids.


((A AND B) is different than (B AND A)) is resulted by the ordered form and non-symmetrical form

(A AND B) OR (B AND A) that have 0 redundancy or uncertainty without superposition of A;B ids.
Click to expand...

Nope, exactly as I stated due to the property of commutatively for the logical conjunction “AND” the ordering can be different but the results are still the same.

“unordered and symmetrical form”?

Does ‘(A B AND)’ mean the same thing?

How about ‘(B DNA A)’?

The “form” is ordered and certainly not symmetrical.

Again it is just that changing the ordering of the variables (A and B in this case) about the logical conjunction does not change the result of the logical conjunction because that conjunction is commutative.


“superposition”? This would be your “superposition” again which you claimed “does not involve the principle of superposition”, right?

doronshadmi said:
Your limited serial-only (and therefore ordered-only and non-symmetrical-only) reasoning fails again, similarly to your inability to grasp cross-contexts reasoning by using only context-dependent reasoning.
Click to expand...

Again, stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Doron, according to all you posts in this tread you still have no real results, just some esoteric goals, after, what, 20 years at it now. Again, how unfortunate.
Click to expand...
Indeed no results are known by your blind reasoning, which also unable to air its view about current and future development of Robotics.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Nope, exactly as I stated due to the property of commutatively for the logical conjunction “AND” the ordering can be different but the results are still the same.
Click to expand...
In other words, you do not get my last post.

The Man said:
“unordered and symmetrical form”?
Click to expand...
Yes, and you can't get it as clearly seen in
The Man said:
Does ‘(A B AND)’ mean the same thing?

How about ‘(B DNA A)’?

The “form” is ordered and certainly not symmetrical.
Click to expand...
You simply get only the ordered and non-symmetrical, because of your serial-only reasoning.

The Man said:
Again it is just that changing the ordering of the variables (A and B in this case) about the logical conjunction does not change the result of the logical conjunction because that conjunction is commutative.
Click to expand...
Once again (it is like talking to a wall) it is not about Commutativity or Non-commutativity, but as usual your serial-only reasoning can't get that.

The Man said:
“superposition”? This would be your “superposition” again which you claimed “does not involve the principle of superposition”, right?
Click to expand...
It is exactly the superposition of symmetrical ids, which your serial-only (and therefore non-symmetrical) reasoning simply can't comprehend.


The Man said:
Again, stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.
Click to expand...
You do not need me, you posit aspects of your own serial-only (and therefore non-symmetrical) reasoning onto yourself, and as a result What You See Is What You Get.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In other words, you do not get my last post.
Click to expand...


Again in exactly the words I used…

“…as I stated due to the property of commutatively for the logical conjunction “AND” the ordering can be different but the results are still the same.”


doronshadmi said:
Yes, and you can't get it as clearly seen in

You simply get only the ordered and non-symmetrical, because of your serial-only reasoning.
Click to expand...

You simply and deliberately did not answer the questions.



doronshadmi said:
Once again (it is like talking to a wall) it is not about Commutativity or Non-commutativity, but as usual your serial-only reasoning can't get that.
Click to expand...

So again you just want to claim that “it is not about Commutativity or Non-commutativity” when you couch statements deliberately invoking the commutative property of “AND”…


doronshadmi said:
A = (that has no predecessor) AND (that has no successor)

B = (that has no successor) AND (that has no predecessor)
Click to expand...

Within a statement that is also deliberately invokes the commutative property of “AND”

doronshadmi said:
((A AND B) is the same as (B AND A)) is unordered.
Click to expand...

And then profess “that “it is not about Commutativity or Non-commutativity” which really just demonstrates how deliberate and contrived your ignorance actually is.


Your “wall” Doron remains your simple and deliberate ignorance


doronshadmi said:
It is exactly the superposition of symmetrical ids, which your serial-only (and therefore non-symmetrical) reasoning simply can't comprehend.
Click to expand...

Doron the stated “ids” aren’t “symmetrical” and by your own assertions your “superposition” does not involve, well, superposition. So you’re just wrong on all counts as usual, including your continued attempts to simply posit some aspect of your own failed reasoning onto others.


doronshadmi said:
You do not need me, you posit aspects of your own serial-only (and therefore non-symmetrical) reasoning onto yourself, and as a result What You See Is What You Get.
Click to expand...

“serial-only (and therefore non-symmetrical)” are only your ascriptions Doron, so you fail once again by virtue of your own deliberate ignorance of what are only your own assertions.
 
doronshadmi said:
[qimg]http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/1343/drawing2l.png[/qimg]
.................--------X--------

If h*X = (pi*r2) then h = (pi*r2)/X
Click to expand...

Well, OM didn't pass the test designed to see if it can handle "classic" geometry problems. And so we must test it again to see if it can solve a geOMetry problem.

R = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...}
B = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...}
G = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...}

There is only one set of positive integers, so the triple above doesn't make kind of sense, but if R, B, and G stand for Red, Blue, and Green, then it kind of make sense.

The members of each set are positive integers and define the length of color plastic spaghetti-like strands.

Suppose for a moment the the sets are finite with the same cardinality. At each instance, you pick randomly one strand from each set and attempt to position those three strands in such a way that your choice would form a triangle. Sometimes you succeed; sometimes you don't. If your random choice is r=7, b=7, and g=2, for example, you can assemble an isosceles triangle; but if the random choice returns r=12, b=3, and g=5, no triangle can be assembled.

Since R, B, and G are infinite sets, your random choice can be only defined as strand r, strand b, and strand g. What are the chances that r, b, and g would form a triangle? If their length is hypothetically favorable to forming a triangle, what are the chances that the triangle would be equilateral, isosceles, or scalene?

You can start meditating upon the works when I say "crimage."



Crimage.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Again in exactly the words I used…

“…as I stated due to the property of commutatively for the logical conjunction “AND” the ordering can be different but the results are still the same.”
Click to expand...
It is not about the commutativity of AND logical connective.

In order to define the the commutativity of AND logical connective, the input values must have well-defined ids.

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

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

This is not the case with the form

Code: 
B     B
A [I]AND[/I] A

where its input ids are in superposition ((A AND B) is the same as (B AND A)).

If the input ids are not in superposition ((A AND B) is different than (B AND A)), then A and B have well-defined ids, and only in this case commutativity is used, for example:

Y*X=X*Y (we get the same result) only if X AND Y have well-defined ids.

But in

Code: 
Y     Y
X [I]AND[/I] X

case, the inputs have no well-defined ids so commutativity can't be used.

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

In other words, you are looking for the result but missing the properties of the inputs, which enable (or not) the result.
 
Last edited:
epix said:
Well, OM didn't pass the test designed to see if it can handle "classic" geometry problems. And so we must test it again to see if it can solve a geOMetry problem.

R = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...}
B = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...}
G = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...}

There is only one set of positive integers, so the triple above doesn't make kind of sense, but if R, B, and G stand for Red, Blue, and Green, then it kind of make sense.

The members of each set are positive integers and define the length of color plastic spaghetti-like strands.

Suppose for a moment the the sets are finite with the same cardinality. At each instance, you pick randomly one strand from each set and attempt to position those three strands in such a way that your choice would form a triangle. Sometimes you succeed; sometimes you don't. If your random choice is r=7, b=7, and g=2, for example, you can assemble an isosceles triangle; but if the random choice returns r=12, b=3, and g=5, no triangle can be assembled.

Since R, B, and G are infinite sets, your random choice can be only defined as strand r, strand b, and strand g. What are the chances that r, b, and g would form a triangle? If their length is hypothetically favorable to forming a triangle, what are the chances that the triangle would be equilateral, isosceles, or scalene?

You can start meditating upon the works when I say "crimage."



Crimage.
Click to expand...

epix, it is not about particular examples (tests or whatever) of mathematical problems.

You simply don't get OM's aims, as written, 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

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7258971&postcount=15606
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
All you have is to omit "potential infinity", and read it again ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity ).
Click to expand...
It looks like someone edited that nonsense in Wiki.

So let's read further . . .

Georg Cantor is the most significant mathematician who defended actual infinities, equating the Absolute Infinite with God.
Click to expand...

How about hitting the board with the proof that God exists? LOL.

Your view clearly spells "finite infinity," but that's not what actual infinity is all about.
 
doronshadmi said:
epix, it is not about particular examples (tests or whatever) of mathematical problems.

You simply don't get OM's aims, as written, 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

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7258971&postcount=15606
Click to expand...
Particular examples are important to tell apart the potential from the actual. If you solve a problem using whatever OM is aiming at and the road to the solution is better to walk along, then there is some evidence to support your philosophies. If the solution is a twin to the traditional approach, then OM has nothing to improve. But if OM cannot face infinity at all in the real situation, then it means OM stands for something else . . .
 
doronshadmi said:
It is not about the commutativity of AND logical connective.
Click to expand...

Rally, well then try your nonsense with an operation or connective that is not commutative.

What you will find is that changes in the ordering of the variables can now change the results. However with a commutative connective such as “AND” changing the ordering of the variables simply can not change the results.

doronshadmi said:
In order to define the the commutativity of AND logical connective, the input values must have well-defined ids.
Click to expand...

No they don’t, again look up the definition of commutativity. It doesn’t matter what the “input values” “ids” are, changing the ordering of those “Ids” doesn’t change the results.

doronshadmi said:
A = (that has no predecessor) AND (that has no successor)

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

This is not the case with the form

Code: 
B     B
A [I]AND[/I] A
Click to expand...

Again it does not matter “A = (that has no predecessor) AND (that has no successor)” is the same result as “B = (that has no successor) AND (that has no predecessor)” that they have different ordering is irrelevant because “AND” is commutative.


doronshadmi said:
where its input ids are in superposition ((A AND B) is the same as (B AND A)).
Click to expand...


Wrong again “((A AND B) is the same as (B AND A))” because “AND” is commutative so the difference in ordering is irrelevant to the results.

doronshadmi said:
If the input ids are not in superposition ((A AND B) is different than (B AND A)), then A and B have well-defined ids, and only in this case commutativity is used, for example:
Click to expand...

Once again Doron by your own assertions your “superposition” is not even a superposition. “AND” is commutative regardless of how or how well you define your “ids”.



doronshadmi said:
Y*X=X*Y (we get the same result) only if X AND Y have well-defined ids.

But in

Code: 
Y     Y
X [I]AND[/I] X

case, the inputs have no well-defined ids so commutativity can't be used.
Click to expand...

So you are claiming that changing the ordering of your ill-defined “ids” around the “AND” conjunction changes the results? Guess what, it can’t because “AND” is commutative regardless of how poorly you just want to define your “ids”. You do understand that a variable is, well, variable right? So your ill-defined Y over X “superposition” (that isn’t a superposition by your own assertions) is no different than any other variable. It does not change the fact that the logical conjunction “AND” is commutative. The fact of the matter is since your ill-defined Y over X “superposition” (that isn’t a superposition by your own assertions) is on both sides of that conjunction changing the ordering of your ill-defined “ids” around the “AND” wouldn’t make a difference even if “AND” wasn’t commutative. So you’re just all kinds of wrong no matter how you slice it here.

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

In other words, you are looking for the result but missing the properties of the inputs, which enable (or not) the result.
Click to expand...

In the same words again “AND” is commutative regardless of how poorly you just want to define your “ids”. Since you keep missing it Doron, commutativity is a property of the operator and/or connective not of the inputs or results. Again try your nonsense with an operator and/or connective that is not commutative and see what you get.
 
doronshadmi said:
Evidently you avoid any view of current and future development of Robotics.
Click to expand...

Not such evidence has been presented nor have your presented any “view of current and future development of Robotics”. Again because you simply and deliberately ignored current and future developments in robotics and instead just expounded the same old “OM’ fantasies you just want to apply to everything.

Let’s try it some different ways…

Say transportation…



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

In my opinion a responsible current and future development of transportation has to carefully define the non-trivial dynamic balance between greater degrees of a vehicle’s capabilities to carry passengers 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 transportation, 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...ostcount=15576

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=15594


How about sports…

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

In my opinion a responsible current and future development of sports has to carefully define the non-trivial dynamic balance between greater degrees of a player’s individual abilities and greater symbiosis with the team.

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 sports, 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...ostcount=15576

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=15594

Or even furniture..

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

In my opinion a responsible current and future development of furniture has to carefully define the non-trivial dynamic balance between greater degrees of the furniture’s functionality and greater symbiosis of style with the surroundings.

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 furniture, 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...ostcount=15576

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=15594


Just boiler plate nonsense word salad with a few buzzwords peppered in is not a view of anything, Doron, but your same old “OM” fantasies that you just want to apply to everything.
 
doronshadmi said:
Evidently you avoid any view of current and future development of Robotics.
Click to expand...

It is clear to all you are just looking for someone else to provide something you can argue against. You and your fantastical OM are bankrupt of any originality. The best you can do is misrepresent and wrongfully discredit something already established.
 
The Man said:
Rally, well then try your nonsense with an operation or connective that is not commutative.

What you will find is that changes in the ordering of the variables can now change the results. However with a commutative connective such as “AND” changing the ordering of the variables simply can not change the results.



No they don’t, again look up the definition of commutativity. It doesn’t matter what the “input values” “ids” are, changing the ordering of those “Ids” doesn’t change the results.



Again it does not matter “A = (that has no predecessor) AND (that has no successor)” is the same result as “B = (that has no successor) AND (that has no predecessor)” that they have different ordering is irrelevant because “AND” is commutative.





Wrong again “((A AND B) is the same as (B AND A))” because “AND” is commutative so the difference in ordering is irrelevant to the results.



Once again Doron by your own assertions your “superposition” is not even a superposition. “AND” is commutative regardless of how or how well you define your “ids”.





So you are claiming that changing the ordering of your ill-defined “ids” around the “AND” conjunction changes the results? Guess what, it can’t because “AND” is commutative regardless of how poorly you just want to define your “ids”. You do understand that a variable is, well, variable right? So your ill-defined Y over X “superposition” (that isn’t a superposition by your own assertions) is no different than any other variable. It does not change the fact that the logical conjunction “AND” is commutative. The fact of the matter is since your ill-defined Y over X “superposition” (that isn’t a superposition by your own assertions) is on both sides of that conjunction changing the ordering of your ill-defined “ids” around the “AND” wouldn’t make a difference even if “AND” wasn’t commutative. So you’re just all kinds of wrong no matter how you slice it here.



In the same words again “AND” is commutative regardless of how poorly you just want to define your “ids”. Since you keep missing it Doron, commutativity is a property of the operator and/or connective not of the inputs or results. Again try your nonsense with an operator and/or connective that is not commutative and see what you get.
Click to expand...
Let's simplify it for you.

A = FALSE
B = TRUE

Form
Code: 
B     B
A [I]AND[/I] A
is a superposition of ids, and because of that superposition the id of the inputs of AND connective are not well-defined, and no clear result can be given.

A clear result can be given only if there is no superposition of ids among AND connective inputs, and only then the commutative property of AND connective can be used, for example, commutativity is used in the following cases:

A AND A, A AND B, B AND A, B AND B

and it can't be used in the following superposition case:

Code: 
B     B
A [I]AND[/I] A

exactly because the inputs are not well-defined under id's superposition.

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

There is another thing about your reply, which is:

It can be clearly seen how you reply separately to each part of my post, according to the particular order of how it was written, and you don't first read all of the post in order to understand it, before you reply to some part of it.

This kind of behavior is typical to auditory\sequential-only learners, which prevent from them to get the whole picture, before they reply to some part of it.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Not such evidence has been presented nor have your presented any “view of current and future development of Robotics”. Again because you simply and deliberately ignored current and future developments in robotics and instead just expounded the same old “OM’ fantasies you just want to apply to everything.

Let’s try it some different ways…

Say transportation…



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

In my opinion a responsible current and future development of transportation has to carefully define the non-trivial dynamic balance between greater degrees of a vehicle’s capabilities to carry passengers 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 transportation, 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...ostcount=15576

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=15594


How about sports…

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

In my opinion a responsible current and future development of sports has to carefully define the non-trivial dynamic balance between greater degrees of a player’s individual abilities and greater symbiosis with the team.

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 sports, 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...ostcount=15576

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=15594

Or even furniture..

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

In my opinion a responsible current and future development of furniture has to carefully define the non-trivial dynamic balance between greater degrees of the furniture’s functionality and greater symbiosis of style with the surroundings.

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 furniture, 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...ostcount=15576

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=15594


Just boiler plate nonsense word salad with a few buzzwords peppered in is not a view of anything, Doron, but your same old “OM” fantasies that you just want to apply to everything.
Click to expand...
An excellent post that demonstrates your poor understanding of Cybernetics and Robotics, exactly because you so ignorantly replaced robots with things that are not necessarily involved with Cybernetics.

The Man, until this very moment you did not show some reply, which is relevant to your ability you air your view about current and future development of Cybernetics and\or Robotics.

It is even worse, you have failed to understand that
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.
Click to expand...
is no more that a brief starting point for further and more detailed discussion on that subject, which you actually fail to do.

The Man said:
Again because you simply and deliberately ignored current and future developments in robotics and instead just expounded the same old “OM’ fantasies you just want to apply to everything.
Click to expand...
The cybernetic development between the subjective and non-subjective state of mind, is the natural basis for technology's development, where cybernetics plays a main role, and Robotics is defiantly such a technology.
 
Last edited:
epix said:
It looks like someone edited that nonsense in Wiki.

So let's read further . . .
Click to expand...
Yes I know, it does not fit to your poor understanding of that subject.

epix said:
Your view clearly spells "finite infinity," but that's not what actual infinity is all about.
Click to expand...
You are not in any position to say any meaningful thing about my view of infinity, simply because you are ignorant about this subject including ignorance about the Cantorean (and currently accepted) view of this profound subject.

Once again you ignored http://www.sewanee.edu/philosophy/Journal/Archives/2005/Compton.htm#_ftnref28 or http://scielo.unam.mx/pdf/rhfi/v39n117/v39n117a4.pdf.

Why do you ignore these links epix?
 
Last edited:
epix said:
Particular examples are important to tell apart the potential from the actual. If you solve a problem using whatever OM is aiming at and the road to the solution is better to walk along, then there is some evidence to support your philosophies. If the solution is a twin to the traditional approach, then OM has nothing to improve. But if OM cannot face infinity at all in the real situation, then it means OM stands for something else . . .
Click to expand...
OM's first aim is to provide the comprehensive framework of the mathematical science, such that any given result will not be used for destruction, exactly as can be found among particular organs of a one organisms.

This aim can't be achieved without an actual development of the mathematician's awareness, which fulfills both his\her subjective and non-subjective aspects by developing a one comprehensive and organic realm.

Traditional Mathematics is currently based of context-dependent frameworks, and by using also Cross-contexts reasoning, OM defines the needed conditions in order to actually develop an actual organic realm, where different organs at least do not destroy each other under co-existence.
 
jsfisher said:
It is clear to all you are just looking for someone else to provide something you can argue against. You and your fantastical OM are bankrupt of any originality. The best you can do is misrepresent and wrongfully discredit something already established.
Click to expand...
You are not in any position to speak about originality.

Furthermore, please provide some link to your original mathematical paper.

Actually exactly because of your lack of any original ability, you are unable to get http://ijpam.eu/contents/2008-49-3/5/5.pdf .
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You are not in any position to speak about originality.

Furthermore, please provide some link to your original mathematical paper.
Click to expand...

I note that even your attempt at rebuff is just a reflection of what someone else has said. No originality to be found anywhere with you, Doron.

Be that as it may, my work is not the topic of this thread. Your request is yet more diversion away from your own inabilities.
 
doronshadmi said:
OM's first aim is to provide the comprehensive framework of the mathematical science, such that any given result will not be used for destruction, exactly as can be found among particular organs of a one organisms.

This aim can't be achieved without an actual development of the mathematician's awareness, which fulfills both his\her subjective and non-subjective aspects by developing a one comprehensive and organic realm.

Traditional Mathematics is currently based of context-dependent frameworks, and by using also Cross-contexts reasoning, OM defines the needed conditions in order to actually develop an actual organic realm, where different organs at least do not destroy each other under co-existence.
Click to expand...


So, enough about the aims. What has anyone actually achieved by using OM?
 
jsfisher said:
I note that even your attempt at rebuff is just a reflection of what someone else has said.
Click to expand...
Please support your claim, for example, according to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7207963&postcount=15484 .


EDIT:

Actually you will do a great service for me if you find a professional mathematician that claims what I say in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7207963&postcount=15484 .

Anyway, since when rebuffing a given subject is considered as a typical signature of non-originality:jaw-dropp?
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
So, enough about the aims. What has anyone actually achieved by using OM?
Click to expand...
OM is a paradigm-shift of the current formal agreement of the mathematical science.

In other words, it has to actually be used by mathematicians in order to show its actual achievements.

Until now no professional mathematician even tried to do the needed paradigm-shift, exactly because mathematician's awareness is not an aspect of traditional mathematics.

As long as mathematician's awareness is out of the scope of the mathematical science, OM will not become actual.
 
jsfisher said:
Be that as it may, my work is not the topic of this thread. Your request is yet more diversion away from your own inabilities.
Click to expand...
jsfisher, you are the one that started to speak about originality (my originality, in this case) as follows:
jsfisher said:
You and your fantastical OM are bankrupt of any originality.
Click to expand...
Since the originality of mathematical work is defiantly a topic of that thread, then this time please provide some original mathematical work of you, in order to demonstrate a real work, which is not a fantasy.

I hope that you are not going to be non-original like The Man, by his refusal to share his view of current and future development of Robotics.
 
doronshadmi said:
Please support your claim, for example, according to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7207963&postcount=15484 .
Click to expand...

The remark was supported by the very post it cited. Please stop evading the issue at hand.

Anyway, since when rebuffing a given subject is considered as a typical signature of non-originality:jaw-dropp?
Click to expand...

Your reading comprehension skills are still limited, I see.

Still, please stop evading the issue at head. You need to support your claim about OM with respect to robotics.
 
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher, you are the one that started to speak about originality (my originality, in this case) as follows:
Click to expand...

Be clear: your complete lack of originality.

Since the originality of mathematical work is defiantly a topic of that thread, then this time please provide some original mathematical work of you, in order to demonstrate a real work, which is not a fantasy.
Click to expand...

Still you evade. No surprise.

I hope that you are not going to be non-original like The Man, by his refusal to share his view of current and future development of Robotics.
Click to expand...

Still you evade. No surprise.
 
jsfisher said:
The remark was supported by the very post it cited.
Click to expand...
I see, your context-dependent-only reasoning can't see beyond the border it marks, so forget about an open discussion about originality, it is beyond your context-dependent-only reasoning ability.

Let's play your limited context-dependent-only game:
jsfisher said:
The best you can do is misrepresent and wrongfully discredit something already established.
Click to expand...
The best you can do is misrepresent and wrongfully discredit something that is under further development, like Cybernetics and Robotics, where the researcher's awareness development is a significant factor of it.

There is no such thing like "already established" in actual scientific development, only dogmatic context-dependent-only reasoners like you wishes to put everything in "already established" titled boxes.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
This is exactly the aim of Organic Mathematics, as briefly illustrated, for example, in:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=15576

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...ostcount=15594[/I]

Or even furniture..
Click to expand...

Your unwarranted criticism of OM and your refusal to accept it as the key that opens the door to the future is a position that you will come to regret, for OM draws the horizon line the sharpest. The nature is not able to create plastics, for example, yet look around yourself to see this material aplenty. If OM had existed some five hundred years ago, it would have offered a hypothetical look into atom binding. To let such mundane things as the furniture walk toward the future is a sign of a context-dependent-only reasoning that may support the present well, but it's impotent to bring about the future.

The progressive future is altered present, otherwise the future becomes stagnating present inherited from the past. It is OM that lifts the lid on the pot of opportunities that no one would even dare to dream of; it is OM that can dress all tabus and impossibilities for the appointment with the wonders of the future. Here is an example of a bold move toward the future that only OM can make.

We can take the ribonucleic acid, RNA, and change its biochemistry the way nature couldn't accomplish even in trillion years; we can change RNA into RNI and introduce the molecule into a present organism through gene slicing and recombination:

(RNA => RNI) and (FUTURE /splice => F U - - - T U R E)

Now we insert the modified molecule into the symbolic organism called "future." Ta-daaaa . . . :)

FURNITURE

:confused:

I think it's an Organic Massage bed -- something that would relegate back-pains into medieval history.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I see, your context-dependent-only reasoning can't see beyond the border it marks, so forget about an open discussion about originality, it is beyond your context-dependent-only reasoning ability.

Let's play your limited context-dependent-only game:

The best you can do is misrepresent and wrongfully discredit something that is under further development, like Cybernetics and Robotics, where the researcher's awareness development is a significant factor of it.

There is no such thing like "already established" in actual scientific development, only dogmatic context-dependent-only reasoners like you wishes to put everything in "already established" titled boxes.
Click to expand...

You continued lack of originality in your retorts is noted. Now, can you please address the issue you have been so clumsy at evading?

Prediction: "Clumsy" will soon be an addition to Doron's rhetoric.





;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom