Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think I rather accept other explanation to the predicament that auditory-only perceptive Vincent van Gogh had to face whilst experimenting with new forms of visual art.

The Real Story Behind van Gogh's Severed Ear

He's known as the tortured genius who cut off his own ear, but two German historians now claim that painter Vincent van Gogh lost his ear in a fight with his friend, the French artist Paul Gauguin.
Click to expand...
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7506786&page=1
 
doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, since I have already simplified it for you as much as possible, I'll just repeat it for you again. What your variables represent does not matter, that your "superposition" by your own assertions doesn't involve the principle of superposition doesn't matter, because the ordering of the variables does not change the result (with a commutative operator or connective) which in case you haven't put it together yet, can also be a variable.

doronshadmi said:
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, comutativity is used in the following cases:
Click to expand...

Once again by your own assertions there is no superposition in your "superposition of ids", but again it doesn't matter as a variable accommodates whatever you think your "superposition of ids" can represent (that's why it is, well, variable).

doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fine, then use whatever variable you want to represent your "superposition of ids" without the principle of superposition. A variable is intentionally used because what it represents is specifically not as well defined as it might be in just some particular instance. So you are still just as wrong now as you were before when I put it simply for you. You still seem to be deliberately confusing a property of the connective or operator with some ill-conceived and equally ill-defined property of your " ids" (the veriables).


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

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.
Click to expand...

Once again your 'direct perception' fails you.
 
doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh, so now your claim of "we first have to develop the Cybernetics between our subjective and non-subjective aspects." is " not necessarily involved with Cybernetics". I think everyone got that before.

doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wrong once again, I have always replied and in this case as before to your specific lack of relevance to the "current and future development of Cybernetics and\or Robotics."


doronshadmi said:
It is even worse, you have failed to understand that

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

Again a "starting point" that doesn't specifically involve anything about the "current and future development of Cybernetics and\or Robotics.". The failure remains just yours Doron

'Please insert more quarters to play again.'
doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Once again lacking any specificity to the "current and future development of Cybernetics and\or Robotics."

'Please insert more quarters to play again.'
 
epix said:
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.
Click to expand...


Well, by "OM"'s 'standards' these must be 'non-destructive' plastics, an innovation yet to be obtained. Let's all genuflect to the organic orgasm that is "OM" and a future where even destruction becomes, well, non-destructive.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Well, since I have already simplified it for you as much as possible, I'll just repeat it for you again. What your variables represent does not matter, that your "superposition" by your own assertions doesn't involve the principle of superposition doesn't matter, because the ordering of the variables does not change the result
Click to expand...
The Man your use or variables is limited only to well-defined values.

Please demonstrate some AND result, such that its inputs are not determined because of a superposition of, for example, two options like TRUE or FALSE.

You can't get any result until both input variables have well-defined values.

Since your understanding of variables is limited only to variables with well-defined values, the case of value's superposition, which avoids AND connective results, is beyond your scope.

In other words, you have no ability the get the actuality of values under superposition.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Oh, so now your claim of "we first have to develop the Cybernetics between our subjective and non-subjective aspects." is " not necessarily involved with Cybernetics". I think everyone got that before.
Click to expand...
It is necessarily involved with Cybernetics, but not your replacement of robots with other things. For example, by your poor reasoning you define the following equalities:

"greater degrees of a vehicle’s capabilities to carry passengers and greater symbiosis with them"

=

"greater degrees of a player’s individual abilities and greater symbiosis with the team"

=

greater degrees of the furniture’s functionality and greater symbiosis of style with the surroundings"


All this nonsense was written by you in order to avoid any discussion of Cybernetics that starts by the following two aspects about Robotics (other aspects can be used if you wish), which deals with "greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them."

You can blame only yourself by your inability to discuss about those two aspects, because of your inability to use knowledge taken from Cybernetics and Robotics.

The Man said:
Once again lacking any specificity to the "current and future development of Cybernetics and\or Robotics."
Click to expand...

You by your own ridicules reply on this subject, determine the impossibility to discuss on that subject by using further details about the two suggested starting points, which deal with "greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them."

The Man said:
I have always replied ...
Click to expand...
So what. Most of your replies are aimed to avoid any further discussion that does not follow your context-dependent-only reasoning,
and your "brilliant" replay in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7278368&postcount=15662 clearly demonstrates such aim.

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

So for the last time, please air your view about current and future development of Cybernetics and Robotics, where the starting point of this discussion is the dynamic balance between "greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them."
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In both possible versions a destructive action were done, exactly because of the lack of organic perception of our realm.
Click to expand...
How does OM deal with subtraction, which is as destructive as you can imagine. Subtraction can induce suicidal thoughts in the mind of numbers. Look at that nice and docile number 6. But enter subtraction and . . .

6 - 6 = 0

The result is zero, zilch, nothing -- six is gone furiously self-subtracting itself to non-existence.

Has Organic Mathematics laid down any axiomatic framework for non-destructive subtraction, or has the advanced computing method eliminated the concept of no quantity briefly called "zero" from its philosophical basis?

I think that zero is allowed within the number system only as a result of non-subtraction. I guess that OM literature allows 0 + 0 = 0, but not 0 - 0 = 0.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The Man your use or variables is limited only to well-defined values.
Click to expand...

Nope, again since you evidently missed it, a variable is used specifically because the "value" is not that, well, "well-defined"

doronshadmi said:
Please demonstrate some AND result, such that its inputs are not determined because of a superposition of, for example, two options like TRUE or FALSE.
Click to expand...

Well, unfortunately since your "superposition" remains undefined other than your assertion that it does not involve the principle of superposition. This makes it rather difficult to determine exactly what you don't want the inputs be determined by. However, your specification of the commutative logical conjunction "AND" specifies that the ordering of those inputs will not alter the result, to which we can just ascribe to the result (regardless of the properties of the operation or connective) the variable "R" (for Result).

doronshadmi said:
You can't get any result until both input variables have well-defined values.
Click to expand...

Nope, the result is just the variable "R" as specified above. Again the lack of well-defined values is why there are variables and not instead, well, well-defined values, even for a result like "R".

doronshadmi said:
Since your understanding of variables is limited only to variables with well-defined values, the case of value's superposition, which avoids AND connective results, is beyond your scope.
Click to expand...

Once again your simple and apparently deliberate ignorance of the variability of variables belies your assertions.

What? So now "AND" isn't even connective? Must be a typo, even for you.

doronshadmi said:
In other words, you have no ability the get the actuality of values under superposition.
Click to expand...

In the same words you used before your "superposition" "does not involve the principle of superposition". How unfortunate for you and your "superposition". So, by all means, please, define your "superposition" that "does not involve the principle of superposition".
 
doronshadmi said:
It is necessarily involved with Cybernetics, but not your replacement of robots with other things. For example, by your poor reasoning you define the following equalities:

"greater degrees of a vehicle’s capabilities to carry passengers and greater symbiosis with them"

=

"greater degrees of a player’s individual abilities and greater symbiosis with the team"

=

greater degrees of the furniture’s functionality and greater symbiosis of style with the surroundings"
Click to expand...


Nope, I did not equate them, so why do you? It was the rest of your nonsense that was equivalent

The variance in the wording simply demonstrates the lack of specificity of your boilerplate "OM" assertions to any topic. As that is what you have evidently always intended.


doronshadmi said:
All this nonsense was written by you in order to avoid any discussion of Cybernetics, which starts by two aspects about Robotics, which deals with
"greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them."

You can blame only yourself by your inability to discuss about those two aspects, by using knowledge taken from Cybernetics and Robotics.
Click to expand...

So use some "knowledge taken from Cybernetics and Robotics" and we can discuss it. "greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them." displays no such knowledge. Wow, robots are to certain degrees autonomous and we depend on them as they depend on us (symbiosis), did you just get that out of a crackerjack box?



doronshadmi said:
You by your own ridicules reply on this subject, determine the impossibility to discuss on that subject by using further details about the two suggested starting points, which deal with "greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them."
Click to expand...

The lack of any specific details remains yours, Doron. By all means please start giving some when you have any.

doronshadmi said:
So what. Most of your replies are aimed to avoid any further discussion that does not follow your context-dependent-only reasoning,
and your "brilliant" replay in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7278368&postcount=15662 clearly demonstrates such aim.
Click to expand...

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

doronshadmi said:
----------------------
So for the last time, please air your view about current and future development of Cybernetics and Robotics, where the starting point of this discussion is the dynamic balance between "greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them."
Click to expand...

" for the last time"? Oh, I doubt that, and once again the onus is upon you and you alone to demonstrate your purported relevance. That robots are to certain degrees autonomous and we depend on them as they depend on us (symbiosis) is your "starting point" and where most people, these days, would start with no actual knowledge of "Cybernetics and Robotics". So by all means please proceed.
 
doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...
And how do you know this, given that you then say:
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.
Click to expand...

It seems somewhat ironic that OM needs to be used by mathematicians in order to work when you keep dismissing the whole of mathematics as being blind to reality. Why can't you do anything with it?
 
zooterkin said:
It seems somewhat ironic that OM needs to be used by mathematicians in order to work when you keep dismissing the whole of mathematics as being blind to reality.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

zooterkin said:
Why can't you do anything with it?
Click to expand...
Because one man is not enough for actual paradigm-shift, where according to it the mathematician's awareness is a significant factor of the mathematical science.
 
The Man said:
Nope, I did not equate them,
Click to expand...
So are you actually say that you arbitrarily changed my claim about the need to face the non-trivial challenge to define the balance between "greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them", as one of the most important aspects of current and future development of Cybernetics and Robotics?

Your ridiculous behavior about this subject is even worse than what I thought.


The Man said:
It was the rest of your nonsense that was equivalent
Click to expand...
You arbitrarily change some part of what I wrote, doing it couple of times and live the other parts unchanged, and then you claim that "It was the rest of" my "nonsense that was equivalent".

The Man, you destroy what I say by your own hands, and then conclude that what I wrote is nonsense. You have a pathetic reasoning.

The Man said:
The variance in the wording simply demonstrates the lack of specificity of your boilerplate "OM" assertions to any topic. As that is what you have evidently always intended.
Click to expand...
The variance in the wording is your arbitrary ridicules game. You are running after your own destruction in your closed mind.

The Man said:
So use some "knowledge taken from Cybernetics and Robotics" and we can discuss it. "greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them." displays no such knowledge. Wow, robots are to certain degrees autonomous and we depend on them as they depend on us (symbiosis), did you just get that out of a crackerjack box?
Click to expand...
Another demonstration of the inability of your poor reasoning to understand the things that are needed in order to define the non-trivial balance between "greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them."

The Man said:
The lack of any specific details remains yours, Doron. By all means please start giving some when you have any.
Click to expand...
After you refused couple of times to start a discussion on that subject I gave some framework to start with. Now you actually say that you are unable to do your step and contribute more details to this starting point? Do you think that I have to do whole the job for you?? just forget it, you have at least 3 options, which are:

1) To provide more details to this starting point.

2) To admit that you have nothing to say about current and future development of Cybernetics and Robotics.

3) To determine the starting point about this subject in a different way, and I will join you by providing more details.


The Man said:
" for the last time"?
Click to expand...
Exactly! Please choose one of the options.

If you are not going to do that before I provide more details to the starting point, I am going to ignore anything that you say about Cybernetics and Robotics (if what you did until now demonstrates your best ability to discuss on that subject, then there is no chance that you have any meaningful thing to say about this subject anyway).
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Nope, again since you evidently missed it, a variable is used specifically because the "value" is not that, well, "well-defined".
Click to expand...
Wrong.

A variable may have many values, but only one value at a time is considered.

I am talking about superposition of values, such that several values are simultaneously related to a given variable.

In this case AND connective result can't be defined, because the inputs are in a superposition.

Furthermore a symmetrical state of inputs' superposition is unordered, which brings us back to the beginning of the discussion about the existence of unordered values.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
The variance in the wording simply demonstrates the lack of specificity of your boilerplate "OM" assertions to any topic. As that is what you have evidently always intended.
Click to expand...
You simply unable to get generalization in terms of non-particular and non-subjective aspects, which complement the particular and subjective aspects into a one unified organic realm.

No wonder that you can't comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7243778&postcount=15576 .
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
So are you actually say that you arbitrarily changed my claim about the need to face the non-trivial challenge to define the balance between "greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them", as one of the most important aspects of current and future development of Cybernetics and Robotics?

Your ridiculous behavior about this subject is even worse than what I thought.

You arbitrarily change some part of what I wrote, doing it couple of times and live the other parts unchanged, and then you claim that "It was the rest of" my "nonsense that was equivalent".

The Man, you destroy what I say by your own hands, and then conclude that what I wrote is nonsense. You have a pathetic reasoning.


The variance in the wording is your arbitrary ridicules game. You are running after your own destruction in your closed mind.
Click to expand...

Once again here is what I did say...

The Man said:
Nope, I did not equate them, so why do you? It was the rest of your nonsense that was equivalent

The variance in the wording simply demonstrates the lack of specificity of your boilerplate "OM" assertions to any topic. As that is what you have evidently always intended.
Click to expand...





doronshadmi said:
Another demonstration of the inability of your poor reasoning to understand the things that are needed in order to define the non-trivial balance between "greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them."
Click to expand...

Doron, your "OM" nonsense is not needed "in order to define the non-trivial balance between "greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them.". Similarly it is not needed in the transportation, sports and furniture examples given before. It is just superfluous nonsense of your own contrivance that you feel is relevant just because of some epiphany you apparently had while meditating. Get over it, you've wasted 20 years by your own accounts yet still let it dominate your life and feel it should dominate the lives of others as well. That is truly very sad but unfortunately there is absolutely nothing anyone else can do for you until you finally can and do get over it yourself.

doronshadmi said:
After you refused couple of times to start a discussion on that subject I gave some framework to start with. Now you actually say that you are unable to do your step and contribute more details to this starting point? Do you think that I have to do whole the job for you?? just forget it, you have at least 3 options, which are:
Click to expand...

See, I knew it would not be the "last time" as you claimed before, and you will find I have far more options than just your three.

doronshadmi said:
1) To provide more details to this starting point.
Click to expand...

Nope, once again that onus is upon you alone.

doronshadmi said:
2) To admit that you have nothing to say about current and future development of Cybernetics and Robotics.
Click to expand...

So far you have had nothing " to say about current and future development of Cybernetics and Robotics" but you just can't seem to admit that to yourself.


doronshadmi said:
3) To determine the starting point about this subject in a different way, and I will join you by providing more details.
Click to expand...

Well, if you have "more details" then by all means please provide them, that wouldn't be a bad place for you to start.


doronshadmi said:
Exactly! Please choose one of the options.
Click to expand...

Evidently not and...nope.

doronshadmi said:
If you are not going to do that before I provide more details to the starting point, I am going to ignore anything that you say about Cybernetics and Robotics (if what you did until now demonstrates your best ability to discuss on that subject, then there is no chance that you have any meaningful thing to say about this subject anyway).
Click to expand...


Doron, trying to use the threat of your deliberate ignorance is hardly compelling as it is the cornerstone of your "OM" nonsense.
 
doronshadmi said:
Wrong.

A variable may have many values, but only one value at a time is considered.
Click to expand...

OK, so you just don't understand how variables and algebra work, not surprising at all.

doronshadmi said:
I am talking about superposition of values, such that several values are simultaneously related to a given variable.
Click to expand...

Again having a range of values is what makes a variable, well, variable.

doronshadmi said:
In this case AND connective result can't be defined, because the inputs are in a superposition.
Click to expand...

You mean your "superposition" without superposition that evidently just means being a variable? Again a result can be a variable as well, that is what algebra is all about.


doronshadmi said:
Furthermore a symmetrical state of inputs' superposition is unordered, which brings us back to the beginning of the discussion about the existence of unordered values.
Click to expand...

Once again the ordering of the variables around a commutative operator or connective can not change the results. So once again your right back to being as wrong as you were before.
 
doronshadmi said:
You simply unable to get generalization in terms of non-particular and non-subjective aspects, which complement the particular and subjective aspects into a one unified organic realm.

No wonder that you can't comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7243778&postcount=15576 .
Click to expand...


I'm sure most here already 'get' that your "generalization" is deliberately intended to give your assertions no particular meaning. Well guess what, you have succeeded and your assertions still remain meaningless, congratulations.
 
The Man said:
You mean your "superposition" without superposition that evidently just means being a variable?
Click to expand...
If, for example, a variable (which is used as an input for AND connective) is indeterminate because its value is a Truth\False superposition, the the result is also indeterminate (we can't conclude if the result is Truth or False, or in other words, the commutativity of AND connective "can't air its view".

Since you are unable to understand the simultaneity of superposition of a given variable, you are unable to get what I say about this subject.

The Man said:
Once again the ordering of the variables around a commutative operator or connective can not change the results. So once again your right back to being as wrong as you were before.
Click to expand...
If the input is under superposition, then there is no determined result and the commutativity of AND connective "can't air its view".

This is a fact that you can't comprehend exactly because you don't understand the superposition state of a given variable that is used as an input for AND connective.

You can continue to use your ""superposition" without superposition" nonsense many times as you like, but it does not change the fact that it is nonsense.
 
Last edited:
One of the OM results about Cybernetics is demonstrated by what is called Cybernetic kernels, as illustrated by the following diagram:

5842425568_4e4e18f7ee_b.jpg


Furthermore, the suggested framework has no entropy exactly because no collection of lower dimensional spaces has the magnitude of higher dimensional space. For example |R| < |1-dimensional space|, where in this case R members are 0-dimensional spaces (known as points).

The following diagram illustrates |R| < |1-dimensional space| as follows:

5736095487_99cb0b393a_b.jpg


As can be seen, the cardinality of the intersection points along the line segments with different lengths is the same, whether it is finite or infinite cardinality. So only the sets of points with the same cardinality can't provide the solution for the existence of 1-dim elements with different lengths.

This fundamental fact is exactly the incompleteness of R w.r.t 1-dimensional space, which preserves the openness of R and enables its endless further development.

The claim of Traditional Mathematics about 0-dimensional R members that completely cover a 1-dimensional space, is actually "death by entropy" of the considered framework.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
Only if you redefine what 'results' means.
Click to expand...
A solution that is based on open (and therefore non-entropic) realm, which enables further development of the cybernetics between the subjective and the non-subjective.

Such solutions are undefined if one is not aware of the non-entropic realm.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
A solution that is based on open (and therefore non-entropic) realm, which enables further development of the cybernetics between the subjective and the non-subjective.

Such solutions are undefined if one is not aware of the non-entropic realm.
Click to expand...
And what results did OM produce in this case?
 
zooterkin said:
And what results did OM produce in this case?
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7289466&postcount=15706

Also let us take, for example, the following part from http://www.scribd.com/doc/21967511/...considerations-of-Some-Mathematical-Paradigms :


Take, for example, the 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree:

Code: 
(AB,AB) (AB,A)  (AB,B)  (AB)    (A,A)   (B,B)   (A,B)   (A)     (B)     ()

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

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

Any appearance of that tree is called Distinction State (DS), where any DS is under a structure called Frame (F), for example: (AB ,B ) is a DS that is under (2,1) F. The order in each DS or F has no significance (similar to {a,b}={b,a}) but any DS is the basis of any possible order (similar to the concept of Set as being the basis of permutations).

The commutativity of AND connective is limited only to DS (A,A),(B,B),(A,B) under F (1,1).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7289466&postcount=15706

Also let us take, for example, the following part from http://www.scribd.com/doc/21967511/...considerations-of-Some-Mathematical-Paradigms :


Take, for example, the 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree:

Code: 
(AB,AB) (AB,A)  (AB,B)  (AB)    (A,A)   (B,B)   (A,B)   (A)     (B)     ()

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

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

Any appearance of that tree is called Distinction State (DS), where any DS is under a structure called Frame (F), for example: (AB ,B ) is a DS that is under (2,1) F. The order in each DS or F has no significance (similar to {a,b}={b,a}) but any DS is the basis of any possible order (similar to the concept of Set as being the basis of permutations).

The commutativity of AND connective is limited only to the (1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B) case of this DS.
Click to expand...

I said results, not gibberish.
 
zooterkin said:
I said results, not gibberish.
Click to expand...
Let us correct the previous post:

zooterkin said:
And what results did OM produce in this case?
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7289466&postcount=15706

Also let us take, for example, the following part from http://www.scribd.com/doc/21967511/...considerations-of-Some-Mathematical-Paradigms :

For example, the 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree is:
Code: 
(AB,AB) (AB,A)  (AB,B)  (AB)    (A,A)   (B,B)   (A,B)   (A)     (B)     ()

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

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

Any appearance of that tree is called Distinction State (DS), where any DS is under a structure called Frame (F), for example: (AB ,B ) is a DS that is under (2,1) F. The order in each DS or F has no significance (similar to {a,b}={b,a}) but any DS is the basis of any possible order (similar to the concept of Set as being the basis of permutations).
Click to expand...


The commutativity of, for example, AND connective is limited only to DS (A,A),(B,B),(A,B) under F (1,1), so the result is a fundamental extension of the current mathematical understanding of Logic.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
...Also let us take, for example, the following part from http://www.scribd.com/doc/21967511/...considerations-of-Some-Mathematical-Paradigms...
Click to expand...


Curious that you would cite that particular paper, Doron. Ignoring that you continue to claim your ill-defined assumptions as conclusions, you are trying to find some tangible result for OM, and to do so you rely on one of your best examples of gibberish in which you "prove" the race imagined by Zeno never ends.

You don't see the irony, though, do you, of contradicting reality to claim a real result?
 
jsfisher said:
Curious that you would cite that particular paper, Doron. Ignoring that you continue to claim your ill-defined assumptions as conclusions, you are trying to find some tangible result for OM, and to do so you rely on one of your best examples of gibberish in which you "prove" the race imagined by Zeno never ends.

You don't see the irony, though, do you, of contradicting reality to claim a real result?
Click to expand...
EDIT:

jsfisher, you don't see the irony of your inability to comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7289466&postcount=15706 and my paper on Zeno race ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/21967511/...considerations-of-Some-Mathematical-Paradigms ), exactly because your mind fails to get out of his "death by entropy" box, by a paradigm-shift.

For example, your ignorance about Distinction prevents your understanding of the following ( taken from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7292205&postcount=15712 ):
doronshadmi said:
The commutativity of, for example, AND connective is limited only to DS (A,A),(B,B),(A,B) under F (1,1), so the result is a fundamental extension of the current mathematical understanding of Logic.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you are a reliable example of the majority of professional mathematicians around our planet, which are not aware of themselves as a significant factor of their mathematical activity and its results, exactly because they are not aware of the cybernetics between the subjective and non-subjective awareness as a one organic unity among different mathematical branches.

You and the majority of professional mathematicians do only context-dependent mathematics without any cross-contexts reasoning, and as a result you get the following as gibberish:

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

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

What you call "contradicting reality" is a direct result of your context-dependent-only reasoning, when it used to comprehend the realm that is the result of the complementarity of cross-contexts AND context-dependent reasoning.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
If, for example, a variable (which is used as an input for AND connective) is indeterminate because its value is a Truth\False superposition, the the result is also indeterminate (we can't conclude if the result is Truth or False, or in other words, the commutativity of AND connective "can't air its view".
Click to expand...

Once again Doron the commutative property of an operator or connective is not dependent on the variables or that some Truth\False value is indeterminate. Once again what the commutative property of such an operator or connective does determine is that changes in the ordering of the variables around that operator or connective can not change the results.

doronshadmi said:
Since you are unable to understand the simultaneity of superposition of a given variable, you are unable to get what I say about this subject.
Click to expand...

Since you are unable to understand the irrelevance of your “simultaneity of superposition of a given variable” to the commutative property of an operator or connective you are unable to get the irrelevance of what you just “say about this subject”.


doronshadmi said:
If the input is under superposition, then there is no determined result and the commutativity of AND connective "can't air its view".
Click to expand...

Doron you just said above that you determined the result to be “indeterminate” (a variable). Similarly that the “AND connective” is commutative determines that changes in ordering of the variables around that connective can not change the results. So there are two things that have been determined, one by your own assertions and one by the commutative property of the "AND connective ". With a third thing determined being that the only thing that "can't air its view" is just you and according to you.


doronshadmi said:
This is a fact that you can't comprehend exactly because you don't understand the superposition state of a given variable that is used as an input for AND connective.
Click to expand...

Actually Doron it is just a “state” that by your own assertions “you can't comprehend exactly because you” claim it does not involve superposition.


doronshadmi said:
You can continue to use your ""superposition" without superposition" nonsense many times as you like, but it does not change the fact that it is nonsense.
Click to expand...

It is your own stated nonsense Doron, if you don’t like it then stop trying to use your nonsense “superposition” without superposition.
 
doronshadmi said:
A paradigm-shift can't be done by waiting.
Click to expand...


It also can’t be obtained by just spouting self-contradictory nonsensical gibberish for 20 years. Perhaps you should have just waited until you actually understood mathematics before you started expounding your imaginary “paradigm-shift”. Not to worry Doron, we’ll be waiting for you whenever you decide you want to catch up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom