Deeper than primes

The Man · Oct 12, 2011

doronshadmi said:
So the cardinality of a given collection (notated as {|x|}) is greater than the cardinality of Emptiness ({||} = 0, where 0 is not Emptiness itself) and smaller than the cardinality of Fullness (|{}| = |{x}| = ∞, where ∞ is not Fullness itself).

Why you choose the ordering you do specifically prefer (even if just deliberate confusing cardinal numbers for ordinal numbers) is now irrelevant. As you have asserted that because you have only three concepts your preferred ordering of those concepts “has no significance”.

doronshadmi said:
My non-standard notation (and notion) {|x|} is equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{x}|.

No it isn’t, if it were you could just use “standard notation” to say what you mean, but you obviously really mean something else. We already known that your “cardinality” as you put it “magnitude of existence” ain’t cardinality. So why continue to lie by claiming some equivalence?

doronshadmi said:
My non-standard notation (and notion) {||} is equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{}|.

No it isn’t, you have asserted your “emptiness” as being before (preceding) the concept of collection. Both cardinality and the empty set are specifically about collections (one being empty). Stop lying.

doronshadmi said:
My non-standard notation (and notion) |{x}| = ∞ is not equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{x}|.

Well duh… that’s why you couldn’t use the “standard notation” before, because you want it to mean something else, too bad for you.

doronshadmi said:
My non-standard notation (and notion) |{}| = ∞ is not equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{}| = 0.

Well again no **** Sherlock

doronshadmi said:
Also the order of the members of a given collection that its cardinality > 1 AND < ∞ has no significance.

See preceding above.

doronshadmi said:
Persons that put any given concept as a member of some collection, simply can't deal with concepts that are not members of collections (they can't distinguish between the name of a given concept, which is defiantly some member of a given collection, and the concept itself, where the concept itself is not necessarily a member of any given collection, as can be seen in the case of Emptiness or Fullness).

More pretend ignorance Doron. I guess you just can't collect your own concepts, must be why you’ve been chasing them in circles for a couple of decades now

epix · Oct 12, 2011

doronshadmi said:
My non-standard notation (and notion) {|x|} is equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{x}|.

My non-standard notation (and notion) {||} is equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{}|.

If I wrote to my uncle all the time in Hebrew, I would have the strong inclination to switch from standard to non-standard notation as well.

Don't forget to follow through...

"+" means minus and "-" means plus
"x" means division and "/" means multiplication

That would assure that those weak ones with no ability to adjust to the ever-changing environment will leave your lecture and therefore won't interrupt all the time with stupid questions.

epix · Oct 12, 2011

doronshadmi said:
My non-standard notation (and notion) {|x|} is equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{x}|.

This change in particular is a witness to your complete disconnection with math. If you want non-negative result for each member in the list L₀ = {-1, 2, -3}, then the syntax for doing so is L₁ = |{-1, 2, -3}| = {1, 2, 3}. I would chose completely different set of symbols not to drive those folks who practise math crazy.

The Man · Oct 12, 2011

epix said:
This change in particular is a witness to your complete disconnection with math. If you want non-negative result for each member in the list L₀ = {-1, 2, -3}, then the syntax for doing so is L₁ = |{-1, 2, -3}| = {1, 2, 3}. I would chose completely different set of symbols not to drive those folks who practise math crazy.

Exactly epix, it is the hallmark of all cranks. To conflate standard notations and nomenclature with their, generally vague, new meaning(s). It gives them a sense of validity that papers, discussions and research employ both those symbols and terminology. Yet without their personal meanings also gives them a sense of superiority (they use them but only I know what they really mean). Simply lazy to say the least, give new words and new symbols to express your new 'concepts'. Ludicrous to say the most, that they can even understand the concepts they purport to change or improve if they can't use the terminologies and symbols correctly to express not only the concepts they want to change or improve but even just their own.

epix · Oct 12, 2011

The Man said:
Exactly epix, it is the hallmark of all cranks. To conflate standard notations and nomenclature with their, generally vague, new meaning(s). It gives them a sense of validity that papers, discussions and research employ both those symbols and terminology. Yet without their personal meanings also gives them a sense of superiority (they use them but only I know what they really mean). Simply lazy to say the least, give new words and new symbols to express your new 'concepts'. Ludicrous to say the most, that they can even understand the concepts they purport to change or improve if they can't use the terminologies and symbols correctly to express not only the concepts they want to change or improve but even just their own.

There is supposed to be something called "the vendetta syndrome." It's a peculiar psychology and I give you an example. There is actually an intro: There are many folks who like to paint, but their aptitude, given by some hand/eye coordination or whatever it takes to get noticed by the community living in the world of art, just isn't present. That doesn't really matter to most amateur painters - most of them have the ability to place themselves where they belong by taking a realistic view of their abilities. If the realistic view is biased by some overgrown psychological factors, an amateur painter may feel underestimated and looks for the elevator to take him where he doesn't really belong. By some coincidence, I know a guy who got attracted to pianos and keyboards. There is a prerequisite for starting to mess with those instruments; namely, a musical ear. That guy happens to be in this respect completely deaf; he doesn't have a bit of musical memory. But he keeps playing... well, "playing." In addition, he keeps offering himself as a keyboard player to various garage bands. He simply refuses to "get the message" from them.

Now comes the main: I think that math is exactly what I would excell in. Even though there are some indications that my natural analytic skills are quite bellow average, my deterministic ego kicks the signs of ineptitude away. The problem is that math ideas are spread around through symbolic language that needs to be translated and virtually compiled, so the whole enchilada would find its way toward understanding - not just knowing. Since God forgot to put the compiler into my head, reading math texts results in no comprende. And that it goes and goes, until it makes the devil cry. So the devil becomes charitable and supplies the rescue boat: I invent my own (pseudo)math, my own descriptive symbolic language and I shall publish. Now it's your turn to stare at the rendition of my profound math ideas whilst struggling to comprehend the beautiful intricacies of my thoughts.

Your inability to get what I have just wrote is beyond any suspicion, but you can't know that because your reasoning is closed under to power of the collection of all 0-dimensional mathematical spaces on (for example) a given 1-dimasional mathematical space (you wrongly define a given 1-dimensional mathematical space in terms of the 0-dimensional mathematical spaces on it).

By using only your verbal_symbolic skills you simply unable to get the 1-dimansiomal mathematical space between the members of R set, which is actually the "host" mathematical space of them that its power of continuum is inaccessible to R set (it is actually inaccessible to ...power(power(power(R)))... ad infinituum).

Again, as long as your mathematical reasoning does not use verbal_symbolic AND and visual_spatial skills as a one comprehensive framework, you simply can't get this post.

Anyone that gets things only by verbal_symbolic skills, can't understand the lack of homeomorphism among different mathematical spaces.

epix, you still do not do anything in order to get the discussed fine subject by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills as a one comprehensive framework.

doronshadmi · Oct 12, 2011

epix said:
Don't forget to follow through...

"+" means minus and "-" means plus
"x" means division and "/" means multiplication

Yet the notions of minus and plus are used, exactly as the notion of cardinality in terms of collections is used, whether the notations are {|x|}, |{x}| or |{}| (where x is a placeholder of existing members).

In addition to the standard notions about collections of members, I use non-standard notion that deals with concepts that are weaker than collections (Emptiness) and stronger than collections (Fullness).

Although Emptiness and Fullness are opposite notions, they have something in common, which is: They are not members of collections.

By following this non-standard notion, the notion of Collection is understood in a new light, when one of the results is the incompleteness of the cardinality of collections with respect to the cardinality of Emptiness or Fullness, which are not members of collections, because Emptiness is weaker than the concept of Collection and Fullness is stronger than the concept of Collections.

So by non-standard notions Cardinality is extended beyond the concept of Collections, and my non-standard notions are expressed by non-standard notation as follows:

x is a placeholder for collection of members.

My non-standard notation (and notion) {|x|} is equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{x}|.

My non-standard notation (and notion) {||} is equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{}|.

My non-standard notation (and notion) |{x}| = ∞ is not equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{x}|.

My non-standard notation (and notion) |{}| = ∞ is not equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{}| = 0.

Also the order of the members of a given collection that its cardinality > 1 AND < ∞ has no significance.

If one insists to ignore these extensions, then it is obviously chooses to not communicate about the extensions and their implications on the standard notions of the concept of Collection.

In this case there is no use to continue the discussion with this person, because he\she already chose the limits of the discussion, where any extension of it is doomed to fail in terms of these limits.

Again, this is a philosophical forum, where fundamental notions are re-examined and may be changed.

If one insists to stick to the standard notions of a given subject, there is no use to discuss with him\her about re-examination of already agreed standard notions.

So what is left is to clarify the difference between the non-standard notions and the standard notions of a given subjects, and my last posts is an attempt to clarify the extensions of the non-standard notions, by using (as much as possible) notations that may help the reader to make the extensions in is mind, which allow him\her to get the standard notions from the new extended notions of the discussed subject.

You are still not there epix, for example:

epix said:
If you want non-negative result for each member in the list L0 = {-1, 2, -3}, then the syntax for doing so is L1 = |{-1, 2, -3}| = {1, 2, 3}

In this case you take "|" and "|" notations as abs() function, which (according to your use) changes the all given members of a given collection into absolute values.

Your mistakes are:

1) {-1, 2, -3} is not a list, but it is a collection of distinct members (no matter what (negative or absolute) values they have, where their order has no significance).

2) Even by the standard notion |{-1, 2, -3}| result (=3, because the values and order of {-1, 2, -3} have no significance) is not the same as abs({-1, 2, -3}) (= {1, 2, 3}, where the values of {-1, 2, -3} is significant) result.

In other words (and by using the standard notions), |{-1, 2, -3}| = 3 is not the same as abs({-1, 2, -3}) = {1, 2, 3}.

So, you demonstrated your misunderstanding of the standard notions, and did nothing in order to get the non-standard notions.

epix · Oct 12, 2011

doronshadmi said:
In this case you take "|" and "|" notations as abs() function, which (according to your use) changes the all given members of a given collection into absolute values.

Your mistakes are:

1) {-1, 2, -3} is not a list, but it is a collection of distinct members (no matter what (negative or absolute) values they have, where their order has no significance).

2) Even by the standard notion |{-1, 2, -3}| result (=3, because the values and order of {-1, 2, -3} have no significance) is not the same as abs({-1, 2, -3}) (= {1, 2, 3}, where the values of {-1, 2, -3} is significant) result.

In other words (and by using the standard notions), |{-1, 2, -3}| = 3 is not the same as abs({-1, 2, -3}) = {1, 2, 3}.

That only increases the distance between you and anything related to math. Of course, you are accustomed to manipulate undefined or poorly defined items. (Actually you thrive on it, coz it leaves the back door unlocked for you, so you can adjust your constructions when caught contradicting yourself.)

If I say that {-1, 2, -3} is a list, then it is a list, coz I defined it that way. Since you ignore whatever can be ignored, you are not aware of the fact that one of the defining terms doesn't prohibit the membership of a list to share certain properties with the membership of a set. In this particular case, members of a list can be distinct items.

Secondly, what sets various kinds of collections apart is also the type of operations performed on those collections. If you define {-1, 2, -3} as a set, as you did, and then expand the term to abs({-1, 2, -3}) to get the absolute value of the members, then you are telling everyone that you are not familiar with collections called sets. That's because the property of individual members of a set cannot be changed. But the absolute value function does exactly the opposite. That's why there exist collections called lists that allow handling vectors.

My initial objection concerned your "non-standard expression" |{x}|. It automatically implies the absolute value of x in a single-member collection which is not a set. But you relate the function to a set:

The cardinality of Fullness is |{}| = ∞

See, "cardinality" always refers to the size of a set -- it's not used with other types of collections. If it's used, then it's a bad deed and it signals that it's time to stop reading unless the writer justifies the use. An important part of mathematics is to convey a new math idea in the most effective way. You do the opposite by ascribing different meanings to the standard symbolism. (Don't forget to redefine the Number, so that 6,6,6 = nine,nine,nine. Maybe it'll please your Master happy and he grants your another "insight" into the opposites, such as standard/non-standard, local/non-local and so on.)

So, you demonstrated your misunderstanding of the standard notions, and did nothing in order to get the non-standard notions.

LOL. No kidding...

Well, I certainly must make amends in this respect, and so I request a step-by-step transformation of the expression that leads toward the result that looks like a smiley: (=3

Even by the standard notion |{-1, 2, -3}| result (=3

doronshadmi · Oct 12, 2011

epix said:
That only increases the distance between you and anything related to math.

|{-1, 2, -3}| = 3 is not the same as abs({-1, 2, -3}) = {1, 2, 3}.

In other words, your claim has no basis.

Again, you demonstrated your misunderstanding of the standard notions, and did nothing in order to get the non-standard notions (you simply ignored the first part of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7665090&postcount=16566.

epix said:
My initial objection concerned your "non-standard expression" |{x}|. It automatically implies the absolute value of x in a single-member collection which is not a set.

Wrong. I explicitly defined x as a placeholder for collection of members, but since you ignore the first part of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7665090&postcount=16566, you don't know that.

epix said:
See, "cardinality" always refers to the size of a set -- it's not used with other types of collections.

Another demonstration of your ignorance of the first part of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7665090&postcount=16566.

In this case you ignored this part:

doronshadmi said:
by non-standard notions Cardinality is extended beyond the concept of Collections

epix said:
that leads toward the result that looks like a smiley: (=3

Vary "funny". So you ignored the rest of what is written between the brackets, which is:

doronshadmi said:
(=3, because the values and order of {-1, 2, -3} have no significance)

Shall we

for you?

epix said:
That's why there exist collections called lists that allow handling vectors.

Since you are using the standard notions and notations, you must know that {-1, 2, -3} is a set and |{-1, 2, -3}| is the cardinality of that set.

epix said:
I would chose completely different set of symbols not to drive those folks who practise math crazy.

I do not agree with your anti-evolutionist approach, which does not allow mutations of already agreed notions and/or notations.

This time please really read this:

doronshadmi said:
EDITED:

By non-standard notions Cardinality is extended beyond the concept of Collections, and my non-standard notions are expressed by non-standard notations (and mutations of already agreed notations) as follows:

x is a placeholder for collection of members.

My non-standard notation (and notion) {|x|} is equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{x}|.

My non-standard notation (and notion) {||} is equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{}|.

My non-standard notation (and notion) |{x}| = ∞ is not equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{x}|.

My non-standard notation (and notion) |{}| = ∞ is not equivalent to standard notation (and notion) |{}| = 0.

Also the order of the members of a given collection that its cardinality > 1 AND < ∞ has no significance.

If one insists to ignore these extensions, then it is obviously chooses to not communicate about the extensions and their implications on the standard notions\notations of the concept of Collection.

In this case there is no use to continue the discussion with this person, because he\she already chose the limits of the discussion, where any extension of it is doomed to fail in terms of these limits.

Again, this is a philosophical forum, where fundamental notions (including already agreed notations) are re-examined and may be changed (even by mutations).

If one insists to stick to the standard notions\notations of a given subject, there is no use to discuss with him\her about re-examination of already agreed standard notions\notations.

So what is left is to clarify the difference between the non-standard notions\notations and the standard notions\notations of a given subject, and my last posts is an attempt to clarify the extensions of the non-standard notions\notations, by using (as much as possible) notations that may help the reader to make the extensions in his\her mind, which allow him\her to get the standard notions\notations from the new extended notions of the discussed subject (which is not free of mutations).

You still do not get that mutations of already agreed notions and/or notations are inseparable part of my non-standard approach of the mathematical science.

epix, your last post is a concrete example of how you do nothing in order to get the non-standard notions and notations (and mutations of already agreed notions\notations) which only increases the distance between you and anything related to real maths' re-search, where real maths' re-search is not limited to already agreed notions\notations and it is not free of mutations.

Again, according to my non-standard approach of the mathematical science, this science obeys the principles of Evolution, where mutations are one of the fundamental principles of Evolution.

In other words epix, you have no clue (yet) about my non-standard approach of the mathematical science, as follows:

In my opinion an anthropologist researches a given subject from within (by being involved with the researched subject) and from an external point of view (by not being involved with the researched subject), in order to get valuable and useful results.

I also think that we have to be aware of our verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial brain's skills if we wish to understand a given subject.

For example, by "Traditional" Mathematics (which is mostly expressed by verbal_symbolic skills) 0.111...₂ = 0.999...₁₀ = 1 where 1 is the considered mathematical object (the number itself) and 0.111...₂ or 0.999...₁₀ are some numerals (out of many representations) that represent number 1.

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills as follows:

one may understand that no branch of that tree actually reaches any other branch of that tree "downward" , no matter how many levels that tree has (in other words, there is no homeomorphism between 0 dimensional space (notated by "0";"1" symbols) and 1 dimensional space (notated by "_____" spatial non-composed object)).

According to this framework 0.111...₂ is a number of its own < number 1 by 0.000...1₂ where the "...1" part of that number is the irreducibility of ___ 1 dimensional space into 0 dimensional space (known as a point).

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills one enables to distinguish between non-local numbers like 0.111...₂ or 0.000...1₂, and local numbers like 1 or 0.

Furthermore, no collection of, for example, 0 dimensional spaces or segments on 1 dimensional space has the power of the continuum of 1 dimensional space.

By understanding the power of the continuum in terms of spatial skills, one may understand that no collection of sub-objects of a given space (mathematical or physical) has the power of the continuum of that space, or in other words, any given collection of "hosted" sub-objects is incomplete with respect to the "host" space.

The terms "host"\"hosted" are used here in order to clarify that the the "host" and the "hosted" are defined but not made of each other.

The non-locality of 0.111...₂ or 0.000...1₂ is "naturally vague" in terms of location, and one actually discovers/invents that the Real-line has a non-empty collection of non-local numbers between 0 dimensional space and 1 dimensional space.

By generalization, given a "host" space, no collection of "hosted" spaces has the power of the "host" space.

Let us do a further step and look at the Mathematical Science by using the "host"\"hosted" view.

From this view, any mathematical theory is (hopefully) a consistent framework of unproved collection of decelerations.

Also form this view, the mathematical science is generally a collection of isolated (context-dependent) frameworks, where each framework has its own consistency.

From time to time it is discovered\invented that there are deeper connections between some context-dependent frameworks, but these discovered\invented connections are based on sporadic\random approach of these cross-contexts linkages.

It has to be stressed that the use of the word "branches" for these context-dependent frameworks is misleading, if there is no comprehensive framework of these context-dependent frameworks, which rigorously demonstrates the linkage between them, such that they can be considered as "branches of a one tree" or as "organs of a one organism".

By the current paradigm, which is generally based on isolated and context-dependent frameworks, any given professional mathematician (or group of professional mathematicians) is asked to invent\discover his\their context-dependent framework by avoiding any changes of already agreed context-dependent frameworks.

This current paradigm of the Mathematical science of isolated and context-dependent developments, can't agree with a paradigm of cross-contexts framework of this science.

In my opinion, the notion of Non-locality (the "host" aspect of "host"\"hosted" framework) is essential to cross-contexts approach and essentially forbidden by the paradigm of context-dependent approach.

The current community of mathematicians is mostly based on the paradigm of the context-dependent frameworks, and according to this paradigm any paradigm of cross-contexts framework, is automatically considered as non-mathematical.

The evolutionary approach of the mathematical science (which is cross-contexts AND context-dependent framework) changes this paradigm.

doronshadmi · Oct 13, 2011

Some correction of the last sentence of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7666664&postcount=16568:

The evolutionary approach of the mathematical science (which is cross-contexts AND context-dependent framework that is not free of mutations of already agreed notions\notations) changes this paradigm.

epix · Oct 13, 2011

doronshadmi said:
|{-1, 2, -3}| = 3 is not the same as abs({-1, 2, -3}) = {1, 2, 3}.

In other words, your claim has no basis.

I didn't say that cardinality and absolute value are the same functions. If you think that lists don't use || to denote absolute value of its members and use function abs() instead, then you are wrong. Lists don't use || to define the size, as you will see in a moment.

Wrong. I explicitly defined x as a placeholder for collection of members, but since you ignore the first part of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7665090&postcount=16566, you don't know that.

So what? You can make x hold a collection of items and then put them in the braces: {x}. Do I see a set or some other collection?

Another demonstration of your ignorance of the first part of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7665090&postcount=16566.

Yes, you use "cardinality" as a favorite condiment on anything. But the math folks use "dimension" instead when handling collections that are not sets.
http://www.daniweb.com/software-development/csharp/threads/226595
Since there is this huge distance filled with vacuum between you and math, I guess it's okay to use cardinality denoted || as an adjustable wrench. Actually, thinking of it, there shouldn't be a problem at all: there is no way that your constructs of any kind would ever include an absolute value, which is a function that lives in Motel Math.

Once again, Cardinality is between the cardinality of Emptiness (that has no predecessor, which is notated as {||}) and the cardinality of Fullness (that has no successor, which is notated, at least, as |{}|).

The above says that the notion of Emptiness having no predecessor is symbolized by {||}. That means Emptiness and your "symbolic_verbal skills" are identical, coz the latter lays flat on the very bottom of the barrel of the cooking pot. Talk to your Master. Maybe he can help; maybe he can use the first two letters of his name DEVIL.

DE

See? The predecessor of E in the alphabet is D. Since D is stricken out, there is no predecessor of E, which can stand for Emptiness. But the symbolism from hell is a picture of beautiful flowers in comparison to what you are capable of coming up with.

doronshadmi · Oct 13, 2011

epix said:
The above says that the notion of Emptiness having no predecessor is symbolized by {||}. That means Emptiness and your "symbolic_verbal skills" are identical,

{||} is the notation of the cardinality of Emptiness, where the cardinality of Emptiness is not Emptiness itself (also the name Emptiness is not Emptiness itself, exactly as talking about silence is not silence itself).

epix said:
This change in particular is a witness to your complete disconnection with math. If you want non-negative result for each member in the list L₀ = {-1, 2, -3}, then the syntax for doing so is L₁ = |{-1, 2, -3}| = {1, 2, 3}. I would chose completely different set of symbols not to drive those folks who practise math crazy.

epix, all you demonstrate is the inability of you and what you call "math folks" to get my non-standard evolutionary approach (which is not free of mutations of notions\notations) of the mathematical science.

Once again you actually ignored my http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7666664&postcount=16568 last post.

epix said:
Talk to your Master. Maybe he can help; maybe he can use the first two letters of his name DEVIL.

It is well known (all along this thread) that you have a religious view of the mathematical science.

What you call "math folks" also have religious view of the mathematical science exactly because they are against evolutionary approach (which is not free of mutations of notions\notations) of the mathematical science.

Here is an example of the the anti-evolutionist approach of the currently agreed mathematical science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_systems):

Each formal system has a formal language, which is composed by primitive symbols. These symbols act on certain rules of formation and are developed by inference from a set of axioms. The system thus consists of any number of formulas built up through finite combinations of the primitive symbols—combinations that are formed from the axioms in accordance with the stated rules.[1]

Formal systems in mathematics consist of the following elements:

1. A finite set of symbols (i.e. the alphabet), that can be used for constructing formulas (i.e. finite strings of symbols).
2. A grammar, which tells how well-formed formulas (abbreviated wff) are constructed out of the symbols in the alphabet. It is usually required that there be a decision procedure for deciding whether a formula is well formed or not.
3. A set of axioms or axiom schemata: each axiom must be a wff.
4. A set of inference rules.

A formal system is said to be recursive (i.e. effective) if the set of axioms and the set of inference rules are decidable sets or semidecidable sets, according to context.

(please pay attention that only verbal_symbolic skills are used by the current approach of the mathematical science)

Here is my evolutionary approach of the mathematical science:

doronshadmi said:
The current community of mathematicians is mostly based on the paradigm of the context-dependent frameworks, and according to this paradigm any paradigm of cross-contexts framework, is automatically considered as non-mathematical.

The evolutionary approach of the mathematical science (which is cross-contexts AND context-dependent framework that is not free of mutations of already agreed notions\notations) changes this paradigm.

Stay epix in your box and celebrate your ignorance with your math folks.

doronshadmi · Oct 13, 2011

Here is some quote taken form http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science :

Natural sciences are the basis for applied sciences. Together, the natural and applied sciences are distinguished from the social sciences on the one hand, and the humanities on the other. Though mathematics, statistics, and computer science are not considered natural sciences, for instance, they provide many tools and frameworks used within the natural sciences.

Since Mathematics is used as a tool for Natural sciences, its paradigm can't be anti-evolutionist if we wish to use its full potential as a tool for Natural sciences.

doronshadmi · Oct 14, 2011

Morality in terms of evolutionary scale, is aware of complexity development, such that future development is free of contradiction, by allowing different expressions to exist (mutual destruction is avoided).

So the future goal to develop an environment which is free of mutual destruction, actually has an influence on present discussions which leads to future realm with developments' abilities which are free (as much as possible) from mutual detraction (the degree of complexity's expressions is increased).

By taking a Mata view of present\future relations in terms of evolutionary scale, one may conclude that fulfilled future goals has an impact on the past that designed them.

This ability to be aware of future goals at present time, which also aware of past time results, is one of the clear signatures of life-phenomena, where morality development in terms of evolutionary scale is inseparable factor of it.

It has to be stressed that mutations do not destroy diversity, but they reinforce the linkage between simplicity and complexity (where simplicity is the opposite of the trivial and complexity is the opposite of the complicated).

The Man · Oct 14, 2011

doronshadmi said:
The current community of mathematicians is mostly based on the paradigm of the context-dependent frameworks, and according to this paradigm any paradigm of cross-contexts framework, is automatically considered as non-mathematical.

Doron it is you yourself that proclaimed your "AB" as not being a mathematical expression. So the lack of mathematics in your purported "paradigm" is entirely of your own choice, design and assertion. Stop blaming others for your own, apparently intentional, failures.

L.Y.S. · Oct 14, 2011

Is there a point to this thread other than to break records? Like longest on going post.

stokes234 · Oct 14, 2011

Neverending stream of gibberish. Dunning-Kruger effect applied to theoretical mathematics. Abandon all hope. Mayday. Mayday.

The Man · Oct 14, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Morality in terms of evolutionary scale, is aware of complexity development, such that future development is free of contradiction, by allowing different expressions to exist (mutual destruction is avoided).

Ah so now you're trying to claim your simple abandonment of the concept of contradiction as being 'moral' and "evolutionary"? Simply denying your own self contradictions can only be considered moral in a totally self serving regard and in that regard anything that serves ones self interest becomes equaly moral. Meanwhile regressing your self to a kindergarten education and insisting everyone else do the same is in no way evolutionary.

doronshadmi said:
So the future goal to develop an environment which is free of mutual destruction, actually has an influence on present discussions which leads to future realm with developments' abilities which are free (as much as possible) from mutual detraction (the degree of complexity's expressions is increased).

Mutual destruction is a physical fact (particularly of superposition) so your simply self severing "future goal" immediately fails as a matter of historical fact.

doronshadmi said:
By taking a Mata view of present\future relations in terms of evolutionary scale, one may conclude that fulfilled future goals has an impact on the past that designed them.

It's your self serving "future goals" and the impact of such on both you and the 20 some odd years you have wasted are blatantly obvious.

doronshadmi said:
This ability to be aware of future goals at present time, which also aware of past time results, is one of the clear signatures of life-phenomena, where morality development in terms of evolutionary scale is inseparable factor of it.

Well since you are clearly not aware of the multitude "of past time results" you have just excluded yourself from your own "life-phenomena, where morality development in terms of evolutionary scale is inseparable factor of it."

doronshadmi said:
It has to be stressed that mutations do not destroy diversity, but they reinforce the linkage between simplicity and complexity (where simplicity is the opposite of the trivial and complexity is the opposite of the complicated).

"It has to be stressed that" since trivial and simplicity are synonymous as well as complex being a definition of complicated you should probably look up the mean of the word "opposite".

Oh wait that's right your "future goal" (and current activity) is to deny such a contradiction between your use of the word "opposite" and it's meaning. Let's grant your goal for this moment and now just as your misuse of the word opposite no longer contradicts with it's meaning then your intent of "simplicity" contradicting "trivial" and "complexity" contradicting "complicated" can have no validity just by your own assertions.

Welcome to the world of no contradictions Doron.

doronshadmi said:
Here is some quote taken form http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science :

Since Mathematics is used as a tool for Natural sciences, its paradigm can't be anti-evolutionist if we wish to use its full potential as a tool for Natural sciences.

Mathematics isn't "anti-evolutionist", the fact that it is a "tool for Natural sciences" demonstrates that as well as the fact that math and science evolve. Your posts above simply demonstrate the ludicrous nature of your attempts to claim math as "anti-evolutionist" as well as your attempts to posit whatever self contradictory nonsense that comes into your head as being some kind of evolution.

The Man · Oct 14, 2011

L.Y.S. said:
Is there a point to this thread other than to break records? Like longest on going post.

Longest by length of time or number of post/pages?

This has it beat by time.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75565

This has it beat by post/pages (on the third volume now)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215085&page=317

So there must be some other point, I suspect much like the whole point of this forum.

stokes234 said:
Neverending stream of gibberish. Dunning-Kruger effect applied to theoretical mathematics. Abandon all hope. Mayday. Mayday.

Ah, but even those demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect can improve their estimation of their knowledge.

A follow-up study, reported in the same paper, suggests that grossly incompetent students improved their ability to estimate their rank after minimal tutoring in the skills they had previously lacked—regardless of the negligible improvement in actual skills.

So even though this ship has long ago sank below the waves of ignorance, the only reason to give up the hope of raising it is if everyone stops trying.

doronshadmi · Oct 14, 2011

L.Y.S. said:
Is there a point to this thread other than to break records? Like longest on going post.

Is there a point on "feeling the darkness within"?

L.Y.S said:
I feel the darkness within. It conquers the soul. It becomes me. I am lost never to be found. Spoken never to be heard. Conveying but never understood. I am but another lost young soul.

doronshadmi · Oct 14, 2011

stokes234 said:
Neverending stream of gibberish. Dunning-Kruger effect applied to theoretical mathematics. Abandon all hope. Mayday. Mayday.

Please support your claim by providing some details about, for example:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7617572&postcount=16472

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7666664&postcount=16568

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7662986&postcount=16559

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE

http://ijpam.eu/contents/2008-49-3/5/5.pdf

zooterkin · Oct 14, 2011

stokes234 said:
Neverending stream of gibberish. Dunning-Kruger effect applied to theoretical mathematics. Abandon all hope. Mayday. Mayday.

Mayday? Well, she might liven the thread up a bit, but even she has the sense to stay away from it..

stokes234 · Oct 14, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Please support your claim by providing some details about, for example:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7617572&postcount=16472

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7666664&postcount=16568

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7662986&postcount=16559

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE

http://ijpam.eu/contents/2008-49-3/5/5.pdf

Show me one practical or theoretical discovery from your ramblings that serves any purpose whatsoever in either aiding mankind or advancing the theory of mathematics, and i'll bite. Until then, you're just throwing a big dollop of word pasta at the wall and claiming to be the only one who can read the pattern it has made.

doronshadmi · Oct 14, 2011

stokes234 said:
Show me one practical or theoretical discovery from your ramblings that serves any purpose whatsoever in either aiding mankind or advancing the theory of mathematics, and i'll bite. Until then, you're just throwing a big dollop of word pasta at the wall and claiming to be the only one who can read the pattern it has made.

Here it is:

In my opinion an anthropologist researches a given subject from within (by being involved with the researched subject) and from an external point of view (by not being involved with the researched subject), in order to get valuable and useful results.

I also think that we have to be aware of our verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial brain's skills if we wish to understand a given subject.

For example, by "Traditional" Mathematics (which is mostly expressed by verbal_symbolic skills) 0.111...₂ = 0.999...₁₀ = 1 where 1 is the considered mathematical object (the number itself) and 0.111...₂ or 0.999...₁₀ are some numerals (out of many representations) that represent number 1.

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills as follows:

[qimg]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6142/5962015728_d2fe37cc5f_z.jpg[/qimg]

one may understand that no branch of that tree actually reaches any other branch of that tree "downward" , no matter how many levels that tree has (in other words, there is no homeomorphism between 0 dimensional space (notated by "0";"1" symbols) and 1 dimensional space (notated by "_____" spatial non-composed object)).

According to this framework 0.111...₂ is a number of its own < number 1 by 0.000...1₂ where the "...1" part of that number is the irreducibility of ___ 1 dimensional space into 0 dimensional space (known as a point).

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills one enables to distinguish between non-local numbers like 0.111...₂ or 0.000...1₂, and local numbers like 1 or 0.

Furthermore, no collection of, for example, 0 dimensional spaces or segments on 1 dimensional space has the power of the continuum of 1 dimensional space.

By understanding the power of the continuum in terms of spatial skills, one may understand that no collection of sub-objects of a given space (mathematical or physical) has the power of the continuum of that space, or in other words, any given collection of "hosted" sub-objects is incomplete with respect to the "host" space.

The terms "host"\"hosted" are used here in order to clarify that the the "host" and the "hosted" are defined but not made of each other.

The non-locality of 0.111...₂ or 0.000...1₂ is "naturally vague" in terms of location, and one actually discovers/invents that the Real-line has a non-empty collection of non-local numbers between 0 dimensional space and 1 dimensional space.

By generalization, given a "host" space, no collection of "hosted" spaces has the power of the "host" space.

Let us do a further step and look at the Mathematical Science by using the "host"\"hosted" view.

From this view, any mathematical theory is (hopefully) a consistent framework of unproved collection of decelerations.

Also form this view, the mathematical science is generally a collection of isolated (context-dependent) frameworks, where each framework has its own consistency.

From time to time it is discovered\invented that there are deeper connections between some context-dependent frameworks, but these discovered\invented connections are based on sporadic\random approach of these cross-contexts linkages.

It has to be stressed that the use of the word "branches" for these context-dependent frameworks is misleading, if there is no comprehensive framework of these context-dependent frameworks, which rigorously demonstrates the linkage between them, such that they can be considered as "branches of a one tree" or as "organs of a one organism".

By the current paradigm, which is generally based on isolated and context-dependent frameworks, any given professional mathematician (or group of professional mathematicians) is asked to invent\discover his\their context-dependent framework by avoiding any changes of already agreed context-dependent frameworks.

This current paradigm of the Mathematical science of isolated and context-dependent developments, can't agree with a paradigm of cross-contexts framework of this science.

In my opinion, the notion of Non-locality (the "host" aspect of "host"\"hosted" framework) is essential to cross-contexts approach and essentially forbidden by the paradigm of context-dependent approach.

The current community of mathematicians is mostly based on the paradigm of the context-dependent frameworks, and according to this paradigm any paradigm of cross-contexts framework, is automatically considered as non-mathematical.

The evolutionary approach of the mathematical science (which is cross-contexts AND context-dependent framework) changes this paradigm ( for more details, please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7667692&postcount=16571 ).

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

By using Non-local AND Local points of view ("host"\"hosted" framework) we get a "naturally open" framework that may help us to understand Entropy in a new light.

For example:

Today we know that there were tiny irregularities in the Big-Bang’s space/time fabric, where these irregularities are maybe the fundamental conditions which allowed the existence of galaxies and clusters of galaxies, which has a foam-like shape when observed from a great distance. This foam-like shape is the result of opposite tendencies of Energy/Matter integration/differentiation fluctuations. These fluctuations and their results can be found in any observed scale of our universe.

From the second law of Thermodynamics we know that there is a global tendency in the observed universe, which actually eliminates the difference between integration and differentiation at the macro level, until these fluctuations do not express clear and ordered Energy/Matter phenomena.

We can ask: "How did the original fluctuation, which its thermodynamics "death" we observe, came into existence?" Another question is: "Do we interpret correctly the Energy/Matter integration/differentiation fluctuations in the observed universe?" Let us examine a different model of these observed fluctuations.

By using the Inflationary theory (as suggested by Alan Guth) of the Big-Bang, we may say that the first fluctuation had a strong correlation, which allowed the very early universe to “speak” in the same fundamental “language” called by us "the laws of nature".

Let us examine this correlation.

1) It stands at the basis of the observed tendency to eliminate the difference between integration and differentiation at the macro level.

2) It holds an elastic-like "memory" of several and different degrees of space/time curvatures which approach to the singular state (before the inflation) from different "points of view". These different "points of view" of different degrees of space/time curvatures, actually prevent a smooth return (in terms of Gravity) to the singular state. Maybe the result of this non-smooth return is the diversity of different degrees of complexity that exist in the observed universe.

By this model there is a direct proportion between the smoothness of a given return, and the complexity of the information structure that is based on this return. Also there is a direct proportion between a given return and self-aware states that can be found in non-trivial complex systems like living creatures. At this stage most of the observed universe has the tendency to become "flat" at the macro level (which is recognized as increased entropy) but by this model there is the possibility that in the very long term, there will be more structures that are based on "smooth" return, and life phenomena, which we are a part of, will be the main principle that shapes the observed universe.

Please be aware that this model does not avoid The Copernican Principle because it gets Life phenomena in terms of cosmological
evolutionary scale (which is not focused only on life phenomena as exist on planet Earth).

More about this subject in terms of cosmological evolutionary scale, can be found in http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM and http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE.

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

Unity awareness

Awareness' development is first of all self awareness of finer levels of one's thinking process (no matter what meaning is given to thoughts) until one is aware of the finest state of awareness, which is naturally free of any thinking process (it is not a thought or collection of thoughts).

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

By developing such state of mind, one is at the optimal expressions' abilities , which is naturally free of contradiction w.r.t other expressions, exactly because one's mind expresses itself right from the source of all possible expressions.

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

Here is some analogy using 1-dimensional space as the Unity of both straight-line (calmness) and curved-lines (complex expressions), as shown by the following diagram:

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

By gently meditate on the following diagram one is opened to the non-subjective level of awareness (illustrated by the straight line), at least at the level of the analogy (which is not the actual non-subjective state of mind).

By this analogy the 1 dimensional space is the Unity of any possible form, such that being straight or not is not known in terms of dichotomy.

Please look also at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7654162&postcount=16539 which is ended by this line:

doronshadmi said:
Unity is the symmetry that prevents the distinction between Emptiness, Fullness, and everything between them.

This symmetry actually prevents the distinction (in terms of clear cut separation) between Emptiness, Fullness, and everything between them, such that they are directly known as "organs of a one realm".

Persons that are not able to be aware of their non-subjective level, can't get the awareness of Unity, which is not a thought about Unity (or, by analogy, the name of a given concept is not the concept itself, for example: talking about silence is not silence itself).

stokes234 · Oct 14, 2011

I waded through that, and I didn't see any references to any useful discoveries you had made, only a vague claim that your previous posts "could help us better understand entropy".

In 20 words or less, what useful application does any of this have? If you are showing that you have made a contribution to the real world, all you have to do is show a picture of what it is, but if you're going to claim to have made an advance in theoretical mathematics, you'll have to cite some academia that references or at least acknowledges you or uses your work in some way, as i'm sure you can understand that anyone could string a bunch of words, numbers, pictures and equations together and claim that they had made some kind of useful discovery.

L.Y.S. · Oct 14, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Is there a point on "feeling the darkness within"?

I fail to see why my quote is relevant to your long and unending post.

L.Y.S. · Oct 14, 2011

stokes234 said:
Neverending stream of gibberish. Dunning-Kruger effect applied to theoretical mathematics. Abandon all hope. Mayday. Mayday.

Ha-ha, I chuckled.

doronshadmi · Oct 14, 2011

stokes234 said:
I waded through that, and I didn't see any references to any useful discoveries you had made

So go through that again and ask detailed questions, if your really wish to get some answers.

For one thing I am sure. You did not get (yet) that my work is a paradigm-shift of the mathematical science, so no academia references can be found about it.

This time really read at least http://ijpam.eu/contents/2008-49-3/5/5.pdf instead of wading through it and ask your detailed questions.

I have no time for lazy readers.

stokes234 said:
In 20 words or less, what useful application does any of this have?

The development of the technology of the consciousness.

doronshadmi · Oct 14, 2011

L.Y.S. said:
I fail to see why my quote is relevant to your long and unending post.

How can you see in the darkness?

L.Y.S. · Oct 14, 2011

doronshadmi said:
The development of the technology of the consciousness.

Like brain machine thingies? The power to levitate? Or the power to create stuff out of thin air? Kiddie questions aside, I'm guessing this is why you have this post in the religious section?

doronshadmi said:
How can you see in the darkness?

Can't, can only feel it, which is what I originally said, "I feel the darkness within. “

doronshadmi · Oct 14, 2011

L.Y.S. said:
Like brain machine thingies? The power to levitate? Or the power to create stuff out of thin air?

Start by avoiding self destruction by the current technology.

More about this subject in terms of cosmological evolutionary scale, can be found in http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM and http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE.

L.Y.S. · Oct 14, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Start by avoiding self destruction by the current technology.

More about this subject in terms of cosmological evolutionary scale, can be found in http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM and http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE.

Well I certainly won't knock your creativity; if this is your outlet have fun. I was just curious as to why this thread was so long. Looks like you have a lot to discuss here. I am not the mathematic type as you can see from my quote. Have fun now

.

jsfisher · Oct 14, 2011

L.Y.S. said:
Well I certainly won't knock your creativity; if this is your outlet have fun. I was just curious as to why this thread was so long. Looks like you have a lot to discuss here. I am not the mathematic type as you can see from my quote. Have fun now .

It's ok. Doron is not the mathematical type, either. Proven time and again.

doronshadmi · Oct 14, 2011

L.Y.S. said:
I am not the mathematic type

In that case you are in a better state of mind (w.r.t most of the professional mathematicians) to get my non-standard approach of the mathematical science, where according to it there is no dichotomy between Ethics (in terms of evolutionary scale) and formal Logic.

stokes234 · Oct 15, 2011

doronshadmi said:
The development of the technology of the consciousness.

No, you need to be specific. For example, if I wrote 30 pages of a completely random combination of numbers and letters, and someone asked me to demonstrate the value of it, I couldn't answer "making stuff happen better in science", I would have to answer something like "Here is a picture of a battery that can store 10% more electricity based on technology that follows from my work in mathematics, as referenced here: x", or perhaps "here is a link to an academic paper that uses my equations to solve x problem in quantum mechanics, which potentially has applications in computing", etc etc.

If you can't show something tangible as I describe, then there is no real way to distinguish your posts from a very large number of monkeys let loose on a similarly large collection of typewriters.

doronshadmi · Oct 15, 2011

stokes234 said:
If you can't show something tangible as I describe,

If you can't ask detailed questions about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583 or http://ijpam.eu/contents/2008-49-3/5/5.pdf it means that you want others to feed your mind.

I am not going to feed your mind, do some work by yourself.

stokes234 · Oct 15, 2011

doronshadmi said:
If you can't ask detailed questions about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583 or http://ijpam.eu/contents/2008-49-3/5/5.pdf it means that you want others to feed your mind.

I am not going to feed your mind, do some work by yourself.

So, to cut a long story short, you have literally no way of showing that your work has any merit. Righty-o, i'm out.

doronshadmi · Oct 15, 2011

stokes234 said:
So, to cut a long story short, you have literally no way of showing that your work has any merit. Righty-o, i'm out.

You never was in because you can't ask detailed questions.

Wading through X and let others to feed your mind is not enough.

Actually this is a practical example of the development of the technology of the consciousness, which is something that persons who let others to feed their mind, have to learn.

PiedPiper · Oct 15, 2011

I'm sorry, but I absolutely have to comment at this point.

(Been following this thread for months).

Saying "you can't get XYZ" or "learn it yourself, I can't be bothered to explain it to you" (aka I can't explain it to you), combined with the inability to show a concrete real-world example of the benefits of a theory, means that the theory is absolutely worthless. Worse than worthless, actually. Even worthless theories are sometimes studied in order to see where previous researchers have gone wrong, to learn something about the way things have been (unsuccessfully) attempted in the past.

This theory is worse than that, because not only have people's requests for concrete, real-world benefits been denied, the theory isn't explained in sufficient clarity for people to be able to learn a lesson from it.

It just fails in every measure.

But, no doubt, this is because I don't "get" it. Since when was it always the audiences fault if they don't "get" the lecture? When does the teacher have to take some of the responsibility? I know that when I teach (chemistry), I take an awful lot of responsibility for my students understanding. How easy it would be to simply say my students don't "get" it!

doronshadmi · Oct 15, 2011

oppss...

doronshadmi · Oct 15, 2011

PiedPiper said:
I know that when I teach (chemistry), I take an awful lot of responsibility for my students understanding. How easy it would be to simply say my students don't "get" it!

Then take some responsibility and ask some question about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583 or http://ijpam.eu/contents/2008-49-3/5/5.pdf, there have to be at least two for tango , and without questions and answers that are related to the dance there is no dance and no real understanding of the dance for both the teacher and the student.

PiedPiper said:
This theory is worse than that, because not only have people's requests for concrete, real-world benefits been denied, the theory isn't explained in sufficient clarity for people to be able to learn a lesson from it.

You can start with http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM or http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE in order to support your claims above.

PiedPiper said:
(Been following this thread for months).

Why?

Deeper than primes

Unbanned zombie poster

Banned

Banned

Unbanned zombie poster

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Illuminator

Master Poster

Unbanned zombie poster

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Illuminator

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Thinker

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing