Deeper than primes

doronshadmi said:

Then take some responsibility and ask some question about....

Click to expand...

As you have already demonstrated repeatedly, you don't answer questions, Doron. You just repeat, post links to repeats, shift, evade, then eventually end up with some flavor of "you just can't get it".

Give it up. You got nothing.

doronshadmi said:

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.

Click to expand...

I've asked questions in this thread before. I'm not satisfied that I ever got an answer. I can throw a dart at this thread and hit half a dozen people whose questions you've never answered, so I won't get my hopes up re: my previous questions; this also explains why (and I'll hope you forgive me) I'm really not up to asking more questions.

doronshadmi said:

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.

Click to expand...

I don't have to go to another website and read a document in order to find someone who's asked for a real life application, and been denied. I've asked in the past. That fellow just a few posts up from me asked. I'm not sure why I'm being deflected off to scribd.com...? If all I need to understand your theory is on scribd.com, why has this thread been going on for months? Why not just post your ideas on scribd.com (I'm assuming that's what the document is, forgive me if not) and skip the middleman (JREF forum)?

doronshadmi said:

Why?

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm a hopeless optimist. Maybe in the search for new ways to express my own ideas, I've become fascinated by someone who - after months and months of trying - is unable to clearly say much of anything, despite his best efforts. Maybe I'm an AI and I've been programmed to spend my days scanning this thread. Maybe you should reflect less on how others waste their time, and more on how you waste your own?

stokes234 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, the quote contains the answer why this thread is closer to God than anything else can be, coz it seems to be immortal and it's in a way a monument to an important concept of mathematics called infinity, which is responsible for the event concerning a monkey and a typewriter: The chance that the monkey will come up one day with something that will contribute to the solution of Riemann Hypothesis - considered No. 1 unsolved problem in mathematics - is virtual certainty. And that's why we support Doron in his monkey typing. It's just a cool, rational calculation requiring a bit of luck though.

PiedPiper said:

I've asked questions in this thread before. I'm not satisfied that I ever got an answer. I can throw a dart at this thread and hit half a dozen people whose questions you've never answered, so I won't get my hopes up re: my previous questions; this also explains why (and I'll hope you forgive me) I'm really not up to asking more questions.



I don't have to go to another website and read a document in order to find someone who's asked for a real life application, and been denied. I've asked in the past. That fellow just a few posts up from me asked. I'm not sure why I'm being deflected off to scribd.com...? If all I need to understand your theory is on scribd.com, why has this thread been going on for months? Why not just post your ideas on scribd.com (I'm assuming that's what the document is, forgive me if not) and skip the middleman (JREF forum)?



Maybe I'm a hopeless optimist. Maybe in the search for new ways to express my own ideas, I've become fascinated by someone who - after months and months of trying - is unable to clearly say much of anything, despite his best efforts. Maybe I'm an AI and I've been programmed to spend my days scanning this thread. Maybe you should reflect less on how others waste their time, and more on how you waste your own?

Click to expand...

PiedPiper let's switch sides, here is my question to you:

Do you think that any afford to develop a comprehensive scientific framework, which enables Ethics and formal Logic to be its consistent factors, is important?

( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6611865&postcount=12851 )

doronshadmi said:

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.

Click to expand...

You're kidding yourself again. Your stubborn refusal to accept the existence of the limits that reside within the concept of infinity is just another cookie that you forgot to chew on when rummaging inside the math cookie jar. This universe is finite altogether with what is made of. So when the math folks introduce limits into the concept of infinity, then there is a practical reason for that - a reason that you can't possibly grasp, coz you are too busy seeking infinite godly precision in places where it is not needed.

You may proceed in your phantasmagoria . . .

epix said:

This universe is finite altogether with what is made of.

Click to expand...

In terms of "hosted" (mathematical\physical) spaces it is finite or potentially infinite.

In terms of "host" (mathematical\physical) space it is actually infinite.

It terms of Unity the "host" and the "hosted" are organs of a one realm.

Your maths folks force actuality on potentially infinity.

This time please read very carefully http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7667692&postcount=16571.

Your cookie jar can't comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583.

Actually if you wish to insult pure mathematician, then please tell him\her that his\her work is valuable only if it has practical use.

In other words, you have a trivial view of math folks in addition to your trivial view of the mathematical science.

doronshadmi said:

In terms of "hosted" (mathematical\physical) spaces it is finite or potentially infinite.

In terms of "host" (mathematical\physical) space it is actually infinite.

It terms of Unity the "host" and the "hosted" are organs of a one realm.

Your maths folks force actuality on potentially infinity.

This time please read very carefully http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7667692&postcount=16571.

Your cookie jar can't comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583.

Actually if you wish to insult pure mathematician, then please tell him\her that his\her work is valuable only if it has practical use.

In other words, you have a trivial view of math folks.

Click to expand...

Your pulpit talk is the only thing in the universe which is not finite, coz it became infinitely boring.

If you really want to insult a "pure mathematician," compare his or her work with Doronetics.

epix said:

Your pulpit talk is the only thing in the universe which is not finite, coz it became infinitely boring.

Click to expand...

Since I care about your infinite boring of my work, you are going right away to my ignore list, bye.

PiedPiper said:

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!

Click to expand...

Don’t be sorry PiedPiper, looks like you nailed it right on the head. The fact of the matter is, by Doron’s notion of “direct perception”, we should just “get it”. That we don’t, obviously can’t be permitted to disprove his concept of “direct perception” so it must then be some lacking or defect in the audience. While Doron has been unable to show any benefits from his notions he has clearly demonstrated time and time again that he simply despises restrictions particularly those he imposes himself with his notions. So his notions in and of themselves can require no one and nothing to be bound by them, least of all himself. As such his nonsense even fails as just a personal philosophy just for himself, indeed his failure is complete.

doronshadmi said:

epix said:

Your pulpit talk is the only thing in the universe which is not finite, coz it became infinitely boring.

Click to expand...

Since I care about your infinite boring of my work, you are going right away to my ignore list, bye.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the club epix.

Any bets on how long before Doron has everyone even remotely willing to reply to him on his “ignore list”?