Deeper than primes - Continuation

epix · Nov 2, 2011

doronshadmi said:
You can declare victory, but still it is limited only to verbal_symbolic_only context-dependent_only realm (no visual-spatial skills are involved).

there's no winning without a fight
that's why we must exit right
left is hell and right is heaven
that's why we take exit 7
(we love it!)

doronshadmi · Nov 3, 2011

the PC apeman said:
You have your solipsistic dictionary and I now have my own.

Well, this is a concrete example of the mind of verbal_symbolic-only context-dependent-only skill(er) works ("you have your context-dependent-only framework, and I have mine context-dependent-only framework").

doronshadmi · Nov 3, 2011

Verbal_symbolic_only context-dependent_only skill(ers) can't comprehend that http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7721309&postcount=64 is an argument that explicitly adds Cross-contexts in addition to Context-dependent, such that it does not agree with the Context-dependent_only reasoning.

The problem with verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) is derived from the attempt to know X in terms of some special (context-dependent) expression of it.

For example: "A non-empty set with null non-emptiness" is nonsense exactly as "X with null X (namely a curve with null curvature)" is nonsense.

This nonsense is expressed, for example, by wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve ), as follows:

In mathematics, a curve (also called a curved line in older texts) is, generally speaking, an object similar to a line but which is not required to be straight. This entails that a line is a special case of curve, namely a curve with null curvature

Let's correct this nonsense, for example:

While all poodles or terriers are dogs (where being a dog is a cross-contexts state), no terrier is a poodle (and vice versa) (where being a terrier or a poodle is a context-dependent state).

While all curved lines or straight lines are lines (where being a line is a cross-contexts state), no curved line is a straight line (and vice versa)(where being curved or straight is a context-dependent state).

zooterkin · Nov 3, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Let's correct this nonsense, for example:

While all poodles or terriers are dogs (where being a dog is a cross-contexts state), no terrier is a poodle (and vice versa) (where being a terrier or a poodle is a context-dependent state).

While all curved lines or straight lines are lines (where being a line is a cross-contexts state), no curved line is a straight line (and vice versa)(where being curved or straight is a context-dependent state).

Well, go on then, correct it.

doronshadmi · Nov 3, 2011

zooterkin said:
Well, go on then, correct it.

These are correct examples, in case that you have missed it.

The Man · Nov 3, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Verbal_symbolic_only context-dependent_only skill(ers) can't comprehend that http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7721309&postcount=64 is an argument that explicitly adds Cross-contexts in addition to Context-dependent, such that it does not agree with the Context-dependent_only reasoning.

The problem with verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) is derived from the attempt to know X in terms of some special (context-dependent) expression of it.

As you're the only one who asserts " verbal_symbolic-only skill" that problem remains entirely yours. As usual you are simply confused no one but you are attempting to " know X in terms of some special (context-dependent) expression of it" we are classifying X by some defined aspect of it.

doronshadmi said:
For example: "A non-empty set with null non-emptiness" is nonsense exactly as "X with null X (namely a curve with null curvature)" is nonsense.

Here we see a concrete example of your problem and confusion as well as some irony. A set can be classified as empty or non-empty you are deliberately trying to classify it as both then try to blame your own nonsense on others. This is not just your own nonsense by your "A non-empty set with null non-emptiness" claim but primarily due to your previous "belongs to AND does not belong to" assertions. Hence the irony, you claim the assertion above as nonsense but your previous assertion you take as a fundamental basis of your own notions. That you can perceive the nonsense in the assertion you simply want to attribute to others but not in that one you want to depend upon yourself indicates that your ignorance of your own nonsense is simply deliberate until you simply want to ascribe that nonsense to others.

I'm sure all unemployed people will be surprised to find that classifying them by employment is nonsense under Doronics as they currently have no employment. Just as I'm sure it will not surprise them that such claims of nonsense in that classification won't change their classification of lacking employment.

doronshadmi said:
This nonsense is expressed, for example, by wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve ), as follows:

If you have a problem with how that article is worded I suggest you bring it up with them.

doronshadmi said:
Let's correct this nonsense, for example:

While all poodles or terriers are dogs (where being a dog is a cross-contexts state), no terrier is a poodle (and vice versa) (where being a terrier or a poodle is a context-dependent state).

Doron " poodles", "terriers", "dogs", "lines", "curved", "straight" and even "state" are all words and thus have meanings that are dependent upon the context they are used within.

doronshadmi said:
While all curved lines or straight lines are lines (where being a line is a cross-contexts state), no curved line is a straight line (and vice versa)(where being curved or straight is a context-dependent state).

Amazing, you have found that lines can be classified as curved or straight just as dogs can be classified as say "poodles or terriers". The truly bizarre and ridiculous part is that you somehow think this is something new, unknown or not understood by others that you tend to refer to as "visual_spatial skills" or "cross-contexts attitude" that you simply like to claim that others lack. As always Doron when your assertions aren't directly self contradictory they are simply trivial.

punshhh · Nov 3, 2011

zooterkin said:
Well, go on then, correct it.

Are you surfing in to rescue The Man from descending into the the plug hole, or just to spectate?

punshhh · Nov 3, 2011

Can a line be straight and curved at the same time?

ie, can a straight line also be curved? or can a curved line also be straight?

jsfisher · Nov 3, 2011

punshhh said:
Can a line be straight and curved at the same time?

ie, can a straight line also be curved? or can a curved line also be straight?

Why not? A straight line is simply a curve with curvature = 0 at every point.

Doron cannot get that, of course, because Doron is so wrapped up in trying to disprove definitions rather than understand them.

epix · Nov 4, 2011

jsfisher said:
Why not? A straight line is simply a curve with curvature = 0 at every point.

But according to the First Law of Doronetics, a line cannot be fully covered by points. It follows that there exist pointless sub-segments of a line segment and therefore the curvature in these pointless regions cannot be determined - unless a person masters and applies the visual_spatial_only skills to see "if it's bended" or not.

punshhh · Nov 4, 2011

jsfisher said:
Why not? A straight line is simply a curve with curvature = 0 at every point.

Is it curved?

Doron cannot get that, of course, because Doron is so wrapped up in trying to disprove definitions rather than understand them.

It appears that its you other guys who are attempting to wrap Doron up in definitions rather than consider what he's saying.

doronshadmi · Nov 4, 2011

punshhh said:
Can a line be straight and curved at the same time?

ie, can a straight line also be curved? or can a curved line also be straight?

Context-dependent-only skill(ers) can't get a Cross-context state like "belongs to AND does not belong to".

Context-dependent-only skill(ers) can't get that being a line is a Cross-contexts state among being curved or straight line, where being curved or straight is a context-dependent state of being a line.

Once again it is demonstrated that Context-dependent-only skill(ers) can't get X, unless it is classified by special (context-dependent) case of it.

Organic Mathematics is not less than Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework, which is inaccessible to Context-dependent-only skill(ers) that get everything in terms of a collection of classified closed boxes.

The irony is the attempt of Context-dependent-only skill(ers) to fit Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework to some classified Context-dependent box.

punshhh said:
It appears that its you other guys who are attempting to wrap Doron up in definitions rather than consider what he's saying.

Thank you punshhh for get it and clearly express it.

I would add that there is nothing wrong about definitions, if they are not limited only to verbal_symbolic or context-dependent frameworks.

This is exactly the novelty of Organic Mathematics, it is not less than Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework, and this long thread is a concrete example of the inability of Context-dependent-only skill(ers) to get it.

I'm sure all people will be surprised to find that classifying them as unemployed or employment people, actually define them as people.

Context-dependent-only skill(ers) are doing exactly this, they define people only by some classification (context-dependent state) of them.

Another example:

"poodles", "terriers", "dogs", "lines", "curved", "straight" and even "state" are all nothing but words for verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) and thus have meanings that are dependent only upon the context they are used within the verbal_symbolic-only classified boxes.

The Man · Nov 4, 2011

jsfisher said:
Why not? A straight line is simply a curve with curvature = 0 at every point.

Doron cannot get that, of course, because Doron is so wrapped up in trying to disprove definitions rather than understand them.

Not only that but some parts of a line can have non-zero curvature while other parts do not.

Doron insists upon considering a line as an indivisible whole, which gives him considerable problems.

punshhh said:
Is it curved?

It appears that its you other guys who are attempting to wrap Doron up in definitions rather than consider what he's saying.

We are considering what Doron is saying but what he is saying specifically and intentionally lacks definition merely so he doesn't wrap himself up in any definitions least of all his own.

punshhh said:
Are you surfing in to rescue The Man from descending into the the plug hole, or just to spectate?

Would that be a curved or un-curved plug hole?

zooterkin · Nov 4, 2011

punshhh said:
Are you surfing in to rescue The Man from descending into the the plug hole, or just to spectate?

I don't think The Man or jsfisher need rescuing by me. I haven't been here from beginning, but nor have I only just arrived. I hope you have done your homework by reading the first thread for this topic.

The Man · Nov 4, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Context-dependent-only skill(ers) can't get a Cross-context state like "belongs to AND does not belong to".

We have been over this before Doron your "belongs to AND does not belong to" is either simply self-contradictory or simply self-inconsistent. So which is it, are you being deliberately self-contradictory or just deliberately being self-inconsistent? Since you seem to attribute it to what you like to call a "Cross-context state" indicates the latter.

doronshadmi said:
Context-dependent-only skill(ers) can't get that being a line is a Cross-contexts state among being curved or straight line, where being curved or straight is a context-dependent state of being a line.

Really, then please tell us what different contexts you are using the word "line" within? Both a "curved or straight line" appear to be referring to a geometrical line within the context of curvature. Now a "straight line" in terms of comedy (a line of dialogue used to set up a joke) that would be a different context indeed. It seems, as usual, that there is simply nothing that crosses contexts in your assertion of, well, " Cross-contexts".

doronshadmi said:
Once again it is demonstrated that Context-dependent-only skill(ers) can't get X, unless it is classified by special (context-dependent) case of it.

Organic Mathematics is not less than Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework, which is inaccessible to Context-dependent-only skill(ers) that get everything in terms of a collection of classified closed boxes.

The irony is the attempt of Context-dependent-only skill(ers) to fit Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework to some classified Context-dependent box.

Thank you punshhh for get it and clearly express it.

I would add that there is nothing wrong about definitions, if they are not limited only to verbal_symbolic or context-dependent frameworks.

This is exactly the novelty of Organic Mathematics, it is not less than Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework, and this long thread is a concrete example of the inability of Context-dependent-only skill(ers) to get it.

Doron there is absolutely nothing novel about simply being self-inconsistent, we see it all the time on this forum.

doronshadmi said:
I'm sure all people will be surprised to find that classifying them as unemployed or employment people, actually define them as people.

Evidently no one would be surprised but you that the definition of people is what classifies them as, well, people.

doronshadmi said:
Context-dependent-only skill(ers) are doing exactly this, they define people only by some classification (context-dependent state) of them.

Wrong again Doron, just to give you a hint: "people" is a classification as well that is based upon some definition.

doronshadmi said:
Another example:

"poodles", "terriers", "dogs", "lines", "curved", "straight" and even "state" are all nothing but words for verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) and thus have meanings that are dependent only upon the context they are used within the verbal_symbolic-only classified boxes.

Ah so your "Cross-contexts state" "words" like "poodles", "terriers", "dogs", "lines", "curved", "straight" and even "state" have no meanings. Glad to see you have finally realized that.

doronshadmi · Nov 4, 2011

Context-dependent-only skill(ers) are unable to get X, unless it is classified by one (or more) of its possible partial expressions (only the method of verbal_symbolic classified boxes is used).

For example, they are ague that: "some parts of a line can have non-zero curvature while other parts do not."

This argument is a perfect example of how Context-dependent-only skill(ers) can't get Line, unless it is classified by one (or more) of its possible partial expressions ( only the method of verbal_symbolic classified boxes is used, so there is no wonder why they can't comprehend, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7617572&postcount=16472 ).

By being limited only to the method of verbal_symbolic classified boxes, there is no wonder why they can't get X (Line, for example) as "that belongs AND does not belong" to a given domain.

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, one easily know that, for example, a line is Cross-contexts ("belongs AND does not belong" to a given domain) AND Context-dependent (it is classified by one (or more) of its possible partial expressions).

For the past 9 years of Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework development over the internet, I am aware more and more of the inability verbal_symbolic_only context-dependent_only skill(ers) to comprehend it.

punshhh becomes aware of this inability, and he does not hesitate to argue about it.

epix · Nov 4, 2011

The Man said:
Not only that but some parts of a line can have non-zero curvature while other parts do not.

In that case the line is defined by a piecewise function.

(There is no single function that can draw a curve as well as a straight line - but only when we look at it w.r.t. cross_context_dependent_only_non-local viewing.)

doronshadmi · Nov 4, 2011

The equation of a circle is X² + Y² = R², where X,Y is the circle's center coordinate and R is the size of the circle's radius.

pi's existence is an essential property of a form that is considered as a circle.

This is a verbal_symbolic-only expression that ignores the visual-spatial fact of the existence of pi , as follows:

X² + Y² = 0 is actually a point, but by the verbal_symbolic-only expression it is still considered as a circle, even if pi does not exist.

X² + Y² = ∞ is actually a straight line, but by the verbal_symbolic-only expression it is still considered as a circle, even if pi does not exist.

Not only that this verbal_symbolic-only expression ignores pi, but in also ignores the difference between a point and a line (whether the line is curved or not).

We actually realize that X,Y,R,+,=,² verbal_symbolic-only expressions can't express visual_spatial expressions.

So we actually need verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial expressions, in order to get the complexity of a given realm, where verbal_symbolic or visual_spatial are some special expressions of it (no one of them alone is the Unity of that realm).

By unify verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial expressions http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7617572&postcount=16472 is known.

jsfisher · Nov 4, 2011

punshhh said:
Is it curved?

Yes, at least in the mathematical sense.

It appears that its you other guys who are attempting to wrap Doron up in definitions rather than consider what he's saying.

Welcome to the thread. Doron ignores definitions, and therefore he ignores meaning. He also makes up his own terminology, but he won't define anything (nor is he even consistent in his own usage). So, say what you like, but it would be nice if Doron would at least adopt the conventional vocabulary and attempt to communicate rationally instead of obfuscate then hide behind his "you can't get it" shield.

doronshadmi · Nov 4, 2011

punshhh, please pay attention of the ignorance of verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) to the following:

doronshadmi said:
I would add that there is nothing wrong about definitions, if they are not limited only to verbal_symbolic or context-dependent frameworks.

Definitions for them are known only in terms of verbal_symbolic-only skills that are closed in classified context-dependent boxes (no cross-contexts\visual_spatial methods are also considered in addition to context-dependent\verbal_symbolic methods).

punshhh, please pay attention of the ignorance of verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) to the novelty of the unified framework of cross-contexts\visual_spatial AND context-dependent\verbal_symbolic methods:

jsfisher said:
it would be nice if Doron would at least adopt the conventional vocabulary

epix · Nov 4, 2011

jsfisher said:
So, say what you like, but it would be nice if Doron would at least adopt the conventional vocabulary and attempt to communicate rationally instead of obfuscate then hide behind his "you can't get it" shield.

That would be a continuous disaster for Doron, an example of which follows:

The equation of a circle is X² + Y² = R², where X,Y is the circle's center coordinate and R is the size of the circle's radius.

According to Doronetics, X and Y are the coordinates of the circle's center.

There is naturally the other option that treats X as the independent and Y as the dependent variables:

X² + Y² = R²
Y² = R² - X²
Y = f(x) = SQR(R² - X²)

The function simply draws a semicircle. The equation for a full circle is given by the implicit form, coz there are actually two functions employed to draw a full circle. (Cartesian coordinates.)

But Doron has a different mission for X and Y. It's a monument to his total ignorance of anything which is even slightly scented with rationality and high school math, as "prophesied" in the OP.

BUT....! Considering the circle equation from the grossly_crossly_context_dependency_locality_spacial_glacial_only prospect, X and Y are indeed the coordinates of the circle's center and also are the coordinates of the centroid of every galactic dust. But only top thinkers can comprehend that.

doronshadmi · Nov 4, 2011

Some verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) play with their verbal_symbolic-only expressions, but it does not change the fact that http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7731016&postcount=98 is not understood by them ( and so is http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583 ).

Their manipulations with symbols can't get, for example, the difference between a line (whether it is curved or straight) and a point.

The Man · Nov 5, 2011

epix said:
In that case the line is defined by a piecewise function.

(There is no single function that can draw a curve as well as a straight line - but only when we look at it w.r.t. cross_context_dependent_only_non-local viewing.)

While I was aware of the latter I was not of the former, thank for the link epix.

The Man · Nov 5, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Context-dependent-only skill(ers) are unable to get X, unless it is classified by one (or more) of its possible partial expressions (only the method of verbal_symbolic classified boxes is used).

For example, they are ague that: "some parts of a line can have non-zero curvature while other parts do not."

This argument is a perfect example of how Context-dependent-only skill(ers) can't get Line, unless it is classified by one (or more) of its possible partial expressions ( only the method of verbal_symbolic classified boxes is used, so there is no wonder why they can't comprehend, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7617572&postcount=16472 ).

By being limited only to the method of verbal_symbolic classified boxes, there is no wonder why they can't get X (Line, for example) as "that belongs AND does not belong" to a given domain.

So again which is it, are you being deliberately self-contradictory or just deliberately self-inconsistent? Indications are still to the latter. Evidently it is just still you and your imaginary “Context-dependent-only skill(ers)” that haven’t got it yet. If you are having problems with your imaginary “Context-dependent-only skill(ers)” then I suggest you come up with a less troublesome fantasy.

doronshadmi said:
By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, one easily know that, for example, a line is Cross-contexts ("belongs AND does not belong" to a given domain) AND Context-dependent (it is classified by one (or more) of its possible partial expressions).

For the past 9 years of Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework development over the internet, I am aware more and more of the inability verbal_symbolic_only context-dependent_only skill(ers) to comprehend it.

punshhh becomes aware of this inability, and he does not hesitate to argue about it.

So you just don’t know or just won’t say what different contexts you are using the word "line" within when you refer to a "curved or straight line"?

Either all those words are dependent on the inferred context of geometry or you have some other context(s) you are applying or attempting to apply.

That you simply can not or will not express what that other context might be is indicative of the probability that there just isn’t any “Cross-contexts” aspect to your pervious assertion. Not to worry Doron given your history I don’t think anyone expected anything to cross contexts in your “Cross-contexts”.

doronshadmi · Nov 6, 2011

Once again.

Context-dependent-only skill(ers) are unable to get X, unless it is classified by one (or more) of its possible partial expressions (only the skills of verbal_symbolic classified boxes is used, where visual_spatial skills are ignored).

For example, being a line is Cross-contexts among context-dependent classifications like curved or straight, such that line is the unity among the context-dependent (and therefore special) classifications known as curved or straight, but Context-dependent-only skill(ers) are unable to get Cross-contexts in addition to Context-dependent, because they try to fit Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework to some classified Context-dependent box.

This subject is discussed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583 and this is my last post on this subject to Context-dependent-only skill(ers).

They are indeed closed cases of their own context-dependent (and therefore special) classifications, and get only what is defined in terms of their closed boxes.

punshhh, you did not fall into one of their closed boxes.

epix · Nov 6, 2011

The Man said:
While I was aware of the latter I was not of the former, thank for the link epix.

Since I missed this pic that shows it all,

$discontinuities%203.gif$

I included that "verbal_symbolic_only" video.

doronshadmi · Nov 6, 2011

People that define, for example, a line only in terms of its special cases (like curved or straight) are doing it exactly because they are using only their verbal_symbolic skills (they can't get the Cross-contexts factor of the definition (which enables to get a line beyond its special cases) simply because their visual_spatial skills are not used as inseparable factor of the definition).

Only by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills one enables to get also the Cross-contexts factor of a given definition.

doronshadmi · Nov 6, 2011

Let re-examine X² + Y² = R² (the circle's equation), which is a verbal_symbolic skill, to comprehend and use geometric forms.

By using this skill such that the essential property of the geometric form is a curve, X² + Y² = 0 has an infinite curvature, known as point,
where X² + Y² = ∞ has 0 curvature, known as a straight line.

So, by using only verbal_symbolic skills in order to get visual_spatial forms (where a visual_special case of a line, known as curve, wrongly used as its essential property) we realize that the verbal_symbolic skill fails to distinguish between the non-locality of a line (whether it is curved or straight) and the locality of a point.

By using the visual_spatial skills AND the verbal_symbolic skills, one easily knows that a line (whether it is curved or straight) can be at AND not at point's given location, where a point can't be but at XOR not at line's given location (it has a strict location w.r.t a given curved or straight line, where the line's given location can be also non-strict w.r.t a given point on it).

doronshadmi · Nov 6, 2011

A better version of the previous post:

Let's re-examine how X² + Y² = R² (the circle's equation), which is a verbal_symbolic skill, is used to comprehend visual_spatial forms.

By using this skill such that the essential property of the visual_spatial form is a curve, X² + Y² = 0 has an infinite curvature, known as a point, where X² + Y² = ∞ has 0 curvature, known as a straight line.

So, by using only verbal_symbolic skills in order to get visual_spatial forms (where a visual_special case of a line, known as curve, wrongly used as its essential property) we realize that the verbal_symbolic skill fails to distinguish between the non-locality of a line (whether it is curved or straight) and the locality of a point.

By using the visual_spatial skills AND the verbal_symbolic skills, one easily knows that a line (whether it is curved or straight) can be at AND not at point's given location, where a point can't be but at XOR not at line's given location (it has a strict location w.r.t a given curved or straight line, where the line's given location can be also non-strict w.r.t a given point on it).

epix · Nov 6, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Let re-examine X² + Y² = R² (the circle's equation), which is a verbal_symbolic skill, to comprehend and use geometric forms.

By using this skill such that the essential property of the geometric form is a curve, X² + Y² = 0 has an infinite curvature, known as point,
where X² + Y² = ∞ has 0 curvature, known as a straight line.

So, by using only verbal_symbolic skills in order to get visual_spatial forms (where a visual_special case of a line, known as curve, wrongly used as its essential property) we realize that the verbal_symbolic skill fails to distinguish between the non-locality of a line (whether it is curved or straight) and the locality of a point.

Doron's consistency in making wrong statements is simply amazing.

Exhibit 1: "X² + Y² = 0 has an infinite curvature, known as point."

The equation doesn't have a real solution for both X and Y. Since the equation for a circle drawn on the complex plane is different, Doron keeps on sodomizing geometric figures of various kind.

Exhibit 2: "X² + Y² = ∞ has 0 curvature, known as a straight line."

Here, two issues on display: Since he can't grasp the concept of limits, Doron treats ∞ as a number. Then he comes with the idea that the equation can actually describe a straight line. That's not possible, coz for any equation that describes a straight line, there exists a variable exponent that equals either 1 or 0. The presence of other values in the exponent result in equations that describe curves, and we know that curves are lines where at every point the curvature is different from zero.

The Man · Nov 6, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Once again.

Context-dependent-only skill(ers) are unable to get X, unless it is classified by one (or more) of its possible partial expressions (only the skills of verbal_symbolic classified boxes is used, where visual_spatial skills are ignored).

We are more than well aware, Doron, of your inclination to simply profess that you “get X” by not expressing any aspect of it at all.

doronshadmi said:
For example, being a line is Cross-contexts among context-dependent classifications like curved or straight, such that line is the unity among the context-dependent (and therefore special) classifications known as curved or straight, but Context-dependent-only skill(ers) are unable to get Cross-contexts in addition to Context-dependent, because they try to fit Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework to some classified Context-dependent box.

Once again where does the word “line” cross contexts in your purported “Cross-contexts”? Just what the heck do you think is so “special” about being “curved or straight”, particularly in reference to a line? By all means please tell us what describes a line that is neither “curved” nor “straight”? Are you deliberately or simply erroneously confusing different descriptions (”curved”, “straight” and “line”) within a singular context (geometry) as somehow crossing contexts? As expected there is simply nothing that crosses any contexts in your purported “Cross-contexts”. Just for your own edification Doron using a word or words in different contexts (crossing contexts) has been a staple of comedy for centuries.

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

Homonymic puns, another common type, arise from the exploitation of words which are both homographs and homophones. The statement "Being in politics is just like playing golf: you are trapped in one bad lie after another" puns on the two meanings of the word lie as "a deliberate untruth" and as "the position in which something rests". An adaptation of a joke repeated by Isaac Asimov gives us "Did you hear about the little moron who strained himself while running into the screen door?", playing on 'strained' as "to give much effort" and "to filter".[7] A homonymic pun may also be polysemic, in which the words must be homonymic and also possess related meanings, a condition which is often subjective. However, lexicographers define polysemes as listed under a single dictionary lemma (a unique numbered meaning) while homonyms are treated in separate lemmata.

doronshadmi said:
This subject is discussed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583 and this is my last post on this subject to Context-dependent-only skill(ers).

They are indeed closed cases of their own context-dependent (and therefore special) classifications, and get only what is defined in terms of their closed boxes.

punshhh, you did not fall into one of their closed boxes.

Once again if your fantasy “skill(ers)” give you trouble I would recommend you having fantasies that are more appealing to you. Though it would seem that simply imagining most others as somehow deficient is as appealing to you, if not more so, as anything else.

jsfisher · Nov 7, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Let re-examine X² + Y² = R² (the circle's equation)...

No, it's not. It only applies to circles centered at the origin. There are considerably more circles on the cartesian plane than that.

where X² + Y² = ∞ has 0 curvature, known as a straight line.

Even if we were to give your silly expression some sort of reasonable interpretation, it still wouldn't be an equation for any line, straight or otherwise.

Once again, Doron, with you unique skills, you get everything wrong.

epix · Nov 7, 2011

jsfisher said:
Even if we were to give your silly expression some sort of reasonable interpretation, it still wouldn't be an equation for any line, straight or otherwise.

Doron won't stop believing that if the length of the radius of a circle keeps getting longer without bound (or is heading toward infinity), the curvature of the circumference wouldn't respond in kind and wouldn't be heading toward its limit which is zero. That's very clear by his clumsy equation and comment

where X^2 + Y^2 = ∞ has 0 curvature, known as a straight line.

He believes that if R^2 "equals" infinity, then both end-points of the drawn semi-circle with the center point at [0,0] will never intersect the X axis. This is a classic example of wrong premise --> wrong conclusion. There is no point in proving the wrongness, coz Doron either can't grasp the concept of limits and infinity involved in the premise no matter what, or he deliberately rejects it in order to bathe in his mathematical phantasmagoria. I would bet on the former horse though leaving the effect of the latter to the necessity.

doronshadmi · Nov 7, 2011

Let us take for example the following diagram:

$discontinuities%203.gif$

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, one knows that a line is the essential (cross-context) form of its spacial (context-dependent) curved or straight expressions.

So the line is the "host" (non-local) state w.r.t its "hosted" (local) states, and this "host"\"hosted" linkage is actually the essence of the mathematical science, which is not less than a one comprehensive Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework, known by actually using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) can't get ∞ as a number, exactly because their visual_spatial skills are not used in additions to their verbal_symbolic skills (they get Number only in terms of strict values that are defined by verbal_symbolic-only skills).

Also using arguments like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pun is a concrete example of the inability of verbal_symbolic skill(ers) to use also their visual_spatial skills as a one comprehensive framework.

It has to stressed that my argument about forcing Curvature as an essential property of a line by verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers), holds whether X² + Y² = R² or (X-a)² + (Y-b)² = R² verbal_symbolic expressions are used.

jsfisher · Nov 7, 2011

doronshadmi said:
It has to stressed that my argument about forcing Curvature as an essential property of a line by verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers)....

The only person "forcing curvature" is you, Doron.

Be that as it may, I see you are still trying to disprove definitions. Good luck with that.

epix · Nov 8, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Also using arguments like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pun is a concrete example of the inability of verbal_symbolic skill(ers) to use also their visual_spatial skills as a one comprehensive framework.

Wiki " "

In computing, esoteric programming languages (EPLs) are based in or contain what may be regarded as conceptual puns, as they typically misuse common programming concepts in ways which are absurd, or functionally useless. Some EPL puns may be obvious, such as in the usage of text images, while other puns are highly conceptual and understandable to experts only.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bird_converted_to_ASCII_characters.png <-----------------

just another fall from grace
zipping through a verbal_space
like icarus' bogged down flight
nothing ever gets done right

doronshadmi · Nov 8, 2011

Infinite is not in finite.

Finite is in finite.

In this case the pun is the difference between the verbal (sound) aspect and the symbolic aspect.

punshhh · Nov 8, 2011

epix said:
Wiki " "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bird_converted_to_ASCII_characters.png <-----------------

just another fall from grace
zipping through a verbal_space
like icarus' bogged down flight
nothing ever gets done right

Are you dissecting my name now?

Puns...shhh.

punshhh · Nov 8, 2011

The Man said:
Would that be a curved or un-curved plug hole?

Its all about spinning, the greater the curvature the faster the spin.

When it reaches a point you will be spinning at an infinite rate.

punshhh · Nov 8, 2011

Lets put the maths to one side now and use pure thought.

Lets say we have an infinitely large circle, is the line around the edge of the circle curved or straight?

Deeper than primes - Continuation

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Philosopher

Philosopher

ETcorngods survivor

Banned

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Unbanned zombie poster

ETcorngods survivor

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher