Deeper than primes - Continuation

Here is an example of verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial pun:



It was taken from http://www-e.openu.ac.il/geninfor/openletter/ol18/pages12.pdf which researches brian's Glogal (non-local) Local linkage.

By being aware of the non-locality of a line with respect to some point on it, it can be described as “curved” AND “straight” with respect to the point's domain, as shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7737500&postcount=114.

By understanding this fact it is realized that non-locality is the primary property of a line, where being “curved” OR “straight” is definitely secondary property of it.

Since verbal-only skill(ers) can't get the non-local primary property of a line (which can't be done without using also visual_spatial skills), they are wrongly defines a line by some secondary property of it (curvature, for example).

punshhh said:

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?

Click to expand...

(a) Where would this circle be?
(b) Why do you assume curved and straight are mutually exclusive?

punshhh said:

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?

Click to expand...

Circles possess certain properties which they retain regardless of the their sizes. One of them is that to any point that lies on the circumference, a tangent line can be drawn. Since tangent line cannot be drawn to a straight line, the circumference of the circle must be always a curve for any radius larger than zero.

Now let's the "pure thought" deliver some hint. How do you draw one straight line? Here is an example: You make an initial point and drag your pencil in one direction - toward the east, for example. When you stop, one straight line is drawn. But when you start changing the direction of the straight line in the orthogonal manner (left, right, up, down), you draw a multitude of straight lines. Depending on you intention, the result may look like this:



Now think about it... "Is the line around the edge of the circle curved or straight?"

(Which one do you mean? There are many.)

doronshadmi said:

Since verbal-only skill(ers) can't get the non-local primary property of a line (which can't be done without using also visual_spatial skills), they are wrongly defines a line by some secondary property of it (curvature, for example).

Click to expand...

Doron continuously takes issues with "traditional mathematics," and so it's safe to assume who the "verbal-only skill(ers)" may be.

Straight line:

"That which lies evenly between its extreme points."
~ Euclid ~

"The shortest line between two points."
~ Chauvenet ~

"A line which has the same direction through its whole length."
~ Newcomb ~

No mentioning of any curvature...

Doronetics and hostile-to-religion atheism were born in the same sewer where bubonic_plague_carrying_rats bit off the umbilical cords. Both disorders share the same pulpit to ooze their catechism from.

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) can get things only if they are packed in context-dependent frameworks.

From these fragmented boxes they can't comprehend the actuality of a one unified Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework, where Ethics AND Logic\Technological skills are organs of a one coherent organism.

In terms of Mathematics, the can't comprehend the difference between primary and secondary properties of a given form.

For example, if the considered form is a line, they get it only by its secondary properties, which are being curved OR straight.

By using also Cross-contexts knowledge of a line, its primary non-local property among its curved AND straight secondary properties (which are local w.r.t to the primary non-local property) is known, exactly as demonstrated, for example, by the following diagram:



The primary non-local property of a line w.r.t its curved AND straight secondary properties, is easily known, if one uses verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) get Ethics only if it is expressed by context-dependent frameworks, exactly as observed by the local-only view of different religions, cultures etc.

A one unified Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework, where Ethics AND Logic\Technological skills are organs of a one coherent realm, is exactly the framework that is developed beyond the current Context-dependent-only local-only view of different religions, cultures, logical\technological skills, etc.

Being curved or straight is mutually exclusive (local and secondary property) w.r.t the non-local primary property of a form like a line, where by the non-local primary property of a line can be curved AND straight.

The following diagram clearly demonstrates the primary\secondary properties as a one comprehensive framework:

epix said:

Circles possess certain properties which they retain regardless of the their sizes. One of them is that to any point that lies on the circumference, a tangent line can be drawn. Since tangent line cannot be drawn to a straight line, the circumference of the circle must be always a curve for any radius larger than zero.

Now let's the "pure thought" deliver some hint. How do you draw one straight line? Here is an example: You make an initial point and drag your pencil in one direction - toward the east, for example. When you stop, one straight line is drawn. But when you start changing the direction of the straight line in the orthogonal manner (left, right, up, down), you draw a multitude of straight lines. Depending on you intention, the result may look like this:

[qimg]http://ciks.cbt.nist.gov/garbocz/paper32/fig1.gif[/qimg]

Now think about it... "Is the line around the edge of the circle curved or straight?"

(Which one do you mean? There are many.)

Click to expand...

Thankyou Epix,
So the line around the edge of a circle is an infinite number of infinitely short straight lines arranged as a zigzag. Or perhaps an infinite number of tangents/facets?

Is this also the case for an infinitely large circle?

jsfisher said:

(a) Where would this circle be?
(b) Why do you assume curved and straight are mutually exclusive?

Click to expand...

(a) in a hypothetical unlimited space, 2 or 3 dimensions.

(b) one is straight and the other is curved, unless you can explain how one can be the other?

punshhh said:

Thankyou Epix,
So the line around the edge of a circle is an infinite number of infinitely short straight lines arranged as a zigzag. Or perhaps an infinite number of tangents/facets?

Is this also the case for an infinitely large circle?

Click to expand...

punshhh, please be aware of the fact that if the circumference has zigzag shape, pi is not an invariant value, or in other words, the considered form is not a circle.

punshhh said:

(a) in a hypothetical unlimited space, 2 or 3 dimensions.

Click to expand...

Yes, but where? Let's say for the sake of discussion the circle's center is at the origin. Now, can you tell me where any point on the circle is located? If you'd prefer, put the center somewhere else of your choosing, then locate any point on the circle.

(b) one is straight and the other is curved, unless you can explain how one can be the other?

Click to expand...

You are substituting colloquial meanings of words for the more precise meanings used in Mathematics. That is acceptable to a point, because it can certainly facilitate communication were the nit-picky details and qualifications are understood. On the other hand, when it is used as Doron does, to confuse and obfuscate the nit-picky details and qualifications -- in effect to disprove a definition -- then it is totally unacceptable.

In Mathematics, straight is a special case of curved, not an alternative. Curves include the straight lines.

Doron's disagreement with this is strictly to just disagree; he has no salient point.

punshhh said:

Thankyou Epix,
So the line around the edge of a circle is an infinite number of infinitely short straight lines arranged as a zigzag. Or perhaps an infinite number of tangents/facets?

Is this also the case for an infinitely large circle?

Click to expand...

Essentially yes. It is the task that defines an objects. Calculus sees curves as a collection of straight lines. In other words, any curve segment is made of infinitely many straight lines, like in this semicircle:



You can see now that it's easy to compute the area of the semicircle by computing the area of each rectangle and by adding them together - there are infinitely many of them though, but the technique of integration can handle the task:

punshhh said:

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.

Click to expand...

If by spinning you mean angular velocity, then a smaller diameter disc (more curved) would have to have a greater angular speed (RPM) to obtain the same tangential speed as a larger diameter (less curved) disc. What “point” “will be spinning at an infinite rate” and when do you ’reach’ it?

If by spinning you mean twisting words and phrases to suit ones needs then I seriously doubt Doron could be spinning any faster.

By verbal_symbolic-only Mathematics, secondary properties like straight or curved block the ability to get the primary non-local property of, for example, a line.

More details about this fine subject are found in:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7744169&postcount=126

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7744317&postcount=127

punshhh, verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) can offer you only "packed in boxes" Mathematics, that has no ability to get things also beyond their context-dependent restrictions.

More you communicate with them more you realize how they simply can't get Mathematics in terms of verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills as a one comprehensive framework.

The Man said:

If by spinning you mean angular velocity, then a smaller diameter disc (more curved) would have to have a greater angular speed (RPM) to obtain the same tangential speed as a larger diameter (less curved) disc. What “point” “will be spinning at an infinite rate” and when do you ’reach’ it?

Click to expand...

A true point and you can't reach it. Can you imaging a spin of infinite rate?
Can it be represented mathematically?

punshhh said:

A true point and you can't reach it. Can you imaging a spin of infinite rate?
Can it be represented mathematically?

Click to expand...

It can be imagined physically using Einstein's theory of relativity. In other words, a physical object cannot exceed the speed of light - there is no source of energy to make it happen. So your scenario wouldn't materialize.

In purely abstract, non-physical sense, anything can be infinitely accelerating, even a bowl of mashed potatoes.

doronshadmi said:

punshhh, verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) can offer you only "packed in boxes" Mathematics, that has no ability to get things also beyond their context-dependent restrictions.

More you communicate with them more you realize how they simply can't get Mathematics in terms of verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills as a one comprehensive framework.

Click to expand...

Punshhh, Doron has only two pics of his own that he keeps exhibiting (Doronian side-orders). Otherwise his sermon is the "verbal_symbolic_only" style that he finds alone insufficient to understand the depths of mathematics doronized beyond recognition.

punshhh said:

A true point and you can't reach it. Can you imaging a spin of infinite rate?
Can it be represented mathematically?

Click to expand...

"A true point"? Well a mathematical point has no dimensions (thus no spinning) itself. A spin rate (as angular change per unit time) requires two dimensions, angle and time. Can you imagine a spin of zero rate? It can be represented mathematically; 0 change in angle (since a point has no angle, circumference, diameter or any other dimensional attribute itself), we can even represent that lack of anglular change for a mathematical point in radians (a dimensionless quantity), over X seconds (wait as long as you want the non-dimensionality of a mathematical point wont change), gives a rate of 0 radians /X seconds =0 radians/ second. The only real difference is that we are now considering a different point in time as time is a dimension, so the point of contention would still be back at that original time no matter how much one might like to just “spin” it into the future.

The Man said:

"A true point"? Well a mathematical point has no dimensions (thus no spinning) itself. A spin rate (as angular change per unit time) requires two dimensions, angle and time. Can you imagine a spin of zero rate? It can be represented mathematically; 0 change in angle (since a point has no angle, circumference, diameter or any other dimensional attribute itself), we can even represent that lack of anglular change for a mathematical point in radians (a dimensionless quantity), over X seconds (wait as long as you want the non-dimensionality of a mathematical point wont change), gives a rate of 0 radians /X seconds =0 radians/ second. The only real difference is that we are now considering a different point in time as time is a dimension, so the point of contention would still be back at that original time no matter how much one might like to just “spin” it into the future.

Click to expand...

Punshhh lives in rural England and that affects his questions regarding objects that move "infinitely fast." People who live on the farm sometimes share their experience with others regarding the phenomenon where they moved infinitely fast when the friction forces didn't work for them and the ladder that they must often climb started to slip beneath them.

A ladder leans against a wall. It begins to slide, the top end moving down the wall and the bottom end across the floor away from the wall.

Such a scenario is the basis for a variety of calculus problems. For example, if the ladder's bottom end moves away from the wall at a constant speed, what is the velocity of the top of the ladder at any given instant? Curiously, the mathematical model indicates that the velocity of the top approaches infinity when the ladder hits the floor.

Click to expand...

Aaah, those symbolic_verbal_only skill(ers)! They can't get anything right.

http://www.maa.org/mathtourist/mathtourist_11_11_08.html

epix said:

Punshhh lives in rural England and that affects his questions regarding objects that move "infinitely fast." People who live on the farm sometimes share their experience with others regarding the phenomenon where they moved infinitely fast when the friction forces didn't work for them and the ladder that they must often climb started to slip beneath them.

Aaah, those symbolic_verbal_only skill(ers)! They can't get anything right.

http://www.maa.org/mathtourist/mathtourist_11_11_08.html

Click to expand...

Well, I live in rural New York, though I did have to study mechanics of materials (compression, elongation, stress, strain and such physical attributes that you allude to) before I was employed as a mechanical engineer.

By using abstraction, an infinite curvature has exactly 0-dimesional space, where 0-dimensional space can be at one and only one location w.r.t a give domain.

This is not the case about 1-demensional space (weather it is curved or straight), because by define it as an element (an atom) w.r.t a given domain like 0-dimnsional space, it can be at AND not at the given 0-dimnsional space location (where the given 0-dimnsional space is also an atom).

I used the words "host" (for the relation of 1-demensional space w.r.t a given 0-dimnsional space) and "hosted" (for the relation of 0-demensional space w.r.t a given 1-dimnsional space) in order to clarify that these dimensions are verbally_symbolically defined as non-local\local w.r.t each other, but they are not made of each other visually_spatially since they are elements (atoms).

So, the "host" AND "hosted" notion actually known only by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills in order to really define the relations among different dimensional spaces.

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers)' reasoning can't get the invariance of the atomic state of the relations among different dimensional spaces.

Furthermore, they force their context-dependent-only "packed in boxes" reasoning on the entire population, at least for the past 500 years.

One of the devastating results of context-dependent-only "packed in boxes" reasoning is its built-in inability to grasp and develop a unified comprehensive and balanced framework for our ethical and logical\technological skills.

The results of this inability are daily seen by the race after mass destruction weapon, exactly because of the non-unified and imbalanced framework among our ethical and logical\technological skills.

Take, for example, the Iran case.

If it is fulfilled, then you can say good-bye to the rest of the life-supporting technological results of the past 5000 years.

Another devastating results are the technological developments, winch harm planet Earth's Ecosystem, exactly because these technologies are based on imbalanced minds, which can't comprehend the development of the unified framework among our ethical and logical\technological skills, which can't be achieved without using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills as a one comprehensive framework.

After 9 years of discussion over the internet, it is clear that the current community of mathematicians uses almost only verbal_symbolic skills and as a result they can't comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7676943&postcount=5 or this post.

Without Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework development, we are going to be impacted very quickly by the imbalanced framework that was developed for the past 5000 years mostly by verbal_symbolic_only skill(ers) (this imbalanced development was accelerated for the past 500 years).

The Man said:

Well, I live in rural New York, though I did have to study mechanics of materials (compression, elongation, stress, strain and such physical attributes that you allude to) before I was employed as a mechanical engineer.

Click to expand...

That's why it's unlikely that the ladder slips under you.

doronshadmi said:

By using abstraction, an infinite curvature has exactly 0-dimesional space, where 0-dimensional space can be at one and only one location w.r.t a give domain.

Click to expand...

Abstraction is of no use here. One really needs to wait for the autopsy to learn in what degree of mental decomposition the above idea actually is. "...An infinite curvature has exactly 0-dime[n]sional space..."

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) do not have the needed skills in order to realize that Non-locality and Locality are the primary properties among mathematical or physical dimensional spaces, exactly because they wrongly get these dimensional spaces by their secondary properties.

For example, they try to define mathematical or physical dimensional spaces in terms of secondary property like curvature.

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, as done by the following diagram:



one really understands that a 1-dimesional space is non-local w.r.t any given curvature's degree along it, including infinite curvature, known as 0-dimesional space (in this example, 1-dimensional space is at AND not at w.r.t to any curvature degree along it, or in other words, Non-locality is a primary property w.r.t to curvature's property).

Again, by using an example used by set theory, no collection of different "hosted" curvatures reaches the power of the continuum (the non-locality) of a given "host" mathematical or physical space, such that {|(collection of all possible curvatures)|} < |{(collection of all possible curvatures)}|, as explained in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7665090&postcount=16566 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7666664&postcount=16568 (and can't be known by verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers)).

This understanding is generalized to all possible mathematical or physical dimensional spaces, such that all dimensional spaces > 0 are non-local w.r.t all dimensional spaces that are smaller than them AND all smaller dimensional spaces are local w.r.t these greater dimensional spaces, no matter what curvature degree is considered among all smaller and greater dimensional spaces, exactly because curvature degree is a secondary property among mathematical or physical dimensional spaces (again, this fact is known only by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, something that verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) can't do).

doronshadmi said:

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, as done by the following diagram:

[qimg]http://www.math.brown.edu/help/discontinuities%203.gif[/qimg]

one really understands that a 1-dimesional space is non-local w.r.t any given curvature's degree along it, including infinite curvature, known as 0-dimesional space (in this example, 1-dimensional space is at AND not at w.r.t to any curvature degree along it, or in other words, Non-locality is a primary property w.r.t to curvature's property).

Click to expand...

In case someone may wonder what the graph is actually all about, here is a brief explanation of the broad kind: By monitoring the behavior of some object under Condition A, we receive data. When we organize the data, they form a curve. When Condition A is no longer in effect, the behavior of the object is theorized to change and indeed it is so, as the data organization results in the straight line. What draws both lines are functions:

Condition A ~ "function that draws a curve"
Condition not A ~ "function that draws a straight line"

Since there is only one object displaying certain property under two different conditions - the property we are interested about - there is also only one function, but divided into two parts. Such a function f(x) is called "piecewise function." This type of function can have many parts depending on the number of conditions under which the studied object behaves. Here is another example of piecewise function y:



You can use piecewise function to monitor the speed of a car over certain distances. For example, when a car accelerates to a certain speed and then keeps going at that constant speed, the result is a curve and a straight line, coz curves describe acceleration of an object, whereas straight lines describe the speed of an object moving at a constant speed.

By understating the "host"\"hosted" principle, one understands that given any mathematical or physical space, no collection of "hosted" spaces is the "host" space.

For example, a given function is the "host" space of the collection of all the possible "hosted" results, where being "host" means that the function is at AND not at the domain of all possible results, exactly because it is an invariant rule w.r.t to all the possible results.

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) get only the collection of all possible results but they don't understand the invariant and non-local property of the rule, which is the "host" space of all the "hosted" results, such that being "host" space means that it is defined but not made of the "hosted" spaces (the collections of particular results).

In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7754750&postcount=146 , for example, the collection of all natural numbers is not the "host" class, where the "host" class is at AND beyond all natural numbers, otherwise the natural numbers (the "hosted" objects) are not gathered by a common rule.

The "host" class is at the domain of the "hosted" objects, such that the terms "host" and "hosted" are defined w.r.t each other AND it is also not at the domain of the "hosted" objects, because it is not made of the "hosted" objects (for example: 1-dimensional space is not made of 0-dimensional spaces, yet it is defined as the "host" space w.r.t 0-dimensional spaces, where 0-dimenrsional spaces are defined as "hosted" spaces w.r.t 1-dimensional space).

In terms of Cardinality aleph-0 is related but also beyond all natural numbers (and so is the case with all transfinite cardinals w.r.t to the classified objects).

Cantor missed the notion of the non-locality of transfinite cardinality, exactly because he used verbal_symbolic-only skills in order to get them.

doronshadmi said:

Cantor missed the notion of the non-locality of transfinite cardinality, exactly because he used verbal_symbolic-only skills in order to get them.

Click to expand...

Such an odd and baseless thing for Doron to claim. But, then again, most of what Doron has to say is odd and baseless.

Cantor's concepts still work so he must have done something right. Doron's, not so much, and it is reasonably certain he has yet to do anything right.

doronshadmi said:

Cantor missed the notion of the non-locality of transfinite cardinality, exactly because he used verbal_symbolic-only skills in order to get them.

Click to expand...

The agreement between plurals

Cantor missed the notion of the non-locality of transfinite cardinality, exactly because he used verbal_symbolic-only skills in order to get them.

Click to expand...

suggests that Cantor used verbal_symbolic-only skills in order to get verbal_symbolic-only skills.

Note that the term "non-locality of transfinite cardinality" is rendered in its verbal_only form, like any other Doron's idea that cannot be meaningfully visualized without invoking the work of Hieronymus Bosh.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wafnR4B40ak/TNISO9yXukI/AAAAAAAACMU/3_XERNexeUk/s1600/Hieronymus+Bosch.jpg

doronshadmi said:

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) do not have the needed skills in order to realize that Non-locality and Locality are the primary properties among mathematical or physical dimensional spaces, exactly because they wrongly get these dimensional spaces by their secondary properties.

Click to expand...

So the “primary properties among mathematical or physical dimensional spaces” aren’t their, well, dimensionality but just some deliberately ill defined “Non-locality and Locality” that you also deliberately (later in your post) associate directly with their dimensionality? You continue to amaze only yourself Doron.

doronshadmi said:

For example, they try to define mathematical or physical dimensional spaces in terms of secondary property like curvature.

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, as done by the following diagram:

[qimg]http://www.math.brown.edu/help/discontinuities%203.gif[/qimg]

one really understands that a 1-dimesional space is non-local w.r.t any given curvature's degree along it, including infinite curvature, known as 0-dimesional space (in this example, 1-dimensional space is at AND not at w.r.t to any curvature degree along it, or in other words, Non-locality is a primary property w.r.t to curvature's property).

Click to expand...

Wait, “1-dimesional space is non-local w.r.t any given curvature's degree along it”, so your “1-dimesional space” is “non-local w.r.t” to itself, since that is what has the curvature? “Non-locality is a primary property w.r.t to curvature's property”? So your “0-dimesional space” is “non-local w.r.t” to itself as you use what you call “infinite curvature” as the defining attribute. Can you ever even just agree with yourself Doron? Again until you can no one can ever possibly agree with you. Please tell use what exactly has “infinite curvature” in your “0-dimesional space”.

doronshadmi said:

Again, by using an example used by set theory, no collection of different "hosted" curvatures reaches the power of the continuum (the non-locality) of a given "host" mathematical or physical space, such that {|(collection of all possible curvatures)|} < |{(collection of all possible curvatures)}|, as explained in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7665090&postcount=16566 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7666664&postcount=16568 (and can't be known by verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers)).

Click to expand...

What “example used by set theory” makes such claims?

doronshadmi said:

This understanding is generalized to all possible mathematical or physical dimensional spaces, such that all dimensional spaces > 0 are non-local w.r.t all dimensional spaces that are smaller than them AND all smaller dimensional spaces are local w.r.t these greater dimensional spaces, no matter what curvature degree is considered among all smaller and greater dimensional spaces, exactly because curvature degree is a secondary property among mathematical or physical dimensional spaces (again, this fact is known only by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills, something that verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) can't do).

Click to expand...

And now here we come full circle with you now directly linking your “non-local” and “local” to the dimensionality of your “dimensional spaces”. Of course with your assertions before of your “1-dimesional space is non-local wrt any given curvature’s degree along it,” and your “infinite curvature, known as 0-dimesional space”. Your “curvature” is also thrown into the deliberately ill defined, self-contradictory and jumbled up mix. If you’re as concerned about the state of the world and nuclear proliferation as you allude to before, then stop wasting your time with this self-contradictory nonsense, learn something, get involved and make a difference instead of just pretending that more nonsense is what such a situation would require.

The Man said:

So the “primary properties among mathematical or physical dimensional spaces” aren’t their, well, dimensionality but just some deliberately ill defined “Non-locality and Locality” that you also deliberately (later in your post) associate directly with their dimensionality? You continue to amaze only yourself Doron.

Click to expand...

Doron is just lazy to explain the concept of the locality using both types of skills that basically relate to the verbal AND the visual rendering. Take for example the Newton Laws. You can translate the formulas using a descriptive language, but if you see the actual demonstration at the same time, then everything can be easily understood. But as far as the locality is concerned, there is a need for a third element that would enter the explaining: verbal AND visual AND host (the concept that Doron is now very particular to). Not everyone can demonstrate the locality w.r.t. Newton Laws though. In the following video - it's in the middle of the page - the locality, which has fascinated Doron and very likely interested even Isaac Newton, appears at 12:30 of the video. Since the locality is superbly hosted, no other question should follow.
http://www.ceskatelevize.cz/porady/10319921345-rande-s-fyzikou/211563230150003-newtonovy-zakony/

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) get the phrase “1-dimesional space is non-local w.r.t any given curvature's degree along it” as if 1-dimesional space is non-local w.r.t itself, exactly because they get 1-dimesional space in terms of collection of particular (and therefore limited domains of) curvatures (again, it has to be stressed that dimensional spaces are defined but not made of each other, which is a fact that verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) can't comprehend).

But all curvatures have their own values, where 1-dimesional space is not any particular value (it is at AND not at any particular curvature along it, whether this curvature is finite or not).

In other words, it is non-local w.r.t the property of curvature, where each given curvature is some local case w.r.t 1-dimesional space.

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) claim that they can define two distinct infinite curvatures without any finite curvature between them.

By avoiding the finite curvature between the infinite curvatures, they miss the non-locality of the 1-dimesional space w.r.t the different curvatures along it, which is at AND not at the domain of any particular curvature, where each particular curvature (finite or not) is local w.r.t it.

Once again, Non-locality and Locality are defined by each other, but they are not made of each other exactly as 1-dimensioal space is not made of the particular (and therefore limited domains of) curvatures along it.

Furthermore, the terms "host" and "hosted" is used in order to clarify that different given spaces are defined but not made of each other.

If one takes Curvature as the primary property of dimensional spaces, then one actually claims that, for example, 0-curvature is made of a collection of infinitely many infinite curvatures, which is a wrong notion.

doronshadmi said:

If one takes Curvature as the primary property of dimensional spaces, then one actually claims that, for example, 0-curvature is made of a collection of infinitely many infinite curvatures, which is a wrong notion.

Click to expand...

If one takes Curvature as the primary property of dimensional spaces, then he won't be able to use this primary property to locate the primary components of constructions called points. That's why one doesn't take Curvature as the primary property of dimensional spaces and choses something else instead:

In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it.

Click to expand...

The second reason why one doesn't take Curvature as the primary property of dimensional spaces is that such a choice lacks any meaning when visualized, as opposed to the common sense definition of dimension.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dimension_levels.svg (No pun intended with the in the link. It's a part of ':' followed by D[imension]).

Once again, we see that Doron's inventions can't become a feast for the "visual_spacial skill(ers)." Not a complete loss though, coz the blah_blah_blah_blah_only skill(ers) will be fed.

doronshadmi said:

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) get the phrase “1-dimesional space is non-local w.r.t any given curvature's degree along it” as if 1-dimesional space is non-local w.r.t itself, exactly because they get 1-dimesional space in terms of collection of particular (and therefore limited domains of) curvatures (again, it has to be stressed that dimensional spaces are defined but not made of each other, which is a fact that verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) can't comprehend).

Click to expand...

What “limited domains of) curvatures” are you restricting your fantasy “Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers)” to? Again if for some reason you just don’t like the limits you place on your own fantasies, then you should strive to at least have better fantasies.

doronshadmi said:

But all curvatures have their own values, where 1-dimesional space is not any particular value (it is at AND not at any particular curvature along it, whether this curvature is finite or not).

Click to expand...

As other “dimesional space”s can have zero and/or non-zero curvature your “1-dimesional space” is a particular value of “dimesional space”s that can have zero and/or non-zero curvature. Oh and your “straight line” is a “1-dimesional space” with a very “particular value” of curvature, 0.

doronshadmi said:

In other words, it is non-local w.r.t the property of curvature, where each given curvature is some local case w.r.t 1-dimesional space.

Click to expand...

Again the curvature of a line is specifically a property of that line so you just claim your “line” is “non-local w.r.t” to itself.

doronshadmi said:

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) claim that they can define two distinct infinite curvatures without any finite curvature between them.

By avoiding the finite curvature between the infinite curvatures, they miss the non-locality of the 1-dimesional space w.r.t the different curvatures along it, which is at AND not at the domain of any particular curvature, where each particular curvature (finite or not) is local w.r.t it.

Click to expand...

Again if you have problems with your fantasy “Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers)” you should probably try to have fantasies that are less problematic for you.

doronshadmi said:

Once again, Non-locality and Locality are defined by each other, but they are not made of each other exactly as 1-dimensioal space is not made of the particular (and therefore limited domains of) curvatures along it.

Click to expand...

As already noted many times before that just makes your purported “Non-locality and Locality” ‘definitions’ circular.

doronshadmi said:

Furthermore, the terms "host" and "hosted" is used in order to clarify that different given spaces are defined but not made of each other.

If one takes Curvature as the primary property of dimensional spaces, then one actually claims that, for example, 0-curvature is made of a collection of infinitely many infinite curvatures, which is a wrong notion.

Click to expand...

No one but you has made such a claim, too bad for you then.

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) do not get their own phrases.

For example let's take the phrase:

"Again the curvature of a line is specifically a property of that line"

This phrase actually means that the property of curvature is context dependent ("specifically a property of that line"), such that no measured curvature is the one and only one possible curvature of the 1-dimesional space.

In other words, the 1-dimensional space is the "host" (cross-contexts) w.r.t all infinitely many particular (specifically) "hosted" (context-dependent) curvatures along it.

Furthermore, being dimensional space is cross-contexts w.r.t to all particular (and therefore context-dependent) dimensional spaces, such that no particular (specifically) dimensional space is, by definition, the one and only one possible dimensional space.

So is the case about Set, it is cross-contexts w.r.t to all classified (and therefore context-dependent cases) where, for example, being empty set or non-empty are particular (specifically) context-dependent w.r.t to the cross-contexts concept of Set.

In other words, any given framework (no matter what concept is used) is not less than Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent.

The terms "host" and "hosted" is used in order to clarify that different given mathematical or physical spaces are defined but not made of each other, such that being "host" is cross-contexts or non-local w.r.t being "hosted", where being "hosted" is context-dependent or local (specifically) w.r.t being "host".

A phrase like:" “1-dimesional space” is a particular value of “dimesional space”s that can have zero and/or non-zero curvature." clreary demostrate that AND among different curvatures is possible exactly becuse 1-dimesional is cross-context w.r.t the different curvatures along it.

Varbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) simply can't get it.

doronshadmi said:

A phrase like:" “1-dimesional space” is a particular value of “dimesional space”s that can have zero and/or non-zero curvature." clreary demostrate that AND among different curvatures is possible exactly becuse 1-dimesional is cross-context w.r.t the different curvatures along it.

Varbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) simply can't get it.

Click to expand...

Well, they can do something that really matters - something that Doron can't do: they can actually compute the curvature of the line. And that, as opposed to Doronetics, is the primary object of not only the topic but the whole of mathematics.

No matter how many times Cross-context AND Context-dependent framework is introduced to Context-dependent-only skill(er), he\she will get only by its Context-dependent accept.

Because of this limitation they can't comprehend non-local numbers like 0.111...₂ or calculation like 0.111...₂ + 0.000...1₂ = 1

Some verbal_symbolic-only skill(er) claims: "“1-dimesional space” is a particular value of “dimesional space”"

He is right, 1-dimesional space is some particular (context-dependent or local) form of the Cross-contexts concept of Dimensional space w.r.t its all particular (context-dependent or local) forms.

Once again Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent holds, but Context-dependent-only skill(ers) get only its Context-dependent accept.

doronshadmi said:

Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) do not get their own phrases.

For example let's take the phrase:

"Again the curvature of a line is specifically a property of that line"

This phrase actually means that the property of curvature is context dependent ("specifically a property of that line"), such that no measured curvature is the one and only one possible curvature of the 1-dimesional space.

In other words, the 1-dimensional space is the "host" (cross-contexts) w.r.t all infinitely many particular (specifically) "hosted" (context-dependent) curvatures along it.

Furthermore, being dimensional space is cross-contexts w.r.t to all particular (and therefore context-dependent) dimensional spaces, such that no particular (specifically) dimensional space is, by definition, the one and only one possible dimensional space.

So is the case about Set, it is cross-contexts w.r.t to all classified (and therefore context-dependent cases) where, for example, being empty set or non-empty are particular (specifically) context-dependent w.r.t to the cross-contexts concept of Set.

In other words, any given framework (no matter what concept is used) is not less than Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent.

The terms "host" and "hosted" is used in order to clarify that different given mathematical or physical spaces are defined but not made of each other, such that being "host" is cross-contexts or non-local w.r.t being "hosted", where being "hosted" is context-dependent or local (specifically) w.r.t being "host".

Click to expand...

So you still just don’t (or just don’t want to) understand context. Whatever your fantasy “Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers)” may or may not get, the statement “Again the curvature of a line is specifically a property of that line" is explicit. By all means, please, tell us what other curvatures (other than 0) your “straight line” has?


So which is it Doron, your “straight line” is not entirely straight (given your history you claiming your “straight line” does not involve being straight wouldn’t surprise anyone) or your claim that “the property of curvature is context dependent ("specifically a property of that line"), such that no measured curvature is the one and only one possible curvature of the 1-dimesional space.” is just nonsensical gibberish that you don’t even agree with?


If all this blather is just intended to assert that different lines can have different curvatures then once again you simply belabor the trivial just as different lines can have the same curvature.