Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
To those who do not get it (yet) memory is a natural property of our realm, and it is always beyond the remembered, exactly as the outer "{" "}" is always beyond the included elements.
Click to expand...

But memory is not a natural property of our realm. You haven't even defined what our realm is. The {} are used to notate sets. For example, if I have a set of sets that have at least one example of words that don't have the letter q followed buy the letter u, I can have {{Iran, Iraq},{qaid, cheiftan, warlord}, {qat, stem, pollen, roots}} .
 
Little 10 Toes said:
But memory is not a natural property of our realm. You haven't even defined what our realm is. The {} are used to notate sets. For example, if I have a set of sets that have at least one example of words that don't have the letter q followed buy the letter u, I can have {{Iran, Iraq},{qaid, cheiftan, warlord}, {qat, stem, pollen, roots}} .
Click to expand...
Again you have used the outer "{" "}", which represents memory, and it is beyond the remembered {Iran, Iraq},{qaid, cheiftan, warlord}, {qat, stem, pollen, roots} elements.

Try to avoid it and you do not have any set, whether it is empty, finite or infinite.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Again you have used the outer "{" "}", which represents memory, and it is beyond the remembered {Iran, Iraq},{qaid, cheiftan, warlord}, {qat, stem, pollen, roots} elements.

Try to avoid it and you do not have any set, whether it is empty, finite or infinite.
Click to expand...

So you don't want me to use standard notation that everyone (but you) uses. Not going to happen.

By the way, why isn't {four, five, nine} complete according to you again?

Edit: notice how I use the word "Edit" and that I haven't gone back and edited the original post?

Edit 2: Notice that I'm not using the word powerset, which you have still not defined how you use it.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
On the contrary the outer "{" "}" represents your memory, you simply can't avoid it, whether the set is empty, finite or infinite.
Click to expand...

Again, no it doesn't. Is there a reason you keep avoiding why {four, five, nine} is not a complete set according to you? Is there a reason why you are stealing my thoughts per your statement that {} is my memory? Can you tell me what doronetics is good for? Can you show me one clear example where doronetics works and math doesn't?

Edit, just because you say {} is equal to memory, doesn't mean that anyone else believes it.
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
Can you show me one clear example where doronetics works and math doesn't?
Click to expand...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8168402&postcount=1138 is some example.

Little 10 Toes said:
Edit, just because you say {} is equal to memory, doesn't mean that anyone else believes it.
Click to expand...
It does not matter what I say, the fact is that you can't avoid the outer "{" "}", which is always not one of the considered elements.

You can call it whatever you like, I call it memory.
 
doronshadmi said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8168402&postcount=1138 is some example.


It does not matter what I say, the fact is that you can't avoid the outer "{" "}", which is always not one of the considered elements.

You can call it whatever you like, I call it memory.
Click to expand...

Sorry. The idea that no collection is complete is destroyed.

There are standard guidelines and standard definitions and standard usages in math. One is that {} is used to notate what are sets and what are not.

I'll call your idea rubbish.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
Why are you assigning Memory to symbols?
Click to expand...
I am assigning symbols to memory.

Little 10 Toes said:
Edit: better yet, why are you think that "Maths" is a person?
Click to expand...
Math is both non-personal AND personal, and it is not a contradiction, because the non-personal and the personal are different levels of Math, exactly as trunk (the non-personal) and branch (the personal) are different levels of a one tree.
 
doronshadmi said:
I am assigning symbols to memory.
Click to expand...

Symbols have already been applied to memory. It's the word "memory".

doronshadmi said:
Math is both non-personal AND personal, and it is not a contradiction, because the non-personal and the personal are different levels of Math, exactly as trunk (the non-personal) and branch (the personal) are different levels of a one tree.
Click to expand...

Please learn English. I have asked:

Little 10 Toes said:
Edit: better yet, why are you thinking that "Maths" is a person?
Click to expand...

I did not use the word "personal" nor the word "non-personal". Try again. Why are you thinking that "Maths" is a person.
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
There are standard guidelines and standard definitions and standard usages in math.
Click to expand...
They are no more than the current agreement among minds, which are unaware of the fact that the outer "{" "}" is always not one of the considered elements.
 
doronshadmi said:
I am assigning symbols to memory.

Math is both non-personal AND personal, and it is not a contradiction, because the non-personal and the personal are different levels of Math, exactly as trunk (the non-personal) and branch (the personal) are different levels of a one tree.
Click to expand...

Even though Doron claims he finds me boring and now 'ignores' me, I must say I still find him hilarious.

He uses the causality predicate 'because' but then puts unsubstantiated assertions where a logical chain should be.

He is a bit like a Charlie Chaplin of Math; A sad character but always full of mishaps and antics that make me smile and keep on reading (and reacting).
 
Little 10 Toes said:
Symbols have already been applied to memory. It's the word "memory".



Please learn English. I have asked:



I did not use the word "personal" nor the word "non-personal". Try again. Why are you thinking that "Maths" is a person.
Click to expand...
Try again, your abstraction ability has to be developed in order to get that "{" "}" or "memory" are different symbols of the same thing, which actually can be symbolized by infinitely many other ways, but it is always not one of the remembered things (the elements), and the permanently outer "{" "}" is a very simple way the address it.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Try again, your abstraction ability has to be developed in order to get that "{" "}" or "memory" are different symbols of the same thing, which actually can be symbolized by infinitely many other ways, but it is always not one of the remembered things (the elements), and the permanently outer "{" "}" is a very simple way the address it.
Click to expand...

Translation: You don't get it.
 
Mathematicians use also expressions like S = {a,b,...}, where in this case S is a non-detailed way the symbolize a set.

In that case {S} = {{a,b,...}} and as can be seen, the outer "{" "}" is always not an element of any set.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Mathematicians use also expressions like S = {a,b,...}, where in this case S is a non-detailed way the symbolize a set.

In that case {S} = {{a,b,...}} and as can be seen, the outer "{" "}" is always not an element of any set.
Click to expand...

So the element S is equal to a set that has {a,b, ...} in it. By the way, the extra {} in {{a,b,...}} is extraneous.

Please explain why the set containing {four, five, nine} is not complete.

Better yet, set D is the set of identifier (logins, handles, names, members) on this board/forum that start with doron. As of this post, set D = {doronshadmi}, and the cardinality of that set is 1. Please explain why this set is incomplete.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
So the element S is equal to a set that has {a,b, ...} in it. By the way, the extra {} in {{a,b,...}} is extraneous.

Please explain why the set containing {four, five, nine} is not complete.

Better yet, set D is the set of identifier (logins, handles, names, members) on this board/forum that start with doron. As of this post, set D = {doronshadmi}, and the cardinality of that set is 1. Please explain why this set is incomplete.
Click to expand...

Add "who registered before 2012" to the definition of the set D, and it would definitely be complete.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
By the way, the extra {} in {{a,b,...}} is extraneous.
Click to expand...
Not if {S} is considered.

Little 10 Toes said:
Please explain why the set containing {four, five, nine} is not complete.
Click to expand...
Here is another example, which is equivalent to your "the set of signed whole numbers when written out in English will have four letters" rule, which is resulted by set {four, five, nine}.

"The set of all natural numbers between 4 and 5" is {}, where the outer "{" "}" represents the memory (also known as YESthing, which is not an element of any set) and what is not between the outer "{" "}", is the non-memory or the non-remembered (also known as NOthing, which is not an element of any set).

In other words, (no collection of finite of infinite elements is reducible into non-memory (also known as NOthing)) AND (no collection of finite of infinite elements is extendible into memory (also known as YESthing)).

So given any non-empty set, (its elements are irreducible into NOthing) AND (its elements are non-extendible into YESthing).

Little 10 Toes said:
Better yet, set D is the set of identifier (logins, handles, names, members) on this board/forum that start with doron. As of this post, set D = {doronshadmi}, and the cardinality of that set is 1. Please explain why this set is incomplete.
Click to expand...

Since "doronshadmi" is an element (it is irreducible into NOthing) AND (it is non-extendible into YESthing).

Conclusion: no set is complete, since elements are (irreducible into NOthing) AND (non-extendible into YESthing).

Also (NOthing is non-extendible into YESthing) AND (YESthing is irreducible into NOthing).

So, the considered realm is naturally non-entropic.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Conclusion: no set is complete, since elements are (irreducible into NOthing) AND (non-extendible into YESthing).
Click to expand...

So, you have defined* something about sets, Doron-completeness (which bears no relation to the meaning of the word 'complete' in English), that is never true for any set.

I repeat, what use is this?


* I use the term loosely, perforce.
 
doronshadmi said:
Not if {S} is considered.
Click to expand...
He was not considering {S}, he was considering S.
You added the extra {}, so for him they are extraneous.

doronshadmi said:
Here is another example, which is equivalent to your "the set of signed whole numbers when written out in English will have four letters" rule, which is resulted by set {four, five, nine}.
Click to expand...

'By example' is not a scientific method. There is no causality in it.
If you can not make a causal chain, then all you are doing amounts to nought more than 'but look at this, but look at that, maybe such, maybe so'.

doronshadmi said:
"The set of all natural numbers between 4 and 5" is {}, where the outer "{" "}" represents the memory (also known as YESthing, which is not an element of any set) and what is not between the outer "{" "}", is the non-memory or the non-remembered (also known as NOthing, which is not an element of any set).
Click to expand...

You have yet to prove or define *why* this is so. Just you stating it does not make it so.


doronshadmi said:
In other words, (no collection of finite of infinite elements is reducible into non-memory (also known as NOthing)) AND (no collection of finite of infinite elements is extendible into memory (also known as YESthing)).

So given any non-empty set, (its elements are irreducible into NOthing) AND (its elements are non-extendible into YESthing).



Since "doronshadmi" is an element (it is irreducible into NOthing) AND (it is non-extendible into YESthing).

Conclusion: no set is complete, since elements are (irreducible into NOthing) AND (non-extendible into YESthing).

Also (NOthing is non-extendible into YESthing) AND (YESthing is irreducible into NOthing).

So, the considered realm is naturally non-entropic.
Click to expand...

*why*? Your conclusion only follows from your statements, not a causal chain of *any* axiom, lemma, formula or *anything* that *anyone* other than you has agreed upon.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
Doron, why are you bringing memory into math? As previously stated, math does not care about memory.
Click to expand...
Memory, as I use it, is not restricted to human memory, but it is taken in the most general sense as the inaccessibility of lower mathematical spaces to higher mathematical space, which enables lower spaces to be gathered into collections, where collections can't be extensible into YESthing, which is the totality of Memory (which is the opposite of No-memory).

No-memory, by this general sense, is the irreducibility of mathematical spaces into NOthing.

Also please be aware of the fact that {} as the result of the statement "the set of all natural numbers between 4 and 5", does not mean that there is NOthing between 4 and 5, because NOthing (No-memory) does not enable the distinguishability between 4 and 5.

There is a difference between 4 and 5 because they are gathered by the outer "{" "}" (Memory), which enables the distinguishability between 4 and 5.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
... that is never true for any set.
Click to expand...
Wrong, it is true for the very existence of the concept of Set, which enables to understand that collections are naturally non-entropic by the concept of Set.

Again, by the very existence of the concept of Set no set is complete, since elements are (irreducible into NOthing) AND (non-extendible into YESthing).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Memory, as I use it, is not restricted to human memory, but it is taken in the most general sense as the inaccessibility of lower mathematical spaces to higher mathematical space, which enables lower spaces to be gathered into collections, where collections can't be extensible into YESthing, which is the totality of Memory (which is the opposite of No-memory).

No-memory, by this general sense, is the irreducibility of mathematical spaces into NOthing.

Also please be aware of the fact that {} as the result of the statement "the set of all natural numbers between 4 and 5", does not mean that there is NOthing between 4 and 5, because NOthing (No-memory) does not enable the distinguishability between 4 and 5.

There is a difference between 4 and 5 because they are gathered by the outer "{" "}" (Memory), which enables the distinguishability between 4 and 5.
Click to expand...

Yes... ironclad proof, right there...

I think it all started out wrong by Doron not starting with defining his axioms and getting hem across.

This is just gibberish without a foundation.
 
doronshadmi said:
Wrong, it is true for the very existence of the concept of Set, which enables to understand that collections are naturally non-entropic by the concept of Set.

Again, by the very existence of the concept of Set no set is complete, since elements are (irreducible into NOthing) AND (non-extendible into YESthing).
Click to expand...

Somehow, by starting out with "wrong", Doron thinks his 'arguments' have authority.

But just read that line of argumentation... there is nothing there but a 'because Doron says so'...
 
The concept of Set is closed under the polychotomy of YESthing and NOthing.

The cuse of the polychotomy is thing (known also as Unity), as follows:

6840987626_c9c426828a_z.jpg


NOthing is weaker than any tool that is used to measure it.

YESthing is stronger than any tool that is used to measure it.

Unity (thing) is the source of NO,SOME,EVERY,YES ploychotomy.

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

By following the notions above the outer "{" "}" represent YESthing, no symbols between the outer "{" "}" represent NOthing, and between these extremes we have SOMEthing and EVERYthing.

According to these notions the universe of elements is between YESthing and NOthing, where YESthing is not included as one of the elements.

(In this case the considered universe in the case of 2 and {2} is {2,{2}}, where the bold outer "{" "}" is beyond collections).

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

Unity (thing) is the source (the cause) of NO,SOME,EVERY,YES ploychotomy.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
So, you have defined* something about sets, Doron-completeness (which bears no relation to the meaning of the word 'complete' in English), that is never true for any set.

I repeat, what use is this?


* I use the term loosely, perforce.
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
Wrong, it is true for the very existence of the concept of Set, which enables to understand that collections are naturally non-entropic by the concept of Set.

Again, by the very existence of the concept of Set no set is complete, since elements are (irreducible into NOthing) AND (non-extendible into YESthing).
Click to expand...


So, where was I wrong?
 
zooterkin said:
So, where was I wrong?
Click to expand...
You are wrong because you understand Completeness in terms of collections of elements.

By this misunderstanding you actually miss the truth about collections of elements, which is (their irreducibility into NOthing) AND (their Non-extensibility into YESthing), such that collections are naturally non-entropic by the concept of Set.

Truth in the actual sense is Unity, which is the cause of polychotomy, where the concept of Set is restricted to polychotomy (it is not a true causality).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8175510&postcount=1236 clearly demostrates it.

As long as you are not directly aware of the cause of polychotomy, you miss the true cause of Set, and again, this awareness can't be actually achieved by being aware only at the level of thoughts, which is restricted to polychotomy.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You are wrong because you understand Completeness in terms of collections of elements.

By this misunderstanding you actually miss the truth about collections of elements, which is (their irreducibility into NOthing) AND (their Non-extensibility into YESthing), such that collections are naturally non-entropic by the concept of Set.

Truth in the actual sense is Unity, which is the cause of polychotomy, where the concept of Set is restricted to polychotomy (it is not a true causality).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8175510&postcount=1236 clearly demostrates it.

As long as you are not directly aware of the cause of polychotomy, you miss the true cause of Set, and again, this awareness can't be actually achieved by being aware only at the level of thoughts, which is restricted to polychotomy.
Click to expand...


Don't you understand what your own posts say? The above gibberish has nothing to do with what I was asking.

You said that no set was 'complete', which confirmed what I was asking.

If that is the case, then what is the use of a property that applies to every set?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom