Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
jsfisher said:
...and then a 20-unit line segment would be a non-composed object. A 20-unit line segment could be situated completely "at" a 40-unit line segment. That would make the 20-unit line segment "local" to the 40-unit line segment.

Do you want to make any last minute changes to your definition, Doronshadmi?
Click to expand...

Thank you for your post.

Changes are always welcome, if they make things more simple and accurate.

So, let's simplify my definitions of locality and non-locality.

We can actually use only one definition as follows:

The definition of Locality:

If non-composed X is entirely at Y, then non-composed X is local w.r.t Y, otherwise non-composed X is non-local w.r.t Y.


Examples:

A non-composed line segment X with length 20 is non-local w.r.t any lower dimensional space (for example 0-dimensional space, known as a point) along it, and it is local w.r.t a given line segment with length 40, only if it is entirely at its domain.

0-dimensional space can't be but local w.r.t any given space, by the following definitions.

This is not the case about dimensional spaces > 0, they can be local or non-local w.r.t a given dimensional space exactly because their non-composed aspect have length > 0.

I do not see how Classical Logic provides the needed reasoning that enable a collection of a objects of, for example 0-dimesional objects (which have exactly 0 length for each object) to be an object with more than 0 length.

Please show to the posters here how (by using Classical logic) a collection of 0-dimesional objects (which have exactly 0 length for each object) can be an object with more than 0 length (the term "aspect" means that dimensional spaces can be fractional (for example 0.999...10, which is a composition of the two non-composed building-blocks 0 and 1 dimensional spaces).

:popcorn1
 
Last edited:
In mathematics, the dimension of an object is an intrinsic property independent of the space in which the object is embedded.
Click to expand...
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension_(mathematics_and_physics) )

Let's interpret the quote differently than its standard meaning.

In mathematics, the dimension of an object is an intrinsic property independent of the space in which the object is embedded, exactly because no dimensional space is a building-block of another dimensional space.

Examples:

A line is not a collection of points, the area of a circle is not a collection circles circumference, etc. ...
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Thank you for your post.

Changes are always welcome, if they make things more simple and accurate.

So, let's simplify my definitions of locality and non-locality.

We can actually use only one definition as follows:

The definition of Locality:

If non-composed X is entirely at Y, then non-composed X is local w.r.t Y, otherwise non-composed X is non-local w.r.t Y.
Click to expand...


Great. No real change, but that is fine.

Back to my line segments, then. A 20-unit line segment can be placed so that it is "entirely at" a 40-unit line segment. This particular 20-unit line segment is therefore local with respect to the 40-unit line segment.

If fact, we can place two such 20-unit line segments to be local to the 40-unit line segment and completely cover the 40-unit line segment.

So, the previously claim that "no amount of localities entirely covers a given non-composed Y, since given a collection of all non-composed X's at non-composed Y, non-composed Y is not entirely at any given non-composed X" is not only not deducible from the definition provided, it is trivially falsified.
 
jsfisher said:
Continue to jump all over the place as you see fit, but it changes nothing: Your conclusions still do not follow from your clumsy definitions.


Is a 40-unit line segment a non-composed object?
Click to expand...

Thank you again for your posts.

I have found my mistake.

A line-segment is a composition of two non-composed building-blocks, which are 0-dimensional space and 1-dimensional space.

So 40-unit line-segment is a composed object, and so is 20-unit line-segment.

Let's correct the following definitions:

The definition of non-composed locality:

If non-composed X is entirely at or entirely not at Y, then non-composed X is local w.r.t Y, otherwise non-composed X is non-local w.r.t Y.


The definition of composed non-locality:

If composed X is entirely at Y and its exact location is not satisfied, then composed X is non-local w.r.t Y.


The definition of Incompleteness:

No amount of composed objects completely covers a non-composed object.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Let's not. If something different is needed, come up with a different name for it and give it a definition of its own.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you, one can use a given description and interpret it differently than its standard meaning.
 
Last edited:
A corrected post ( please ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9573861&postcount=2685 ).

jsfisher said:
Continue to jump all over the place as you see fit, but it changes nothing: Your conclusions still do not follow from your clumsy definitions.


Is a 40-unit line segment a non-composed object?
Click to expand...

Thank you again for your posts.

I have found my mistake.

A line-segment is a composition of two non-composed building-blocks, which are 0-dimensional space and 1-dimensional space.

So 40-unit line-segment is a composed object, and so is 20-unit line-segment.

Without this composition, values like 40-unit or 20-unit can't be defined, and the best we can know is that the length of the non-composed 1-dimesional space of this composition is > 0, where the non-composed 0-dimesional space of this composition is = 0.

Let's correct the following definitions:


The definition of non-composed locality:

If non-composed X (is entirely at) OR (entirely NOT-at) Y, then non-composed X is local w.r.t Y, otherwise non-composed X is non-local w.r.t Y.

An example: The 1-dimesional building-block (which is non-composed) of a given line-segment, is non-local w.r.t Y, if it is NOT entirely at Y.


The definition of composed non-locality:

If composed X is entirely at Y and its exact location is not satisfied, then composed X is non-local w.r.t Y, otherwise it is local w.r.t Y.


The definition of Incompleteness:

No amount of lower dimensional spaces completely cover a non-composed object, which its length > 0.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Let's not. If something different is needed, come up with a different name for it and give it a definition of its own.
Click to expand...

Take, for example, Necker cube.

One may interpret it as a bulge, and the other may interpret it as a hollow.

Yet, the term Necker cube is used for both interpretations.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher, this time please do not ignore the following:

I do not see how the traditional reasoning provides the needed terms that enable a collection of, for example 0-dimesional objects (which have exactly 0 length for each object) to be an object with more than 0 length.

Please show to the posters here how (by using traditional reasoning) a collection of 0-dimesional objects (which have exactly 0 length for each object) can be an object with more than 0 length.

:popcorn1
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Wrong jsfisher, you are the one that use a reasoning, which according to it, a collection of objects with 0 length each, enables to provide an object with length > 0.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the exact same reasoning allowed men to walk on the Moon and has produced technology which allows us to have this conversation, just to name a few.

OTOH, your "reasoning" only allows us a few laughs once in a while. You produced a couple of thousand posts on an internet forum, the vast majority full of inane gibberish.

Tough pick...
 
laca said:
Yes, and the exact same reasoning allowed men to walk on the Moon and has produced technology which allows us to have this conversation, just to name a few.
Click to expand...
Also this reasoning easily enables to produce mass-destruction weapon, and also educates people to think that Mathematical reasoning is independent of the mathematicians that uses it, which is a reasoning that easily leads to irresponsibility of one's actions.

Furthermore, the reasoning that defines length > 0 by collection of objects that each one of them has 0 length, provides a closed entropic framework, that essentially has no room for further development of complex and open systems like us.

Moreover, classical reasoning is too weak in order to define the bridges among Ethics, Reasoning and Technology.

If you disagree with me, then please show some mathematical work that is based on Classical Logic, which enables to define the bridges among Ethics, Reasoning and Technology.

In my opinion, if such a framework will not be developed by complex creatures like us, will shell not survive further manipulation of Nature's forces.

And this is exactly the motivation behind my work, which is definitely beyond the abilities of a single person.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Also this reasoning easily enables to produce mass-destruction weapon, and also educates people to think that Mathematical reasoning is independent of the mathematicians that uses it, which is a reasoning that easily leads to irresponsibility of one's actions.
Click to expand...

Evidence?

Furthermore, the reasoning that defines length > 0 by collection of objects that each one of them has 0 length, provides a closed entropic framework, that essentially has no room for further development of complex and open systems like us.
Click to expand...

Evidence?

Moreover, classical reasoning is too weak in order to define the bridges among Ethics, Reasoning and Technology.
Click to expand...

Evidence?

If you disagree with me, then please show some mathematical work that is based on Classical Logic, which enables to define the bridges among Ethics, Reasoning and Technology.
Click to expand...

Your claim; your burden of proof.

In my opinion, if such a framework will not be developed by complex creatures like us, will shell not survive further manipulation of Nature's forces.

And this is exactly the motivation behind my work, which is definitely beyond the abilities of a single person.
Click to expand...

Yes, your work is founded in opinion with a unhealthy dose of misconception.
 
doronshadmi said:
Also this reasoning easily enables to produce mass-destruction weapon, and also educates people to think that Mathematical reasoning is independent of the mathematicians that uses it, which is a reasoning that easily leads to irresponsibility of one's actions.
Click to expand...

Your point?

doronshadmi said:
Furthermore, the reasoning that defines length > 0 by collection of objects that each one of them has 0 length, provides a closed entropic framework, that essentially has no room for further development of complex and open systems like us.
Click to expand...

Gibberish.

doronshadmi said:
Moreover, classical reasoning is too weak in order to define the bridges among Ethics, Reasoning and Technology.
Click to expand...

It doesn't need to.

doronshadmi said:
If you disagree with me, then please show some mathematical work that is based on Classical Logic, which enables to define the bridges among Ethics, Reasoning and Technology.
Click to expand...

You first.

doronshadmi said:
In my opinion, if such a framework will not be developed by complex creatures like us, will shell not survive further manipulation of Nature's forces.
Click to expand...

Non-sequitur.

doronshadmi said:
And this is exactly the motivation behind my work, which is definitely beyond the abilities of a single person.
Click to expand...

Talk about building houses on sand...
 
OK, jsfisher let's open the cards of my last game ( starts at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9562524&postcount=2668 ).

You are right, no verbal-symbolic-only reasoning enables to rigorously define Locality or Non-locality, so thank you for your help to demonstrate my argument, which claims that in order to do that, at least verbal-symbolic AND visual-spatial reasoning has to be used.

If you disagree with me, then please define Locality and Non-locality by using only verbal-symbolic reasoning.

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

Actually you are the one that use a reasoning (the verbal-symbolic-only) which according to it, a collection of objects with 0 length each, enables to provide an object with length > 0.

Please show exactly how you are doing it.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Ok, please show how classical logic defines length > 0, by not using a collection of objects with 0 length each.
Click to expand...

I guess when you got a gaping nothing, all you can do is to try to shift the burden of proof. It was your claim that "my" reasoning does, so it's not up to me to show it doesn't do what you claimed, but up to you to show that it does. Sorry, you're going to have to do the work. Otherwise the status quo is that "my" reasoning works, yours does exactly nothing.
 
laca said:
I guess when you got a gaping nothing, all you can do is to try to shift the burden of proof.
Click to expand...
So you can't provide the proof which rigorously shows how a collection of distinct 0 length elements completely covers a given length > 0, isn't it laca?
 
doronshadmi said:
So you can't provide the proof which rigorously shows how a collection of distinct 0 length elements completely covers a given length > 0, isn't it laca?
Click to expand...

Not playing your game, doron. It's your claim, your burden of proof. Do you have it or not?
 
laca said:
Do you have anything to show for decades of "work"? Anything at all. Don't be shy.
Click to expand...
What can we show to a person that is totally blind to the importance of non-entropic framework for further development of complex creatures like us?

What can we say to a person that uses a reasoning, which according to it, a collection of lower dimensional spaces completely covers a given higher dimensional space (and as a result of this reasoning, there is no room for further development of the collection of lower spaces at the domain of the higher dimensional space (where the term "dimensional space" is not restricted to Geometry or metric space))?

Do you have anything to show about non-entropic framework for decades of using classical reasoning? Anything at all. Don't be shy.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
What can we show to a person that is totally blind to the importance of non-entropic framework for further development of complex creatures like us?

What can we say to a person that uses a reasoning, which according to it, a collection of lower dimensional spaces completely covers a given higher dimensional space (and as a result of this reasoning, there is no room for further development of the collection of lower spaces at the domain of the higher dimensional space (where the term "dimensional space" is not restricted to Geometry or metric space))?

Do you have anything to show about non-entropic framework for decades of using classical reasoning? Anything at all. Don't be shy.
Click to expand...

Aw, how cute. For a 4 year-old, that is. Quite pathetic for a grown-up. Nice try, but we all know you're only full of hot air, and even that is getting awfully thin.

So, to sum up, you claim something, and when others disagree, you try to shift the burden of proof to them. And it's taken you decades to get there. DECADES. You're one for the books, doron, I give you that.
 
Last edited:
AdMan said:
A simple Google search shows the publishers of that journal (Academic Publications, Ltd.) in a list of "Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers".

http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

It appears they will publish almost anything.
Click to expand...

No. It appears that Jeffrey Beall ( http://scholarlyoa.com/about/ ) thinks that IJPAM potentially, possibly, or probably will publish almost anything, so even Jeffrey Beall does not unconditionally supports his own list.

You are invited to show how IJPAM fits to Jeffrey Beall's terms ( http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/11/30/c...predatory-open-access-publishers-2nd-edition/ ) and if it fits to IJPAM, then why each term necessarily marks IJPAM as predatory scholarly open-access journal.
 
Last edited:
The current main stream of Mathematics is based of Greek mathematics.

During the years most of the visual-spatial brain skills were neglected and today almost only verbal-symbolic brain skills are considered as a legitimate framework for Mathematics.

In my opinion, verbal-symbolic and visual-spatial brain skills have to be cooperated for further development of Mathematics.

By using some analogy, if further development of Mathematics depends on "3D-thinking", than it can't be achieved if verbal-symbolic and visual-spatial brain skills are not cooperated into a one comprehensive framework.

My work is an attempt to cooperate verbal-symbolic and visual-spatial brain skills into a one comprehensive mathematical framework.

One of the fundamental discussed subjects of such framework is Locality and Non-locality, which in my opinion, can't be defined only by verbal-symbolic brain skills or only by visual-spatial brain skills.

If we define . (an expression of visual-spatial brain skills) as "0-dimensioal element" (an expression of verbal-symbolic brain skills), and also define ___ (an expression of visual-spatial brain skills) as "1-dimensioal element" (an expression of verbal-symbolic brain skills), we are easily and profoundly understand that . at ____ is local with respect to ____, where ____ at . is non-local with respect to .

Without a loss of generality, this understanding is extended to any association among lower and higher dimensional spaces.
 
Last edited:
You got nothing, doron, and you know it. For all your big words, you got nothing to show. Zero results. That must be embarrassing. I understand why you cling so desperately to these childish antics of yours, you got nothing else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom