Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
laca said:
You got nothing, doron
Click to expand...
According to your verbal_symbolic-only reasoning, this is indeed the best you can get about my work, nothing.

Once again, it is indeed quite pathetic for a grown-up not to be aware of the importance of non-entropic conditions for his own development.

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

Anyway by get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9578548&postcount=2719 one enables to understand the following:

. is 0-dimesional space.

___ is 1-dimesional space.

. is at ____ , which means that . is local with respect to ____

____ is at AND not-at . , which means that ____ is non-local with respect to .

By using verbal-symbolic AND visual-spatial reasoning, one easily understands that the demonstrated relations among . and ____ are (without a loss of generality) extendible to any lower and higher dimensional spaces (where the term dimensional space is not restricted only to Geometry or Metric-space).

Persons like laca or jsfisher simply can't get it exactly because they are using verbal-symbolic only reasoning.

As a result the best they can get is technological achievements, where Ethics (in terms of evolutionary scale) has nothing to do with them.

On the contrary, by the relations among non-locality and locality (by using verbal-symbolic AND visual-spatial reasoning) one enables to cooperate Ethics (in terms of evolutionary scale), Logic (which is at least verbal-symbolic AND visual-spatial) and technology into one framework that has the tools to deal with non-entropic conditions. These conditions are essential for further development of self-aware complex creatures like us (for example, by using verbal-symbolic AND visual-spatial reasoning, no collection of lower dimensional spaces at a given higher dimensional space, has the power of continuum of the higher dimensional space. As e result there is always a domain of the higher dimensional space that is not covered by elements of lower dimensional spaces upon infinitely many scale levels, and we get a naturally open (non-entropic) framework for further development of complex creatures like us).

It is typical to verbal-symbolic only thinkers to speak about the useful achievements of their reasoning (walking on the moon etc.) by completely ignoring the devastating "achievements" (mass-destruction weapon etc.) of this reasoning (where Ethics (in terms of evolutionary scale)) is not an essential factor of it).

Here is some typical response of a verbal-symbolic-only thinker:

laca said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

laca or jsfisher,

I will ask you for the last time to provide the proof, which rigorously shows how a collection of distinct elements (where each element has exactly 0 length) provides an element which has length > 0.

If no rigorous proof will be given this time, it will be clear to any poster here that your reasoning can't provide such a proof, or of other words, you have no rigorous basis to claim that ____ (1-dimensional space) is completely covered by a collection of infinitely many distinct . (0-dimensional elements).
 
Last edited:
So, still nothing. No need to write all that gibberish, doron. We already know you're full of hot air.
 
laca said:
So, still nothing. No need to write all that gibberish, doron. We already know you're full of hot air.
Click to expand...
Without a hot air your technology will not take you to the moon, so now we realize that you can't comprehend even your own technology.
 
doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...


Now that I look a little more into it, I'm impressed that you got it published there, considering that you were up against other research papers like "SUDOKU: THE NEW SMASH HIT PUZZLE GAME", which not only covers the "new" (keep in mind this is from their latest 2013 issue), smash hit game, but also has a helpful section on "The Healthy Playful Psychology of the British", including such profound mathematical insights as:

It occurred to me that perhaps having plenty of rain and overcast weather, it might be a climate-related national characteristic that people discovered the pleasure of puzzles and mystery novels while spending much time indoors.
Click to expand...


Peer review at its finest!

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Without a hot air your technology will not take you to the moon, so now we realize that you can't comprehend even your own technology.
Click to expand...

Pathetic attempt at equivocation.

You still are at ground zero, doron. You set off to save the world with your skillz but haven't even managed to make one tiny step. You're just standing in one place shouting your gibberish.
 
AdMan said:
Now that I look a little more into it, I'm impressed that you got it published there, considering that you were up against other research papers like "SUDOKU: THE NEW SMASH HIT PUZZLE GAME", which not only covers the "new" (keep in mind this is from their latest 2013 issue), smash hit game, but also has a helpful section on "The Healthy Playful Psychology of the British", including such profound mathematical insights as:




Peer review at its finest!

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This is the abstract of that paper:

Abstract:
Sudoku is now popular in many countries. This article explains the history and mathematics behind Sudoku. This includes the basic rules of Sudoku , a trial-and-error solution method, a discussion of the number of patterns completed, minimum Sudoku , and the application of Euler’s Latin squares. The popularity of Sudoku in the UK is also discussed.
So, the popularity of Sudoku in the UK is also discussed. Do you have any problem with this subject, or you are also one of these persons that can't find any relation between Maths and its influence on people's behavior?

By the way, you are also invited support the "profound" mathematical insight of Traditional Mathematics, which according to it a collection of distinct elements (where each element has exactly 0 length) provides an element that has length > 0.

Also you ignored this:
doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why is that?
 
Last edited:
laca said:
You set off to save the world with your skillz but haven't even managed to make one tiny step. You're just standing in one place shouting your gibberish.
Click to expand...
Again laca, you are the one how stands at the spot of Traditional Mathematics, which is local-only verbal-symbolic-only framework, and from this spot you indeed get exactly nothing about my work.

Now it is clear to any poster here that your reasoning can't provide the proof, which rigorously shows how a collection of distinct elements (where each element has exactly 0 length) provides an element that has length > 0.
 
Last edited:
Again, doron, instead of doing some work, you keep huffing and puffing due to your own incompetence. Try doing some work instead. Remember, you are the one claiming to revolutionize Mathematics. So far, you've only revolutionized the process of generating inane gibberish.
 
laca said:
Again, doron, instead of doing some work, you keep huffing and puffing due to your own incompetence. Try doing some work instead. Remember, you are the one claiming to revolutionize Mathematics. So far, you've only revolutionized the process of generating inane gibberish.
Click to expand...
Thank you for supporting once again my arguments in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9581289&postcount=2727.

You are doing a great work for me even if you are unaware of it.
 
The current thread arc is most likely to result in a finite set of yellow cards mapped onto a subset of members. I'd prefer to be out of the range of that mapping, and I'd advise others to have a similar goal.

It may be good to remember that Doronshadmi believes 1/4 and 0.25 represent different numbers. That 2 may not be a member of {2}. That a set is the union of its members. That, well, many, many other preposterous things.

Why get into a battle of sticks and stones with someone who has so far been unable to demonstrate basic logical reasoning?
 
jsfisher said:
The current thread arc is most likely to result in a finite set of yellow cards mapped onto a subset of members.
Click to expand...
It is indeed some typical conclusion about verbal-symbolic AND visual-spatial reasoning, of a person that uses verbal-symbolic only reasoning,

jsfisher said:
It may be good to remember that Doronshadmi believes 1/4 and 0.25 represent different numbers. That 2 may not be a member of {2}. That a set is the union of its members. That, well, many, many other preposterous things.
Click to expand...

1/4 and 0.25 is the same quantity but with different structure along the real-line if the non-locality of 1-dimesional space with respect to 0-dimesional space is not ignored, as can be seen, for example, in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9578867&postcount=2721 (and it is ignored by the reasoning that is used by jsfisher). For more details, please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9325751&postcount=2513.

2 and {2} are not the same expression, which means that 2 expression is not necessarily the member of {2} expression.

A set is at least "{" and "}" with or without members between them. By following this verbal-symbolic AND visual-spatial reasoning, any given set is indeed the union of its members.

jsfisher said:
Why get into a battle of sticks and stones with someone who has so far been unable to demonstrate basic logical reasoning?
Click to expand...
Why do we have to be restricted to a verbal_symbolic-only local-only reasoning?

The current details of my work can be seen in http://scireprints.lu.lv/241/1/Umes.pdf.


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

Now it is clear to any poster here that your reasoning can't provide the proof, which rigorously shows how a collection of distinct elements (where each element has exactly 0 length) provides an element that has length > 0.
 
Last edited:
No, doron, the only thing clear to any poster here is that you have got exactly nothing.
 
This *must* be the best thread I have ever subscribed to.

I can go and live in India for 1.5 years, come back and it still lives.

Then I can go on with my life for a bit, get married, get a child (well, in februari 2014 I will have one) and it still lives.

Doron, I have the following proposal:

Between Christmas and New Year I will be attending the Chaos Communication Congress, where a lot of mathematicians (and hackers and makers and dreamers and believers etc. ) will be.

Everyone is allowed to do a 15 minute (or a 5 minute) lightning talk there. And if the people there are not openminded enough for you, you will not find them anywhere on the planet.

https://events.ccc.de/congress/2013/wiki/Static:FAQ

If the entrance fee is too high I will gladly pay it there and then. Let me know if you are up to it then we can also arrange to have a physical meetup (and I will show you where there's a bratwurst-only restaurant!)

I might do a 'crawlspace computing' lightning talk this year but I also might just enjoy listening to Daniel Bernstein and his cryptographic math adventures. We'll see.
 
The large hadron collider at CERN in Geneva enables to define the conditions of the early universe in order to expose particles like Higgs boson.

In my opinion it means that what is called "the early universe" can be defined in present time, by using the proper technology.

Moreover, one of the main goals of Modern Physics is to define a unified theory for the four known physical forces:

Gravity
Electromagnetism
Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force)
Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)

I find that if a technology that is derived from a successful unified theory will be used, one of its important results will be to actually discover and use a principle of harmonious interactions among universe's phenomena.

In my opinion Life is the tendency of the universe to actually become an harmonious realm, which enables infinite development of complexity out of the unified simplicity, day by day.

In my opinion, any scientific development that excludes life phenomena as its essential factor, probably misses the ability to define and use such unified science.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In my opinion Life is the tendency of the universe to actually become an harmonious realm, which enables infinite development of complexity out of the unified simplicity, day by day.
Click to expand...

And there I am, thinking you do not believe in infinity. So does that mean you finally have accepted the concept of infinity?
 
doronshadmi said:
In my opinion Life is the tendency of the universe to actually become an harmonious realm, which enables infinite development of complexity out of the unified simplicity, day by day.

In my opinion, any scientific development that excludes life phenomena as its essential factor, probably misses the ability to define and use such unified science.
Click to expand...


These momentous insights probably merit you find another journal you can pay again to publish your crap, assuming they have space among the sudoku articles.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I need to resort to visual communications again so Doron understands that *again* he is saying nothing and it is all posturing and not a single shred of substance.

When Doron writes (and *especially* when he links to earlier posts): :bs:
Although it is good for everyone's humour: :dl:
But when will we ever get some coherent theory of Doronetics? :pigsfly

Issues still open from earlier in these (and precursor threads):

- Has Microsoft hired you yet? Is that why Steve Ballmer (I gave you his email address) is now being fired?
- How about infinity? Understood that yet?
- Have you understood what rigorous means?
- Has Doronetics done/enabled anything that was not possible with traditional Math? If so, where is the proof?
 
zooterkin said:
What sort of mathematics was used to design it, do you suppose?
Click to expand...
Mathematics that can't excludes the observer as a significant factor of the results, exactly because QM is used, which according to it measurements can't be exposed and used without some observer (or its agent, for example, The large hadron collider at CERN in Geneva).

Life is at least the ability to observe the relations among internal and external environments, which enables the observer to survive as a complex phenomenon during actual participation.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Mathematics that can't excludes the observer as a significant factor of the results, exactly because QM is used, which according to it measurements can't be exposed and used without some observer (or its agent, for example, The large hadron collider at CERN in Geneva).

Life is at least the ability to observe the relations among internal and external environments, which enables the observer to survive as a complex phenomenon during actual participation.
Click to expand...

Well, this is Doron and his philosophy in a nutshell.

All wrong.

Quantum Mechanics' Mathematics use probabilities. The probability distributions can be calculated *without any observer necessary*.

What Doron (as with each and every single of his Mathematical Postulates) gets confused with is *measurements*.

The measurements do not dictate the mathematics. They relate to the theories and hypotheses that can be explored using mathematics.
Not the other way round.

If only some observer could check the wiring in Shadmi's head (and cut the red wire).

Producing not a single coherent and/or correct answer in a forum thread in over 7 years must be depressing.
Don't cry Doron, we all still hope you will see the light and start understanding one day.
 
laca said:
Hogwash. Where are your results?
Click to expand...
laca, if one cares only about particular results, he may miss interesting properties of a given subject.

For example, let us take the set of natural numbers.

From one hand it is obvious that the result of the mapping of the natural numbers to themselves is that no natural number is left out.

But is it really obvious if we deal with infinite sets?

Can we show a result of a given mapping where there is no 1-to-1 correspondence between the natural numbers to themselves?

The answer is yes, for example:

1 ↔ 1
2 ↔
3 ↔ 2
4 ↔ 3
5 ↔ 4
...

It is obvious that no natural number is missing in both sides of the mapping, and yet there are natural numbers in the left side that are not mapped to any object in the right side of the mapping (the mapping 2 ↔ or 3 ↔ 2 are two different cases in this particular example, or in other words, 2 ↔ is not omitted (as done by Traditional Mathematics)).

This is an example of some Hilbert's hotel case, which is prepared to include more visitors.

By being limited only to

1 ↔ 1
2 ↔ 2
3 ↔ 3
4 ↔ 4
5 ↔ 5
...

as done by Traditional Mathematics, one misses the non-traditional result of no 1-to-1 correspondence between the natural numbers to themselves, which is certainly one of the possible results among infinite sets.

If you disagree with me then please show how Traditional Mathematics deals also with

1 ↔ 1
2 ↔
3 ↔ 2
4 ↔ 3
5 ↔ 4
...

case.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
laca, if one cares only about particular results, he may miss interesting properties of a given subject.

For example, let us take the set of natural numbers.

From one hand it is obvious that the result of the mapping of the natural numbers to themselves is that no natural number is left out.

But is it really obvious if we deal with infinite sets?

Can we show a result of a given mapping where there is no 1-to-1 correspondence between the natural numbers to themselves?

The answer is yes, for example:

1 ↔ 1
2 ↔
3 ↔ 2
4 ↔ 3
5 ↔ 4
...

It is obvious that no natural number is missing in both sides of the mapping, and yet there are natural numbers in the left side that are not mapped to any object in the right side of the mapping (the mapping 2 ↔ or 3 ↔ 2 are two different cases in this particular example, or in other words, 2 ↔ is not omitted (as done by Traditional Mathematics)).

This is an example of some Hilbert's hotel case, which is prepared to include more visitors.

By being limited only to

1 ↔ 1
2 ↔ 2
3 ↔ 3
4 ↔ 4
5 ↔ 5
...

as done by Traditional Mathematics, one misses the non-traditional result of no 1-to-1 correspondence between the natural numbers to themselves, which is defiantly one of the possible results among infinite sets.

If you dis agree with me that please show how Traditional Mathematics deals also with

1 ↔ 1
2 ↔
3 ↔ 2
4 ↔ 3
5 ↔ 4
...

case.
Click to expand...

In what way does Traditional Mathematics not deal with Hilbert's hotel? You do know that David Hilbert was a mathematician?
 
doron, you still spew nonsense that only shows your grasp of mathematics is less than that of a bag of dirt.

Cut the crap and show your results.
 
realpaladin said:
Well, this is Doron and his philosophy in a nutshell.

All wrong.

Quantum Mechanics' Mathematics use probabilities. The probability distributions can be calculated *without any observer necessary*.

What Doron (as with each and every single of his Mathematical Postulates) gets confused with is *measurements*.

The measurements do not dictate the mathematics. They relate to the theories and hypotheses that can be explored using mathematics.
Not the other way round.
Click to expand...

Take for example this book http://www.math.toronto.edu/~sigal/semlectnotes/1.pdf

In page 34 we find this sentence:

"(prove this!), which together with the previous inequality gives the desired result."

What exactly is the thing that has a desire for a given result?
 
laca said:
doron, you still spew nonsense that only shows your grasp of mathematics is less than that of a bag of dirt.

Cut the crap and show your results.
Click to expand...
You have missed the non-traditional result of no 1-to-1 correspondence between the natural numbers to themselves, which is certainly one of the possible results among infinite sets, as shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9703638&postcount=2753.

laca, you still get things as nonsense that only shows your grasp of mathematics is less than that of a bag which does not hold water.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
laca, you still get things as nonsense that only shows your grasp of mathematics is less than that of a bag which does not hold water.
Click to expand...


Why can I never remember how to get that exploding irony meter icon? :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom