cixe Posted December 15, 2013 Posted December 15, 2013 Value 0.999... Non-system( infinite ) and non-integral aka the mathematiclly 'perfect', circle.In this 'perfect' sense, we do not have a finite set of 360 degrees, rather we have an iinfinite set of degrees 0.{n}.....and never resolving it self as complete, 2D whole.A similarly rational, logical and common sense thought process, applies also to a 3D sphere.----the illusionary(?)----line-of-demarcation--------Value 1.0 = Systemic( finite ) IntegralThe minimal, systemically integral, 3D( XYZ ) value 1 point, is a a finite tetra(4)hedron.The minimal, systemically integral, 2D value 1, is a finite, subdivided tri(3)angle, with a central( nucleated) nodal vertexial crossing/point.The minimal, systemically integral, (w)holistic phenomena, is composed of overlapping sets of radial( convergent and divergent ), and circumferential( precessional ) vectors( magnitude and direction ) as associated with geometrically visual or tactile,finite lines-of-relationships.With overlapping systems comes synergetic resultants ex in the following we have a red vector overlapping with blue vector to produce green vector. (--(--)--) (--(--)--).Via mathematics, we can say that, synergetically, 1 + 1 = 4, or 3 + 3 = 12.Via some experiences we can see that a systemically integral whole, is synergetically greater, than the sum of some of its parts.r6 -1
Endercreeper01 Posted December 15, 2013 Posted December 15, 2013 Via mathematics, we can say that, synergetically, 1 + 1 = 4, or 3 + 3 = 12. You forgot to multiply the left sides of each equation by 2. 1+1 does not equal four, but 2(1+1)=4.
John Cuthber Posted December 15, 2013 Posted December 15, 2013 You forgot to multiply the left sides of each equation by 2. 1+1 does not equal four, but 2(1+1)=4. I really don't think that's his biggest problem. 1
cixe Posted December 16, 2013 Author Posted December 16, 2013 I really don't think that's his biggest problem. Expert ar ridicule it appears to me. We need that around here like we need another hole in our heads. Please Ccome back and talk to me when you actually have something contructively valid to say. Not likely is my best guess.
hypervalent_iodine Posted December 16, 2013 Posted December 16, 2013 Please Ccome back and talk to me when you actually have something contructively valid to say. Not likely is my best guess. ! Moderator Note You first.
cixe Posted December 16, 2013 Author Posted December 16, 2013 You forgot to multiply the left sides of each equation by 2. 1+1 does not equal four, but 2(1+1)=4. You apparrently did not understand the part regarding "synergetically". If you don't know the answer to that one I can help you out with. It is not and algebraic answer tho, so you will need to think outside of the box. The correct answer has been around for at least 60 years so I'm suprised you nor the ridculing responder are familiar. It is does not take rocket science to figure this one out, just internet exploration. Still if you can't find the correct answer I will inform you. Thx for you attempt at correction, via an algebraic equation. I'm not getting replies in my emails so didn't know anyone had replied. Need to check my settings. r6 -1
Endy0816 Posted December 16, 2013 Posted December 16, 2013 Fuller's Synergistics again :\ You can't make the claim "via mathematics" because that is not what mathematics as understood by most everyone else dictates. I'm so over it at this point. We have old Bucky to thank for such woo terms as "synergistics" and "spaceship Earth." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller
hoola Posted December 16, 2013 Posted December 16, 2013 isn't the problem that a presumption is made that a circle contains an infinite number of points? And didn't "the quantum" restrict a discrete non-infinite set of points to a geometric shape such as a circle and save us from the ideas such as the old "movement isn't possible as there are an infinitude of points between A and B, therefore it would take an infinite period of time to get travel between them",,,,I say there is no infinite anything, only a very large number "on the way" towards infinity if time were itself infinite, of which it is not.... We are saved from the negation of logic by...... "just say no to infinities"......
cixe Posted December 18, 2013 Author Posted December 18, 2013 (edited) ! Moderator Note You first. Mre of the same. Come back and talk to me when you have something constructive and valid to say. Not likely is my best guess. r6 Fuller's Synergistics again :\ You can't make the claim "via mathematics" because that is not what mathematics as understood by most everyone else dictates. I'm so over it at this point. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller There is more than just mathematics associated with Fullers synergetics in that post. Please come back and talk to me when you actually have something constructive and valid to say please. Not likely is my best guess. r6 isn't the problem that a presumption is made that a circle contains an infinite number of points? And didn't "the quantum" restrict a discrete non-infinite set of points to a geometric shape such as a circle and save us from the ideas such as the old "movement isn't possible as there are an infinitude of points between A and B, therefore it would take an infinite period of time to get travel between them",,,,I say there is no infinite anything, only a very large number "on the way" towards infinity if time were itself infinite, of which it is not.... We are saved from the negation of logic by...... "just say no to infinities"...... "Problem"? You appear to have a "problem" with even having/entertaining the concept of perfect circle ergo you have a problem with infinite set of degrees also. Now if you want to get into defininning "degrees", then that may to lead to your problem with entertaining a concept of an infinite set of "points", as being some aspect of a perfect circle. Seems to me, the problem, is not one of having a presumption, just having concept your not willing consider, as stated. Why is that? What is it your afraid of, if you had concieve of such a concept in your mind? "quantum"? I dont recall my saying anything about a "quantum". You appear to be confused. If you were to just try adn address my comments as stated then perhaps you wil find clarity. All I've stated is a concept of perfect circle composed of infinite set of degrees. Not a circle out i my yard, or yours, or on the moon or wherever. Just and abstract concept. Nobody suggesting we build a perfect circle, of infnite set of degrees, out of trash laying around the cosmos. If any want to address my comments as stated, and leave all of there irrelevant mind games at home, then please do so. So far there does not appear to much intellectually integral response to my givens as stated. I think it has alot to do with ego, and fear of ego death if not fear of ego death in public place. I dunno. r6 Edited December 18, 2013 by cixe
hypervalent_iodine Posted December 18, 2013 Posted December 18, 2013 Mre of the same. Come back and talk to me when you have something constructive and valid to say. Not likely is my best guess. r6 ! Moderator Note Maybe I wasn't clear. When you see something like this in a green comment, ! Moderator Note or something like this in a red comment box, ! Moderator Note it means you are getting an official reminder or warning from staff. Your thread doesn't appear to have any basis in reality, or you aren't making yourself clear (and the onus to do that is entirely on you). You have one last chance to amend that before I close the thread.
cixe Posted December 18, 2013 Author Posted December 18, 2013 ! Moderator Note Maybe I wasn't clear. When you see something like this in a green comment, ! Moderator Note or something like this in a red comment box, ! Moderator Note it means you are getting an official reminder or warning from staff. Your thread doesn't appear to have any basis in reality, or you aren't making yourself clear (and the onus to do that is entirely on you). You have one last chance to amend that before I close the thread. Ditto my given statements to you before. When you have constructive and valid reply to my comments, as stated, please share. This is not a warning it is request for moral, intellectual integrity and respect. Not continued ridicule by you or other. If you cant understand English then you may need to start by getting your self a dictionary. r6 -4
uncool Posted December 18, 2013 Posted December 18, 2013 (edited) You said this: Via mathematics, we can say that, synergetically, 1 + 1 = 4, or 3 + 3 = 12. This can only be correct if by "synergetically", you mean something entirely different by + and = from what standard mathematics says. Edited December 18, 2013 by uncool
hoola Posted December 19, 2013 Posted December 19, 2013 cixe, I am sorry if I am OT, as I was referring to a physical set of points, in an imperfect world, not a mathematically perfect circle, which may indeed have an infinite set of points in it's circumference. When considering such things, I thought that even in mathematics there were no infinites....only very large numbers...but, I am here to learn....edd
John Cuthber Posted December 19, 2013 Posted December 19, 2013 (edited) You apparrently did not understand the part regarding "synergetically". Nor does anyone else. That is your fault because you have not, in any way, explained it. When you say "Via mathematics, we can say that, synergetically, 1 + 1 = 4, or 3 + 3 = 12." you are wrong because those numbers don't work mathematically unless, by "synergetically" you mean "wrongly" . As I said, the faulty arithmetic isn't your big problem. The total inability to communicate ideas is your big problem. And someone else getting a dictionary isn't going to help that. Edited December 19, 2013 by John Cuthber
cixe Posted December 19, 2013 Author Posted December 19, 2013 You said this: This can only be correct if by "synergetically", you mean something entirely different by + and = from what standard mathematics says. Yeah, so if what is your point? Everything I've stated in not only factual truths, it is rational, logical common sensical, with perhaps a little specuation. If you or others cannot understand the relatively simple facts-- if not some speculation --then I believe, the problem lies with your or others various reaons and a morally intellectually integral response would be to address any comment by me that you do not understand, or you find to be invalid. Why somes initial reponse is ridicule, is more telling of a lack of morality, intellectual integrity, and unneccesarily mean. My experience is, that some here have and ego problem with truth, facts and intellectual integrity ergo they are like the poeple in the black and whitesci-fi movies from the 50's i.e; in response to me, you and others want to shoot-from-the-hip--- like an alledged good cowboy should ---and ask questions later, if ever. Sad :--( If and when, you have a question regarding ,my comments in my orginal post, that you do not understand--- apparrently most everybody who has replied so far --- or find to be invalid, then please address given commment specifically as stated, with your question or what you believe I've stated that is invalid. Those who want to generalize all of my comments as "fuller again", or not not mathematics, have and ego problem if not mental problem to grasp fairly obvious given facts/truths as stated by me. r6 cixe, I am sorry if I am OT, as I was referring to a physical set of points, in an imperfect world, not a mathematically perfect circle, which may indeed have an infinite set of points in it's circumference. When considering such things, I thought that even in mathematics there were no infinites....only very large numbers...but, I am here to learn....edd Thx for your reasonable commments. You and me appear to be the only one here who know how to have civilized conversation. The minimal circle is a triangle--- ergo a finite set of points ---and I may have even stated that in the original post. "..." are texticonic represenation/expression of concept of infinite or infinite etc....never ending i.e. a non-terminating decimal point( infinite ). As best as I recall--- and understand ---physicists from some 70 years ago, could not make sense of infinities occurring in there data so the did a process called 'renormalization", so that, they could make rational sense of those infinite values occurring in their data. A perfect circle exists only as ,metaphysically abstract concept, just as infinite this or that is just a abstract concept. So I think we agree on that issue. My personal belief, is that, the only true infinite existence is that of non-occupied space, that exists beyond our finite occupied space we call Universe, and I believe there exists rational, logical common sense explanation to support that conclusion. I think there are some here that actually fear rational,logical and common sense thinking process, as it may mean they may have to drop their ego to accept a truth(s) they have not ever considered. I dunno. Who knows what thoughts lurk in the minds of those who only want to ridicule and not have rational, logical, common sense--- if not relatively simple ---set of ideas. So, if you have a question or intellectually considerate comments, in regards to my givens, as stated, please share. We are in the trash can of speculation, so I really do not understand some of the other persistence on ridicule being expressed here. Numbs/dulls the mind. imho r6 Nor does anyone else. That is your fault because you have not, in any way, explained it. When you say "Via mathematics, we can say that, synergetically, 1 + 1 = 4, or 3 + 3 = 12." you are wrong because those numbers don't work mathematically unless, by "synergetically" you mean "wrongly" . As I said, the faulty arithmetic isn't your big problem. The total inability to communicate ideas is your big problem. And someone else getting a dictionary isn't going to help that. If you need something explained then you can ask. That is pretty simple and acceptably civilized behaviour, to best of my knowledge. "wrongly" is correct if are not willing to entertain the concept of synergetic application, tho those numbers, and that appears to be your and others problem.Hey fine by me, then move along and leave me and any may be inquistive, to further our knoledge base of information in these regards. Leave your ridicule elsewhere. You can address my comments as stated, and ask questions of what you don't understand. Lets see, what was the opening word finite 1.0? You do not understand that? Maybe it was 0.999...? You dont understand that? "Non-system" nad yes that would have been better stated as non-systemic. Either way you dont udnerstand that? How far do I have to go before I can find something I stated that you do not understand dude? Your being difficult, and my guess is it has to do wity your ego much more than my words as stated. imho When can address my comments, as stated, and have a question, or point out what invalid, then please do so. I've already made clear that the 1 + 1 = 4 is fact when used in synergetics conctext. You don't like mathematical truth, even in context of synergetics, then move along and take the moderator with you and let us decent people of a rational, logical, common sense-- if not relatively simple ---and ridicule free conversation. Please and thank you as were in the trash can of speculation to begin with so please give it a break already. Please and thank you. R6
Sensei Posted December 19, 2013 Posted December 19, 2013 It's up to you to express yourself the way people will understand what are you talking about. Nobody will bother to try to understand somebody coming by, and writing in f.e. Chinese. You don't want to be understood, then don't write on public forum. If you do so, all your ofter will be completely ignored. Like you would never said anything. Or worser, you will be treated as person with mental breakdown.
uncool Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 Yeah, so if what is your point?My point is that you are using standard symbols to mean something non-standard and expecting others to understand what you meant without explaining. What do you mean by your symbols '1', '+', '=', and '2'? I can answer precisely what all of those mean to me and to scientists. Don't blame us when you have yet to explain precisely what you mean.
hoola Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 (edited) Cixe, I think you are trying to understand something about these "infinites" that are in a theoretical perfect circle...that is a tough nut, one problem with that is that it has no "real world" example, as the minimums of the quantum keeps a seperation between points, even in space....however, there is the mental concept to be explored and thank you for addressing the interesting subject. I am disappointed that some do indeed seem immature in their purported outrage. Well, they can simply ignore your writings and not respond, if they are offended by the text. I have experienced similar things, but I ignore the ones that have no good input. I don't take it personally, wait until someone comes along who is willing to try to logic out the "illogical" theoretical universe of infinities.....it is worth the aggravation. You mention one neg response as "fear of death"...I say this is insightful.!....as I believe the universe is a mathematically based description of matter/energy born (big bang) from the basic underlying logic that itself arose from the "chaos" or death, if you will.....so as we are beings dependent upon a continuation of sustaining strictures of logic, to have logic ( aka sentience) confronted by illogic, there is an emotional reaction....to me this is quite understandable...I see this further in some sense of logic itself "fearing" the chaos it bubbled up from trillions of years ago, and perhaps will return to, leading to the death of the universe itself......I have a whole scenario from chaos to the present scribbled out in various forums if would care to see it...especially interesting to me is the idea that some components of illogic (infinites included) had to be contained the original logic set for it to functon to cause the development of the maths...like a computer program with viruses, but without those virus "catalysts" there would be an incomplete algorithmic set construction, so no universe.......I have been thinking quite a bit about the question of theoretical infinites and I will come back here for a give an take on any info on the subject.... take care....edd Edited December 20, 2013 by hoola
hypervalent_iodine Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 ! Moderator Note Sorry this took so long, I was celebrating having made it around the sun another time. cixe, This is not a warning it is request for moral, intellectual integrity and respect. Not continued ridicule by you or other. If you cant understand English then you may need to start by getting your self a dictionary. ! Moderator Note Do I need to point out the hypocrisy in this comment? I hope not. You are correct in most of your first statement, however, and this is why I am closing your thread. You are not permitted to reopen it and if you do feel like starting a new one on a different topic, please be aware that: a.) Insulting other members is absolutely not permitted. b.) You will need a thread with substance, that has some basis in the real world and where applicable, contains supporting evidence.
Recommended Posts