[Merged] Deeper than primes [Archive] - Page 29

Apathia

21st November 2009, 02:45 PM

Again, Relation (and not the name of some relation) is non-local.

As for elements, a line is the minimal form of Non-local element, and a point is the minimal form of a local element.

Yes, Doron. The Relation is non-local.
But you're not seeing that the names you use are used to signify relations. And that you are relating relations.

How is that possible: to relate relations?
How is it possible if the Non-Local and the Local are ever fixed contents and a relation cannot be an object of relation?

Your own arguments evidence you have more fluidity of thought than your system allows.

You create two pillars that make for blindspots, but you're arguments constantly force you to look around or move them to new oneword/otherword linkages.
You have to. Otherwise trying to make an system to encompass non-systematic thinking, you'd lose your ultimate intention.

You're not seeing that in your quest to free up thinking you have nevertheless created restriction.

There are many more and fluid ways we manipulate symbols than your pair-linkage structure.

doronshadmi

21st November 2009, 10:06 PM

How is that possible: to relate relations?

The answer:

The minimal condition that enables a reseachable framework is based on the linkage of Connector with Isolator , as follows:

P is id is name

Isolator is NOT is | is ~ is ≠

Connector is YES is ___ is =

Discrete Element is . (blocked by |) (XOR is logical aspect of blocked things)

Relation or Continuous Element is ___ (goes through |) (NXOR is logical aspect of goes through things)

P~P
.|_

In the case of related relations we have ___ between Ps , where P is a name of ___ and not ___ itself.

Get it?

Do you get?:

P~P
.|_

wich is the must have form of Logic (any Logic).

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

EDIT:

Only Isolation (|) is not researchable.

Only Connection (__) is not researchable.

Apathia

21st November 2009, 10:32 PM

Do you get?:

P~P
.|_

wich is the must have form of Logic (any Logic).

I rather liked the Klein bottle better, but this makes some frightening emoticon. :wackygoofy:

doronshadmi

21st November 2009, 10:57 PM

I rather liked the Klein bottle better, but this makes some frightening emoticon. :wackygoofy:
A great example:

From 3-D level Klein's Bottle is bloced by NOT (P is_not ~P) (In and Out are NOT the same).

From 4-D level Klein's Bottle goes through NOT (P is ~P) (In and Out are the same).

In general

n-dim = 1 to ∞
k-dim = 0 to n-1

n-dim is non-local w.r.t k-dim.

k-dim is local w.r.t n-dim.

This is exactly what I show in http://www.scribd.com/doc/21967511/TOC-NEW2.

P~P
.|_

Is the must have form of Logic (any Logic).

doronshadmi

22nd November 2009, 12:42 AM

You are comparing "the left x" with "the right x" and asserting that they are 'NOT equal to'
‘Not equal’ is exactly the linkage of NOT with EQUAL , and only by that linkage you are able to conclude that the left x is NOT (with) EQUAL to the right x.

Try to do it only by NOT (total isolation), or only by EQUAL (total connectivity) , and you are unable to compare, and therefore you have no contradiction.

zooterkin

22nd November 2009, 12:44 AM

‘Not equal’ is exactly the linkage of NOT with EQUAL , and only by that linkage you are able to conclude that the left x is NOT (with) EQUAL to the right x.

You have it backwards, as usual.

doronshadmi

22nd November 2009, 02:31 AM

You have it backwards, as usual.
There is no direction here.

Both NOT with EQUAL must be in a one framework, in order to compare things with each other.

You simply do not get:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5335496&postcount=7004

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5335611&postcount=7006

as usual.

dafydd

22nd November 2009, 02:43 AM

It's like trying to nail a jellyfish to a wall.

zooterkin

22nd November 2009, 02:47 AM

You simply do not get
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5334100&postcount=6980

(And you can't get much simpler than what's in that post.)

doronshadmi

22nd November 2009, 04:32 AM

You simply do not get
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5334100&postcount=6980

(And you can't get much simpler than what's in that post.)

You wrote:

If the input is TRUE, the result of NOT will be FALSE.
If the input is FALSE, the result of NOT will be TRUE.

Where is the logical basis that enables you to compare P with NOT-P (between input and result(output))?

You did not answer to this simple question.

doronshadmi

22nd November 2009, 05:08 AM

It's like trying to nail a jellyfish to a wall.

Indeed the jellyfish (the non-local) cannot be nailed (can't be localized).

laca

22nd November 2009, 05:42 AM

You wrote:

If the input is TRUE, the result of NOT will be FALSE.
If the input is FALSE, the result of NOT will be TRUE.

Where is the logical basis that enables you to compare P with NOT-P (between input and result(output))?

Well, duh, it's of course the logical operator NOT that enables us to compare P with NOT(P).

What's so hard about this to get, Doron? Are you lost?

zooterkin

22nd November 2009, 06:00 AM

You wrote:

If the input is TRUE, the result of NOT will be FALSE.
If the input is FALSE, the result of NOT will be TRUE.

Where is the logical basis that enables you to compare P with NOT-P (between input and result(output))?

You did not answer to this simple question.

Would you care to explain why you think it is not possible to compare them?

Do you understand how truth tables work yet?

jsfisher

22nd November 2009, 06:23 AM

Doron,

Why are you unable to deal with http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5334212&postcount=7000?

doronshadmi

22nd November 2009, 06:39 AM

Well, duh, it's of course the logical operator NOT that enables us to compare P with NOT(P).

What's so hard about this to get, Doron? Are you lost?
In that case NOT is not a unitary operator.

So the question remains: What enables to compare between P and NOT-P (between input P and output NOT-P )?

doronshadmi

22nd November 2009, 06:42 AM

Would you care to explain why you think it is not possible to compare them?

Do you understand how truth tables work yet?
Do you understand the minimal terms of Logic as shown in links of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5335869&postcount=7009 ?

The question remains: What enables to compare between P and NOT-P (between input P and output NOT-P )?

doronshadmi

22nd November 2009, 06:44 AM

Doron,

Why are you unable to deal with http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5334212&postcount=7000?

Why you are unable to deal with the links of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5335869&postcount=7009 ?

The question remains: What enables to compare between P and NOT-P (between input P and output NOT-P )?

jsfisher

22nd November 2009, 07:07 AM

Why you are unable to deal with the links of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5335869&postcount=7009 ?

The question remains: What enables to compare between P and NOT-P (between input P and output NOT-P )?

Tsk, tsk, tsk, doron. You are evading my questions. Why do you run away from the simple queries put forth in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5334212&postcount=7000?

Are the questions that hard or embarrassing? Stop trying to deflect or dodge. Just answer the questions.

doronshadmi

22nd November 2009, 07:13 AM

Ok, there it is, an accepted concept that there must be something relating input and output. How does that change, in any way whatsoever, the definition and behavior of the NOT operator? What difference does this connection concept make to the behavior of NOT?
NOT is an Isolator that prevents any input\output connection.

"NOT" is not "NOT connective", because "NOT connective" is not less than the linkage of Isolation with Connectivity.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, jsfisher. Where is the logical basis of Connectivity of the term "NOT connective"?

laca

22nd November 2009, 07:22 AM

Well, duh, it's of course the logical operator NOT that enables us to compare P with NOT(P).

What's so hard about this to get, Doron? Are you lost?
In that case NOT is not a unitary operator.

What a dumb reply, Doron. I just said it's a logical operator. Your reply to that is "in that case it's not unitary"? Are you capable of taking yourself seriously? ;)

doronshadmi

22nd November 2009, 07:27 AM

What a dumb reply, Doron. I just said it's a logical operator. Your reply to that is "in that case it's not unitary"? Are you capable of taking yourself seriously? ;)
Yes just said, where this 'just' is simply your ignorence of this subject.

zooterkin

22nd November 2009, 07:43 AM

Do you understand the minimal terms of Logic as shown in links of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5335869&postcount=7009 ?

Translate that post into English, and I'll let you know.

The question remains: What enables to compare between P and NOT-P (between input P and output NOT-P )?

Most people use their brains, but I realise that may be difficult for those not suitably equipped.

jsfisher

22nd November 2009, 08:08 AM

NOT is an Isolator that prevents any input\output connection.

"NOT" is not "NOT connective", because "NOT connective" is not less than the linkage of Isolation with Connectivity.

Oh, dear! You so totally didn't address the questions. You struck off on an entirely different tangent. The questions are those things were I put question marks on the end of sentences.

Please try again. Here's the link: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5334212&postcount=7000

The Man

22nd November 2009, 08:39 AM

‘Not equal’ is exactly the linkage of NOT with EQUAL , and only by that linkage you are able to conclude that the left x is NOT (with) EQUAL to the right x.

Try to do it only by NOT (total isolation), or only by EQUAL (total connectivity) , and you are unable to compare, and therefore you have no contradiction.

You are correct in that “≠” is a notation combining NOT (or “NO” noted as “/”in that notation) and Equal to (noted as “=”). A slash through a symbol generally indicates the negation of that symbol. A form of notation you may well be familiar with from traffic or other types of signs such as…

.http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/176374b0968bfc88e8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18257)

So you are claiming that your

Under isolator alone 1≠0, 1 or 0 identities are ignored (because they are totally isolated).

assertion is simply wrong.

Again if you are simply misusing (as usual) an establish notation like “≠” (NOT equal to) to represent your “total isolation” you would be better served coming up with your own notation. From one of your pervious post it seems you have simply confused “≠” as a notation for NOT. However that would make the notation for NOT equal to as “≠=” which is clearly not the case. So once again your error simply stems form your own ignorance of, refusal to actually learn about, misusing and misunderstanding of well established notations, symbols, words and concepts.

The Man

22nd November 2009, 08:41 AM

Do you get?:

P~P
.|_

wich is the must have form of Logic (any Logic).

What I do get is you asserting here that “~” (NOT) is part of your “must have form of Logic (any Logic)” combined with your previous assertions that.

Not-P is the limitation of the existence of P (and vice versa).

By Sameness reasoning this limitation has no significance (P is [_]_).

By Difference reasoning this limitation has significance (P is [_];[ ]_).

Since “NOT” “has no significance” “By Sameness reasoning” and it is part of your “must have form of Logic (any Logic)” then your “Sameness reasoning” is simply NOT ‘any form of logic’ even just by your own self contradictory standards. Of course we already were aware of this and that such a fact “has no significance” to you or your “Sameness reasoning” by your own self contradictory standards.

The Man

22nd November 2009, 09:01 AM

Do you understand the minimal terms of Logic as shown in links of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5335869&postcount=7009 ?

The question remains: What enables to compare between P and NOT-P (between input P and output NOT-P )?

Doron your "question" is meaningless; the output (value of NOT-P) is entirely dependent on and is simply the negation of the input (value of P). What makes you think or require that one need 'compare' "between P and NOT-P" when P is specifically and entirely dependent on P? Oh, wait perhaps it is just your desire to consider P and Not-P as mutually independent, well good luck with that. As such it is up to you to show no such dependence, by first invalidating the dependent relationship of negation and then demonstrating no other dependent relationships by perhaps some, well, comparison. Do not expect us or anyone else to do your work for you (like developing your imaginary ‘non-local technology’) and the restrictions of your notions (like requiring such comparison “between P and NOT-P”) are restrictive only for you. However, finding yourself distasteful of restrictions, even your own; you do not even adhere to your own assertions. Again making it highly unlikely that anyone will agree will your notions since you display such a particular distain for your just own notions.

doronshadmi

22nd November 2009, 09:48 AM

You are correct in that “≠” is a notation combining NOT (or “NO” noted as “/”in that notation) and Equal to (noted as “=”). A slash through a symbol generally indicates the negation of that symbol. A form of notation you may well be familiar with from traffic or other types of signs such as…

.http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/176374b0968bfc88e8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18257)

NO SMOKING entirely depends on the linkage of NO with SMOKING.

So is the linkage of "/" with "=" (Not equal), so thank you for supporting my argument that a researchable framework is at least a linkage of "/" with "=".

You are right about my wrong use of "≠" in order to notate only NOT .

So let us corrected it to "~" or "|", where "≠" is the linkage of NOT with EQUAL.

Thank you for that correction.

Now as for NOT (as a part of a reserachable framework) it is at least (P) NOT (NOT-P), which is actually XOR in another name, which is a binary connective.

jsfisher

22nd November 2009, 10:19 AM

So, the NOT operator is both monadic and dyadic?

Who knew.

dafydd

22nd November 2009, 11:23 AM

Yes just said, where this 'just' is simply your ignorence of this subject.

Stop,I'm laughing so much that I'm in danger of cracking a rib,you can't even spell ignorance properly,how delicious is that?

doronshadmi

22nd November 2009, 12:23 PM

So, the NOT operator is both monadic and dyadic?

Who knew.

You know something like (P) NOT-EQUAL (NOT-P)

After all there must be a linkage between NOT and (P) in order to get (NOT-P).

To write ~P is like saying "MORNING" instead of "GOOD-MORNING".

This kind of slang shortcut of informal language is not allowed in Logic.

So without shortcut the full phrase is (P) ≠ (~P), which is dyadic.

jsfisher

22nd November 2009, 12:30 PM

You know somthing like (P) NOT-EQUAL (NOT-P)

No, doron. That's not an example of NOT as a dyadic operator. Your previous ridiculous "it is at least (P) NOT (NOT-P)", however, was.

laca

22nd November 2009, 12:30 PM

You know somthing like (P) NOT-EQUAL (NOT-P)

Well, if you mean that, why don't you say it like that? That's just dishonest.

The Man

22nd November 2009, 01:28 PM

NO SMOKING entirely depends on the linkage of NO with SMOKING.

So is the linkage of "/" with "=" (Not equal), so thank you for supporting my argument that a researchable framework is at least a linkage of "/" with "=".

Doron the only claim I supported was that the symbol “"≠" represents “NOT equal to”, which although that symbol was part of your argument, the meaning of that symbol was certainly not part of your argument. Stop deluding yourself.

You are right about my wrong use of "≠" in order to notate only NOT .

Thank you, but now do you see how the correct usage of that symbol might deter from and even refute the point you were trying to make when using it?

So let us corrected it to "~" or "|", where "≠" is the linkage of NOT with EQUAL.

Thank you for that correction.

No problem Doron, that is what I and several others are specifically here for. The problem is Doron that this is just one example amongst many of you simply misusing symbols, notations, words and concepts that when applied correctly not only deter but often directly refute the point you are trying to make using them. I doubt anyone is here trying to prevent you from accurately expressing your notions, in fact it is only then that we can effectively examine your notions, we are trying to help you in that regard. This is just one of the few if not only cases of you accepting the help by acknowledging and correcting the misapplication.

Now as for NOT (as a part of a reserachable framework) it is at least (P) NOT (NOT-P), which is actually XOR in another name, which is a binary connective.

Ok you were doing better for a moment there, which did give me some hope, but this last statement is a bit of a back slide.

You know something like (P) NOT-EQUAL (NOT-P)

Now this is a lot better, but it simply reduces to ‘(P) EQUAL (P)’. Also it confirms your ascriptions of the same values for P as NOT P in some of your tables as simply erroneous.

laca

22nd November 2009, 02:32 PM

You know somthing like (P) NOT-EQUAL (NOT-P)

Well, if you mean that, why don't you say it like that? That's just dishonest.

Also, do you mean that NOT is equivalent to NOT-EQUAL?

The Man

22nd November 2009, 02:36 PM

Also, do you mean that NOT is equivalent to NOT-EQUAL?

No, we have at last established at least that.

zooterkin

22nd November 2009, 02:56 PM

No, we have at last established at least that.

I wouldn't put money on it.

The Man

22nd November 2009, 04:31 PM

I wouldn't put money on it.

Not a sound bet for sure, but if your going to gamble you might as well put a couple of bucks on a long shot once in a while.

dafydd

22nd November 2009, 06:17 PM

Not a sound bet for sure, but if your going to gamble you might as well put a couple of bucks on a long shot once in a while.

Speaking as an ex-betting office manager,I would give it odds of about a million to one.

doronshadmi

23rd November 2009, 12:06 AM

the meaning of that symbol was certainly not part of your argument.
≠ notation is exactly my argument about the linkage between total isolation (notated as “|” or “~”) and total connectivity (notated as “__” or “=”)

Please see http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5335496&postcount=7004 , where ≠ is wrongly used but corrected thanks to you, which enabled to reinforce my argument.

Let X be a placeholder of an element.

X | X is total isolation, such that X is-not (≠) comparable (X is totally isolated).

X__X is total connectivity, such that X is-not (≠) comparable (X is totally connected).

Comparison is possible only under | __ linkage, such that X_|_X , where X is not totally connected (the | of _|_ enables X identity) and not totally isolated (the __ of _|_ enables comparison of X identities).

Be aware of the fact that is-not (≠) is used in oreder to conclude something about X, because a reseachable framework is at least X_|_X.

So X_|_X is exactly a researchable framework, which enables Comparison of Identities.

| is the basis of Locality of X_|_X and ___ is the basis of Non-locality of X_|_X.

zooterkin

23rd November 2009, 12:09 AM

Can you confirm that you now get http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5334100&postcount=6980 ?

doronshadmi

23rd November 2009, 12:21 AM

Can you confirm that you now get http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5334100&postcount=6980 ?

Yes, it is P ≠ ~P, where ≠ is exactly _|_

sympathic

23rd November 2009, 01:40 AM

Yes, it is P ~P, where ≠ is exactly _|_

You do not get that ≠ is actually - *** -

doronshadmi

23rd November 2009, 03:51 AM

You do not get that ≠ is actually - *** -

Problems to get the researchable framework as a linkage between isolation and connectivity.

zooterkin

23rd November 2009, 04:05 AM

Problems to get the researchable framework as a linkage between isolation and connectivity.

Colourless green ideas sleep furiously. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously)

sympathic

23rd November 2009, 04:11 AM

Problems to get the researchable framework as a linkage between isolation and connectivity.

was not it potential infinity and actual infinity, or maybe local or non-local? I forget.

doronshadmi

23rd November 2009, 04:22 AM

You know something like (P) NOT-EQUAL (NOT-P)
Now this is a lot better, but it simply reduces to ‘(P) EQUAL (P)’.
Worng.

((P) ≠ (~P)) ≠ ((P) = (P))

zooterkin

23rd November 2009, 04:25 AM

Worng.

Priceless!

((P) ≠ (~P)) ≠ ((P) = (P))

Wrong, indeed!

doronshadmi

23rd November 2009, 04:28 AM

was not it potential infinity and actual infinity, or maybe local or non-local? I forget.

No, total isolation is the basis of actually finite and total connectivity is the basis of actual infinity.

No one of them is accessible by a complex, which is more than actual infinity and less than actual infinity.

This is the reason of why an infinite interpolation of a segment is not a point, and an infinite extrapolation of a segment is not an endless (edgeless) straight line.

doronshadmi

23rd November 2009, 04:38 AM

Priceless!

Wrong, indeed!

Do you support The Man that claims that ((P) ≠ (~P)) = ((P) = (P)) ?

zooterkin

23rd November 2009, 04:40 AM

Do you support The Man that claims that ((P) ≠ (~P)) = ((P) = (P)) ?

It's trivially true, I would say.

Do you understand how "NOT", and truth tables, work yet?

doronshadmi

23rd November 2009, 04:43 AM

It's trivially true, I would say.

Do you understand how "NOT", and truth tables, work yet?

Is it true that ((P) ≠ (~P)) = ((P) = (P)) ?

Please answer by yes or no.

zooterkin

23rd November 2009, 04:47 AM

Is it true that ((P) ≠ (~P)) = ((P) = (P)) ?

Please answer by yes or no.

Yes.

doronshadmi

23rd November 2009, 04:48 AM

Do you understand how "NOT", and truth tables, work yet?
Do you understand what enables to connect between NOT and P in order to get NOT-P (where P is T or F)?

doronshadmi

23rd November 2009, 04:57 AM

Yes.

Please explain how ((zooterkin) ≠ (~zooterkin)) = ((zooterkin) = (zooterkin))

EDIT:

Please be aware of the fact that ((zooterkin) ≠ (~zooterkin)) is not the same as ((zooterkin) = (~~zooterkin)) = ((zooterkin) = (zooterkin))

zooterkin

23rd November 2009, 05:07 AM

Please explain how ((zooterkin) ≠ (~zooterkin)) = ((zooterkin) = (zooterkin))

It doesn't, unless zooterkin is a variable which is either True or False.

doronshadmi

23rd November 2009, 05:17 AM

It doesn't, unless zooterkin is a variable which is either True or False.

No problem.

Does ((T) ≠ (~T)) is the same as ((T) = (~~T)) = ((T) = (T))?

Please answer by yes or no.

zooterkin

23rd November 2009, 05:20 AM

No problem.

Does ((T) ≠ (~T)) is the same as ((T) = (~~T)) = ((T) = (T))?

Please answer by yes or no.

Assuming T stands for True, Yes.

doronshadmi

23rd November 2009, 05:30 AM

Assuming T stands for True, Yes.

~T = F

Does ((T) ≠ (F)) is the same as ((T) = (T)) ?

Be aware that I am not talking about the fact that both of tham are True statments.

doronshadmi

23rd November 2009, 05:42 AM

EDIT:

~T = F

((T) ≠ (F)) is not the same as ((T) = (T))
exactly as
(1≠0) is not the same as (1=1) ,
even if all of them are true statments.

zooterkin

23rd November 2009, 05:47 AM

~T = F

Very good, so now you understand:

P Not-P
T F
F T

((T) ≠ (F)) is the same as ((T) = (T))

Yes.

exactly as (3≠5) is not the same as (3=3) , even if all of them are true statments.

Clearly, when you are dealing with more than one possible value, the same does not apply.

ETA: You seem to have rewritten your post twice since I started to reply to it. Let me know when you've finished.

laca

23rd November 2009, 05:51 AM

We should rename the thread to "elementary maths for doronshadmi" :rolleyes:

doronshadmi

23rd November 2009, 05:53 AM

ETA: You seem to have rewritten your post twice since I started to reply to it. Let me know when you've finished.

Finished.

EDIT : Please see also http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5338952&postcount=7055

doronshadmi

23rd November 2009, 05:59 AM

We should rename the thread to "elementary maths for doronshadmi" :rolleyes:
"elementary maths for classical mathematicians" is the right one.

doronshadmi

23rd November 2009, 06:10 AM

Colourless green ideas sleep furiously. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously)
Yes, this is exactly how "NOT" is a "unitary connective" by classical maths (where "connective" is used but ignored).

Little 10 Toes

23rd November 2009, 06:26 AM

Do you understand how "NOT", and truth tables, work yet?

doronshadmi, you still haven't answered this question, nor my own. Is there a reason why?

jsfisher

23rd November 2009, 06:36 AM

doronshadmi

23rd November 2009, 06:40 AM

Doron,

Why are you unable to deal with http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5334212&postcount=7000?

(And, yes, [any true statement in logic] = [any true statement in logic], so (P ≠ ~P) = (P = P) is a true statement.)

In other words, you ignored:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5339082&postcount=7061

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5338952&postcount=7055

As a result you get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5339160&postcount=7066

exactly because you can't get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5338543&postcount=7041 .

You have no clue with what you deal here.

laca

23rd November 2009, 06:50 AM

"elementary maths for classical mathematicians" is the right one.

No, "classical" mathematicians do not need your garbage. You on the other hand could use some major firmware upgrade with possible hardware changes as well ;)

jsfisher

23rd November 2009, 06:54 AM

In other words, you ignored....

Doron, doron, doron. The links you posted do not address my questions. Let's try again. Here's the link to my post: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5334212&postcount=7000. The questions are those sentences the end with question marks. Question marks are this symbol: ?

doronshadmi

23rd November 2009, 06:54 AM

No, "classical" mathematicians do not need your garbage. You on the other hand could use some major firmware upgrade with possible hardware changes as well ;)

NOT is the connective between NOT and P, isn't it laca ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5336084&postcount=7014 )?

zooterkin

23rd November 2009, 06:54 AM

Yes, this is exactly how "NOT" is a "unitary connective" by classical maths (where "connective" is used but ignored).

You're the one that introduced the term "unitary connective" to this discussion. Could you explain what you mean by it? I would tend to use "monadic operator", but I would not swear that that is the correct term.

doronshadmi

23rd November 2009, 07:04 AM

Doron, doron, doron. The links you posted do not address my questions. Let's try again. Here's the link to my post: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5334212&postcount=7000. The questions are those sentences the end with question marks. Question marks are this symbol: ?

Already given in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5336240&postcount=7021.

Since you ignore http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5339246&postcount=7069 it is your choice to stay ignorant in this fine subject.

doronshadmi

23rd November 2009, 07:19 AM

You're the one that introduced the term "unitary connective" to this discussion. Could you explain what you mean by it? I would tend to use "monadic operator", but I would not swear that that is the correct term.

You can find it in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_connective .

I called it "unitary connective" so let us correct it to "unary connective" for better communication on this subject.

jsfisher

23rd November 2009, 07:19 AM

Already given in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5336240&postcount=7021.

Oh, come on, Doron. You know better. That post has already been rejected as not responsive to the actual questions in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5336331&postcount=7025.

Surely, you can give straight-forward answers to simple questions. Stop dodging and weaving. Stop wandering off on tangents. Please stop running in fear from my queries. Here's the link again: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5334212&postcount=7000.

jsfisher

23rd November 2009, 07:24 AM

You can find it in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_connective .

I called it "unitary connective" so let us correct it to "unary connective" for better communication on this subject.

Wikipedia is not always completely accurate on a given subject. The link doron has provided is one such example.

Doron, can you find any mistakes in the wikipedia reference you cited?

doronshadmi

23rd November 2009, 07:32 AM

Wikipedia is not always completely accurate on a given subject. The link doron has provided is one such example.

Doron, can you find any mistakes in the wikipedia reference you cited?

We are focused now on http://www-staff.it.uts.edu.au/~simmonds/Sophy/bool.htm "unary connective" ("The NOT function is a unary connective, all the others are at least binary,") if you don't mind.

doronshadmi

23rd November 2009, 07:33 AM

Oh, come on, Doron. You know better. That post has already been rejected as not responsive to the actual questions in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5336331&postcount=7025.

Surely, you can give straight-forward answers to simple questions. Stop dodging and weaving. Stop wandering off on tangents. Please stop running in fear from my queries. Here's the link again: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5334212&postcount=7000.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5339316&postcount=7074 take or leave it.

jsfisher

23rd November 2009, 07:36 AM

We are focused now on http://www-staff.it.uts.edu.au/~simmonds/Sophy/bool.htm "unary connective" if you don't mind.

Then why did you post the wikipedia link? My god, man, you move goal posts that are still in storage.

jsfisher

23rd November 2009, 07:37 AM

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5339316&postcount=7074 take or leave it.

I have already addressed this. It was non-responsive to my questions. It is clear you have no answer to my questions.

doronshadmi

23rd November 2009, 07:40 AM

Then why did you post the wikipedia link? My god, man, you move goal posts that are still in storage.

"Unary connective" is a phrase of your community in any given source.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5339160&postcount=7066

doronshadmi

23rd November 2009, 07:44 AM

I have already addressed this.
No, you did not sipmly because you do not address logically the "connective" part of the phrase "Unary connective".

jsfisher

23rd November 2009, 07:54 AM

No, you did not sipmly because you do not address logically the "connective" part of the phrase "Unary connective".

Logic fails you, doron. You didn't address my questions. You instead wandered off into your own private fantasy land of undefined terms and concepts. Whether I have addressed "logically the 'connective' part" isn't relevant to your lack of response to my questions.

If you'd like to try again, knock yourself out, but as it stands, the smart money is betting you cannot answer the questions.

sympathic

23rd November 2009, 09:43 AM

No, total isolation is the basis of actually finite and total connectivity is the basis of actual infinity.

No one of them is accessible by a complex, which is more than actual infinity and less than actual infinity.

This is the reason of why an infinite interpolation of a segment is not a point, and an infinite extrapolation of a segment is not an endless (edgeless) straight line.
got it.

The Man

23rd November 2009, 03:58 PM

EDIT:

~T = F

((T) ≠ (F)) is not the same as ((T) = (T))
exactly as
(1≠0) is not the same as (1=1) ,
even if all of them are true statments.

As zooterkin noted before it is the result of binary or two value system. NOT equal to some value requires the negation of that value since there is simply no other value that could NOT be equal to that value. Also as jsfisher noted this puts all true statements at the same value (TRUE) and all false statements at the same value (FALSE). Thus if a statement is NOT or NOT equal to FALSE then it must be TRUE and equal to any other true statement. So although NOT (meaning negation) is a distinct concept from “NOT equal to” (meaning “not the same value as”) that distinction is simply not apparent in a two value or binary system as one value being NOT equal to another value requires it to be equal to the negation of that other value

The Man

23rd November 2009, 04:40 PM

≠ notation is exactly my argument about the linkage between total isolation (notated as “|” or “~”) and total connectivity (notated as “__” or “=”)

So you are now disregarding your “argument” about “difference reasoning”?

Sameness alone or difference alone are not researchable, so the researchable is at least Sameness\Difference logic.

Not-P is the limitation of the existence of P (and vice versa).

By Sameness reasoning this limitation has no significance (P is [_]_).

By Difference reasoning this limitation has significance (P is [_];[ ]_).

Please see http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5335496&postcount=7004 , where ≠ is wrongly used but corrected thanks to you, which enabled to reinforce my argument.

I have seen it Doron and no it does not “reinforce” you arguments since your arguments simply do not reinforce your arguments.

Your current dilemma Doron is your assertion that “difference alone” or your “Difference reasoning” alone is not researchable” yet “≠”, a simple representation of a difference, is your “linkage between total isolation (notated as “|” or “~”) and total connectivity (notated as “__” or “=”)”. So once again Doron you simply can not seem to make up your mind what your purported “argument” is since you simply argue with yourself as much as you do anyone else. You see Doron that is the problem when you simply try to make this stuff up as you go.

Let X be a placeholder of an element.

X | X is total isolation, such that X is-not (≠) comparable (X is totally isolated).

X__X is total connectivity, such that X is-not (≠) comparable (X is totally connected).

Comparison is possible only under | __ linkage, such that X_|_X , where X is not totally connected (the | of _|_ enables X identity) and not totally isolated (the __ of _|_ enables comparison of X identities).

Be aware of the fact that is-not (≠) is used in oreder to conclude something about X, because a reseachable framework is at least X_|_X.

Be aware the your limitations limit only you and since they apparently do not even limit you then they limit no one, so until you adhere to your own limitations there really is no point in you even bringing them up.

So X_|_X is exactly a researchable framework, which enables Comparison of Identities.

| is the basis of Locality of X_|_X and ___ is the basis of Non-locality of X_|_X.

Again this puts you in a conundrum as your “difference reasoning” alone requires “≠”, a simple representation of a difference, and “Comparison of Identities”. Thus entailing your “Sameness\Difference logic” and your “linkage between total isolation (notated as “|” or “~”) and total connectivity (notated as “__” or “=”)”.

doronshadmi

24th November 2009, 12:16 AM

Your current dilemma Doron is your assertion that “difference alone” or your “Difference reasoning” alone is not researchable” yet “≠”, a simple representation of a difference, is your “linkage between total isolation (notated as “|” or “~”) and total connectivity (notated as “__” or “=”)”. So once again Doron you simply can not seem to make up your mind what your purported “argument” is since you simply argue with yourself as much as you do anyone else. You see Doron that is the problem when you simply try to make this stuff up as you go.
Let us speak about unary connectives.

For example -1,+1,~P

Actually there is no such a thing like unary connective because:

-1 is actually 0-1, +1 is actually 0+1 (and in general x-y or x+y), and ~P is actually Q ≠ P , where Q ≠ P is not reducible to Q = Q or P = P , as you claim in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5337159&postcount=7035.

Now let us understand the foundation of a researchable framework.

Let @ be a place holder for P or Q.

Let | be isolator.

Let __ be connector.

Only ___ (notated as @ @) does not enable to compare @ values.

Only | (notated as @|@) does not enable to compare @ values.

Comparison is possible only under | __ linkage (notated as _|_) such that @ is partially isolated and partially connected (notated as @_|_@) that enables to compare @ values.

Under @_|_@, __ is partial (because of |) , which enables to compare @ values, such that @_@ is P=P or Q=Q.

Under @_|_@, | is partial (because of __) , which enables to compare @ values, such that @_@ is P≠Q or Q≠P.

@_|_@ is the fundamental form of a researchable framework, and no unary foundation is possible because by unary @|@ or @ @ comparison is avoided.

In other words, a researchable framework such that @_|_@ complex enables @=@ or @≠@ under a one framework where @=@ and @≠@ forms are comparable.

Again The Man you have no understanding of atomic (actual or total) or complex (partial) states.

As a result you are unable to understand Infinite interpolation (the inability of a segment to be a point) or Infinite extrapolation (the inability of a segment to be an endless (edgeless) straight line).

Also you are unable to understand the foundations of Logic, exactly because of the same reason.

Your only reasoning is makeup reasoning, where the makeup prevents any understanding.

The understanding of makeup reasoning community does not hold water, and has to be replaced by natural reasoning.

laca

24th November 2009, 01:21 AM

Are we into ASCII art now? :confused:

dafydd

24th November 2009, 02:42 AM

doronshadmi

24th November 2009, 03:58 AM

What is a ''makeup reasoning community''? I'll bet that is the first time that those three words have been strung together.
So?

doronshadmi

24th November 2009, 04:00 AM

Are we into ASCII art now? :confused:
We are into the foundations of Logic now.

Little 10 Toes

24th November 2009, 10:31 AM

dafydd

24th November 2009, 10:55 AM

So?

What is a ''makeup reasoning community''?

sympathic

24th November 2009, 11:20 AM

What is a ''makeup reasoning community''?

Doron embraced this figure of speech from one of the posts here which ended with "make up your mind", from this Doron went on to us using make-up to cover our minds or something. His entire terminology is very graphic. He seems to have great difficulty with abstract concepts.

The Man

24th November 2009, 01:33 PM

Let us speak about unary connectives.

For example -1,+1,~P

Actually there is no such a thing like unary connective because:

-1 is actually 0-1, +1 is actually 0+1 (and in general x-y or x+y), and ~P is actually Q ≠ P
, where Q ≠ P is not reducible to Q = Q or P = P , as you claim in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5337159&postcount=7035.

So your assertion is “Actually there is no such a thing like unary connective because:” you simply do not understand the word unary.

Now let us understand the foundation of a researchable framework.

Let @ be a place holder for P or Q.

Let | be isolator.

Let __ be connector.

Only ___ (notated as @ @) does not enable to compare @ values.

Only | (notated as @|@) does not enable to compare @ values.

So you are giving up entirely on your

Sameness alone or difference alone are not researchable, so the researchable is at least Sameness\Difference logic.

Assertions?

Comparison is possible only under | __ linkage (notated as _|_) such that @ is partially isolated and partially connected (notated as @_|_@) that enables to compare @ values.

Under @_|_@, __ is partial (because of |) , which enables to compare @ values, such that @_@ is P=P or Q=Q.

“=” is a comparative assertion.

Under @_|_@, | is partial (because of __) , which enables to compare @ values, such that @_@ is P≠Q or Q≠P.

“≠” is a comparative assertion.

So immediately after claiming “Comparison is possible only under | __ linkage” you assert each of your “partials” (“| is partial (because of __)” as well as “__ is partial (because of |)”) “enables to compare”. Again, just make up your mind Doron.

@_|_@ is the fundamental form of a researchable framework, and no unary foundation is possible because by unary @|@ or @ @ comparison is avoided.

You have already quite clearly demonstrated that you simply do not comprehend the meaning of the word unary, no need for you to continue to demonstrate that.

In other words, a researchable framework such that @_|_@ complex enables @=@ or @≠@ under a one framework where @=@ and @≠@ forms are comparable.

Again “=” and “≠” are simply related, "comparable" and mutually dependent by negation, any other requirements so "@=@ and @≠@ forms are comparable” are simply your and yours alone.

Again The Man you have no understanding of atomic (actual or total) or complex (partial) states.

Again Doron, your “Atomic”, “Complex” and/or “(partial) states” limits and limitations are yours and yours alone.

As a result you are unable to understand Infinite interpolation (the inability of a segment to be a point) or Infinite extrapolation (the inability of a segment to be an endless (edgeless) straight line).

Well you just let us know when you can at least toast a slice of bread with your “non-finite energy source” from your “Infinite interpolation”.

Also you are unable to understand the foundations of Logic, exactly because of the same reason.

Your only reasoning is makeup reasoning, where the makeup prevents any understanding.

The understanding of makeup reasoning community does not hold water, and has to be replaced by natural reasoning.

Your messiah complex is showing again Doron, along with your tendency to just string words together.

doronshadmi

25th November 2009, 12:02 AM

And to your claim that (P) ≠ (~P) is not the same as P=P is absurd. Even I get it.
If P = True, and then (True) is not equal to ((Not)True).
No need to introduce Q, we're done.
NOT-EQUAL is connection between NOT and EQUAL.

NOT-@ (where @ is a place holder of T or F) is a connection between NOT and @.

Where is the basis of this connection in by your reasoning?

Furthermore, to claim, for example, that 1≠0 is the same as 1=1, is (as you say) an absurd.

Both of them are true statements, but 1≠0 is about Difference and 1=1 is about Sameness.

To claim that Difference is Sameness, is not very useful.

So the minimal conditions of a useful framework is at least a linkage of Difference with Sameness under a complement framework.

dafydd

25th November 2009, 12:10 AM

Doron embraced this figure of speech from one of the posts here which ended with "make up your mind", from this Doron went on to us using make-up to cover our minds or something. His entire terminology is very graphic. He seems to have great difficulty with abstract concepts.

He seems to have great difficulty with any concept.

zooterkin

25th November 2009, 12:27 AM

Furthermore, to claim, for example, that 1≠0 is the same as 1=1, is (as you say) an absurd.

Where is this being claimed? (It's 'absurd', not 'an absurd').

Both of them are true statements, but 1≠0 is about Difference and 1=1 is about Sameness.

To claim that Difference is Sameness, is not very useful.

The negation of difference is sameness. And if you are dealing with only two possible values (True and False, or 0 and 1 in binary), then if two values are not different (when there's only one way they can be different), then they are the same.

doronshadmi

25th November 2009, 01:17 AM

So immediately after claiming “Comparison is possible only under | __ linkage” you assert each of your “partials” (“| is partial (because of __)” as well as “__ is partial (because of |)”) “enables to compare”. Again, just make up your mind Doron.[
What make up is needed here?

We are talking about not less than _ | _ , get it?

So your assertion is “Actually there is no such a thing like unary connective because:” you simply do not understand the word unary.

Let @ be a place holder for P or Q.

Let | be isolator.

Let __ be connector.

Only ___ (notated as @ @) does not enable to compare @ values.

Only | (notated as @|@) does not enable to compare @ values.

Unary means that we deal with an atom, where an atom is a total state, such that the atomic state of NOT is total isolation (notate as @|@).

Also the atomic state of YES is unary and total, such that YES is total connectivity (notate as @ @).

Unary state is not researchable, and only a linkage of (@|@) with (@ @) is researchable, where under this linkage NOT
is at least NOT CONNECTIVE (≠) where Connectivity is not total (comparison, notated as @_@, is possible), because of the Isolation aspect of Isolation\Connectivity linkage (notated as _ | _).

By your limited reasoning Unary is defined by the number of input values.

From this limited reasoning (where f is some logical connective , and P or Q are input values) f(P) is considered as Unary , and f(P,Q) (where P is different than Q) is considered as Dyadic.

This limited reasoning does not explain how f() and P or Q inputs are linked, in the first place.

Unlike your limited reasoning, @ | @ provides this explanation.

doronshadmi

25th November 2009, 02:24 AM

Where is this being claimed? (It's 'absurd', not 'an absurd').

The negation of difference is sameness. And if you are dealing with only two possible values (True and False, or 0 and 1 in binary), then if two values are not different (when there's only one way they can be different), then they are the same.

You know something like (P) NOT-EQUAL (NOT-P)
..., but it simply reduces to ‘(P) EQUAL (P)’.
According to The Man (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5337159&postcount=7035) 1≠0 is reducible to 1=1, and you zooterkin agree with The Man.

In that case please show us how 1≠0 is reducible to 1=1?

zooterkin

25th November 2009, 02:33 AM

According to The Man (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5337159&postcount=7035) 1≠0 is reducible to 1=1,
Where in that post is either 1 or 0 mentioned?

doronshadmi

25th November 2009, 02:44 AM

Again “=” and “≠” are simply related, "comparable" and mutually dependent by negation,
Translation:

“simply related” means “there is a connection but I shell not provide any basis for that connection”.

“mutually dependent by negation” means “ negation (which is total isolation, notated as “|”) enables to demonstrate mutuality under “=”|”≠” ”.

In other words, utter nonsense.

doronshadmi

25th November 2009, 02:48 AM

Where in that post is either 1 or 0 mentioned?

By boolean framework.

1≠0 is an example of ((P) ≠ (~P))

1=1 is an example of ((P) = (P))

zooterkin

25th November 2009, 02:51 AM

1≠0 is an example of ((P) ≠ (~P))

1=1 is an example of ((P) = (P))

You do not get http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5344402#post5344402

ETA: Or http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5341311#post5341311

The Man

25th November 2009, 02:54 AM

What make up is needed here?

You to simply make up your mind, as I said.

We are talking about not less than _ | _ , get it?

You were talking about “ less than _ | _”

Remember your ‘partials’ “which enables to compare”

Under @_|_@, __ is partial (because of |) , which enables to compare @ values, such that @_@ is P=P or Q=Q.

Under @_|_@, | is partial (because of __) , which enables to compare @ values, such that @_@ is P≠Q or Q≠P.

,get it?

Unary means that we deal with as atom, where an atom is a total state, such that the atomic state of NOT is total isolation (notate as @ | @).

No unary simple refers to

u⋅na⋅ry

pertaining to a function whose domain is a given set and whose range is contained in that set.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unary

Also the atomic state of YES is unary and total, such that YES is total connectivity (notate as @ @).

Unary state is not researchable, and only a linkage of (@ | @) with (@ @) is researchable, where under this linkage NOT
is at least NOT CONNECTIVE (≠) where Connectivity is not total (comparison, notated as @_@, is possible), because of the Isolation aspect of Isolation\Connectivity linkage.

So once again after claiming your “unary” “atomic state of NOT is total isolation (notate as @ | @)” and “atomic state of YES is” “total connectivity (notate as @ @)” you are going to assert that you have no basis for those claims since “Unary state is not researchable”?

You do understand that “NOT CONNECTIVE” would be your “total isolation (notate as @ | @)”, don’t you? “NOT CONNECTIVE” does not mean ‘some connectivity’ as in “where Connectivity is not total”, but simply “NOT“, well, “CONNECTIVE”.

Once again “≠” means ‘not equal to’.

You seem to still be conflating the logical operation of “NOT" meaning negation with the more general natural language application of “not” inferring “not the same as” or “not equal to”.

Guess that was a loosing bet.

By your limited reasoning Unary is defined by the number of input values.

That would be a unary operation, but by your limited reasoning I would not expect you to actually understand that.

From this limited reasoning (where f is some logical connective , and x or y are input values) f(x) is considered as Unary , and f(x,y) (where x is different than y) is considered as Dyadic.

Actually unary derives from the word Binary

Origin:
1570–80; < L ūn(us) one + -ary, on the model of binary

This limited reasoning does not explain how f() and X or Y inputs are linked, in the first place.

Fortunately all reasoning is not limited to your purported “reasoning” (much that you would like it to be and continue to assert that it is) and a unary operation is simply a function of one variable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unary_operation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operator#Operators_versus_functions

Unlike your limited reasoning, @ | @ provides this explanation.

No, as usual it just provides for your nonsensical, self-contradictory, gibberish, which could easily be avoided if you would just do some research. That apparently your ‘researchable framework’ does not permit you to do. So instead you simply focus on your “Unary state”s that you claim are ‘not researchable’.

The Man

25th November 2009, 02:59 AM

Translation:

“simply related” means “there is a connection but I shell not provide any basis for that connection”.

It was given as negation if you would actually just read instead of ’translating’ into your own utter nonsense.

“mutually dependent by negation” means “ negation (which is total isolation, notated as “|”) enables to demonstrate mutuality under “=”|”≠” ”.

In other words, utter nonsense.

Again with the irony Doron.

doronshadmi

25th November 2009, 04:23 AM

“NOT CONNECTIVE” does not mean ‘some connectivity’ as in “where Connectivity is not total”, but simply “NOT“, well, “CONNECTIVE”.

The Man reasoning:

"Simply" means "I use it without any basis".

NOT (which is total Isolation) is CONNECTIVE (which is total Connectivity).

1≠0 is reducible to 1=1.

Again The Man Trivial and Simple are the same by your reasoning.

doronshadmi

25th November 2009, 04:40 AM

Again with the irony Doron.

| is NOT only (Total Isolation)

__ is YES only (Total Connection)

A useful framrework is _|_ because things are comparable exactly because | or ___ are not total under _|_ .

But you The Man can't get it.

zooterkin

25th November 2009, 04:42 AM

By boolean framework.
<sigh> Another unannotated edit.

If you are using Boolean, where 1 stands for TRUE and 0 for FALSE, then yes, what you say is correct.

1≠0 is an example of ((P) ≠ (~P))

1=1 is an example of ((P) = (P))

What's the problem?

doronshadmi

25th November 2009, 04:51 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unary_operation

(−(−2)) = (+2)

What enables to compare (− with (− with 2) in order to get (+ with 2)?

doronshadmi

25th November 2009, 04:53 AM

What's the problem?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5344570&postcount=7101

doronshadmi

25th November 2009, 05:32 AM

You do not get http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5344402#post5344402

ETA: Or http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5341311#post5341311

Thus if a statement is NOT or NOT equal to FALSE then it must be TRUE and equal to any other true statement.
In that case you must compare between FALSE and TRUE in order to get this conclusion.

What enables you to do that?

doronshadmi

25th November 2009, 05:42 AM

You were talking about “ less than _ | _”

Remember your ‘partials’ “which enables to compare”

Gebberish.

Another example of your inability to get _ | _ , which is my " ‘partials’ “which enables to compare” "

sympathic

25th November 2009, 05:46 AM

In that case you must compare between FALSE and TRUE in order to get this conclusion.

What enables you to do that?

Understanding the basic concepts of Logic.

doronshadmi

25th November 2009, 05:49 AM

Understanding the basic concepts of Logic.
Which must be comparable, so?

jsfisher

25th November 2009, 05:52 AM

(−(−2)) = (+2)

What enables to compare (− with (− with 2) in order to get (+ with 2)?

"Enables to compare" -- ya gotta love these fictitious concepts, especially when embedded in poor English.

Then again, Doron is still stuck on the animation requirement for everything Mathematics.

And be all that as it may, what difference does it make? Doron runs away from this question.

doronshadmi

25th November 2009, 06:03 AM

"Enables to compare" -- ya gotta love these fictitious concepts, especially when embedded in poor English.

Then again, Doron is still stuck on the animation requirement for everything Mathematics.

And be all that as it may, what difference does it make? Doron runs away from this question.

The animation is a direct result of your frame-by-frame local-reasoning, where Non-locality and Simultaneity are beyond understanding.

EDIT:

Jsfisher, what enables to compare between any arbitrary pair of notations in the quote above, even before there is some rule that gives it a meaning?

You are not aware of the fundamental level of our discussion.

sympathic

25th November 2009, 06:37 AM

Which must be comparable, so?

says who?

sympathic

25th November 2009, 06:40 AM

The animation is a direct result of your frame-by-frame local-reasoning, where Non-locality and Simultaneity are beyond understanding.

EDIT:

Jsfisher, what enables to compare between any arbitrary pair of notations in the quote above, even before there is some rule that gives it a meaning?

You are not aware of the fundamental level of our discussion.

why can't you grasp simple definitions any child would?

doronshadmi

25th November 2009, 07:00 AM

says who?
Try to research without comparison.

doronshadmi

25th November 2009, 07:02 AM

why can't you grasp simple definitions any child would?
why can't you grasp http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5345093&postcount=7121?

sympathic

25th November 2009, 07:23 AM

Try to research without comparison.

are you joking? look around you, practically everything you see (including the computer you are using to post your gibberish on this forum) is a result of this research.

sympathic

25th November 2009, 07:24 AM

why can't you grasp http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5345093&postcount=7121?

I can. I just think it is nonsense.

dafydd

25th November 2009, 08:42 AM

I can. I just think it is nonsense.

That's putting it mildly.

jsfisher

25th November 2009, 01:56 PM

The animation is a direct result of your frame-by-frame local-reasoning, where Non-locality and Simultaneity are beyond understanding.

No, it is not of my making at all. You are the one who insists Mathematics is process. And all it has gotten you, his odd world view you have, is contradiction and inconsistency. Poor choice on your part.

EDIT:

Jsfisher, what enables to compare between any arbitrary pair of notations in the quote above, even before there is some rule that gives it a meaning?

You are not aware of the fundamental level of our discussion.

You still don't get it: "Enables to compare" is gibberish. It has no semantic valuation. Moreover, you have demonstrated no necessity for any comparison; you have run away from any questions about what difference it makes.

doronshadmi

26th November 2009, 03:08 AM

No, it is not of my making at all. You are the one who insists Mathematics is process.

No, Mathematics is an open framework like any complex system, but you are not able to get that.

doronshadmi

26th November 2009, 03:11 AM

Moreover, you have demonstrated no necessity for any comparison;

Ho yes I did.

Try to research ~P value without compare ~ with P and ~P with P.

Your unary gebberish does not hold water.

doronshadmi

26th November 2009, 03:14 AM

are you joking? look around you, practically everything you see (including the computer you are using to post your gibberish on this forum) is a result of this research.
It is reseachable because ~ is copmarable with P and ~P is comparable with P.

No comparison, no resrearch.

zooterkin

26th November 2009, 03:42 AM

Ho yes I did.

Try to research ~P value without compare ~ with P and ~P with P.

It's really simple, Doron.

P Not-P
T F
F T

doronshadmi

26th November 2009, 03:52 AM

Let @ be a place holder for P or Q.

Let | be Isolator.

Let __ be Connector.

Only ___ (notated as @ @) does not enable to compare @ values.

Only | (notated as @|@) does not enable to compare @ values.

Unary means that we deal with an atom, where an atom is a total state, such that the atomic state of NOT is total isolation (notate as @|@).

Also the atomic state of YES is unary and total, such that YES is total connectivity (notate as @ @).

Unary state is not researchable, and only a linkage of (@|@) with (@ @) is researchable, where under this linkage NOT Is at least NOT CONNECTIVE (≠) where Connectivity is not total (comparison, notated as @_@, is possible), because of the Isolation aspect of Isolation\Connectivity linkage (notated as _|_ ).

Now under _|_ things are comparable by at least two types, which are Local Comparison and Non-local comparison.

Local comparison under _|_ is expressed as P ≠ Q , or P = Q as follows: P=P ≠ Q=Q

Non-local comparison under _|_ is expressed as P=P ≠ Q=Q, where P ≠ but comparable with Q,
because of ____ (the non-local comparison) of _|_ framework.

A shorter notation of P=P ≠ Q=Q is P__Q

doronshadmi

26th November 2009, 04:00 AM

It's really simple, Doron.

P Not-P
T F
F T

EDIT: You show your requested result, without providing the ontological basis of it.

zooterkin

26th November 2009, 04:36 AM

EDIT: You show your requested result, without providing the ontological basis of it.

It's not a requested result. The truth table shows the definition of the function.

sympathic

26th November 2009, 04:41 AM

EDIT: You show your requested result, without providing the ontological basis of it.

ontological basis? do you even understand what a definition is?

sympathic

26th November 2009, 04:45 AM

sympathic

26th November 2009, 04:48 AM

It is reseachable because ~ is copmarable with P and ~P is comparable with P.

No comparison, no resrearch.

try understanding what researchable actually means first.

zooterkin

26th November 2009, 04:55 AM

try understanding what researchable actually means first.

Give him a break, he's having enough trouble with 'not'.

doronshadmi

26th November 2009, 05:46 AM

ontological basis? do you even understand what a definition is?
A Definition is a verbal expression of Direct Perception.

doronshadmi

26th November 2009, 05:49 AM

Continue to illude yourself you are actually doing something useful. By the way I thought you hated notations. What happened to direct perception?
Notations are expressions of Direct Perception.

doronshadmi

26th November 2009, 05:50 AM

Give him a break, he's having enough trouble with 'not'.

EDIT:

No, you have a trouble to get _|_.

Classical Logic gets only the local aspect of _|_ as follows: ≠ is | under _|_ and we get P_|_Q that is also notated as P≠Q,
where _| is P=P and |_ is Q=Q.

Classical Logic does not get the non-local aspect of _|_ , where ___ of _|_ enables the comparison of P with Q in order to conclude that P ≠ Q.

The ability to compare things (even if they are not equal) is non-local by nature, and this non-locality is used but not understood by Classical-Logic.

Even if P ≠ Q, then P and Q are comparable (notated as P__Q) where P__Q ≠ P=Q, so there is no contradiction here.

Following this notion [_]_ does not mean that (Belongs) = (Does-not belong) but it means that (Belongs) is comparable with (Does-not belong) (we are focused on the comparison).

Also local things are comparable but by Classical Logic we are focused only on the local aspect of the comparison, such that P=Q OR P≠Q.

sympathic

26th November 2009, 07:52 AM

zooterkin

26th November 2009, 08:05 AM

EDIT:

No, you have a trouble to get _|_.

Ooh, I used to like these when I was at school. I know it's not a Mexican riding a bike (http://www.jamiekeddie.com/278), or frying an egg (http://www.eslteachersboard.com/webbbs_pictures/lessons/MexicanHat.jpg). Is it the side view of a badminton court?

jsfisher

26th November 2009, 08:06 AM

Notations are expressions of Direct Perception.

So, yet another reversal of position. Doron, Inconsistency is thy middle name.

The Man

26th November 2009, 03:30 PM

(−(−2)) = (+2)

What enables to compare (− with (− with 2) in order to get (+ with 2)?

It is called negation, in case you keep missing it. It is a unary operation not a ‘comparison‘, but then I do not expect you to understand that.

The Man

26th November 2009, 03:32 PM

Gebberish.

Another example of your inability to get _ | _ , which is my " ‘partials’ “which enables to compare” "

Well it is your "Gebberish".

jsfisher

26th November 2009, 04:50 PM

Well it is your "Gebberish".

I had one of those for a pet in my youth.

The Man

26th November 2009, 05:09 PM

The Man reasoning:

"Simply" means "I use it without any basis".

Once again you simply displace your lack of reasoning and ‘use without basis’ onto others.

NOT (which is total Isolation) is CONNECTIVE (which is total Connectivity).

If you say so, but as those are your specific limitations they apply only to you.

1≠0 is reducible to 1=1.

In a two value system where 0 = ~1 thus 1 = ~0, yes it is. In case the process escapes you here it is. The following are just different ways of writing the same logically equal statement in the two value system described.

1 ≠ 0
~ (1 = 0)
~1 = 0
1 ~= 0
1 = ~0
1 = 1

Again The Man Trivial and Simple are the same by your reasoning.

That would make my multiple references to some of your assertions being “simply trivial” rather redundant wouldn’t it? Once again you simply displace your own reasoning (or lack thereof) onto others. My reasoning actually includes, well, research.

triv⋅i⋅al
–adjective
1. of very little importance or value; insignificant: Don't bother me with trivial matters.

2. commonplace; ordinary.

3. Biology. (of names of organisms) specific, as distinguished from generic.

4. Mathematics.
a. noting a solution of an equation in which the value of every variable of the equation is equal to zero.
b. (of a theorem, proof, or the like) simple, transparent, or immediately evident.

5. Chemistry. (of names of chemical compounds) derived from the natural source, or of historic origin, and not according to the systematic nomenclature: Picric acid is the trivial name of 2,4,6-trinitrophenol.

Origin:
1400–50; late ME < L triviālis belonging to the crossroads or street corner, hence commonplace, equiv. to tri- tri- + vi(a) road + -ālis -al 1

Synonyms:
1. unimportant, nugatory, slight, immaterial, inconsequential, frivolous, trifling. See petty.

Antonyms:
1. important.

sim⋅ply

–adverb
1. in a simple manner; clearly and easily.

2. plainly; unaffectedly.

3. sincerely; artlessly: to speak simply as a child.

4. merely; only: It is simply a cold.

5. unwisely; foolishly: If you behave simply toward him, you're bound to be betrayed.

6. wholly; absolutely: simply irresistible.

Origin:
1250–1300; ME simpleliche. See simple, -ly

sim⋅ple

–adjective
1. easy to understand, deal with, use, etc.: a simple matter; simple tools.

2. not elaborate or artificial; plain: a simple style.

3. not ornate or luxurious; unadorned: a simple gown.

4. unaffected; unassuming; modest: a simple manner.

5. not complicated: a simple design.

6. not complex or compound; single.

7. occurring or considered alone; mere; bare: the simple truth; a simple fact.

8. free of deceit or guile; sincere; unconditional: a frank, simple answer.

9. common or ordinary: a simple soldier.

10. not grand or sophisticated; unpretentious: a simple way of life.

11. humble or lowly: simple folk.

12. inconsequential or rudimentary.

13. unlearned; ignorant.

14. lacking mental acuteness or sense: a simple way of thinking.

15. unsophisticated; naive; credulous.

16. simpleminded.

17. Chemistry.
a. composed of only one substance or element: a simple substance.
b. not mixed.

18. Botany. not divided into parts: a simple leaf; a simple stem.

19. Zoology. not compound: a simple ascidian.

20. Music. uncompounded or without overtones; single: simple tone.

21. Grammar. having only the head without modifying elements included: The simple subject of “The dappled pony gazed over the fence” is “pony.” Compare complete (def. 5).

22. (of a verb tense) consisting of a main verb with no auxiliaries, as takes (simple present) or stood (simple past) (opposed to compound ).

23. Mathematics. linear (def. 7).

24. Optics. (of a lens) having two optical surfaces only.

–noun
25. an ignorant, foolish, or gullible person.

26. something simple, unmixed, or uncompounded.

27. simples, Textiles. cords for controlling the warp threads in forming the shed on draw-looms.

28. a person of humble origins; commoner.

29. an herb or other plant used for medicinal purposes: country simples.

Origin:
1175–1225; (adj.) ME < OF < LL simplus simple, L (in simpla pecunia simple fee or sum), equiv. to sim- one (see simplex ) + -plus, as in duplus duple, double (see -fold ); c. Gk háplos (see haplo- ); (n.) ME: commoner, deriv. of the adj.

Synonyms:
1. clear, intelligible, understandable, unmistakable, lucid. 2. natural, unembellished, neat. 8. artless, guileless, ingenuous. 10. See homely. 12. trifling, trivial, nonessential, unnecessary. 13. untutored, stupid.

*bolding added

You will note in the very last quoted section that trivial can be synonymous with simple and the “#4 Mathematics b” definition of “trivial” given as “(of a theorem, proof, or the like) simple, transparent, or immediately evident.”. However, that does not mean they are always used with the same or similar meaning particularly when used together as in “simply (#1 “in a simple manner; clearly and easily”) trivial (#4b “(of a theorem, proof, or the like) simple, transparent, or immediately evident” )”.

Again for a better understanding please see

http://dictionary.reference.com/

The Man

26th November 2009, 05:18 PM

I had one of those for a pet in my youth.

Perhaps Doron was raised by some, thus explaining his tendency to think and speak only in "Gebberish"?

The Man

26th November 2009, 06:22 PM

EDIT:

No, you have a trouble to get _|_.

Classical Logic gets only the local aspect of _|_ as follows: ≠ is | under _|_ and we get P_|_Q that is also notated as P≠Q,
where _| is P=P and |_ is Q=Q.

Classical Logic does not get the non-local aspect of _|_ , where ___ of _|_ enables the comparison of P with Q in order to conclude that P ≠ Q.

The ability to compare things (even if they are not equal) is non-local by nature, and this non-locality is used but not understood by Classical-Logic.

Even if P ≠ Q, then P and Q are comparable (notated as P__Q) where P__Q ≠ P=Q, so there is no contradiction here.

Following this notion [_]_ does not mean that (Belongs) = (Does-not belong) but it means that (Belongs) is comparable with (Does-not belong) (we are focused on the comparison).

Also local things are comparable but by Classical Logic we are focused only on the local aspect of the comparison, such that P=Q OR P≠Q.

“P=Q OR P≠Q” is simply and trivially a tautology. If you are going to claim that by your ‘non-local aspect of the comparison, such that P=Q AND P≠Q’ then that is simply and trivially a contradiction.

By the way, this…

Following this notion [_]_ does not mean that (Belongs) = (Does-not belong) but it means that (Belongs) is comparable with (Does-not belong) (we are focused on the comparison).

..in no way detracts from the fact that your claim of ‘Belongs AND Does-not belong’ is still simply and trivially a contradiction.

dafydd

27th November 2009, 12:13 AM

“P=Q OR P≠Q” is simply and trivially a tautology. If you are going to claim that by your ‘non-local aspect of the comparison, such that P=Q AND P≠Q’ then that is simply and trivially a contradiction.

By the way, this…

..in no way detracts from the fact that your claim of ‘Belongs AND Does-not belong’ is still simply and trivially a contradiction.

A contradiction that be easily resolved using Doronamics.

dafydd

27th November 2009, 04:32 AM

Time to break out the kittens.
http://blogs.westword.com/demver/kitten.JPG

The Man

27th November 2009, 09:08 AM

Time to break out the kittens.
http://blogs.westword.com/demver/kitten.JPG

Maybe they can help chase away the Doronamics "Gebberish"?

The Man

27th November 2009, 09:12 AM

A contradiction that be easily resolved using Doronamics.

If you mean easily ignored by Doronamics, then I would agree locally, but agree AND not agree non-locally.

laca

27th November 2009, 09:14 AM

Maybe they can help chase away the Doronamics "Gebberish"?

And what connects kittens with Doronamics "Gebberish"? You just can't get <random link to doron post> :rolleyes:

Little 10 Toes

27th November 2009, 09:24 AM

NOT-EQUAL is connection between NOT and EQUAL.

NOT-@ (where @ is a place holder of T or F) is a connection between NOT and @.

Where is the basis of this connection in by your reasoning?

Furthermore, to claim, for example, that 1≠0 is the same as 1=1, is (as you say) an absurd.

Both of them are true statements, but 1≠0 is about Difference and 1=1 is about Sameness.

To claim that Difference is Sameness, is not very useful.

So the minimal conditions of a useful framework is at least a linkage of Difference with Sameness under a complement framework.

Nice try to change the subject! We're talking about (P) ≠ (~P). We're not talking about 1 ≠ 0 being the same as 1 = 1. The True/False values of "1 ≠ 0" and "1 = 1" are the same.

EDIT: Yeah I know that this post is late, but with doronshadmi's history of re-re-re-edits, I can make sure he won't have time to change a responce.

The Man

27th November 2009, 09:28 AM

Time to break out the kittens.
http://blogs.westword.com/demver/kitten.JPG

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_176374b100be67a9e9.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18292)

dafydd

27th November 2009, 12:31 PM

If you mean easily ignored by Doronamics, then I would agree locally, but agree AND not agree non-locally.

I stand and sit locally and non-locally corrected.

laca

27th November 2009, 12:37 PM

I stand and sit locally and non-locally corrected.

Na-uh! You stand locally corrected and non-locally corrected AND not-corrected. ;)

dafydd

27th November 2009, 03:34 PM

Na-uh! You stand locally corrected and non-locally corrected AND not-corrected. ;)

I'm sorry,I'm waiting for Doron's work to be published in paperback.

doronshadmi

28th November 2009, 10:25 PM

So, yet another reversal of position. Doron, Inconsistency is thy middle name.
Ignorance is your first.

doronshadmi

28th November 2009, 10:30 PM

Nice try to change the subject! We're talking about (P) ≠ (~P). We're not talking about 1 ≠ 0 being the same as 1 = 1. The True/False values of "1 ≠ 0" and "1 = 1" are the same.

EDIT: Yeah I know that this post is late, but with doronshadmi's history of re-re-re-edits, I can make sure he won't have time to change a responce.
A great success of staying ignorant.

doronshadmi

28th November 2009, 10:34 PM

Ooh, I used to like these when I was at school. I know it's not a Mexican riding a bike (http://www.jamiekeddie.com/278), or frying an egg (http://www.eslteachersboard.com/webbbs_pictures/lessons/MexicanHat.jpg). Is it the side view of a badminton court?
No you did not use "like these" when you was at school, because if this was a part of your education, you had the chance to get _|_.

The fact is that you don't get it.

doronshadmi

28th November 2009, 10:38 PM

It is called negation, in case you keep missing it. It is a unary operation not a ‘comparison‘, but then I do not expect you to understand that.
Unary operation, or unary connective is useful only if there is comparosion of input with output.

Without this proprty your framework is useless.

doronshadmi

28th November 2009, 11:02 PM

In a two value system where 0 = ~1 thus 1 = ~0, yes it is. In case the process escapes you here it is. The following are just different ways of writing the same logically equal statement in the two value system described.

1 ≠ 0
~ (1 = 0)
~1 = 0
1 ~= 0
1 = ~0
1 = 1

Wrong.

(P ≠ Q) = ((1 ≠ 0) = (1 ~= 0) = (~ (1 = 0)) = (~1 ~= ~0))
≠
(P = Q) = ((~1 = 0) = (0 = 0) = (1 = ~0) = (1 = 1))

Let us focused on ~ (1 = 0)

If you claim that ((~ (1 = 0)) = (~1 = 0) = (1 = ~0)), then (~ (1 = 0)) ≠ ((1 ≠ 0) = (1 ~= 0))

In other words, 1≠0 is not reducible to 1=1 (or 0=0), and your ignorance is exposed again.

doronshadmi

29th November 2009, 12:35 AM

The minimal base value of Logic is 2, for example:

2^0 = 1
2^1 = 2
...

By OM 0 is Atom (the source of total isolation and total connectivity).

By OM 1 of 2^0 means that P | Q (total isolation) or P Q (total connectivity) are not comparable, and therefore not researchable.

By OM 2 of 2^1 means that P | Q (total isolation) or P Q (total connectivity) are comparable, and therefore researchable.

2^1 is at least P_|_Q , where P=P or Q=Q are local comparison and P≠Q is a non-local comparison.

In both cases = or ≠ relations are non-local with respect to P or Q elements.

By 2^0 we get (P|Q | P Q) or (P|Q P Q), which is not reseachable.

By 2^1 we get P_|_Q, which is reseachable.

P≠Q is difference's comparison (non-local comparison).

P=Q is sameness's comparison (local comparison).

doronshadmi

29th November 2009, 01:16 AM

By Classical Logic:

2^0 means that P is isolated from NOT-P and vice versa.

2^1 means that we are using unary operation, where a single input has a single output, and 2 is the two possible cases of NOT truth table:

P NOT-P
F T
T F

In 2^1 is researchable because it is compareable.

The Man

29th November 2009, 07:23 AM

Unary operation, or unary connective is useful only if there is comparosion of input with output.

Without this proprty your framework is useless.

The output (~P) is entirely dependent on the input (P), the requirement of your “comparosion” for such a dependence is entirely yours. Your “framework” is useless simply because you can demonstrate no, well, use. The uses of logical negation and that input to output dependence however are demonstrated in the very computer you are now using to read this.

The Man

29th November 2009, 07:33 AM

Wrong.

(P ≠ Q) = ((1 ≠ 0) = (1 ~= 0) = (~ (1 = 0)) = (~1 ~= ~0))
≠
(P = Q) = ((~1 = 0) = (0 = 0) = (1 = ~0) = (1 = 1))

Let us focused on ~ (1 = 0)

If you claim that ((~ (1 = 0)) = (~1 = 0) = (1 = ~0)), then (~ (1 = 0)) ≠ ((1 ≠ 0) = (1 ~= 0))

In other words, 1≠0 is not reducible to 1=1 (or 0=0), and your ignorance is exposed again.

As stated, in the two value system described it is, your simple and repeated ignorance of that fact does not change that fact.

jsfisher

29th November 2009, 07:38 AM

The Man

29th November 2009, 07:41 AM

Little 10 Toes

29th November 2009, 07:29 PM

A great success of staying ignorant. Classy. Shall we start riffing on each other's mother?

Wrong.

(P ≠ Q) = ((1 ≠ 0) = (1 ~= 0) = (~ (1 = 0)) = (~1 ~= ~0))
≠
(P = Q) = ((~1 = 0) = (0 = 0) = (1 = ~0) = (1 = 1))
Let's break down the values. Since we are using a two-value system, it will be quite easy to show why they all equal each other. You have introduced P, Q, 1, and 0. I will replace P with 1 and Q with 0. Results will either be True or False. I will seperate the two "equations" using square brackets. Also replaced ~= with ≠

Original equation
[ (P ≠ Q) = ((1 ≠ 0) = (1 ~= 0) = (~ (1 = 0)) = (~1 ~= ~0)) ] ≠ [ (P = Q) = ((~1 = 0) = (0 = 0) = (1 = ~0) = (1 = 1))]

Subsituted Equation
[ (1 ≠ 0) = ((1 ≠ 0) = (1 ≠ 0) = (~ (1 = 0)) = (~1 ≠ ~0)) ] ≠ [ (1 = 0) = ((~1 = 0) = (0 = 0) = (1 = ~0) = (1 = 1)) ]

Working left to right to "reduce" the equation
[ (T) = ((T) = (T) = (~(F)) = (T)) ] ≠ [ (F) = ((T) = (T) = (T) = (T)) ]
[ (T) = ((T) = (T) = (T) = (T)) ] ≠ [ (F) = ((T) = (T) = (T) = (T)) ]
[ (T) = (T) ] ≠ [ (F) = (T) ]
[ T ] ≠ [ F ]

Guess what, you're right! The two are not the same!!!!

Let us focused on ~ (1 = 0)

If you claim that ((~ (1 = 0)) = (~1 = 0) = (1 = ~0)), then (~ (1 = 0)) ≠ ((1 ≠ 0) = (1 ~= 0)) Still sticking with results are True or False here. Still using ≠ to replace ~=. Breaking down the two equations side by side:

[ ((~ (1 = 0)) = (~1 = 0) = (1 = ~0)) ] = [ (~ (1 = 0)) ≠ ((1 ≠ 0) = (1 ≠ 0)) ]
[ (( ~ (F)) = (T) = (T)) ] = [ ( ~(F)) ≠ ((T) = (T)) ]
[ ((T) = (T) = (T)) ] = [ (T) ≠ (T) ]
[ (T) ] = [ (F) ]
F
Nope, your claim does not work.

I'd like to thank everyone ~doronshadmi for the help. Soon, I'll be on my way to be a Junior Rank semi-amateur Logician, 3rd Class, Wombat Division!

doronshadmi

29th November 2009, 09:49 PM

The output (~P) is entirely dependent on the input (P), the requirement of your “comparosion” for such a dependence is entirely yours.

The output (~P) is entirely dependent on the input P and its connection to ~.

Furthermore, the researchability of this framework entirely dependents on the comparison of P(input) with ~P(output).

Also classical Logic can't avoid it, but instead of explicitly address it, it is used (you have no choice) but ignored.

doronshadmi

29th November 2009, 09:54 PM

As stated, in the two value system described it is, your simple and repeated ignorance of that fact does not change that fact.

The Man "(1≠0) is not reducible to (0=0) or (1=1)" is the fact that you can't comprehend.

doronshadmi

29th November 2009, 09:56 PM

No, no, no, but the table is ok, and no.

Yes, yes, yes , and the table is ok, and yes.

dafydd

29th November 2009, 10:27 PM

Na ya de a da,my daddy's bigger than your daddy.

doronshadmi

29th November 2009, 10:30 PM

If you claim that ((~ (1 = 0)) = (~1 = 0) = (1 = ~0)), then (~ (1 = 0)) ≠ ((1 ≠ 0) = (1 ~= 0))
Nope, your claim does not work.

X = (~ (1 = 0))

A = ((~1 = 0) = (1 = ~0))

B = ((1 ≠ 0) = (1 ~= 0))

Now, [if X=A , then X≠B] = [If you claim that ((~ (1 = 0)) = (~1 = 0) = (1 = ~0)), then (~ (1 = 0)) ≠ ((1 ≠ 0) = (1 ~= 0))]

In other words:

Your [ ((~ (1 = 0)) = (~1 = 0) = (1 = ~0)) ] = [ (~ (1 = 0)) ≠ ((1 ≠ 0) = (1 ≠ 0)) ]

≠

My [if X=A , then X≠B]

doronshadmi

29th November 2009, 11:13 PM

Na ya de a da,my daddy's bigger than your daddy.
What do you wish to say?

doronshadmi

29th November 2009, 11:26 PM

If you mean the minimal application of logic is a in a two value system then again that is simply trivial
Simple is not Trivial.

Triviality is entirely the result of your ignorance of the must have foundations that enable Logic in the first place, and the ignorance of Comparison is the core of it.

You are using it right now, but can't comprehend it.

jsfisher

30th November 2009, 12:08 AM

X = (~ (1 = 0))

Ok, if you wish, but we can reduce that to just X = 1.

A = ((~1 = 0) = (1 = ~0))

Ok, A = 1.

B = ((1 ≠ 0) = (1 ~= 0))

Ok, and B = 1.

Now, [if X=A , then X≠B]

Nope. That is clearly not the case.

... = [If you claim that ((~ (1 = 0)) = (~1 = 0) = (1 = ~0)), then (~ (1 = 0)) ≠ ((1 ≠ 0) = (1 ~= 0))]

No, wrong again.

(1 = 0) is 0, so ~(1=0) would be 1.
(1 ≠ 0) is 1.
(1 ~= 0) is the same statement with slightly different notation.
So, (1 ≠ 0) = (1 ~= 0) is 1.
So, the entire THEN part reduces to 0 since ~(1 = 0) and (1 ≠ 0) = (1 ~= 0) reduce to the same value, and the not-equals fails.

In other words...

...you are wrong again.

doronshadmi

30th November 2009, 12:45 AM

Ok, if you wish, but we can reduce that to just X = 1.

Ok, A = 1.

Ok, and B = 1.

Nope. That is clearly not the case.

No, wrong again.

(1 = 0) is 0, so ~(1=0) would be 1.
(1 ≠ 0) is 1.
(1 ~= 0) is the same statement with slightly different notation.
So, (1 ≠ 0) = (1 ~= 0) is 1.
So, the entire THEN part reduces to 0 since ~(1 = 0) and (1 ≠ 0) = (1 ~= 0) reduce to the same value, and the not-equals fails.

...you are wrong again.

I am talking about the inability to reduce (1≠0) to (1=1) or (0=0) ( The Man claims that (1≠0) = (1=1) ).

Again, I am not talking on the fact that (1≠0),(1=1) or (0=0) are true statements.

I am talking about the difference of ≠ form = , where (1≠0) is not self referential, where (1=1) or (0=0) are self referential.

EDIT: In other words: (1≠0) ≠ ((1=1) or (0=0)) and you are not listening to my argument (as already shown in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5339246&postcount=7069).

jsfisher

30th November 2009, 04:30 AM

I am talking about the inability to reduce (1≠0) to (1=1) or (0=0) ( The Man claims that (1≠0) = (1=1) ).

You are talking nonsense. (1≠0) = (1=1) is a true-valued statement.

Again, I am not talking on the fact that (1≠0),(1=1) or (0=0) are true statements.

I am talking about the difference of ≠ form = , where (1≠0) is not self referential, where (1=1) or (0=0) are self referential.

You failed last time you tried with the term, self-referential. I see your success remains unchanged. Be that as it may, it doesn't change the statements valuation. So, what relevance do you claim your point will make, even if it had some validity?

EDIT: In other words: (1≠0) ≠ ((1=1) or (0=0)) and you are not listening to my argument (as already shown in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5339246&postcount=7069).

We listen to your "argument" just fine. However, where one might normally assert logic and meaning, you offer gibberish and typewriter graphics.

doronshadmi

30th November 2009, 05:49 AM

You are talking nonsense
You are a closed system.

You are invited to show (1≠0) that is true and self-referential.

You are invited to show (1=1) that is true and non self-referential.

Also since you disagree with The Man ~(1 = 0) and (1 ≠ 0) = (1 ~= 0) reduce to the same value, about the word "reduce" then please show that

You know something like (P) NOT-EQUAL (NOT-P)
Now this is a lot better, but it simply reduces to ‘(P) EQUAL (P)’.

(P ≠ ~P) "is simply reduces to" (P = P).

dafydd

30th November 2009, 05:51 AM

You are a closed system.

You are a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

The Man

30th November 2009, 08:41 AM

The output (~P) is entirely dependent on the input P and its connection to ~.

Dependence is a “connection” Doron and since you keep missing it, that dependence and thus “connection” is negation.

Furthermore, the researchability of this framework entirely dependents on the comparison of P(input) with ~P(output).

Once again the requirement of “comparison” is entirely yours, but it is understandable that since you can not understand the dependence of negation that you insist on some “comparison”. Although it is rather ironic that you require this “comparison” for “researchability”, but never actually conduct any research yourself.

Also classical Logic can't avoid it, but instead of explicitly address it, it is used (you have no choice) but ignored.

It is explicitly addressed as the dependence of negation making your “comparison” superfluous in that consideration.

The Man

30th November 2009, 08:46 AM

Simple is not Trivial.

Hence "simply trivial"

Triviality is entirely the result of your ignorance of the must have foundations that enable Logic in the first place, and the ignorance of Comparison is the core of it.

You are using it right now, but can't comprehend it.

No Doron it is your ignorance that continues to be immediately evident or trivial.

The Man

30th November 2009, 08:52 AM

The Man "(1≠0) is not reducible to (0=0) or (1=1)" is the fact that you can't comprehend.

The fact that the system only has two values (thus everything in that system is reducible to one or the other of those values) "is the fact that you can't comprehend".

The Man

30th November 2009, 09:11 AM

You are a closed system.

You are invited to show (1≠0) that is true and self-referential.

You are invited to show (1=1) that is true and non self-referential.

Also since you disagree with The Man about the word "reduce" then please show that

(P ≠ ~P) "is simply reduces to" (P = P).

You are invited to show where you think jsfisher and I disagree on this matter.

jsfisher

30th November 2009, 10:21 AM

You are a closed system.

Well, it would be rather embarrassing otherwise, don't you think, with all my body parts leaking out.

You are invited to show (1≠0) that is true and self-referential.

You are invited to show (1=1) that is true and non self-referential.

Thanks for the invitation, but while both are true, neither is self-referential. The formula, 1=1, for example, makes no reference to itself, only to "1" and the relationship of equality. "This statement is false" would be an example of a self-reference.

Also since you disagree with The Man about the word "reduce"...

Really? Where'd I do that?

doronshadmi

1st December 2009, 03:10 AM

The fact that the system only has two values (thus everything in that system is reducible to one or the other of those values) "is the fact that you can't comprehend".

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2554/4149358437_87f574fa79_o.jpg

is the framework that you can't comprehend, where T=T or F=F are self-referential and T≠F is not self-referential.

In both cases = or ≠ are non-local w.r.t locals T or F, and in both cases comparison is a must have term of researchability.

In other words, you can't comprehend:

Comparison, Self-referential, Non-local, Researchability.

T≠F , T=T or F=F are researchable because all of them are based on Non-locality\Locality linkage that you are unable to comprehend.

dafydd

1st December 2009, 03:25 AM

There is no such word as comparosin,but feel free to continue coining words and phrases,it's very funny.

doronshadmi

1st December 2009, 05:05 AM

You are invited to show where you think jsfisher and I disagree on this matter.

jsfisher uses "reduce" between different representations of the same relation:

~(1 = 0) and (1 ≠ 0) = (1 ~= 0) reduce to the same value,

On the contrary you claim that ~(1 = 0) is reducible to (1 = 1).

zooterkin

1st December 2009, 05:07 AM

On the contrary you claim that ~(1 = 0) is reducible to (1 = 1).

Why do you think those statements are contradictory?

~(1 = 0) is True.
(1=1) is True.

(1 ≠ 0) is True
(1 ~= 0) is also True.

doronshadmi

1st December 2009, 05:50 AM

Why do you think those statements are contradictory?

~(1 = 0) is True.
(1=1) is True.

(1 ≠ 0) is True
(1 ~= 0) is also True.

Sameness comparison (1 = 1) ≠ Difference comparison (1 ≠ 0).

T or F are nothing but local aspects of Non-locality\Locality linkage, so your question is irrelevent.

EDIT: The contradiction is the claim that Sameness comparison ((T = T) or (F = F)) = Difference comparison (T ≠ F).

The diagram below clearly proves that this claim is a contradiction:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2554/4149358437_87f574fa79_o.jpg

zooterkin

1st December 2009, 05:59 AM

doronshadmi

1st December 2009, 06:11 AM

There is no contradiction. T=T is a True statement. T ≠ F is a True statement.

You simply do not get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5360688&postcount=7186

It does not matter if (P=P) and (P ~= ~P) are True statements because my argument is not about this fact.

If you really wish to deal with my argument you have to understand http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5364020&postcount=7193, which is something that you and your friends avoid all along this thread.

dafydd

1st December 2009, 06:20 AM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_234094b15262f337c2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18329)

doronshadmi

1st December 2009, 06:24 AM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_234094b15262f337c2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18329)
You have got it, it is organic.

dafydd

1st December 2009, 06:25 AM

Ah,organic,now all we need is quantum to complete the set.

doronshadmi

1st December 2009, 06:31 AM

Ah,organic,now all we need is quantum to complete the set.
Wrong.

Organic systems are open (incomplete) by nature.

dafydd

1st December 2009, 07:04 AM

My local store is open at the moment.Is it incomplete?

zooterkin

1st December 2009, 08:19 AM

My local store is open at the moment.Is it incomplete?

Is it only for local people?

dafydd

1st December 2009, 08:23 AM

Is it only for local people?

Non-local people have been known to frequent it but only on a non-frequent basis,in their frame of reference it is a non-local store.

GreyICE

1st December 2009, 12:04 PM

Does anyone have an idea what the longest thread on the forum is? Because... I think I might be posting in it.

laca

1st December 2009, 12:06 PM

Does anyone have an idea what the longest thread on the forum is? Because... I think I might be posting in it.

It's not this one... At least the one about the truth and the new testament is longer :rolleyes:

The Man

1st December 2009, 04:18 PM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_234094b15262f337c2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18329)

Guess I'm not the only one who noticed Doron's spectacles.

The Man

1st December 2009, 04:20 PM

Ah,organic,now all we need is quantum to complete the set.

Don't worry that set was completed a long time ago and I have no doubts he'll make "quantum" claims again.

The Man

1st December 2009, 04:41 PM

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2554/4149358437_87f574fa79_o.jpg

is the framework that you can't comprehend, where T=T or F=F are self-referential and T≠F is not self-referential.

Well you have already demonstrated that you do not understand the meaning of self-referential. However just for fun, in the Doronaversive would T≠T be considered “self-referential” if so why and if not why not?

In both cases = or ≠ are non-local w.r.t locals T or F, and in both cases comparison is a must have term of researchability.

Again both “=” and “≠” are comparative assertions. As for your “are non-local w.r.t locals T or F” and “comparison is a must have term of researchability” those are your claims and thus simply your limitations.

In other words, you can't comprehend:

Comparison, Self-referential, Non-local, Researchability.

T≠F , T=T or F=F are researchable because all of them are based on Non-locality\Locality linkage that you are unable to comprehend.

Until you actually start doing some research it is doubtful that others might actually find your assertions about what you claim to be “researchable” (as well as “not researchable”) to be in any way, well, comprehensive.

The Man

1st December 2009, 04:46 PM

Sameness comparison (1 = 1) ≠ Difference comparison (1 ≠ 0).

T or F are nothing but local aspects of Non-locality\Locality linkage, so your question is irrelevent.

EDIT: The contradiction is the claim that Sameness comparison ((T = T) or (F = F)) = Difference comparison (T ≠ F).

The diagram below clearly proves that this claim is a contradiction:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2554/4149358437_87f574fa79_o.jpg

So your claim is simply that you disagree with jsfisher and me. How surprising.

ETA:

Again just for fun is 1 ≠ 1 a “sameness comparison” or "difference comparison" in your “comprehension” and why or why not?

Is 1 = 0 a “sameness comparison” or "difference comparison" in your “comprehension” and why or why not?

Is not your entire claim that a “Sameness comparison (1 = 1) ≠ Difference comparison (1 ≠ 0)” simply it self a “Difference comparison”? That would make your “Difference comparison” the underlying and only basis to even assert any difference between your “Sameness comparison” and your “Difference comparison”

dafydd

1st December 2009, 05:10 PM

So your claim is simply that you disagree with jsfisher and me. How surprising.

ETA:

Again just for fun is 1 ≠ 1 a “sameness comparison” or "difference comparison" in your “comprehension” and why or why not?

Is 1 = 0 a “sameness comparison” or "difference comparison" in your “comprehension” and why or why not?

Is not your entire claim that a “Sameness comparison (1 = 1) ≠ Difference comparison (1 ≠ 0)” simply it self a “Difference comparison”? That would make your “Difference comparison” the underlying and only basis to even assert any difference between your “Sameness comparison” and your “Difference comparison”

Same difference.

Apathia

1st December 2009, 05:35 PM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_234094b15262f337c2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18329)

Are you saving with Geico?
http://h1.ripway.com/Apathia/Kash.jpg

The Man

1st December 2009, 11:46 PM

Same difference.

Why dafydd, how totally non-local of you.

Indeed in the Doronic goggles…

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2554/4149358437_87f574fa79_o.jpg

…if his “T” ‘Lens’ represents one of his ‘sameness comparisons’ and his “F” ‘Lens’ represents another of his ‘sameness comparisons’ then the “≠” would tend to indicate that for him those ‘comparisons’ are simply not, well, the same. It would seem Doron is claiming = ≠ =.

So perhaps different sameness?

Still same difference.

dafydd

2nd December 2009, 02:20 AM

Will Doron stop making a spectacle of himself now?

dafydd

2nd December 2009, 02:23 AM

Why dafydd, how totally non-local of you.

Indeed in the Doronic goggles…

…if his “T” ‘Lens’ represents one of his ‘sameness comparisons’ and his “F” ‘Lens’ represents another of his ‘sameness comparisons’ then the “≠” would tend to indicate that for him those ‘comparisons’ are simply not, well, the same. It would seem Doron is claiming = ≠ =.

So perhaps different sameness?

Still same difference.

Different differenceness,as in the statement ''Doron is tall for his height''

doronshadmi

2nd December 2009, 03:59 AM

It would seem Doron is claiming = ≠ =.

It would seem The Man is claiming that the result of T ≠ F comparison is False because he ignores the fact that T is a short notation of T=T comparison, and F is a short notation of F=F comparison.

The Man does not understand that Comparison is the fundamental principle of any researchable framework, whether the result is True (T ≠ F) or False (= ≠ =) (please see http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5367298&postcount=7215).

By not using short notations that ignore Comparison (as seen by the following full notoation):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2554/4149358437_87f574fa79_o.jpg

we understand the fundamentals that enable some reasoning in the first place, for example:

EDIT:

The short notation of (F=F) comparison is F (known also as truth value F).

The short notation of (T=T) comparison is T (known also as truth value T).

@=@ (where @ is a place holder for T or F values) is actually a comparison between a thing to itself, such that each comparison is a truth value, whether it is T or F.

Your argument that (T≠F) comparosin = (@=@) comparosin , is equivalent to the argument that T=F or @≠@, which is false, as seen by:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2731/4153069414_3abcabc22e_o.jpg

doronshadmi

2nd December 2009, 04:27 AM

Well you have already demonstrated that you do not understand the meaning of self-referential. However just for fun, in the Doronaversive would T≠T be considered “self-referential” if so why and if not why not?
T≠T (or F≠F) is a false self-referential comparison. T=F is a false non self-referential comparison. Here it is:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2731/4153069414_3abcabc22e_o.jpg

In both cases, comparison is fundamental.

doronshadmi

2nd December 2009, 05:43 AM

Is not your entire claim that a “Sameness comparison (1 = 1) ≠ Difference comparison (1 ≠ 0)” simply it self a “Difference comparison”? That would make your “Difference comparison” the underlying and only basis to even assert any difference between your “Sameness comparison” and your “Difference comparison”
The underlying basis is Comparison, whether its is Difference comparison or Sameness comparison.

The compared are the local aspect and the comparer is the non-local aspect of the comparison.

So perhaps different sameness?

Still same difference.
In both cases Comparison is fundamental.

dafydd

2nd December 2009, 05:51 AM

The underlying basis is Comparison, whether its is Difference comparison or Sameness comparison.

The compared are the local aspect and the comparers are the non-local aspect of the comparison.

In both cases Comparison is fundamental.

You need new glasses.Hasn't it sunk in yet that we are extracting the urine?

doronshadmi

2nd December 2009, 06:01 AM

You need new glasses.Hasn't it sunk in yet that we are extracting the urine?
As long as Comparison is sunk in the urine of one's mind, new glasses will not help.

dafydd

2nd December 2009, 08:26 AM

Is that supposed to make sense? Probably not,making sense is not your forte.

The Man

2nd December 2009, 09:52 AM

It would seem The Man is claiming that the result of T ≠ F comparison is False because he ignores the fact that T is a short notation of T=T comparison, and F is a short notation of F=F comparison.

The Man does not understand that Comparison is the fundamental principle of any researchable framework, whether the result is True (T ≠ F) or False (= ≠ =) (please see http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5367298&postcount=7215).

By not using short notations that ignore Comparison (as seen by the following full notoation):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2554/4149358437_87f574fa79_o.jpg

we understand the fundamentals that enable some reasoning in the first place, for example:

EDIT:

The short notation of (F=F) comparison is F (known also as truth value F).

The short notation of (T=T) comparison is T (known also as truth value T).

@=@ (where @ is a place holder for T or F values) is actually a comparison between a thing to itself, such that each comparison is a truth value, whether it is T or F.

F = F is TRUE, claiming as your do that it is “(known also as truth value F)” demonstrates your “reasoning” remains, well, un-enabled.

Your argument that (T≠F) comparosin = (@=@) comparosin , is equivalent to the argument that T=F or @≠@, which is false, as seen by:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2731/4153069414_3abcabc22e_o.jpg

I have made no such argument. “(T≠F)” is TRUE, (@=@) is TRUE as long as your “@”s take the same value, but FALSE if they do not. “T=F” is FALSE while @≠@ is FALSE as long as your “@”s take the same value but TRUE if they do not.

The Man

2nd December 2009, 09:54 AM

T≠T (or F≠F) is a false self-referential comparison. T=F is a false non self-referential comparison. Here it is:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2731/4153069414_3abcabc22e_o.jpg

In both cases, comparison is fundamental.

So you are simply not using a two value system, but have added an additional two values of “self-referential comparison” as well as “non self-referential comparison”. However, even in that system T = T is the same as F = F as both are true and your “self-referential comparison”.

The Man

2nd December 2009, 10:20 AM

The underlying basis is Comparison, whether its is Difference comparison or Sameness comparison.

So your argument is to simply ignore that your “Difference comparison” is the only basis for your claim that a “Sameness comparison (1 = 1) ≠ Difference comparison (1 ≠ 0)”. How surprising.

The compared are the local aspect and the comparer is the non-local aspect of the comparison.

In your ““Sameness comparison (1 = 1) ≠ Difference comparison (1 ≠ 0)” claim your “comparer”s are the “The compared” thus “local” so the only “non-local aspect of the comparison” is your “Difference comparison”

In both cases Comparison is fundamental.

Again simply because = as well as ≠ are both comparative assertions.

Your “Difference comparison or Sameness comparison” valuation system is still only a two value system.

SC = “Sameness comparison”

DC = “Difference comparison”

Would (SC = ~DC) be valued as a “Sameness comparison” (SC) or a “Difference comparison” (DC) by your system?

Would (SC ≠ DC) be valued as a “Sameness comparison” (SC) or a “Difference comparison” (DC) by your system?

ETA:
Would (SC ≠ ~SC) be valued as a “Sameness comparison” (SC) or a “Difference comparison” (DC) by your system?

Would (SC ≠ SC) be valued as a “Sameness comparison” (SC) or a “Difference comparison” (DC) by your system?

Would (~SC = SC) be valued as a “Sameness comparison” (SC) or a “Difference comparison” (DC) by your system?

The Man

2nd December 2009, 10:44 AM

You need new glasses.Hasn't it sunk in yet that we are extracting the urine?

Unfortunately dafydd the windshield wipers that Doron has added to his glasses…

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2731/4153069414_3abcabc22e_o.jpg

…do not seem to be effective at cleaning off his urine.

doronshadmi

2nd December 2009, 12:40 PM

F = F is TRUE

I am talking about the truth value called F, which is a short notation of F self-reference, which is a comparison of a value to itself.

In other words, it is True that F is False, and it is False that F is True and you simply can't get it because you do not understand Comparison as the basis of truth values.

doronshadmi

2nd December 2009, 12:49 PM

I have made no such argument. “(T≠F)” is TRUE, (@=@) is TRUE as long as your “@”s take the same value, but FALSE if they do not. “T=F” is FALSE while @≠@ is FALSE as long as your “@”s take the same value but TRUE if they do not.

@=@ means that we are dealing with a one truth value, where in T≠F we are dealing with two truth values.

Your claim that "dealing with two truth values" = "dealing with a one truth value", is False.

doronshadmi

2nd December 2009, 12:59 PM

So you are simply not using a two value system, but have added an additional two values of “self-referential comparison” as well as “non self-referential comparison”. However, even in that system T = T is the same as F = F as both are true and your “self-referential comparison”.

You still don't get it. I am talking about thuth values, when you are talking about the value of expressions that are based on truth values. In other words, you are not talking about the fundamental level of the very existence of truth values.

Instead you are talking about the expressions, which are the results of the use of truth values.

doronshadmi

2nd December 2009, 01:04 PM

So your argument is to simply ignore that your “Difference comparison” is the only basis for your claim that a “Sameness comparison (1 = 1) ≠ Difference comparison (1 ≠ 0)”. How surprising.

You do not get Comparison, which is the common principle of both DC and SC.

Without C, D or S are not researchable, because D is total connectivity and S is total isolation.

dafydd

2nd December 2009, 03:44 PM

I am talking about the truth value called F, which is a short notation of F self-reference, which is a comparison of a value to itself.

In other words, it is True that F is False, and it is False that F is True and you simply can't get it because you do not understand Comparison as the basis of truth values.

Are you allowed to have anything sharp where you live?

jsfisher

2nd December 2009, 05:07 PM

As long as Comparison is sunk in the urine of one's mind, new glasses will not help.

That is definite\non-definite sig material.

jsfisher

2nd December 2009, 05:11 PM

I am talking about the truth value called F, which is a short notation of F self-reference, which is a comparison of a value to itself.

Were that the case, than all statements in Doronetics would be trivially true.

In other words, it is True that F is False, and it is False that F is True and you simply can't get it because you do not understand Comparison as the basis of truth values.

The first part is trivially obvious. The second part, you just made up as a substitute for understanding Mathematics.

doronshadmi

2nd December 2009, 08:23 PM

Were that the case, than all statements in Doronetics would be trivially true.
Since you can't comprehend the ontological base of Researchability (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5367241&postcount=7214) your view is indeed trivial.

The first part is trivially obvious. The second part, you just made up as a substitute for understanding Mathematics.
Try to comprehend without comparison, and you get the must have substitute for understanding Mathematics.

dafydd

3rd December 2009, 01:39 AM

Try to comprehend without comparison, and you get the must have substitute for understanding Mathematics.

That is not even English,stop making a fool of yourself.

doronshadmi

3rd December 2009, 03:56 AM

That is not even English,
You are right, this
You need new glasses.Hasn't it sunk in yet that we are extracting the urine?
is not even English.

zooterkin

3rd December 2009, 04:05 AM

You are right, this

is not even English.

Why not?

doronshadmi

3rd December 2009, 04:06 AM

Try to comprehend without comparison, and you get the must have substitute for understanding Mathematics.
That is not even English,stop making a fool of yourself.

It is an irony.

dafydd

3rd December 2009, 04:06 AM

You are right, this

is not even English.

Yes it is.'You need new glasses' is perfect English.Glasses is just another name for spectacles.'Extracting the urine' is a euphemism for 'taking the piss'.i.e. making fun of you,pulling your leg.Your knowledge of English colloquialisms is almost as non-existent as your knowledge of maths.

dafydd

3rd December 2009, 04:08 AM

It is an irony.

No such thing as ''an irony''.Do you mean an iron for ironing your clothes?

doronshadmi

3rd December 2009, 04:17 AM

No such thing as ''an irony''.Do you mean an iron for ironing your clothes?
Ok, it is irony.

sympathic

3rd December 2009, 04:41 AM

Are you saving with Geico?
http://h1.ripway.com/Apathia/Kash.jpg

Must be that local Geico guy. Bare in mind: Doron is non-local.

dafydd

3rd December 2009, 04:56 AM

Must be that local Geico guy. Bare in mind: Doron is non-local.

Only in locally non-local localities,where p=relief and x marks the spot,in all other cases non-local local local conditions apply.

jsfisher

3rd December 2009, 02:31 PM

Ok, it is irony.

How so?

doronshadmi

3rd December 2009, 02:50 PM

How so?

The irony is that you don't get the irony of:

Try to comprehend without comparison, and you get the must have substitute for understanding Mathematics.

Now let us use the right one:

Try to comprehend without comparison, and you get the missing principle for understanding Mathematics.

jsfisher

3rd December 2009, 06:18 PM

The irony is that you don't get the irony of:

Try to comprehend without comparison, and you get the must have substitute for understanding Mathematics.

Now let us use the right one:

Try to comprehend without comparison, and you get the missing principle for understanding Mathematics.

Yes, there is irony there, alright...just not where you think it is.

sympathic

3rd December 2009, 06:27 PM

Only in locally non-local localities,where p=relief and x marks the spot,in all other cases non-local local local conditions apply.

Well put.

doronshadmi

3rd December 2009, 10:21 PM

Yes, there is irony there, alright...just not where you think it is.
Can't get http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5367241&postcount=7214 , isn't jsfisher?

doronshadmi

4th December 2009, 05:51 AM

Truth values T and F are based on self-reference comparison, where = is the non-local aspect of the comparison, and T or F are the local aspect of this comparison.

Following this principle ≠ is the non-local aspect and Tor F are the local aspects of non self-reference comparison.

The Comparison of the Non-local with the Local, is fundamental to the existence of any researchable thing, whether it is based on self-reference comparison, or non self-reference comparison.

Two valued logic is at least (T=T) ≠ (F=F), where Truth values T or F are at least non-local(=)\local(T,F) Sameness comparisons
and T≠F is at least non-local(≠)\local(T,F) Difference comparison.

Here is the ontological base of Two valued logic:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2554/4149358437_87f574fa79_o.jpg

On top of this ontological base one can define the entire states of Two valued logic.

zooterkin

4th December 2009, 07:50 AM

Two valued logic is at least (T=T) ≠ (F=F),

Wrong. (T=T) = (F=F)
(both (T=T) and (F=F) evaluate to T).

T ≠ F.

The Man

4th December 2009, 09:11 AM

I am talking about the truth value called F, which is a short notation of F self-reference, which is a comparison of a value to itself.

No you are just talking nonsense as (F = F) is TRUE just as (F ≠ F) is FALSE. So (F ≠ F) would be your “F self-reference” for which “a short notation of” would be FALSE.

In other words, it is True that F is False, and it is False that F is True and you simply can't get it because you do not understand Comparison as the basis of truth values.

Yes, it is simply and trivially “True that F is False, and it is False that F is True” just as it is simply and trivially TRUE that F is ~T and it is FALSE that F is ~F. Negation is the basis of those truth values and their mutual dependence by that operation of negation. Your requirement for “comparison”, which is superfluous in that regard, is yours and yours alone.

@=@ means that we are dealing with a one truth value, where in T≠F we are dealing with two truth values.

Your claim that "dealing with two truth values" = "dealing with a one truth value", is False.

I have made no such claim, but do not forget that the values of TRUE and FALSE are mutually dependent by negation. It is that mutual dependence by negation that you still seem unable to comprehend.

You still don't get it. I am talking about thuth values, when you are talking about the value of expressions that are based on truth values. In other words, you are not talking about the fundamental level of the very existence of truth values.

Instead you are talking about the expressions, which are the results of the use of truth values.

You still don’t get it, those truth values are the values of expressions. One of the simplest of those expressions is TRUE which (unlike your assertions) is a “short notation of”, or simplified expression of, ~FALSE just as FALSE is a simplified expression of ~TRUE.

You do not get Comparison, which is the common principle of both DC and SC.

Obviously, like most, I “get Comparison” far better then you. That it is “the common principle of both” your “DC and SC” in no way detracts from the fact that you are simply ignoring that your “Difference comparison” is the only basis for your claim that a “Sameness comparison (1 = 1) ≠ Difference comparison (1 ≠ 0)”.

Without C, D or S are not researchable, because D is total connectivity and S is total isolation.

Don’t you mean your “D” (Difference) “is total isolation” and your “S” (Sameness) “is total connectivity”?

Not that it matters much anyway (as has been pointed out before) even if “D” (Difference) “is total isolation” everything would still have that “total isolation” aspect as their “Sameness”. Just as if “S” (Sameness) “is total isolation” then that “total isolation” aspect would be the only “Sameness”, any other aspect would be a, well, “Difference”

doronshadmi

4th December 2009, 02:53 PM

No you are just talking nonsense as (F = F) is TRUE just as (F ≠ F) is FALSE. So (F ≠ F) would be your “F self-reference” for which “a short notation of” would be FALSE.
You are using the second level of Two-valued Logic that is not the ontological level of Two-valued Logic (you are not at the building-blocks level).

As long as you do that, you are talking to yourself, and do not get a single word of what I say.

F exists only by comparison, where F is a short notation of F=F (or T≠T) comparison.

T exists only by comparison, where T is a short notation of T=T (or F≠F) comparison.

At the ontological level of Two-valued logic F≠F is actually T=T and T≠T is actually F=F (F≠F or T≠T are called non-equal self-referential comparisons, which are equel to the opposite self-referential comparisons).

A comparison of different truth values does not deal with the ontological aspect of T or F existence.

Yes, it is simply and trivially “True that F is False, and it is False that F is True” just as it is simply and trivially TRUE that F is ~T and it is FALSE that F is ~F. Negation is the basis of those truth values and their mutual dependence by that operation of negation. Your requirement for “comparison”, which is superfluous in that regard, is yours and yours alone.
Again, from the ontological level of Two-valued Logic F is a short notation of F=F comparison.

~T or ~F are short notations of (T=T)≠(F=F), (T≠T) or (F≠F), so as you see ~T or ~F do not provide a strict information at the ontological level.

I have made no such claim, but do not forget that the values of TRUE and FALSE are mutually dependent by negation. It is that mutual dependence by negation that you still seem unable to comprehend.
Again, there is no researchable thing without comparison, so negation is simply ≠ relation between different or same elements.

You still don’t get it, those truth values are the values of expressions. One of the simplest of those expressions is TRUE which (unlike your assertions) is a “short notation of”, or simplified expression of, ~FALSE just as FALSE is a simplified expression of ~TRUE.
No, the expressions are using the truth values.

I am talking about the existence of truth values, before they are used by some expression, and this is exactly what you and your friends do not get.

Obviously, like most, I “get Comparison” far better then you. That it is “the common principle of both” your “DC and SC” in no way detracts from the fact that you are simply ignoring that your “Difference comparison” is the only basis for your claim that a “Sameness comparison (1 = 1) ≠ Difference comparison (1 ≠ 0)”.
Again you are talking from the level of expressions, and not from the level of the building-blocks that enable these expressions in the first place.

Don’t you mean your “D” (Difference) “is total isolation” and your “S” (Sameness) “is total connectivity”?

Not that it matters much anyway (as has been pointed out before) even if “D” (Difference) “is total isolation” everything would still have that “total isolation” aspect as their “Sameness”. Just as if “S” (Sameness) “is total isolation” then that “total isolation” aspect would be the only “Sameness”, any other aspect would be a, well, “Difference”

This is another example of not getting things from the ontological level of this subject.

As long as you are at the level of the expressions that are using the building-blocks, you are not dealing with the level of the building-blocks that actually enable the existence of the expressions that you are talking about.

Please read very carefully http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5375429&postcount=7248.