• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
And we reach the final stage. Doron cannot formalize his unique concepts in any understandable way, so he blames everyone else for his inability.
 
doronshadmi said:
Your reality is the result of your choice not to combine the syntactic and semantic accepts of the considered subject.
Click to expand...

Then combine them for us, doron. Obviously it is possible, as you are so quick to mock others for not doing so. All you have to do, then, is do it, and post the result here. Then we will have this definition, and this entire silly little non-argument can come to an end, with you as the victor.

It should be easy for you, if you actually have a definition.
 
Last edited:
There is an inexhaustible energy source, notated as {X}.

There is a car, notated as X.

If {X} is related to X, this relation is notated as {X}$X, and as a result X location is constantly changed (X location is indeterminable).

If {X} is not related to X in terms of an inexhaustible energy source, this relation is notated as {X}~$X, and as a result X location is not constantly changed (X location is determinable).

(X location is indeterminable) is equivalent to (X is incomplete).

(X location is determinable) is equivalent to (X is complete).

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

EDIT:

Any attempt to understand the concept of successor by its standard notion (Successor(X) = X u {X}) is doomed to fail.

If one does no wish to fail in the considered subject, one uses a non-standard notion of the concept of successor that is based on wff syntactic expression "{X}$X OR {X}~$X", which is combined with models that provide the semantic aspect of the considered subject.

This combination enables one to understand the considered subject.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
It is already done....
Click to expand...

Not even once. All you have done, all you continue to do, is tell us that something could be either a successor or not a successor of something else.

We already knew that.

Everything either does or does not have some boolean property with respect to something else.

You have been asked repeatedly for the meaning of successor and not about the relationship of Z and {Z}. Not a complicated question, but you cannot answer it because you don't know what your own terms mean.

But please continue to blame everyone else. It is only way to defend your nonsense.
 
jsfisher said:
Everything either does or does not have some boolean property with respect to something else.
Click to expand...
Indeed OR logical connective is used in the wff syntactic expression "{X}$X OR {X}~$X".

jsfisher said:
You have been asked repeatedly for the meaning of successor and not about the relationship of Z and {Z}.
Click to expand...
Meaning is provided by using also semantics, and in the considered subject, Z property is determined according to its relationship with {Z}, which is the successor of Z, if it is related to Z, exactly as very simply demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11278652&postcount=1460 and explained in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11279727&postcount=1485.

jsfisher said:
Not a complicated question, but you cannot answer it because you don't know what your own terms mean.
Click to expand...
It is not a complicated task to combine syntactic and semantic aspects in order to clearly understand the considered subject, but you choose not to do that and probably insist to use Successor(Z) = Z u {Z}.

There are the results of your choices, and currently they prevent you from understanding the issue at hand.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Indeed OR logical connective is used in the wff syntactic expression "{X}$X OR {X}~$X".
Click to expand...

And that is equivalent to "{} = {}" and equally useful.

Meaning is provided by using also semantics...
Click to expand...

Semantics = meaning, so, yes, you belabor the obvious. Now if only you'd define successor, or better still, the corresponding predicate:
IsSuccessorOf(A,B) <=> ...?​
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
...snip of links to links to nonsense...
Click to expand...

If you wish to support the idea that your tautology and {} = {} behave in any way differently, all you need is one simple example showing a different behavior.

Yes I know, but you avoid any meaning that does not follow after the standard meaning of the the issue at hand.
Click to expand...

I cannot avoid, as you say, that which you have yet to provide. Now is your chance; better late than never:
IsSuccessorOf(A,B) <=> ...?​
 
jsfisher said:
If you wish to support the idea that your tautology and {} = {} behave in any way differently, all you need is one simple example showing a different behavior.
Click to expand...
Already done, for example, in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11280044&postcount=1487.

All you need is to use also semantics, in order to know the difference between "{} = {}" and "{X}$X OR {X}~$X".


jsfisher said:
I cannot avoid, as you say, that which you have yet to provide.
Click to expand...
It is provided syntactically and semantically.

jsfisher said:
Now is your chance; better late than never:
IsSuccessorOf(A,B) <=> ...?​
Click to expand...
Now it is your chance to do better choices, for example: to understand "{} = {}" and "{X}$X OR {X}~$X" syntactically AND semantically.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
...snip of Peewee Herman routine...
Click to expand...

Pretend all you like, but you haven't provided any definition of IsSuccessorOf(*,*). You have also done nothing to show your now-favorite OR expression has any instantiation that isn't true (and that makes it identical to {}={}).
 
doronshadmi said:
Already done in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11278652&postcount=1460.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.

doronshadmi said:
There is an inexhaustible energy source, notated as {X}.

There is a car, notated as X.

If {X} is related to X, this relation is notated as {X}$X, and as a result X location is constantly changed (X location is indeterminable).

If {X} is not related to X in terms of an inexhaustible energy source, this relation is notated as {X}~$X, and as a result X location is not constantly changed (X location is determinable).

(X location is indeterminable) is equivalent to (X is incomplete).

(X location is determinable) is equivalent to (X is complete).
Click to expand...

This is gibberish.

doronshadmi said:
Any attempt to understand the concept of successor by its standard notion (Successor(X) = X u {X}) is doomed to fail.
Click to expand...

It would seem that any attempt to understand the concept of successor, whatever the method, is doomed to fail.
 
jsfisher said:
Pretend all you like, but you haven't provided any definition of IsSuccessorOf(*,*).
Click to expand...
Ignore it all you like but {X}$Y OR {X}~$Y is exactly the definition of how {X} is related to X as its successor.

jsfisher said:
You have also done nothing to show your now-favorite OR expression has any instantiation that isn't true (and that makes it identical to {}={}).
Click to expand...
One can define X as complete OR incomplete, which is derived from {X}$Y OR {X}~$Y that is exactly the definition of how {X} is related to X as its successor.

A tautology like {}={} can't be used in order to define X as complete OR incomplete.
 
Nonpareil said:
No, it isn't.



This is gibberish.



It would seem that any attempt to understand the concept of successor, whatever the method, is doomed to fail.
Click to expand...
It would seem that you axiomatically failing yourself about the considered subject.
 
jsfisher said:
Maybe yes, maybe no is not a definition; it is a meaningless tautology.
Click to expand...
{X}$X OR {X}~$X is a wff that is syntactically a tautology (no semantics is involved).

If semantics is also involved, one can define X as complete OR incomplete, which is derived from {X}$Y OR {X}~$Y that is exactly the definition of how {X} is related to X as its successor.

A tautology like {}={} can't be used in order to define X as complete OR incomplete, but a tautology like {X}$X OR {X}~$X can do it.

So, we actually learn that useful Mathematics is not restricted only to syntax (as, for example, Edward Nelson in https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/s.pdf, wrongly claims).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Ignore it all you like but {X}$Y OR {X}~$Y is exactly the definition of how {X} is related to X as its successor.


One can define X as complete OR incomplete, which is derived from {X}$Y OR {X}~$Y that is exactly the definition of how {X} is related to X as its successor.

A tautology like {}={} can't be used in order to define X as complete OR incomplete.
Click to expand...

But yet you still can't define successor.
 
Nonpareil said:
But one cannot, apparently, define "successor".
Click to expand...
You are wrong.

One can define X as complete OR incomplete, which is derived from {X}$Y OR {X}~$Y that is exactly the definition of how {X} is related to X as its successor.

A tautology like {}={} can't be used in order to define X as complete OR incomplete.

A tautology like {X}$Y OR {X}~$Y can be used in order to define X as complete OR incomplete.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom