Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
As much as I know...
Click to expand...

Your are not addressing the questions put to you. You made specific claims about set theory. The claims were false.

You don't understand Mathematics; you misrepresent Mathematics; and you just make stuff up. But no matter how enamored you are by braces and what great meaning you imagine they have, they will continue to be not part of set theory.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Your are not addressing the questions put to you. You made specific claims about set theory. The claims were false.

You don't understand Mathematics; you misrepresent Mathematics; and you just make stuff up. But no matter how enamored you are by braces and what great meaning you imagine they have, they will continue to be not part of set theory.
Click to expand...
jsfisher, the definition of the void between the outer "{" and "}" as contradiction, and the definition of the outer "{" and "}" as tautology are straightforward for the concept of set.

The needed details are given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11356821&postcount=1878.

Your reply does not address anything that is written http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11356821&postcount=1878.

It is no more than an act of self conviction that values the issue at hand from a conventional point of view.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher, the definition of the void between the outer "{" and "}" as contradiction, and the "{" and "}" as tautology is straightforward for the concept of set.
Click to expand...

Simply repeating something you made up doesn't make it any less made up.

Braces continue to be not a part of set theory. Your claims regarding braces are not part of Mathematics.
 
jsfisher said:
Simply repeating something you made up doesn't make it any less made up.

Braces continue to be not a part of set theory. Your claims regarding braces are not part of Mathematics.
Click to expand...
Repeating on an act of self conviction that values the issue at hand from a conventional point of view, does not address the issue at hand.

If you really wish to air your view about the issue at hand, then please criticize what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11356821&postcount=1878 by using your mathematical skills.

Any other reply is no more than a propaganda.
 
doronshadmi said:
If this is the case, there is no use for further discussion with you about the issue at hand.
Click to expand...


Well, if you ever have something that is Mathematics, let me know. Meanwhile, do have fun with these fantastical things you continually make up.
 
jsfisher said:
Well, if you ever have something that is Mathematics, let me know. Meanwhile, do have fun with these fantastical things you continually make up.
Click to expand...
Ok, jsfisher is unaware that what is called pure mathematicians do their best in order to develop frameworks that are not bounded to what is called physical reality.

So by physicians they are taken as people who make up fantastical things that are disconnected from what they call reality.

But pure mathematicians simply do not care about the point of view of physicians.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11356821&postcount=1878 is a consistent mathematical framework that is bounded by contradiction and tautology, where any form between contradiction and tautology is a member of this consistent mathematical framework.

By http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11356821&postcount=1878 natural numbers are actually logical forms that are irreducible into contradiction and not expandable into tautology.

Moreover the horizontally bounded logical trees are not restricted only to vertically ever developed binary trees.

The logical vertically ever developed trees can be defined as any n-valued logic, that are horizontally bounded by contradiction and tautology.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Ok, jsfisher is unaware that what is called pure mathematicians do their best in order to develop frameworks that are not bounded to what is called physical reality.
Click to expand...

Kool story, bro.

On the other hand, if you have anything this is actual Mathematics, rather than the stuff you continue to make up just on a whim, I'd be happy to hear about it.

Meanwhile, braces still are not part of set theory.
 
MetalPig said:
If it makes you happy to write that; sure, whatever.

It still doesn't make contradictions true, though.
Click to expand...
There is no contradiction in case of A OR ~A since they are true options that are not taken simultaneously.

In case of A AND ~A the two true options are taken simultaneously, and the result is contradiction.

So by dealing with options, if they are not simultaneously they are true.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
From know on outer braces are part of set theory...
Click to expand...

Before you go off on to your void and complement tangent, you'd need to formally define how braces are part of set theory.

It's kind of ironic, too, Doronshadmi, that you chastise me and others for being limited to objects in our thinking, though untrue that may be, and here you are not just limited by but actually obsessed with a pair of objects, braces.

Projection can be so transparent.
 
MetalPig said:
I know. That is not the case I am talking about. Pay attention please.
Click to expand...
Again, there is an object called A that has two optional properties.

By using OR logical connective between the options, the truth table is as follows:

It is ~T to claim that no one of the options is possible (written as ~T OR ~T --> ~T)

It is T to claim that at least one of the options is possible (written as T OR ~T --> T, ~T OR T --> T)

It is T to claim that the two possible options are not simultaneously taken (written as T OR T --> T)

So the truth table of A OR ~A is:

Code: 
 A OR ~A
--------
~T    ~T --> ~T
~T     T -->  T
 T    ~T -->  T
 T     T -->  T

OR logical connective guarantees that the two possible options are not simultaneously taken, so the contradiction is avoided.

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

By using AND logical connective between the options, the truth table is as follows:

It is ~T to claim that no one of the options is possible (written as ~T AND ~T --> ~T)

It is ~T to claim that only one of the options is possible (written as T AND ~T --> T, ~T AND T --> T)

It is T to claim that the two possible options are simultaneously taken (written as T AND T --> T)

So the truth table of A AND ~A is:

Code: 
 A AND ~A
---------
~T     ~T --> ~T
~T      T -->  ~T
 T     ~T -->  ~T
 T      T -->  T

AND logical connective guarantees that the two possible options are simultaneously taken, so the contradiction is not avoided.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Before you go off on to your void and complement tangent, you'd need to formally define how braces are part of set theory.
Click to expand...
contradiction and tautology are logically the complement and extreme bounds of n-valued logic, where n>1.

By define contradiction and tautology in terms of set theory, the void between "{" and "}" is defined as contradiction, where the outer "{" and "}" is defined as tautology.

These definitions are is logically straightforward.

Being a member of a given set is defined as ~contradiction AND ~tautology.

jsfisher said:
It's kind of ironic, too, Doronshadmi, that you chastise me and others for being limited to objects in our thinking, though untrue that may be, and here you are not just limited by but actually obsessed with a pair of objects, braces.
Click to expand...
The outer braces represent tautology, where tautology is neither object nor option.

Moreover, once again you do not follow after my last developments of the issue at hand (you have missed the end of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11356821&postcount=1878), and as a result your current criticism is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom