• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
laca said:
Doron, please go away and don't come back until you have published a paper in a respectable (preferably mathematical) journal. Maybe you can share the edition with Anita aka. VisionFromFeeling explaining how she aced the IIG test, went on to win the MDC by using non-local (read: deluded) reasoning to "see" inside people etc.

Until then, we're just going around in circles. There's no use in continuing this conversation. We are convinced by now that you have an endless supply of ad-hominems, gibberish, made-up half-baked definitions, re-definitins, contradictions and you can always invalidate someone's reasoning by labeling it "local-only" etc. There is nothing else you can convince us of at this point. Not unless you start making sense.
Click to expand...

My local is a very nice pub.Cheers!
 
laca said:
Doron, please go away and don't come back until you have published a paper in a respectable (preferably mathematical) journal. Maybe you can share the edition with Anita aka. VisionFromFeeling explaining how she aced the IIG test, went on to win the MDC by using non-local (read: deluded) reasoning to "see" inside people etc.

Until then, we're just going around in circles. There's no use in continuing this conversation. We are convinced by now that you have an endless supply of ad-hominems, gibberish, made-up half-baked definitions, re-definitins, contradictions and you can always invalidate someone's reasoning by labeling it "local-only" etc. There is nothing else you can convince us of at this point. Not unless you start making sense.
Click to expand...
As I already said laca, you have nothing to say because you are ignorant of that subject.

Nobody but you say to you to stay here, so I believe that you know what to do.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
It is a contradiction only if XOR is used as the logical connective of P (Non-locality) ; not-P (Locality).
Click to expand...

It is simply contradictory when “P (Non-locality) ; not-P (Locality)” are given the same values, any other “logical connective” will not change that contradiction.

ETA line: You do understand that 'not' is a logical conective, don't you?

doronshadmi said:
Remember, the result is only according to P.
Click to expand...

Try to remember that yourself, if “P” is true then “not-P” is false likewise if “P” is false then “not-P” is true.


doronshadmi said:
If P is Non-local then:

a) P XOR not-P is a contradiction.

b) P NXOR not-P is consistent.

Code: 
P not-P  NXOR
F  F      T
F  T      F
T  F      F
T  T      T

If P is Local then:

a) P NXOR not-P is a contradiction.

b) P XOR not-P is consistent.

Code: 
P not-P  XOR
F  F      F
F  T      T
T  F      T
T  T      F
Click to expand...

Nope looks like you forgot “the result is only according to P” already, but we have come to expect you to simply contradict yourself Doron. Both of your tables contain two contradictions each, when “not-P” is assigned the same value as “P”. Apparently OM can’t even function in a simple operation like just logical negation.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Nope looks like you forgot “the result is only according to P” already,
Click to expand...

Exactly, and you do not understand what you read.

If P is Non-local then:

a) P XOR not-P is a contradiction.

b) P NXOR not-P is consistent.

Code: 
[B]P[/B] not-P  NXOR
F  F      T    (Non-locality)
F  T      F    (Locality)
T  F      F    (Locality)
T  T      T    (Non-locality)

If P is Local then:

a) P NXOR not-P is a contradiction.

b) P XOR not-P is consistent.

Code: 
[B]P[/B] not-P  XOR
F  F      F    (Non-locality)
F  T      T    (Locality)
T  F      T    (Locality)
T  T      F    (Non-locality)

You simply do not get Non-local reasoning, which is the negation of Local reasoning.
 
Last edited:
By Non-local reasoning (NXOR reasoning) there is sameness between P and not-P, and the result is True
if P;not-P have the same values (F,F ; T,T).

For example:

If P is Non-local then:

a) P XOR not-P is a contradiction (F,T ; T,F is False).

b) P NXOR not-P is consistent (F,F ; T,T is True).

Code: 
P not-P  NXOR
F  F      T    (Non-locality)
F  T      F    (Locality)
T  F      F    (Locality)
T  T      T    (Non-locality)


By Local reasoning (XOR reasoning) there is difference between P and not-P, and the result is True
if P;not-P have different values (F,T ; T,F).

For example:

If P is Local then:

a) P NXOR not-P is a contradiction (F,F ; T,T is False).

b) P XOR not-P is consistent (F,T ; T,F is True).

Code: 
P not-P  XOR
F  F      F    (Non-locality)
F  T      T    (Locality)
T  F      T    (Locality)
T  T      F    (Non-locality)

You simply do not get Non-local reasoning, which is the complement of Local reasoning
under NXOR(=sameness)\XOR(=difference) Logic.

The reason that you do not get it is that you simply use Local reasoning as the one and only one reasoning.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
By Non-local reasoning (NXOR reasoning) there is sameness between P and not-P, and the result is True
if P;not-P have the same values (F,F ; T,T)
Click to expand...

I suppose it had to come, now you are using your own definition for 'not'.

The truth table for 'not' is:
Code: 
P not-P  
F  T      
T  F

Please explain how P and not-P can have the same value.
 
zooterkin said:
I suppose it had to come, now you are using your own definition for 'not'.

The truth table for 'not' is:
Code: 
P not-P  
F  T      
T  F

Please explain how P and not-P can have the same value.
Click to expand...

This is exactly Non-local (NXOR) reasoning where:

The truth table is:
Code: 
P not-P  
F  F   T   
T  T   T

NXOR is the logic of sameness, where XOR is the logic of the difference (your table).

Sameness alone or difference alone are not researchable, so the researchable is at least Sameness\Difference logic.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom