• 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.
The Man said:
Doron you were the one claiming I should




Which you also claim above to be “your local-only reasoning”. You have got yourself spun around so much with you whole ignoring NOT thing that you can not even effectively just accuse someone of “local-only reasoning”. Which is all the better Doron because as noted before whenever you do accuse someone of “local-only reasoning” you are simply expressing your own ““local-only reasoning”.
Click to expand...

The fact is that you do not have Non-locality in your framework exacty because you do not get ant of the following:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5329957&postcount=6883

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5330079&postcount=6884

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5330118&postcount=6886

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5330445&postcount=6906

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5330681&postcount=6918
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You are the one that clearly used here circular reasoning.
Click to expand...

Doron simply making up statements and "other words" to attribute to someone else clearly demonstrates that you lack reasoning.


Again I ‘m sure the irony of you accusing someone else of “circular reasoning” is not lost on anyone but you.

Please feel free to continue your reasonless ironic posts and I will catch up on your comedy of errors later.
 
The Man said:
Doron simply making up statements and "other words" to attribute to someone else clearly demonstrates that you lack reasoning.


Again I ‘m sure the irony of you accusing someone else of “circular reasoning” is not lost on anyone but you.

Please feel free to continue your reasonless ironic posts and I will catch up on your comedy of errors later.
Click to expand...

Start your training on your own yard (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5330653&postcount=6915) since other yards are beyond your mind.

You have failed all along the way because you do not get a single post of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5330760&postcount=6921.

Now please explain to all of us in this thread "what is connective"? (and this time without circular reasoning as you did in NOT case).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Exactly, but you do not get even NOT-only, and as a result you do not get even your local-only reasoning, exactly because a useful framework is a complex, but it does not exist without the linkage between Non-local atom and Local atom, and you do your best in order to show that Non-locality does not exist.
Click to expand...

Doron, really, give it a rest. If you can't even understand "Not", just about the simplest logical operator, there isn't any hope for you at all.
 
zooterkin said:
If P is true, not-P is false.
If P is false, not-P is true.
Click to expand...
You are assuming that there is a connection between not- and P, and you also assuming that you are able to compare P with not-P.

In both cases you do not provide any logical basis to these assumptions.

So this time (unlike The Man and jsfisher) please provide the logical basis for these assumptions.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You are assuming that there is a connection between not- and P, and you also assuming that you are able to compare P with not-P.
Click to expand...
I'm not assuming anything. That's the definition of the 'not' operation.

In both cases you do not provide any logical basis to these assumptions.
Click to expand...
You have yet to provide any logical basis for any of OM.
 
zooterkin said:
I'm not assuming anything. That's the definition of the 'not' operation.
Click to expand...
Which is an invalid definition because it assuming connectivity without providing the logical basis of it.


Since The Man, jsfisher and you have failed to get the answer, here it is by Tautology:

Code: 
P NOT-P   
F  F      T    (NOT-Local)
F  T      T    (Local)
T  F      T    (Local)
T  T      T    (NOT-local)
The NOT truth table is simply the XOR part of this Tautology (the local part), which enables the identity of logical reasoning in general.

NXOR is the non-local part of this Tautology, which enables the connectivity of logical reasoning in general.

More details are in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5329957&postcount=6883.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Which is an invalid definition because it assuming connectivity without providing the logical basis of it.


Since The Man, jsfisher and you have failed to get the answer, here it is by Tautology:

Code: 
P NOT-P   
F  F      T    (NOT-Local)
F  T      T    (Local)
T  F      T    (Local)
T  T      T    (NOT-local)
The NOT truth table is simply the XOR part of this Tautology (the local part), which enables the identity of logical reasoning in general.

NXOR is the non-local part of this Tautology, which enables the connectivity of logical reasoning in general.

More details are in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5329957&postcount=6883.
Click to expand...


Oh, Doron, you are funny!
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
Oh, dear.
Click to expand...

Code: 
P NOT-P
F F 
T T

is the NXOR part of the Tautology

Code: 
P NOT-P   
F  F      T    (NOT-Local)
F  T      T    (Local)
T  F      T    (Local)
T  T      T    (NOT-local)

exactly as

Code: 
P NOT-P
F T 
T F

is the XOR part of this Tautology.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
I love the way you make unmarked edits, after someone has replied, but not to actually improve the post.

ETA: I'm glad to see you are making some progress. It seems you recognise now that 1=0.99...
Click to expand...

You still don't get it.

NXOR alone is a connector alone, and a connector alone unables to compare identities.

For example, if X is a place holder for identity, then a connector alone is =,
such that ...=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=...

On the contrary XOR alone (= NOT) is an isolator alone, and an isolator alone unables to compare identities.

For example, if X is a place holder for identity, then an isolator alone is ≠,
such that ...≠X≠X≠X≠X≠X≠X≠X≠X≠...

No one of these states alone is researchable, and they are researchable only under the linkage of
Code: 
P NOT-P   
F  F      T    (NOT-Local)
F  T      T    (Local)
T  F      T    (Local)
T  T      T    (NOT-local)

tautology, such that an identity is the result of not less than Connector\Isolator linkage under a one framework.

Some example:

Under connector alone 1=0, 1 or 0 identities are ignored (because they are totally connected).

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

Only under Connector\Isolator linkage we can conclude that 1 identity in not 0 identity.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom