• 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.
jsfisher said:
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?
Click to expand...
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"?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
laca said:
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?
Click to expand...
In that case NOT is not a unitary operator.
Click to expand...

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? ;)
 
laca said:
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? ;)
Click to expand...
Yes just said, where this 'just' is simply your ignorence of this subject.
 
doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...


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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5334212&postcount=7000
 
doronshadmi said:
‘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.
Click to expand...

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…

.


So you are claiming that your

doronshadmi said:
Under isolator alone 1≠0, 1 or 0 identities are ignored (because they are totally isolated).
Click to expand...

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.
 
doronshadmi said:
Do you get?:

Code: 
P~P
[U].|[/U]_

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

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.

doronshadmi said:
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 [_];[ ]_).
Click to expand...


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.
 
doronshadmi said:
Do you understand the minimal terms of Logic as shown in links of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/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 )?
Click to expand...

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.
 
The Man said:
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…

.[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/176374b0968bfc88e8.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
So, the NOT operator is both monadic and dyadic?

Who knew.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
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 "=".
Click to expand...

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.

doronshadmi said:
You are right about my wrong use of "≠" in order to notate only NOT .
Click to expand...

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?


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

Thank you for that correction.
Click to expand...

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.

doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


doronshadmi said:
You know something like (P) NOT-EQUAL (NOT-P)
Click to expand...

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.
 
The Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

Speaking as an ex-betting office manager,I would give it odds of about a million to one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom