Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

the meaning of that symbol was certainly not part of your argument.

≠ notation is exactly my argument about the linkage between total isolation (notated as “|” or “~”) and total connectivity (notated as “__” or “=”)

Please see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5335496&postcount=7004 , where ≠ is wrongly used but corrected thanks to you, which enabled to reinforce my argument.

Let X be a placeholder of an element.

X | X is total isolation, such that X is-not (≠) comparable (X is totally isolated).

X__X is total connectivity, such that X is-not (≠) comparable (X is totally connected).

Comparison is possible only under | __ linkage, such that X_|_X , where X is not totally connected (the | of _|_ enables X identity) and not totally isolated (the __ of _|_ enables comparison of X identities).

Be aware of the fact that is-not (≠) is used in oreder to conclude something about X, because a reseachable framework is at least X_|_X.

So X_|_X is exactly a researchable framework, which enables Comparison of Identities.

| is the basis of Locality of X_|_X and ___ is the basis of Non-locality of X_|_X.

 

[zooterkin]

Can you confirm that you now get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5334100&postcount=6980 ?

 

[doronshadmi]

Can you confirm that you now get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5334100&postcount=6980 ?

Yes, it is P ≠ ~P, where ≠ is exactly _|_

 

[sympathic]

Yes, it is P ~P, where ≠ is exactly _|_

You do not get that ≠ is actually - *** -

 

[doronshadmi]

You do not get that ≠ is actually - *** -

Problems to get the researchable framework as a linkage between isolation and connectivity.

 

[zooterkin]

Problems to get the researchable framework as a linkage between isolation and connectivity.

Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.

 

[sympathic]

Problems to get the researchable framework as a linkage between isolation and connectivity.

was not it potential infinity and actual infinity, or maybe local or non-local? I forget.

 

[doronshadmi]

You know something like (P) NOT-EQUAL (NOT-P)

Now this is a lot better, but it simply reduces to ‘(P) EQUAL (P)’.

Worng.

((P) ≠ (~P)) ≠ ((P) = (P))

 

[zooterkin]

Worng.

Priceless!

((P) ≠ (~P)) ≠ ((P) = (P))

Wrong, indeed!

 

[doronshadmi]

was not it potential infinity and actual infinity, or maybe local or non-local? I forget.

No, total isolation is the basis of actually finite and total connectivity is the basis of actual infinity.

No one of them is accessible by a complex, which is more than actual infinity and less than actual infinity.

This is the reason of why an infinite interpolation of a segment is not a point, and an infinite extrapolation of a segment is not an endless (edgeless) straight line.

 

[doronshadmi]

Priceless!



Wrong, indeed!

Do you support The Man that claims that ((P) ≠ (~P)) = ((P) = (P)) ?

 

[zooterkin]

Do you support The Man that claims that ((P) ≠ (~P)) = ((P) = (P)) ?

It's trivially true, I would say.

Do you understand how "NOT", and truth tables, work yet?

 

[doronshadmi]

It's trivially true, I would say.

Do you understand how "NOT", and truth tables, work yet?

Is it true that ((P) ≠ (~P)) = ((P) = (P)) ?

Please answer by yes or no.

 

[zooterkin]

Is it true that ((P) ≠ (~P)) = ((P) = (P)) ?

Please answer by yes or no.

Yes.

 

[doronshadmi]

Do you understand how "NOT", and truth tables, work yet?

Do you understand what enables to connect between NOT and P in order to get NOT-P (where P is T or F)?

 

[doronshadmi]

Yes.

Please explain how ((zooterkin) ≠ (~zooterkin)) = ((zooterkin) = (zooterkin))

EDIT:

Please be aware of the fact that ((zooterkin) ≠ (~zooterkin)) is not the same as ((zooterkin) = (~~zooterkin)) = ((zooterkin) = (zooterkin))

 

[zooterkin]

Please explain how ((zooterkin) ≠ (~zooterkin)) = ((zooterkin) = (zooterkin))

It doesn't, unless zooterkin is a variable which is either True or False.

 

[doronshadmi]

It doesn't, unless zooterkin is a variable which is either True or False.

No problem.

Does ((T) ≠ (~T)) is the same as ((T) = (~~T)) = ((T) = (T))?

Please answer by yes or no.

 

[zooterkin]

No problem.

Does ((T) ≠ (~T)) is the same as ((T) = (~~T)) = ((T) = (T))?

Please answer by yes or no.

Assuming T stands for True, Yes.

 

[doronshadmi]

Assuming T stands for True, Yes.

~T = F

Does ((T) ≠ (F)) is the same as ((T) = (T)) ?

Be aware that I am not talking about the fact that both of tham are True statments.