• 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.
EDIT:

~T = F

((T) ≠ (F)) is not the same as ((T) = (T))
exactly as
(1≠0) is not the same as (1=1) ,
even if all of them are true statments.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
~T = F
Click to expand...

Very good, so now you understand:

Code: 
P  Not-P  
T    F
F    T

((T) ≠ (F)) is the same as ((T) = (T))
Click to expand...
Yes.

exactly as (3≠5) is not the same as (3=3) , even if all of them are true statments.
Click to expand...
Clearly, when you are dealing with more than one possible value, the same does not apply.



ETA: You seem to have rewritten your post twice since I started to reply to it. Let me know when you've finished.
 
Last edited:
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
"elementary maths for classical mathematicians" is the right one.
Click to expand...

No, "classical" mathematicians do not need your garbage. You on the other hand could use some major firmware upgrade with possible hardware changes as well ;)
 
doronshadmi said:
Yes, this is exactly how "NOT" is a "unitary connective" by classical maths (where "connective" is used but ignored).
Click to expand...


You're the one that introduced the term "unitary connective" to this discussion. Could you explain what you mean by it? I would tend to use "monadic operator", but I would not swear that that is the correct term.
 
jsfisher said:
Doron, doron, doron. The links you posted do not address my questions. Let's try again. Here's the link to my post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5334212&postcount=7000. The questions are those sentences the end with question marks. Question marks are this symbol: ?
Click to expand...


Already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5336240&postcount=7021.

Since you ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5339246&postcount=7069 it is your choice to stay ignorant in this fine subject.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
You're the one that introduced the term "unitary connective" to this discussion. Could you explain what you mean by it? I would tend to use "monadic operator", but I would not swear that that is the correct term.
Click to expand...

You can find it in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_connective .

I called it "unitary connective" so let us correct it to "unary connective" for better communication on this subject.
 
doronshadmi said:
Already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5336240&postcount=7021.
Click to expand...

Oh, come on, Doron. You know better. That post has already been rejected as not responsive to the actual questions in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5336331&postcount=7025.

Surely, you can give straight-forward answers to simple questions. Stop dodging and weaving. Stop wandering off on tangents. Please stop running in fear from my queries. Here's the link again: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5334212&postcount=7000.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Oh, come on, Doron. You know better. That post has already been rejected as not responsive to the actual questions in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5336331&postcount=7025.

Surely, you can give straight-forward answers to simple questions. Stop dodging and weaving. Stop wandering off on tangents. Please stop running in fear from my queries. Here's the link again: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5334212&postcount=7000.
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5339316&postcount=7074 take or leave it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom