What make up is needed here?
You to simply make up your mind, as I said.
We are talking about not less than _ | _ , get it?
You were talking about “ less than _
| _”
Remember your ‘partials’ “which enables to compare”
Under @_|_@, __ is partial (because of |) , which enables to compare @ values, such that @_@ is P=P or Q=Q.
Under @_|_@, | is partial (because of __) , which enables to compare @ values, such that @_@ is P≠Q or Q≠P.
,get it?
Unary means that we deal with as atom, where an atom is a total state, such that the atomic state of NOT is total isolation (notate as @ | @).
No unary simple refers to
u⋅na⋅ry
pertaining to a function whose domain is a given set and whose range is contained in that set.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unary
Also the atomic state of YES is unary and total, such that YES is total connectivity (notate as @ @).
Unary state is not researchable, and only a linkage of (@ | @) with (@ @) is researchable, where under this linkage NOT
is at least NOT CONNECTIVE (≠) where Connectivity is not total (comparison, notated as @_@, is possible), because of the Isolation aspect of Isolation\Connectivity linkage.
So once again after claiming your “unary” “atomic state of NOT is total isolation (notate as @ | @)” and “atomic state of YES is” “total connectivity (notate as
@ @)” you are going to assert that you have no basis for those claims since “Unary state is not researchable”?
You do understand that “NOT CONNECTIVE” would be your “total isolation (notate as @ | @)”, don’t you? “NOT CONNECTIVE” does not mean ‘some connectivity’ as in “where Connectivity is not total”, but simply “NOT“, well, “CONNECTIVE”.
Once again “≠” means ‘not equal to’.
You seem to still be conflating the logical operation of “NOT" meaning negation with the more general natural language application of “not” inferring “not the same as” or “not equal to”.
Guess that was a loosing bet.
By your limited reasoning Unary is defined by the number of input values.
That would be a unary operation, but by your limited reasoning I would not expect you to actually understand that.
From this limited reasoning (where f is some logical connective , and x or y are input values) f(x) is considered as Unary , and f(x,y) (where x is different than y) is considered as Dyadic.
Actually unary derives from the word Binary
Origin:
1570–80; < L ūn(us) one + -ary, on the model of binary
This limited reasoning does not explain how f() and X or Y inputs are linked, in the first place.
Fortunately all reasoning is not limited to your purported “reasoning” (much that you would like it to be and continue to assert that it is) and a unary operation is simply a function of one variable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unary_operation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operator#Operators_versus_functions
Unlike your limited reasoning, @ | @ provides this explanation.
No, as usual it just provides for your nonsensical, self-contradictory, gibberish, which could easily be avoided if you would just do some research. That apparently your ‘researchable framework’ does not permit you to do. So instead you simply focus on your “Unary state”s that you claim are ‘not researchable’.
