• 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.
doronshadmi said:
EDIT:

No, you have a trouble to get _|_.


Classical Logic gets only the local aspect of _|_ as follows: ≠ is | under _|_ and we get P_|_Q that is also notated as P≠Q,
where _| is P=P and |_ is Q=Q.

Classical Logic does not get the non-local aspect of _|_ , where ___ of _|_ enables the comparison of P with Q in order to conclude that P ≠ Q.

The ability to compare things (even if they are not equal) is non-local by nature, and this non-locality is used but not understood by Classical-Logic.

Even if P ≠ Q, then P and Q are comparable (notated as P__Q) where P__Q ≠ P=Q, so there is no contradiction here.

Following this notion [_]_ does not mean that (Belongs) = (Does-not belong) but it means that (Belongs) is comparable with (Does-not belong) (we are focused on the comparison).

Also local things are comparable but by Classical Logic we are focused only on the local aspect of the comparison, such that P=Q OR P≠Q.
Click to expand...

no, you got it wrong. if my calculations are right it is actually __^^^() %%%%___
 
doronshadmi said:
The Man reasoning:

"Simply" means "I use it without any basis".
Click to expand...

Once again you simply displace your lack of reasoning and ‘use without basis’ onto others.

doronshadmi said:
NOT (which is total Isolation) is CONNECTIVE (which is total Connectivity).
Click to expand...

If you say so, but as those are your specific limitations they apply only to you.

doronshadmi said:
1≠0 is reducible to 1=1.
Click to expand...

In a two value system where 0 = ~1 thus 1 = ~0, yes it is. In case the process escapes you here it is. The following are just different ways of writing the same logically equal statement in the two value system described.

1 ≠ 0
~ (1 = 0)
~1 = 0
1 ~= 0
1 = ~0
1 = 1

doronshadmi said:
Again The Man Trivial and Simple are the same by your reasoning.
Click to expand...

That would make my multiple references to some of your assertions being “simply trivial” rather redundant wouldn’t it? Once again you simply displace your own reasoning (or lack thereof) onto others. My reasoning actually includes, well, research.

triv⋅i⋅al
–adjective
1. of very little importance or value; insignificant: Don't bother me with trivial matters.


2. commonplace; ordinary.


3. Biology. (of names of organisms) specific, as distinguished from generic.


4. Mathematics.
a. noting a solution of an equation in which the value of every variable of the equation is equal to zero.
b. (of a theorem, proof, or the like) simple, transparent, or immediately evident.


5. Chemistry. (of names of chemical compounds) derived from the natural source, or of historic origin, and not according to the systematic nomenclature: Picric acid is the trivial name of 2,4,6-trinitrophenol.


Origin:
1400–50; late ME < L triviālis belonging to the crossroads or street corner, hence commonplace, equiv. to tri- tri- + vi(a) road + -ālis -al 1

Synonyms:
1. unimportant, nugatory, slight, immaterial, inconsequential, frivolous, trifling. See petty.

Antonyms:
1. important.
Click to expand...


sim⋅ply
   
–adverb
1. in a simple manner; clearly and easily.


2. plainly; unaffectedly.


3. sincerely; artlessly: to speak simply as a child.


4. merely; only: It is simply a cold.


5. unwisely; foolishly: If you behave simply toward him, you're bound to be betrayed.


6. wholly; absolutely: simply irresistible.


Origin:
1250–1300; ME simpleliche. See simple, -ly 
Click to expand...



sim⋅ple 

–adjective
1. easy to understand, deal with, use, etc.: a simple matter; simple tools.


2. not elaborate or artificial; plain: a simple style.


3. not ornate or luxurious; unadorned: a simple gown.


4. unaffected; unassuming; modest: a simple manner.


5. not complicated: a simple design.


6. not complex or compound; single.


7. occurring or considered alone; mere; bare: the simple truth; a simple fact.


8. free of deceit or guile; sincere; unconditional: a frank, simple answer.


9. common or ordinary: a simple soldier.


10. not grand or sophisticated; unpretentious: a simple way of life.


11. humble or lowly: simple folk.


12. inconsequential or rudimentary.


13. unlearned; ignorant.


14. lacking mental acuteness or sense: a simple way of thinking.


15. unsophisticated; naive; credulous.


16. simpleminded.


17. Chemistry.
a. composed of only one substance or element: a simple substance.
b. not mixed.


18. Botany. not divided into parts: a simple leaf; a simple stem.


19. Zoology. not compound: a simple ascidian.


20. Music. uncompounded or without overtones; single: simple tone.


21. Grammar. having only the head without modifying elements included: The simple subject of “The dappled pony gazed over the fence” is “pony.” Compare complete (def. 5).


22. (of a verb tense) consisting of a main verb with no auxiliaries, as takes (simple present) or stood (simple past) (opposed to compound ).


23. Mathematics. linear (def. 7).


24. Optics. (of a lens) having two optical surfaces only.

–noun
25. an ignorant, foolish, or gullible person.


26. something simple, unmixed, or uncompounded.


27. simples, Textiles. cords for controlling the warp threads in forming the shed on draw-looms.


28. a person of humble origins; commoner.


29. an herb or other plant used for medicinal purposes: country simples.


Origin:
1175–1225; (adj.) ME < OF < LL simplus simple, L (in simpla pecunia simple fee or sum), equiv. to sim- one (see simplex ) + -plus, as in duplus duple, double (see -fold ); c. Gk háplos (see haplo- ); (n.) ME: commoner, deriv. of the adj.



Synonyms:
1. clear, intelligible, understandable, unmistakable, lucid. 2. natural, unembellished, neat. 8. artless, guileless, ingenuous. 10. See homely. 12. trifling, trivial, nonessential, unnecessary. 13. untutored, stupid.
Click to expand...

*bolding added



You will note in the very last quoted section that trivial can be synonymous with simple and the “#4 Mathematics b” definition of “trivial” given as “(of a theorem, proof, or the like) simple, transparent, or immediately evident.”. However, that does not mean they are always used with the same or similar meaning particularly when used together as in “simply (#1 “in a simple manner; clearly and easily”) trivial (#4b “(of a theorem, proof, or the like) simple, transparent, or immediately evident” )”.




Again for a better understanding please see

http://dictionary.reference.com/
 
doronshadmi said:
EDIT:

No, you have a trouble to get _|_.


Classical Logic gets only the local aspect of _|_ as follows: ≠ is | under _|_ and we get P_|_Q that is also notated as P≠Q,
where _| is P=P and |_ is Q=Q.

Classical Logic does not get the non-local aspect of _|_ , where ___ of _|_ enables the comparison of P with Q in order to conclude that P ≠ Q.

The ability to compare things (even if they are not equal) is non-local by nature, and this non-locality is used but not understood by Classical-Logic.

Even if P ≠ Q, then P and Q are comparable (notated as P__Q) where P__Q ≠ P=Q, so there is no contradiction here.

Following this notion [_]_ does not mean that (Belongs) = (Does-not belong) but it means that (Belongs) is comparable with (Does-not belong) (we are focused on the comparison).

Also local things are comparable but by Classical Logic we are focused only on the local aspect of the comparison, such that P=Q OR P≠Q.
Click to expand...

“P=Q OR P≠Q” is simply and trivially a tautology. If you are going to claim that by your ‘non-local aspect of the comparison, such that P=Q AND P≠Q’ then that is simply and trivially a contradiction.

By the way, this…

doronshadmi said:
Following this notion [_]_ does not mean that (Belongs) = (Does-not belong) but it means that (Belongs) is comparable with (Does-not belong) (we are focused on the comparison).
Click to expand...

..in no way detracts from the fact that your claim of ‘Belongs AND Does-not belong’ is still simply and trivially a contradiction.
 
The Man said:
“P=Q OR P≠Q” is simply and trivially a tautology. If you are going to claim that by your ‘non-local aspect of the comparison, such that P=Q AND P≠Q’ then that is simply and trivially a contradiction.

By the way, this…



..in no way detracts from the fact that your claim of ‘Belongs AND Does-not belong’ is still simply and trivially a contradiction.
Click to expand...

A contradiction that be easily resolved using Doronamics.
 
Time to break out the kittens.
kitten.JPG
 
doronshadmi said:
NOT-EQUAL is connection between NOT and EQUAL.

NOT-@ (where @ is a place holder of T or F) is a connection between NOT and @.

Where is the basis of this connection in by your reasoning?

Furthermore, to claim, for example, that 1≠0 is the same as 1=1, is (as you say) an absurd.

Both of them are true statements, but 1≠0 is about Difference and 1=1 is about Sameness.

To claim that Difference is Sameness, is not very useful.

So the minimal conditions of a useful framework is at least a linkage of Difference with Sameness under a complement framework.
Click to expand...


Nice try to change the subject! We're talking about (P) ≠ (~P). We're not talking about 1 ≠ 0 being the same as 1 = 1. The True/False values of "1 ≠ 0" and "1 = 1" are the same.

EDIT: Yeah I know that this post is late, but with doronshadmi's history of re-re-re-edits, I can make sure he won't have time to change a responce.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom