Deeper than primes

[jsfisher]

I am talking about the inability to reduce (1≠0) to (1=1) or (0=0) ( The Man claims that (1≠0) = (1=1) ).

You are talking nonsense. (1≠0) = (1=1) is a true-valued statement.

Again, I am not talking on the fact that (1≠0),(1=1) or (0=0) are true statements.

I am talking about the difference of ≠ form = , where (1≠0) is not self referential, where (1=1) or (0=0) are self referential.

You failed last time you tried with the term, self-referential. I see your success remains unchanged. Be that as it may, it doesn't change the statements valuation. So, what relevance do you claim your point will make, even if it had some validity?

EDIT: In other words: (1≠0) ≠ ((1=1) or (0=0)) and you are not listening to my argument (as already shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5339246&postcount=7069).

We listen to your "argument" just fine. However, where one might normally assert logic and meaning, you offer gibberish and typewriter graphics.

 

[doronshadmi]

You are talking nonsense

You are a closed system.

You are invited to show (1≠0) that is true and self-referential.

You are invited to show (1=1) that is true and non self-referential.

Also since you disagree with The Man

~(1 = 0) and (1 ≠ 0) = (1 ~= 0) reduce to the same value,

about the word "reduce" then please show that

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

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

(P ≠ ~P) "is simply reduces to" (P = P).

 

[dafydd]

You are a closed system.

You are a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

 

[The Man]

The output (~P) is entirely dependent on the input P and its connection to ~.

Dependence is a “connection” Doron and since you keep missing it, that dependence and thus “connection” is negation.

Furthermore, the researchability of this framework entirely dependents on the comparison of P(input) with ~P(output).

Once again the requirement of “comparison” is entirely yours, but it is understandable that since you can not understand the dependence of negation that you insist on some “comparison”. Although it is rather ironic that you require this “comparison” for “researchability”, but never actually conduct any research yourself.

Also classical Logic can't avoid it, but instead of explicitly address it, it is used (you have no choice) but ignored.

It is explicitly addressed as the dependence of negation making your “comparison” superfluous in that consideration.

 

[The Man]

Simple is not Trivial.

Hence "simply trivial"

Triviality is entirely the result of your ignorance of the must have foundations that enable Logic in the first place, and the ignorance of Comparison is the core of it.

You are using it right now, but can't comprehend it.

No Doron it is your ignorance that continues to be immediately evident or trivial.

 

[The Man]

The Man "(1≠0) is not reducible to (0=0) or (1=1)" is the fact that you can't comprehend.

The fact that the system only has two values (thus everything in that system is reducible to one or the other of those values) "is the fact that you can't comprehend".

 

[The Man]

You are a closed system.

You are invited to show (1≠0) that is true and self-referential.

You are invited to show (1=1) that is true and non self-referential.

Also since you disagree with The Man about the word "reduce" then please show that



(P ≠ ~P) "is simply reduces to" (P = P).

You are invited to show where you think jsfisher and I disagree on this matter.

 

[jsfisher]

You are a closed system.

Well, it would be rather embarrassing otherwise, don't you think, with all my body parts leaking out.

You are invited to show (1≠0) that is true and self-referential.

You are invited to show (1=1) that is true and non self-referential.

Thanks for the invitation, but while both are true, neither is self-referential. The formula, 1=1, for example, makes no reference to itself, only to "1" and the relationship of equality. "This statement is false" would be an example of a self-reference.

Also since you disagree with The Man about the word "reduce"...

Really? Where'd I do that?

 

[doronshadmi]

The fact that the system only has two values (thus everything in that system is reducible to one or the other of those values) "is the fact that you can't comprehend".

is the framework that you can't comprehend, where T=T or F=F are self-referential and T≠F is not self-referential.

In both cases = or ≠ are non-local w.r.t locals T or F, and in both cases comparison is a must have term of researchability.

In other words, you can't comprehend:

Comparison, Self-referential, Non-local, Researchability.

T≠F , T=T or F=F are researchable because all of them are based on Non-locality\Locality linkage that you are unable to comprehend.

 

[dafydd]

There is no such word as comparosin,but feel free to continue coining words and phrases,it's very funny.

 

[doronshadmi]

You are invited to show where you think jsfisher and I disagree on this matter.

jsfisher uses "reduce" between different representations of the same relation:

~(1 = 0) and (1 ≠ 0) = (1 ~= 0) reduce to the same value,

On the contrary you claim that ~(1 = 0) is reducible to (1 = 1).

 

[zooterkin]

On the contrary you claim that ~(1 = 0) is reducible to (1 = 1).

Why do you think those statements are contradictory?

~(1 = 0) is True.
(1=1) is True.

(1 ≠ 0) is True
(1 ~= 0) is also True.

 

[doronshadmi]

Why do you think those statements are contradictory?

~(1 = 0) is True.
(1=1) is True.

(1 ≠ 0) is True
(1 ~= 0) is also True.

Sameness comparison (1 = 1) ≠ Difference comparison (1 ≠ 0).

T or F are nothing but local aspects of Non-locality\Locality linkage, so your question is irrelevent.

EDIT: The contradiction is the claim that Sameness comparison ((T = T) or (F = F)) = Difference comparison (T ≠ F).

The diagram below clearly proves that this claim is a contradiction:
[qimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2554/4149358437_87f574fa79_o.jpg[/qimg]

 

[zooterkin]

Sameness comparison (1 = 1) ≠ Difference comparison (1 ≠ 0).

T or F are nothing but local aspects of Non-locality\Locality linkage, so your question is irrelevent.

EDIT: The contradiction is the claim that Sameness comparison (T = T) = Difference comparison (T ≠ F).

There is no contradiction. T=T is a True statement. T ≠ F is a True statement.

You simply do not get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5360688&postcount=7186

 

[doronshadmi]

There is no contradiction. T=T is a True statement. T ≠ F is a True statement.

You simply do not get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5360688&postcount=7186

It does not matter if (P=P) and (P ~= ~P) are True statements because my argument is not about this fact.

If you really wish to deal with my argument you have to understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5364020&postcount=7193, which is something that you and your friends avoid all along this thread.

 

[dafydd]

 

[doronshadmi]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_234094b15262f337c2.jpg[/qimg]

You have got it, it is organic.

 

[dafydd]

Ah,organic,now all we need is quantum to complete the set.

 

[doronshadmi]

Ah,organic,now all we need is quantum to complete the set.

Wrong.

Organic systems are open (incomplete) by nature.

 

[dafydd]

My local store is open at the moment.Is it incomplete?