Deeper than primes

[zooterkin]

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

Is it only for local people?

 

[dafydd]

Is it only for local people?

Non-local people have been known to frequent it but only on a non-frequent basis,in their frame of reference it is a non-local store.

 

[GreyICE]

Does anyone have an idea what the longest thread on the forum is? Because... I think I might be posting in it.

 

[laca]

Does anyone have an idea what the longest thread on the forum is? Because... I think I might be posting in it.

It's not this one... At least the one about the truth and the new testament is longer

 

[The Man]

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

Guess I'm not the only one who noticed Doron's spectacles.

 

[The Man]

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

Don't worry that set was completed a long time ago and I have no doubts he'll make "quantum" claims again.

 

[The Man]

[qimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2554/4149358437_87f574fa79_o.jpg[/qimg]

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

Well you have already demonstrated that you do not understand the meaning of self-referential. However just for fun, in the Doronaversive would T≠T be considered “self-referential” if so why and if not why not?

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.

Again both “=” and “≠” are comparative assertions. As for your “are non-local w.r.t locals T or F” and “comparison is a must have term of researchability” those are your claims and thus simply your limitations.

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.

Until you actually start doing some research it is doubtful that others might actually find your assertions about what you claim to be “researchable” (as well as “not researchable”) to be in any way, well, comprehensive.

 

[The Man]

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]

So your claim is simply that you disagree with jsfisher and me. How surprising.

ETA:

Again just for fun is 1 ≠ 1 a “sameness comparison” or "difference comparison" in your “comprehension” and why or why not?

Is 1 = 0 a “sameness comparison” or "difference comparison" in your “comprehension” and why or why not?

Is not your entire claim that a “Sameness comparison (1 = 1) ≠ Difference comparison (1 ≠ 0)” simply it self a “Difference comparison”? That would make your “Difference comparison” the underlying and only basis to even assert any difference between your “Sameness comparison” and your “Difference comparison”

 

[dafydd]

So your claim is simply that you disagree with jsfisher and me. How surprising.

ETA:

Again just for fun is 1 ≠ 1 a “sameness comparison” or "difference comparison" in your “comprehension” and why or why not?

Is 1 = 0 a “sameness comparison” or "difference comparison" in your “comprehension” and why or why not?

Is not your entire claim that a “Sameness comparison (1 = 1) ≠ Difference comparison (1 ≠ 0)” simply it self a “Difference comparison”? That would make your “Difference comparison” the underlying and only basis to even assert any difference between your “Sameness comparison” and your “Difference comparison”

Same difference.

 

[Apathia]

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

Are you saving with Geico?

 

[The Man]

Same difference.

Why dafydd, how totally non-local of you.

Indeed in the Doronic goggles…

[qimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2554/4149358437_87f574fa79_o.jpg[/qimg]

…if his “T” ‘Lens’ represents one of his ‘sameness comparisons’ and his “F” ‘Lens’ represents another of his ‘sameness comparisons’ then the “≠” would tend to indicate that for him those ‘comparisons’ are simply not, well, the same. It would seem Doron is claiming = ≠ =.

So perhaps different sameness?

Still same difference.

 

[dafydd]

Will Doron stop making a spectacle of himself now?

 

[dafydd]

Why dafydd, how totally non-local of you.

Indeed in the Doronic goggles…



…if his “T” ‘Lens’ represents one of his ‘sameness comparisons’ and his “F” ‘Lens’ represents another of his ‘sameness comparisons’ then the “≠” would tend to indicate that for him those ‘comparisons’ are simply not, well, the same. It would seem Doron is claiming = ≠ =.

So perhaps different sameness?

Still same difference.

Different differenceness,as in the statement ''Doron is tall for his height''

 

[doronshadmi]

It would seem Doron is claiming = ≠ =.

It would seem The Man is claiming that the result of T ≠ F comparison is False because he ignores the fact that T is a short notation of T=T comparison, and F is a short notation of F=F comparison.

The Man does not understand that Comparison is the fundamental principle of any researchable framework, whether the result is True (T ≠ F) or False (= ≠ =) (please see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5367298&postcount=7215).

By not using short notations that ignore Comparison (as seen by the following full notoation):
[qimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2554/4149358437_87f574fa79_o.jpg[/qimg]

we understand the fundamentals that enable some reasoning in the first place, for example:

EDIT:

The short notation of (F=F) comparison is F (known also as truth value F).

The short notation of (T=T) comparison is T (known also as truth value T).

@=@ (where @ is a place holder for T or F values) is actually a comparison between a thing to itself, such that each comparison is a truth value, whether it is T or F.

Your argument that (T≠F) comparosin = (@=@) comparosin , is equivalent to the argument that T=F or @≠@, which is false, as seen by:

 

[doronshadmi]

Well you have already demonstrated that you do not understand the meaning of self-referential. However just for fun, in the Doronaversive would T≠T be considered “self-referential” if so why and if not why not?

T≠T (or F≠F) is a false self-referential comparison. T=F is a false non self-referential comparison. Here it is:

In both cases, comparison is fundamental.

 

[doronshadmi]

Is not your entire claim that a “Sameness comparison (1 = 1) ≠ Difference comparison (1 ≠ 0)” simply it self a “Difference comparison”? That would make your “Difference comparison” the underlying and only basis to even assert any difference between your “Sameness comparison” and your “Difference comparison”

The underlying basis is Comparison, whether its is Difference comparison or Sameness comparison.

The compared are the local aspect and the comparer is the non-local aspect of the comparison.

So perhaps different sameness?

Still same difference.

In both cases Comparison is fundamental.

 

[dafydd]

The underlying basis is Comparison, whether its is Difference comparison or Sameness comparison.

The compared are the local aspect and the comparers are the non-local aspect of the comparison.


In both cases Comparison is fundamental.

You need new glasses.Hasn't it sunk in yet that we are extracting the urine?

 

[doronshadmi]

You need new glasses.Hasn't it sunk in yet that we are extracting the urine?

As long as Comparison is sunk in the urine of one's mind, new glasses will not help.

 

[dafydd]

Is that supposed to make sense? Probably not,making sense is not your forte.

 

[The Man]

It would seem The Man is claiming that the result of T ≠ F comparison is False because he ignores the fact that T is a short notation of T=T comparison, and F is a short notation of F=F comparison.

The Man does not understand that Comparison is the fundamental principle of any researchable framework, whether the result is True (T ≠ F) or False (= ≠ =) (please see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5367298&postcount=7215).

By not using short notations that ignore Comparison (as seen by the following full notoation):
[qimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2554/4149358437_87f574fa79_o.jpg[/qimg]

we understand the fundamentals that enable some reasoning in the first place, for example:

EDIT:

The short notation of (F=F) comparison is F (known also as truth value F).

The short notation of (T=T) comparison is T (known also as truth value T).

@=@ (where @ is a place holder for T or F values) is actually a comparison between a thing to itself, such that each comparison is a truth value, whether it is T or F.

F = F is TRUE, claiming as your do that it is “(known also as truth value F)” demonstrates your “reasoning” remains, well, un-enabled.

Your argument that (T≠F) comparosin = (@=@) comparosin , is equivalent to the argument that T=F or @≠@, which is false, as seen by:
[qimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2731/4153069414_3abcabc22e_o.jpg[/qimg]

I have made no such argument. “(T≠F)” is TRUE, (@=@) is TRUE as long as your “@”s take the same value, but FALSE if they do not. “T=F” is FALSE while @≠@ is FALSE as long as your “@”s take the same value but TRUE if they do not.