Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
T≠T (or F≠F) is a false self-referential comparison. T=F is a false non self-referential comparison. Here it is:
[qimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2731/4153069414_3abcabc22e_o.jpg[/qimg]

In both cases, comparison is fundamental.
Click to expand...

So you are simply not using a two value system, but have added an additional two values of “self-referential comparison” as well as “non self-referential comparison”. However, even in that system T = T is the same as F = F as both are true and your “self-referential comparison”.
 
doronshadmi said:
The underlying basis is Comparison, whether its is Difference comparison or Sameness comparison.
Click to expand...

So your argument is to simply ignore that your “Difference comparison” is the only basis for your claim that a “Sameness comparison (1 = 1) ≠ Difference comparison (1 ≠ 0)”. How surprising.

doronshadmi said:
The compared are the local aspect and the comparer is the non-local aspect of the comparison.
Click to expand...

In your ““Sameness comparison (1 = 1) ≠ Difference comparison (1 ≠ 0)” claim your “comparer”s are the “The compared” thus “local” so the only “non-local aspect of the comparison” is your “Difference comparison”

doronshadmi said:
In both cases Comparison is fundamental.
Click to expand...

Again simply because = as well as ≠ are both comparative assertions.

Your “Difference comparison or Sameness comparison” valuation system is still only a two value system.

SC = “Sameness comparison”

DC = “Difference comparison”

Would (SC = ~DC) be valued as a “Sameness comparison” (SC) or a “Difference comparison” (DC) by your system?

Would (SC ≠ DC) be valued as a “Sameness comparison” (SC) or a “Difference comparison” (DC) by your system?



ETA:
Would (SC ≠ ~SC) be valued as a “Sameness comparison” (SC) or a “Difference comparison” (DC) by your system?

Would (SC ≠ SC) be valued as a “Sameness comparison” (SC) or a “Difference comparison” (DC) by your system?

Would (~SC = SC) be valued as a “Sameness comparison” (SC) or a “Difference comparison” (DC) by your system?
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
F = F is TRUE
Click to expand...

I am talking about the truth value called F, which is a short notation of F self-reference, which is a comparison of a value to itself.

In other words, it is True that F is False, and it is False that F is True and you simply can't get it because you do not understand Comparison as the basis of truth values.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

@=@ means that we are dealing with a one truth value, where in T≠F we are dealing with two truth values.

Your claim that "dealing with two truth values" = "dealing with a one truth value", is False.
 
The Man said:
So you are simply not using a two value system, but have added an additional two values of “self-referential comparison” as well as “non self-referential comparison”. However, even in that system T = T is the same as F = F as both are true and your “self-referential comparison”.
Click to expand...

You still don't get it. I am talking about thuth values, when you are talking about the value of expressions that are based on truth values. In other words, you are not talking about the fundamental level of the very existence of truth values.

Instead you are talking about the expressions, which are the results of the use of truth values.
 
The Man said:
So your argument is to simply ignore that your “Difference comparison” is the only basis for your claim that a “Sameness comparison (1 = 1) ≠ Difference comparison (1 ≠ 0)”. How surprising.
Click to expand...

You do not get Comparison, which is the common principle of both DC and SC.

Without C, D or S are not researchable, because D is total connectivity and S is total isolation.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I am talking about the truth value called F, which is a short notation of F self-reference, which is a comparison of a value to itself.

In other words, it is True that F is False, and it is False that F is True and you simply can't get it because you do not understand Comparison as the basis of truth values.
Click to expand...

Are you allowed to have anything sharp where you live?
 
doronshadmi said:
I am talking about the truth value called F, which is a short notation of F self-reference, which is a comparison of a value to itself.
Click to expand...

Were that the case, than all statements in Doronetics would be trivially true.

In other words, it is True that F is False, and it is False that F is True and you simply can't get it because you do not understand Comparison as the basis of truth values.
Click to expand...

The first part is trivially obvious. The second part, you just made up as a substitute for understanding Mathematics.
 
jsfisher said:
Were that the case, than all statements in Doronetics would be trivially true.
Click to expand...
Since you can't comprehend the ontological base of Researchability (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5367241&postcount=7214) your view is indeed trivial.


jsfisher said:
The first part is trivially obvious. The second part, you just made up as a substitute for understanding Mathematics.
Click to expand...
Try to comprehend without comparison, and you get the must have substitute for understanding Mathematics.
 
doronshadmi said:
You are right, this

is not even English.
Click to expand...

Yes it is.'You need new glasses' is perfect English.Glasses is just another name for spectacles.'Extracting the urine' is a euphemism for 'taking the piss'.i.e. making fun of you,pulling your leg.Your knowledge of English colloquialisms is almost as non-existent as your knowledge of maths.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom