The Man you have totally failed to get
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7294686&postcount=15740 exactly because your reasoning is stuck under the of the commutativity of
AND connective, which clearly has no impact on the strict or non-strict output.
Doron everyone got that post and that you have been chasing your own tail for 20 some odd years, except apparently just you. Also everyone here understands that commutative property of the
AND connective is what makes the results strictly the same in spite of changes in ordering about the connective.
Once again, only the strict or non-strict input determines the strict or non-strict output.
Nope, strict outputs were given for all your examples.
You can release yourself from the irrelevancy of the commutativity of AND connective on strict or non-strict result at any time.
Evidently you still can’t release yourself from the irrelevancy of your own nonsense any time soon.
Until this moment it appears that you like very much to push your mind into dead end corners, by running after your own tail.
Once again that is still just you for 20 years now by your own accounts.
It just means that you are unable the understand non-strict values like AB superposition.
Oh I understand the principle of superposition quite well. However since you claim your “superposition” does not involve the principle of superposition it is just you that “are unable the understand non-strict values like AB superposition” and just want to call it a “superposition” without, well, superposition.
"AB" is not some strict name of a variable.
You can call it whatever you want Doron, it changes nothing.
"AB" is superposition of variables, which has no clear determination.
Sure it does it has the clear determination that it is not a superposition of anything. Since your “superposition” emphatically and by your own assertion does not involve the principle of superposition.
“A = True” was your own assertion Doron which means that “AB AND A or A AND AB” simply (and strictly) evaluates to “AB”
The output of "AND A or A AND AB input" is indeterminate because AB input is indeterminate, and once again it is clearly seen that the commutativity of AND connective has no impact on the output.
Nope once again since “A = True” “AB AND A or A AND AB” simply (and strictly) evaluates to “AB”
The Man you take "AB" expression as "B AND A" or "A AND B" and totally miss the understanding that "AB" is the indistinguishably of A;B variables under superposition.
Nope. Your claims of …
“A = True
B = False”
Makes them quite distinguishable and your assertions that your “superposition” does not involve the principle of superposition means you are emphatically asserting no superposition of those variables you distinguished yourself.
So you fail again on both fronts and again simply by your own assertions.
‘Please insert more quarters to play again’
It is not funny that you can't comprehend "AB" expression as superposition.
Actually that’s just you again Doron since you’re the one that specifically claims your “superposition” does not involve superposition. When you can actually comprehend your “superposition” actually involving superposition, please let us know.
Again, try to use inputs that are in superposition, in order to realize that the commutativity or the non-commutativity of the logical connective has no impact on strict or non-strict output.
Nope, by your own assertion your inputs are not in superposition as your “superposition” does not involve superposition. When that changes please let us know.
Your failure to understand "AB" superposition input and its impact on the output (where the commutativity or non-commutativity of a given logical connective has no impact on strict or non-strict output), clearly demonstrates the limitation of traditional mathematics only to strict inputs, of the forms (A [logical connective] A), (B [logical connective] B), (A [logical connective] B), (B [logical connective] B), which are closed under F (1,1).
Your deliberate failure to understand that superposition actually involves, well, superposition is why you have been just chasing your tail for 20 some odd years.
Again “the limitation of traditional mathematics only to strict inputs” is just your ridiculous fantasy as is your “superposition” without superposition.
The Man, you are unable to comprehend, for example, "AB" expression as a superposition of variables, and the impact of superposition on the result.
Doron you are simply unwilling to comprehend the impact of your expressed lack of superposition involved in your so called “superposition”.
You still do not comprehend the simultaneity of superposition, which is naturally unordered, because there are no clear values under superposition, that their order may be considered as insignificant, or not.
Doron you still simply do not wish to comprehend that calling something a “superposition” while claiming it does not involve the principle of superposition just makes your assertions, quite deliberately, nonsensical gibberish.
Nope you have simply exposed your lack of understanding of superposition of variables, where "AB" is an example of such superposition, and it is definitely not a name of some variable.
Well who could have guessed, that the name you gave to your own variable in your “superposition” (which does not involve superposition) now “is definitely not a name of some variable”.
ou can't get that exactly because your reasoning is closed under the particular case of F (1,1).
Again stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.
