• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
MetalPig said:
- Do you want SPQ on your new car?
- What is it?
- It's an option.
Click to expand...
If SPQ is used, what happens to your new car?

If SPQ is not used, what happens to your new car?

-------

Option A: if SPQ is used, my new car permanently moves.

OR

Option ~A: if SPQ is not used, my new car permanently does not move.
 
Last edited:
Here is a binary tree that its growth is unbounded vertically, yet horizontally it is bounded by contradiction OR tautology.

Code: 
                         Unbounded multiplicity                         
                                  ...                                 
                                                                       
    0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1   
    \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ /   
     0   1   0   1   0   1   0   1   0   1   0   1   0   1   0   1     
     \   /   \   /   \   /   \   /   \   /   \   /   \   /   \   /     
      \ /     \ /     \ /     \ /     \ /     \ /     \ /     \ /     
       0       1       0       1       0       1       0       1       
       \       /       \       /       \       /       \       /       
        \     /         \     /         \     /         \     /       
         \   /           \   /           \   /           \   /         
          \ /             \ /             \ /             \ /         
           0               1               0               1           
           \               /               \               /           
            \             /                 \             /           
             \           /                   \           /             
              \         /                     \         /             
               \       /                       \       /               
                \     /                         \     /               
     bounded     \   /                           \   /     bounded     
                  \ /                             \ /                 
        by         0                               1         by       
                    \                             /                   
   contradiction     \                           /        tautology   
                      \                         /                     
                       \                       /                       
                        \                     /                       
                         \                   /                         
                          \                 /                         
                           \               /                           
                            \             /                           
                             \           /                             
                              \         /                             
                               \       /                               
                                \     /                               
                                 \   /                                 
       _   _   _   _   _   _   _  \ /  _   _   _   _   _   _   _       
...  _/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_ ...
                                                                       
                             Unbounded Unity

In terms of set concept contradiction is the void between the outer "{" and "}", and tautology is the outer "{" and "}", such that {||}=0 where |{}|= ∞.

No amount of existing members is reducible into {||} OR expandable into |{}|, and as a result there is no complete collection of infinitely many members (their vertical growth is unbounded).

The growth power is supplied by being rooted in Unbounded Unity, which is not bounded by any form that may be developed as multiple phenomena (where a binary tree is an example of such phenomenon).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
If SPQ is used, what happens to your new car?

If SPQ is not used, what happens to your new car?

-------

Option A: if SPQ is used, my new car permanently moves.

OR

Option ~A: if SPQ is not used, my new car permanently does not move.
Click to expand...

How did you get that from "SPQ is an option"? You have no idea what SPQ is.
Do you seriously think that he car saleswoman would try to sell me an option that would render the car immobile?


ETA: your logic is wrong, too. Your option ~A is not the negation of your option A.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In terms of set concept contradiction is the void between the outer "{" and "}", and tautology is the outer "{" and "}", such that {||}=0 where |{}|= ∞.
Click to expand...

You are still making stuff up to suit your fantasy. There is nothing like that in actual set theory.

Got anything founded in Mathematics?
 
doronshadmi said:
If SPQ is used, what happens to your new car?

If SPQ is not used, what happens to your new car?

-------
Click to expand...
Define SPQ.

doronshadmi said:
Option A: if SPQ is used, my new car permanently moves.

OR

Option ~A: if SPQ is not used, my new car permanently does not move.
Click to expand...
No new car permanently moves. No new car permanently does not move.

Your reply is thus false.
 
MetalPig said:
How did you get that from "SPQ is an option"? You have no idea what SPQ is.
Click to expand...
I have an idea SPQ is because I know how to use it in order to get optional results, inducing the optional results in case that I don't use it.


MetalPig said:
ETA: your logic is wrong, too. Your option ~A is not the negation of your option A.
Click to expand...

These options are exactly the negations of each other.

If you disagree with me then please write down what you think is the right negation of option A.

The stage is yours.
 
MetalPig said:
Do you seriously think that he car saleswoman would try to sell me an option that would render the car immobile?
Click to expand...
Are you seriously going to buy a new car that permanently moves?

Also by using saleswoman in your example does in mean that you are a chauvinist?
 
Last edited:
Still can't define successor I see.

The problem (really one of many) is that you make things too hard.

For example: when looking at trying to determine is something is a successor, mabye you should define successor first.

You're now probably mention something like successor is an option, or use $ to try to define something, but $ has the word successor in. Neither one will truly define successor.

And what about when you started using the term successor. You had plenty of time to say it was optional.
 
doronshadmi said:
I have an idea SPQ is because I know how to use it in order to get optional results, inducing the optional results in case that I don't use it.
Click to expand...
Why do you only have an idea? In your logic system its optionality *defines* SPQ. Why don't you know exactly what it is, based on what you call its definition?

doronshadmi said:
These options are exactly the negations of each other.
If you disagree with me then please write down what you think is the right negation of option A.
The stage is yours.
Click to expand...
Option A: if SPQ is used, my new car permanently moves.
Option ~A: if SPQ is not used, my new car permanently does not move.

Let's say SQP is 'wheels', or 'engine'. Now both A and ~A are true, which means they can't be each other's negation.
 
MetalPig said:
Why do you only have an idea? In your logic system its optionality *defines* SPQ. Why don't you know exactly what it is, based on what you call its definition?


Option A: if SPQ is used, my new car permanently moves.
Option ~A: if SPQ is not used, my new car permanently does not move.

Let's say SQP is 'wheels', or 'engine'. Now both A and ~A are true, which means they can't be each other's negation.
Click to expand...
MetalPig, you are still trying to define anything only in terms of an object.

But I define it as an optional property of a given object and definitely not as a given object.

In my mathematical framework the given object is a singleton set, that may be notated as {X}.

Being OR not being a successor of object X is an optional property of object {X}, so A OR its negation is not being {X} OR ~{X}, but it is about the optional property of {X} to be OR not to be a successor of another object, called X.

If object {X} is a successor of object X, then object X optional property of being incomplete, holds.

OR

If object {X} is not a successor of object X, then object X optional property of being complete, holds.

In order to understand such reasoning, one first distinguishes between being an object and being an optional property of the considered object.

OR logical connective guarantees that no optional properties of a given object, are simultaneously taken.

Until this very moment jsfisher, Little 10 Toes, abaddon, you and more posters along this thread do not use a reasoning that enables to distinguish between a given object and its optional properties, where being an optional property of a given object is the ability to use it OR not to use it on another object, such that the other object is also defined by its optional properties.

---------------

Moreover, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11342271&postcount=1804 is a more comprehensive reasoning about the set concept, which enables to understand object {X} as an agent of Unbounded Unity among Unbounded multiplicity (an ever developed realm).

In case of sets, further details are given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11341451&postcount=1797.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom