Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

[MetalPig]

Wrong, you still can't distinguish between {X} OR ~{X} and {X}$X OR {X}~$X.

I don't really care. I said your logic was flawed, and I showed the flaw. Move the goalposts if you want; I will not follow.

 

[doronshadmi]

, and I showed the flaw.

Wrong.

Your current used reasoning can't handle with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11344520&postcount=1820.

 

[MetalPig]

Wrong.

Show your work.

 

[doronshadmi]

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.

'wheels' or 'engine' two different objects that are parts of an object called car.

So your reasoning is restricted only to objects.

Show your work.

In order to see my work your used reasoning enables to distinguish between being an object an being an optional property of a given object, where in the discussed work {X} OR ~{X} (where {X} is an object) is distinguished form {X}$X OR {X}~$X (where $ is an optional property of object {X}).

The needed details are given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11344520&postcount=1820.

I don't really care. ... Move the goalposts if you want; I will not follow.

If this is your basic attitude about my work, you determine not to see it.

So your "Show your work." can't be fulfilled in your case.

 

[MetalPig]

'wheels' or 'engine' two different objects that are parts of an object called car.

So your reasoning is restricted only to objects.

No it is not. My examples may objects but my reasoning does not require objects.

But okay, here is a non-object-dependant generalization:

Your A: if P then Q
Your ~A: if ~P then ~Q

Your ~A is not the negation of A. I hope you can see this, but if not, I can write up some truth tables for you.

 

[doronshadmi]

No it is not. My examples may objects but my reasoning does not require objects.

But okay, here is a non-object-dependant generalization:

Your A: if P then Q
Your ~A: if ~P then ~Q

Your ~A is not the negation of A. I hope you can see this, but if not, I can write up some truth tables for you.

Since by my reasoning A is at least an object and its optional property ~A is measured by the variant part of an object and its optional property, which is exactly $ at the issue at hand.

Your non-object-dependant generalization is now $ OR ~$ that is not {X}$X OR {X}~$X.

As long as your A is not involved with the non-optional (objects) and the optional (possible relations among objects), your current reasoning can't define ~A in terms of the optional and the non-optional.

In order to define A such that the non-optional and the optional are involved, A is, for example, {X}$X, where ~A is {X}~$X.

I can write up some truth tables for you.

Please do it by being aware of the following:

By {X},~{X} OR $,~$ OR X,~X your current used reasoning can't define A as {X}$X OR ~A as {X}~$X.

More generally, {X},~{X} OR $,~$ OR X,~X is a trivialization of {X}$X OR {X}~$X and defiantly not its generalization.

 

[MetalPig]

Since by my reasoning A is at least an object and its optional property ~A is measured by the variant part of an object and its optional property, which is exactly $.

Your non-object-dependant generalization is now $ OR ~$ that is not {X}$X OR {X}~$X.

$s, Xs and {}s were not part of what I considered wrong. That's where the moving goalposts come in.

So now A is an object and ~A is a property? That makes it even more obvious that ~A is not the negation of A.

 

[doronshadmi]

So now A is an object and ~A is a property? That makes it even more obvious that ~A is not the negation of A.

In order to define A, at least the non-optional and the optional are involved.

The non-optional aspect of {X}$X (notate by {X} and X) is invariant, where the optional aspect of {X}$X (notate by $) is variant.

Since by the issue an hand A is {X}$X, the negation of A (notated as ~A) is {X}~$X, where A OR ~A is defined by at least the non-optional (objects) and the optional (possible relations among objects).

So now A is an object and ~A is a property? That makes it even more obvious that ~A is not the negation of A.

If one answers to its own question, it is called rhetoric question, that hardly can be used in order to learn hew things.

EDIT:

Once again, {X},~{X} OR $,~$ OR X,~X is a trivialization of {X}$X OR {X}~$X and defiantly not its generalization.

 

[doronshadmi]

As long that a given reasoning can't handle with (objects) AND (possible relations among objects) it can't be used in order to comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11344520&postcount=1820.

 

[MetalPig]

No idea what you're on about. I am only referring to what you wrote:

---
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.
---
Let's say SPQ is used and my car moves. Now A and ~A are both true. Therefore ~A is not the negation of A.

Obfuscating with Xs, $s and {}s will not change that.

 

[doronshadmi]

No idea what you're on about. I am only referring to what you wrote:

---
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.
---
Let's say SPQ is used and my car moves. Now A and ~A are both true. Therefore ~A is not the negation of A.

Obfuscating with Xs, $s and {}s will not change that.

A is at least (objects) AND (possible relations among objects).

For example, R is possible relations among objects, where ({y},y) are the considered objects.

For more details please see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11269502&postcount=1344.

 

[MetalPig]

Whatever. You are still wrong about ~A being the negation of A. Nothing you say will change that.

 

[doronshadmi]

Let's say SPQ is used and my car moves.

A is (If object {X} is a successor of object X (notated as {X}$X), then object X optional property of being incomplete, holds.)

OR

~A is (If object {X} is not a successor of object X (notated as {X}~$X), then object X optional property of being complete, holds.)

Now A and ~A are both true. Therefore ~A is not the negation of A.

Once again you are using AND between A,~A instead of OR.

Whatever. You are still wrong about ~A being the negation of A. Nothing you say will change that.

Nothing you will say forces OR to be AND.

 

[MetalPig]

Once again you are using AND between A,~A instead of OR.

I used 'and', not AND. If I meant AND, I would have written something like
(A AND ~A) is True
but I didn't. I wasn't writing a logic statement.

 

[doronshadmi]

I used 'and', not AND. If I meant AND, I would have written something like
(A AND ~A) is True
but I didn't. I wasn't writing a logic statement.

In that case A and ~A are both true (are logically valued) only if A is at least (objects) AND (possible relations among objects).

Whatever. You are still wrong about ~A being the negation of A. Nothing you say will change that.

Now you simply avoid the following:

R is possible relations among objects, where ({y},y) are the considered objects.

For more details please see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11269502&postcount=1344.

 

[doronshadmi]

No idea what you're on about. I am only referring to what you wrote:

---
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.
---
Let's say SPQ is used and my car moves. Now A and ~A are both true. Therefore ~A is not the negation of A.

Obfuscating with Xs, $s and {}s will not change that.

(Option A) OR (Option ~A) means that A is at least (objects) AND (possible relations among objects).

Your current used reasoning simply can't handle with A that is at least (objects) AND (possible relations among objects).

 

[doronshadmi]

I wasn't writing a logic statement.

So, by your own words, you can't conclude anything about A and ~A logically, which means that you have no argument, in the first place.

In other words

Therefore ~A is not the negation of A.

is no more than a string of symbols without any logical value.

Here is the whole sting of symbols (what is written between [] is my remarks):

Let's say SPQ is used and my car moves. Now A and ~A are both true [this is not "a logic statement"]. Therefore ~A is not the negation of A.[since you did not use "a logic statement" you can't conclude logically that "~A is not the negation of A"]

By your own words, it is actually logically useless.

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

The statement "A and ~A are both true" is logically valued only if A is at least (objects) AND (possible relations among objects), for example:

A is (If object {X} is a successor of object X (notated as {X}$X), then object X optional property of being incomplete, holds.)

OR

~A is (If object {X} is not a successor of object X (notated as {X}~$X), then object X optional property of being complete, holds.)


Another example:

A is ({X} is a successor of object X (notated as {X}$X))

OR

~A is ({X} is not a successor of object X (notated as {X}~$X))

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

By understanding http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11349739&postcount=1851, one may understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11344520&postcount=1820.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

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

The statement "A and ~A are both true" is logically valued only if A is at least (objects) AND (possible relations among objects), for example:

A is (If object {X} is a successor of object X (notated as {X}$X), then object X optional property of being incomplete, holds.)

OR

~A is (If object {X} is not a successor of object X (notated as {X}~$X), then object X optional property of being complete, holds.)


Another example:

A is ({X} is a successor of object X (notated as {X}$X))

OR

~A is ({X} is not a successor of object X (notated as {X}~$X))

Define successor.

 

[doronshadmi]

Define successor.

successor is an optional property of object {X} that if used as a possible relation between object {X} and object X, object X optional property of being unbounded (and therefore incomplete), is satisfied.

unbounded is an optional property of object X that if used as a possible relation between object X and object {X}, object {X} optional property of being a successor, is satisfied.

successor({X},X) --> object X optional property of being unbounded, is satisfied.

unbounded(X,{X}) --> object {X} optional property of being a successor, is satisfied.

More details are given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11344520&postcount=1820.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Still haven't defined it. Only described it.

Try again.