Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

[abaddon]

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.

Incorrect. There is no problem with optional properties but they must be defined even if they are optional.

Going back to your car analogy the salesperson if offering you options for your new car but refuses to tell you what those options are or how much if anything they cost. That is useless.

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

[doronshadmi]

There is no problem with optional properties but they must be defined even if they are optional.

They are indeed defined exactly as optional by using OR logical condition between them.

It can't be done by using objects like {X} OR ~{X}.

In other words, your current used reasoning can't distinguish between being an object and being an optional property of the considered object.

 

[abaddon]

They are indeed defined exactly as optional by using OR logical condition between them.

It can be done by using objects like {X} OR ~X.

In other words, your current used reasoning can't distinguish between being an object and being an optional property of the considered object.

Stating that a property is optional is not a definition of that property.

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

[doronshadmi]

Going back to your car analogy the salesperson if offering you options for your new car but refuses to tell you what those options are or how much if anything they cost. That is useless.

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.

tells exactly what options are involved and how they are expressed among {X} and X objects.

Since your current used reasoning can't distinguish between being an object and being an optional property of the considered object, it is not useful to comprehend my quote above.

 

[doronshadmi]

Stating that a property is optional is not a definition of that property.

You are right, therefore an OR logical connective is used among the options.

More details are found in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11269502&postcount=1344.

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

 

[jsfisher]

Just a reminder: Doronshadmi is reading "{X} issuccessorof X OR {X} isnotsuccessorof X" as a statement in English, not Mathematics. OR is a conjunction.

He as also conflated X with the set in which X is a member, but that gets lost in the already existing confusion.

Doronshadmi, in his view, has defined what successor means. Successor is an optional property (whatever that means). If the option applies, then {X} is the successor of X. If not, then not.

All this, however, continues to not be Mathematics, not even as an option.

 

[doronshadmi]

Just a reminder: Doronshadmi is reading "{X} issuccessorof X OR {X} isnotsuccessorof X" as a statement in English, not Mathematics. OR is a conjunction.

Wrong.

He as also conflated X with the set in which X is a member,

Wrong.

Doronshadmi, in his view, has defined what successor means. Successor is an optional property (whatever that means). If the option applies, then {X} is the successor of X. If not, then not.

Your "(whatever that means)" is a typical result of a reasoning that can't distinguish between being an object and being an optional property of the considered object.

All this, however, continues to not be Mathematics, not even as an option.

Wrong.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11344520&postcount=1820 very simply demonstrates that you have no argument about the issue at hand.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Stating that a property is optional is not a definition of that property.

You are right, therefore an OR logical connective is used among the options.

More details are found in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11269502&postcount=1344.

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

I'm glad that you agree that you need to define successor.

Please define successor.

 

[abaddon]

You are right, therefore an OR logical connective is used among the options.

More details are found in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11269502&postcount=1344.

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

You can "OR", "OR", "OR" like a crazed seal all you want. Still is not a definition.

 

[MetalPig]

MetalPig, you are still trying to define anything only in terms of an object.

If true, so what. Yuo wanted me to show that your logic is wrong, and I did.

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

That's not a definition, unless you mean that every optional property is a Successor.

 

[doronshadmi]

If true, so what. Yuo wanted me to show that your logic is wrong, and I did.

No you didn't, because you do not distinguish between {X} OR ~{X} and {X}$X OR {X}~$X.

{X} or X are objects, where $ is an optional property of {X} w.r.t X.

That's not a definition, unless you mean that every optional property is a Successor.

Wrong.

Being a successor is an optional property of {X} w.r.t X, written as follows:

{X}$X OR {X}~$X

and this is exactly the definition of a successor as an optional property of {X}.

Since your reasoning can't distinguish between being an object and being an optional property of a given object, it can't be used in order to define $ as an optional property of {X}.

 

[doronshadmi]

Please define successor.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11345797&postcount=1831.

 

[doronshadmi]

You can "OR", "OR", "OR" like a crazed seal all you want. Still is not a definition.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11345797&postcount=1831.

 

[abaddon]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11345797&postcount=1831.

No matter how often you repeat that, it still is not a definition. It will not magically become a definition.

 

[doronshadmi]

No matter how often you repeat that, it still is not a definition. It will not magically become a definition.

"Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?"

General Failure is an optional event of your hard drive, if this event happens your hard drive is possibly not readable.

If one can't distinguish between an object called hard drive and its optional event called General Failure, he/she may ask the following ridiculous question:

"Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?"

But who knows, maybe there is no such a thing like ridiculous question.

 

[MetalPig]

No you didn't, because you do not distinguish between {X} OR ~{X} and {X}$X OR {X}~$X.

Yes I did, because I showed that your ~A was not the negation of your A.

Wrong.
Being a successor is an optional property of {X} w.r.t X,

Yes, you keep defining 'optional property'. You still haven't defined 'successor'; you only keep repeating it is an optional property.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

"Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?"

General Failure is an optional event of your hard drive, if this event happens your hard drive is possibly not readable.

If one can't distinguish between an object called hard drive and its optional event called General Failure, he/she may ask the following ridiculous question:

"Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?"

But who knows, maybe there is no such a thing like ridiculous question.

Really? General Failure is an optional event? How come, if it's optional, it still happens? I certainly don't choose for it to happen. Maybe my hard drive chose it to happen? Maybe the FSM touched the drive with His noodle appendage? Perhaps you'll realize that the examples that I gave do not have options?

And why should I care if something is optional when you can't even define what that optional thing is?

Please, once again, define successor.

 

[doronshadmi]

And why should I care if something is optional when you can't even define what that optional thing is?

You should care about the fact that being a successor is an optional property of object {X} if you really wish to understand definition {X}$X OR {X}~$X.

It seems that your current used reasoning simply can't handle with this simple fact.

 

[doronshadmi]

I certainly don't choose for it to happen.

Being an optional property of a given object does not necessarily mean that it has to be chosen in order to happen.

We can choose that a given hard drive does not have General Failure, yet General Failure is still an option.

 

[doronshadmi]

Yes I did, because I showed that your ~A was not the negation of your A.

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

Yes, you keep defining 'optional property'. You still haven't defined 'successor'; you only keep repeating it is an optional property.

You keep not to distinguish between {X} OR ~{X} and {X}$X OR {X}~$X.

As a result you are missing http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11344520&postcount=1820.