• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
It is very useful, since only NOT is an isolation of things form each other such that there is no connection between them, for example:
Click to expand...

Again “Not” is a logical connective, your continued ignorance of that fact will not change that fact.

doronshadmi said:
X is a place holder for an element and we have only NOT framework:

... X NOT X NOT X NOT X NOT ...

In the only NOT system any X is totally isolated and there is no framework.
Click to expand...

Yes we already know that you simply do not comprehend the “framework” of negation.

doronshadmi said:
In an only YES system we also do not have a framework, as follows:

X is a place holder for an element and we have only YES framework:

... X YES X YES X YES X YES ...

In the only YES system any X is totally connected and there is no framework.
Click to expand...

Whatever you think your “YES system” represents any ‘connection’ requires a “framework” to make that ‘connection’. Again your simple ignorance of things does not make them go away.

doronshadmi said:
So the minimal useful framework is X that is comparable by connection, such that X is not total isolation and the connector is not total connection.

All along this thread I am talking about a researchable framework, which is weaker than total connectivity (only YES state) and stronger than total isolation (only NOT state).
Click to expand...

Talking; “YES”. Giving it any meaning, use or even consistency; “NOT”

doronshadmi said:
Also classical Logic is based on YES\NOT linkage, but classical logicians are focused only on the weak NOT side of YES\NOT linkage, without ask themselves how it is possible to compare X with NOT-X, in the first place.
Click to expand...

It’s called negation Doron, try actually learning about it.

doronshadmi said:
OM asks this question, and the answer is the weak YES side of YES\NOT linkage, which enables the comparison of X with NOT-X, in order to conclude that X in not NOT-X.
Click to expand...

Doron the only question your OM apparently asks of you is what can you name your dichotomy next. Local/non-local, Sameness/Difference, YES/NOT, isolation/connectivity so on and so fourth. Simply renaming your C.R.A.P Doron does not make it any less C.R.A.P.


doronshadmi said:
The logic of YES under YES\NOT linkage is a weak version of only-Sameness (total connectivity).

The logic of NOT under YES\NOT linkage is a weak version of only-Difference (total isolation).

No total state is a researchable framework, but in Classical Logic the logicians are using NOT without the understanding that they are actually using the weak version of NOT, which is weak exactly because it is under YES\NO linkage logical framework.

So once again:

Total NOT is resulted at least as a point.

Total YES is resulted at least as an endless (edgeless) straight Line.

No one of these total states is researchable (a point in itself is too weak and a line in itself is too strong).

Only a segment (ray is included) is researchable exactly because it is the result of YES\NO linkage logical framework, such that the NOT aspect of the linkage is transparent to the line aspect of the linkage (and we have the connection of X with NOT-X that enables the comparison under YES\NOT linkage) and the NOT aspect of the linkage is sealed to the point aspect of the linkage (and we have the isolation of X from NOT-X that enables the identity under YES\NOT linkage).

If the YES aspect of YES\NOT linkage is dominant, then we have superposition of Ids.

If the NOT aspect of YES\NOT linkage is dominant, then we have unique Ids.

Organic Numbers express exactly this.
Click to expand...

Simply more of your same nonsensical gibberish resulting from you just stringing words together thinking that will some how imbue your assertion with some meaning. Certainly we can clearly see the Sameness/Difference linkage you employ. The same nonsense of just using different words strung together into the same meaningless gibberish.
 
The Man said:
Again “Not” is a logical connective
Click to expand...


Let it be logical connective.

We are talking about NOT-XOR, XOR, P, NOT-P:

Let P be (NOT-Local)

The Truth Table of (NOT-Local) NOT-XOR NOT-(NOT-Local) is:
Code: 
P NOT-P  NOT-XOR
F  F      T    (NOT-Local)
F  T      F    (Local)
T  F      F    (Local)
T  T      T    (NOT-local)
As can be seen The NOT- part of NOT-XOR eliminates the NOT- part of NOT-(NOT-Local) and the result is True for F,F and T,T.

The NOT-NOT is the Semaness of Non-locality.



Let P be (Local)

The Truth Table of (Local) XOR NOT-(Local) is:
Code: 
P NOT-P  XOR
F  F      F    (NOT-Local)
F  T      T    (Local)
T  F      T    (Local)
T  T      F    (NOT-local)
As can be seen XOR does not eliminate the NOT- part of NOT-(Local) and the result is True for F,T and T,F.

The NOT is the Difference of Locality.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
It’s called negation Doron, try actually learning about it.
Click to expand...
Nagation is the result of the ability to connect between P and NOT.

It cannot be done without the property of connectivity, which is non-local by nature.


In general you do not understand the "connective" of "Logical connective", even if you are using it (actually, you have no choice but to use it).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Let it be logical connective.

We are talking about NOT-XOR, XOR, P, NOT-P:
Click to expand...

No, it is only the logical connective, NOT, that was under consideration. All the rest of your post shows you wrapped around the axle.

Given any statement in logic, call it S, there is its negation, NOT S, also a statement in logic.

Remarkably, the truth table for the NOT connective is independent of all your mumbo-jumbo. It looks like this:

[table=head]
S​
| |
NOT S
true​
| : |
false
false​
| : |
true​
[/table]
 
jsfisher said:
No, it is only the logical connective, NOT, that was under consideration. All the rest of your post shows you wrapped around the axle.

Given any statement in logic, call it S, there is its negation, NOT S, also a statement in logic.

Remarkably, the truth table for the NOT connective is independent of all your mumbo-jumbo. It looks like this:

[table=head]
S​
| |
NOT S
true​
| : |
false
false​
| : |
true​
[/table]
Click to expand...
Also you are using "connective" without understand it.

Without connectivity you cannot connect NOT to S in order to get NOT-S and you cannot compare between S and NOT-S.

In other words, you have no truth table for the NOT connective, without connectivity.

In that case, please define "connective".
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Let it be logical connective.
Click to expand...

Well how gracious of you. However your history has demonstrated that you will still simply ignore that ‘not’ is a logical connective.

doronshadmi said:
We are talking about NOT-XOR, XOR, P, NOT-P:

Let P be (NOT-Local)

The Truth Table of (NOT-Local) NOT-XOR NOT-(NOT-Local) is:
Code: 
P NOT-P  NOT-XOR
F  F      T    (NOT-Local)
F  T      F    (Local)
T  F      F    (Local)
T  T      T    (NOT-local)
As can be seen The NOT- part of NOT-XOR eliminates the NOT- part of NOT-(NOT-Local) and the result is True for F,F and T,T.
Click to expand...

As can be seen you again simply ignore that ‘not’ is a logical connective by assigning the same value to P as you do to NOT-P.


doronshadmi said:
The NOT-NOT enables the Semaness of Non-locality.
Click to expand...

No Doron the lacking of a difference “enables” ‘sameness’ (not sure what you mean by “Semaness” and it sounds like some personal issue for you).

doronshadmi said:
Let P be (Local)

The Truth Table of (Local) XOR NOT-(Local) is:
Code: 
P NOT-P  XOR
F  F      T    (NOT-Local)
F  T      F    (Local)
T  F      F    (Local)
T  T      T    (NOT-local)
As can be seen XOR does not eliminate the NOT- part of NOT-(Local) and the result is True for F,T and T,F.
Click to expand...

Again as can be seen you simply ignore that ‘not’ is a logical connective by assigning the same value to P as you do to NOT-P.


doronshadmi said:
The NOT enables the Difference of Locality.
Click to expand...

A ‘not’ also “enables” ‘sameness’ Doron in that it is ‘not‘, well, a difference. Before you were claiming “not” “has no significance” by your “Sameness reasoning”. Now you are claiming your “sameness” (or “Semaness”) is ‘enabled’ by “The NOT-NOT” which “has no significance” by your “Sameness reasoning”. Thus your that “NOT-NOT enables the Semaness of Non-locality” depends entirely on that your “NOT enables the Difference of Locality“. So thanks again Doron for so clearly demonstrating that your “non-local” ascription is entirely dependent on your “local” ascription. Contrary to your assertions that neither one depends on (or as you put it is derived from) the other.
 
doronshadmi said:
Nagation is the result of the ability to connect between P and NOT.
Click to expand...

No it is just the result of "NOT", which is a logical connective.

doronshadmi said:
It cannot be done without the property of connectivity, which is non-local by nature.
Click to expand...

"NOT" is a logical connective having the logical property of connection by negation.

doronshadmi said:
In general you do not understand the "connective" of "Logical connective", even if you are using it (actually, you have no choice but to use it).
Click to expand...


In general you do not understand anything, in spite of your attempts to use it in your assertions, but you most likely do have the choice or at least capability to understand it although you just never avail yourself of that choice or capability.
 
doronshadmi said:
Also you are using "connective" without understand it.

Without connectivity you cannot connet NOT to S in order to get NOT-S and you cannot compare between S and NOT-S.

In other words, you have no truth table for the NOT connective, without connectivity.

In that case, please define "connective".
Click to expand...

You are trying to use "NOT" without understanding it (amongst other things).
 
jsfisher said:
No, it is only the logical connective, NOT, that was under consideration. All the rest of your post shows you wrapped around the axle.

Given any statement in logic, call it S, there is its negation, NOT S, also a statement in logic.

Remarkably, the truth table for the NOT connective is independent of all your mumbo-jumbo. It looks like this:

[table=head]
S​
| |
NOT S
true​
| : |
false
false​
| : |
true​
[/table]
Click to expand...


A very simple relationship that Doron and his OM can not seem to deal with or comprehend, so he simply ignores it.
 
The Man said:
Well how gracious of you. However your history has demonstrated that you will still simply ignore that ‘not’ is a logical connective.



As can be seen you again simply ignore that ‘not’ is a logical connective by assigning the same value to P as you do to NOT-P.




No Doron the lacking of a difference “enables” ‘sameness’ (not sure what you mean by “Semaness” and it sounds like some personal issue for you).



Again as can be seen you simply ignore that ‘not’ is a logical connective by assigning the same value to P as you do to NOT-P.




A ‘not’ also “enables” ‘sameness’ Doron in that it is ‘not‘, well, a difference. Before you were claiming “not” “has no significance” by your “Sameness reasoning”. Now you are claiming your “sameness” (or “Semaness”) is ‘enabled’ by “The NOT-NOT” which “has no significance” by your “Sameness reasoning”. Thus your that “NOT-NOT enables the Semaness of Non-locality” depends entirely on that your “NOT enables the Difference of Locality“. So thanks again Doron for so clearly demonstrating that your “non-local” ascription is entirely dependent on your “local” ascription. Contrary to your assertions that neither one depends on (or as you put it is derived from) the other.
Click to expand...

As I said (and you still can't get it) a researchable frame exists only if Sameness (connectivity) and Difference (isolation) are both its properties.

You are using the phrase “logical connective” without defining the “connective” part of this phrase.

So, this time please define “connective”.
 
The Man said:
As can be seen you again simply ignore that ‘not’ is a logical connective by assigning the same value to P as you do to NOT-P.
Click to expand...
No The Man, you simply can’t understand that by double negation (P) and NOT-NOT-(P) is (P).
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Thus your that “NOT-NOT enables the Semaness of Non-locality” depends entirely on that your “NOT enables the Difference of Locality“.
Click to expand...

Edit:

You did not get the idea of "transparent" (an existing thing that is used as a limit for some things, and other things goes through it).

By using only names without understand them you can also claim that Non-locality depends on the "Non-" part of the phrase "Non-locality”.

In that case I use Sameness, but the notion remains the same.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
As I said (and you still can't get it) a researchable frame exists only if Sameness (connectivity) and Difference (isolation) are both its properties.

You are using the phrase “logical connective” without defining the “connective” part of this phrase.

So, this time please define “connective”.
Click to expand...

By all means, you first Doron.

I’m sure everyone but you is getting a big kick out of the irony in you proclaiming someone is using terminology “without defining” it.


doronshadmi said:
On the contrary, I show how NOT (without connetivity) is exactly the limit of local things.
Click to expand...


Which again shows that you simply do not understand “NOT”.

doronshadmi said:
Now please define "connective".
Click to expand...

Again, by all means, you first Doron.

You could just simply look up the word in any standard reference, but that would entail you actually doing some work. It is far easier for you to simply ascribe your own ill-defined and more than likely self-contradictory meaning to the word "connective". In fact your history has shown that regardless of what actual and self-consistent definitions you are provided you will still prefer your own ill-defined and more than likely self contradictory meaning to the word "connective". So let’s just cut to the chase, shall we Doron.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
You do not get the idea of "NOT" which is extremely, well, transparent.
Click to expand...


Again:

The Man said:
Thus your that “NOT-NOT enables the Semaness of Non-locality” depends entirely on that your “NOT enables the Difference of Locality“.
Click to expand...

Edit:

You did not get the idea of "transparent" (an existing thing that is used as a limit for some things, and other things goes through it).

By using only names without understand them you can also claim that Non-locality depends on the "Non-" part of the phrase "Non-locality”.

In that case I use Sameness, but the notion remains the same (the notion of connectivity).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom