Deeper than primes

[jsfisher]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5339316&postcount=7074 take or leave it.

I have already addressed this. It was non-responsive to my questions. It is clear you have no answer to my questions.

 

[doronshadmi]

Then why did you post the wikipedia link? My god, man, you move goal posts that are still in storage.

"Unary connective" is a phrase of your community in any given source.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5339160&postcount=7066

 

[doronshadmi]

I have already addressed this.

No, you did not sipmly because you do not address logically the "connective" part of the phrase "Unary connective".

 

[jsfisher]

No, you did not sipmly because you do not address logically the "connective" part of the phrase "Unary connective".

Logic fails you, doron. You didn't address my questions. You instead wandered off into your own private fantasy land of undefined terms and concepts. Whether I have addressed "logically the 'connective' part" isn't relevant to your lack of response to my questions.

If you'd like to try again, knock yourself out, but as it stands, the smart money is betting you cannot answer the questions.

 

[sympathic]

No, total isolation is the basis of actually finite and total connectivity is the basis of actual infinity.

No one of them is accessible by a complex, which is more than actual infinity and less than actual infinity.

This is the reason of why an infinite interpolation of a segment is not a point, and an infinite extrapolation of a segment is not an endless (edgeless) straight line.

got it.

 

[The Man]

EDIT:

~T = F

((T) ≠ (F)) is not the same as ((T) = (T))
exactly as
(1≠0) is not the same as (1=1) ,
even if all of them are true statments.

As zooterkin noted before it is the result of binary or two value system. NOT equal to some value requires the negation of that value since there is simply no other value that could NOT be equal to that value. Also as jsfisher noted this puts all true statements at the same value (TRUE) and all false statements at the same value (FALSE). Thus if a statement is NOT or NOT equal to FALSE then it must be TRUE and equal to any other true statement. So although NOT (meaning negation) is a distinct concept from “NOT equal to” (meaning “not the same value as”) that distinction is simply not apparent in a two value or binary system as one value being NOT equal to another value requires it to be equal to the negation of that other value

 

[The Man]

≠ notation is exactly my argument about the linkage between total isolation (notated as “|” or “~”) and total connectivity (notated as “__” or “=”)

So you are now disregarding your “argument” about “difference reasoning”?

Sameness alone or difference alone are not researchable, so the researchable is at least Sameness\Difference logic.

Not-P is the limitation of the existence of P (and vice versa).

By Sameness reasoning this limitation has no significance (P is [_]_).

By Difference reasoning this limitation has significance (P is [_];[ ]_).

Please see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5335496&postcount=7004 , where ≠ is wrongly used but corrected thanks to you, which enabled to reinforce my argument.

I have seen it Doron and no it does not “reinforce” you arguments since your arguments simply do not reinforce your arguments.

Your current dilemma Doron is your assertion that “difference alone” or your “Difference reasoning” alone is not researchable” yet “≠”, a simple representation of a difference, is your “linkage between total isolation (notated as “|” or “~”) and total connectivity (notated as “__” or “=”)”. So once again Doron you simply can not seem to make up your mind what your purported “argument” is since you simply argue with yourself as much as you do anyone else. You see Doron that is the problem when you simply try to make this stuff up as you go.

Let X be a placeholder of an element.

X | X is total isolation, such that X is-not (≠) comparable (X is totally isolated).

X__X is total connectivity, such that X is-not (≠) comparable (X is totally connected).

Comparison is possible only under | __ linkage, such that X_|_X , where X is not totally connected (the | of _|_ enables X identity) and not totally isolated (the __ of _|_ enables comparison of X identities).

Be aware of the fact that is-not (≠) is used in oreder to conclude something about X, because a reseachable framework is at least X_|_X.

Be aware the your limitations limit only you and since they apparently do not even limit you then they limit no one, so until you adhere to your own limitations there really is no point in you even bringing them up.

So X_|_X is exactly a researchable framework, which enables Comparison of Identities.

| is the basis of Locality of X_|_X and ___ is the basis of Non-locality of X_|_X.

Again this puts you in a conundrum as your “difference reasoning” alone requires “≠”, a simple representation of a difference, and “Comparison of Identities”. Thus entailing your “Sameness\Difference logic” and your “linkage between total isolation (notated as “|” or “~”) and total connectivity (notated as “__” or “=”)”.

 

[doronshadmi]

Your current dilemma Doron is your assertion that “difference alone” or your “Difference reasoning” alone is not researchable” yet “≠”, a simple representation of a difference, is your “linkage between total isolation (notated as “|” or “~”) and total connectivity (notated as “__” or “=”)”. So once again Doron you simply can not seem to make up your mind what your purported “argument” is since you simply argue with yourself as much as you do anyone else. You see Doron that is the problem when you simply try to make this stuff up as you go.

Let us speak about unary connectives.

For example -1,+1,~P

Actually there is no such a thing like unary connective because:

-1 is actually 0-1, +1 is actually 0+1 (and in general x-y or x+y), and ~P is actually Q ≠ P , where Q ≠ P is not reducible to Q = Q or P = P , as you claim in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5337159&postcount=7035.

Now let us understand the foundation of a researchable framework.

Let @ be a place holder for P or Q.

Let | be isolator.

Let __ be connector.

Only ___ (notated as @ @) does not enable to compare @ values.

Only | (notated as @|@) does not enable to compare @ values.

Comparison is possible only under | __ linkage (notated as _|_) such that @ is partially isolated and partially connected (notated as @_|_@) that enables to compare @ values.

Under @_|_@, __ is partial (because of |) , which enables to compare @ values, such that @_@ is P=P or Q=Q.

Under @_|_@, | is partial (because of __) , which enables to compare @ values, such that @_@ is P≠Q or Q≠P.

@_|_@ is the fundamental form of a researchable framework, and no unary foundation is possible because by unary @|@ or @ @ comparison is avoided.

In other words, a researchable framework such that @_|_@ complex enables @=@ or @≠@ under a one framework where @=@ and @≠@ forms are comparable.

Again The Man you have no understanding of atomic (actual or total) or complex (partial) states.

As a result you are unable to understand Infinite interpolation (the inability of a segment to be a point) or Infinite extrapolation (the inability of a segment to be an endless (edgeless) straight line).

Also you are unable to understand the foundations of Logic, exactly because of the same reason.

Your only reasoning is makeup reasoning, where the makeup prevents any understanding.

The understanding of makeup reasoning community does not hold water, and has to be replaced by natural reasoning.

 

[laca]

Are we into ASCII art now?

 

[dafydd]

Let us speak about unary connectives.

For example -1,+1,~P

Actually there is no such a thing like unary connective because:

-1 is actually 0-1, +1 is actually 0+1 (and in general x-y or x+y), and ~P is actually Q ≠ P , where Q ≠ P is not reducible to Q = Q or P = P , as you claim in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5337159&postcount=7035.

Now let us understand the foundation of a researchable framework.

Let @ be a place holder for P or Q.

Let | be isolator.

Let __ be connector.

Only ___ (notated as @ @) does not enable to compare @ values.

Only | (notated as @|@) does not enable to compare @ values.

Comparison is possible only under | __ linkage (notated as _|_) such that @ is partially isolated and partially connected (notated as @_|_@) that enables to compare @ values.

Under @_|_@, __ is partial (because of |) , which enables to compare @ values, such that @_@ is P=P or Q=Q.

Under @_|_@, | is partial (because of __) , which enables to compare @ values, such that @_@ is P≠Q or Q≠P.

@_|_@ is the fundamental form of a researchable framework, and no unary foundation is possible because by unary @|@ or @ @ comparison is avoided.

In other words, a researchable framework such that @_|_@ complex enables @=@ or @≠@ under a one framework where @=@ and @≠@ forms are comparable.

Again The Man you have no understanding of atomic (actual or total) or complex (partial) states.

As a result you are unable to understand Infinite interpolation (the inability of a segment to be a point) or Infinite extrapolation (the inability of a segment to be an endless (edgeless) straight line).

Also you are unable to understand the foundations of Logic, exactly because of the same reason.

Your only reasoning is makeup reasoning, where the makeup prevents any understanding.

The understanding of makeup reasoning community does not hold water, and has to be replaced by natural reasoning.

What is a ''makeup reasoning community''? I'll bet that is the first time that those three words have been strung together.

 

[doronshadmi]

What is a ''makeup reasoning community''? I'll bet that is the first time that those three words have been strung together.

So?

 

[doronshadmi]

Are we into ASCII art now?

We are into the foundations of Logic now.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Let us speak about unary connectives.

For example -1,+1,~P

Actually there is no such a thing like unary connective because:

-1 is actually 0-1, +1 is actually 0+1 (and in general x-y or x+y), and ~P is actually Q ≠ P , where Q ≠ P is not reducible to Q = Q or P = P , as you claim in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5337159&postcount=7035.

Now I don't know much about truth tables, and it appears that you don't either doronshadmi since you haven't answered that question that was posted by zooterkin here, but let me destroy your opening statement. -1 isn't actually 0 - 1, but it is 120 - 119. 1 is really -129 + 130. ~P is not Q, it is ~P. Why are you making things more complicated? (x+y), (x-y), zero minus a number, zero plus a number, ~P = (Q ≠ P); all extra things that don't need to be there.


And to your claim that (P) ≠ (~P) is not the same as P=P is absurd. Even I get it.

1. If P = True, and then (True) is not equal to ((Not)True).

No need to introduce Q, we're done.

 

[dafydd]

So?

What is a ''makeup reasoning community''?

 

[sympathic]

What is a ''makeup reasoning community''?

Doron embraced this figure of speech from one of the posts here which ended with "make up your mind", from this Doron went on to us using make-up to cover our minds or something. His entire terminology is very graphic. He seems to have great difficulty with abstract concepts.

 

[The Man]

Let us speak about unary connectives.

For example -1,+1,~P

Actually there is no such a thing like unary connective because:

-1 is actually 0-1, +1 is actually 0+1 (and in general x-y or x+y), and ~P is actually Q ≠ P
, where Q ≠ P is not reducible to Q = Q or P = P , as you claim in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5337159&postcount=7035.

So your assertion is “Actually there is no such a thing like unary connective because:” you simply do not understand the word unary.

Now let us understand the foundation of a researchable framework.

Let @ be a place holder for P or Q.

Let | be isolator.

Let __ be connector.

Only ___ (notated as @ @) does not enable to compare @ values.

Only | (notated as @|@) does not enable to compare @ values.

So you are giving up entirely on your

Sameness alone or difference alone are not researchable, so the researchable is at least Sameness\Difference logic.

Assertions?

Comparison is possible only under | __ linkage (notated as _|_) such that @ is partially isolated and partially connected (notated as @_|_@) that enables to compare @ values.

Under @_|_@, __ is partial (because of |) , which enables to compare @ values, such that @_@ is P=P or Q=Q.

“=” is a comparative assertion.

Under @_|_@, | is partial (because of __) , which enables to compare @ values, such that @_@ is P≠Q or Q≠P.

“≠” is a comparative assertion.

So immediately after claiming “Comparison is possible only under | __ linkage” you assert each of your “partials” (“| is partial (because of __)” as well as “__ is partial (because of |)”) “enables to compare”. Again, just make up your mind Doron.

@_|_@ is the fundamental form of a researchable framework, and no unary foundation is possible because by unary @|@ or @ @ comparison is avoided.

You have already quite clearly demonstrated that you simply do not comprehend the meaning of the word unary, no need for you to continue to demonstrate that.

In other words, a researchable framework such that @_|_@ complex enables @=@ or @≠@ under a one framework where @=@ and @≠@ forms are comparable.

Again “=” and “≠” are simply related, "comparable" and mutually dependent by negation, any other requirements so "@=@ and @≠@ forms are comparable” are simply your and yours alone.

Again The Man you have no understanding of atomic (actual or total) or complex (partial) states.

Again Doron, your “Atomic”, “Complex” and/or “(partial) states” limits and limitations are yours and yours alone.

As a result you are unable to understand Infinite interpolation (the inability of a segment to be a point) or Infinite extrapolation (the inability of a segment to be an endless (edgeless) straight line).

Well you just let us know when you can at least toast a slice of bread with your “non-finite energy source” from your “Infinite interpolation”.

Also you are unable to understand the foundations of Logic, exactly because of the same reason.

Your only reasoning is makeup reasoning, where the makeup prevents any understanding.

The understanding of makeup reasoning community does not hold water, and has to be replaced by natural reasoning.

Your messiah complex is showing again Doron, along with your tendency to just string words together.

 

[doronshadmi]

And to your claim that (P) ≠ (~P) is not the same as P=P is absurd. Even I get it.

1. If P = True, and then (True) is not equal to ((Not)True).

No need to introduce Q, we're done.

NOT-EQUAL is connection between NOT and EQUAL.

NOT-@ (where @ is a place holder of T or F) is a connection between NOT and @.

Where is the basis of this connection in by your reasoning?

Furthermore, to claim, for example, that 1≠0 is the same as 1=1, is (as you say) an absurd.

Both of them are true statements, but 1≠0 is about Difference and 1=1 is about Sameness.

To claim that Difference is Sameness, is not very useful.

So the minimal conditions of a useful framework is at least a linkage of Difference with Sameness under a complement framework.

 

[dafydd]

Doron embraced this figure of speech from one of the posts here which ended with "make up your mind", from this Doron went on to us using make-up to cover our minds or something. His entire terminology is very graphic. He seems to have great difficulty with abstract concepts.

He seems to have great difficulty with any concept.

 

[zooterkin]

Furthermore, to claim, for example, that 1≠0 is the same as 1=1, is (as you say) an absurd.

Where is this being claimed? (It's 'absurd', not 'an absurd').

Both of them are true statements, but 1≠0 is about Difference and 1=1 is about Sameness.

To claim that Difference is Sameness, is not very useful.

The negation of difference is sameness. And if you are dealing with only two possible values (True and False, or 0 and 1 in binary), then if two values are not different (when there's only one way they can be different), then they are the same.

 

[doronshadmi]

So immediately after claiming “Comparison is possible only under | __ linkage” you assert each of your “partials” (“| is partial (because of __)” as well as “__ is partial (because of |)”) “enables to compare”. Again, just make up your mind Doron.[

What make up is needed here?

We are talking about not less than _ | _ , get it?

So your assertion is “Actually there is no such a thing like unary connective because:” you simply do not understand the word unary.

Let @ be a place holder for P or Q.

Let | be isolator.

Let __ be connector.

Only ___ (notated as @ @) does not enable to compare @ values.

Only | (notated as @|@) does not enable to compare @ values.

Unary means that we deal with an atom, where an atom is a total state, such that the atomic state of NOT is total isolation (notate as @|@).

Also the atomic state of YES is unary and total, such that YES is total connectivity (notate as @ @).

Unary state is not researchable, and only a linkage of (@|@) with (@ @) is researchable, where under this linkage NOT
is at least NOT CONNECTIVE (≠) where Connectivity is not total (comparison, notated as @_@, is possible), because of the Isolation aspect of Isolation\Connectivity linkage (notated as _ | _).

By your limited reasoning Unary is defined by the number of input values.

From this limited reasoning (where f is some logical connective , and P or Q are input values) f(P) is considered as Unary , and f(P,Q) (where P is different than Q) is considered as Dyadic.

This limited reasoning does not explain how f() and P or Q inputs are linked, in the first place.

Unlike your limited reasoning, @ | @ provides this explanation.