Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
jsfisher said:
Oh, let's see....

"Let A be any positive integer"....Oh, look A has a meaning and it is independent of ~. Doron is wrong again.
Click to expand...

Let us see.

A = "any positive integer"

A has no meaning if it does not refer to =

= has no meaning if it does not refer to A

So A has a meaning only by =;A reference, which is A=A, that can be shortly written as =A or A.

Now after we understand A as a short notation of A=A, we easily under-stand that ~ has no meaning of it does not refer to A.

A meaningful formal framework is AT LEAST Mutual (for example "=" ,"~", etc.. as connectives) aspect/Independent (for example "A" ,"B", etc.. as isolations) aspect Linkage.

jsfisher, you simply can't grasp http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6069753&postcount=10307 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6069867&postcount=10313.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
I do apologise, but I have let my attention wander for the last couple of pages. Has Doron yet given us an example of OM, using real values, which actually produces a result? Or, failing that, has he managed to define just one of his terms?
Click to expand...

Please define "real values".

Please define "a result".
 
doronshadmi said:
By the way.

Please look at these Venn diagrams, and how they support my claim that ~A is "Anything but A=A":

A=A
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Venn0101.svg/150px-Venn0101.svg.png[/qimg]

~A
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Venn1010.svg/150px-Venn1010.svg.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...
Oh, you cunning squirrel! LOL. Why did you label the top diagram with A = A?

I tell you why: In post #10307 you made this statement: "A" , "B" , "=" or "~" alone have no meaning.

But how does that statement reconcile with the following?


15500404.jpg



The above is a cut out from the graph that you pasted in its entirety and shows A and B standing alone. That's because A and B have meaning - they are the propositions.

Now, you saw that this fact had been conflicting with your statement in post #10307 and that's why you labeled the top diagram with A = A and not with single A. If you didn't have the talent to scheme your way out of trouble, this thread would be over in a couple of clicks. LOL.

"Please look at these Venn diagrams, and how they support my claim that ~A is "Anything but A=A":"

Why should I? I never said that your understanding of negation was wrong, and I'm surely not a referee in the game. Thinking of it . . . If NOT ref, then what? Anything but that?

Due to the formal treatment, I guess that "anything but referee" includes the Santa Monica pigeon option.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb-Nacm-pKc
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Only if "=" (Relation) refers to "A" (Element).
Click to expand...


Perhaps if you had spent the time to look up what "reflexive relation" means, then you would not have made this foolish statement.

We know, Doron, your style is to simply make stuff up, but couldn't you just this once find out what something really is before you run off and invent some fantasy?
 
doronshadmi said:
Let us see.

A = "any positive integer"

A has no meaning if it does not refer to =
Click to expand...
Nonsense.

= has no meaning if it does not refer to A
Click to expand...
Even more nonsensical. Are you saying that you can only use the equality operator when you have A?

So A has a meaning only by =;A reference, which is A=A, that can be shortly written as =A or A.
Click to expand...
How do you know when to get off the merry-go-round?
 
zooterkin said:
Even more nonsensical. Are you saying that you can only use the equality operator when you have A?
Click to expand...
My guess is that Doron meant that standalone '=' loses its functionality. But he uses the word "meaning," which is an unfortunate choice of a word, coz standalone '=' does have a meaning: it is a symbol used to relate two or more arguments.
 
epix said:
That's because A and B have meaning - they are the propositions.
Click to expand...

So,

A = proposition and B = proposition.

Again Relation (= , in this case) and Element (A or B, in this case) have a meaning (a formal meaning, if you wish) only if there refer to each other as a one expression.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher said:
Perhaps if you had spent the time to look up what "reflexive relation" means,
Click to expand...
"reflexive relation" has a formal meaning only if "=" (some Relation) refers to "A" (some Element).
Click to expand...


I should have said "look up and understand", I guess. Normally, the "and understand" portion would have been tacit, but not here. Oh well.


But all this is just a distraction by Doron to cover Doronetics' lack of definition and its lack of result Seriously, Doron, rather than continually proving you don't understand Mathematics and wanting to change the meaning of everything, why can't you show us even one case where Doronetics makes a difference.

You sort of tried to do that with your 0.999... < 1 proposition, but you abandoned that in a tangle of inconsistencies. Got anything that actually works?
 
jsfisher said:
You sort of tried to do that with your 0.999... < 1 proposition, but you abandoned that in a tangle of inconsistencies. Got anything that actually works?
Click to expand...
0.999...[base 10] < 1 proposition works, because 0.999...[base 10] is a fog (which you don't get because your reasoning is closed under sums) and 1 is a sum.
 
doronshadmi said:
0.999...[base 10] < 1 proposition works, because 0.999...[base 10] is a fog (which you don't get because your reasoning is closed under sums) and 1 is a sum.
Click to expand...


All that is is hand-waving. You allege a result, but you can't prove it.
 
jsfisher said:
All that is is hand-waving. You allege a result, but you can't prove it.
Click to expand...
It is a hand-waving by local-only reasoning, which has no ability to deal with the qualitative non-local foundation of the mathematical science.
 
doronshadmi said:
It is a hand-waving by local-only reasoning, which has no ability to deal with the qualitative non-local foundation of the mathematical science.
Click to expand...


Ill-defined terms, proof by assumption, and explicit contradiction -- these are the proof techniques of Doronetics. Got anything better?
 
doronshadmi said:
A=A (where =A or A is nothing but a short representation of A=A)
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Venn0101.svg/150px-Venn0101.svg.png[/qimg]

~A
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Venn1010.svg/150px-Venn1010.svg.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...
doronshadmi said:
So ~A is "Anything but A".
Click to expand...

Look at your reply
jsfisher said:
Yeah, so?
Click to expand...
By your local-only reasoning you do not get that negation is not unary because by using ~A as "anything but A" we can't avoid A (the comparison of ~A with A).
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Ill-defined terms, proof by assumption, and explicit contradiction -- these are the proof techniques of Doronetics. Got anything better?
Click to expand...
Again, from your local-only reasoning.

You simply can't get NXOR/XOR reasoning.

As a result you can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6066236&postcount=10281 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6069753&postcount=10307

EDIT:

Again:

The traditional view of NOT as unary is fundamentally wrong because the Truth table of ~ can't avoid A/~A comparison in order to be expressed, as follows:
Code: 
A ~A
F  T
T  F

In that case this Truth table is nothing but the local aspect of NXOR/XOR Truth tables, as clearly seen by using a non-limited reasoning ( Non-locality(Logical connective)/Locality(Element) Linkage ) of A/~A in terms of NXOR/XOR logical connectives:

Non-locality as expressed by NXOR:
Code: 
A NXOR ~A
------------
F       F --> T (Non-locality) (True)
F       T --> F (Locality) (False)
T       F --> F (Locality) (False)
T       T --> T (Non-locality) (True)

Locality as expressed by XOR:
Code: 
A XOR ~A
------------
F      F --> F (Non-locality) (False)
F      T --> T (Locality) (True)
T      F --> T (Locality) (True)
T      T --> F (Non-locality) (False)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom