"a shared" means "connectivity".
As I said before that something is shared indicates a connection in that sharing.
"lack of dependence" means "isolation".
No it simply indicates a lack of affect on one due to changes in the other. Again not all "lack of dependence" is mutual or shared so a simple lack of dependence does not infer “isolation”. Additionally as shown before in the A, B ,C example even if A and B are mutually independent, C might depend on them both so again independence does not infer “isolation”. Also as noted before the mutual aspect of the independence in the mutual independence of A and B, depends on both A and B not being affected by changes in the other, so again they are clearly not ‘isolated’ in that mutual independence as that lack of dependence must be, well, mutual.
So your phrase has a meaning exactly because you used "connectivity"/"isolation" linkage that is equivalent to Mutual-Independency, which is not a local-only framework, as your framework is, for example:
Ah back to the standard Doron fall back position of just claiming that only his notions give anything any “meaning”. While I’m certain for you this is the case, you have continually failed to show why anyone needs you, your notions, or your personal “meaning”.
Only if it refers to some element, or in other words Mutual-Independency framework is used.
No, it still means negation and if that negation refers to some specific “element” that element and its negation are mutually dependent. Wrong on both counts Doron.
By using a local-only reasoning A NXOR ~A is a contradiction.
No Doron it is a contradiction specifically because A and “~A” are mutually dependent.
You can't define contradiction in the case of total state because it is totally independent.
No you just can’t define your “total state” because it is “total” nonsense.
A meaningful formal framework is AT LEAST mutual-independency, which is something that you simply don't get.
I’ve got it Doron, your “mutual-independency” is a ‘totally connective total isolation’ and there is nothing “meaningful” or indicative of a “formal framework” about it, it is simply a direct contradiction, like the rest of your notions.
are changeable.
Again, "well established words and concepts " are nothing but the current common agreement among people about given "words and concepts", and this common agreement is changeable (something that you don't get).
Well when you get some “common agreement” (whatever you think that is) on your interpretations, you be sure to let us know. As it stands your interpretations do not even agree with themselves, so any “common agreement” is pretty much out of the question until you can “AT LEAST” get your interpretations to agree with themselves. Once again Doron there are plenty of words to use under what you call “common agreement”. Not using them simply indicates that you are not willing to accurately communicate your notions, but simply want some “common agreement” of them anyway. Well the outstanding “common agreement” about your notions is that they are simply useless self-contradictory nonsensical word-salad.
