Nope, in fact I quoted you. However, you seem to deliberately miss the 'not' in one of your examples.
Look:
No, "necessarily different" and ~"necessarily different" are "necessarily different".
No, "necessarily different" and -"necessarily different" are ~"necessarily different".
Nope, “~"necessarily different"” and “-"necessarily different"” are necessarily different from, well, "necessarily different" again it is the addition of the symbols representing 'NOT' that are the give away.
No, “everything but” holds only in the case of finite amount, where “anything but” holds in both finite and infinite amounts. Play the game at
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6292968&postcount=11405 to get this notion.
Again, your assertion, your problem, it restricts no one but you.
Your “game” still fails you, as it did over a year ago.
No, it is a built-in property, for example:
Then it is not an “extension” but simply a “built-in property”, by your own assertion.
The existence of the concept of Set extends the existence of members, and this notion is notated by the outer "{""}", whether a given set is empty or not.
Again “extends” how and to where? “extends the existence of members”? Do these extended members exist longer with your “extension” than without?
You sure you didn’t get this extended member idea from a ‘smiling Bob’ commercial?
How does the “concept of Set” ‘extend’ “the existence of members” for a set where no members, well, exist as you claim?
Do you understand that D() does not require 0(), 1(), 3() ... etc., exactly as {} does not require members?
You don’t understand that your nonsensical “notations” only represent you extending your nonsense.
Russell's paradox is a direct result of the misunderstanding of the difference between a given concept and the members of that concept (see
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6293098&postcount=11410).
Nope, once again it is specifically about a set being a member of it self.
For example, the existence of the concept of Ideas I() extends the existence of any member of this concept, including I(I()).
Again “extends” how and to where?
So the member of I(I()) is not identical to the concept of Ideas I().
Unless it is a member of itself as in Russell's paradox.
By this real non-naïve understanding of the concept of Set, There is no such a thing like a member of given set, which is identical to that set.
What “concept of Set” are you referring to?
The Man, your reasoning does not hold water, and in the case of the concept of Dimension it can't be used to distinguish
between the absence of D(), and 0().
Again what “concept of Dimension” are you referring to? They are your nonsense notions Doron, distinguishing between them or their absence is evidently of interest only to you.
Do you actually state that you can't reply to my post because it was written a year ago?
Do you actually state that your post was written a year ago and not simply what you quoted from my post that was written a year ago?
Do you actually state that you can't tell that…
How about some context Doron? That would be helpful if you’re replying to post from almost a year ago.
…was a reply to your post three days ago where you quoted something from a almost a year ago?
In this case you agree that reasoning is time dependent, and can be changed by paradigm's shift.
I don’t think anyone here (other then you) has argued that our understanding can not and does not change.
Here is a paradim's shift:
Indeed, a shift into meaningless drivel.
The line part of the complex called segement, is not an aggregation of sub-segmenets or points.
Again your assertion, your restriction.
A line (whether it is a part of a complex called segment, or an endless (edgeless) straight line) is the minimal representation of a non-local atom.
A point is the minimal representation of a local atom.
Again your meaningless ascriptions.
The logical foundation of the membership of these atoms is as follows:
Membership is the relation of X w.r.t Inclusion\Exclusion.
The non-local aspect of Membership w.r.t Inclusion\Exclusion, is defined as follows:
If the truth values of X are the same w.r.t Inclusion\Exclusion, then X Membership is called non-local w.r.t Inclusion\Exclusion.
The local aspect of membership w.r.t Inclusion\Exclusion, is defined as follows:
If the truth values of X are different w.r.t Inclusion\Exclusion, then X Membership is called local w.r.t Inclusion\Exclusion.
Here is a 2-valued view of these definitions:
Code:
Inclusion\Exclusion
F F [ ] (Non-locality) (NOR)
T F [.] (Locality)--|
|-- (XOR)
F T [ ]. (Locality)--|
T T [[u] ][/u]_ (Non-locality) (AND)
NOR+AND ---> NXOR so we are dealing here with NXOR\XOR Logic, where both Non-local and Local Memberships are logically defined.
Again your self –contradictory “logic”.
Certainly, I did not miss the posts you thought I did, thus your thinking that I did was incorrect.
I suggest that you look at it.
