Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apathia said:
<snip>

When it comes to Logic this prior "complementation" yields the usual values of "True" and "False." but in the interactive combo of these polar opposites, he also gets the True False and the False True.

<snip>
Click to expand...


From what I have seen, it read as if he were rejecting "True" and "False" and only allowing "True False" and "False True" (as well as rejecting "True True" and "False False"). I think a great deal of this could be due to the way he seems to think that redefining a term redefines what the term is referring to. The best example was from one of the other fora referenced earlier where someone asked doronshadmi a question along the lines of "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" Doron's answer was "5". Someone else made a similar observation here regarding doron's confusion over analogies and metaphors.

I certainly do not have any problem with using a gradual scale of reference as applies to the real world rather than simple binary terms, but a flat-out rejection of the ends of the scale leads to many problems. If there is no such thing as absolute "True" or "False", how could one determine the "Trueness" of "True False"?

Thank goodness we don't have Bubblefish and doronshadmi going at each other.
 
jsfisher said:
I truly wish you the best of luck in this, but I am concerned you have become involved in "facilitated communication."
Click to expand...

I'll answer for both you and ddt in this one post. I like the way you stated the concern.

I won't dismiss that possibility because Doron is incapable of communicating his ideas in a coherent fashion, and he was unable to addess the difficulty I had earlier except just to repeat himself.
So I wound up working through my misuderstanding on my own, and it does seem to me to be his intent.

If I am reading something different than his intent, at least as ddt points out, what I'm saying has some viable mathematical possibilities.

This brings me to one of my big questions (and actually it's been asked of Doron before.)
In respect to Logic, Doron produces his Complementary Logic Truth Table,
but where are the rules of inference?
These are a must have, especially when traditional inference by contradictory resuts is weakened.

My interpretation of Doron could be just my own fantasy. But I don't stand to lose anything by that. I may just wind up with a better fantasy than his.

Doron,

What new tools of logical inference do we get with Complementary Logic?
It's not enough to say that it restores an otherwise excluded middle.
What are the rules to arrive at and manipulate that middle?
Intuitionist, multivalue, and fuzzy logics provide rules of inference.
What are the unique rules of Complementary Logic?
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
My interpretation of Doron could be just my own fantasy. But I don't stand to lose anything by that. I may just wind up withy a better fantasy than his.
Click to expand...

Very true, and since you are already aware of the possibility, I have no concerns. As I have said before, I do enjoy your posts, so even if they are about nothing doron, it doesn't really matter.
 
Hokulele said:
From what I have seen, it read as if he were rejecting "True" and "False" and only allowing "True False" and "False True" (as well as rejecting "True True" and "False False"). I think a great deal of this could be due to the way he seems to think that redefining a term redefines what the term is referring to. The best example was from one of the other fora referenced earlier where someone asked doronshadmi a question along the lines of "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" Doron's answer was "5". Someone else made a similar observation here regarding doron's confusion over analogies and metaphors.

I certainly do not have any problem with using a gradual scale of reference as applies to the real world rather than simple binary terms, but a flat-out rejection of the ends of the scale leads to many problems. If there is no such thing as absolute "True" or "False", how could one determine the "Trueness" of "True False"?

Thank goodness we don't have Bubblefish and doronshadmi going at each other.
Click to expand...

You point out another question I have of Doron.
It does seem that he throws inference by contradiction under the bus, even though his truth table invoves the False False and True True as circumstances of truth value.

So again what's lacking are the rules of inference that define when the law of contadiction is relevant and when it is not.

On the contrary. I would very much like to see a Doronshadmi/Bubblefish encounter.
 
Apathia said:
You point out another question I have of Doron.
It does seem that he throws inference by contradiction under the bus, even though his truth table invoves the False False and True True as circumstances of truth value.

So again what's lacking are the rules of inference that define when the law of contadiction is relevant and when it is not.
Click to expand...


Agreed.

On the contrary. I would very much like to see a Doronshadmi/Bubblefish encounter.
Click to expand...


Intellectually, yes. Considering how each reacts to disagreement, emotionally, no.
 
Hokulele said:
Hmm, what would you think about having you take the doronshadmi role and I take the Bubblefish role, and debating the merits of each framework in another thread?
Click to expand...

I'm still in the process of trying to determine what actual merits Doron's framework has. I'm not really in a position to debate them.
 
Apathia said:
Buried beneath Doron's landfill of missused and discarded mathematical terminology is an actual idea. Once it's made clear, then it can be discussed and critiqued in an intelligent way. It rarely comes to that because Doron's way of thinking is counterintuitive, as if from some culture isolated from the rest of the world.

(...)

If you get the idea, then there are a host of questions and critcisms that are not being addressed. I hope we can move on to these and not back to the years of forum wreckage and debacle Doron has behind him.
It will be more interesting if we can get to questions that are relevant to the very different way Doron thinks.
Click to expand...

That will never happen, he has produced several mistakes that you wouldn’t expect from a mathematical student on his first month, and those mistakes compose his entire framework.
You can try and sort of the garbage, but in the end of your work you will realise that there is just garbage with nothing to sort.
 
Apathia said:
Buried beneath Doron's landfill of missused and discarded mathematical terminology is an actual idea.
Click to expand...

I used to think that, too. I now think you're reading something into the landfill that isn't there.

I'm a professional educator -- not, I hasten to point out, a professional research mathematician -- so I really have no dog in this fight about whether or not there's a better approach to mathematics that would put all my colleagues out of a job. On the other hand, what I do have is a hell of a lot of experience with trying to deal with teasing out good ideas from the badly-stated gibberish of students and helping to shine them smooth and polish them pretty. Expressing oneself professionally is a skill, and not all students have that skill.

But I don't think there's an idea in the landfill. I don't think that Doron has any ideas in there to polish. I think he's simply expressing hostility to rigorous thought. If you can't be right (and apparently he can't), then he wants to destroy the entire framework so that no one can -- and he can't be wrong, either.


Once it's made clear, then it can be discussed and critiqued in an intelligent way.
Click to expand...

And once I perfect my unicorn trap, we can have rack of unicorn for supper.

Don't skip lunch, eh?

If you get the idea, then there are a host of questions and critcisms that are not being addressed.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Starting with the question of whether or not your expression of "his" idea has any relationship to his actual idea. The problem is that we have at least four mutually exclusive representations of his idea on board already, and Doron has steadfastly managed to avoid either agreeing or disagreeing with any of them.

I know the definition of an optimist -- the one who believes, when he's standing up to his knees in manure, that there must be a pony around somewhere. But I'm afraid that we may just have manure here.....
 
ddt said:
Sorry for omitting the smiley. I thought the rhetorical nature of the question was obvious to all.
Click to expand...


It was for me, but I had to respond anyway. I was going to add a bit about only nominating it if I was going to report it, but I passed on that.
 
drkitten said:
I used to think that, too. I now think you're reading something into the landfill that isn't there.
Click to expand...

drkitten,

You are one of my most respected professionals here.
I agknowledge that there is a good possibility that I'm bringing something into the landfill with me. If it's not Doron's very poorly presented core idea, it's close enough to his desire to make it interresting to see how he relates to it.

Thanks for the warning though.

This could be my pathetic
end:


The Mad Gardener's Song

He thought he saw an Elephant,
That practised on a fife:
He looked again, and found it was
A letter from his wife.
'At length I realise,' he said,
The bitterness of Life!'

He thought he saw a Buffalo
Upon the chimney-piece:
He looked again, and found it was
His Sister's Husband's Niece.
'Unless you leave this house,' he said,
"I'll send for the Police!'

He thought he saw a Rattlesnake
That questioned him in Greek:
He looked again, and found it was
The Middle of Next Week.
'The one thing I regret,' he said,
'Is that it cannot speak!'

He thought he saw a Banker's Clerk
Descending from the bus:
He looked again, and found it was
A Hippopotamus.
'If this should stay to dine,' he said,
'There won't be much for us!'

He thought he saw a Kangaroo
That worked a coffee-mill:
He looked again, and found it was
A Vegetable-Pill.
'Were I to swallow this,' he said,
'I should be very ill!'

He thought he saw a Coach-and-Four
That stood beside his bed:
He looked again, and found it was
A Bear without a Head.
'Poor thing,' he said, 'poor silly thing!
It's waiting to be fed!'

He thought he saw an Albatross
That fluttered round the lamp:
He looked again, and found it was
A Penny-Postage Stamp.
'You'd best be getting home,' he said:
'The nights are very damp!'

He thought he saw a Garden-Door
That opened with a key:
He looked again, and found it was
A Double Rule of Three:
'And all its mystery,' he said,
'Is clear as day to me!'

He thought he saw a Argument
That proved he was the Pope:
He looked again, and found it was
A Bar of Mottled Soap.
'A fact so dread,' he faintly said,
'Extinguishes all hope!'

-- Lewis Carroll

:D
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
I'll answer for both you and ddt in this one post. I like the way you stated the concern.

I won't dismiss that possibility because Doron is incapable of communicating his ideas in a coherent fashion, and he was unable to addess the difficulty I had earlier except just to repeat himself.
So I wound up working through my misuderstanding on my own, and it does seem to me to be his intent.

If I am reading something different than his intent, at least as ddt points out, what I'm saying has some viable mathematical possibilities.

This brings me to one of my big questions (and actually it's been asked of Doron before.)
In respect to Logic, Doron produces his Complementary Logic Truth Table,
but where are the rules of inference?
These are a must have, especially when traditional inference by contradictory resuts is weakened.

My interpretation of Doron could be just my own fantasy. But I don't stand to lose anything by that. I may just wind up with a better fantasy than his.

Doron,

What new tools of logical inference do we get with Complementary Logic?
It's not enough to say that it restores an otherwise excluded middle.
What are the rules to arrive at and manipulate that middle?
Intuitionist, multivalue, and fuzzy logics provide rules of inference.
What are the unique rules of Complementary Logic?
Click to expand...
Abstraction of both Relation and Element, which is actually hyper-formalism (in standard formalism only Elements are abstracted but Relations still have a particular meaning).

By Hyper-formalism, Distinction is a first-order property.

Hyper-formalism's goal is to understand the minimal terms that unable a researchable framework, in the first place, and only from this level different mathematical branches (where each one of them is a particular researchable framework) are naturally and systematically are connected with each other.

Another benefit of Hyper-formalism is to show that any meaning that is given to some MAF (Minimal Accepted Form) is a direct result of the mathematician's involvement. It can be shown only if MAF has no meaning of its own, which makes it the best detector of any tend to give some meaning to some researchable form.

In my X/Y Complementation, X is Relation and Y is Element.

Please try to define a researchable framework by using only X or only Y.

If you can show such a researchable framework, than I have no argument.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Abstraction of both Relation and Element, which is actually hyper-formalism (in standard formalism only Elements are abstracted but Relations still have a particular meaning).

By Hyper-formalism, Distinction is a first-order property.

Hyper-formalism's goal is to understand the minimal terms that unable a researchable framework, in the first place, and only from this level different mathematical branches (where each one of them is a particular researchable framework) are naturally and systematically are connected with each other.

Another benefit of Hyper-formalism is to show that any meaning that is given to some MAF (Minimal Accepted Form) is a direct result of the mathematician's involvement. It can be shown only if MAF has no meaning of its own, which makes it the best detector of any tend to give some meaning to some researchable form.

In my X/Y Complementation, X is Relation and Y is Element.

Please try to define a researchable framework by using only X or only Y.

If you can show such a researchable framework, than I have no argument.
Click to expand...


You mean you have an argument that “has no meaning of its own”?

But of course you do.
 
doronshadmi said:
Abstraction of both Relation and Element, which is actually hyper-formalism (in standard formalism only Elements are abstracted but Relations still have a particular meaning).
Click to expand...
"Hyper-formalism", another word which is undefined! And of course, "relation" and "element" will turn out not to be what we expect it to be, nor will it be defined.
doronshadmi said:
In my X/Y Complementation, X is Relation and Y is Element.

Please try to define a researchable framework by using only X or only Y.

If you can show such a researchable framework, than I have no argument.
Click to expand...
You're turning it around now. The onus is on you to show that your "framework" makes sense and has something to add, not on us to show it has not.

But maybe we shouldn't interfere with the attempted dialog between Apathia and Doron. How about setting up another thread as "peanut gallery", where the rest of us can hang out and give our comments? Then Doron will not be distracted by our pesky questions :boggled:
 
doronshadmi said:
Abstraction of both Relation and Element, which is actually hyper-formalism (in standard formalism only Elements are abstracted but Relations still have a particular meaning).

By Hyper-formalism, Distinction is a first-order property.

Hyper-formalism's goal is to understand the minimal terms that unable a researchable framework, in the first place, and only from this level different mathematical branches (where each one of them is a particular researchable framework) are naturally and systematically are connected with each other.

Another benefit of Hyper-formalism is to show that any meaning that is given to some MAF (Minimal Accepted Form) is a direct result of the mathematician's involvement. It can be shown only if MAF has no meaning of its own, which makes it the best detector of any tend to give some meaning to some researchable form.

In my X/Y Complementation, X is Relation and Y is Element.

Please try to define a researchable framework by using only X or only Y.

If you can show such a researchable framework, than I have no argument.
Click to expand...

My nightmare. I asked for it. The other participators in this forum are now saying, "We told you so!"

Doron,

What you have stated above is another presentation of why you say your framework (that I'm taking to be a Complementary Logic) has a superior perspective.
What I was asking for in the post you quoted are the rules of inference that are integral and essential to your Logic.
Ok, you're calling it "Hyper-formalism" now. But what are the rules of this game of which the mathematician is now one of the playing pieces.
What determines my dog's move on the game board. and do I collect $200 or go to jail?

In my X/Y Complementation, X is Relation and Y is Element.

Please try to define a researchable framework by using only X or only Y.

If you can show such a researchable framework, than I have no argument.
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm here for ("a researchable framework using only X or only Y")
I'm sticking my neck out with the notion that you might just have someting to say about a framework that begins with the complementation of X and Y. And I want to see if anything can be made of it.

I've made the assertion that the core of what you seem to be saying makes sense to me. The others say I'm just reading something into what you say that you have never said.
It would be more interesting if I were catching the essence of your way of thinking and we could sharpen that into some clarity.
I'm hoping it's not just a bar of soap I see, or at least there's an idea related to yours that has some pontential.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom