Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
You still do not get that 2 alone is not the same as 2 as a member of some set, notated at least as {2}.
Click to expand...

You continue to re-prove you understand neither basic set theory nor English. "{2}" is not, never has been, never will be "2 as a member of some set." You again twist something simple and straight-forward into something contorted and unidentifiable.

You do yourself no service by parading your limited cognitive skills as you do.
 
jsfisher said:
You continue to re-prove you understand neither basic set theory nor English. "{2}" is not, never has been, never will be "2 as a member of some set." You again twist something simple and straight-forward into something contorted and unidentifiable.

You do yourself no service by parading your limited cognitive skills as you do.
Click to expand...


{2} is exactly the least representation of "2 as a member of some set", and this fact does not depend on time, as you poorly address it.

Is this you best reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4531622&postcount=2238 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4532004&postcount=2240 ?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
{2} is exactly the least representation of "2 as a member of some set", and this fact does not depend on time, as you poorly address it.
Click to expand...

No, "{2}" is not 2 as anything. It is a set, the set with "2" as its sole member. This seems related to your inability to distinguish between "x IF y" and "x ONLY IF y". You have gotten things backwards.
 
doronshadmi said:
Is this you best reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4531622&postcount=2238 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4532004&postcount=2240 ?
Click to expand...
To pile it on: IMNSHO, it is indeed the best reply period. The two posts you mention again are fine examples of how poorly you understand basic mathematical concepts. Instead of insulting jsfisher, you'd rather take the contents of his posts to heart. And somehow I have the impression that it is utterly futile to give this advice.
 
jsfisher said:
Neither post contains a cohesive argument that merits a reply.
Click to expand...

Ho yes they are.

Your reply clearly shows that http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4496540&postcount=2035 holds.

Nobody has to agree with somebody who cheating himself, and you are cheating yourself without a doubt.

This self cheating is trivial technical and boring; therefore it is not even a fantasy, where imagination and creativity are used.

I will not give the advice that you gave me in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4505008&postcount=2107 because self cheaters have no home.
 
Last edited:
ddt said:
To pile it on: IMNSHO, it is indeed the best reply period. The two posts you mention again are fine examples of how poorly you understand basic mathematical concepts. Instead of insulting jsfisher, you'd rather take the contents of his posts to heart. And somehow I have the impression that it is utterly futile to give this advice.
Click to expand...
Nothing has to be taken from a member of a community who's "reasoning" is based on cheating themselves.

On the contrary, this "reasoning" has to be fully exposed to criticism, exactly as I do.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Nothing has to be taken from a member of a community who's "reasoning" is based on cheating themselves.

On the contrary, this "reasoning" has to be fully exposed to criticism, exactly as I do.
Click to expand...


That what explain why you have so many followers, here. Let's count them all together: There's.... Hmmm. Well, there's.... Er, but there's always....

Gee, doron. You've got nobody. Why is that?
 
jsfisher said:
That what explain why you have so many followers, here. Let's count them all together: There's.... Hmmm. Well, there's.... Er, but there's always....

Gee, doron. You've got nobody. Why is that?
Click to expand...

It is the current stage.

You simply unable to deal with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4531622&postcount=2238 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4532004&postcount=2240 so you run to find some support under the wings of your community, but you will not find there any support because your "reasoning" is based on self-cheating.

Self-cheaters are blind to their self-cheating especially if their self-cheating is found at the foundations of their "reasoning".

This kind of self-cheating can be exposed almost only by outsiders.

I am not the first and not the last outsider along the history of scientific developments, which made by outsiders.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
If we use Lisp as an example, then X is the function where y is the parameters (where the parameters can be also functions),
such that (X y1 y2 y3 ...)

The function is a form of Relation where the parameter is a form of Element, even if some parameter is a function.

Furthermore, the parameter can be the function in the case of recursion, such that (X y1=X)

It does not change the fact that the fundamental form is (Relation Element1 Element2 Element3 …)
Click to expand...

So your response is if you consider a different grammar and language the meanings are, well, different? Your use of ‘Lisp’ does not change the fact that in First Order Predicate Logic P, x and y are all themselves well formed formula as is the atomic formula P(x,y).

doronshadmi said:
True is WFF, or False is WFF exactly because it is based on REI, where where 'True' OR 'False' are Element(s) and 'is' is Relation.
Click to expand...

Well since there is no ‘is’ in True or False you are asserting that your ‘REI’ does not hold.


doronshadmi said:
So is P(x,y), where P is Relation and x,y are Element(s).
Click to expand...

Again that does not change the fact that in First Order Predicate Logic P, x and y are all themselves well formed formula, on their own. You seem to be going to some ludicrous extremes, adding ‘is’ to True and False, using ‘Lisp’ as opposed to the stated language and grammar as well as ignoring the assertion of P, x and y as well formed formula on their own, in order to maintain your ‘REI’ ‘Wildly Fictional Fantasy’.

doronshadmi said:
"under the requirements of First Order Predicate Logic" is based REI as shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4512946&postcount=2153
Click to expand...

What you mean that post where you claimed ‘I’ was a symbol that did not need an explanation then attempted to explain what you were representing with that symbol. A fine example Doron, that you have no idea what you are talking about and that even you do not believe your own assertions.
 
doronshadmi said:
It is the current stage.

You simply unable to deal with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4531622&postcount=2238 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4532004&postcount=2240 so you run to find some support under the wings of your community, but you will not find there any support because your "reasoning" is based on self-cheating.

Self-cheaters are blind to their self-cheating especially if their self-cheating is found at the foundations of their "reasoning".

This kind of self-cheating can be exposed almost only by outsiders.

I am not the first and not the last outsider along the history of scientific developments, which made by outsiders.
Click to expand...

zooterkin said:
Just occasionally, you do manage to come out with something accurate, if somewhat ironic.
Click to expand...

Indeed zooterkin, all of the labels Doron attempts to ascribe to others apply more directly to him then to anyone else on this thread.
 
The Man said:
So your response is if you consider a different grammar and language the meanings are, well, different? Your use of ‘Lisp’ does not change the fact that in First Order Predicate Logic P, x and y are all themselves well formed formula as is the atomic formula P(x,y).



Well since there is no ‘is’ in True or False you are asserting that your ‘REI’ does not hold.




Again that does not change the fact that in First Order Predicate Logic P, x and y are all themselves well formed formula, on their own. You seem to be going to some ludicrous extremes, adding ‘is’ to True and False, using ‘Lisp’ as opposed to the stated language and grammar as well as ignoring the assertion of P, x and y as well formed formula on their own, in order to maintain your ‘REI’ ‘Wildly Fictional Fantasy’.



What you mean that post where you claimed ‘I’ was a symbol that did not need an explanation then attempted to explain what you were representing with that symbol. A fine example Doron, that you have no idea what you are talking about and that even you do not believe your own assertions.
Click to expand...

P is P

x is x

y is y

true is true

talse is false

In all these cases the least form is REI , such that 'P', 'x', 'y', 'true', 'false' represent elements and 'is' represents relation.

In the case of P(x,y) P is the relation and x or y are elements.

In both cases REI is the basis of any WFF.

P alone

x alone

y alone

true alone

false alone

is alone

are not WFF

The least WFF is A=A, where A (Element) refers to itself by = (Relation) (it is not less than REI) as follows:
AAA.jpg


Self-cheaters are blind to their self-cheating especially if their self-cheating is found at the foundations of their "reasoning".

You are a self-cheater The Man and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4496540&postcount=2035 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4531622&postcount=2238 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4532004&postcount=2240 clearly show it.

Your self-cheating is clearly exposed.

The Man said:
...that does not change the fact that in First Order Predicate Logic P, x and y are all themselves well formed formula, on their own.
Click to expand...

You used REI in this quote, where P,x,y are Element(s) and 'are' is the Relation (self-relation in this case, where each element at least refers to itself (as shown by the A=A diagram) in order to be considered as WFF).

In other words, no REI no WFF.

You actually used REI as follows:

'X is, on its own, ...' where 'X' represents Element and 'is' represents Relation.

REI is inevitable.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
P alone

x alone

y alone

true alone

false alone

...are not WFF
Click to expand...

And yet the definition of well-formed formulae still says otherwise. Imagine that.

You can deny that reality all you like, doron, but reality prevails.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
So what? Just about any English sentence can be viewed as one of your REI's. The observation is trivial. Your REI's are trivial. And whether the definition for somethine makes use, as you claim, of your trivial REI's does not change the consequence of the definition. The next line contains a perfectly well-formed formula:
X​
Click to expand...

WikiPedia WFF said:
Each propositional variable is, on its own, a formula

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_(mathematical_logic)
Click to expand...

"propositional variable" is Element.

"is" is Relation.

Imagine that.

It is profound.

Self-cheaters cannot get it.

"The next line contains a perfectly well-formed formula" = "X is ..."

"The next line contains a not well-formed formula" = "X is not ..."

In both cases REI is inevitable.
 
Last edited:
Doron, are you the only person here who cannot see that the wikipedia citation you provided supports my point and not yours?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom