Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

Let us use Connection\Isolation under a one framework.

In that case we get this minimal form:

C    Isolator    I
|________________|
     Connector

As can be seen, we need a linkage between Connector and Isolator under a one framework in order to
compare between the identities of C(=Connector) and I(=Isolator), in order to conclude that C and I are different.

This one framework can be representend as:

=       ≠        ≠
|________________|
        =

Avoid the Connector, and nothing is compareable bcause of total isolation:

=       ≠        ≠

Avoid the Isolator, and nothing is compareable bcause of total connectivity:

=                ≠
|________________|
        =

So, next time, when one uses the phrase "logical connective" in general or "NOT connective" in particular he must be fully aware of the meaning of that phrase.

 

[The Man]

P NOT-P
F F 
T T

is the NXOR part of the Tautology

P NOT-P   
F  F      T    (NOT-Local)
F  T      T    (Local)
T  F      T    (Local)
T  T      T    (NOT-local)

exactly as

P NOT-P
F T 
T F

is the XOR part of this Tautology.

So we can add "Tautology" to the growing list of words and concepts you simply do not understand. You simply labeling every outcome as "T" does not a tautology make, Doron.

 

[The Man]

I see we have entered a new naming phase of the Doron dichotomy phraseology (must be that time of year). We now have Connector\Isolator linkage claiming the same useless nonsense.

Under connector alone 1=0, 1 or 0 identities are ignored (because they are totally connected).

Under isolator alone 1≠0, 1 or 0 identities are ignored (because they are totally isolated).

Only under Connector\Isolator linkage we can conclude that 1 identity in not 0 identity.

Doron, that “1≠0” was by your own assertions a result of your “Under isolator alone” you are simply asserting here that your “under Connector\Isolator linkage” is indistinguishable from your “Under isolator alone” in regards to “identities” as they result in the same conclusion. Further you assert that your “Under connector” consideration is superfluous as it can simply not distinguish your “identities”. Additionally you also assert in both cases that “1 or 0 identities are ignored” in one case “(because they are totally connected)” and in the other “(because they are totally isolated)” indicating that even you can not distinguish between the ignorance of your “Under connector alone” or your “Under isolator alone”. Of course we have come to expect your OM assertions to be simply ignorant without you actually understanding why.

 

[The Man]

Let us use Connection\Isolation under a one framework.

In that case we get this minimal form:

C    Isolator    I
|________________|
     Connector

As can be seen, we need a linkage between Connector and Isolator under a one framework in order to
compare between the identities of C(=Connector) and I(=Isolator), in order to conclude that C and I are different.

That “linkage” is negation or “NOT”.

This one framework can be representend as:

=       ≠        ≠
|________________|
        =

Avoid the Connector, and nothing is compareable bcause of total isolation:

=       ≠        ≠

Avoid the Isolator, and nothing is compareable bcause of total connectivity:

=                ≠
|________________|
        =

So, next time, when one uses the phrase "logical connective" in general or "NOT connective" in particular he must be fully aware of the meaning of that phrase.

When are you going to become “aware of the meaning of that phrase” or just the meaning of “NOT”?

Here, let me get you started, since you seem to be having so much trouble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_connective

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negation

 

[Apathia]

Let us use Connection\Isolation under a one framework.

In that case we get this minimal form:

C    Isolator    I
|________________|
     Connector

As can be seen, we need a linkage between Connector and Isolator under a one framework in order to
compare between the identities of C(=Connector) and I(=Isolator), in order to conclude that C and I are different.

This one framework can be representend as:

=       ≠        ≠
|________________|
        =

Avoid the Connector, and nothing is compareable bcause of total isolation:

=       ≠        ≠

Avoid the Isolator, and nothing is compareable bcause of total connectivity:

=                ≠
|________________|
        =

So, next time, when one uses the phrase "logical connective" in general or "NOT connective" in particular he must be fully aware of the meaning of that phrase.

Hi Doron,

This post occasions a question tempting enough to get me to post here and suffer the consequences.

(I can't avoid asking a question that could be something like a Hwadu in Korean Zen.)

In many previous posts, you have identified "=" and "≠" as relations and "p'
as an element.
I can't find the posts in question, but I remember you insisting to me that elements and relations are atomic. An element is an element is an element. A relation is a relation is a relation. Elements are never in anyway relations and relations are never in anyway elements.

Yet, in your quoted post, the relations "=" and "≠" are clearly treated as elements of "=" and "≠" relations.

My question:
What is it that allows relations to become elements in relation to relations?

 

[jsfisher]

Doron will not be bound to the tyranny of Meaning!!! Viva la gibberish!!

 

[doronshadmi]

So we can add "Tautology" to the growing list of words and concepts you simply do not understand. You simply labeling every outcome as "T" does not a tautology make, Doron.

This is the minimal condition of a researchable framework

Your "NOT" is the partial case of XOR of that researchable framework.

 

[doronshadmi]

That “linkage” is negation or “NOT”.

No, This is exactly NXOR\XOR Logic, where NOT connective is the XOR aspect of NXOR\XOR Logic.

The linkage is "linkage" only to posters that get only the partial picture (XOR only) of NXOR\XOR Logic.

When are you going to become “aware of the meaning of that phrase” or just the meaning of “NOT”?

You do not understand the meaning of the phrase "NOT connective", because you do not understand "connective".

Wikipedia sources are is based on the same misunderstanding.

 

[doronshadmi]

I see we have entered a new naming phase of the Doron dichotomy phraseology (must be that time of year). We now have Connector\Isolator linkage claiming the same useless nonsense.




Doron, that “1≠0” was by your own assertions a result of your “Under isolator alone” you are simply asserting here that your “under Connector\Isolator linkage” is indistinguishable from your “Under isolator alone” in regards to “identities” as they result in the same conclusion. Further you assert that your “Under connector” consideration is superfluous as it can simply not distinguish your “identities”. Additionally you also assert in both cases that “1 or 0 identities are ignored” in one case “(because they are totally connected)” and in the other “(because they are totally isolated)” indicating that even you can not distinguish between the ignorance of your “Under connector alone” or your “Under isolator alone”. Of course we have come to expect your OM assertions to be simply ignorant without you actually understanding why.

The Man,

It is very simple, not Identity can be found by total connectivity or by total isolation.

Identity can be found only under their linkage, which is not total connectivity and not total isolation.

 

[The Man]

This is the minimal condition of a researchable framework

Doron, you not understanding the words or concepts you use may be your “minimal condition of a researchable framework”, but most others take a somewhat stricter approach.

Your "NOT" is the partial case of XOR of that researchable framework.

Your “researchable framework” is simply contradictory nonsense, you claiming “Your "NOT" is the partial case of XOR of that researchable framework” does not make it any less contradictory or nonsense. Again try actually learning the words and concepts you base your arguments as well as your purported “researchable framework” upon.

 

[doronshadmi]

Hi Doron,

This post occasions a question tempting enough to get me to post here and suffer the consequences.

(I can't avoid asking a question that could be something like a Hwadu in Korean Zen.)

In many previous posts, you have identified "=" and "≠" as relations and "p'
as an element.
I can't find the posts in question, but I remember you insisting to me that elements and relations are atomic. An element is an element is an element. A relation is a relation is a relation. Elements are never in anyway relations and relations are never in anyway elements.

Yet, in your quoted post, the relations "=" and "≠" are clearly treated as elements of "=" and "≠" relations.

My question:
What is it that allows relations to become elements in relation to relations?

Elements holds the id-names of the thinks of some system, where relations are not the ids, but exactly the linkage between them, for example:

"="       ≠      "≠"
 |________________|
          =

where the relations =,≠ are not the elements (ids) "=","≠"

 

[The Man]

No, This is exactly NXOR\XOR Logic, where NOT connective is the XOR aspect of NXOR\XOR Logic.

The linkage is "linkage" only to posters that get only the partial picture (XOR only) of NXOR\XOR Logic.

“The linkage is "linkage"”? What the heck are you on about now?

Well since your “NXOR\XOR Logic” is as well as your “minimal condition of a researchable framework” is just nonsensical gibberish your ““The linkage is "linkage"” should fit right in.

You do not understand the meaning of the phrase "NOT connective", because you do not understand "connective".

Wikipedia sources are is based on the same misunderstanding.

Big news everyone, Doron claims he is the only one who understands “connective”, how unsurprisingly ironic.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron, you not understanding the words or concepts you use may be your “minimal condition of a researchable framework”, but most others take a somewhat stricter approach.

Your stricer approach is invalid because you donot understand "connective".

Your “researchable framework” is simply contradictory nonsense,

Your NOT connective is nonsense, because you do not get what is the minimal conditions for researchable framework (where connectivity is one of its must have aspects, known as NXOR).

 

[The Man]

The Man,

It is very simple, not Identity can be found by total connectivity or by total isolation.

Identity can be found only under their linkage, which is not total connectivity and not total isolation.

Remember

Under isolator alone 1≠0, 1 or 0 identities are ignored (because they are totally isolated).

Thus that “1” “Identity” is not “0” “Identity” can be found “Under isolator alone” by your own assertion. Try at least to keep up with your own C.R.A.P. Doron

 

[jsfisher]

Doron, you cannot comprehend the concept of monadic operator (aka unary operator) can you?

You still have S and ~S independent of each other. Still useless.

 

[zooterkin]

I notice you've avoided commenting on this:

I'm glad to see you are making some progress. It seems you recognise now that 1=0.99...

Care to comment on what led you to change your mind?

 

[jsfisher]

I notice you've avoided commenting on this:


Care to comment on what led you to change your mind?

Actually, I think you misinterpreted his gibberish. Hard to believe, but true. His comment that 1 = 0.999... was loosely qualified by his patented "in Standard Mathematics...".

None of that matters, however, since his paper begins with all sorts of false statements about positional notation for numbers. Anything that follows from a false premise is irrelevant.

Then again, if P is your false premise, and since ~P can be false, and ~~P is the same as P, the premise must never have been false in the first place.

QED. Quod erat Doron.

 

[zooterkin]

Actually, I think you misinterpreted his gibberish. Hard to believe, but true. His comment that 1 = 0.999... was loosely qualified by his patented "in Standard Mathematics...".

None of that matters, however, since his paper begins with all sorts of false statements about positional notation for numbers. Anything that follows from a false premise is irrelevant.

Then again, if P is your false premise, and since ~P can be false, and ~~P is the same as P, the premise must never have been false in the first place.

QED. Quod erat Doron.

Oh, you're right. Serves me right for posting when tired and after whisky. I should have realised that since it made sense, it couldn't have been something he believed.

 

[jsfisher]

Oh, you're right. Serves me right for posting when tired and after whisky. I should have realised that since it made sense, it couldn't have been something he believed.

If it was good whisky, all is forgiven.

 

[zooterkin]

If it was good whisky, all is forgiven.

12-year-old Bowmore single malt from Islay.