• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Man said:
Doron repeating your nonsensical diagrams does not make them any less nonsensical nor does it help your contradictory assertions that.

Firstly



Then conversely





So, please let us know when to can at least agree with yourself (I doubt anyone is expecting it any time soon).

If that graphical nonsense above was intended to indicate that your first assertion of “Under isolator alone 1≠0” was wrong then you could just simply say so.
Click to expand...
Code: 
x   ≠   x

is exactly total isolation, such that the left x cannot be compared with the right x, there the isolator is notated as ≠.
 
zooterkin said:
Monadic operators take one operand. You are displaying even more ignorance about truth tables than I thought possible. The truth table shows the result of the operator on the inputs. A monadic operator, such as NOT, takes one input, so there is only one input column (the first one). The last column of the truth table shows the output.

If the input is TRUE, the result of NOT will be FALSE.
If the input is FALSE, the result of NOT will be TRUE.

That's it.

Code: 
P   NOT-P
T     F
F     T
Click to expand...

You don't get it.

What enables to compare between the concept of input and the concept of output?

Where is the logical basis of the connection between the input and the output?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
By single state (monadic, as you call it)....
Click to expand...


No, that is not what I call it. That's your misinterpretation, and any conclusion drawn from a false premise is irrelevant. You simply do not comprehend the concept of monadic operator. That's your limitation, not mine.
 
doronshadmi said:
You don't get it.

What enables to compare between the concept of input and the concept of output?

Where is the logical basis of the connection between the input and the output?
Click to expand...

Let us for one brief instance assume your bare assertion is true, that there is some "connection between the input and the output" (and to be far to zooterkin, the use of those terms, input and output, was figurative, not literal).

Ok, there it is, an accepted concept that there must be something relating input and output. How does that change, in any way whatsoever, the definition and behavior of the NOT operator? What difference does this connection concept make to the behavior of NOT?
 
jsfisher said:
No, that is not what I call it. That's your misinterpretation, and any conclusion drawn from a false premise is irrelevant. You simply do not comprehend the concept of monadic operator. That's your limitation, not mine.
Click to expand...

Call it moadic operator, still you need the logical basis to compare between input and output.

So where is this logical basis in your moadic operator case?
 
doronshadmi said:
Code: 
x   ≠   x
Click to expand...

Agian simply a contradiction.

doronshadmi said:
is exactly total isolation, such that the left x cannot be compared with the right x, there the isolator is notated as ≠.
Click to expand...

You are comparing "the left x" with "the right x" and asserting that they are 'NOT equal to' (≠or ~=) each other. Are you simply now saying that you are making that comparative assertion while claiming they "cannot be compared"? Perhaps this is just your usual tactic of simply misusing notations and concepts you do not understand. Both have come to be expected from you.
 
jsfisher said:
Let us for one brief instance assume your bare assertion is true, that there is some "connection between the input and the output" (and to be far to zooterkin, the use of those terms, input and output, was figurative, not literal).

Ok, there it is, an accepted concept that there must be something relating input and output. How does that change, in any way whatsoever, the definition and behavior of the NOT operator? What difference does this connection concept make to the behavior of NOT?
Click to expand...

We are talking about the must have terms for a researchable framework, and not about names.

Do you get it?
 
doronshadmi said:
We are talking about the must have terms for a researchable framework, and not about names.
Click to expand...

No, we were not. If you cannot respond to the questions put to you, just say so and move one. No need for these cheap attempts to duck and cover.
 
jsfisher said:
(and to be far to zooterkin, the use of those terms, input and output, was figurative, not literal).
Click to expand...
Sorry, displaying my background in computer science.


doronshadmi said:
Call it moadic operator, still you need the logical basis to compare between input and output.

So where is this logical basis in your moadic operator case?
Click to expand...

Monadic, Doron.

ETA: Look it up. (I would say "research it", but that's another word you seem to have your own definition for.)
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Agian simply a contradiction.
Click to expand...

No, it is called total isolation, something that you can't get, exactly as you can't get total connection.

In general, you can't get that isolation or connaction alone are not reseachable, and only their linkage provides a researchable framework.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
Sorry, displaying my background in computer science.
Click to expand...

No, not at all. It is just that Doron tends to animate things. A result cannot simply exist; it must have come into existence through some dynamic process and some location. And while that result exists over here, it cannot be over there, too, in some other role. (This is why 2 is not a member of {2}, after all.)

Plus, I knew full well you meant input and output as the nouns they were always meant to be, not the cheap low-life verbs computer scientists have forced into the lexicon.

;)
 
The Man said:
You are the one who posted ““The linkage is "linkage"”, get it? So what the heck are you on about now?
Click to expand...

Another example of your "understanding" skills.

Look:
doronshadmi said:
The linkage is "linkage" only to posters that get only the partial picture (XOR only) of NXOR\XOR Logic.
Click to expand...
You are the poster that gets only the partial picture (XOR only) of NXOR\XOR Logic, now you get it?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No, it is called total isolation, something that you can't get, exactly as you can't get total connection.

In general, you can't get that isolation or connaction alone are not reseachable, and only their linkage provides a researchable framework.
Click to expand...

You can and do call it whatever you want Doron, but it is still just a contradiction. One would have thought by now you might have learned that simply misusing notations and concepts is what has generally resulted in you and your notions being in, well, total isolation.
 
jsfisher said:
Ho?



You misunderstand the pronoun, we, as well, I see.


Be that as it may, if you cannot answer my question, just say so. No need to try to change the subject like this.
Click to expand...

If you cannot answer to the question "what is the logical basis that enables you to compare between input and output?", just say so.
 
doronshadmi said:
If you cannot answer to the question "what is the logical basis that enables you to compare between input and output?", just say so.
Click to expand...

I can, and I probably will, but first things first. You should stop running away from my questions. Here, I can be very helpful:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5334149&postcount=6985

...and the questions are those two sentences at the end that end in question marks. Ok?


ETA: And let's not forget the other open questions, like the ones having to do with incompleteness theorems.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom