• 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:
You can and do call it whatever you want Doron, but it is still just a contradiction
Click to expand...
For contradiction you need no compare things, so at total isolation or total connection, there are no comparable things, get it?
 
doronshadmi said:
For contradiction you need no compare things, so at total isolation or total connection, there are no comparable things, get it?
Click to expand...


Do you mean “For contradiction you need to compare things”?

Again

The Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

Get it?
 
doronshadmi said:
Again, Relation (and not the name of some relation) is non-local.

As for elements, a line is the minimal form of Non-local element, and a point is the minimal form of a local element.
Click to expand...

Yes, Doron. The Relation is non-local.
But you're not seeing that the names you use are used to signify relations. And that you are relating relations.

How is that possible: to relate relations?
How is it possible if the Non-Local and the Local are ever fixed contents and a relation cannot be an object of relation?

Your own arguments evidence you have more fluidity of thought than your system allows.

You create two pillars that make for blindspots, but you're arguments constantly force you to look around or move them to new oneword/otherword linkages.
You have to. Otherwise trying to make an system to encompass non-systematic thinking, you'd lose your ultimate intention.

You're not seeing that in your quest to free up thinking you have nevertheless created restriction.

There are many more and fluid ways we manipulate symbols than your pair-linkage structure.
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
How is that possible: to relate relations?
Click to expand...

The answer:

The minimal condition that enables a reseachable framework is based on the linkage of Connector with Isolator , as follows:

P is id is name

Isolator is NOT is | is ~ is ≠

Connector is YES is ___ is =

Discrete Element is . (blocked by |) (XOR is logical aspect of blocked things)

Relation or Continuous Element is ___ (goes through |) (NXOR is logical aspect of goes through things)

Code: 
P~P
[U].|[/U]_

In the case of related relations we have ___ between Ps , where P is a name of ___ and not ___ itself.

The Man said:
Get it?
Click to expand...

Do you get?:

Code: 
P~P
[U].|[/U]_

wich is the must have form of Logic (any Logic).


---------------------------

EDIT:

Only Isolation (|) is not researchable.

Only Connection (__) is not researchable.
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
I rather liked the Klein bottle better, but this makes some frightening emoticon. :wackygoofy:
Click to expand...
A great example:

From 3-D level Klein's Bottle is bloced by NOT (P is_not ~P) (In and Out are NOT the same).

From 4-D level Klein's Bottle goes through NOT (P is ~P) (In and Out are the same).

In general

n-dim = 1 to ∞
k-dim = 0 to n-1

n-dim is non-local w.r.t k-dim.

k-dim is local w.r.t n-dim.

This is exactly what I show in http://www.scribd.com/doc/21967511/TOC-NEW2.

Code: 
P~P
[U].|[/U]_

Is the must have form of Logic (any Logic).
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
You are comparing "the left x" with "the right x" and asserting that they are 'NOT equal to'
Click to expand...
‘Not equal’ is exactly the linkage of NOT with EQUAL , and only by that linkage you are able to conclude that the left x is NOT (with) EQUAL to the right x.

Try to do it only by NOT (total isolation), or only by EQUAL (total connectivity) , and you are unable to compare, and therefore you have no contradiction.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You wrote:

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

Where is the logical basis that enables you to compare P with NOT-P (between input and result(output))?
Click to expand...

Well, duh, it's of course the logical operator NOT that enables us to compare P with NOT(P).

What's so hard about this to get, Doron? Are you lost?
 
doronshadmi said:
You wrote:

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

Where is the logical basis that enables you to compare P with NOT-P (between input and result(output))?

You did not answer to this simple question.
Click to expand...

Would you care to explain why you think it is not possible to compare them?

Do you understand how truth tables work yet?
 
laca said:
Well, duh, it's of course the logical operator NOT that enables us to compare P with NOT(P).

What's so hard about this to get, Doron? Are you lost?
Click to expand...
In that case NOT is not a unitary operator.

So the question remains: What enables to compare between P and NOT-P (between input P and output NOT-P )?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Why you are unable to deal with the links of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5335869&postcount=7009 ?



The question remains: What enables to compare between P and NOT-P (between input P and output NOT-P )?
Click to expand...


Tsk, tsk, tsk, doron. You are evading my questions. Why do you run away from the simple queries put forth in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5334212&postcount=7000?

Are the questions that hard or embarrassing? Stop trying to deflect or dodge. Just answer the questions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom