Deeper than primes

[jsfisher]

Ok, it is irony.

How so?

 

[doronshadmi]

How so?

The irony is that you don't get the irony of:

Try to comprehend without comparison, and you get the must have substitute for understanding Mathematics.


Now let us use the right one:

Try to comprehend without comparison, and you get the missing principle for understanding Mathematics.

 

[jsfisher]

The irony is that you don't get the irony of:

Try to comprehend without comparison, and you get the must have substitute for understanding Mathematics.


Now let us use the right one:

Try to comprehend without comparison, and you get the missing principle for understanding Mathematics.

Yes, there is irony there, alright...just not where you think it is.

 

[sympathic]

Only in locally non-local localities,where p=relief and x marks the spot,in all other cases non-local local local conditions apply.

Well put.

 

[doronshadmi]

Yes, there is irony there, alright...just not where you think it is.

Can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5367241&postcount=7214 , isn't jsfisher?

 

[doronshadmi]

Truth values T and F are based on self-reference comparison, where = is the non-local aspect of the comparison, and T or F are the local aspect of this comparison.

Following this principle ≠ is the non-local aspect and Tor F are the local aspects of non self-reference comparison.

The Comparison of the Non-local with the Local, is fundamental to the existence of any researchable thing, whether it is based on self-reference comparison, or non self-reference comparison.

Two valued logic is at least (T=T) ≠ (F=F), where Truth values T or F are at least non-local(=)\local(T,F) Sameness comparisons
and T≠F is at least non-local(≠)\local(T,F) Difference comparison.

Here is the ontological base of Two valued logic:

[qimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2554/4149358437_87f574fa79_o.jpg[/qimg]

On top of this ontological base one can define the entire states of Two valued logic.

 

[zooterkin]

Two valued logic is at least (T=T) ≠ (F=F),

Wrong. (T=T) = (F=F)
(both (T=T) and (F=F) evaluate to T).

T ≠ F.

 

[The Man]

I am talking about the truth value called F, which is a short notation of F self-reference, which is a comparison of a value to itself.

No you are just talking nonsense as (F = F) is TRUE just as (F ≠ F) is FALSE. So (F ≠ F) would be your “F self-reference” for which “a short notation of” would be FALSE.

In other words, it is True that F is False, and it is False that F is True and you simply can't get it because you do not understand Comparison as the basis of truth values.

Yes, it is simply and trivially “True that F is False, and it is False that F is True” just as it is simply and trivially TRUE that F is ~T and it is FALSE that F is ~F. Negation is the basis of those truth values and their mutual dependence by that operation of negation. Your requirement for “comparison”, which is superfluous in that regard, is yours and yours alone.

@=@ means that we are dealing with a one truth value, where in T≠F we are dealing with two truth values.

Your claim that "dealing with two truth values" = "dealing with a one truth value", is False.

I have made no such claim, but do not forget that the values of TRUE and FALSE are mutually dependent by negation. It is that mutual dependence by negation that you still seem unable to comprehend.

You still don't get it. I am talking about thuth values, when you are talking about the value of expressions that are based on truth values. In other words, you are not talking about the fundamental level of the very existence of truth values.

Instead you are talking about the expressions, which are the results of the use of truth values.

You still don’t get it, those truth values are the values of expressions. One of the simplest of those expressions is TRUE which (unlike your assertions) is a “short notation of”, or simplified expression of, ~FALSE just as FALSE is a simplified expression of ~TRUE.

You do not get Comparison, which is the common principle of both DC and SC.

Obviously, like most, I “get Comparison” far better then you. That it is “the common principle of both” your “DC and SC” in no way detracts from the fact that you are simply ignoring that your “Difference comparison” is the only basis for your claim that a “Sameness comparison (1 = 1) ≠ Difference comparison (1 ≠ 0)”.

Without C, D or S are not researchable, because D is total connectivity and S is total isolation.

Don’t you mean your “D” (Difference) “is total isolation” and your “S” (Sameness) “is total connectivity”?

Not that it matters much anyway (as has been pointed out before) even if “D” (Difference) “is total isolation” everything would still have that “total isolation” aspect as their “Sameness”. Just as if “S” (Sameness) “is total isolation” then that “total isolation” aspect would be the only “Sameness”, any other aspect would be a, well, “Difference”

 

[doronshadmi]

No you are just talking nonsense as (F = F) is TRUE just as (F ≠ F) is FALSE. So (F ≠ F) would be your “F self-reference” for which “a short notation of” would be FALSE.

You are using the second level of Two-valued Logic that is not the ontological level of Two-valued Logic (you are not at the building-blocks level).

As long as you do that, you are talking to yourself, and do not get a single word of what I say.

F exists only by comparison, where F is a short notation of F=F (or T≠T) comparison.

T exists only by comparison, where T is a short notation of T=T (or F≠F) comparison.

At the ontological level of Two-valued logic F≠F is actually T=T and T≠T is actually F=F (F≠F or T≠T are called non-equal self-referential comparisons, which are equel to the opposite self-referential comparisons).

A comparison of different truth values does not deal with the ontological aspect of T or F existence.

Yes, it is simply and trivially “True that F is False, and it is False that F is True” just as it is simply and trivially TRUE that F is ~T and it is FALSE that F is ~F. Negation is the basis of those truth values and their mutual dependence by that operation of negation. Your requirement for “comparison”, which is superfluous in that regard, is yours and yours alone.

Again, from the ontological level of Two-valued Logic F is a short notation of F=F comparison.

~T or ~F are short notations of (T=T)≠(F=F), (T≠T) or (F≠F), so as you see ~T or ~F do not provide a strict information at the ontological level.

I have made no such claim, but do not forget that the values of TRUE and FALSE are mutually dependent by negation. It is that mutual dependence by negation that you still seem unable to comprehend.

Again, there is no researchable thing without comparison, so negation is simply ≠ relation between different or same elements.

You still don’t get it, those truth values are the values of expressions. One of the simplest of those expressions is TRUE which (unlike your assertions) is a “short notation of”, or simplified expression of, ~FALSE just as FALSE is a simplified expression of ~TRUE.

No, the expressions are using the truth values.

I am talking about the existence of truth values, before they are used by some expression, and this is exactly what you and your friends do not get.

Obviously, like most, I “get Comparison” far better then you. That it is “the common principle of both” your “DC and SC” in no way detracts from the fact that you are simply ignoring that your “Difference comparison” is the only basis for your claim that a “Sameness comparison (1 = 1) ≠ Difference comparison (1 ≠ 0)”.

Again you are talking from the level of expressions, and not from the level of the building-blocks that enable these expressions in the first place.

Don’t you mean your “D” (Difference) “is total isolation” and your “S” (Sameness) “is total connectivity”?

Not that it matters much anyway (as has been pointed out before) even if “D” (Difference) “is total isolation” everything would still have that “total isolation” aspect as their “Sameness”. Just as if “S” (Sameness) “is total isolation” then that “total isolation” aspect would be the only “Sameness”, any other aspect would be a, well, “Difference”

This is another example of not getting things from the ontological level of this subject.

As long as you are at the level of the expressions that are using the building-blocks, you are not dealing with the level of the building-blocks that actually enable the existence of the expressions that you are talking about.

Please read very carefully http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5375429&postcount=7248.

 

[doronshadmi]

Wrong. (T=T) = (F=F)
(both (T=T) and (F=F) evaluate to T).

T ≠ F.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5377366&postcount=7251

 

[The Man]

You are using the second level of Two-valued Logic that is not the ontological base of Two-valued Logic (you are not at the building-blocks level).

Wait, so you invent a “second level of Two-valued Logic” ascription to lable others with since you simply can not operate within the constraints of two values that are the negations of each other. In case you keep missing it the “building-blocks level” of two valued logic is two values that are the negations of each other.

As long as you do that, you are talking to yourself, and do not get a single word of what I say.

As long as you just keep making up ascriptions like “using the second level of Two-valued” to simply dismiss others you are just confirming that you have absolutely no interest in examining your notions.

F exists only by comparison, where F is a short notation of F=F (or T≠T) comparison.

T exists only by comparison, where T is a short notation of T=T (or F≠F) comparison.

So F or T “exists only by comparison” involving F or T, try looking up circular reasoning. While your at it why don’t you finally define what you mean by “exists”.

At the ontological level of Two-valued logic F≠F is actually T=T and T≠T is actually F=F.

So now you are claiming “At the ontological level of Two-valued logic” TRUE is actually FALSE and FALSE is actually TRUE, again how surprising.

A comparison of different truth values is not at the ontological level of T or F existence.

You just sticking the word “ontological” into your sentances does not make them any less nonsensical gibberish.

Again, from the ontological base of Two-valued Logic F is a short notation of F=F comparison.

~T or ~F are short notations of (T=T)≠(F=F).

Again F=F is TRUE, if you want to claim that “Again, from the ontological base of Two-valued Logic F is a short notation of F=F comparison.” then that is simply your limitation.

Again, there is no researchable thing without comparison, so negation is simply ≠ relation between different or same elements.

No Doron negation (~) and not equally to (≠) are distinct, self-consistent, generally consistent and well defined, unlike any of your notions.

No, the expressions are using the truth values.

I am talking about the existence of truth values, before they are used by some expression, and this is exactly what you and your friennds do not get.

Until you define what you mean by “existence” it still remains without meaning within this discussion and this is exactly what you and, well, just you do not get.

Again you are talking from the level of expressions, and not from the level of the building-blocks that enable these expressions in the first place.

Again you are only talking nonsensical gibberish.

This is another example of not getting things from the ontological base of this subject.

As long as you are at the level of the expressions that are using the building-blocks, you are not dealing with the level of the building-blocks that actually enable the existence of the expressions that you are talking about.

Please read very carefully http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5375429&postcount=7248.

This is another example of you just inserting the word “ontological” because you thing it sounds important. As long as you are at the level of nonsensical gibberish you are simply not going to be able to effectively express what you are trying to talk about. Please read carefully any standard reference on two valued logic and if you still feel the need to make the same nonsensical gibberish self-contradictory assertions you have been, then go back and read it again.

 

[doronshadmi]

The Man,

You are talking to yourself as long as you do not get Comparison as the core of reasoning.

I gave a very simple notation of this core, that is based on a comparison of an element to itself and a comparison of different elements:

[qimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2554/4149358437_87f574fa79_o.jpg[/qimg]

"X is itself" is not circular reasoning, but it is a must have term of researchability.

"X is-not itself" means that X is anything that is-not itself, and in the case of Two-valued logic, it must be the opposite option.

A comparison of different truth values does not deal with the ontological aspect of T or F self reseachability.

As long as you are not working at the ontological level of this subject, you will continue to mix between the "using level" and the "ontological level", as you do, for example, in this case:

So now you are claiming “At the ontological level of Two-valued logic” TRUE is actually FALSE and FALSE is actually TRUE, again how surprising.

 

[jsfisher]

Can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5367241&postcount=7214 , isn't jsfisher?

You really need to learn to use words, doronshadmi. Your kindergarten scrawlings do not convey what you think they do. Add to that you continue to misunderstand what self-reference really means, and you are left presenting a combination of visual and textual gibberish.

 

[jsfisher]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5377366&postcount=7251

Thank you for pointing us back to that post. Yes, it is still wrong.

 

[ddt]

You are using the second level of Two-valued Logic that is not the ontological level of Two-valued Logic (you are not at the building-blocks level).

When you're still playing with Legos. it's unwise to try to use posh Greek words.

 

[doronshadmi]

You really need to learn to use words, doronshadmi. Your kindergarten scrawlings do not convey what you think they do. Add to that you continue to misunderstand what self-reference really means, and you are left presenting a combination of visual and textual gibberish.

You really have to learn notions, no matter if they are represented by visual or textual style.

Abstraction is exactly the ability to get X independently of its representation, and you jsfisher fail all along this thread to do that.

you continue to misunderstand what self-reference really means,

The fundamental form of self-reference is "X is itself".

Any other self-reference form is a variation of this straightforward form.

 

[jsfisher]

The fundamental form of self-reference is "X is itself".

Maybe you can get a new English dictionary for Hanukkah. The one you are using appears to be broken.

 

[The Man]

The Man,

You are talking to yourself as long as you do not get Comparison as the core of reasoning.

Actually I am talking to everyone who reads this thread, whether that includes you or not is entirely up to you.

I gave a very simple notation of this core, that is based on a comparison of an element to itself and a comparison of different elements:


[qimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2554/4149358437_87f574fa79_o.jpg[/qimg]

No you just made a drawing that simply demonstrates that you are just deluding yourself if you think it shows or (as you have claimed) proves anything other than that you are simply deluding yourself.

"X is itself" is not circular reasoning, but it is a must have term of researchability.

“X is itself" is a tautology, but your circular reasoning is clearly demonstrated by the “notation” you just mentioned as your equal signs have become, well, circular.

"X is-not itself" means that X is anything that is-not itself, and in the case of Two-valued logic, it must be the opposite option.

"X is-not itself" is a contradiction, but again your circular reasoning is clearly demonstrated by the other “notation” you have previously presented where your not equal signs have also become, well, circular.

A comparison of different truth values does not deal with the ontological aspect of T or F self reseachability.


As long as you are not working at the ontological level of this subject, you will continue to mix between the "using level" and the "ontological level", as you do, for example, in this case:

Still just you stringing words together, Doron, and hoping you might say something meaningful to someone. Your own diagrams clearly demonstrate your “ontological level” reasoning as simply circular. That you assert above otherwise while presenting a “notation” where your “ontological level” “self reseachability” “comparisons” are represented (by you) as being, well, circular, simply confirms you are only deluding yourself.

 

[doronshadmi]

Actually I am talking to everyone who reads this thread, whether that includes you or not is entirely up to you.

In this case you are talking to yourself because you do not get things from the ontological level.

No you just made a drawing that simply demonstrates that you are just deluding yourself if you think it shows or (as you have claimed) proves anything other than that you are simply deluding yourself.

You do not understandthis drawing because you do not use an ontological view of it.

“X is itself" is a tautology, but your circular reasoning is clearly demonstrated by the “notation” you just mentioned as your equal signs have become, well, circular.

No, teutology is the result of things that are themselves by self-reference at the ontological level.

"X is-not itself" is a contradiction, but again your circular reasoning is clearly demonstrated by the other “notation” you have previously presented where your not equal signs have also become, well, circular.

No, at the ontological level "X is-not itself" means that X is the other option, exactly as ~F is T and ~T is F.

 

[The Man]

In this case you are talking to yourself because you do not get things from the ontological level.

Once again I am talking to anyone who reads this thread and at this moment that specifically includes you, since you have chosen to respond to what I posted.

You do not understandthis drawing because you do not use an ontological view of it.

Apparently you simply do not understand that circles are circular and by representing your “reasoning” with such circular “notations” you are affirming (perhaps if only subconsciously) the circularity of your own “reasoning”.

No, teutology is the result of things that are themselves by self-reference at the ontological level.

Wait, first you say “No” then assert that it is a tautology (without being able to spell tautology)? Again you simply inserting your latest catch phrases “ontological level” or “ontological view” in to your nonsensical gibberish assertions does not magically imbue them with any validity or meaning.

No, at the ontological level "X is-not itself" means that X is the other option, exactly as ~F is T and ~T is F.

If “X is the other option” then still “X is itself” as that other option. If “X” is T then “X” is not the other option or ~F. If “X” is F then “X” is not the other option or ~T. Again simply inserting “at the ontological level” into your nonsensical gibberish in no way detracts from the simple and trivial fact that you still have difficulty just understanding negation.