Deeper than primes

doronshadmi · Dec 14, 2009

jsfisher said:
Still utterly wrong.

Take, for example, the universe of [A, B, C, D]. In this realm, B is an example of "anything but A". However, B is not ~A. [B, C, D] is.

If the universe is [A, B, C, D] then:

~(=A) --> =B OR =C OR =D

Negation is a particular case of ~ under a 2-valued system of opposites, for example:

~(=T) --> =F , ~(=F) --> =T

You force some particular case of ~ in order to understand the general meanning of ~.

doronshadmi · Dec 14, 2009

The Man said:
You have yourself claimed above that “~("Something","Nothing") = ()”, meaning that by your own assertion your “I/O” is not different.

Another thing.

Input of I/O is only the operand and Output of I/O is only the result of the operand.

In other words ~ or = operators are not parts of the --> comparison between Input and Output.

~P is: Output is anything but the operand (the Input) of ~ operator.

=P is: Output is the same as the operand (Input) of = operator.

jsfisher · Dec 14, 2009

doronshadmi said:
If the universe is [A, B, C, D] then:

~(=A) --> =B OR =C OR =D

What possible value do you think those equal signs add? Why are you using an implication symbol where you seem to mean equivalence. Are you so ingrained in gibberish that everything needs to be convoluted into nonsense?

Be that as it may, the complement of A is not any one of three things. It is all of them.

Learn some real mathematics before you try to reinvent it.

doronshadmi · Dec 14, 2009

jsfisher said:
What possible value do you think those equal signs add? Why are you using an implication symbol where you seem to mean equivalence. Are you so ingrained in gibberish that everything needs to be convoluted into nonsense?

Be that as it may, the complement of A is not any one of three things. It is all of them.

Learn some real mathematics before you try to reinvent it.

"=A" is a short way to write: "Input =(A) is the same as the Output of =(A)".

"~A" is a short way to write: "Input ~(A) is different than the Output of ~(A)".

= is the operator of sameness.

~ is the operator of difference.

EDIT:

--> is the comparison between Input and Output, whether they are the same or different.

jsfisher said:
Be that as it may, the complement of A is not any one of three things. It is all of them.

Only if we deal with a finite amount of things.

Again, if X is an infinite collection, then ~X is anything but X, which means that X is incomplete, as long as it is not complemented by another thing, which is also incomplete. Since both X and its complement are incomplete, it is wrong to use the term "all" w.r.t them.

For example:

Both 0.999...[base 10] and 0.000...1[base 10] are incomplete as long as they are not complement each other to 1.

jsfisher · Dec 14, 2009

doronshadmi said:
"=A" is a short way to write: "Input =(A) is the same as the Output of =(A)".

"~A" is a short way to write: "Input ~(A) is different than the Output of ~(A)".

Recurse much?

= is the operator of sameness.

~ is the operator of difference.

Ok, let's translate the original gibberish using our newly arrived doron-to-doron translator:

doronshadmi said:
~(=A) --> =B OR =C OR =D

...becomes:

Input difference (Input sameness (A) is the same as the Output of sameness (A)) is different than the Output of difference (Input sameness (A) is the same as the Output of sameness (A)) implies Input sameness (B) is the same as the Output of sameness (B) or Input sameness (C) is the same as the Output of sameness (C) or Input sameness (D) is the same as the Output of sameness (D).

Yes, that's much clearer.

doronshadmi · Dec 14, 2009

jsfisher said:
Ok, let's translate the original gibberish using our newly arrived doron-to-doron translator:

...becomes:

Input difference (Input sameness (A) is the same as the Output of sameness (A)) is different than the Output of difference (Input sameness (A) is the same as the Output of sameness (A)) implies Input sameness (B) is the same as the Output of sameness (B) or Input sameness (C) is the same as the Output of sameness (C) or Input sameness (D) is the same as the Output of sameness (D).
.

Nonsense.

~(=A) --> =B OR =C OR =D means:

"In universe [A,B,C,D] the Input of ~ operator (which is self id A) is different than the output (which are self ids B, C or D)".

jsfisher · Dec 14, 2009

doronshadmi said:
Nonsense.

I just used the translation you provided. If the result is nonsense, and we all seem to agree it is, then the fault is purely yours.

Would you like to try again at telling us what your glyphs mean?

The Man · Dec 14, 2009

doronshadmi said:
Again, ~ means “anything but” the input.

If input is P then output is anything but P.

In "P ~= ~P" or "P = P" you do not compare between P and anything but P.

You simply do not distinguish between sameness(=) and difference(~) operators.

As a result you do not understand that negation is some paticular case of ~ operator under the particular case of 2 opposite values (For example: True\False (please see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5410062&postcount=7481)).

“~("Something","Nothing") = ()” is an indirect way to say that =() --> =()

“~("Something","Nothing") = ()" is not the same as "~("Something","Nothing") --> =()", where ~ means that the output is anything but the input.

In other words "-->" is different than "=" OR "~", and used as the comparison between input and output, whether they are different or the same.

You simply do not distinguish between facts and your imagination.

The negation of the numerical value 0 (~0) is 0. Your “input” and “output” are the same, thus your assertions are simply nonsense.

The Man · Dec 14, 2009

doronshadmi said:
Another thing.

Input of I/O is only the operand and Output of I/O is only the result of the operand.

In other words ~ or = operators are not parts of the --> comparison between Input and Output.

Wait so now your operators and comparisons are not “parts” of your operations or comparisons. You have sunk to a new low Doron. It seems no matter how low I sent the bar for you; you just have to try and limbo your way under it.

Lets take the case of “not equal to” or the negation of “equal to” your input is “=” your output is “~=”. So what was it again that you claimed was not “part” of your “input” or “output”?

doronshadmi said:
~P is: Output is anything but the operand (the Input) of ~ operator.

No “~” specifically denotes the negation of the operand.

doronshadmi said:
=P is: Output is the same as the operand (Input) of = operator.

No “=” specifically denotes equality and that equality may only be in some particular aspect.

doronshadmi · Dec 15, 2009

The Man said:
The negation of the numerical value 0 (~0) is 0. Your “input” and “output” are the same, thus your assertions are simply nonsense.

- is numerical operation, which is different than ~ (anything but the Input) operation.

If our unuverse is [0,@], then:

~(=0) --> =@

~(=@) --> =0

~(=@,=0) --> =() (which is a result beyond [0,@] universe).

~() --> =@ or =0

If your universe is [0, ], then:

~(=()) --> =0

~(=0) --> =()

~(=0,=()) --> =@ (which is a result beyond [0, ] universe).

The Man said:
No “~” specifically denotes the negation of the operand

Indeed the ~ of the operand (the Input) is different than the result (the output),
and it can be known only by I/O comparison (notated by -->).

The Man said:
No “=” specifically denotes equality and that equality may only be in some particular aspect.

Indeed the = of the operand (the Input) is the same as the result (the output),
and it can be known only by I/O comparison (notated by -->).

The Man said:
Wait so now your operators and comparisons are not “parts” of your operations or comparisons.

Input or Output are elements of = or ~ operators, where in the case of = operator I/O is the same, and in the case of ~ operator I/O is different.

In both cases I/O comparison (notated by -->) is used.

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

Both 0.999...[base 10] and 0.000...1[base 10] are incomplete as long as they are not complement each other to 1.

The reason that 0.999...[base 10] or 0.000...1[base 10] are incomplete, is as follows:

The local aspect of the complex 0.999...[base 10] prevents the ability of this complex to be 1 (we are under infinite extrapolation), exactly as the non-local aspect of complex 0.000...1[base 10] prevents the ability of this complex to be 0 (we are under infinite interpolation).

doronshadmi · Dec 15, 2009

jsfisher said:
I just used the translation you provided.

You just used the translation you provided, which is not OM system.

doronshadmi · Dec 15, 2009

The Man said:
Lets take the case of “not equal to” or the negation of “equal to” your input is “=” your output is “~=”. So what was it again that you claimed was not “part” of your “input” or “output”?

If our universe is [=,~] then:

~(=) --> ~

~(~) --> =

~(~,=) --> ()

~() --> ~ OR =

In each case I/O is different.

jsfisher · Dec 15, 2009

doronshadmi said:
You just used the translation you provided, which is not OM system.

After you finish with the kindergarten retorts from the playground, please do show where I mistranslated based on your very statements of what you meant by the symbols.

doronshadmi · Dec 15, 2009

jsfisher said:
After you finish with the kindergarten retorts from the playground, please do show where I mistranslated based on your very statements of what you meant by the symbols.

Already shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5410813&postcount=7486.

The Man · Dec 15, 2009

doronshadmi said:
- is numerical operation, which is different than ~ (anything but the Input) operation.

- and ~ both represent negation “which is different than” your “(anything but the Input) operation”.

doronshadmi said:
If our unuverse is [0,@], then:

~(=0) --> =@

~(=@) --> =0

~(=@,=0) --> =() (which is a result beyond [0,@] universe).

~() --> =@ or =0

If your universe is [0, ], then:

~(=()) --> =0

~(=0) --> =()

~(=0,=()) --> =@ (which is a result beyond [0, ] universe).

Why do you keep trying to limit your “universe” to just two values?

doronshadmi said:
Indeed the ~ of the operand (the Input) is different than the result (the output),
and it can be known only by I/O comparison (notated by -->).

As already shown the negation of 0 is 0. “~” is a mutually dependent relation, your “comparison (notated by -->)” is superfluous.

doronshadmi said:
Indeed the = of the operand (the Input) is the same as the result (the output),
and it can be known only by I/O comparison (notated by -->).

Again “=” only denotes equality perhaps only in some specific aspect, it is a comparative assertion, your “comparison (notated by -->)” is superfluous.

doronshadmi said:
Input or Output are elements of = or ~ operators, where in the case of = operator I/O is the same, and in the case of ~ operator I/O is different.

Already shown to be simply false.

doronshadmi said:
In both cases I/O comparison (notated by -->) is used.

Already shown to be entirely extraneous and superfluous.

doronshadmi said:
-------------------------------------------

Both 0.999...[base 10] and 0.000...1[base 10] are incomplete as long as they are not complement each other to 1.

The reason that 0.999...[base 10] or 0.000...1[base 10] are incomplete, is as follows:

The local aspect of the complex 0.999...[base 10] prevents the ability of this complex to be 1 (we are under infinite extrapolation), exactly as the non-local aspect of complex 0.000...1[base 10] prevents the ability of this complex to be 0 (we are under infinite interpolation).

Simply nonsense

doronshadmi said:
If our universe is [=,~] then:

~(=) --> ~

~(~) --> =

~(~,=) --> ()

~() --> ~ OR =

In each case I/O is different.

Why do you keep trying to limit your “universe” to just two values?

doronshadmi · Dec 15, 2009

The Man said:
- and ~ both represent negation “which is different than” your “(anything but the Input) operation”.

- is a numerical operator.

~ is “anything but the input” operator.

The Man said:
Why do you keep trying to limit your “universe” to just two values?

= or ~ are not limited by any amount of operands.

The Man said:
As already shown the negation of 0 is 0. “~” is a mutually dependent relation, your “comparison (notated by -->)” is superfluous.

You simply do not distinguish between – and ~. Also you do not understand that without I/O comparison there is no researchable universe.

The Man said:
Again “=” only denotes equality perhaps only in some specific aspect, it is a comparative assertion, your “comparison (notated by -->)” is superfluous.

= is the sameness operator, where ~ is the difference operator, where the number of operands have no significance. Again you do not understand that without I/O comparison there is no researchable universe.

The Man said:
Already shown to be simply false.

Worng.

The Man said:
Already shown to be entirely extraneous and superfluous.

Wrong again.

The Man said:
Simply nonsense

Simply inability to understand.

The Man said:
Why do you keep trying to limit your “universe” to just two values?

Again, = or ~ are not limited by any amount of operands.

Little 10 Toes · Dec 15, 2009

doronshadmi said:
Nonsense.

~(=A) --> =B OR =C OR =D means:

"In universe [A,B,C,D] the Input of ~ operator (which is self id A) is different than the output (which are self ids B, C or D)".

Back track much doronshadmi? He translated your "phrase" using the definitions that you provided. If you find fault in his translation, redefine your terms.

Let's clarify, which definition are you using for "=A" :

self identification A (usedby you here)
Input =(A) is the same as the Output of =(A) (used by you here)

The Man · Dec 15, 2009

doronshadmi said:
- is a numerical operator.

~ is “anything but the input” operator.

So you are claiming ~3 is not the same as to -3? If not, then how do they differ.

Are you claiming your ““anything but the input” operator” does not work with numerals?

Since ~ and – are both established symbols of negation which is not your “““anything but the input” operator” you should come up with your own symbol for your anything but operator.

doronshadmi said:
-
= or ~ are not limited by any amount of operands.

Who said anything about the number of operands?

The question was why do you keep trying to limit your “universe” to just two values?

doronshadmi said:
You simply do not distinguish between – and ~. Also you do not understand that without I/O comparison there is no researchable universe.

So you are claiming that ~3 ≠ -3, that still refutes your ““anything but the input” operator” claim since -3 is “anything but” 3

If you are referring to the binary operator of subtraction, also represented by “-“, you could just say so. However, as the negation of the binary operator of addition “+”, the operation of subtraction or more specifically the subtraction of a numeric value is just the addition of the negation of that numeric value.

Your entire problem stems again from you misusing an established symbol like “~” which specifically represents negation for your “““anything but the input” operator”, instead of you just coming up with your own symbol.

doronshadmi said:
= is the sameness operator, where ~ is the difference operator, where the number of operands have no significance. Again you do not understand that without I/O comparison there is no researchable universe.

Who said anything about the number of operands?

You do not understand that your “I/O comparison” is simply superfluous for a comparative assertion like “=” as well as for an operation like “~” where your “output” is specifically and entirely dependent on your “input”. Just because you do not understand those symbols and thus require some “I/O comparison” does not imbue everyone else with you failings.

doronshadmi said:
Worng.

So you’re claiming 0 is not the same as 0?

doronshadmi said:
Wrong again.

Well other then having already show before and again above that your claims about negation are simply wrong, you have yet to show any need or use for your “I/O comparison” in the case of negation other than your simple need for it since you simply do not understand negation. So use your “I/O comparison” all you want, no one else needs it for negation.

doronshadmi said:
Simply inability to understand.

Irony again Doron?

doronshadmi said:
Again, = or ~ are not limited by any amount of operands.

Who said anything about the number of operands?

The question was why do you keep trying to limit your “universe” to just two values?

jsfisher · Dec 15, 2009

doronshadmi said:
Already shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5410813&postcount=7486.

It is in this post where you provide the translations for your symbol usage. Please note that that is post #7484 and not post #7486.

Moreover, the post you cite in no way contradicts the translation I posted based on post #7484.

Please show how I misapplied your gibberish from post #7484, or retract your bogus accusation.

The Man · Dec 16, 2009

doronshadmi said:
If our unuverse is [0,@], then:

~(=0) --> =@

~(=@) --> =0

~(=@,=0) --> =() (which is a result beyond [0,@] universe).

~() --> =@ or =0

Oh, by the way, in your [0,@] two value system ~(=0,=@) would result in the set (~=0, ~=@) or just (=@,=0). By the distibutivity of negation in such systems and since you note "~(=0) --> =@" as well as "~(=@) --> =0" in your above mentioned system. Thus ~(=0,=@) results in the same set, unless ordering distinctions are considered and we have already established that your OM does not consider ordering distinctions.

jsfisher · Dec 16, 2009

We seem to be using the tilde to mean multiple things. Some of use are using it as a negation operator from logic and extending it to arithmetic (making it equivalent to the unary minus).

I've been taking it to mean complementation in the collection sense. ~A is U-A where U is the universe for the collection. It reduces to negation for logic, but it gives a different result for non-binary universes such as that of the integers.

Doron, on the third hand, has been using it as some sort of non-deterministic operator. Well, except that he has told us unary operators mean nothing, and he is seldom clear on the domain.

I don't really care which of the first two meanings we prefer, but we should settle on one. The third is just useless tripe that doron cannot define.

The Man · Dec 16, 2009

jsfisher said:
We seem to be using the tilde to mean multiple things. Some of use are using it as a negation operator from logic and extending it to arithmetic (making it equivalent to the unary minus).

I've been taking it to mean complementation in the collection sense. ~A is U-A where U is the universe for the collection. It reduces to negation for logic, but it gives a different result for non-binary universes such as that of the integers.

Say isn’t Doron’s “~” all about different results (at least from his input)?

jsfisher said:
Doron, on the third hand, has been using it as some sort of non-deterministic operator. Well, except that he has told us unary operators mean nothing, and he is seldom clear on the domain.

I don't really care which of the first two meanings we prefer, but we should settle on one. The third is just useless tripe that doron cannot define.

Well, not in Doron’s defense, but he is (or caims to be) using it to represent “not” or negation in the, as he puts it, ontological sense. In that regard it simply denies the existence of something and much like in the complement collection sense you remark to, if you deny the existence of one value or subtract (remove) that vaule from the U set, all that remains is the complement of the other values. Thus his denial of existence of all values in that universe results in no values. I tried to explain this to him before, but he specifically denied or negated that application and consideration.

I certainly agree that we have been using the symbol differently; my intent has been to simply show that his claims about negation being a particular two value aspect of his “anything but” are simply false. As you note above negation in the collection sense is still negation and as I have tried to explain before negation in the ontological sense is again still negation, but represents a denial of existence that he seems not to ontologically understand.

Perhaps we can modify the symbol to certain degrees to indentify those particular uses and certainly if Doron is proposing a use beyond or other than the application of negation in those regards he should present and define his own symbol.

doronshadmi · Dec 16, 2009

jsfisher said:
It is in this post where you provide the translations for your symbol usage. Please note that that is post #7484 and not post #7486.

Moreover, the post you cite in no way contradicts the translation I posted based on post #7484.

Please show how I misapplied your gibberish from post #7484, or retract your bogus accusation.

Again,

"=A" is a short way to write: "Input =(A) is the same as the Output of =(A)".

An example: =(A) --> =(same as A)

"~A" is a short way to write: "Input ~(A) is different than the Output of ~(A)".

An example: ~(A) --> =(different than A)

= is the operator of sameness.

~ is the operator of difference.

Some universe is [A,B,C,D]

~(=A) --> =B OR =C OR =D means:

"In universe [A,B,C,D] the Input of ~ operator (which is self id A) is different than the output (which are self ids B, C or D)".

doronshadmi · Dec 16, 2009

jsfisher said:
...unary operators mean nothing,...

Unary operator "=" simply saves the identity of the considered operand.

doronshadmi · Dec 16, 2009

The Man said:
Perhaps we can modify the symbol to certain degrees to indentify those particular uses and certainly if Doron is proposing a use beyond or other than the application of negation in those regards he should present and define his own symbol.

Ontological view of X is taking X and understand it at the level of the nature of its being, before it is used for some purpose.

By the ontological view of ~, ~ operator is resulted exactly by anything but the operand, such that I/O is different.

We can take this “I/O is different” fact and define a 2-valued system of opposites, where under this kind of universe ~ is called Negation simply because there is no other alternative under this particular system, for example:

If the 2-valued system of opposites is [T,F] then:

~(=T) --> =F

~(=F) --> =T

The Man claims that tautology is meaningless (he is wrong because tautology is simply X's self Id) but let us use his claim in order to show how he actually tries to reduce everything to tautology (which is meaningless by his own claim).

According to The Man's reduction:

(P ~= ~P) = (~P ~= P) = (P = P) = (~P = ~P) or in other words according to The Man anything is actually reduced to meaningless tautology, such that no new result exists beyond operand P.

According to this reasoning The Man actually claims that our reasoning is a closed system of mutually dependent propositions such that:

~(~P) = P and =(~P) = ~P

In other words, by rejecting ~ as “anything but” operator, The Man is closed under his own meaningless tautology of mutually dependent framework.

Hilbert's program, which its aim is to define the consistency of X within X, is actually the reduction of the mathematical science to X=X tautology, where X is a deductive framework (“anything but X” is ignored).

Gödel, by using the formalism of Hilbert explicitly showed that anything but X cannot be ignored if X enables to deal with Arithmetic, but the current community of mathematicians do not understand his results exactly because they do not understand ~ operator as “anything but”.

By using mutually independent framework, where mutual means self Id and independent means “anything but” some Id, we actually define a framework where both sameness AND difference are its fundamental properties.

Any way, in both “mutually dependent” or “mutually independent” frameworks, Researchability is possibly only if Input is compared with Output (notated by -->) no matter if the conclusion of the comparison is Sameness or Difference, because OM is a framework that uses both conclusions under a one comprehensive framework, which is the complex balance between Sameness AND Difference.

In other words, the mathematical science is not deductive-only framework.

jsfisher · Dec 16, 2009

doronshadmi said:
Unary operator "=" simply saves the identity of the considered operand.

(1) Equal isn't a unary operator.
(2) The identity of the operand didn't need saving.

jsfisher · Dec 16, 2009

doronshadmi said:
Again...

Repeating the content of earlier posts doesn't address the issue. Please show exactly how I misapplied your gibberish in producing the translation I posted.

I claim I faithfully substituted definition for defined exactly as you prescribed. Where do you claim I did that incorrectly?

doronshadmi · Dec 16, 2009

jsfisher said:
(1) Equal isn't a unary operator.
(2) The identity of the operand didn't need saving.

(1) At the ontological level = is a unary operator, such that =X means: "X is itself" (I/O is the same).

At the ontological level ~ is a binary operator, such that ~X means: "Anything but X" (I/O is different).

(2) Any operand is exactly =X.

doronshadmi · Dec 16, 2009

jsfisher said:
repeating the content of earlier posts doesn't address the issue. Please show exactly how i misapplied your gibberish in producing the translation i posted.

I claim i faithfully substituted definition for defined exactly as you prescribed. Where do you claim i did that incorrectly?

jsfisher said:
input difference (input sameness (a) is the same as the output of sameness (a)) is different than the output of difference (input sameness (a) is the same as the output of sameness (a)) implies input sameness (b) is the same as the output of sameness (b) or input sameness (c) is the same as the output of sameness (c) or input sameness (d) is the same as the output of sameness (d).

Yes, that's much clearer.

(~(=(a) --> =a) --> =(=(b) --> =b) or =(=(c) --> =c) or =(=(d) --> =d)) = (~(=a) --> =b or =c or =d) , so what is exactly clearer in your bla bla translation?

jsfisher · Dec 16, 2009

doronshadmi said:
(1) At the ontological level = is a unary operator, such that =X means: "X is itself" (I/O is the same).

No, it was just some unnecessary bit of nonsense you have invented. You made it up. It is a fabrication. It is trivial.

At the ontological level ~ is a binary operator, such that ~X means: "Anything but X" (I/O is different).

And here you go well beyond the bounds of irrelevant invention into the land of irrational redefinition. Please leave the meaning of "binary operator" alone. It is not your term to redefine.

jsfisher · Dec 16, 2009

doronshadmi said:
(~(=(a) --> =a) --> =(=(b) --> =b) or =(=(c) --> =c) or =(=(d) --> =d)) = (~(=a) --> =b or =c or =d) , so?

The so is that what you provided doesn't follow at all from what you previously wrote. For example, you wrote this:

"=A" is a short way to write: "Input =(A) is the same as the Output of =(A)".

So, we can use your definition for "=A" to translate "~(=A)" into the wholly remarkable "~(Input =(A) is the same as the Output of =(A))." I'll leave completing the translation as an exercise.

doronshadmi · Dec 16, 2009

jsfisher said:
The so is that what you provided doesn't follow at all from what you previously wrote. For example, you wrote this:

So, we can use your definition for "=A" to translate "~(=A)" into the wholly remarkable "~(Input =(A) is the same as the Output of =(A))." I'll leave completing the translation as an exercise.

You wrote:

jsfisher said:
“input difference (input sameness (a) is the same as the output of sameness (a)) is different than the output of difference (input sameness (a) is the same as the output of sameness (a))”

is:

(~(=(A) --> =A) ~= =(=(A) --> =A)) , so what exactly do you wish to say?

I wrote:

doronshadmi said:
"=A" is a short way to write: "Input =(A) is the same as the Output of =(A)".

is:

=(=(A) --> =A)

Find the difference.

jsfisher · Dec 16, 2009

doronshadmi said:
...so what exactly do you wish to say?

I have already said it: Your so-called definitions create more gibberish, not less. This is a fact demonstrated most handily by simply applying your definitions to examples you provide.

doronshadmi · Dec 16, 2009

jsfisher said:
I have already said it: Your so-called definitions create more gibberish, not less. This is a fact demonstrated most handily by simply applying your definitions to examples you provide.

The gibberish is up to you.

Anyone can write ~~~~~~A iinstead of =A, so?

The fact is that without I/O comparison you have no researchable framework.

EDIT: Do you get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5418456&postcount=7505?

The Man · Dec 16, 2009

doronshadmi said:
Ontological view of X is taking X and understand it at the level of the nature of its being, before it is used for some purpose.

What, so “taking X” to “understand it at the level of the nature of its being” is not using “X” “for some purpose” like to “understand it at the level of the nature of its being”? Again you simply contradict yourself with your opening statement.

doronshadmi said:
By the ontological view of ~, ~ operator is resulted exactly by anything but the operand, such that I/O is different.

As jsfisher has already noted, the collection complementation application of negation results in everything in the universal collection but the negated operand, not anything.

doronshadmi said:
We can take this “I/O is different” fact and define a 2-valued system of opposites, where under this kind of universe ~ is called Negation simply because there is no other alternative under this particular system, for example:

If the 2-valued system of opposites is [T,F] then:

~(=T) --> =F

~(=F) --> =T

~ always represents negation, however the resulting range may differ based on the domain of the application.

doronshadmi said:
The Man claims that tautology is meaningless (he is wrong because tautology is simply X's self Id) but let us use his claim in order to show how he actually tries to reduce everything to tautology (which is meaningless by his own claim).

Doron, I have specifically stated time and time again that a tautology means that the truth value of a statement does not depend on the truth values within that statement. It is always true just as a contradiction is always false regardless of the values within that statement. You can not “reduce” some statement to a tautology that is not already a tautology. Your claim that “he actually tries to reduce everything to tautology” is simply false and nonsense.

doronshadmi said:
According to The Man's reduction:

(P ~= ~P) = (~P ~= P) = (P = P) = (~P = ~P) or in other words according to The Man anything is actually reduced to meaningless tautology, such that no new result exists beyond operand P.

Try looking at and understanding my actual words instead of your ridiculous “other words”.

doronshadmi said:
According to this reasoning The Man actually claims that our reasoning is a closed system of mutually dependent propositions such that:

~(~P) = P and =(~P) = ~P

I have never claimed any such thing, again you keep missing the point that the truth value of a tautological statement is not dependent (mutually or otherwise) on the truth values within that statement.

doronshadmi said:
In other words, by rejecting ~ as “anything but” operator, The Man is closed under his own meaningless tautology of mutually dependent framework.

I have never rejected “anything but” I have though rejected your claims that your “anything but” is any form of negation and that negation is some particular case of your "anything but".

doronshadmi said:
Hilbert's program, which its aim is to define the consistency of X within X, is actually the reduction of the mathematical science to X=X tautology, where X is a deductive framework (“anything but X” is ignored).

Gödel, by using the formalism of Hilbert explicitly showed that anything but X cannot be ignored if X enables to deal with Arithmetic, but the current community of mathematicians do not understand his results exactly because they do not understand ~ operator as “anything but”.

Doron that X=X tautology is the basis of your OM. Remember your circular equal signs?

doronshadmi said:
By using mutually independent framework, where mutual means self Id and independent means “anything but” some Id, we actually define a framework where both sameness AND difference are its fundamental properties.

Mutual means shared not “self Id” and independent simply means not dependent, like how the truth value of a tautologogical statement is not dependent or is independent of the truth values in that statement. Your “anything but” is entirely dependent on the operand that it is, well, “anything but”. So it is “anything but” independent (mutually or otherwise).

doronshadmi said:
Any way, in both “mutually dependent” or “mutually independent” frameworks, Researchability is possibly only if Input is compared with Output (notated by -->) no matter if the conclusion of the comparison is Sameness or Difference, because OM is a framework that uses both conclusions under a one comprehensive framework, which is the complex balance between Sameness AND Difference.

In other words, the mathematical science is not deductive-only framework.

Again Doron, the truth value of a tautology is independent of the values in that statement, your “Input is compared with Output (notated by -->)” is meaningless. Your “Input” (the truth values within the statement) can not change your “Output” (the truth value) of the statement. There is nothing to “research” in that regard as changes in your “Input” do not result in changes in a tautologies or contradictions “Output”.

Little 10 Toes · Dec 16, 2009

A = b

doronshadmi said:
The gibberish is up to you.

Anyone can write ~~~~~~A iinstead of =A, so?

Oh, so those two terms are interchangable since they mean the same.

So you claim that ~~~~~~A is equal to =A. Since you previously claimed that ~A is equal to B or C or D, I can then assume that ~(pick a letter) is equal to one of the other remaining letters.

~~~~~~A = ~~~~~B = ~~~~C = ~~~D = ~~C = ~D = B

So B, one of three different values which is not A, is A. So either you are misusing ~, or =, or your definitions are wrong.

doronshadmi said:
Again,

"=A" is a short way to write: "Input =(A) is the same as the Output of =(A)".

An example: =(A) --> =(same as A)

"~A" is a short way to write: "Input ~(A) is different than the Output of ~(A)".

An example: ~(A) --> =(different than A)

= is the operator of sameness.
~ is the operator of difference.

Some universe is [A,B,C,D]

~(=A) --> =B OR =C OR =D means:

"In universe [A,B,C,D] the Input of ~ operator (which is self id A) is different than the output (which are self ids B, C or D)".