The Definition of Points
in [Math]
|
Prev: Guide to presenting Lemma, Theorems and Definitions
Next: Density of the set of all zeroes of a function with givenproperties
From: Lester Zick on 29 Mar 2007 18:35 On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:21 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> What you're trying to do is argue the problem and not its resolution >> or my demonstration of the universal truth of the problem. And I just >> don't care what you think about the problem of universal truth when >> you refuse to discuss any demonstration of the problem of universal >> truth or my demonstration of universal truth in mechanically reduced >> exhaustive terms. >> >> What difference can your opinions on the subject possibly make? I >> argue A and you come right back and say A can't possibly be true >> because you like B. You can't even say whether A and B are really >> different. All you say is that you like binary logic and conjunctions. >> Well I like them too. I just say that they're specialized instances of >> universal truth demonstrated through finite tautological regression to >> self contradictory alternatives and so far you have yet to adduce any >> arguments to the contrary much less any demonstration to the contrary. >> >> So I suppose the short answer is no I don't really seem to care about >> problems I've already solved. >Alright. Take your basic assumptions and build something useful, or >derive a new, or old, result from them. Gee that's swell, Tony. Thanks for nothing. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 29 Mar 2007 18:55 On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:21 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>> Do you not assume anything? You sure do. You assume "not" is universally >>> true. >> >> No I don't, Tony. I certainly do not assume "not" is universally true. >> I demonstrate "not" is universally true only to the extent "not not" >> is self contradictory and self contradiction is universally false. >> > >So you assume "not not" is self contradictory, even though that sentence >no verb, so it not statement. "not not" is generally taken like "--", as >the negation of negation, and therefore taken as positive. So, that >assumption doesn't ring true. That's the root issue with this. Okay, Tony. I assume that self contradiction is false and "not not" or the "contradiction of contradiction" or the "negation of negation" is self contradictory. I admit it. But if they are then my demonstration stands as true and "not" "contradiction" and "negation" are true of everything and universally so. So now as to whether "not not" the "contradiction of contradiction" and the "negation of negation" are self contradictory or not I can only appeal to phrasing like the "contradiction of contradiction" to determine whether that means self contradiction. For if contradiction of contradiction does not mean self contradiction I'm quite at a loss to decide what it does mean. Now I consider all three phrasings to have the same significance as well as phrasings such as "alternative to alternatives" and "different from differences". And if you're here trying to tell me that there are "alternatives to tautological alternatives mechanized through not" I'd sure as hell like to know what they are. It just doesn't matter what "not not" is "generally taken to mean" particularly if universally true of everything since "not" would then have a variety of uses and implications depending on how it is taken under what circumstances. However if you're suggesting there are alternatives to tautological alternatives mechanized through not then don't be shy; step up to the plate and spell out for us what they are. ~v~~
From: nonsense on 29 Mar 2007 18:56 Lester Zick wrote: > On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:21 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> > wrote: > > >>>Finite addition never produces infinites in magnitude any more than >>>bisection produces infinitesimals in magnitude. It's the process which >>>is infinite or infinitesimal and not the magnitude of results. Results >>>of infinite addition or infinite bisection are always finite. >>> >>> >>>> Wrong. >>> >>>Sure I'm wrong, Tony. Because you say so? >>> >> >>Because the results you toe up to only hold in the finite case. > > > So what's the non finite case? And don't tell me that the non finite > case is infinite because that's redundant and just tells us you claim > there is a non finite case, Tony, and not what it is. > > >> You can >>start with 0, or anything in the "finite" arena, the countable >>neighborhood around 0, and if you add some infinite value a finite >>number of times, or a finite value some infinite number of times, you're >>going to get an infinite product. If your set is one of cumulative sets >>of increments, like the naturals, then any infinite set is going to >>count its way up to infinite values. > > > Sure. If you have infinites to begin with you'll have infinites to > talk about without having to talk about how the infinites you > have to talk about got to be that way in the first place. Confused about absolute infinity? :-)
From: Lester Zick on 29 Mar 2007 19:25 On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:21 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>> It's universally meaningless in isolation. not(x) simply means >>> "complement of x" or "1-x". You assume something else to begin with, >>> which is not demonstrably true. >> >> No I don't, Tony.I demonstrate the universal truth of "not" per se in >> mechanically exhaustive terms through finite tautological reduction to >> self contradictory alternatives which I take to be false to the extent >> they're self contradictory. If you want to argue the demonstration per >> se that's one thing but if you simply want to revisit and rehash the >> problem per say without arguing the demonstration per se that's >> another because it's a problem per say I have no further interest in >> unless you can successfully argue against the demonstration per se. >> > >not(not("not not")) > >"not not" is not self-contradictory-and-therefore-false. Well, Tony, let me ask you. If "not not" were self contradictory would you agree with me that "not" would be true of everything inasmuch as it would represent the tautological alternative to and the exhaustion of all possibilities for truth between "not" and "not not"? Because I mean there are probably people out there who wouldn't agree self contradiction is false hence tautological alternatives must be true so I wouldn't know how to approach the demonstration of truth with such people and if you're one such person I would see no point to elaborating and arguing the problem further. However if you do agree what is not universally self contradictory is perforce universally true then all we really have to decide is whether "not not" the "contradiction of contradiction" the "alternative to alternatives" "different from differences" and so on are universally false and if so what the tautological alternatives to such phrases may be and the exhaustive structure and mechanization of truth as well as the demonstration of truth in universal terms would become apparent. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 29 Mar 2007 19:56
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:21 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> This is why science is so useful because you stop arguing isolated >> problems to argue demonstrations instead which subsume those isolated >> problems. There's simply no point to arguing such problems >> individually as to whether "not" is universally true of everything or >> whether there are such things as conjunctions not reducible to "not" >> in mechanically exhaustive terms unless the demonstration itself is >> defective and not true. And just claiming so per say won't cut it. >> > >Your "not a not b" has an assumed OR in it. The problem is not whether it has or doesn't, Tony, but how do you know and how can you demonstrate the truth of that claim. I mean there is no visible indication what the relation between A and B is. You might consider the relation between them is "or" but we have no evidence that this conjecture is right and not just rank speculation. I mean there are plenty of people out there who insist that relations between any two items like A and B are theistic, deistic, or even the product of aliens and UFO's. Consequently it's not my assumption of any relation between A and B but my demonstrations of relations between them that matters. Sure I can assume anything I want. And on previous occasions I certainly have assumed the relation between them was a functional if not explicit or because it seems to me the most plausible mechanical relation likely. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily true. However the fact is that given two different things A and B we can combine them with compoundings of "not" and when we do certain conjunctive relations between them fall out the first of which is "and" and the next of which is "or". That's how we can tell what the originary implications between two distinct items is and has to be. But that doesn't mean there is any assumption of "or" between them only that given two distinct things like A and B we can determine any conjunctive relations between them without the implicit assumption of or explicit use of conjuctions. And that means conjunctions and so on are "in here" and not "out there" among distinct things themselves. You might argue that the fact that there are distinct things like A and B necessarily implies conjunctive "or" relations between them to the extent of and as a function of their "distinctness". But even here I would argue that it is really more of an artifact of their material nature than their distinctness much as the superimposition of certain material field properties is assumed where fields such as gravitation and electrical potential overlap in space. However I would still contend there is no necessary conjunction between A and B per se. All we do is negate them concurrently and negate the result and repeat the process to ascertain when A and B appear in their original instead of their negated form. And that doesn't happen until the second iteration of the process when we can first see A and B in their assumed hypothetical original forms instead of not A together with not B. You see it really doesn't matter what you assume is there.If we assume objects A and B we first encounter not A together with not B and not "A or B". Then we negate that original negation and the result is an "and" of the properties of A and B rather than an "or". But repeating the process of negation of each and negation of the result results in an "or" of their properties rather than the previous "and" from which we can infer the actual presence and isolated existence of A and B. ~v~~ |