The Definition of Points
in [Logic]
|
Prev: On Ultrafinitism
Next: Modal logic example
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~~
From: Lester Zick on 29 Mar 2007 20:01 On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:21 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> "Been there and done what" exactly, Tony? "Exhaustive analysis for >> truth" is not at all the same as "exhaustive demonstrations of truth". >> All "exhaustive analysis for truth" means or can mean is that you've >> looked the problem over and can find nothing amiss. It just doesn't >> matter whether the "you" is just yourself or a godzillion others when >> you don't have any demonstrable basis for truth to begin with. "You" >> can't very well analyze anything for truth when you don't know exactly >> what's true or may be true. All you can really do is guess.And that's >> exactly what seers, mystics, and empirics do because that's all they >> can do. >It helps if you at least define your terms. Hey I can define my terms six ways to Sunday. It just doesn't matter when definition is the subject of definition. Then you're forced to go back to basic operations where definition itself is defined.Doesn't do much good to try to define universal definition in particular terms. And if you try nonetheless all you wind up with are parochial meanings anybody can deny just by saying they don't like or agree with your definitions. I'd really like to see someone define something without differences. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 29 Mar 2007 20:04
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:21 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>> If you're interested in the breakdown of binary logical operators, lemme >>> know... >> >> I have no special interest in things studied in college, Tony. They're >> well known and well demonstrated in their own terms and just not a >> substitute for truth in exhaustive mechanical terms. >> > >They didn't teach me this analysis of the logical operators in college, >just the mechanics. This particular analysis is independent and fairly >recent. Not sure I understand what you mean by the "analysis" as opposed to the "mechanics" of logical operators, Tony. Either way they're binary as far as I know and not what we deal with in the real external world. ~v~~ |