Fallacy of Mathematical Symbolism

[Eodnhoj7]

"Stricter" is just another word for "probabilistic".

I'd say recursion is an absolute criterion. Infinite vortex.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

Recursion is an absolute criterion and the "vortex" is cancelled into a basic point, line and circle as absolute constants that exist as they are. This is observed in the Monad(s), Bindhu ...and various other definitions in many religions.

Recursion necessitates a degree of consistency.

[Logik]

Recursion is an absolute criterion and the "vortex" is cancelled into a basic point, line and circle as absolute constants that exist as they are. This is observed in the Monad(s), Bindhu ...and various other definitions in many religions.

I don't know what you mean by "cancels itself out". You can have a recursive system that does nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOP_(code)

Recursion necessitates a degree of consistency.

Necessitates? No. Consistency emerges from recursion.

There are no contradictions in computer languages because time progresses. The LNC only applies about tings being used in contradictory sense at the SAME TIME.

Which means you have to define "NOW". One "tick" of the clock is nanoseconds.

P(t0) ∧ ¬P(t1) is NOT the LNC.

P(t) = ¬P(t+1) is basically an oscillator.

It is literally impossible to "contradict" yourself in a programming language.
You can commit grammatical and syntactic errors, but not contradictions.

[Eodnhoj7]

Recursion is an absolute criterion and the "vortex" is cancelled into a basic point, line and circle as absolute constants that exist as they are. This is observed in the Monad(s), Bindhu ...and various other definitions in many religions.

I don't know what you mean by "cancels itself out". You can have a recursive system that does nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOP_(code)

And yet you argue recursion is an absolute criterion, thus necessitating even "computing" cancels itself out.

Recursion necessitates a degree of consistency.

Necessitates? No. Consistency emerges from recursion.

Not really because recursion can be argued from many perspectives where this "repetition" effectively exists as 1 constant variable through infinite variation.

There are no contradictions in computer languages because time progresses. The LNC only applies about tings being used in contradictory sense at the SAME TIME.
Actually all computer languages, as all languages, are subject to the Munchauseen Trillema

Which means you have to define "NOW". One "tick" of the clock is nanoseconds.

P(t0) ∧ ¬P(t1) is NOT the LNC.

Look at the "foundation of the degree" thread in the math/logic section.

[Logik]

And yet you argue recursion is an absolute criterion, thus necessitating even "computing" cancels itself out.

I still don't know what you mean by "cancels itself out".

Not really because recursion can be argued from many perspectives where this "repetition" effectively exists as 1 constant variable through infinite variation.

Infinite monkeys theorem. Every perspective.
Every pattern. Every concept. Every object exists in entropy.

Actually all computer languages, as all languages, are subject to the Munchauseen Trillema

The Munchhausen trillema is invoked when one speaks of "knowledge", "justification" and "belief".

I don't know what either of those three words mean. They are used as nouns. Nouns describe reality.

Look at the "foundation of the degree" thread in the math/logic section

Seen it. You are still dabbling with infinities. You can't bisect an angle indefinitely.

Not with a compass and a ruler.

[Eodnhoj7]

And yet you argue recursion is an absolute criterion, thus necessitating even "computing" cancels itself out.

I still don't know what you mean by "cancels itself out".

Because you argue recursion effectively as "nothing" and all "computing" exists through it and as it.

Not really because recursion can be argued from many perspectives where this "repetition" effectively exists as 1 constant variable through infinite variation.

Infinite monkeys theorem. Every perspective.
Every pattern. Every concept. Every object exists in entropy.

False, because entropy observes the material cycled into a new phenomena. With entropy comes a rebirth.

Actually all computer languages, as all languages, are subject to the Munchauseen Trillema

The Munchhausen trillema is invoked when one speaks of "knowledge", "justification" and "belief".

I don't know what either of those three words mean. They are used as nouns. Nouns describe reality.

And do you know what "computation" is considering it is a noun?

Look at the "foundation of the degree" thread in the math/logic section

Seen it. You are still dabbling with infinities. You can't bisect an angle indefinitely.

Actually you can:



1. All right angles are not equal to each other.

2. If a right angle exists at 90 degrees of 1 unit by 1 unit and the next right angle is .1x.1 progress to .0000....1 of the original size, the final angle effectively exists as a point smaller than the degree with composed the ninety degree of the Right Angle.

3. The question of what constitutes the "degree" ends itself in a paradoxical state considering the degrees which constitute Right Angle A (1x1) are the same as that which constitute Right Angle B ((1>n) → 0) x ((1>n) → 0) observes:

a. The lines which compose Angle B effectively become smaller than the degrees which constitute Angle A.
b. Angle A and Angle B are both composed of 90 degrees; however the 90 degrees which compose Angle B effectively fit into Angle A exist at a number approaching infinity.
c. Angle A is still equal to Angle B.

Not with a compass and a ruler.

[Logik]

Because you argue recursion effectively as "nothing" and all "computing" exists through it and as it

The word "existence" makes me feel filthy. In the metaphysical sense.

False, because entropy observes the material cycled into a new phenomena. With entropy comes a rebirth.

Sorry. Can't move past this. Infinite entropy over infinite time requires true randomness. That is NO repeating patterns over any period of time.
The implication of true randomness is zero knowledge. Which is the same premise as "no structure" which is antithetical to any and all attempts to make sense of the world.

And do you know what "computation" is considering it is a noun?

I don't know computation. I DO computation.

That's just the ontological error of natural languages.

1. All right angles are not equal to each other.

2. If a right angle exists at 90 degrees of 1 unit by 1 unit and the next right angle is .1x.1 progress to .0000....1 of the original size, the final angle effectively exists as a point smaller than the degree with composed the ninety degree of the Right Angle.

3. The question of what constitutes the "degree" ends itself in a paradoxical state considering the degrees which constitute Right Angle A (1x1) are the same as that which constitute Right Angle B ((1>n) → 0) x ((1>n) → 0) observes:

a. The lines which compose Angle B effectively become smaller than the degrees which constitute Angle A.
b. Angle A and Angle B are both composed of 90 degrees; however the 90 degrees which compose Angle B effectively fit into Angle A exist at a number approaching infinity.
c. Angle A is still equal to Angle B.[/color]

Not with a compass and a ruler.

Infinities. Don't care.

You are just amusing (abusing?) infinities in exactly the same manner in which the principle of explosion can be abused.


Construct a right angle from that which you consider axiomatic.

[Eodnhoj7]

Because you argue recursion effectively as "nothing" and all "computing" exists through it and as it

The word "existence" makes me feel filthy. In the metaphysical sense.

False, because entropy observes the material cycled into a new phenomena. With entropy comes a rebirth.

Sorry. Can't move past this. Infinite entropy over infinite time requires true randomness. That is NO repeating patterns over any period of time.
The implication of true randomness is zero knowledge. Which is the same premise as "no structure" which is antithetical to any and all attempts to make sense of the world.

And do you know what "computation" is considering it is a noun?

I don't know computation. I DO computation.

That's just the ontological error of natural languages.

1. All right angles are not equal to each other.

2. If a right angle exists at 90 degrees of 1 unit by 1 unit and the next right angle is .1x.1 progress to .0000....1 of the original size, the final angle effectively exists as a point smaller than the degree with composed the ninety degree of the Right Angle.

3. The question of what constitutes the "degree" ends itself in a paradoxical state considering the degrees which constitute Right Angle A (1x1) are the same as that which constitute Right Angle B ((1>n) → 0) x ((1>n) → 0) observes:

a. The lines which compose Angle B effectively become smaller than the degrees which constitute Angle A.
b. Angle A and Angle B are both composed of 90 degrees; however the 90 degrees which compose Angle B effectively fit into Angle A exist at a number approaching infinity.
c. Angle A is still equal to Angle B.[/color]

Not with a compass and a ruler.

Infinities. Don't care.

You are just amusing (abusing?) infinities in exactly the same manner in which the principle of explosion can be abused.


Construct a right angle from that which you consider axiomatic.

All of the above is just rambling, as the proof for degrees effectively leading to a state of contradiction is observed...and is follows a rational mathematical progression...just like computing.

You don't really have to like or dislike infinity, but it exists as is because of a simple premise of "the dot" which provides the foundation for all quantification and qualification. That "dot", which can be observed as the .00000....00001 in your ability to "predict" the future is infinitely greater than any form of computation itself. It "is".

[Logik]

All of the above is just rambling, as the proof for degrees effectively leading to a state of contradiction is observed...and is follows a rational mathematical progression...just like computing.

Is it a proof?
Is it a contradiction?

How did you determine that? Decision-problem.

You don't really have to like or dislike infinity, but it exists as is because of a simple premise of "the dot" which provides the foundation for all quantification and qualification. That "dot", which can be observed as the .00000....00001 in your ability to "predict" the future is infinitely greater than any form of computation itself. It "is".

So why do you use dots instead of writing out all the zeroes?

[Eodnhoj7]

All of the above is just rambling, as the proof for degrees effectively leading to a state of contradiction is observed...and is follows a rational mathematical progression...just like computing.

Is it a proof?
Is it a contradiction?

How did you determine that? Decision-problem.

You don't really have to like or dislike infinity, but it exists as is because of a simple premise of "the dot" which provides the foundation for all quantification and qualification. That "dot", which can be observed as the .00000....00001 in your ability to "predict" the future is infinitely greater than any form of computation itself. It "is".

So why do you use dots instead of writing out all the zeroes?

All symbols are a proxy extension of the point and exist as points in themselves, I argue this in "all language as geometric"...I am already doing it.

All proofs, due to there thetical/antithetical natures, are contradictions.

[Logik]

All symbols are a proxy extension of the point and exist as points in themselves,

The point is a symbol. We represent 1 point as 1 bit in computation.

I argue this in "all language as geometric"...I am already doing it.

Geometry is incomplete. Geometry lacks a temporal dimension.

All proofs, due to there thetical/antithetical natures, are contradictions.

Truism in your framework. Meaningless in mine.

There are no contradictions in temporal logic. All proofs are computer programs.

[Eodnhoj7]

All symbols are a proxy extension of the point and exist as points in themselves,

The point is a symbol. We represent 1 point as 1 bit in computation.

The point is a symbol yes, but is it limited to a symbol? No. The 1 bit, empirically, is composed of further points.

I argue this in "all language as geometric"...I am already doing it.

Geometry is incomplete. Geometry lacks a temporal dimension.

Geometry is a study of space, all phenomena as composed of space are rooted in basic axioms which stem through all phenomenon.

Time premised in a linear progression, and circular repetition, is strictly a dualistic understanding of space. We cannot observe time except as 2 dimensional: Point A to Point B in a line or Point A and Point B as infinite points through the Circle.

All proofs, due to there thetical/antithetical natures, are contradictions.

Truism in your framework. Meaningless in mine.

There are no contradictions in temporal logic.

Actually rooted in the principle of identity...it is pure contradiction and meaningless.

[Logik]

All symbols are a proxy extension of the point and exist as points in themselves,

Axiom

My axiom is different. All all points are bits.

The point is a symbol yes, but is it limited to a symbol? No. The 1 bit, empirically, is composed of further points.

You still insisting on shooting yourself in the foot with your "point is made up of other points" nonsense.
If a point is made up of 5 points. Is that 1 point of 5 points?
Are those 5 points made up of other points?
So 1 points is the same as 25 points?

WHAT? Stop the "infinities" nonsense!

1 bit == smallest indivisible unit. If it's composed of further points, then it's not indivisible.

Geometry is a study of space, all phenomena as composed of space are rooted in basic axioms which stem through all phenomenon.

Yes. That's what I said. Geometry is incomplete. It lacks a time dimension.

It's a study of space. Not a study of spacetime.

Time premised in a linear progression, and circular repetition, is strictly a dualistic understanding of space. We cannot observe time except as 2 dimensional: Point A to Point B in a line or Point A and Point B as infinite points through the Circle.

You are trying to retro-fit time into Geometry. I am not even going to play that game.

Time is a 4th dimension.

You call it Point A to point B.

I call it "Point A at time 1 and Point A at time 2".

Actually rooted in the principle of identity...it is pure contradiction and meaningless.

How do you evaluate the principle of identity in temporal logic?

A(t) = A(t+1jiffy) true or false?

My gut is going with false....

if you find ANY phenomenon/object that is "the same" at t and t+1 jiffy - you have found something that doesn't change.

[Eodnhoj7]

All symbols are a proxy extension of the point and exist as points in themselves,

Axiom

My axiom is different. All all points are bits.

The point is a symbol yes, but is it limited to a symbol? No. The 1 bit, empirically, is composed of further points.

You still insisting on shooting yourself in the foot with your "point is made up of other points" nonsense.
If a point is made up of 5 points. Is that 1 point of 5 points?
Are those 5 points made up of other points?
So 1 points is the same as 25 points?

WHAT? Stop the "infinities" nonsense!

1 bit == smallest indivisible unit. If it's composed of further points, then it's not indivisible.

Geometry is a study of space, all phenomena as composed of space are rooted in basic axioms which stem through all phenomenon.

Yes. That's what I said. Geometry is incomplete. It lacks a time dimension.

It's a study of space. Not a study of spacetime.

Time premised in a linear progression, and circular repetition, is strictly a dualistic understanding of space. We cannot observe time except as 2 dimensional: Point A to Point B in a line or Point A and Point B as infinite points through the Circle.

You are trying to retro-fit time into Geometry. I am not even going to play that game.

Time is a 4th dimension.

You call it Point A to point B.

I call it "Point A at time 1 and Point A at time 2".

Actually rooted in the principle of identity...it is pure contradiction and meaningless.

How do you evaluate the principle of identity in temporal logic?

A(t) = A(t+1jiffy) true or false?

My gut is going with false....

if you find ANY phenomenon/object that is "the same" at t and t+1 jiffy - you have found something that doesn't change.

I have a better question for you: Tell me how A=A is not simultaneously true and false?


I saw "my" and realized this whole conversation is relative to your chosen interpretation as a projection of the values which exist as your "point of origin", which doesn't effectively make it your value system does it? Considering "inversion" is a constant and in these respects you have no choice in the matter.

[Logik]

I have a better question for you: Tell me how A=A is not simultaneously true and false?

Because "true" and "false" are logical (read: linguistic properties).

When I observe the universe I need not speak. I need not assert things as "true" or "false".

A

I saw "my" and realized this whole conversation is relative to your chosen interpretation as a projection of the values which exist as your "point of origin", which doesn't effectively make it your value system does it?

Not my value-system. My language.

My value system determines what I use my language for.

I use my language for self-expression.
I use my language for creation.
I use my language for communication.
I use my language for reasoning.

The thing I use to construct my thoughts.

I do value my language. Very much.

[Eodnhoj7]

I have a better question for you: Tell me how A=A is not simultaneously true and false?

Because "true" and "false" are logical (read: linguistic properties).

When I observe the universe I need not speak. I need not assert things as "true" or "false".

A

I saw "my" and realized this whole conversation is relative to your chosen interpretation as a projection of the values which exist as your "point of origin", which doesn't effectively make it your value system does it?

Not my value-system. My language.

My value system determines what I use my language for.

I use my language for self-expression.
I use my language for creation.
I use my language for communication.
I use my language for reasoning.

The thing I use to construct my thoughts.

I do value my language. Very much.

"Mine" is the argument of children.

I said tell me how they are not both true and false. Aristotelian identity properties still depend on an inherent form of dichotomy, and "evenness" where contradiction is its grounding.