(LOGIC) Formalisation of a modal argument

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually using the above variables with the above logical connectors results in non-sense. Prove to me, using those variable you selected, a logical statement.

Prove to YOU?

You do understand that "proof" is only possible within a strictly defined deductive system, right?
You do understand that "proof" means "consistent from a set of axioms, right?

So if you want me to "prove" anything - you need to define the grammar, syntax and semantics of the language in which you EXPECT proofs to be provided in.

The expressions above are consistent with Lambda calculus.
It is syntactically and semantically valid in the grammar of Python.
Therefore it is a logical expression.

If you have some other criterion for a "logical statement" - define your criterion.

What it means is that this list above observes each axiom as a point of origin, but it is unproven.

Of course it's unproven. You don't "prove" axioms. You accept axioms.

First rule of Munchausseen Trillema

I have no idea how the trillema applies to 1=1. You either accept or reject it.

2. All axioms are defined by there direction to other axioms, and as such exist as an axiom and point of origin

Meaningless incoherent nonsense.

One axiom is defined through its progression to another.

Yes. That's how deduction works.

You still need to state the transformation how axiom A becomes axiom B.
Unless you define your degrees of freedom/transformation - any axiom can progress to any other axiom. How?

Infinite progressions to infinite axioms leads to infinite meaning. That's not very useful.

I just said it is a negation symbol.

How does negation work on non-booleans? How does negation work on integers?
How does negation work on sets?

No serious the problem quite literally is in the symbolism, the framework itself is the problem and it is made up. An negation of an axiom effectively observes the axiom not self-evident anymore, but this negation is self-evident; hence where

Quite literaly the symbol-grounding problem. It can mean nothing and everything.

How many threads and posts have I argued that the root foundation of logic stems from the Munchhausen Trilemma and its inversion as the Prime Triad? If I am arguing that the origin of all phenomenon, hence symbols, are grounded in a basic point/line/circle then by default if "logic" is to have a strict rational base its symbolism must correspond to its foundations?

The symbolism that is the foundation for logic is a system of metaphysics in itself...and these symbols as variations of other symbols effectively must go to root symbols. The issue with the foundations of logic is not just one of symbolism, but the inherent system of metaphysics that determines this symbolism.

So I take each of the symbols, and there "definitions" which effectively are still subject to the munchausseen trillema, and translate them to symbols grounded into the munchauseen trillema and the Prime Triad.

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

No idea what "root symbols" are. Why is the Prime Triad immune to the Munchhausen Trillema?

But more importantly: what can the Prime Triad do that other symbol-manipulation logics can't?

I will not bother with your schizophrenic control freak attitude. Yes prove to me.

Put the four variables into a logical statement using the operators provided by the thread introduction, otherwise you set an irrational foundation. Or you can do what I did, observe the operators through other operators (real or created) and tie the variables together.

Because you generally do not understand english, take:

"Something"
[]
= 7.31
= 5

and apply to it:

¬ negation -- → implication -- ↔ equivalence -- ∧ conjunction -- ∨ disjunction -- ⊻ exclusive disjunction -- ⊢ inference -- ≡ identity -- ∈ membership -- ∉ negation of membership -- ∀ all x -- ∃ there is at least one x -- ∄ there is no x -- ∩ intersection -- ∅ empty set --


Otherwise you are just mumbling.









Second proof is acceptance. No axiom is truly proven; hence no axiom is truly accepted. All axioms are fundamentally existing as is; hence any logical system is just the stringing together of few axioms out of an infinite number...therefore probability theory ends up being bunk. President Trump, if memory serves was predicted as only having a few percent chance of winning...and he one.

Third: Shut up about use, you sound like a retarded spoiled child bang his blocks off the wall..."use"..."use"..."use"...but none of what you argued has been "useful" to the majority here.

Fourth: The symbol grounding problem as "nothing and everything" is observed by the "point" inherent within all axioms as a symbolic notation always observing the statement as simultaneously true and false.

Fifth: The Prime Triad is inevitable, hence any system using it will always be an approximation of it, hence there is no complete logical system except "existence" itself.

Sixth: A root symbol. A root is what grounds a phenomenon; hence a "ground symbol". Try creating any symbol without using either a point/line or circle and you will find these three are present everywhere in an infinite series of variations.

[Logik]

I will not bother with your schizophrenic control freak attitude. Yes prove to me.

Put the four variables into a logical statement using the operators provided by the thread introduction, otherwise you set an irrational foundation. Or you can do what I did, observe the operators through other operators (real or created) and tie the variables together.

Because you generally do not understand english, take:

"Something"
[]
= 7.31
= 5

and apply to it:

¬ negation -- → implication -- ↔ equivalence -- ∧ conjunction -- ∨ disjunction -- ⊻ exclusive disjunction -- ⊢ inference -- ≡ identity -- ∈ membership -- ∉ negation of membership -- ∀ all x -- ∃ there is at least one x -- ∄ there is no x -- ∩ intersection -- ∅ empty set --


Otherwise you are just mumbling.









Second proof is acceptance. No axiom is truly proven; hence no axiom is truly accepted. All axioms are fundamentally existing as is; hence any logical system is just the stringing together of few axioms out of an infinite number...therefore probability theory ends up being bunk. President Trump, if memory serves was predicted as only having a few percent chance of winning...and he one.

Third: Shut up about use, you sound like a retarded spoiled child bang his blocks off the wall..."use"..."use"..."use"...but none of what you argued has been "useful" to the majority here.

Fourth: The symbol grounding problem as "nothing and everything" is observed by the "point" inherent within all axioms as a symbolic notation always observing the statement as simultaneously true and false.

Fifth: The Prime Triad is inevitable, hence any system using it will always be an approximation of it, hence there is no complete logical system except "existence" itself.

Sixth: A root symbol. A root is what grounds a phenomenon; hence a "ground symbol". Try creating any symbol without using either a point/line or circle and you will find these three are present everywhere in an infinite series of variations.

I can’t stop laughing.

You call me a control freak, and then you insist that I prove it. To you, mind you?

The proof is in Lambda calculus.
The language interprets itself.
The semantics/syntax/grammar are public knowledge! The language is defined precisely and is NOT open to interpretation or ambiguity.
If you want to know what something means - you can look at the source code of the interpreter.

I have literally surrendered any and all control of my argument to a deterministic and completely transparent logic system. For you to scrutinise, examine and critique and you still aren't satisfied.

Your expectations are on par with every sophist-philosopher in this part of the woods: "If you don't understand it, then it must be wrong".

Your insistence that I prove to YOU is a lame attempt at controlling the criterion for proof. It's impossible to move the goal posts when you don't control the criteria, eh?

Try again. Nobody is here to appease YOU.

[Eodnhoj7]

I will not bother with your schizophrenic control freak attitude. Yes prove to me.

Put the four variables into a logical statement using the operators provided by the thread introduction, otherwise you set an irrational foundation. Or you can do what I did, observe the operators through other operators (real or created) and tie the variables together.

Because you generally do not understand english, take:

"Something"
[]
= 7.31
= 5

and apply to it:

¬ negation -- → implication -- ↔ equivalence -- ∧ conjunction -- ∨ disjunction -- ⊻ exclusive disjunction -- ⊢ inference -- ≡ identity -- ∈ membership -- ∉ negation of membership -- ∀ all x -- ∃ there is at least one x -- ∄ there is no x -- ∩ intersection -- ∅ empty set --


Otherwise you are just mumbling.









Second proof is acceptance. No axiom is truly proven; hence no axiom is truly accepted. All axioms are fundamentally existing as is; hence any logical system is just the stringing together of few axioms out of an infinite number...therefore probability theory ends up being bunk. President Trump, if memory serves was predicted as only having a few percent chance of winning...and he one.

Third: Shut up about use, you sound like a retarded spoiled child bang his blocks off the wall..."use"..."use"..."use"...but none of what you argued has been "useful" to the majority here.

Fourth: The symbol grounding problem as "nothing and everything" is observed by the "point" inherent within all axioms as a symbolic notation always observing the statement as simultaneously true and false.

Fifth: The Prime Triad is inevitable, hence any system using it will always be an approximation of it, hence there is no complete logical system except "existence" itself.

Sixth: A root symbol. A root is what grounds a phenomenon; hence a "ground symbol". Try creating any symbol without using either a point/line or circle and you will find these three are present everywhere in an infinite series of variations.

I can’t stop laughing.

You call me a control freak, and then you insist that I prove it. To you, mind you?

The proof is in Lambda calculus.
The language interprets itself.
The semantics/syntax/grammar are public knowledge! The language is defined precisely and is NOT open to interpretation or ambiguity.
If you want to know what something means - you can look at the source code of the interpreter.

I have literally surrendered any and all control of my argument to a deterministic and completely transparent logic system. For you to scrutinise, examine and critique and you still aren't satisfied.

Your expectations are on par with every sophist-philosopher in this part of the woods: "If you don't understand it, then it must be wrong".

Your insistence that I prove to YOU is a lame attempt at controlling the criterion for proof. It's impossible to move the goal posts when you don't control the criteria, eh?

Try again. Nobody is here to appease YOU.

The language does not interpret itself as efficiently as a strict "spatial axioms" justifying themselves as is. Spatial axioms vs the symbols created from them...who is more to the point. It also proves that you can be logical and be able to program it, it is strictly a facet of human awareness of space...something a computer cannot do: create infinite axioms of space.

Actually, everything you right is about trying to please me and others because you don't get your philosophy is useless. If you want to argue "hey it gives me a job to provide"...fine...but philosophy is more than that, we don't care. There are are million jobs out there, if you want to talk about employment then find some other forum, because what you present is philosophical gibberish.

As to the rest:
Gibberish again...we are talking about the logical connectors applied in the argument. I provided a translation of those connectors into others, you have not. Provide a statement in lambda calculus using those gibberish variables you presented with translations between the lamba symbols and the operators provided in the opinion poll...then take those variables and make a rational statement out of them.

Other wise you are just advertising some "lambda fetish" which doesn't work past programming and can be replaced by a variety of other variables.

Second the criterion I provide already covers not just self-referentiality but observes all "proofs" as simultaneous true/not true because of that little "dot".

[Logik]

The language does not interpret itself as efficiently as a strict "spatial axioms" justifying themselves as is.

That's an interesting claim. How are you measuring "efficient interpretation" ?

[Eodnhoj7]

The language does not interpret itself as efficiently as a strict "spatial axioms" justifying themselves as is.

That's an interesting claim. How are you measuring "efficient interpretation" ?

how are you measuring efficient interpretation?

[Atla]

The language does not interpret itself as efficiently as a strict "spatial axioms" justifying themselves as is.

That's an interesting claim. How are you measuring "efficient interpretation" ?

how are you measuring efficient interpretation?

So which one of you two is more insane? Do we have a winner yet?

[Eodnhoj7]

That's an interesting claim. How are you measuring "efficient interpretation" ?

how are you measuring efficient interpretation?

So which one of you two is more insane? Do we have a winner yet?

I argue "space" is the foundation for all systems, considering all logic is reduced to the munchauseen trillema and this is grounded in spatial qualities.

Logick...he is just some follower of a programming cult.

As to you atla...you are just an idiot...at least Logick can back up his argument regardless of being right or wrong.

[Atla]

how are you measuring efficient interpretation?

So which one of you two is more insane? Do we have a winner yet?

I argue "space" is the foundation for all systems, considering all logic is reduced to the munchauseen trillema and this is grounded in spatial qualities.

Logick...he is just some follower of a programming cult.

As to you atla...you are just an idiot...at least Logick can back up his argument regardless of being right or wrong.

Nah you are just too dumb to realize that always backing up the obvious, which should be basic understanding, is a waste of time for me.

As for insanity, I think you still have a small edge over Logic, but it's close.

[Logik]

The language does not interpret itself as efficiently as a strict "spatial axioms" justifying themselves as is.

That's an interesting claim. How are you measuring "efficient interpretation" ?

how are you measuring efficient interpretation?

I am not. You claimed that your axioms are “more efficient”.

I am merely stating that recursive languages interpret themselves.

The mechanism by which they do that is covered in any computer science class.

I don’t need to back up my argument. I can just show you the source code.

It does exactly what it says.

[Eodnhoj7]

So which one of you two is more insane? Do we have a winner yet?

I argue "space" is the foundation for all systems, considering all logic is reduced to the munchauseen trillema and this is grounded in spatial qualities.

Logick...he is just some follower of a programming cult.

As to you atla...you are just an idiot...at least Logick can back up his argument regardless of being right or wrong.

Nah you are just too dumb to realize that always backing up the obvious, which should be basic understanding, is a waste of time for me.

As for insanity, I think you still have a small edge over Logic, but it's close.

And what is sanity or insanity? Tell me since you know so much.

[Eodnhoj7]

That's an interesting claim. How are you measuring "efficient interpretation" ?

how are you measuring efficient interpretation?

I am not. You claimed that your axioms are “more efficient”.

I am merely stating that recursive languages interpret themselves.

The mechanism by which they do that is covered in any computer science class.

I don’t need to back up my argument. I can just show you the source code.

It does exactly what it says.

No, you said take the following variables and turn them into a logical statement: Do it.

As to recursion, what is more recursive than space?

What is simpler than space?

Efficiency breaks down to simplicity, and this simplicity of space observed in the nature of logic observes that not all logic can equate to computer computation as logic itself is directed movement at its roots.

One can have a logical system that is elevated above any form of mechanical computation and still be logical. AI will fail.

[Logik]

Efficiency breaks down to simplicity, and this simplicity of space observed in the nature of logic observes that not all logic can equate to computer computation as logic itself is directed movement at its roots.

You mean a vector?
Or a tensor?

One can have a logical system that is elevated above any form of mechanical computation and still be logical. AI will fail.

Great! Invent it!

[Eodnhoj7]

Efficiency breaks down to simplicity, and this simplicity of space observed in the nature of logic observes that not all logic can equate to computer computation as logic itself is directed movement at its roots.

You mean a vector?
Or a tensor?

One can have a logical system that is elevated above any form of mechanical computation and still be logical. AI will fail.

Great! Invent it!

Use the variables you provided as a counter argument as to why my stance is irrational with your own framework...don't avoid the question.

[Logik]

Use the variables you provided as a counter argument as to why my stance is irrational with your own framework...don't avoid the question.

I don't know if your stance is irrational or rational because I don't understand it.

What I do know about my own stance is that :
1. It's Turing-complete, and by the Curry-Howard isomorphism - it's Mathematically complete (that's HUUUUGE)
2. It's universal in that you can use computation to emulate n-value logics, fuzzy logics etc.
3. Peirce's Triadic Logic is a special case of n-valued logic. So it's a sub-subset of computation.

So if the "prime triad" is good, then I am sure the "prime quartet" or the "prime octet" or the "prime googoplex" is even better!
And n-valued logic is a generalization of all of them.
And computation is a Universalization of all logics.

Universality is a huge deal. If there's anything a computer can't do it is for one of two reasons:

1. It can do it but it will take way too much space (memory) or time.
2. It can't do it because we can't explain to the computer HOW to do it.

That is to say: we can't express the problem in Lambda calculus.

So if I am to sum up my argument. Lambda calculus is the language of HOW.

English is the language of WHAT.

[Eodnhoj7]

Use the variables you provided as a counter argument as to why my stance is irrational with your own framework...don't avoid the question.

I don't know if your stance is irrational or rational because I don't understand it.

What I do know about my own stance is that :
1. It's Turing-complete, and by the Curry-Howard isomorphism - it's Mathematically complete (that's HUUUUGE)
2. It's universal in that you can use computation to emulate n-value logics, fuzzy logics etc.
3. Peirce's Triadic Logic is a special case of n-valued logic. So it's a sub-subset of computation.

So if the "prime triad" is good, then I am sure the "prime quartet" or the "prime octet" or the "prime googoplex" is even better!
And n-valued logic is a generalization of all of them.
And computation is a Universalization of all logics.

Universality is a huge deal. If there's anything a computer can't do it is for one of two reasons:

1. It can do it but it will take way too much space (memory) or time.
2. It can't do it because we can't explain to the computer HOW to do it.

That is to say: we can't express the problem in Lambda calculus.

So if I am to sum up my argument. Lambda calculus is the language of HOW.

English is the language of WHAT.

Here;


An axiom is any observation that is self-evident truth to the observer.


1. The axiom may be an empirical phenomenon such as a spoon, a duck, or human individual.

2. The axiom may be an abstract phenomenon such as an equation, poem or platonic type form.

3. The axiom may be both and abstract phenomenon, or neither where self-evidence exists as a state of awareness.


1. All axioms are points of origin; hence all axioms as progressive linear definition and circularity are points of origins. The point of origin progresses to another point of origin through point 2 and cycles back to itself through point 3 with this linear progression and circularity originating from themselves, through eachother and point 1.

Point 1 is original and exists through points 2 and 3 as points 2 and 3.

As original Points 1,2,3 are extension of eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously being nothing in themselves as points of origin that invert to further axioms respectively; hence originate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws

2. All axioms are progressive linear definition; point 1 and 3 progress to point 2 as respective points of origin observed in point 1 while this linear progression from one to another through alternation and exists as circulation between points 1 and 3 to point 2 and point 2 progressing to points 1 and 3.

Point 2 is definitive and defines points 1 and 3 with points 1 and 3 defining point 2.

As definitive Points 1,2,3 progress from one to another and are inherently seperate. As seperating one from another they are connected under a common function of "seperation"; hence are defined as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws.

3. All axioms are maintain through a circularity, as linear alternation through point 2, and points of origin as point 1, with point 1 and 2 circulating through each other as point three while circulating through themselves as each other. Point 3 maintains itself as circular and maintains points 1 and 2 as circular while points 1,2 and 3 circulating through eachother maintain eachother.

Point 3 is circular and exists through 1 and 2 as 1 and 2.

As circular Points 1,2,3 are maintained through eachother as eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously dissolving into further axioms as eachother; hence they circulate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws.