(LOGIC) Formalisation of a modal argument

[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.

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.

OK. All you have said so far reduces to:

Let A be a spoon.
Let B be a platonic form
Let C be a concept

We have A, B and C.

And what happens next?

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

OK. All you have said so far reduces to:

Let A be a spoon.
Let B be a platonic form
Let C be a concept

We have A, B and C.

And what happens next?

False. Reducibility is an axiom.

[Logik]

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.

OK. All you have said so far reduces to:

Let A be a spoon.
Let B be a platonic form
Let C be a concept

We have A, B and C.

And what happens next?

False. Reducibility is an axiom.

False. Falsity is also an axiom.

That you have chosen 3-valued instead of 5, 7 or 200000000-valued logic.

Axiom.

[Eodnhoj7]

OK. All you have said so far reduces to:

Let A be a spoon.
Let B be a platonic form
Let C be a concept

We have A, B and C.

And what happens next?

False. Reducibility is an axiom.

False. Falsity is also an axiom.

That you have chosen 3-valued instead of 5, 7 or 200000000-valued logic.

Axiom.

Yes, false is an axiom. Now insert "false" in the place of "axiom" in the above arguments.

[Logik]

False. Reducibility is an axiom.

False. Falsity is also an axiom.

That you have chosen 3-valued instead of 5, 7 or 200000000-valued logic.

Axiom.

Yes, false is an axiom. Now insert "false" in the place of "axiom" in the above arguments.

You do it. Because I am not sure I understand your instructions.

[Eodnhoj7]

False. Falsity is also an axiom.

That you have chosen 3-valued instead of 5, 7 or 200000000-valued logic.

Axiom.

Yes, false is an axiom. Now insert "false" in the place of "axiom" in the above arguments.

You do it. Because I am not sure I understand your instructions.

1. All falsities are points of origin; hence all falsities 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 falsity, while simultaneously being nothing in themselves as points of origin that invert to further falsities respectively; hence originate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws

2. All falsities 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 falsities 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.

[Logik]

Yes, false is an axiom. Now insert "false" in the place of "axiom" in the above arguments.

You do it. Because I am not sure I understand your instructions.

1. All falsities are points of origin; hence all falsities 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 falsity, while simultaneously being nothing in themselves as points of origin that invert to further falsities respectively; hence originate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws

2. All falsities 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 falsities 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.

All points of origin are points of origin.

[Eodnhoj7]

You do it. Because I am not sure I understand your instructions.

1. All falsities are points of origin; hence all falsities 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 falsity, while simultaneously being nothing in themselves as points of origin that invert to further falsities respectively; hence originate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws

2. All falsities 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 falsities 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.

All points of origin are points of origin.

Yes, and these progress to further points of origin as a point of origin.

[Logik]

1. All falsities are points of origin; hence all falsities 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 falsity, while simultaneously being nothing in themselves as points of origin that invert to further falsities respectively; hence originate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws

2. All falsities 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 falsities 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.

All points of origin are points of origin.

Yes, and these progress to further points of origin as a point of origin.

And they regress to further points of origin infinitely?

And the infinite points of origin infinitely regress to infinitely many infinite points of infinite origin. Infinitely.

To infinity.

Most infinitely infinite. For infinity. TO the power of infinity. Multiplied by infinity plus infinity.

I probably left out infinitely many infinities here but you get the infinite point.

[Eodnhoj7]

All points of origin are points of origin.

Yes, and these progress to further points of origin as a point of origin.

And they regress to further points of origin infinitely?
And progress as all regress regresses into a dual progress by circulating on itself...and vice versa. The regress/progress dualism observes infinite continuum as the foundation.

And the infinite points of origin infinitely regress to infinitely many infinite points of infinite origin. Infinitely.

The continuum, observed above observes a cycle between regress and progress. An example is basic up/down or left/right alternation, as strictly the inversion of one direction to another back to the original. This continuum, relative to other continuums, is a point of origin in itself.




To infinity.

Thus finiteness is multiple infinities, and we are left with absolute infinite truth and relativistic finite truth with both synthesizing. The absolutes exists through the finite, for example a circle may be infinite but observed relativistically through natural cycles. There may be an infinite number of finite cycles in nature but they exist as one constant repeating cycle. Thus all absolute truth and relative truth join, with this joining of absolute and relative space observing space as perpetually renewing as one and many.

Most infinitely infinite. For infinity. TO the power of infinity. Multiplied by infinity plus infinity.

I probably left out infinitely many infinities here but you get the infinite point.

I think this method of conversing will be more efficient and understandable.

[Logik]

Yes, and these progress to further points of origin as a point of origin.

And they regress to further points of origin infinitely?
And progress as all regress regresses into a dual progress by circulating on itself...and vice versa. The regress/progress dualism observes infinite continuum as the foundation.

And the infinite points of origin infinitely regress to infinitely many infinite points of infinite origin. Infinitely.

The continuum, observed above observes a cycle between regress and progress. An example is basic up/down or left/right alternation, as strictly the inversion of one direction to another back to the original. This continuum, relative to other continuums, is a point of origin in itself.




To infinity.

Thus finiteness is multiple infinities, and we are left with absolute infinite truth and relativistic finite truth with both synthesizing. The absolutes exists through the finite, for example a circle may be infinite but observed relativistically through natural cycles. There may be an infinite number of finite cycles in nature but they exist as one constant repeating cycle. Thus all absolute truth and relative truth join, with this joining of absolute and relative space observing space as perpetually renewing as one and many.

Most infinitely infinite. For infinity. TO the power of infinity. Multiplied by infinity plus infinity.

I probably left out infinitely many infinities here but you get the infinite point.

I think this method of conversing will be more efficient and understandable.

Yeah, but I have better things to do with myself than to counter-troll a troll.

[Eodnhoj7]

And they regress to further points of origin infinitely?
And progress as all regress regresses into a dual progress by circulating on itself...and vice versa. The regress/progress dualism observes infinite continuum as the foundation.

And the infinite points of origin infinitely regress to infinitely many infinite points of infinite origin. Infinitely.

The continuum, observed above observes a cycle between regress and progress. An example is basic up/down or left/right alternation, as strictly the inversion of one direction to another back to the original. This continuum, relative to other continuums, is a point of origin in itself.




To infinity.

Thus finiteness is multiple infinities, and we are left with absolute infinite truth and relativistic finite truth with both synthesizing. The absolutes exists through the finite, for example a circle may be infinite but observed relativistically through natural cycles. There may be an infinite number of finite cycles in nature but they exist as one constant repeating cycle. Thus all absolute truth and relative truth join, with this joining of absolute and relative space observing space as perpetually renewing as one and many.

Most infinitely infinite. For infinity. TO the power of infinity. Multiplied by infinity plus infinity.

I probably left out infinitely many infinities here but you get the infinite point.

I think this method of conversing will be more efficient and understandable.

Yeah, but I have better things to do with myself than to counter-troll a troll.

No, you just got outclassed and had to revert to only ad-homininums.

You do understand that when one respond only with an insult not only are they the troll, but they cannot respond; thus lose the debate.

You do know multiple infinities exist right?
And that they come in different sizes?

http://www.bing.com/search?q=multiple+i ... 389747B22D


"Lambda solves everything!"

ROFL!!!!!! Honestly I think you are timeseeker with a different account.

[Logik]

No, you just got outclassed and had to revert to only ad-homininums.

You have to be in a competition to be outclassed. I've been scratching my balls all evening. Were you trying to compete?
Shame.

You do understand that when one respond only with an insult not only are they the troll, but they cannot respond; thus lose the debate.

You do understand that you just made that rule up so you can claim yourself victorious?
But you don't need to play the silly game - you were in a race of one. Of course you won! You are a winner! Congratulations.
You win the WHOLE intrnet. And infinitely many nothings.

I am not debating. You are.

You do know multiple infinities exist right?
And that they come in different sizes?

I do know. I also know that "multiple" is less than "infinity"

So when I am talking about infinite infinities it's a bigger infinity than infinity.

I'll stop trolling now. Infinities are bullshit. They are amusing when you are doing Mathematics for fun. When you apply mathematics to real-world problems.... infinities are bullshit.

"Lambda solves everything!"

It does solve everything. Pertaining to logical EXPRESSION.

Anything you wish to express. You can say it in Lambda calculus.
If you can't express it - you don't understand it.

Human problem. Not a tooling problem - see

[Eodnhoj7]

No, you just got outclassed and had to revert to only ad-homininums.

You have to be in a competition to be outclassed. I've been scratching my balls all evening. Were you trying to compete?
Shame.

So what you are saying is that when reading what I write, you like to touch yourself? How flattering.

You do understand that when one respond only with an insult not only are they the troll, but they cannot respond; thus lose the debate.

You do understand that you just made that rule up so you can claim yourself victorious?
But you don't need to play the silly game - you were in a race of one. Of course you won.

I am not debating. You are.

Thesis and Anthithesis results in a synthetic victor. I just take everything you post and join it as an extension of the prime triad later on down the road when I form the book/thesis. You are just feeding the beast.

You do know multiple infinities exist right?
And that they come in different sizes?

I do know. I also know that "multiple" is less than "infinity"

False because if there are multiple infinities, with some being less than or greater than other's relativisitic, all infinities are equal as infinity. One line can be larger or smaller than another line, but they are equal as a line.



So when I am talking about infinite infinities it's a bigger infinity than infinity.

I'll stop trolling now. Infinities are bullshit. They are amusing when you are doing Mathematics for fun. When you apply mathematics to real-world problems.... infinities are bullshit.


Real world problems are about defining "qualities" and directing them. Each quality is composed of infinite grades as an infinity in itself. Even "quality time" is a wording for "timelessness" where one is lost in the moment and time is no factor. All calculation is premised in infinity.

"Lambda solves everything!"

It does solve everything. Pertaining to logical EXPRESSION.

Define logical expression using lambda without resulting in either a quality and/or infinite variations. Lambda calculus, as a methodology, is a quality of expression due to its infinite variations...nothing more.

Anything you wish to express. You can say it in Lambda calculus.
If you can't express it - you don't understand it.

Express this in lambda: ⊙

⊙ is expressed as a symbol in itself leading to further symbols, without lambda.

Human problem. Not a tooling problem - see

But human's create the tools; hence the tools as extensions of the problem are a reflection of it.


I think I will use your "Lambda" as that "loin cloth" you where talking about earlier...like a trophy of sorts.

Let me sharpen my spear tip of linear reasoning first...I want to get this just right.

[Logik]

So what you are saying is that when reading what I write, you like to touch yourself? How flattering.

I also like to touch myself when I don't read what you write.

Correlation is not causation.

Thesis and Anthithesis results in a synthetic victor. I just take everything you post and join it as an extension of the prime triad later on down the road when I form the book/thesis. You are just feeding the beast.

Sure. That's how we generated all logic/mathematics. When your work is complete - you will end up with a system that we probably already have

False because if there are multiple infinities, with some being less than or greater than other's relativisitic, all infinities are equal as infinity. One line can be larger or smaller than another line, but they are equal as a line.

False false.

Countable infinity is less than uncountable infinity.

Define logical expression using lambda without resulting in either a quality and/or infinite variations. Lambda calculus, as a methodology, is a quality of expression due to its infinite variations...nothing more.

No definition will do it justice because this forum does not allow for dynamic rendering of content.
We are sabotaged by our medium.

⊙

a^2 + b^2 = 1

⊙ is expressed as a symbol in itself leading to further symbols, without lambda.

Dude! It's just a circle with a dot.