Re: (LOGIC) Formalisation of a modal argument
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:45 am
Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:36 amI also like to touch myself when I don't read what you write.
Correlation is not causation.
Actually observing correlative relationships is a cause of definition.
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
Look at the monadic calculus section. All number lines are inherently cyclical arithemetic functions resulting in approximations of one number.
False false.
Countable infinity is less than uncountable infinity.
False, because a countable infinity observes a number of relations higher than an uncountable infinity. If something is uncountable it effectively equates as 1 phenomenon in itself as it is observed as 1 indefinite synonymous to 1 infinity.
[/color]
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.
I find it funny how you ignored this.
No definition will do it justice because this forum does not allow for dynamic rendering of content.
We are sabotaged by our medium.
Actually I explain in the trillema that the progression of one axiom to another sets the foundation for dynamic movement as both progression and dynamic movement is an observation of multiple states.
You are sabotaged...because this "box" is the best you can do.
Lambda calculus results in infinite variations, due to its reliance on variables (observed contradictions in algebra thread); thus is indefinite.
a^2 + b^2 = 1
False. As this symbol is composed of and composed other symbols. Second each variabe you apply in the mathematical statement must be defined. A=What/ B=What? Other wise you are making up nonsense.
Dude! It's just a circle with a dot.
Yes, now prove it using lambda. With proof being definition. And definition quantifying it.
Quantify the symbol.
Sorry to butt in and apologies for the ramble but this reminded me of an aha! moment I had when studying. I'd left school in the 70's with few qualifications but found a job as a trainee mainframe computer operator but during the 80's recession over here things went tits-up and I realised from friends of mine that companies were literally sorting job applications for even relatively basic jobs into 'degree or no degree' piles so thought I'd better get one. As a budding mature student I wanted to do English as I'd been a proper book-worm since a child(900 books and counting plus the hundreds now on my kindle) but was told very snootily, "A love(or a lot) of reading was not enough, try the Philosophy Dept down the hall", so I did and managed to get on somehow and fell in love with a whole set of new books(why the hell wasn't this stuff given to me in school I don't know as it finally gave me a framework to make sense of the other subjects). After getting my degree I somehow blagged myself onto a non-conversion Msc IT course with the aim of producing a 'thinking computer' LOL, it was hellish to pass as I didn't have the requiste basic knowledge compared to all the physics and computing grads on the course(although I still warm myself with the fact that some of the physics grads dropped-out) but during the process I came face-to-face with hardcore symbolic or formal logical proofs and whilst I had studied philosophical logic nothing had prepared me for this and I was really struggling. It wasn't until my kindly tutor sat down with me to discover the problem that we realised that my philosophy training had taught me to dig down to the 'axioms' of an idea and then question them whereupon he explained that, "You just accept the axioms." BING!! Of course later on if you progress in the field then you can attempt to question them but then you are being a philosopher in your field. 