Philosophy Now Forum

Basic Trinitarian Functions of all Axioms

I will give a very brief argument as to the nature of all axioms manifesting definition through the flux of relativity, reflectivity, and synthesis.

Note: All examples provides are basic elemental definitions and can be expounded upon. They are presented simply to give image to the argument I will provide.


1) All axioms(Φ) manifest definition through relativity(∫).
∀(Φx∫Φy)

ex: Φ~Φ1~Φ2~Φ3
Φ∫(Φ1,Φ2,Φ3) therefore Φ≜(Φ1,Φ2,Φ3)

≜ = "equal in definition to"


2) All axioms(Φ) manifest definition through reflectivity (≡).
∀(Φx≡Φy)

ex: (Φ≡Φ1)→Φ2 therefore Φ~Φ1 → Φ~Φ1~Φ2
ex: (Φ≡Φ2)→Φ3 therefore Φ~Φ1~Φ2 → Φ~Φ1~Φ2~Φ3

3) All axioms(Φ) manifest definition through synthesis (∪).
∀(Φx∪Φy)

ex: (Φx∪Φy) → (Φx¬Φy) → Φxy

¬ = "negates/negation"


This trinitarian definition of axioms is the equivalent of a flux (Δ) that manifest stability (◻) proportionally as (∝) continual propagation.
(3≜Φ)= (Δ→◻)∝(∞Δ)

This structure of the axiom, in theory allows for a congruency in structure (≅) between the axiom and Pi.
(Φx∫Φy)⋈(Φx≡Φy)⋈(Φx∪Φy) ≅ π

⋈ = "interjoined"


Thoughts? Opinions?

Eodnhoj7 wrote:Thoughts? Opinions?

I think, or if you prefer, it is my opinion, that you are trying to impress somebody but are going about it the wrong way.

Harbal wrote:

Eodnhoj7 wrote:Thoughts? Opinions?

I think, or if you prefer, it is my opinion, that you are trying to impress somebody but are going about it the wrong way.

I like analyticism...nobody is perfect.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: I like analyticism..

And I like words that I understand.

Harbal wrote:

Eodnhoj7 wrote: I like analyticism..

And I like words that I understand.

http://www.dictionary.com/

Heres a gift then.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Heres a gift then.

Thanks but I couldn't possibly accept it, for one thing, I have absolutely nowhere to put it.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:

Harbal wrote:

Eodnhoj7 wrote:Thoughts? Opinions?

I think, or if you prefer, it is my opinion, that you are trying to impress somebody but are going about it the wrong way.

I like analyticism...nobody is perfect.

- Whatever is labeled imperfect is being compared to an ideal.

- For humans, what is the ideal?

Walker wrote:

Eodnhoj7 wrote:

Harbal wrote: I think, or if you prefer, it is my opinion, that you are trying to impress somebody but are going about it the wrong way.

I like analyticism...nobody is perfect.

- Whatever is labeled imperfect is being compared to an ideal.

- For humans, what is the ideal?

I would argue that all ideals are fundamentally a degree of definition, usually abstract, that we use to observe measurement.