Now, if you do not know the answer, and explain the process, do not post a reply.
Which Philosopher in history fully described definition by binary recursion?
Question for those Claiming to have studied Philosophy
Re: Question for those Claiming to have studied Philosophy
Well fuck me with a bucket, you are making confirmation bias a condition of engagement.
None of them.
Re: Question for those Claiming to have studied Philosophy
Plato did not invent dialectic, in fact he learnt it from geometry.
Aristotle explains it also.
We can name the form of a thing and we can name the material of a thing. These are the only two elements of a thing we can name. Plato called them noun and verb, correlative and relative, and when added together we give another name as a correlative or noun. Noun = Noun + verb.
This is how recursion, You reduce to the First Principle parts of a thing.
Now, our grammar lessons show us hows to add simple sentences into complex ones just like the difference between simple equations and complex ones. Now how do we go from a complex name to it a particular name under it? The reverse process, we divide each name into two of its names, repeatedly.
Now some ask, Why The Statesman and the Sophist were given to be three books, but you only see 2, where is the third? Really, well we have two elements, therefore we have two books, where is the 3rd, well if you know grammar, know the lesson, the Third Book, the Philosopher, adds them together and has mastered the lesson.
It was very clever. It is also know, as Definition by division by 2.s. Aristotle tried to explain it also.
Aristotle explains it also.
We can name the form of a thing and we can name the material of a thing. These are the only two elements of a thing we can name. Plato called them noun and verb, correlative and relative, and when added together we give another name as a correlative or noun. Noun = Noun + verb.
This is how recursion, You reduce to the First Principle parts of a thing.
Now, our grammar lessons show us hows to add simple sentences into complex ones just like the difference between simple equations and complex ones. Now how do we go from a complex name to it a particular name under it? The reverse process, we divide each name into two of its names, repeatedly.
Now some ask, Why The Statesman and the Sophist were given to be three books, but you only see 2, where is the third? Really, well we have two elements, therefore we have two books, where is the 3rd, well if you know grammar, know the lesson, the Third Book, the Philosopher, adds them together and has mastered the lesson.
It was very clever. It is also know, as Definition by division by 2.s. Aristotle tried to explain it also.
Re: Question for those Claiming to have studied Philosophy
-
FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 8823
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
-
henry quirk
- Posts: 16379
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: 🔥AMERICA🔥
- Contact:
Re: Question for those Claiming to have studied Philosophy
*today...here & nowFlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 1:56 amHonestly that list will be a must for all sane gentlemen *soon.
Re: Question for those Claiming to have studied Philosophy
Now, if you will not answer CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, and/or TAKE UP CHALLENGES, then do NOT post a reply. Understood?
Why did you add the 'in history' words here?
Could ANY "philosopher", in the future, have ALREADY fully described 'definition' by, this MOST ABSURD NOTION of, 'binary recursion'?
What does, "described definition by binary recursion", even mean or refer to, EXACTLY?
If, and when, one 'describes' the word 'definition', then all they are essentially doing is just providing 'a definition' for the word 'definition'.
Now, if by the 'process of' 'defining', one is using 'binary recursion', then this is ANOTHER MATTER.
Which, if 'this' was what you were meaning, or referring to, THEN I would move on to QUESTIONING you about what does 'binary recursion' even mean or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?
And then I would be CURIOS as to WHY you WANT "others" to become AWARE of 'this', EXACTLY?
-
Veritas Aequitas
- Posts: 15722
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Question for those Claiming to have studied Philosophy
This binary recursion is a fundamental and very common feature of Eastern Philosophy.
Recursive Yin Yang Loop [in action]
https://dribbble.com/shots/6636986-Recu ... mode=media
Re: Question for those Claiming to have studied Philosophy
Okay, connotative cluses as constituents. a denotative definition. Lol, took me a while but a dug into my notes, lol.
Re: Question for those Claiming to have studied Philosophy
The notes say that defining mathematical terms. Robert Nozick Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Nozick, 151.) Enumerating numbers and making them sufficient but also necessary integers-base, inductive, and external cause. Thanks, as I had forgotten this because it was not important. Going, over my notes, again, brings back criteria to be fulfilled.
Re: Question for those Claiming to have studied Philosophy
Mr Acedemic, as you say you are, I did not, ask you anything. I sent you to my page, that has the 400 plus links to my work. Do you know how stupid that was to bitch about me sending you to my work, and then you telling me not to send you to a web page because you are an academic. That you were not going to do the work, for me? You arrogant and pretensions fool who cannot even read? This is a forum. I do not sneak out the back door so people don't see how stupid I am.puto wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 9:17 am The notes say that defining mathematical terms. Robert Nozick Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Nozick, 151.) Enumerating numbers and making them sufficient but also necessary integers-base, inductive, and external cause. Thanks, as I had forgotten this because it was not important. Going, over my notes, again, brings back criteria to be fulfilled.
Do not try that again. That was all my work on the Archive. Your sentences are not even close to being remotely near any Grammar.
Enumerating numbers? What the fuck! You are so illiterate, it is a wonder you are not in a hospital. If the academics in this world were not fools, your products, those you claim to have taught, would not be freaking idiots. I already know you are not going to do the work for anybody, because you never did it for yourself. I did, and am doing it because you great, pretentious, academic dumb shits are too busy dribbling bull shit can not think your way past the period of a sentence.
Yes, I already know you are too stupid to understand, we use numbers to count, to name with, and you claim that you need to name the names, and why? You need to count that which was the count???? Impressive! Unlike you, I find it a mental defect to pose a theory which only renames names and you actually pass this off to each other and pat each other on the back. The only thing great about it, you form your own mental institutions but they are certainly educational for the study of the mentally lame.
Please, don't talk to me, at all. Ever. I sent you to a pages that demonstrate, real work.
I am not looking for a boat anchor.
Every possible system of grammar is a method of creating and using names for a specific method of expressing binary recursion, and do you know how much bull shit there is in the academia that is only about renaming names which you believe is a clever way to impress other hopelessly lost illiterates. Renaming names, because you could not figure out how names are productively used to begin with, is complete mental failure. Not anything impressive. You cannot comprehend simple grammar, too stupid to know why, and then you can construct predicate calculus which solve your illiteracy? Really, hiding a fact under a pile of shit is not progress.
You demonstrate that you cannot use simple grammar, but blame the grammar, and start scribbling calling it a solution. You should not be proud, you should be locked up.
Every possible system of grammar is founded on an arithmetic identity between your ability to use symbols in accordance with a method of recursively using them. You have only demonstrated that you cannot comply with the simple principles of constructing the first grammar system. And your eagerness to hide the fact by obfuscation of your own mental failure.
This is the difference between your work and my work. You paid a corporation to make you a registered minister of bull shit. I paid for my work by working and proving it with actual mathematical programs! What a concept!
What the fuck is the difference between calling something religious based on mythology, and science based on mythology. You embrace mythology whole heartedly, and in your story, once again, you are the hero! I say, literacy is the hero, not me.
No No, that is not the man who is your savior, I am, really, see, I paid to become a minister of a different name, how clever!
When, you poor fool, does a grammar system, a noun, become a verb? It becomes one because you do not know the difference.
A unit, a thing, a relative within correlatives is also called a standard of behavior, a standard of behavior you have to set, and abide by for every system of grammar and you cannot do it, never done it. That is what I demonstrated by creating, and proving a Basic Analog Grammar, I did not rename names, I simply show you how to use them as implied in the first attempt at formalizing geometry,, the first Book of Euclid. You can put it in a book, but you cannot make anyone read it. Reading means comprehension, and Duh, does not mean okey dokey.
Re: Question for those Claiming to have studied Philosophy
He should never have told me he was an academic.
To me, there is no difference claiming to be religious, and cannot even read, and being a scientist and academic, and still cannot even read.
It is wholly impossible, no matter its source, to claim that grammar is distinguish by its own out put. It can be distinguished only by the complexity of the operations used to construct it. Metaphor is complex, that has nothing to do with were it is expressed, nor the fact that the simple minded cannot read it. The Book itself tells you that.
Any claim that a grammar system differs from itself, because people are too stupid to know how to use it, is not even remotely true. A product of a grammar does not contradict itself, it means, dumb shit, you are illiterate, don't know the grammar system. It is not alive. It is inanimate.
I swear to gowd, the gun killed em, the stone killed em, it wernt me. It was the fault of those damned words, not me!
It really does make a big difference who makes you a minister you know, which corporation you paid to be a certified and certifiable fool! Why, over here, they be more people to con the shit outa, and they will bless you for saving them, really, they will.
Words, names, in of themselves have absolutely no meaning, only a fool claims such and only a fool claims that there are more methods of forming systems of grammar than four, two times two equals four. If you cannot standardize your words to build on it, you cannot use it, simple as that.
You cannot give and keep your words, words are not even blameable. You are.
As Socrates intimated, as the Bible intimates, it is wholly impossible for a system of judgment, to contradict itself. Only a complete, and utter fool, claims that religion and science, who use the exact same system of grammar, differ from themselves.
How in the hell is it that you cannot distinguish the difference, A universal, an intelligible, a noun, with a verb, relative and perceptible in denotations without realizing the blatant contradiction? How in the hell, do you believe that binary recursion, produces a nonbinary result which of course, makes many very happy? Unless you cannot, as Aristotle said, think no better than a vegetable.
To me, there is no difference claiming to be religious, and cannot even read, and being a scientist and academic, and still cannot even read.
It is wholly impossible, no matter its source, to claim that grammar is distinguish by its own out put. It can be distinguished only by the complexity of the operations used to construct it. Metaphor is complex, that has nothing to do with were it is expressed, nor the fact that the simple minded cannot read it. The Book itself tells you that.
Any claim that a grammar system differs from itself, because people are too stupid to know how to use it, is not even remotely true. A product of a grammar does not contradict itself, it means, dumb shit, you are illiterate, don't know the grammar system. It is not alive. It is inanimate.
I swear to gowd, the gun killed em, the stone killed em, it wernt me. It was the fault of those damned words, not me!
It really does make a big difference who makes you a minister you know, which corporation you paid to be a certified and certifiable fool! Why, over here, they be more people to con the shit outa, and they will bless you for saving them, really, they will.
Words, names, in of themselves have absolutely no meaning, only a fool claims such and only a fool claims that there are more methods of forming systems of grammar than four, two times two equals four. If you cannot standardize your words to build on it, you cannot use it, simple as that.
You cannot give and keep your words, words are not even blameable. You are.
As Socrates intimated, as the Bible intimates, it is wholly impossible for a system of judgment, to contradict itself. Only a complete, and utter fool, claims that religion and science, who use the exact same system of grammar, differ from themselves.
How in the hell is it that you cannot distinguish the difference, A universal, an intelligible, a noun, with a verb, relative and perceptible in denotations without realizing the blatant contradiction? How in the hell, do you believe that binary recursion, produces a nonbinary result which of course, makes many very happy? Unless you cannot, as Aristotle said, think no better than a vegetable.
Re: Question for those Claiming to have studied Philosophy
Well, you keep proving what type of person you are Phil8659. When one argues with an idiot, then there are two. As Ann Robinson said, "You are the weakest link. Goodbye!"