Re: Small set theory.
- From: "zuhair" <zaljohar@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 16 Nov 2006 17:37:16 -0800
Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
"zuhair" <zaljohar@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
M is a lier <-> ~ M is a truth teller.
What does that mean?
It means you really don't know logic.
No I know what you mean, but I am preparing for something else, other
than this dichotomous logic you and other tranditional people are so
fused about.
You already said that M is a liar iff everything he says is false.
And M is a truth teller iff everything he says is true.
But if someone sometimes says false things and other times true, then
he is neither a liar nor a truth teller.
No, I am preparing for something else, I redefined Lier and truth
teller. stupid.
A truth teller is one who ALWAYS say the truth, a Lier is one who NOT
ALWAYS say the truth. This is more close to reality. Another kind of
logic can be built according to this dichotomy.
The definition of a lier as one always telling lies is not realistic,
in reality is not the negation of the truth teller.
The comparative example of this in set theory is that y={x|x!ex} is a
regular set, indeed it is a hyper-regular set. It is more not in itself
than all other sets.
My informal reasoning is as follows: It is more realistic to me to
measure lie as the proportion of false statements M does. in such a
manner that for every two M(s), M1 and M2 if the proportion of false
statments M1 has is more than the proportion of false statements M2 has
then M1 makes a more lier than M1.
Now it is clear that if we define a lier as M:Es by M ->s is false.,
then it would only be more reasonable to state that the more the
proportion of false statements M make the more M is a lier.
Now if All the statments M makes are lies, then M is more a lier than
if M has some of it's statements as false statments. Accordingly though
when M is a Full lier( ie all of statments made by M are lies) we reach
at a paradox, but since we know that the more proportion of M statments
are lies the more he is lieying, then M should be a lier, such an
extreem lier to the degree of making us wonder weather he can be
honest. in reality the Lier M as defined by M is a lier <-> M:As by M
-> s is false. , this definition only makes M a HYPER lier, i.e. and
extreem lier, the parallel example to this in set theory is like
saying that the set of all sets not in themselfs is a HYPER-REGULAR
set, ie y={x|x!ex} -> y!e!ey. were !e!e means HYPER non membership.
While on the other hand the M who states that " I never lie" , cannot
be ascertened, since M could be a lier as much as it could be a truth
teller. But since not contradiction involved then M exists, but his
state of truth telling is AMBIGOUS.
Perhaps this would lead us to a logic were MEMBERSHIP e is quantified.
In reality I dicovered that in the ulternative set theory that I have
formed, stating the y={x|x!ex} is a set will not affect the consistency
of any theorum that spring from it, so is y={x|xex}, these two sets are
isolated unique sets, that do not bother what is going on in this set
theory. They do not render the theory inconsistent. Even if y={x|x!ex}
is logically inconsistent, yet it is the model which is so, all other
models in this theory are consistent, so it is not a big fuss, that one
particular unique model is inconsisten, as far as all the logical
reasoning is consistent.
IF u see the last version I of the theory that I have posted to this
group, this is the final version I believe, it accepts y={x|x!ex} as a
set.
Zuhair
Jesse F. Hughes
"It is a clear sign that something is very, very, very wrong, as human
beings are, well human. Maybe some people think that mathematicians
are not, but I disagree. They are human beings." -- James S. Harris
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Small set theory.
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Small set theory.
- From: zuhair
- Re: Small set theory.
- References:
- Small set theory.
- From: zuhair
- Re: Small set theory.
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Small set theory.
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- Re: Small set theory.
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Small set theory.
- From: peter . kosinar
- Re: Small set theory.
- From: zuhair
- Re: Small set theory.
- From: zuhair
- Re: Small set theory.
- From: zuhair
- Re: Small set theory.
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Small set theory.
- From: zuhair
- Re: Small set theory.
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Small set theory.
- From: zuhair
- Re: Small set theory.
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Small set theory.
- From: zuhair
- Re: Small set theory.
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Small set theory.
- Prev by Date: Re: JSH: More fun this way?
- Next by Date: JSH: Where is Christian Bau?
- Previous by thread: Re: Small set theory.
- Next by thread: Re: Small set theory.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|