hagman has the balls to admit it

hagman wrote:

On 6 Okt., 08:07, JSH <jst...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think talking about a simple failure in what is
usually taught as
logic can give you a sure-fire way to understand
how simple thinking
failures can underpin disagreements with my
research.

Like consider 1 = 1, a simple tautological
statement which is called
an identity in mathematics, and notice, the equal
sign means you have
the same thing on the left of the equals as on the
right.

Even if you have x=y, it must be true that, what?
x=y

That is, it must be true that x and y are equal, as
consider

1 = 0

as in mathematics that is invalid, but modern
logicians do not have an
invalid type in standard logic.

So they might just say that 1=0 is false, not
invalid.

But the expression is not so much false--though it
is false--as it
fails because it contradicts the use of the equals
sign.

If you figure that out, you can work your way
through supposed
paradoxes in logic and figuring that out is what I
did years ago, and
I even posted about it years ago as consider:

Logical Formedness Axioms

1. Identical sets are identical.

2. Different sets are different.

3. Statements contradicting axioms 1 or 2 are false
or malformed.

4. A malformed statement is one for which a
conclusion does not follow
given its structure.

5. A false statement is one that while structurally
correct is not
true.

See:
http://mymath.blogspot.com/2005/05/logical-formedness
-axioms.html

It turns out that if you accept those axioms then
necessarily you are
accepting the equals means equal.

I think maybe part of the problem with people in
the US is that equal
can mean just about anything, like note that the
Founding Fathers said
"all men are created equal" and had slaves!

Sardonic humor aside I think that for most people
the failure in
understanding such trivial logic is what I call a
two-step failure
which has to do with how their brains process
information, as it LOSES
pieces of information in trying to move from noting
that equals means
equal, and realizing that as a necessity.

As consider the suppose paradoxical statement:

Consider a set of all sets that exclude themselves.

That is a malformed statement as it violates 1. and
2. above. But to
know that you have to hold a certain amount of
information in your
mind, sort of in the working space you might say of
your brain.

If you lack the mental capacity to do that then
your mental wiring
prevents you from comprehending that reality.

Let me explain in detail and see if you can hold in
all the info:

A set of all sets that exclude themselves cannot
exist as it needs to
include itself, but if it includes itself it
excludes itself, so the
statement is malformed, as a set cannot include and
exclude itself.

Such a set X (if it existed) would have the property
that YeX if and only if ~YeY.
We might give this property a name and say that X is
Russel-ish.
You seem to have grasped the proof that Russel-ish
sets do not exist.

ahh hagman is a nobel man who has the balls to admit JSH grasped something.

respect hagman.

especially considering JSH reputation , it shows guts and honesty to admit he grasped something.

i would like to add that certain criticism in this tread is rather a misunderstanding of JSH thoughts.

or perhaps pure hatred towards him because of his other treads.

and with reason... however this time he seems to have a point.

i said a point , not a big discovery.

i agree on his " logical formdness axioms "

it is ironic that despite his logic usually is very weak and inconsistant, for this single time he is thinking rationally ; he really hit the spot on the weakness of logic and set theory.

despite his axioms written in "plain english" rather than symbols or standard definitions , they are consistant and usefull.

perhaps comparable to occams razor more or less.

JSH ideas about logic and paradox are consistant with TST

(TST = Tommy Set theory)

in fact i used similar arguments once.

note:

equal = equals
a = b
it needs to be noted that this equal or equals needs to be viewed from the correct perspective...

let a and b be objects

assume they have the same mass.

then a=b and b=a and equal = equals
( consistant with JSH and TST )

however that does not mean a IS b
since they might differ in size , charge , speed etc

and a and b might be 2 different object despite all parameters being the same.

2 apples are both apples , but not the same apple , not even if they have the same shape , weight etc.

keeping this in mind when you read the 5 axioms might lead to a better understanding of logic or at least what many critics are actually saying.

i am usually not a fan of JSH but the awfull state of cantorian set theory and its associated logic is even correctly grasped by JSH.

and partly admitted by hagman.

the liar paradox and aleph_3 are really inconsistant bogus.
even an amateur like JSH can grasp the correct critic of russel and kronecker.

TST is the alternative.

(snip misunderstandings)

regards
tommy1729
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: hagman has the balls to admit it ; the thing is ...
    ... ahh hagman is a nobel man who has the balls to ... the law of large posts euh large numbers applies to JSH ... and indeed equal = equals. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Talking and illogic
    ... JSH sharp mind has degraded over YEARS into a incoherent mush. ... something as simple as letting equals be equal. ... like you, liar. ... Try to "study" math, internet turd. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Z.Irregular Set Theory
    ... Then by comprehension x=exists. ... equals, this is not understandable. ... But it contradicts your axioms. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Z.Irregular Set Theory
    ... Then by comprehension x=exists. ... But it contradicts your axioms. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... For matheology you need belief or axioms. ... There is no physical experiment that proves that two plus two equals ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast