Re: hagman has the balls to admit it ; the thing is ...

hagman wrote:

On 6 Okt., 23:39, tommy1729 <tommy1...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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.

( and hagman snipped to much ...)


1) Others have admitted previously that the "prime
counting function"
can, well, count primes, at least as long as one
one disregards all
the
ODE stuff attached; or that his factoring method
hod might under
lucky circumstances be able to actually factor a
r a not too big
number.

yes and some people proved riemann hypothese under the assumption of the correctness of a few lemma's ;-)

2) Note the word "seem" ;)


lol
perhaps by accident
the law of large posts euh large numbers (of posts) applies to JSH
;-)

but now seriously ; (as you snipped away , by the way)
i feel JSH has got a point.

the liars paradox is indeed just a badly defined sentense.

and i support his 5 axioms.

and indeed equal = equals.

(from the correct perspective)

and his ideas are consistant in my set theory ( TST )

see the previous post of me for more details
(since hagman snipped it)

regards
tommy1729
.

Relevant Pages

  • hagman has the balls to admit it
    ... Logical Formedness Axioms ... that equals means ... ahh hagman is a nobel man who has the balls to admit JSH grasped something. ... especially considering JSH reputation, it shows guts and honesty to admit he grasped something. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Q:About user profile ratings in sci-math google.
    ... where any one rating for a post can be 1 too 5! ... Hagman wrote: ... because to rate a profile about math related ... posts, the personrating the profiles would ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH factors 15
    ... [JSH] ... Yup, many times -- although given his massive volume of posting, it's a ... Now you've just earned his contempt <0.1 wink>. ...
    (sci.math)