An Inference as the Form of the Logic
- From: "Douglas Eagleson" <eaglesondouglas@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 20 Jun 2005 18:55:29 -0700
An Inference as the Form of the Logic.
Douglas Eagleson, 2005
A school is definble. And the exact
relation of inference forms the school.
All members are to inately or in
an apriori learned fashion, think
using the school's form.
A school of the Greeks in relation
to the modern logical thought is
able to be given as a transformation.
A method of learning the form of the
Greeks in relation to modern predicate
may be stated.
A truth as the real existence of the
relation given to thought, in relation
to the truth of modern predicate, forms
the transformation.
A state of being true, as in for
example, the number of red balls in the
container, relative to any red ball's
existence, as the truth,
of this transformation being self evident,
demonstrates.
A true apriori of the number of red
balls in the container appears impossible.
A final balls removal to count the
number of red balls in relation to
the number of any-colored balls
existent, appears to cause the
necessity to count all balls. Even
balls never found in the container.
And the transformation of the truth
of existence, relative to the truth
of any predicate, forms the exact relation
of the old Greek inference relative
to that of modern predicate.
A school is definble. And the exact
relation of inference forms the school.
All members are to inately or in
an apriori learned fashion, think
using the school's form.
A school of the Greeks in relation
to the modern logical thought is
able to be given as a transformation.
A method of learning the form of the
Greeks in relation to modern predicate
may be stated.
A truth as the real existence of the
relation given to thought, in relation
to the truth of modern predicate, forms
the transformation.
A state of being true, as in for
example, the number of red balls in the
container, relative to any red ball's
existence, as the truth,
of this transformation being self evident,
demonstrates.
A true apriori of the number of red
balls in the container appears impossible.
A final balls removal to count the
number of red balls in relation to
the number of any-colored balls
existent, appears to cause the
necessity to count all balls. Even
balls never found in the container.
And the transformation of the truth
of existence, relative to the truth
of any predicate, forms the exact relation
of the old Greek inference relative
to that of modern predicate.
And after knowing the last ball exists,
without knowing its color, infer the last
ball's color.
So take the true statement. And cause the
counting of the number of red balls
in the container, by knowing the set of
all colors of balls.
Making the inference appear possible
without counting all colors of any kind.
And here a single color set in relation
to the sets of any color define a paradox
of truth. For the last ball may always
be a single member of the set containing
only one color.
So the inference of modern predicate appears
to have this paradox of transformation.
A single member of the set is distinct
relative to the single sized set.
And a ball as the set of all colors of balls
appears the abstract set of balls.
And this true singlar set of all balls,
always, and I mean always, confounds the
modern thinker.
A single state of member existence for
the set of all balls, forms the fallacy
or paradox cause in modern predicate.
An abstract set has membership caused
by the truth of any colored ball's existence
without relation to the truth of
a set membership.
An apparent paradox of abstract set existence
defines the truth transformation of modern
predicate relative to the form of the Greek
inference.
A state of truth may occur without set
membership. A singular membership of
the ball set, may never be, or can be
inferred.
And to ever count all balls to infer
any ball's truth of existence, defines the
fallacy of truth predicate.
The Greek inference removes this truth
paradox by allowing the set to exist
only in relation to the cause of any set's
existence.
An abstract set is held to occur without
number. An abstract number is therfor
a set itself or not. If this may truely
occur, then the self evident truth is defined
by the abstract truth in relation to
the truth of a set.
Making apriori exist for the abstract.
Proving by the self evident, allowed or not.
And all balls without membership forms
a set itself or not. A self evident absurdity
is this truth.
Inverting the truth transforms.
And the set of the Greeks is therefor existent
without relation to the set of modern predicate.
A paradox of the set proves the Greek
inference as true. For the set of
any set is held to exist.
A fallacy of number.
And so the user may therefor always
infer without relation to any sets
true existence.
An absurd statement, a state of truth
surely. Making the self evident
truth, real or not, as this proof's
truth in modern predicate.
A set of truth state is held abstractly
existing only.
A count as the cause of abstract truth
existence, surely is false, for the
set of all sets, exists with only
singluar or many valued number.
A kind of self evidence. Called
invalidity, defines the truth
of absurdity in the Greek school.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: An Inference as the Form of the Logic
- From: Uncle Al
- Re: An Inference as the Form of the Logic
- Prev by Date: Re: A Living Space-Time...
- Next by Date: Strange turn for protons
- Previous by thread: Best water wicking material?
- Next by thread: Re: An Inference as the Form of the Logic
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
