Scrutinizing Equality "=" more closely

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Scrutinizing Equality "=" more closely

Post by Bobo »

1. Negation isn't a binary relation it is unary. 2. A function is an order of ordered pairs, a relation doesn't need to be so. A function has to have only one output for every input (1,2) (2,3), a relation doesn't need it ( tomato, vegetable, fruit).
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: Scrutinizing Equality "=" more closely

Post by chikoka »

Bobo wrote:Negation isn't a binary relation it is unary. A function is an order of ordered pairs, a relation doesn't need to be it. A function has to have only one output for every input (1,2) (2,3), a relation doesn't need it ( tomato, vegetable, fruit).
Nice
Negation is unary but the relation between the concept of negation and what it is negating is not.
Russell wrote: chikoka wrote:
You talk about the basics of philosophy but you dont seem to realise that its definition...math is knowledge, and philosophy is the love of knowledge...you rat an education ..maybe you could educate yourself on the fact that before 1800 all spheres of knowledge were considered (rightly so..by defn) to be philosophy. Science itself ...based on empiricism was known as natural philosophy.
If you dont trust the education system try get education somehow. Educating yourself gives you knowledge that ,that is included in the defn. of philosophy

There is more to be said for education..the more you push the envelope of your mind the better able you are to grasp abstract concepts.
I would think that philosophy preceding science in history, and that it is the basis of science, is common knowledge. At least on this forum.
Do you evn read what i post? Science is a branch of philosophy.I even pointed out that the word science means natural philosophy.
But you are just going to ignore this any way.
perhaps we should start at the basics.
What is the definition of philosophy?
What is math?
Last edited by chikoka on Sat Jun 27, 2015 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Scrutinizing Equality "=" more closely

Post by Bobo »

An unary relation doesn't need to be binary as it is needed by your axiom.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: Scrutinizing Equality "=" more closely

Post by chikoka »

Bobo wrote:An unary relation doesn't need to be binary as it is needed by your axiom.
this is awesome.
All relations are a subset of a cartesian product..perhaps you say that a single set is a cartesian product of some sort but that still involves the binary cartesian product between that set and the universal 1.
A thing has to always stand in relation to something that is not itself (a != !a). That is what causality is.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: Scrutinizing Equality "=" more closely

Post by chikoka »

Russel

Lets do philosophy...
start with logic
Propositional logic

p = philosophy

m= math

L= logic

i'm going to use what your link said

math <logic<philosophy

this in propositional logic means

philosophy-->logic

logic--->math

============

1)P ................................ lets assume it since it is the system you want to follow

2)(p->L) ......................... Hypothesis

3)(L->m)...........................hypothesis

4)L ..................................(1);(2) modus ponnens

5)m...................................(3);(4) modus ponnens

6)p->m ...........................(1);(2);(3);(4);(5) hypothetical sylogism



since p=philosophy and m=math

p->m litteraly says if philosophy is valid , so is mathematics.

collary

if ~m what would this imply

7)~m...............hypothesis

8)~p.............(7);(6) modus tolenns

9)~m->~p............(6);(7);(8) Addition

(~m->~p) litteraly says that if math (and its concepts) is not valid then neither is philosophy


This is your own material.

<again ,we could always do some toilet humour>

..wait..

{Knock, knock...
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Scrutinizing Equality "=" more closely

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

chikoka wrote: Lets do philosophy...
start with logic
Propositional logic
It's nonsense Chikoka, you're starting to ramble. Putting philosophy and logic as terms into equations is the result of insane thought patterns and a weak grip on any fundamental. I can only advice you not to create more posts covering the same issue. It has been hashed out in hundreds of other discussions and web sites or books. You seem to value formal education but this forum doesn't require it. Perhaps you want to discuss these topics on another forum with educated students who know all their formal logic? See what happens and report back. It's important to understand the focus of this forum and its relation to the formalized systems you refer to. Which is rather close to zero. If after all the discussion now and earlier this is still lost on you, the topic of the forum might not be your concern after all and perhaps you're wasting your time here? Your valuable time! Don't waste it!
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: Scrutinizing Equality "=" more closely

Post by chikoka »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Putting philosophy and logic as terms into equations is the result of insane thought patterns and a weak grip on any fundamental
Surely beleiving that the simplest logical system "propositional logic" has anything to do with equations is the definition of "insane thought parterns and a weak grip on any fundamental".
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: Scrutinizing Equality "=" more closely

Post by chikoka »

But you're right. I am wasting my time here.#frustrated

Diebert

Are you aware of any good philosophy forums that i can try?
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Scrutinizing Equality "=" more closely

Post by Russell Parr »

chikoka wrote:Do you evn read what i post? Science is a branch of philosophy.I even pointed out that the word science means natural philosophy.
But you are just going to ignore this any way.
perhaps we should start at the basics.
What is the definition of philosophy?
What is math?
Yes, I know that science is a branch of philosophy and that science is called the natural philosophy.

You clearly don't like my style of approach, and unfortunately your disdain for me has caused you to completely disregard anything resembling a solution to the problem you're having with the AOI. Instead, your focus has turned to spiting me by throwing up more irrelevant mathematical equations and rewarding those who participate with quips like "nice", and "this is awesome".

I would have added that you're wasting your time here but Diebert already told you that.
chikoka wrote:Are you aware of any good philosophy forums that i can try?
A final jab on your way out? Good luck finding a "good philosophy forum" willing to put up with your hard nosed diversion techniques.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: Scrutinizing Equality "=" more closely

Post by chikoka »

I really learnt alot here.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Scrutinizing Equality "=" more closely

Post by Russell Parr »

As have I.

Particularly I've learned how universities can instill a very staunch materialistic view of reality. With its reward programs, complete with the repetitive issuance of grades, the caps and gowns, wall plaques and diplomas, the student is pumped up with an enormous amount of pride in their "education."

Participation in such a reward system, from preschool to mid to late 20s (or even further), contributes a great deal in eroding away ones capability of seeing through it all. Their education becomes the primary resource in problem solving in all aspects of life. For these people, the deeper, un-materialistic realms of philosophy is too far out of sight, out of touch. It becomes too intangible, too simplistic.
Locked