Scrutinizing Equality "=" more closely
Re: Scrutinizing Equality "=" more closely
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).
Re: Scrutinizing Equality "=" more closely
NiceBobo 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).
Negation is unary but the relation between the concept of negation and what it is negating is not.
Do you evn read what i post? Science is a branch of philosophy.I even pointed out that the word science means natural philosophy.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.
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.
Re: Scrutinizing Equality "=" more closely
An unary relation doesn't need to be binary as it is needed by your axiom.
Re: Scrutinizing Equality "=" more closely
this is awesome.Bobo wrote:An unary relation doesn't need to be binary as it is needed by your axiom.
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.
Re: Scrutinizing Equality "=" more closely
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...
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...
- Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: Scrutinizing Equality "=" more closely
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!chikoka wrote: Lets do philosophy...
start with logic
Propositional logic
Re: Scrutinizing Equality "=" more closely
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".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
Re: Scrutinizing Equality "=" more closely
But you're right. I am wasting my time here.#frustrated
Diebert
Are you aware of any good philosophy forums that i can try?
Diebert
Are you aware of any good philosophy forums that i can try?
- Russell Parr
- Posts: 854
- Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am
Re: Scrutinizing Equality "=" more closely
Yes, I know that science is a branch of philosophy and that science is called the natural philosophy.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?
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.
A final jab on your way out? Good luck finding a "good philosophy forum" willing to put up with your hard nosed diversion techniques.chikoka wrote:Are you aware of any good philosophy forums that i can try?
Re: Scrutinizing Equality "=" more closely
I really learnt alot here.
- Russell Parr
- Posts: 854
- Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am
Re: Scrutinizing Equality "=" more closely
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.
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.