Some sentences are neither true nor false. We can say that their truth values are _indeterminate_ , not unlike the numerical value of 1/0. Some examples:

- What time is it?

- Wash the dishes.

- This sentence is false.

The latter will take some explaining: Suppose we have a set of sentences s. Define subsets t, f and m of set s such that

t = the subset of "true" sentences
f = the subset of "false" sentences
m = the subset of sentences of indeterminate truth value

Each element of s will be an element of precisely one of these subsets.

Now, "This sentence is false" is problematic. It is assumed to be true if and only if it is false. Therefore, its truth value must be indeterminate.

Formal proof: https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm (only 44 lines in DC Proof format)

Your comments?

Dan

I 100% agree with Olcott, he is the better Logician:

olcott schrieb am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2023 um 15:18:48 UTC+2:
> > On 7/25/2023 12:04 AM, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > We can say that their truth values are INDETERMINATE (like the "numerical value" of 1/0).
> It is not that no one can determine the truth value, it is that the truth value is non-existent.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/KfDliBm1Hb8/m/S4FUx1w_CAAJ

Your usage of the word "indeterminate" is completely wrong. According
to these slides the Liar Paradox doesn't have an "indeterminate" truth,
because "indeterminate" is defined as:

A sentence Φ (or set of sentences Σ) is indeterminate if and only if
there is more than one way to coherently assign it a truth value (or to
assign the sentences contained in it truth values)
http://fitelson.org/piksi/piksi_18/cook_notes.pdf

The correct terminology is "paradoxical", defined as:

A sentence Φ (or set of sentences Σ) is paradoxical if and only if
there is no way to coherently assign it a truth value (or to assign the
sentences contained in it truth values).
http://fitelson.org/piksi/piksi_18/cook_notes.pdf

And its relativey easy to prove that the sentence is paradoxical,
just stay in classical logic and stay with proposition you then get:

/* Law of Non-Contradiction */
∀x(~(Tx & Fx)) &
/* Low of Excluded Middle */
∀x(Tx v Fx) =>
/* Paradoxical */
~∃x(Tx <-> Fx)

Its pretty easy. Even Wolfgang Schwartz tree tool can do it:

(∀x¬(Tx ∧ Fx) ∧ ∀x(Tx ∨ Fx)) → ¬∃x(Tx ↔ Fx) is valid.
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#~6x(~3(Tx~1Fx))~1~6x(Tx~2Fx)~5~3~7x(Tx~4Fx)

Now we have Olcotts "non-existent". But we need to go
back to "propositions" and "classical", to have Olcotts
"non-existent". But Olcott was 100% right.

Dan Christensen schrieb am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2023 um 20:08:17 UTC+2:
> Some sentences are neither true nor false. We can say that their truth values are _indeterminate_ , not unlike the numerical value of 1/0. Some examples:
>
> - What time is it?
>
> - Wash the dishes.
>
> - This sentence is false.
>
> The latter will take some explaining: Suppose we have a set of sentences s. Define subsets t, f and m of set s such that
>
> t = the subset of "true" sentences
> f = the subset of "false" sentences
> m = the subset of sentences of indeterminate truth value
>
> Each element of s will be an element of precisely one of these subsets.
>
> Now, "This sentence is false" is problematic. It is assumed to be true if and only if it is false. Therefore, its truth value must be indeterminate.
>
> Formal proof: https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm (only 44 lines in DC Proof format)
>
> Your comments?
>
> Dan

But for a moron like you, you will be not satisfied by:

> (∀x¬(Tx ∧ Fx) ∧ ∀x(Tx ∨ Fx)) → ¬∃x(Tx ↔ Fx) is valid.
> https://www.umsu.de/trees/#~6x(~3(Tx~1Fx))~1~6x(Tx~2Fx)~5~3~7x(Tx~4Fx)

You possibly want to prove, i.e. use a non-empty set s:

/* Law of Non-Contradiction */
(∀x(x e s => ¬(x e t ∧ x e f)) ∧
/* Law of Excluded Middle */
∀x(x e s => (x e t ∨ x e f)) →
/* Paradoxical */
¬∃x(x e s & (x e t ↔ x e f))

But most Logicians will not need this extra detour.
But feel free to proof the above as an exercise.

LoL

Mild Shock schrieb am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2023 um 20:41:49 UTC+2:
> I 100% agree with Olcott, he is the better Logician:
>
> olcott schrieb am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2023 um 15:18:48 UTC+2:
> > > On 7/25/2023 12:04 AM, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > > We can say that their truth values are INDETERMINATE (like the "numerical value" of 1/0).
> > It is not that no one can determine the truth value, it is that the truth value is non-existent.
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/KfDliBm1Hb8/m/S4FUx1w_CAAJ
>
> Your usage of the word "indeterminate" is completely wrong. According
> to these slides the Liar Paradox doesn't have an "indeterminate" truth,
> because "indeterminate" is defined as:
>
> A sentence Φ (or set of sentences Σ) is indeterminate if and only if
> there is more than one way to coherently assign it a truth value (or to
> assign the sentences contained in it truth values)
> http://fitelson.org/piksi/piksi_18/cook_notes.pdf
>
> The correct terminology is "paradoxical", defined as:
>
> A sentence Φ (or set of sentences Σ) is paradoxical if and only if
> there is no way to coherently assign it a truth value (or to assign the
> sentences contained in it truth values).
> http://fitelson.org/piksi/piksi_18/cook_notes.pdf
>
> And its relativey easy to prove that the sentence is paradoxical,
> just stay in classical logic and stay with proposition you then get:
>
> /* Law of Non-Contradiction */
> ∀x(~(Tx & Fx)) &
> /* Low of Excluded Middle */
> ∀x(Tx v Fx) =>
> /* Paradoxical */
> ~∃x(Tx <-> Fx)
>
> Its pretty easy. Even Wolfgang Schwartz tree tool can do it:
>
> (∀x¬(Tx ∧ Fx) ∧ ∀x(Tx ∨ Fx)) → ¬∃x(Tx ↔ Fx) is valid.
> https://www.umsu.de/trees/#~6x(~3(Tx~1Fx))~1~6x(Tx~2Fx)~5~3~7x(Tx~4Fx)
>
> Now we have Olcotts "non-existent". But we need to go
> back to "propositions" and "classical", to have Olcotts
> "non-existent". But Olcott was 100% right.
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2023 um 20:08:17 UTC+2:
> > Some sentences are neither true nor false. We can say that their truth values are _indeterminate_ , not unlike the numerical value of 1/0. Some examples:
> >
> > - What time is it?
> >
> > - Wash the dishes.
> >
> > - This sentence is false.
> >
> > The latter will take some explaining: Suppose we have a set of sentences s. Define subsets t, f and m of set s such that
> >
> > t = the subset of "true" sentences
> > f = the subset of "false" sentences
> > m = the subset of sentences of indeterminate truth value
> >
> > Each element of s will be an element of precisely one of these subsets.
> >
> > Now, "This sentence is false" is problematic. It is assumed to be true if and only if it is false. Therefore, its truth value must be indeterminate.
> >
> > Formal proof: https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm (only 44 lines in DC Proof format)
> >
> > Your comments?
> >
> > Dan

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 2:41:49 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> I 100% agree with Olcott, he is the better Logician:
>
> olcott schrieb am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2023 um 15:18:48 UTC+2:
> > > On 7/25/2023 12:04 AM, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > > We can say that their truth values are INDETERMINATE (like the "numerical value" of 1/0).
> > It is not that no one can determine the truth value, it is that the truth value is non-existent.
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/KfDliBm1Hb8/m/S4FUx1w_CAAJ
>
> Your usage of the word "indeterminate" is completely wrong.

[snip]

My meaning should be clear.

>
> And its relativey easy to prove that the sentence is paradoxical,
> just stay in classical logic and stay with proposition you then get:
>
> /* Law of Non-Contradiction */
> ∀x(~(Tx & Fx)) &
> /* Low of Excluded Middle */
> ∀x(Tx v Fx) =>
> /* Paradoxical */
> ~∃x(Tx <-> Fx)
>

Many sentences are neither true nor false, e.g. "What time is it?"

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Indeterminate forms in Math are not 1/0, but 0/0. Because
0/0 = x, respectively 0 = x*0 has many many solutions.

0 = 1*0
0 = 2*0
Etc...

Thats why your usage of the word "indeterminate" is wrong.
Please see the definition here, I capitalized the important
part so that Dumbo Dan-O-Matik understands it:

"A sentence Φ (or set of sentences Σ) is indeterminate if and only if
there is MORE THAN ONE WAY to coherently assign it a truth value (or to
assign the sentences contained in it truth values)"
http://fitelson.org/piksi/piksi_18/cook_notes.pdf

Did you see the MORE THAN ONE WAY? Or do you need to
see a doctor because you need new glasses?

1/0 is undefined
0/0 is indeterminate

Dan Christensen schrieb am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2023 um 20:55:19 UTC+2:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 2:41:49 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> > I 100% agree with Olcott, he is the better Logician:
> >
> > olcott schrieb am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2023 um 15:18:48 UTC+2:
> > > > On 7/25/2023 12:04 AM, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > > > We can say that their truth values are INDETERMINATE (like the "numerical value" of 1/0).
> > > It is not that no one can determine the truth value, it is that the truth value is non-existent.
> > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/KfDliBm1Hb8/m/S4FUx1w_CAAJ
> >
> > Your usage of the word "indeterminate" is completely wrong.
> [snip]
>
> My meaning should be clear.
> >
> > And its relativey easy to prove that the sentence is paradoxical,
> > just stay in classical logic and stay with proposition you then get:
> >
> > /* Law of Non-Contradiction */
> > ∀x(~(Tx & Fx)) &
> > /* Low of Excluded Middle */
> > ∀x(Tx v Fx) =>
> > /* Paradoxical */
> > ~∃x(Tx <-> Fx)
> >
> Many sentences are neither true nor false, e.g. "What time is it?"
>
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 6:49:12 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock (Mr. Collapse) wrote:
> Indeterminate forms in Math are not 1/0, but 0/0. Because
> 0/0 = x, respectively 0 = x*0 has many many solutions.
>
> 0 = 1*0
> 0 = 2*0
> Etc...
>
[snip]

I guess I should be happy that this was your only objection. It really amounts to nothing AFAICT. Thanks anyway.

Dan

Just read Wikipedia for gods sake, 1/0 is undefined you moron!

The expression 1/0 is not commonly regarded as an indeterminate form
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminate_form#Expressions_that_are_not_indeterminate_forms

Why is this so. Wikipedia argues with limit. We have to side limits:

lim x->0+ 1/x = +oo
lim x->0- 1/x = -oo

Which makes the limit itself undefined:

lim x->0 1/x = undefined

But you can also argue algebraically.
Namely that 1/0 = x respectively 1 = x*0 has no solution.

On the other hand wikipedia also offers a limit explanation why 0/0
is indeterminate, i.e. has many solutions.

But again you can also argue algebraically.
Namely that 0/0 = x respectivaly 0 = x*0 has many many solutions.

Dan Christensen schrieb am Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2023 um 00:59:57 UTC+2:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 6:49:12 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock (Mr. Collapse) wrote:
> > Indeterminate forms in Math are not 1/0, but 0/0. Because
> > 0/0 = x, respectively 0 = x*0 has many many solutions.
> >
> > 0 = 1*0
> > 0 = 2*0
> > Etc...
> >
> [snip]
>
> I guess I should be happy that this was your only objection. It really amounts to nothing AFAICT. Thanks anyway.
>
> Dan

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 7:06:16 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> Just read Wikipedia for gods sake, 1/0 is undefined [snip childish abuse]
>

<yawn>

Agreed, get woke get broke.
Have DC Proof, get herpes.

Dan Christensen schrieb am Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2023 um 01:18:56 UTC+2:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 7:06:16 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> > Just read Wikipedia for gods sake, 1/0 is undefined [snip childish abuse]
> >
>
> <yawn>

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 7:23:33 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> Agreed, get woke get broke.

A Trump supporter. I might have known. :^P

How long does it take until a) Dan Christensen gets
the math vocabulary right b) admits that he was wrong?

Maybe he needs a little brain massage like here?
https://9gag.com/gag/aEqEVwn

Here is what ChatGPT tells me:

"It's important to distinguish between indeterminate
forms and undefined expressions. Indeterminate
forms imply that the limit exists, but you need
more information or specific techniques to evaluate it.
Undefined expressions, on the other hand, represent
situations where the result cannot be determined at all,
such as "1/0" (division by zero), which is not an
indeterminate form but is considered undefined."
https://chat.openai.com/share/2e5f67dc-2336-435e-84b6-2a73582d2abc

Dan Christensen schrieb am Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2023 um 01:29:50 UTC+2:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 7:23:33 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> > Agreed, get woke get broke.
> A Trump supporter. I might have known. :^P

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 7:32:07 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> How long does it take until a) Dan Christensen gets
> the math vocabulary right b) admits that he was wrong?
>
[snip childish abuse]

If your only objection is to the terminology, I will count it as small victory and see no point in continuing this discussion. Thanks anyway for your time and interest.

Dan

Well you wrote "proposed resolution", if your "proposed resolution"
is based on some mislabeling humbug, I don't know what you want
from us, when you also wrote "Your comments? ".

Usually attempts to "resolve" the Liar Paradox are a typical sign
of mental illness. Once you see such a post on the internet, you
can immediately tell, oh well, here we go again, there is

a fallen angel, they all fall into the category:

"It's like obscenity – you can tell a crank when you see one."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_Cranks

If you would follow these slides closely, you would understand
that there is no "resolution", even 3 partition doesn't resolve anything.
Since there is the "Revenge Paradox" and so on.

Lecture 1: The Liar Paradox
http://fitelson.org/piksi/piksi_18/cook_notes.pdf

Dan Christensen schrieb am Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2023 um 01:51:41 UTC+2:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 7:32:07 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> > How long does it take until a) Dan Christensen gets
> > the math vocabulary right b) admits that he was wrong?
> >
> [snip childish abuse]
>
> If your only objection is to the terminology, I will count it as small victory and see no point in continuing this discussion. Thanks anyway for your time and interest.
>
> Dan

The bottom line is, if you read the slides carefully, and if
you also follow the general wisdom concerning the Liar
Paradox all around the globe, reflecting the current

state of the art, in dealing with it, is that against "crank
wisdom" who believe that a "little thinking out of the
box" resolve paradoxes, this is not the case.

The slides not only use the correct terminology,
i.e. "paradoxical" and not "indeterminate", the slides
have also the following benefit over

the gibberish by Dan Christensen:
- The notions "paradoxical", "indeterminate", etc.. are precisely define.
- The "out of the box" idea 3 partition is discussed towards the end:
Revenge Paradox
- The "out of the box" idea 4 partition is discussed towards the end:
Super Revenge Paradox
- The "out of the box" idea n partition is discussed towards the end:
Ultimate Revenge Paradox
- What else?

See for yourself:

Lecture 1: The Liar Paradox
http://fitelson.org/piksi/piksi_18/cook_notes.pdf

Mild Shock schrieb am Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2023 um 09:18:48 UTC+2:
> Well you wrote "proposed resolution", if your "proposed resolution"
> is based on some mislabeling humbug, I don't know what you want
> from us, when you also wrote "Your comments? ".
>
> Usually attempts to "resolve" the Liar Paradox are a typical sign
> of mental illness. Once you see such a post on the internet, you
> can immediately tell, oh well, here we go again, there is
>
> a fallen angel, they all fall into the category:
>
> "It's like obscenity – you can tell a crank when you see one."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_Cranks
>
> If you would follow these slides closely, you would understand
> that there is no "resolution", even 3 partition doesn't resolve anything.
> Since there is the "Revenge Paradox" and so on.
>
> Lecture 1: The Liar Paradox
> http://fitelson.org/piksi/piksi_18/cook_notes.pdf
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2023 um 01:51:41 UTC+2:
> > On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 7:32:07 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> > > How long does it take until a) Dan Christensen gets
> > > the math vocabulary right b) admits that he was wrong?
> > >
> > [snip childish abuse]
> >
> > If your only objection is to the terminology, I will count it as small victory and see no point in continuing this discussion. Thanks anyway for your time and interest.
> >
> > Dan

I am only a bee performing a Waggle dance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waggle_dance

Dan-O-Matik, you need to move your lazy ass
by yourself, and find the nectar by yourself.

LoL

Mild Shock schrieb am Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2023 um 09:42:09 UTC+2:
> The bottom line is, if you read the slides carefully, and if
> you also follow the general wisdom concerning the Liar
> Paradox all around the globe, reflecting the current
>
> state of the art, in dealing with it, is that against "crank
> wisdom" who believe that a "little thinking out of the
> box" resolve paradoxes, this is not the case.
>
> The slides not only use the correct terminology,
> i.e. "paradoxical" and not "indeterminate", the slides
> have also the following benefit over
>
> the gibberish by Dan Christensen:
> - The notions "paradoxical", "indeterminate", etc.. are precisely define.
> - The "out of the box" idea 3 partition is discussed towards the end:
> Revenge Paradox
> - The "out of the box" idea 4 partition is discussed towards the end:
> Super Revenge Paradox
> - The "out of the box" idea n partition is discussed towards the end:
> Ultimate Revenge Paradox
> - What else?
>
> See for yourself:
> Lecture 1: The Liar Paradox
> http://fitelson.org/piksi/piksi_18/cook_notes.pdf
> Mild Shock schrieb am Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2023 um 09:18:48 UTC+2:
> > Well you wrote "proposed resolution", if your "proposed resolution"
> > is based on some mislabeling humbug, I don't know what you want
> > from us, when you also wrote "Your comments? ".
> >
> > Usually attempts to "resolve" the Liar Paradox are a typical sign
> > of mental illness. Once you see such a post on the internet, you
> > can immediately tell, oh well, here we go again, there is
> >
> > a fallen angel, they all fall into the category:
> >
> > "It's like obscenity – you can tell a crank when you see one."
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_Cranks
> >
> > If you would follow these slides closely, you would understand
> > that there is no "resolution", even 3 partition doesn't resolve anything.
> > Since there is the "Revenge Paradox" and so on.
> >
> > Lecture 1: The Liar Paradox
> > http://fitelson.org/piksi/piksi_18/cook_notes.pdf
> > Dan Christensen schrieb am Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2023 um 01:51:41 UTC+2:
> > > On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 7:32:07 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> > > > How long does it take until a) Dan Christensen gets
> > > > the math vocabulary right b) admits that he was wrong?
> > > >
> > > [snip childish abuse]
> > >
> > > If your only objection is to the terminology, I will count it as small victory and see no point in continuing this discussion. Thanks anyway for your time and interest.
> > >
> > > Dan

Can_Dr.David J. Dunlop,Dr.James Drummond,Dr.Tom E. Drake,Dr.Arthur B.McDonald, Dr.Els Peeters, Dr.Robert Sica, Queen's,Uni Western Ontario& UnivToronto -please--step into their Canadian physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. My weighing scale is puny and insufficient for the job at hand, 0.00001 gram or less of hydrogen and oxygen test tubes. If AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the weight of oxygen, if mainstream chemistry, physics is correct the hydrogen is 1/8 in amu to oxygen.

> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 7:42:42 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of
> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 3:41:49 PM UTC-5, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > "What if... this actually wasn't that clever?"
>
> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 4:23:49 PM UTC-5, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> >Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!
> > > > > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 9:03:40 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > > > > >"Putin's Stooge"
> > > They're not OK.
> > > "They're you."
> > > Oh no, I'm 'speculating' about some other person who was victim of some other happenstance.
> > "Obstruction of justice in the second person"
>
>
>
> > > Spam mill echo chamber, that is Rubard, WM along with his gay spamletts a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Gottingen cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither WM or Gottingen can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it W. Mueckenheim?? You spammer crank.
> > >
> > > The endless and worthless Spam Mill Echo Chamber of Wolfgang Mueckenheim with his gay entourage.
> > >
> > > Could WM loudmouth step into the Gottingen Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, or is he only good for loudmouth nonsense of airhead complaints of calculus, along with his nonsense that slant cut of cone is ellipse, when in truth that is a oval.
> > >
> > > +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within
> > >
> > > On Monday, January 18, 2010 at 11:30:47 AM UTC-6, John Baez wrote:
> > > > Also available at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week290.html
> > >
> > > Surely Gottingen and UCR have weighing scales better than 0.00001 gram.
> > >
> > > Surely Durban Univ. has excellent weighing scales.
> > >
> > > Eram semper recta (John Gabriel) profile photo
> > > Eram semper
> > > ,...
> > > Jim Burns
> > > 775
> > > 20Jul2023
> > > WM Logic
> > >
> > >
> > > +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within
> > >
> > > 3m views Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > >
> > >
> > > Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.
> > >
> > >
> > > Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > >
> > > In Old Chemistry and Old Physics, their subatomic particles were do nothing and no function and no job particles that sit around as balls or whiz around the outside of balls doing nothing but pointless circling.
> > >
> > > In New Physics and New Chemistry-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Every subatomic particle has a job a function a purpose as to the Laws of Electromagnetism--- Faraday law, Coulomb law, Ampere law, Capacitor law.
> > >
> > > A proton is a torus of 840MeV with 840 windings, while the muon is the true electron of Atoms and is encased inside the proton torus thrusting through and producing electricity-- magnetic monopoles.
> > >
> > > The neutron of Atoms is a parallel plate capacitor storing the electricity of proton+muon and is skin cover on the outside of the proton torus in the form of parallel plates.
> > >
> > > Can hydrogen be a Atom if it is just a proton+muon? No, all atoms require to have a capacitor such as at least one neutron. Thus the Hydrogen Atom is H2 where you have 2 proton+muon where 1 of the 2 proton+muon acts like a neutron to the other proton+muon. Thus, water molecule is not H2O but rather is H4O.
> > >
> > > AP is waiting for experimental chemists and physicists to prove him correct that Water is H4O.
> > >
> > > In the meantime we have Hydroxyl which in Old Chemistry, especially Biology is OH, while AP says that is wrong and that is really H2O.
> > >
> > > Now glycerine is a hydroxyl with formula C3H8O3. And what I am thinking at this moment, is that hydroxyls will be an easier proof that Water is truly H4O, rather than wait for experimentalists to actually "weigh the electrolysis test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen".
> > >
> > > You see, with H4O as water, glycerine is C3(2 waters)O with an extra oxygen. If Water is H2O then glycerine is C3(4 waters) deficit O. It is missing an oxygen if water is H2O.
> > >
> > > The reason glycerine is so effective as a skin ointment is because it has glycerine, the extra O oxygen. If water were H2O, then glycerine would be a missing oxygen and not a skin lotion that works, but makes skin even more dry.
> > >
> > > Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > >
> > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > 12:24 AM (13 hours ago)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > >
> > > --- quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
> > > Perhaps there is only two Faraday laws on Electrolysis. I am looking at the one that states: Faraday's first law of electrolysis relates the mass of a substance liberated (or deposited) at an electrode to the electric charge used (Q). A proportionality constant Z can be used:
> > >
> > > m = ZQ = (E/96485)(Q)
> > >
> > > m = mass, Q = total charge rewritten as Q = I*t amperes x time in seconds.
> > >
> > > This website gives an example: 5amps passed through molten Sodium Chloride for 3 hours. Calculate the mass of Sodium. E=23/1.
> > >
> > > m = (23/96485) (5) (3*60*60) approx 12.87 grams.
> > >
> > > --- end quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
> > >
> > > Now has such a experiment been performed on Water to see how much atomic mass of hydrogen and of oxygen results??? If AP is correct, the formula of water is H4O, if Old Physics, Old Chemistry is correct the formula is H2O. So which is it???
> > >
> > > AP
> > >
> > >
> > > No, sorry no, Faraday's Law of Electrolysis is not going to tell the correct mass of hydrogen.
> > >
> > > Reading Wikipedia on Faraday's Electrolysis law.
> > >
> > > --- quoting Wikipedia ---
> > > A monovalent ion requires 1 electron for discharge, a divalent ion requires 2 electrons for discharge and so on. Thus, if x electrons flow,
> > > x/v atoms are discharged.
> > >
> > > So the mass m discharged is
> > >
> > > m= (xM)/vN_A) = (QM)/(eN_A *v) = (QM) / (vF)
> > > where
> > > N_A is the Avogadro constant;
> > > Q = xe is the total charge, equal to the number of electrons (x) times the elementary charge e;
> > > F is the Faraday constant.
> > > --- end quoting Wikipedia ---
> > >
> > > No, the Faraday law of Electrolysis will not work on water with a correct answer, because H is not an atom but H2 is an Atom. And where one of the proton+muon converts to being a neutron to the other proton+muon.
> > >
> > > So if Faraday's law of Electrolysis was applied to water, thinking it would deliver a true answer is mistaken because the one H converts to neutron.
> > >
> > > So it appears that we need to directly measure the test tube of oxygen and the test tube of hydrogen by a direct mass measurement.
> > >
> > > AP
> > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > 1:14 AM (12 hours ago)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > I doubt we can measure a test tube of hydrogen or test tube of oxygen, too small to determine the mass on some sort of weight scale.
> > >
> > > But here is a possible lucrative idea. We should be able to get pure deuterium water. Then run the electrolysis. Collect the test tubes.
> > >
> > > Now have some sort of balancing beam weight scale. Place the regular water of hydrogen test tube on one side, and place the deuterium water hydrogen test tube on other side. If they stay balanced, then AP is correct and Water is really H4O.
> > >
> > > AP
> > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > 1:48 AM (11 hours ago)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > Cosmic Rays from Sun
> > >
> > > 90% of Sun's cosmic rays are 840MeV proton+muon inside = H. The hydrogen Atom is H2 where one of the H proton+muon converts to being a neutron..
> > >
> > > When these proton+muon hit Earth atmosphere, they can turn into pions and muons.
> > >
> > > I commented that H alone is a subatomic particle and that makes sense in the idea that Sun's cosmic rays are 90% these proton+muon.
> > >
> > > Now is interstellar hydrogen H2 and intergalactic hydrogen H2 formed when one H cosmic ray joins up with another H cosmic ray to form H2 atom?
> > >
> > > Is this how we get H2 in outer space? From the splitting apart of H2 into H cosmic rays?
> > >
> > > So how much of the Sun's hydrogen is H2 and how much is H ready to join with another H and reform back into H2. Probably little of the Sun's H is H alone, and the vast majority of the Sun's hydrogen is H2.
> > >
> > > How much deuterium in the Sun? And it is a higher percentage than the deuterium in water on Earth?
> > >
> > > AP
> > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > 3:11 AM (10 hours ago)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > Water is the only known non-metallic substance that expands when if freezes; its density decreases and it expands approximately 9% by volume. (Source: web Lunar and Planetary Institute)
> > >
> > > I have to wait for experimental chemists and physicists to weigh the mass of test tubes from electrolysis, as to the verdict-- water is H4O.
> > >
> > > But until that news comes in, I will look for other means of proof.
> > >
> > > So AP says that the H2 is not a molecule but is the hydrogen Atom itself, where one proton+muon converts to a neutron and capacitates the other proton+muon which undergo the Faraday law.
> > >
> > > There are subatomic particles of H in the form of Cosmic Rays from the Sun, but most of the Sun's hydrogen is H2, and flips back and forth from H to rejoining to form H2. Some gets away from the Sun and is cosmic rays.
> > >
> > > But H2 is an Atom and H is a fleeting subatomic particle.
> > >
> > > So can I prove Water is H4O from the data of Spectral lines of H2 is the same as deuterium, only slight difference is that the deuterium is a full fledged neutron not a makeshift proton+muon of H.
> > >
> > > I suspect that special trait of water freezing is a proof that Water is H4O. Because the 840MeV proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law acting as a makeshift neutron capacitor for the other 840MeV proton torus with muon inside, is where H2 gets that expansion characteristic.
> > >
> > > A neutron is a parallel plate capacitor and those plates can expand when frozen temperature occurs. As the temperature gets colder, those plates move further apart.
> > >
> > > Now does deuterium which truly has a full neutron, does it expand also when frozen?? If so, does it expand as much as H2 which is 2 protons with 2 muons inside?
> > >
> > > So comparing the freezing and expansion of the parallel plates of a neutron in deuterium with the freezing and expansion of one of the proton+muon that is acting as a makeshift neutron in H2.
> > >
> > > If I can numbers correlate the H2 expansion with the Deuterium expansion would be a alternative proof that Water is really H4O and not H2O.
> > >
> > > AP
> > > to
> > > So now on Blankenship's book "Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis", 2014, page 134, shows The structure of ATP, ADP, AMP. And within that structure are OH hydroxyls.
> > >
> > > In New Chemistry, water is truly H4O, and where hydroxyls are now H2O.. And we have first proof of this in the Figure 8.1 of Blankenship's "Chemical structure of ATP".
> > >
> > > For in the lower left corner of the diagram, Blankenship has a H+ all alone, (really a mindless error) and has P surrounded by O-, O-, O and OH. The OH is really H2O for hydroxyls are H2O and water itself is H4O, and that would leave that mindless H+ as being hydrogen Atom of H2.
> > >
> > > The world of physics and chemistry should drop what they are doing and weigh the electrolysis test tube of hydrogen and oxygen to discover the correct true formula of water is H4O.
> > >
> > > AP is total confident, becuase an Atom cannot exist if it has no capacitor structure such as a neutron, or one of the H in H2 acting as a neutron. I am totally confident that Water formula is truly H4O. And I need look only to methane of H4C, to realize that there is no HC, no H2C, no H3C, but starts with H4C, and that tells me water starts with H4O. Totally confident that Old Chemistry, Old Physics did electrolysis experiments and the moment they saw hydrogen test tube be 2x volume of oxygen test tube, they dropped their work and went out for a Danish and coffee break, rather than finish their work--- actual physics weighing of atomic mass units (not the Faraday electrolysis law for it does not apply to water).
> > >
> > > When water electrolysis is physics weighed, AP is confident that there are 4H per every one oxygen O. And that Water is truly H4O.
> > >
> > > AP, King of Science
> > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > 9:34 AM (15 minutes ago)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > to
> > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.
> > >
> > > Now modern day physics and chemist experimenters can really do a marvelous job if they wanted to. For they could freeze the test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen to where they are liquid and compare liquids from water electrolysis.
> > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > 10:01 AM (5 hours ago)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > to
> > > So, what AP is saying here is that we do electrolysis of water. We collect the two test tubes, one with oxygen the other with hydrogen.
> > >
> > > To prove Water is truly the formula H4O and not H2O we must weigh the masses of the two tubes to find that the ratio is 1 x 16amu to 4 x 1amu.
> > >
> > > The silly grotesque science error of the past was to look at volumes in the two test tubes-- "Hey-- the hydrogen is twice the volume of oxygen so the formula of water is H2O".
> > >
> > > No, way was that science good practice. For the correct formula of water needs to be measured by mass, by atomic mass units where Oxygen is 16amu and hydrogen is 1amu.
> > >
> > > I suspect a balance beam scale is good enough to see the hydrogen test tube will be 1/4 as massive as the oxygen test tube. To get within precision of electronic weighing scale of 0.00001 gram we just have to make a larger test tube of electrolysis of water.
> > >
> > > AP is betting that the readings will be hydrogen test tube 1/4 the mass of oxygen test tube proving Water formula is truly H4O.
> > >
> > > Old Physics and Old Chemistry is betting that the mass experiment will have the hydrogen test tube be 1/8 the mass of the oxygen test tube, proving Water formula is H2O.
> > >
> > > AP does not have these precision equipment to conduct an at-home experiment of this nature.
> > >
> > > AP
> > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > 12:38 PM (4 hours ago)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > to
> > > So, once Water is found to actually be H4O, not H2O, we move on to methane, and ask the same question of its hydrogen bonds. Is Methane really that of H8C and not H4C.
> > >
> > > Well, looking in the literature for anomalies to methane, I come across a arXiv "Low and high-temperature anomalies in the physical properties of solid methane "The anomalous behavior of thermodynamic, spectral, plastic, elastic and some other properties of solid methane is discussed near 20.48K and...
> > >
> > > AP wonders: if they can get methane to solid form, well, I am then hopeful that the mass of the molecule can be determined. Because if methane is truly H8C, that difference of H4 in atomic mass units would be very much noticeable difference.
> > >
> > > Chemistry Europe--
> > > "The Anomalous Deuterium Isotope Effect in the NMR Spectrum of Methane...
> > >
> > > P Vermeeren, 2023
> > > "The abnormally long and weak methylidyne C-H bond.."
> > > "The C-H bond of the methylidyne radical, CH*, is abnormally long and weak, even longer and..."
> > >
> > > AP asks, are these anomalies solved if we consider methane is actually H8C and not H4C?
> > >
> > > AP
> > >
> > >
> > > Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker, Henry M. Van Driel, David J. Rowe, John W. Moffat, John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King, Anthony W. Key, Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R.Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey, Robin Armstrong
> > >
> > > Chancellor Rose M. Patten
> > > Pres. Meric Gertler
> > >
> > > Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz
> > > President Alan Shepard
> > > Amit Chakma (chem engr)
> > >
> > > Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
> > > Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
> 
> James Leech, Linda Hasenfratz, Rose M. Patten,Michael Meighen, Susan Haack, Leo Harrington, William Alvin Howard, Ronald Jensen, Dick de Jongh by Dan Christensen
> > On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 8:29:35 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > > STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim
> >
> > 1Canada's NSF-- Francois-Philippe Champagne, Ted Hewitt, Martha Crago, Frederic Bouchard, Cinthia Duclos, Normand Labrie
> >
> > 2Many asking how much is Dan Christensen paid for stalker (perhaps as much as a million dollars whereas teachers actually teaching math are lucky with $100,000.)
> > > ---quoting Wikipedia ---
> > > Controversy
> > > Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
> > > --- end quote ---
> > >
> > > Morons of logic with their error filled Boole Logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Henk Barendregt, John Lane Bell, Nuel Belnap,
> > > Paul Benacerraf, Jean Paul Van Bendegem, Johan van Benthem, Jean-Yves Beziau,
> > > Andrea Bonomi, Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers), Alan Richard Bundy, Gregory Chaitin,
> > > Jack Copeland, John Corcoran, Dirk van Dalen, Martin Davis, Michael A..E. Dummett, John Etchemendy, Hartry Field, Kit Fine, Melvin Fitting, Matthew Foreman, Michael Fourman,
> > > Harvey Friedman, Dov Gabbay, L.T.F. Gamut (group of logic fumblers), Sol Garfunkel, Jean-Yves Girard, Siegfried Gottwald, Jeroen Groenendijk, Susan Haack, Leo Harrington, William Alvin Howard,
> > > Ronald Jensen, Dick de Jongh, David Kaplan, Alexander S. Kechris, Howard Jerome Keisler,
> > > Robert Kowalski, Georg Kreisel, Saul Kripke, Kenneth Kunen, Karel Lambert, Penelope Maddy,
> > > David Makinson, Isaac Malitz, Gary R. Mar, Donald A. Martin, Per Martin-Lof,Yiannis N. Moschovakis, Jeff Paris, Charles Parsons, Solomon Passy, Lorenzo Pena, Dag Prawitz,
> > > Graham Priest, Michael O. Rabin, Gerald Sacks, Dana Scott, Stewart Shapiro, Theodore Slaman,
> > > Robert M. Solovay, John R. Steel, Martin Stokhof, Anne Sjerp Troelstra, Alasdair Urquhart,
> > > Moshe Y. Vardi, W. Hugh Woodin, John Woods
> > >
> > > Everything Jan Burse or Dan Christensen do in logic-- worthless until they recognize and accept the fact that Boole messed up bigtime, for he screwed up AND with OR, and his logic truth tables are a pile of shit. But Dan and Jan have shit for brains and keep on keeping on with their moron logic 2 OR 3 = 5 with 3 AND 2 resulting in 1.
> > >
> > > Re: *Fire the entire Univ Western Ontario math dept/ still teaching that the contradictory sine graph as sinusoid when it is really semicircle
> > > by Dan Christensen Nov 21, 2017,
> > >
> > > Re: 81,045-Student victims of Rose M. Patten Univ Toronto from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker
> > > by Frank Cassa 12Apr2021 7:00 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > Re: 77,233 Student victims of Lawrence Bacow's Harvard from stalker Kibo Parry Moroney with his 938 is 12% short 945, his 10 OR 4 = 14 with AND as subtraction, and his mindless belief real electron = 0.5MeV when true electron is muon
> > > 11:57 AM 10Apr2021
> > > by Wayne Decarlo
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Re: 7,744-Student victims of Linda Hasenfratz Univ Western Ontario from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz President Alan Shepard
> > > 11:53 AM 10Apr2021
> > > by Wayne Decarlo
> > >
> > > Re: 102,852-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur physics
> > > by konyberg Apr 15, 2021, 3:09:41 PM
> > >
> > > Re: 176,232-Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron
> > > by Dan Christensen Jul 2, 2021, 9:47:42 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > Re: 135,568 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of
> > > May 10, 2021
> > > by Professor Wordsmith
> > >
> > >
> > > Re: 1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 =
> > > by Dan Christensen Sep 22, 2019, 9:54:06 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > 5th published book
> > >
> > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > >
> > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > >
> > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > >
> > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > Length: 63 pages
> > >
> > > File Size: 764 KB
> > > Print Length: 63 pages
> > > 
> > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > Language: English
> > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > > X-Ray: Not Enabled
> > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > Lending: Enabled
> > > Screen Reader: Supported
> > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 3:59:18 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Can_Dr.David J. Dunlop,Dr.James Drummond,Dr.Tom E. Drake,Dr.Arthur B.McDonald, Dr.Els Peeters, Dr.Robert Sica, Queen's,Uni Western

[snip]

Time for another spanking, Archie Poo! When will you learn? Once again...

From his antics here at sci.math, it is obvious that AP has abandoned all hope of being recognized as a credible personality. He is a malicious internet troll who now wants only to mislead and confuse students. He may not be all there, but his fake math and science can only be meant to promote failure in schools. One can only guess at his motives. Is it revenge for his endless string of personal failures in life? Who knows?

In AP's OWN WORDS that, over the years here, he has NEVER renounced or withdrawn:

"Water is really H4O, not H2O." ************* NEW ****************
--July 27, 2023

"Negative numbers are the witches and hobgoblins of insane kook mathematicians. "
--Dec. 7, 2022

“Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
--June 29, 2020

“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015

“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015

“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015

“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015

“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018

“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019

According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is a right-triangle.
--December 11, 2019

Which could explain...

“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.” (Actually 0.707)
--May 31, 2019

AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:

“New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F”
--November 9, 2019

AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:

"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]. What I like for the robots to do, is list every day, about 4 Colleges ( of the West) math dept, and ask why that math department is teaching false and fake math, and if unable to change to the correct true math, well, simply fire that math department until they can find professors who recognize truth in math from fakery...."
--November 9, 2017

And if that wasn't weird enough...

“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994

“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019

AP's sinister Atom God Cult of Failure???

“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)

Updated version (repetition removed):

"Oh Atom Plutonium, as great as you are
How great thou are, are, are, are.
Oh Atom Plutonium, the God that you are
How beautiful is your world of science
Your science is the world
How beautiful is your world of science
Your science is the world
Oh Atom Plutonium, Great God of Atoms
Atom of Atoms
Oh Atom Plutonium, as great as thou art"
--March 24, 2023

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 3:18:48 AM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> Well you wrote "proposed resolution", if your "proposed resolution"
> is based on some mislabeling humbug, I don't know what you want
> from us, when you also wrote "Your comments? ".
>

Sorry, but I take your comment as a very minor point indeed: an opinion about the informal usage of a single word. Other than that, you have nothing to say about my presentation. I take that a small victory. Thanks anyway for your time and interest.

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 3:18:48 AM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> Well you wrote "proposed resolution", if your "proposed resolution"
> is based on some mislabeling humbug, I don't know what you want
> from us, when you also wrote "Your comments? ".
>

Sorry, but I take your comment as a very minor point indeed: an opinion about the informal usage of a single word. Other than that, you have nothing to say about my presentation. I take that as a small victory. Thanks anyway for your time and interest.

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Yes, its the same victory, when Don Quixote
was fighting windmills, thinking they are monsters.

You qualified again for mathematical cranks club.

Dan Christensen schrieb am Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2023 um 17:18:22 UTC+2:
> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 3:18:48 AM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> > Well you wrote "proposed resolution", if your "proposed resolution"
> > is based on some mislabeling humbug, I don't know what you want
> > from us, when you also wrote "Your comments? ".
> >
> Sorry, but I take your comment as a very minor point indeed: an opinion about the informal usage of a single word. Other than that, you have nothing to say about my presentation. I take that as a small victory. Thanks anyway for your time and interest.
>
> Dan
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Same error again? If the third set would be "indeterminate",
it would mean something like having many values:

s e m <=> s e t & s e f

But you cannot really express indeterminate with your nonsense,
if you would like to express indeterminate, you would

need to distinguish between:
- form of a sentence
- valuation of a sentence

You could then say:

A form f is indeterminate, if we have two valuations v1 and v2, so that:
EXIST(v1):EXIST(v2):[v1(f) coherent & v2(f) coherent & v1 != v2]

But the Liar Paradox is paradoxical, basically:
~EXIST(v):[v(f) coherent]

See also these definitions here:

A sentence Φ (or set of sentences Σ) is indeterminate if and only if
there is more than one way to coherently assign it a truth value (or to
assign the sentences contained in it truth values)
http://fitelson.org/piksi/piksi_18/cook_notes.pdf

A sentence Φ (or set of sentences Σ) is paradoxical if and only if
there is no way to coherently assign it a truth value (or to assign the
sentences contained in it truth values).
http://fitelson.org/piksi/piksi_18/cook_notes.pdf

So how do we correctly model the Liar Paradox?

Dan Christensen schrieb am Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2023 um 01:51:41 UTC+2:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 7:32:07 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> > How long does it take until a) Dan Christensen gets
> > the math vocabulary right b) admits that he was wrong?
> >
> [snip childish abuse]
>
> If your only objection is to the terminology, I will count it as small victory and see no point in continuing this discussion. Thanks anyway for your time and interest.
>
> Dan

What you can do, is "setify" the valuation. So we would assume
there is a second set v, besides the set s, which we currently
think as propositions only. This second set v is a subset of the set s:

v ⊆ s

It indicates the sentences which valuate to true. The Liar Paradox
is then a fixed proposition x0 from the set s, i.e. x0 ∈ s, such that,
the Liar Paradox is a sentence phi representing its form:

phi(v) <=> (x0 ∈ v <=> ~x0 ∈ v)

Now we can make precise:

The form phi is indeteriminate:
EXIST(v1):EXIST(v2):[phi(v1) & phi(v2) & v1!=v2]

The form phi is paradoxical:
~EXIST(v):[phi(v)]

But the above is not 100% correct, since v1!=v2 would be also true,
if propositions different from x0 differ between v1 and v2.

Mild Shock schrieb am Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2023 um 18:27:48 UTC+2:
> Same error again? If the third set would be "indeterminate",
> it would mean something like having many values:
>
> s e m <=> s e t & s e f
>
> But you cannot really express indeterminate with your nonsense,
> if you would like to express indeterminate, you would
>
> need to distinguish between:
> - form of a sentence
> - valuation of a sentence
>
> You could then say:
>
> A form f is indeterminate, if we have two valuations v1 and v2, so that:
> EXIST(v1):EXIST(v2):[v1(f) coherent & v2(f) coherent & v1 != v2]
>
> But the Liar Paradox is paradoxical, basically:
> ~EXIST(v):[v(f) coherent]
>
> See also these definitions here:
> A sentence Φ (or set of sentences Σ) is indeterminate if and only if
> there is more than one way to coherently assign it a truth value (or to
> assign the sentences contained in it truth values)
> http://fitelson.org/piksi/piksi_18/cook_notes.pdf
> A sentence Φ (or set of sentences Σ) is paradoxical if and only if
> there is no way to coherently assign it a truth value (or to assign the
> sentences contained in it truth values).
> http://fitelson.org/piksi/piksi_18/cook_notes.pdf
>
> So how do we correctly model the Liar Paradox?
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2023 um 01:51:41 UTC+2:
> > On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 7:32:07 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> > > How long does it take until a) Dan Christensen gets
> > > the math vocabulary right b) admits that he was wrong?
> > >
> > [snip childish abuse]
> >
> > If your only objection is to the terminology, I will count it as small victory and see no point in continuing this discussion. Thanks anyway for your time and interest.
> >
> > Dan

To resolve the problem that valuations v talk about to many
propositions than only x0 the Liar Paradox, we can approach
the problem differently, we look only at the valuation v at

the point x0, and denote it by w ∈ {0,1}. So
we encode, just the George Boole encoding:

w=0 <=> ~(x0 e v)
w=1 <=> (x0 e v)

The Liar Paradox is now a sentence phi representing its form:

phi(w) <=> w = 1-w

We can now more precisely define indeterminate and also adapt paradoxical:

The form phi is indeterminate:
EXIST(w1):EXIST(w2):[w1 = 1-w1 & w2 = 1-w2 & w1!=w2]

The form phi is paradoxical:
~EXIST(w):w = 1-w

Quizz: Is the Liar Paradox indeterminate or paradoxical?

Mild Shock schrieb am Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2023 um 18:35:46 UTC+2:
> What you can do, is "setify" the valuation. So we would assume
> there is a second set v, besides the set s, which we currently
> think as propositions only. This second set v is a subset of the set s:
>
> v ⊆ s
>
> It indicates the sentences which valuate to true. The Liar Paradox
> is then a fixed proposition x0 from the set s, i.e. x0 ∈ s, such that,
> the Liar Paradox is a sentence phi representing its form:
>
> phi(v) <=> (x0 ∈ v <=> ~x0 ∈ v)
>
> Now we can make precise:
>
> The form phi is indeteriminate:
> EXIST(v1):EXIST(v2):[phi(v1) & phi(v2) & v1!=v2]
>
> The form phi is paradoxical:
> ~EXIST(v):[phi(v)]
>
> But the above is not 100% correct, since v1!=v2 would be also true,
> if propositions different from x0 differ between v1 and v2.
> Mild Shock schrieb am Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2023 um 18:27:48 UTC+2:
> > Same error again? If the third set would be "indeterminate",
> > it would mean something like having many values:
> >
> > s e m <=> s e t & s e f
> >
> > But you cannot really express indeterminate with your nonsense,
> > if you would like to express indeterminate, you would
> >
> > need to distinguish between:
> > - form of a sentence
> > - valuation of a sentence
> >
> > You could then say:
> >
> > A form f is indeterminate, if we have two valuations v1 and v2, so that:
> > EXIST(v1):EXIST(v2):[v1(f) coherent & v2(f) coherent & v1 != v2]
> >
> > But the Liar Paradox is paradoxical, basically:
> > ~EXIST(v):[v(f) coherent]
> >
> > See also these definitions here:
> > A sentence Φ (or set of sentences Σ) is indeterminate if and only if
> > there is more than one way to coherently assign it a truth value (or to
> > assign the sentences contained in it truth values)
> > http://fitelson.org/piksi/piksi_18/cook_notes.pdf
> > A sentence Φ (or set of sentences Σ) is paradoxical if and only if
> > there is no way to coherently assign it a truth value (or to assign the
> > sentences contained in it truth values).
> > http://fitelson.org/piksi/piksi_18/cook_notes.pdf
> >
> > So how do we correctly model the Liar Paradox?
> > Dan Christensen schrieb am Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2023 um 01:51:41 UTC+2:
> > > On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 7:32:07 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> > > > How long does it take until a) Dan Christensen gets
> > > > the math vocabulary right b) admits that he was wrong?
> > > >
> > > [snip childish abuse]
> > >
> > > If your only objection is to the terminology, I will count it as small victory and see no point in continuing this discussion. Thanks anyway for your time and interest.
> > >
> > > Dan

Example of an indeterminate self referencing sentence is:

"This sentences is true"

It is coherent that it is true, and it is coherent that it is false.
Or symbolically with George Boole where w ∈ {0,1}:

"This sentences is true"
w = w

How many solutions w does it have?
Now take the Liar Paradox, its not indeterminate:

"This sentences is false"
w = 1 - w

How many solutions w does it have?

Dan Christensen schrieb am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2023 um 20:55:19 UTC+2:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 2:41:49 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> > I 100% agree with Olcott, he is the better Logician:
> >
> > olcott schrieb am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2023 um 15:18:48 UTC+2:
> > > > On 7/25/2023 12:04 AM, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > > > We can say that their truth values are INDETERMINATE (like the "numerical value" of 1/0).
> > > It is not that no one can determine the truth value, it is that the truth value is non-existent.
> > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/KfDliBm1Hb8/m/S4FUx1w_CAAJ
> >
> > Your usage of the word "indeterminate" is completely wrong.
> [snip]
>
> My meaning should be clear.
> >
> > And its relativey easy to prove that the sentence is paradoxical,
> > just stay in classical logic and stay with proposition you then get:
> >
> > /* Law of Non-Contradiction */
> > ∀x(~(Tx & Fx)) &
> > /* Low of Excluded Middle */
> > ∀x(Tx v Fx) =>
> > /* Paradoxical */
> > ~∃x(Tx <-> Fx)
> >
> Many sentences are neither true nor false, e.g. "What time is it?"
>
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Re: 81,045-Student victims of Rose M. Patten Univ Toronto from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F.. West, Michael B. Walker
by Frank Cassa 12Apr2021 7:00 AM 

Re: 77,233 Student victims of Lawrence Bacow's Harvard from stalker Kibo Parry Moroney with his 938 is 12% short 945, his 10 OR 4 = 14 with AND as subtraction, and his mindless belief real electron = 0.5MeV when true electron is muon
11:57 AM 10Apr2021
by Wayne Decarlo

Re: 7,744-Student victims of Linda Hasenfratz Univ Western Ontario from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz President Alan Shepard
11:53 AM 10Apr2021
by Wayne Decarlo

Re: 102,852-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur physics
by konyberg Apr 15, 2021, 3:09:41 PM 

Re: 176,232-Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron
by Dan Christensen Jul 2, 2021, 9:47:42 AM

Re: 135,568 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of
May 10, 2021
by Professor Wordsmith

Re: 135,566 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron o
May 10, 2021
by Michael Moroney

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 1:08:17 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> - What time is it?
>

Time you exited math, you failure of math and logic