On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 1:09:53 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

[snip nonsense]

> Time you exited math, you failure of math and logic

That's hilarious coming from you of all people, Archie Poo!

Dan

On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 9:56:06 AM UTC-7, Mild Shock wrote:
> 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

"This is imbecilic talk about logic, actually."
"That's not suprising."
"Why?"
"He's become like an imbecile, actually."

If you could prove something being indeterminate,
then one could use the axioms here, and the approach
how your formulate the theorem here:
https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm

To prove this sentence indeterminate:

/* Indeterminate Example */
"this sentence is true"

Did you ever try whether your approach works? For
the Liar Paradox you use:

/* Liar Paradox */
"this sentence is false"
[b e t <=> b e f]

Which is the same like:

/* Liar Paradox */
"this sentence is false"
[b e t => b e f] & [b e f => b e t]

For the Indeterminate Example you could use:

/* Indeterminate Example */
"this sentence is true"
[b e t => b e t] & [b e f => b e f]

Can you prove "indeterminacy" of Indeterminate Example?
Can you prove this here:

=> ALL(b):[b e s => [[b e t => b e t] & [b e f => b e f] => b e m]]]]

if yes, congratulation, your LiarParadox2.htm is indeed related
to "indeterminacy". If no, do you know why it doesn't work?

Comparing what two shitheads- Burse&Christensen accomplish-- dicker, blither,blather in 2 hours with what the King of Science accomplishes in 2 hours. Why the King of Science straightens out Sequence theory, Series theory, Lagrange Interpolation and Polynomial theory.

On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:04:13 PM UTC-5, Mild Shock wrote:
> If you could prove something being indeterminate,
> then one could use the axioms here, and the approach
> how your formulate the theorem here:
> https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm
>
> To prove this sentence indeterminate:
>
> /* Indeterminate Example */
> "this sentence is true"
>
> Did you ever try whether your approach works? For
> the Liar Paradox you use:
>
> /* Liar Paradox */
> "this sentence is false"
> [b e t <=> b e f]
>
> Which is the same like:
>
> /* Liar Paradox */
> "this sentence is false"
> [b e t => b e f] & [b e f => b e t]
>
> For the Indeterminate Example you could use:
>
> /* Indeterminate Example */
> "this sentence is true"
> [b e t => b e t] & [b e f => b e f]
>
> Can you prove "indeterminacy" of Indeterminate Example?
> Can you prove this here:
>
> => ALL(b):[b e s => [[b e t => b e t] & [b e f => b e f] => b e m]]]]
>
> if yes, congratulation, your LiarParadox2.htm is indeed related
> to "indeterminacy". If no, do you know why it doesn't work?

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
3:01 PM (2 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
The big take away lesson of today-- a function of mathematics has to engulf the entire x-axis. It cannot pick and chose parts of the x-axis and still be a function. This all ties in nicely with the calculus, for the calculus is such that the function is a time Sequence on the x-axis, as each x-point delivers a unique y-point.

Step functions are phony and fakery, they have no link up of one step to another step, and that is the purpose and magic of the derivative-- it has to link up one column or one cell with the next cell. It is not that numbers are continuous, but in calculus, the linkup is continuous. A function is with pen or pencil where you cannot lift up the pencil and continue somewhere else, for a function stays put from x=0 to the end of the Grid System.

This is not taught in Old Math education and students go through life assuming or falsely assuming what the answer is to a function linking up. As I myself had the notion in College that a function can stop and start in places. No, once you start a function at x= 0, it stays a continual running along the x-axis, exhausting all the x-axis points. And the reason Old Math cannot come out and say this is because of their continuum b.s., their continuum allows them error filled ideas such as the step function that a function can have breaks in it. A function is continuous but a number system must be discrete. And this is probably what confused those in Old Math, especially Cohen. Confused over what is continuous in mathematics. The numbers are not continuous, but the run of a function, is continuous with no breaks. And the run of a function has to engulf every point of the x-axis, it cannot stop and call it quits, it must go out to infinity borderline 10^604, some even out to algebraic completeness 10^1208.

So this idea is very new and very correcting of Old Math. Continuity exists in math, not in numbers packed close together, no, not in numbers. Continuity exists in the connection of one number to the Next Discrete Number, moving through empty space between one number and the next number.

So, already a fantastic new find and clearing up of Old Math, in this project of sequence and polynomial theory.

AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
4:16 PM (1 hour ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now I am looking for a method of covering every function in a Decimal Grid System with a polynomial. Not just any polynomial but a straightline polynomial of Y = mx + b.

In New Math, our equations are polynomial on leftside and a positive Decimal Grid number on rightside all alone.

So our leftside is going to look like a function with variable x in every term.

Such as for example 3x^3 +2x^2 + x = 6. We can disregard the rightside. And focus only on the leftside and turn that leftside into nothing but Y = mx+ b.

We divide by x and have x(3x^2 +2x +1) that equals x((3x^2 +2x)+1) that equals x(x(3x +2) +1).

Now we have x(x(3x +2) +1) as our polynomial is all broken down into Y = mx+b as factors, for we have 3x+2 and x and x and 1. We have Y= 3x+2, and Y = x and Y=x and Y=1, all straightlines of Y = mx+b.

This can be done to every polynomial no matter what is the starting exponent. Can be done because the lowest term is x on the leftside. It cannot be done in Old Math because the lowest term is a constant.

In Old Math, the generalized Polynomial function was written as a_n(x^n) + a_n-1(x^n-1) + . . . + a_1x + a_0 = 0

In New Math, the generalized Polynomial function is written as a_n(x^n) + a_n-1(x^n-1) + . . . + a_1x = a_0 which is a positive Decimal Grid Number..

No having a zero and negative number or imaginary number on the rightside of equation makes all the difference in the world.

So let me graph x(x(3x +2) +1) using just counting numbers 0 to 10.

x....|...Y
________

0.........0
1.........6
2.........34
3.........102
etc etc

The curve in this polynomial will be a zig zag

Offering me some idea as to what polynomial functions cover the 10 Decimal Grid can expect.

Let me try another one which stays more inbound to the 100 Grid with x^3 -2x^2 +x. Which turns into x(x(x -2) +1) and its graph is.

x....|...Y
________

0.........0
1.........0
2.........2
3.........12
4.........36
5..........80
etc etc

Here I am trying to get a feel of a zig zag polynomial to cover all the points of a grid system under a function.

I am especially keen on finding sawtooth functions such as in 10 Grid

x....|...Y
________

0.........0
1.........10
2.........0
3.........10
4.........0
5..........10
etc etc

AP

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
4:44 PM (1 hour ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
For a sawtooth polynomial function, I am going to need something like a remake of the sine or cosine.

Let me try this.

-1.44x^2 + .44x + 1 -> Y

x....|...Y
________

0.........1
1.........0 excellent so far, the up and down of sawtooth
2.........-3.88 and fizzles out.

So I am looking for a polynomial that at least gets me this much.

x....|...Y
________

0.........1
1.........0 excellent so far, the up and down of sawtooth
2.........1
3..........0

That gets me four x points to be sawtooth and dissect that equation as being a chain of Y= mx+b.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
5:10 PM (4 minutes ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, I found the solution. I seldom like being in a state of vexation.

The solution involves Series added to Sequence theory. Is it understandable, that you cannot have a Sequence theory without a Series theory, and that that two go hand in hand.

So to solve the Sawtooth function being a pure polynomial, I have to treat each Cell of a Decimal Grid System. In the 10 Grid there are 100 cells on the x-axis, and each cell has a polynomial function designed for that cell.

And what this does is throw out the Lagrange Interpolation, my pride and joy for the past decade, of turning all functions not polynomial, turning them into polynomials over a interval.

Here now, I throw out even the Lagrange Interpolation and ask the person doing the math to graph his/her function in the interval under purview. Graph it, then assign a polynomial Y = mx+b for those cells and write it as a Series of polynomials.

So for example my beloved Sawtooth function in 10 Grid that alternates from 0 to 10 and 10 to 0, up and down with 0 and 10.

x....|...Y
________

0.........0
1.........10
2.........0
3..........10
4..........0
5..........10

And the cell functions are Y=10x or Y= -10x.

Written as a Series for the above function:

P(x) = (Y=0)_0 + (Y=10x)_1 + (Y=-10x)_2 + (Y=10x)_3 etc etc

And well, this then says the total number of straightline functions for the 10 Grid, is exactly 10^10 needed to cover all the functions possible in that 10 Grid. The choices are exactly 10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10.

The upshot of this is that Sequence theory cannot be developed in isolation of Series theory, the two must be combined as one.

And well, I delight in simplicity and to throw out the Lagrange Interpolation except when it is useful is also a delight.

AP

See my reply just now to your identical posting at sci.logic

Dan

On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 5:04:13 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> If you could prove something being indeterminate,
> then one could use the axioms here, and the approach
> how your formulate the theorem here:
> https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm
>
> To prove this sentence indeterminate:
>
> /* Indeterminate Example */
> "this sentence is true"
>
> Did you ever try whether your approach works? For
> the Liar Paradox you use:
>
> /* Liar Paradox */
> "this sentence is false"
> [b e t <=> b e f]
>
> Which is the same like:
>
> /* Liar Paradox */
> "this sentence is false"
> [b e t => b e f] & [b e f => b e t]
>
> For the Indeterminate Example you could use:
>
> /* Indeterminate Example */
> "this sentence is true"
> [b e t => b e t] & [b e f => b e f]
>
> Can you prove "indeterminacy" of Indeterminate Example?
> Can you prove this here:
>
> => ALL(b):[b e s => [[b e t => b e t] & [b e f => b e f] => b e m]]]]
>
> if yes, congratulation, your LiarParadox2.htm is indeed related
> to "indeterminacy". If no, do you know why it doesn't work?

Can_Dr.James Drummond,Dr.Tom E. Drake,Dr.David J. Dunlop,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

What happend to m?

8. ALL(b):[b in s => [b in t => b in t] & [b in f => b in f]]
Conclusion, 2

The goal was to prove:

> ALL(b):[b e s => [[b e t => b e t] & [b e f => b e f] => b e m]]]]

After all you claim that "m" expresses indeterminate. You litteraly wrote:
> Some sentences are neither true nor false.
> We can say that their truth values are _indeterminate_

LoL

Dan Christensen schrieb am Donnerstag, 27. Juli 2023 um 01:48:48 UTC+2:
> See my reply just now to your identical posting at sci.logic
>
> Dan
> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 5:04:13 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> > If you could prove something being indeterminate,
> > then one could use the axioms here, and the approach
> > how your formulate the theorem here:
> > https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm
> >
> > To prove this sentence indeterminate:
> >
> > /* Indeterminate Example */
> > "this sentence is true"
> >
> > Did you ever try whether your approach works? For
> > the Liar Paradox you use:
> >
> > /* Liar Paradox */
> > "this sentence is false"
> > [b e t <=> b e f]
> >
> > Which is the same like:
> >
> > /* Liar Paradox */
> > "this sentence is false"
> > [b e t => b e f] & [b e f => b e t]
> >
> > For the Indeterminate Example you could use:
> >
> > /* Indeterminate Example */
> > "this sentence is true"
> > [b e t => b e t] & [b e f => b e f]
> >
> > Can you prove "indeterminacy" of Indeterminate Example?
> > Can you prove this here:
> >
> > => ALL(b):[b e s => [[b e t => b e t] & [b e f => b e f] => b e m]]]]
> >
> > if yes, congratulation, your LiarParadox2.htm is indeed related
> > to "indeterminacy". If no, do you know why it doesn't work?

BTW you can use a truth table generator to find out
whether a sentence is paradoxical or indeterminate,
using the official definitions from here:
http://fitelson.org/piksi/piksi_18/cook_notes.pdf

A sentences is indeterminate if the truth table of
its form has a least two rows that are marked true T.

Example "Indeterminate":
"this sentences is true"

A (A ↔ A)
F T
T T
https://web.stanford.edu/class/cs103/tools/truth-table-tool/

A sentences is paradoxical if the truth table of
its form has no row marked true T:

Example "Paradoxical":
"this sentences is false"

A (A ↔ ¬A)
F F /* There is no Row with "T" */
T F
https://web.stanford.edu/class/cs103/tools/truth-table-tool/

Mild Shock schrieb am Freitag, 28. Juli 2023 um 14:35:47 UTC+2:
> What happend to m?
>
> 8. ALL(b):[b in s => [b in t => b in t] & [b in f => b in f]]
> Conclusion, 2
>
> The goal was to prove:
> > ALL(b):[b e s => [[b e t => b e t] & [b e f => b e f] => b e m]]]]
> After all you claim that "m" expresses indeterminate. You litteraly wrote:
> > Some sentences are neither true nor false.
> > We can say that their truth values are _indeterminate_
>
> LoL
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Donnerstag, 27. Juli 2023 um 01:48:48 UTC+2:
> > See my reply just now to your identical posting at sci.logic
> >
> > Dan
> > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 5:04:13 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> > > If you could prove something being indeterminate,
> > > then one could use the axioms here, and the approach
> > > how your formulate the theorem here:
> > > https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm
> > >
> > > To prove this sentence indeterminate:
> > >
> > > /* Indeterminate Example */
> > > "this sentence is true"
> > >
> > > Did you ever try whether your approach works? For
> > > the Liar Paradox you use:
> > >
> > > /* Liar Paradox */
> > > "this sentence is false"
> > > [b e t <=> b e f]
> > >
> > > Which is the same like:
> > >
> > > /* Liar Paradox */
> > > "this sentence is false"
> > > [b e t => b e f] & [b e f => b e t]
> > >
> > > For the Indeterminate Example you could use:
> > >
> > > /* Indeterminate Example */
> > > "this sentence is true"
> > > [b e t => b e t] & [b e f => b e f]
> > >
> > > Can you prove "indeterminacy" of Indeterminate Example?
> > > Can you prove this here:
> > >
> > > => ALL(b):[b e s => [[b e t => b e t] & [b e f => b e f] => b e m]]]]
> > >
> > > if yes, congratulation, your LiarParadox2.htm is indeed related
> > > to "indeterminacy". If no, do you know why it doesn't work?

Can you formalize these two notions? Can
you formalize truth tables? What does a truth table
show, does it not show the "graph" of a truth functional?

Don't you have Function Spaces now in DC Proof?
Lets say B = {0,1} is the Boolean Domain. A truth functional
that does a propositional form, is nothing else than:

f : B x ... x B -> B

It maps the cartesian product of the Boolean Domain
to the Boolean Domain. The cartesian product is B^n
= B x ... x B where n is the number of propositional variables

in the propositional form. So how would one express
paradoxical/indeterminate using set theory and function spaces?
Do we need to become rocket scientists for that?

Mild Shock schrieb am Freitag, 28. Juli 2023 um 14:41:33 UTC+2:
> BTW you can use a truth table generator to find out
> whether a sentence is paradoxical or indeterminate,
> using the official definitions from here:
> http://fitelson.org/piksi/piksi_18/cook_notes.pdf
>
> A sentences is indeterminate if the truth table of
> its form has a least two rows that are marked true T.
>
> Example "Indeterminate":
> "this sentences is true"
>
> A (A ↔ A)
> F T
> T T
> https://web.stanford.edu/class/cs103/tools/truth-table-tool/
>
> A sentences is paradoxical if the truth table of
> its form has no row marked true T:
>
> Example "Paradoxical":
> "this sentences is false"
>
> A (A ↔ ¬A)
> F F /* There is no Row with "T" */
> T F
> https://web.stanford.edu/class/cs103/tools/truth-table-tool/
> Mild Shock schrieb am Freitag, 28. Juli 2023 um 14:35:47 UTC+2:
> > What happend to m?
> >
> > 8. ALL(b):[b in s => [b in t => b in t] & [b in f => b in f]]
> > Conclusion, 2
> >
> > The goal was to prove:
> > > ALL(b):[b e s => [[b e t => b e t] & [b e f => b e f] => b e m]]]]
> > After all you claim that "m" expresses indeterminate. You litteraly wrote:
> > > Some sentences are neither true nor false.
> > > We can say that their truth values are _indeterminate_
> >
> > LoL
> > Dan Christensen schrieb am Donnerstag, 27. Juli 2023 um 01:48:48 UTC+2:
> > > See my reply just now to your identical posting at sci.logic
> > >
> > > Dan
> > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 5:04:13 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> > > > If you could prove something being indeterminate,
> > > > then one could use the axioms here, and the approach
> > > > how your formulate the theorem here:
> > > > https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm
> > > >
> > > > To prove this sentence indeterminate:
> > > >
> > > > /* Indeterminate Example */
> > > > "this sentence is true"
> > > >
> > > > Did you ever try whether your approach works? For
> > > > the Liar Paradox you use:
> > > >
> > > > /* Liar Paradox */
> > > > "this sentence is false"
> > > > [b e t <=> b e f]
> > > >
> > > > Which is the same like:
> > > >
> > > > /* Liar Paradox */
> > > > "this sentence is false"
> > > > [b e t => b e f] & [b e f => b e t]
> > > >
> > > > For the Indeterminate Example you could use:
> > > >
> > > > /* Indeterminate Example */
> > > > "this sentence is true"
> > > > [b e t => b e t] & [b e f => b e f]
> > > >
> > > > Can you prove "indeterminacy" of Indeterminate Example?
> > > > Can you prove this here:
> > > >
> > > > => ALL(b):[b e s => [[b e t => b e t] & [b e f => b e f] => b e m]]]]
> > > >
> > > > if yes, congratulation, your LiarParadox2.htm is indeed related
> > > > to "indeterminacy". If no, do you know why it doesn't work?

Mild Shock wrote:

> W̶h̶a̶t̶ h̶a̶p̶p̶e̶n̶d̶ t̶o̶ m̶?
> 8. A̶L̶L̶(b̶):b̶ i̶n̶ s̶ => b̶ i̶n̶ t̶ => b̶ i̶n̶ t̶ & b̶ i̶n̶ f̶ => b̶ i̶n̶ f̶
> C̶o̶n̶c̶l̶u̶s̶i̶o̶n̶, 2 T̶h̶e̶ g̶o̶a̶l̶ w̶a̶s̶ t̶o̶ p̶r̶o̶v̶e̶:
>> A̶L̶L̶(b̶):b̶ e̶ s̶ => b̶ e̶ t̶ => b̶ e̶ t̶ & b̶ e̶ f̶ => b̶ e̶ f̶ => b̶ e̶ m̶
> A̶f̶t̶e̶r̶ a̶l̶l̶ y̶o̶u̶ c̶l̶a̶i̶m̶ t̶h̶a̶t̶ "m̶" e̶x̶p̶r̶e̶s̶s̶e̶s̶ i̶n̶d̶e̶t̶e̶r̶m̶i̶n̶a̶t̶e̶. Y̶o̶u̶ l̶i̶t̶t̶e̶r̶a̶l̶y̶
> w̶r̶o̶t̶e̶: >> S̶o̶m̶e̶ s̶e̶n̶t̶e̶n̶c̶e̶s̶ a̶r̶e̶ n̶e̶i̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ t̶r̶u̶e̶ n̶o̶r̶ f̶a̶l̶s̶e̶.
>> W̶e̶ c̶a̶n̶ s̶a̶y̶ t̶h̶a̶t̶ t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ t̶r̶u̶t̶h̶ v̶a̶l̶u̶e̶s̶ a̶r̶e̶ i̶n̶d̶e̶t̶e̶r̶m̶i̶n̶a̶t̶e̶ > L̶o̶L̶
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Donnerstag, 27. Juli 2023 um 01:48:48 UTC+2:

Better to be thought a fool and hold your tongue, than to open your mouth
and remove all doubt. 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝘄𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘂𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲.

according hillary clintona, after the 1993 they pumped 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 $5 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿
𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘂𝗸𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗮. So along 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗽 𝗱'é𝘁𝗮𝘁 2014 the ukurinars were
fully nazified.

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 8:55:43 AM UTC-4, Dart Mindeli wrote:
> Mild Shock wrote:
>
> > W̶h̶a̶t̶ h̶a̶p̶p̶e̶n̶d̶ t̶o̶ m̶?
> > 8. A̶L̶L̶(b̶):b̶ i̶n̶ s̶ => b̶ i̶n̶ t̶ => b̶ i̶n̶ t̶ & b̶ i̶n̶ f̶ => b̶ i̶n̶ f̶
> > C̶o̶n̶c̶l̶u̶s̶i̶o̶n̶, 2 T̶h̶e̶ g̶o̶a̶l̶ w̶a̶s̶ t̶o̶ p̶r̶o̶v̶e̶:
> >> A̶L̶L̶(b̶):b̶ e̶ s̶ => b̶ e̶ t̶ => b̶ e̶ t̶ & b̶ e̶ f̶ => b̶ e̶ f̶ => b̶ e̶ m̶
> > A̶f̶t̶e̶r̶ a̶l̶l̶ y̶o̶u̶ c̶l̶a̶i̶m̶ t̶h̶a̶t̶ "m̶" e̶x̶p̶r̶e̶s̶s̶e̶s̶ i̶n̶d̶e̶t̶e̶r̶m̶i̶n̶a̶t̶e̶. Y̶o̶u̶ l̶i̶t̶t̶e̶r̶a̶l̶y̶
> > w̶r̶o̶t̶e̶: >> S̶o̶m̶e̶ s̶e̶n̶t̶e̶n̶c̶e̶s̶ a̶r̶e̶ n̶e̶i̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ t̶r̶u̶e̶ n̶o̶r̶ f̶a̶l̶s̶e̶.
> >> W̶e̶ c̶a̶n̶ s̶a̶y̶ t̶h̶a̶t̶ t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ t̶r̶u̶t̶h̶ v̶a̶l̶u̶e̶s̶ a̶r̶e̶ i̶n̶d̶e̶t̶e̶r̶m̶i̶n̶a̶t̶e̶ > L̶o̶L̶
> > Dan Christensen schrieb am Donnerstag, 27. Juli 2023 um 01:48:48 UTC+2:
> Better to be thought a fool and hold your tongue, than to open your mouth
> and remove all doubt. 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝘄𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘂𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲.
>
> according hillary clintona, after the 1993 they pumped 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 $5 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿
> 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘂𝗸𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗮. So along 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗽 𝗱'é𝘁𝗮𝘁 2014 the ukurinars were
> fully nazified.
Hey Nazi Boy! I hear Nazi Leader Putin is going to be conscripting grandfathers for meat in his genocidal war of conquest on Ukraine. Now would be be a good time you to go into hiding if you don't want to die in this doomed adventure.

In set theory one can even prove the ultimate revenge
paradox, for arbitrary domains J = {0,...}. There is the
following set theory theorem, relatively trivial:

Theorem Constant Function:
Assume an arbitrary domain J = {0,...} which is non-empty
and has zero 0, i.e. 0 e J. Then looking at the function space,
i.e. functions for an arity n:

f : J^n -> J

We find that there is always a constant function:

ALL(x1):[x1 e J => .... ALL(xn):[xn e J => f(x1,..,xn) = 0] ...]

Proof:
Just use the Subset Axiom, and construct this function:
f = { (x1,...,xn,0) | x1 e J & ... & xn e J }
Q.E.D:

Corrolary Ultimate Revenge:
In a language that is at least as expressive as set theory,
there is always a Liar Paradox like form, even if we allow
to range expressions over more than B = {0,1}.

Proof:
We had J arbitrary in the previous theorem, so it can be also
different or larger than B. Even excelling the super revenge
paradox which transcends only K = {0,1,u}.
Q.E.D.

A tricky construction of an ultimate revenge paradox, possibly
totally out of Dan Christensens mental radar, is the Diagonal
Argument, for example used in Cantors Theorem. One also

constructs a function which is constant, but make it only
constant along a diagonal, i.e. we have a function g : A x A -> B,
but we only make the function h : A -> B, which is h(x) = g(x,x),

constant, and then can use it to prove the following:

Cantor's theorem
The cardinality of the power set is larger then
the cardinality of its base set
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_theorem

Or symbolically, |P(A)| > |A|. It can also be used to show
that there is no universal set. The Russel paradox is not
the only way to show there is no universal set.

The Russel paradox was predated by the Cantor paradox.
Assue the universal class V were a set. Since P(V) consists
of sets, and since V is universal, we must have P(V) ⊆ V,

or by definition of cardinality |P(V)| =< |V|, a contradiction.
Q.E.D.

But DC Proof is possibly the only tool that claims to provide
set theory, but has blogged about set theory practically nothing.
Dan Christensen already claimed he is not

interested in proving things about ordinals. He is also not
interesting in proving things about cardinals. He really misses a
fine piece of history in logic and mathematics.

Mild Shock schrieb am Samstag, 29. Juli 2023 um 13:06:42 UTC+2:
> In set theory one can even prove the ultimate revenge
> paradox, for arbitrary domains J = {0,...}. There is the
> following set theory theorem, relatively trivial:
>
> Theorem Constant Function:
> Assume an arbitrary domain J = {0,...} which is non-empty
> and has zero 0, i.e. 0 e J. Then looking at the function space,
> i.e. functions for an arity n:
>
> f : J^n -> J
>
> We find that there is always a constant function:
>
> ALL(x1):[x1 e J => .... ALL(xn):[xn e J => f(x1,..,xn) = 0] ...]
>
> Proof:
> Just use the Subset Axiom, and construct this function:
> f = { (x1,...,xn,0) | x1 e J & ... & xn e J }
> Q.E.D:
>
> Corrolary Ultimate Revenge:
> In a language that is at least as expressive as set theory,
> there is always a Liar Paradox like form, even if we allow
> to range expressions over more than B = {0,1}.
>
> Proof:
> We had J arbitrary in the previous theorem, so it can be also
> different or larger than B. Even excelling the super revenge
> paradox which transcends only K = {0,1,u}.
> Q.E.D.

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 5:35:47 AM UTC-7, Mild Shock wrote:
> What happend to m?
>
> 8. ALL(b):[b in s => [b in t => b in t] & [b in f => b in f]]
> Conclusion, 2
>
> The goal was to prove:
> > ALL(b):[b e s => [[b e t => b e t] & [b e f => b e f] => b e m]]]]
> After all you claim that "m" expresses indeterminate. You litteraly wrote:
> > Some sentences are neither true nor false.

"Litterally"?

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 7:42:16 PM UTC-7, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 8:55:43 AM UTC-4, Dart Mindeli wrote:
> > Mild Shock wrote:
> >
> > > W̶h̶a̶t̶ h̶a̶p̶p̶e̶n̶d̶ t̶o̶ m̶?
> > > 8. A̶L̶L̶(b̶):b̶ i̶n̶ s̶ => b̶ i̶n̶ t̶ => b̶ i̶n̶ t̶ & b̶ i̶n̶ f̶ => b̶ i̶n̶ f̶
> > > C̶o̶n̶c̶l̶u̶s̶i̶o̶n̶, 2 T̶h̶e̶ g̶o̶a̶l̶ w̶a̶s̶ t̶o̶ p̶r̶o̶v̶e̶:
> > >> A̶L̶L̶(b̶):b̶ e̶ s̶ => b̶ e̶ t̶ => b̶ e̶ t̶ & b̶ e̶ f̶ => b̶ e̶ f̶ => b̶ e̶ m̶
> > > A̶f̶t̶e̶r̶ a̶l̶l̶ y̶o̶u̶ c̶l̶a̶i̶m̶ t̶h̶a̶t̶ "m̶" e̶x̶p̶r̶e̶s̶s̶e̶s̶ i̶n̶d̶e̶t̶e̶r̶m̶i̶n̶a̶t̶e̶. Y̶o̶u̶ l̶i̶t̶t̶e̶r̶a̶l̶y̶
> > > w̶r̶o̶t̶e̶: >> S̶o̶m̶e̶ s̶e̶n̶t̶e̶n̶c̶e̶s̶ a̶r̶e̶ n̶e̶i̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ t̶r̶u̶e̶ n̶o̶r̶ f̶a̶l̶s̶e̶.
> > >> W̶e̶ c̶a̶n̶ s̶a̶y̶ t̶h̶a̶t̶ t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ t̶r̶u̶t̶h̶ v̶a̶l̶u̶e̶s̶ a̶r̶e̶ i̶n̶d̶e̶t̶e̶r̶m̶i̶n̶a̶t̶e̶ > L̶o̶L̶
> > > Dan Christensen schrieb am Donnerstag, 27. Juli 2023 um 01:48:48 UTC+2:
> > Better to be thought a fool and hold your tongue, than to open your mouth
> > and remove all doubt. 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝘄𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘂𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲.
> >
> > according hillary clintona, after the 1993 they pumped 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 $5 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿
> > 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘂𝗸𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗮. So along 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗽 𝗱'é𝘁𝗮𝘁 2014 the ukurinars were
> > fully nazified.
> Hey Nazi Boy! I hear Nazi Leader Putin is going to be conscripting grandfathers for meat in his genocidal war of conquest on Ukraine. Now would be be a good time you to go into hiding if you don't want to die in this doomed adventure.
"This is a fuckin' stupid farrago, man."

See my reply just now to your identical posting at sci.logic

Dan

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 7:24:42 AM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> A tricky construction of an ultimate revenge paradox, possibly
> totally out of Dan Christensens mental radar, is the Diagonal
> Argument, for example used in Cantors Theorem. One also
>
[snip]

You are confusing pragmatics with semantics.

In linguistics none of your examples
are called "indeterminate". They have
different pragmatic functions, especially

in relation to their performativity:

> 1. What time is it?
~~> Thats a question

> 2. Wash the dishes.
~~> Thats an imperative

> 3. This sentence is false.
~~> Thats a declarative

See for yourself you moron. The most
precise theory of pragmatic functions
is speech act theory which sees effects
on both ends of a speech act.

In linguistics and related fields,
pragmatics is the study of how context
contributes to meaning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics

Performativity is the concept that
language can function as a form of social
action and have the effect of change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performativity

In the philosophy of language and linguistics,
speech act is something expressed by an individual
that not only presents information but performs
an action as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act

Dan Christensen schrieb:
> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:53:37 AM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:

> Here, A is logical proposition that is either true or false. Again, in the case of a sentence, it may be true or false or of indeterminate truth value. Some examples of the latter:
>
> 1. What time is it?
> 2. Wash the dishes.
> 3. This sentence is false.
>
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
>
>

As a rule of thumb and dumb,
just look at the sentence closing:

When it has a question mark "?":
> 1. What time is it ?
~~> Thats a question

When it has an exclamation mark "!":
> 2. Wash the dishes!
~~> Thats an imperative

When it has a full stop ".":
> 3. This sentence is false.
~~> Thats a declarative

But I have sad news for you, its not indeterminate the Liar
Paradox, its only paradoxical. See for yourself moron, or
are you not able to read? To stupid to even read?

A sentence Φ (or set of sentences Σ) is indeterminate if and only if ..
A sentence Φ (or set of sentences Σ) is paradoxical if and only if ..
http://fitelson.org/piksi/piksi_18/cook_notes.pdf

But there is a simple trick to find out whethe a sentences is
indeterminate or paradoxical. Just change the full stop "."
into a question mark "?" and count the solutions:

This sentence is false?

If you have multiple answers its indeterminate.
If you have no answer its paradoxical. Even a complete
dumbo like you could use this trick.

Mild Shock schrieb am Samstag, 29. Juli 2023 um 21:08:25 UTC+2:
> You are confusing pragmatics with semantics.
>
> In linguistics none of your examples
> are called "indeterminate". They have
> different pragmatic functions, especially
>
> in relation to their performativity:
>
> > 1. What time is it?
> ~~> Thats a question
>
> > 2. Wash the dishes.
> ~~> Thats an imperative
>
> > 3. This sentence is false.
> ~~> Thats a declarative
>
> See for yourself you moron. The most
> precise theory of pragmatic functions
> is speech act theory which sees effects
> on both ends of a speech act.
>
> In linguistics and related fields,
> pragmatics is the study of how context
> contributes to meaning.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
>
> Performativity is the concept that
> language can function as a form of social
> action and have the effect of change.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performativity
>
> In the philosophy of language and linguistics,
> speech act is something expressed by an individual
> that not only presents information but performs
> an action as well.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act
>
> Dan Christensen schrieb:
> > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:53:37 AM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
>
> > Here, A is logical proposition that is either true or false. Again, in the case of a sentence, it may be true or false or of indeterminate truth value. Some examples of the latter:
> >
> > 1. What time is it?
> > 2. Wash the dishes.
> > 3. This sentence is false.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> > Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
> >
> >

The answer to this question is "Yes and No":
This sentence is true?
~~> Therefore the sentence is indeterminate

The answer to this question is "neither Yes nor No":
This sentence is false?
~~> Therefore the sentence is paradoxical

Mild Shock schrieb am Samstag, 29. Juli 2023 um 21:25:21 UTC+2:
> As a rule of thumb and dumb,
> just look at the sentence closing:
>
> When it has a question mark "?":
> > 1. What time is it ?
> ~~> Thats a question
>
> When it has an exclamation mark "!":
> > 2. Wash the dishes!
> ~~> Thats an imperative
>
> When it has a full stop ".":
> > 3. This sentence is false.
> ~~> Thats a declarative
> But I have sad news for you, its not indeterminate the Liar
> Paradox, its only paradoxical. See for yourself moron, or
> are you not able to read? To stupid to even read?
>
> A sentence Φ (or set of sentences Σ) is indeterminate if and only if ..
> A sentence Φ (or set of sentences Σ) is paradoxical if and only if ..
> http://fitelson.org/piksi/piksi_18/cook_notes.pdf
>
> But there is a simple trick to find out whethe a sentences is
> indeterminate or paradoxical. Just change the full stop "."
> into a question mark "?" and count the solutions:
>
> This sentence is false?
>
> If you have multiple answers its indeterminate.
> If you have no answer its paradoxical. Even a complete
> dumbo like you could use this trick.
> Mild Shock schrieb am Samstag, 29. Juli 2023 um 21:08:25 UTC+2:
> > You are confusing pragmatics with semantics.
> >
> > In linguistics none of your examples
> > are called "indeterminate". They have
> > different pragmatic functions, especially
> >
> > in relation to their performativity:
> >
> > > 1. What time is it?
> > ~~> Thats a question
> >
> > > 2. Wash the dishes.
> > ~~> Thats an imperative
> >
> > > 3. This sentence is false.
> > ~~> Thats a declarative
> >
> > See for yourself you moron. The most
> > precise theory of pragmatic functions
> > is speech act theory which sees effects
> > on both ends of a speech act.
> >
> > In linguistics and related fields,
> > pragmatics is the study of how context
> > contributes to meaning.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
> >
> > Performativity is the concept that
> > language can function as a form of social
> > action and have the effect of change.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performativity
> >
> > In the philosophy of language and linguistics,
> > speech act is something expressed by an individual
> > that not only presents information but performs
> > an action as well.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act
> >
> > Dan Christensen schrieb:
> > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:53:37 AM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> >
> > > Here, A is logical proposition that is either true or false. Again, in the case of a sentence, it may be true or false or of indeterminate truth value. Some examples of the latter:
> > >
> > > 1. What time is it?
> > > 2. Wash the dishes.
> > > 3. This sentence is false.
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > > Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> > > Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
> > >
> > >

See my replies just now to your identical postings at sci. math

Dan

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 3:08:25 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> You are confusing pragmatics with semantics.
>
> In linguistics none of your examples
> are called "indeterminate". They have
> different pragmatic functions, especially
>
[snip]

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 12:26:32 PM UTC-7, Mild Shock wrote:
> The answer to this question is "Yes and No":
> This sentence is true?
> ~~> Therefore the sentence is indeterminate
>
> The answer to this question is "neither Yes nor No":
> This sentence is false?
> ~~> Therefore the sentence is paradoxical
> Mild Shock schrieb am Samstag, 29. Juli 2023 um 21:25:21 UTC+2:
> > As a rule of thumb and dumb,
> > just look at the sentence closing:
> >
> > When it has a question mark "?":
> > > 1. What time is it ?
> > ~~> Thats a question
> >
> > When it has an exclamation mark "!":
> > > 2. Wash the dishes!
> > ~~> Thats an imperative
> >
> > When it has a full stop ".":
> > > 3. This sentence is false.
> > ~~> Thats a declarative
> > But I have sad news for you, its not indeterminate the Liar
> > Paradox, its only paradoxical. See for yourself moron, or
> > are you not able to read? To stupid to even read?
> >
> > A sentence Φ (or set of sentences Σ) is indeterminate if and only if ..
> > A sentence Φ (or set of sentences Σ) is paradoxical if and only if ..
> > http://fitelson.org/piksi/piksi_18/cook_notes.pdf
> >
> > But there is a simple trick to find out whethe a sentences is
> > indeterminate or paradoxical. Just change the full stop "."
> > into a question mark "?" and count the solutions:
> >
> > This sentence is false?
> >
> > If you have multiple answers its indeterminate.
> > If you have no answer its paradoxical. Even a complete
> > dumbo like you could use this trick.
> > Mild Shock schrieb am Samstag, 29. Juli 2023 um 21:08:25 UTC+2:
> > > You are confusing pragmatics with semantics.
> > >
> > > In linguistics none of your examples
> > > are called "indeterminate". They have
> > > different pragmatic functions, especially
> > >
> > > in relation to their performativity:
> > >
> > > > 1. What time is it?
> > > ~~> Thats a question
> > >
> > > > 2. Wash the dishes.
> > > ~~> Thats an imperative
> > >
> > > > 3. This sentence is false.
> > > ~~> Thats a declarative
> > >
> > > See for yourself you moron. The most
> > > precise theory of pragmatic functions
> > > is speech act theory which sees effects
> > > on both ends of a speech act.
> > >
> > > In linguistics and related fields,
> > > pragmatics is the study of how context
> > > contributes to meaning.
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
> > >
> > > Performativity is the concept that
> > > language can function as a form of social
> > > action and have the effect of change.
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performativity
> > >
> > > In the philosophy of language and linguistics,
> > > speech act is something expressed by an individual
> > > that not only presents information but performs
> > > an action as well.
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act
> > >
> > > Dan Christensen schrieb:
> > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:53:37 AM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here, A is logical proposition that is either true or false. Again, in the case of a sentence, it may be true or false or of indeterminate truth value. Some examples of the latter:
> > > >
> > > > 1. What time is it?
> > > > 2. Wash the dishes.
> > > > 3. This sentence is false.
> > > >
> > > > Dan
> > > >
> > > > Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> > > > Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
> > > >
> > > >

"Maybe you guys should start going to AA."

tisdag 25 juli 2023 kl. 20:08:17 UTC+2 skrev Dan Christensen:
> 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 believe the correct term is "paradoxical".

On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 4:46:54 PM UTC-7, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 25 juli 2023 kl. 20:08:17 UTC+2 skrev Dan Christensen:
> > 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 believe the correct term is "paradoxical".

"Actually, the correct term would be 'imbecilic."

Why not prove something nice in DC Proof related
to constructive mathematics. Can you prove that

π is transcendental

in DC Proof. What does that even mean? Do you
have some clue. Whats the history of this question?

Even fellow cranks , like James R Meyer call it "paradoxical",
and not "indeterminate". Read for yourself:

The reasoning that makes this paradoxical is this:
"and we can repeat the process, giving:
‘ ‘This sentence is false’ is false’ is false.
and so on, and there is no end to this process."
https://www.jamesrmeyer.com/paradoxes/liar.php

But his analysis is quite moronic. He explains paradoxical
as leading to a vicious circle. Whereas the modern explanation
is much more simpler. Its straight forward easy definition:

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

Dan Christensen schrieb am Sonntag, 30. Juli 2023 um 05:00:48 UTC+2:
> See my replies just now to your identical postings at sci. math
>
> Dan
> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 3:08:25 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> > You are confusing pragmatics with semantics.
> >
> > In linguistics none of your examples
> > are called "indeterminate". They have
> > different pragmatic functions, especially
> >
> [snip]