Better Business Bureau-- please check up on this man in Colorado--Julian Burgess who posts background checks on people to the worldwide internet, for no reason other than to harass and pester private citizens

On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 10:35:48 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Wow, what a business model for Julian Burgess.
>
> Rake up muck on individuals.
>
> Make a permanent website on those victims.
>
> When the victims want the muck removed.
>
> Julian charges what??? Does he charge $50 apiece????
>
> And what assurance that Julian just does not post the same muck a few months later???
>
> At this rate, Julian can become a billionaire off the backs of victims in no time at all.
>
>
> Business Profile - for - FastBackgroundCheck.com
>
> Better Business Bureau
> https://www.bbb.org › ... › Background Checks
> BBB File Opened: 12/4/2019 ; Years in Business: 3 ; Business Started: 12/4/2019 ; Business Management. Mr. Julian Burgess, Owner/Manager ; Contact Information.
>
> Business Profile - for - CyberBackgroundChecks.com
> https://www.bbb.org › ... › Background Checks
> CyberBackgroundCheck Inc. Contact Information. Customer Contact. Mr. Julian Burgess, Compliance Manager. Read More Business Details and See Alerts ....
>
> Business Profile - for - CyberBackgroundChecks.com
> https://www.bbb.org › ... › Background Checks
> Contact Information. Principal. Mr. Julian Burgess, Compliance Manager. Customer Contact. Mr. Julian Burgess, Compliance Manager. Read More Business Details ...
>
> Business Profile - for - SmartBackgroundChecks.com
> https://www.bbb.org › ... › Background Checks
> Business Started: 1/1/2014. Type of Entity: Corporation. Contact Information. Customer Contact. Mr. Julian Burgess, Vice President/General Manager.
> People also ask
> How do I remove myself from fast background check?
> 1) From a web browser, navigate to FastBackgroundCheck's opt out page here: https://www.fastbackgroundcheck.com/opt-out. 2) In the form provided, enter your email address, check the agreement box and complete the security CAPTCHA.
>
> FastBackgroundCheck: How to Opt Out of ... - Optery
>
> optery.com
> https://www.optery.com › fastbackgroundcheck-how-to-...
> Search for: How do I remove myself from fast background check?

> FastBackgroundCheck.com owner/manager Julian Burgess
> 4845 Pearl East Cir Ste 118, Boulder,CO 80301-6112
>
> Archimedes Plutonium in Meckling, SD (age 72) 605- ...
> FastBackgroundCheck
> https://www.fastbackgroundcheck.com › profile › arc...
> Archimedes Plutonium lives in Meckling SD and is 72 years old. ... FastBackgroundCheck found 4 addresses and 3 phones associated with Archimedes Plutonium.
>

Can_Dr.Nigel Lockyer,Dr.Lia Merminga,Sanford Lab,Julian Burgess,Kibo Parry (Volney),Dan Christensen,Jan Burse--- -PLEASE--step into Sanford Lab 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..

Can_Dr.Scott Iacono,Julian Burgess of FastBackgroundCheck.com,Dr.Francis Chun, Dr.Kimberly de La Harpe,Kibo Parry Volney,Jan Burse, Dan Christensen - -PLEASE--step into Air Force Academy 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.

>
> USA Air Force Academy, Colorado, Physics and Chemistry departments:
> Dr.Francis Chun, Dr.Kimberly de La Harpe,Dr.Alina Gearba-Sell,Dr.Randy Knize,Dr.Matthew McHarg
> Dr.James Ayers,Dr.Gary Balaich,Dr.Todd Davis,Dr.Kim Gardner,Dr.Mary Hertz,Dr.Barry Hicks,
> Dr.Scott Iacono director Chemistry Research Center
> 
>
> >
> > > > > +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
> >
> > > > > +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
> >
> >
> > My 250th published book.
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry
> 
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
> > Prologue: This textbook is 1/2 research history and 1/2 factual textbook combined as one textbook. For many of the experiments described here-in have not yet been performed, such as water is really H4O not H2O. Written in a style of history research with date-time markers, and fact telling. And there are no problem sets. This book is intended for 1st year college. Until I include problem sets and exercises, I leave it to the professor and instructor to provide such. And also, chemistry is hugely a laboratory science, even more so than physics, so a first year college student in the lab to test whether Water is really H4O and not H2O is mighty educational.
> >
> > Preface: This is my 250th book of science, and the first of my textbooks on Teaching True Chemistry. I have completed the Teaching True Physics and the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series. But had not yet started on a Teaching True Chemistry textbook series. What got me started on this project is the fact that no chemistry textbook had the correct formula for water which is actually H4O and not H2O. Leaving the true formula for hydroxyl groups as H2O and not OH. But none of this is possible in Old Chemistry, Old Physics where they had do-nothing subatomic particles that sit around and do nothing or go whizzing around the outside of balls in a nucleus, in a mindless circling. Once every subatomic particle has a job, task, function, then water cannot be H2O but rather H4O. And a hydrogen atom cannot be H alone but is actually H2. H2 is not a molecule of hydrogen but a full fledged Atom, a single atom of hydrogen.
> >
> > Cover Picture: Sorry for the crude sketch work but chemistry and physics students are going to have to learn to make such sketches in a minute or less. Just as they make Lewis diagrams or ball & stick diagrams. My 4-5 minute sketch-work of the Water molecule H4O plus the subatomic particle H, and the hydrogen atom H2. Showing how one H is a proton torus with muon inside (blue color) doing the Faraday law. Protons are toruses with many windings. Protons are the coils in Faraday law while muons are the bar magnets. Neutrons are the capacitors as parallel plates, the outer skin cover of atoms..
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0CCLPTBDG
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ July 21, 2023
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 788 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 168 pages
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
12:16 PM (2 hours ago)



to
Governor Kristi Noem and Better Business Bureau, my privacy and several others was invaded by this FastBackgroundCheck.com which apparently publishes checks to the worldwide internet, denying the privacy of those people. Please stop this practice.....


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

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 3:07:31 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> [snip] Dan Christensen...

[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

Can_Dr.Gordon F. West,Dr.Michael B. Walker,Dr.Henry M. Van Driel,Julian Burgess,Kibo Parry (Volney),Dan Christensen,Jan Burse--- -PLEASE--step into Univ Toronto 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.

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
3:36 PM 15Aug2023



to
STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of
Dan

Can_Dr.Scott Iacono,Julian Burgess of FastBackgroundCheck.com,Dr.Francis Chun, Dr.Kimberly de La Harpe,Kibo Parry Volney,Jan Burse, Dan Christensen - -PLEASE--step into Air Force Academy 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.

>
> USA Air Force Academy, Colorado, Physics and Chemistry departments:
> Dr.Francis Chun, Dr.Kimberly de La Harpe,Dr.Alina Gearba-Sell,Dr.Randy Knize,Dr.Matthew McHarg
> Dr.James Ayers,Dr.Gary Balaich,Dr.Todd Davis,Dr.Kim Gardner,Dr.Mary Hertz,Dr.Barry Hicks,
> Dr.Scott Iacono director Chemistry Research Center
> 
>
> >
> > > > > +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
> >
> > > > > +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
> >
> >
> > My 250th published book.
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry
> 
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
> > Prologue: This textbook is 1/2 research history and 1/2 factual textbook combined as one textbook. For many of the experiments described here-in have not yet been performed, such as water is really H4O not H2O. Written in a style of history research with date-time markers, and fact telling. And there are no problem sets. This book is intended for 1st year college. Until I include problem sets and exercises, I leave it to the professor and instructor to provide such. And also, chemistry is hugely a laboratory science, even more so than physics, so a first year college student in the lab to test whether Water is really H4O and not H2O is mighty educational.
> >
> > Preface: This is my 250th book of science, and the first of my textbooks on Teaching True Chemistry. I have completed the Teaching True Physics and the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series. But had not yet started on a Teaching True Chemistry textbook series. What got me started on this project is the fact that no chemistry textbook had the correct formula for water which is actually H4O and not H2O. Leaving the true formula for hydroxyl groups as H2O and not OH. But none of this is possible in Old Chemistry, Old Physics where they had do-nothing subatomic particles that sit around and do nothing or go whizzing around the outside of balls in a nucleus, in a mindless circling. Once every subatomic particle has a job, task, function, then water cannot be H2O but rather H4O. And a hydrogen atom cannot be H alone but is actually H2. H2 is not a molecule of hydrogen but a full fledged Atom, a single atom of hydrogen.
> >
> > Cover Picture: Sorry for the crude sketch work but chemistry and physics students are going to have to learn to make such sketches in a minute or less. Just as they make Lewis diagrams or ball & stick diagrams. My 4-5 minute sketch-work of the Water molecule H4O plus the subatomic particle H, and the hydrogen atom H2. Showing how one H is a proton torus with muon inside (blue color) doing the Faraday law. Protons are toruses with many windings. Protons are the coils in Faraday law while muons are the bar magnets. Neutrons are the capacitors as parallel plates, the outer skin cover of atoms..
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0CCLPTBDG
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ July 21, 2023
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 788 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 168 pages
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
12:16 PM (2 hours ago)



to
Governor Kristi Noem and Better Business Bureau, my privacy and several others was invaded by this FastBackgroundCheck.com which apparently publishes checks to the worldwide internet, denying the privacy of those people. Please stop this practice.....

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of Dan Christensen's fake math and science
Ha Ha, you even didn't make it past first day lecture in logic?

You had a good start. But then you didn't think it through
to the end. Using the syntactic consequence relation ⊢
one can also define the notions "paradoxical" and "indeterminate".

Its not rocket science, it might be a problem for a dumbo like
you, or a dumbo like Olcott, but its extremly straight forward.
Lets say C(_) is the sentences construct, and p is the sentences value,

we can then define:

1) "paradoxical": If both C(p) ⊢ p and C(p) ⊢ ~p
2) "determinate true": If C(p) ⊢ p but ~ (C(p) ⊢ ~p)
3) "determinate false": If ~(C(p) ⊢ p) but C(p) ⊢ ~p
4) "indeterminate": If both ~(C(p) ⊢ p) and ~(C(p) ⊢ ~p)

Now we can apply this to these two sentences,
whereby I have also listed the sentence constructs:

"This sentence is false"
p <-> ~p
"This sentence is true"
p <-> p

Here are some verifications that the first sentences is
"paradoxical" and the second sentences is "indeterminate":

/* paradoxical */
p↔¬p entails p.
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(p~4~3p)|=p
p↔¬p entails ¬p.
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(p~4~3p)|=~3p

/* indeterminate */
p↔p does not entail p.
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(p~4p)|=p
p↔p does not entail ¬p.
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(p~4p)|=~3p

This is first day lecture of a logic course.

Dan Christensen schrieb am Dienstag, 15. August 2023 um 22:36:50 UTC+2:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

Soooooo cute that way you "stick up" for your little buddy AP here. A match made in heavy!

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 3:10:48 AM UTC-4, Mild Shock (aka Mr. Collapse) wrote:

[snip childish abuse]

> Lets say C(_) is the sentences construct, and p is the sentences value,
>
> we can then define:
>
> 1) "paradoxical": If both C(p) ⊢ p and C(p) ⊢ ~p
> 2) "determinate true": If C(p) ⊢ p but ~ (C(p) ⊢ ~p)
> 3) "determinate false": If ~(C(p) ⊢ p) but C(p) ⊢ ~p
> 4) "indeterminate": If both ~(C(p) ⊢ p) and ~(C(p) ⊢ ~p)
>

Make up all the definitions you want, Mr. Collapse. You may even find a use for them some day! (Hee, hee!)

By classifying sentences as either true, false or of indeterminate truth value, I think I may have resolved the Liar Paradox. Examples of sentences or indeterminate truth value: "What time is it?" "Wash your hands." "This sentence is false."

See my postings on this topic a sci.logic.

Dan

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

Soooooo cute that way you "stick up" for your little buddy AP here. A match made in heaven!

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 3:10:48 AM UTC-4, Mild Shock (aka Mr. Collapse) wrote:

[snip childish abuse]

> Lets say C(_) is the sentences construct, and p is the sentences value,
>
> we can then define:
>
> 1) "paradoxical": If both C(p) ⊢ p and C(p) ⊢ ~p
> 2) "determinate true": If C(p) ⊢ p but ~ (C(p) ⊢ ~p)
> 3) "determinate false": If ~(C(p) ⊢ p) but C(p) ⊢ ~p
> 4) "indeterminate": If both ~(C(p) ⊢ p) and ~(C(p) ⊢ ~p)
>

Make up all the definitions you want, Mr. Collapse. You may even find a use for them some day! (Hee, hee!)

By classifying sentences as either true, false or of indeterminate truth value, I think I may have resolved the Liar Paradox. Examples of sentences of indeterminate truth value: "What time is it?" "Wash your hands." "This sentence is false."

See my postings on this topic a sci.logic.

Dan

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

Come on, Dan O Matik, this is very basic logic. The first 2 hours
of a logic course. The syntactic consequence is defined as:

Syntactic consequence Γ ⊢ φ says:
sentence φ is provable from the set of assumptions Γ.

When you have a sentences φ and assumptions Γ,
there are naturally 4 possible outcomes:

Γ ⊢ φ and Γ ⊢ ¬φ
Γ ⊢ φ and not Γ ⊢ ¬φ
not Γ ⊢ φ and Γ ⊢ ¬φ
not Γ ⊢ φ and not Γ ⊢ ¬φ

How do you name these 4 possible outcomes?
Do you have any clue dumbo?

Hint: Gödels incompletness theorem deals with the fourth
case, no "Trichotomy" needed. The result is stated as:

There exists a statement p such that p is not a
theorem and ~p is not a theorem.

Dan Christensen schrieb am Donnerstag, 17. August 2023 um 21:38:26 UTC+2:
> Soooooo cute that way you "stick up" for your little buddy AP here. A match made in heaven!
>
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 3:10:48 AM UTC-4, Mild Shock (aka Mr. Collapse) wrote:
>
> [snip childish abuse]
> > Lets say C(_) is the sentences construct, and p is the sentences value,
> >
> > we can then define:
> >
> > 1) "paradoxical": If both C(p) ⊢ p and C(p) ⊢ ~p
> > 2) "determinate true": If C(p) ⊢ p but ~ (C(p) ⊢ ~p)
> > 3) "determinate false": If ~(C(p) ⊢ p) but C(p) ⊢ ~p
> > 4) "indeterminate": If both ~(C(p) ⊢ p) and ~(C(p) ⊢ ~p)
> >
> Make up all the definitions you want, Mr. Collapse. You may even find a use for them some day! (Hee, hee!)
>
> By classifying sentences as either true, false or of indeterminate truth value, I think I may have resolved the Liar Paradox. Examples of sentences of indeterminate truth value: "What time is it?" "Wash your hands." "This sentence is false."
>
> See my postings on this topic a sci.logic.
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 3:21:00 AM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:

[snip]

> Syntactic consequence Γ ⊢ φ says:
> sentence φ is provable from the set of assumptions Γ.
>
> When you have a sentences φ and assumptions Γ,
> there are naturally 4 possible outcomes:
>
> Γ ⊢ φ and Γ ⊢ ¬φ
> Γ ⊢ φ and not Γ ⊢ ¬φ
> not Γ ⊢ φ and Γ ⊢ ¬φ
> not Γ ⊢ φ and not Γ ⊢ ¬φ
>
[snip]

Again, what about the sentence "What time is it?" Or "Wash your hands." Both are common, everyday sentences, yet they are neither true nor false, i.e. their truth value is what I call "indeterminate." Ignore them and you will be unable to reasonably resolve the Liar Paradox. Deal with it, Mr. Collapse.

Dan

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

The definition is:

Syntactic consequence Γ ⊢ φ says:
sentence φ is provable from the set of assumptions Γ.

I don't know, how would you use DC Proof, to "prove"
"What time is it?" or "Wash your hands." I don't think
such sentences are in the scope of the vdash ⊢. The

vdash ⊢ deals with propositions. And the Liar Paradox is a
proposition. You also treated it as a proposition. Basically
you treated it as the proposition p <-> ~p.

.... [b e t <=> b e f] ...
https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm

This proposition is paradoxical as a assumption, i.e. if
you plug it into Γ. You can prove both p <-> ~p ⊢ p
and p <-> ~p ⊢ ~p, you can try Wolfgang Schwarz tree tool

or prove in DC Proof, shouldn't be any problem:

/* The Liar Sentences is a Paradoxical Assumption */
p↔¬p entails p.
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(p~4~3p)|=p
p↔¬p entails ¬p.
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(p~4~3p)|=~3p

But you can also plug it into the conclusion φ you get that
we have not provable ⊢ p↔¬p, but ⊢ ¬(p↔¬p) provable, you
can try Wolfgang Schwarz tree tool or for the second part,

you can also prove it in DC Proof. Whats a problem for DC Proof
is the first part, it is not a tool that can also show invalid.
Thats maybe why you are so dumb. Who knows? Maybe

you have never seen something unprovable?

/* The Liar Sentences is a Determinate False Conclusion */
p↔¬p is invalid.
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#|=(p~4~3p)
¬(p↔¬p) is valid.
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#|=~3(p~4~3p)

Dan Christensen schrieb am Freitag, 18. August 2023 um 17:59:03 UTC+2:
> On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 3:21:00 AM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > Syntactic consequence Γ ⊢ φ says:
> > sentence φ is provable from the set of assumptions Γ.
> >
> > When you have a sentences φ and assumptions Γ,
> > there are naturally 4 possible outcomes:
> >
> > Γ ⊢ φ and Γ ⊢ ¬φ
> > Γ ⊢ φ and not Γ ⊢ ¬φ
> > not Γ ⊢ φ and Γ ⊢ ¬φ
> > not Γ ⊢ φ and not Γ ⊢ ¬φ
> >
> [snip]
>
> Again, what about the sentence "What time is it?" Or "Wash your hands." Both are common, everyday sentences, yet they are neither true nor false, i.e. their truth value is what I call "indeterminate." Ignore them and you will be unable to reasonably resolve the Liar Paradox. Deal with it, Mr. Collapse.
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 12:51:04 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:

> > > Come on, Dan, this is very basic logic. The first 2 hours
> > > of a logic course. The syntactic consequence is defined as:
> > >
> > > Syntactic consequence Γ ⊢ φ says:
> > > sentence φ is provable from the set of assumptions Γ.
> > >
> > > When you have a sentences φ and assumptions Γ,
> > > there are naturally 4 possible outcomes:
> > >
> > > Γ ⊢ φ and Γ ⊢ ¬φ
> > > Γ ⊢ φ and not Γ ⊢ ¬φ
> > > not Γ ⊢ φ and Γ ⊢ ¬φ
> > > not Γ ⊢ φ and not Γ ⊢ ¬φ
> > >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Again, what about the sentence "What time is it?" Or "Wash your hands." Both are common, everyday sentences, yet they are neither true nor false, i.e. their truth value is what I call "indeterminate." Ignore them and you will be unable to reasonably resolve the Liar Paradox.

[snip]

> The definition is:
> Syntactic consequence Γ ⊢ φ says:
> sentence φ is provable from the set of assumptions Γ.
> I don't know, how would you use DC Proof, to "prove"
> "What time is it?" or "Wash your hands."

These are simply common, everyday examples of sentences of indeterminate truth value, i.e. they cannot, in any sense, be proven true and they cannot be proven false. It turns out that any sentence that is true iff it is false (e.g. "This sentence is false") must be of indeterminate truth as I have defined.

Again...

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

Trichotomy Lemma: For every set, there exists 3 disjoint subsets on which a trichotomy rule holds. https://www.dcproof.com/LiarParadoxLemma.htm (84 lines)

Dan

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

Your every day sentencs, like "What time is it?" or "Wash your hands."
are not proposition. I don't know what you are talking about.
They are questions and commands. Sounds like complete

nonsense to relate that directly to vdash ⊢ which is made for
propositions. These 4 cases hold for propositions, as the outcome of
trying to prove some sentences φ, a proposition from an

assumptions Γ, a set of propositions:

Γ ⊢ φ and Γ ⊢ ¬φ
Γ ⊢ φ and not Γ ⊢ ¬φ
not Γ ⊢ φ and Γ ⊢ ¬φ
not Γ ⊢ φ and not Γ ⊢ ¬φ

What makes you think the Liar Paradox cannot be
classified with the above? You wrote down the proposition
yourself. b e t is the same like b, and b e f is the same like

~b in classical logic. So you wrote down b <-> ~b:

.... [b e t <=> b e f] ...
https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm

Or where did you get the above proposition from?

Sometimes you don't make any sense Dan O Matik.

Dan Christensen schrieb am Freitag, 18. August 2023 um 20:10:26 UTC+2:
> On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 12:51:04 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
>
> > > > Come on, Dan, this is very basic logic. The first 2 hours
> > > > of a logic course. The syntactic consequence is defined as:
> > > >
> > > > Syntactic consequence Γ ⊢ φ says:
> > > > sentence φ is provable from the set of assumptions Γ.
> > > >
> > > > When you have a sentences φ and assumptions Γ,
> > > > there are naturally 4 possible outcomes:
> > > >
> > > > Γ ⊢ φ and Γ ⊢ ¬φ
> > > > Γ ⊢ φ and not Γ ⊢ ¬φ
> > > > not Γ ⊢ φ and Γ ⊢ ¬φ
> > > > not Γ ⊢ φ and not Γ ⊢ ¬φ
> > > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > Again, what about the sentence "What time is it?" Or "Wash your hands.." Both are common, everyday sentences, yet they are neither true nor false, i.e. their truth value is what I call "indeterminate." Ignore them and you will be unable to reasonably resolve the Liar Paradox.
> [snip]
> > The definition is:
> > Syntactic consequence Γ ⊢ φ says:
> > sentence φ is provable from the set of assumptions Γ.
> > I don't know, how would you use DC Proof, to "prove"
> > "What time is it?" or "Wash your hands."
> These are simply common, everyday examples of sentences of indeterminate truth value, i.e. they cannot, in any sense, be proven true and they cannot be proven false. It turns out that any sentence that is true iff it is false (e.g. "This sentence is false") must be of indeterminate truth as I have defined.
>
> Again...
>
> Formal proof: https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm (only 44 lines in DC Proof format)
>
> Trichotomy Lemma: For every set, there exists 3 disjoint subsets on which a trichotomy rule holds. https://www.dcproof.com/LiarParadoxLemma.htm (84 lines)
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 2:32:23 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Dan Christensen schrieb am Freitag, 18. August 2023 um 17:55:12 UTC+2:
> > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 3:21:48 AM UTC-4, Mild Shock (aka Mr. Collapse) wrote:
> > > > > Come on, Dan, this is very basic logic. The first 2 hours
> > > > > of a logic course. The syntactic consequence is defined as:
> > > > >
> > > > > Syntactic consequence Γ ⊢ φ says:
> > > > > sentence φ is provable from the set of assumptions Γ.
> > > > >
> > > > > When you have a sentences φ and assumptions Γ,
> > > > > there are naturally 4 possible outcomes:
> > > > >
> > > > > Γ ⊢ φ and Γ ⊢ ¬φ
> > > > > Γ ⊢ φ and not Γ ⊢ ¬φ
> > > > > not Γ ⊢ φ and Γ ⊢ ¬φ
> > > > > not Γ ⊢ φ and not Γ ⊢ ¬φ
> > > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > Again, what about the sentence "What time is it?" Or "Wash your hands." Both are common, everyday sentences, yet they are neither true nor false, i.e. their truth value is what I call "indeterminate." Ignore them and you will be unable to reasonably resolve the Liar Paradox.
> > [snip]
> > > The definition is:
> > > Syntactic consequence Γ ⊢ φ says:
> > > sentence φ is provable from the set of assumptions Γ.
> > > I don't know, how would you use DC Proof, to "prove"
> > > "What time is it?" or "Wash your hands."
> > These are simply common, everyday examples of sentences of indeterminate truth value, i.e. they cannot, in any sense, be proven true and they cannot be proven false. It turns out that any sentence that is true iff it is false (e.g. "This sentence is false.") must be of indeterminate truth as I have defined.
> >
> > Again...
> > Formal proof: https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm (only 44 lines in DC Proof format)
> >
> > Trichotomy Lemma: For every set, there exists 3 disjoint subsets on which a trichotomy rule holds. https://www.dcproof.com/LiarParadoxLemma.htm (84 lines)

> Your every day sentences, like "What time is it?" or "Wash your hands."
> are not proposition.

Exactly so! They are sentences nonetheless.

> I don't know what you are talking about.
> They are questions and commands.

Yes.

> Sounds like complete
> nonsense to relate that directly to vdash ⊢

Irrelevant.

> which is made for
> These 4 cases hold for propositions, as the outcome of
> trying to prove some sentences φ, a proposition from an
>
> assumptions Γ, a set of propositions:
> Γ ⊢ φ and Γ ⊢ ¬φ
> Γ ⊢ φ and not Γ ⊢ ¬φ
> not Γ ⊢ φ and Γ ⊢ ¬φ
> not Γ ⊢ φ and not Γ ⊢ ¬φ
> What makes you think the Liar Paradox cannot be
> classified with the above?

Give it a try. IIUC many have apparently made careers of fruitless attempts to do so. Maybe you can succeed where hundreds of failed.

> You wrote down the proposition
> yourself. b e t is the same like b

Again, you are conflating sentences and logical propositions.

> and b e f is the same like
>
> ~b in classical logic. So you wrote down b <-> ~b:
> ... [b e t <=> b e f] ...

As above.

> https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm

> Or where did you get the above proposition from?
>

This characterizes the sentence, "This sentence is false." It is said to be one of the true sentences iff it is one of the false sentences. This eliminates the possibility of being one of either set. By default, that sentence must be one of indeterminate truth value--the only other alternative in this trichotomy relation.

Again...

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

Trichotomy Lemma: For every set, there exists 3 disjoint subsets on which a trichotomy rule holds. https://www.dcproof.com/LiarParadoxLemma.htm (84 lines)

Dan

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

On 8/18/2023 8:58 AM, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 3:21:00 AM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Syntactic consequence Γ ⊢ φ says:
>> sentence φ is provable from the set of assumptions Γ.
>>
>> When you have a sentences φ and assumptions Γ,
>> there are naturally 4 possible outcomes:
>>
>> Γ ⊢ φ and Γ ⊢ ¬φ
>> Γ ⊢ φ and not Γ ⊢ ¬φ
>> not Γ ⊢ φ and Γ ⊢ ¬φ
>> not Γ ⊢ φ and not Γ ⊢ ¬φ
>>
> [snip]
>
> Again, what about the sentence "What time is it?" Or "Wash your hands." Both are common, everyday sentences, yet they are neither true nor false, i.e. their truth value is what I call "indeterminate." Ignore them and you will be unable to reasonably resolve the Liar Paradox. Deal with it, Mr. Collapse.
>
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

"Wash your hands." everyday sentences, yet they are neither true nor false

True, go to the bathroom, thoroughly wash your hands, go back to serving
food, right?

On 8/18/2023 3:38 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 8/18/2023 8:58 AM, Dan Christensen wrote:
>> On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 3:21:00 AM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Syntactic consequence Γ ⊢ φ says:
>>> sentence φ is provable from the set of assumptions Γ.
>>>
>>> When you have a sentences φ and assumptions Γ,
>>> there are naturally 4 possible outcomes:
>>>
>>> Γ ⊢ φ and Γ ⊢ ¬φ
>>> Γ ⊢ φ and not Γ ⊢ ¬φ
>>> not Γ ⊢ φ and Γ ⊢ ¬φ
>>> not Γ ⊢ φ and not Γ ⊢ ¬φ
>>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Again, what about the sentence "What time is it?" Or "Wash your
>> hands." Both are common, everyday sentences, yet they are neither true
>> nor false, i.e. their truth value is what I call "indeterminate."
>> Ignore them and you will be unable to reasonably resolve the Liar
>> Paradox. Deal with it, Mr. Collapse.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
>> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
>
>
> "Wash your hands."  everyday sentences, yet they are neither true nor false
>
> True, go to the bathroom, thoroughly wash your hands, go back to serving
> food, right?
>

"Wash your hands." is not a bad thing. After a bathroom break, Wash your
hands is not a bad thing right? Context?

Come on dumbo, you are posting the most ridiculous
moot nonsense arguments. In logic "sentences" and "proposition" are
sometimes synoymous. Like for example in this definition:

> Syntactic consequence Γ ⊢ φ says:
> sentence φ is provable from the set of assumptions Γ.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence

What do you mean "sentence φ" means? There are more
synonyms, like "statement", etc. etc.. They all are can be
all treated as logical formulae in the context of mathematical logic:

- statement
- sentence
- proposition
- assumption
- Etc...

You are confusing natural language with logic. Now the
liar paradox, uses the category "sentence". So putting aside
natural language nonsense, what is the translation of:

"This sentences is false"

You got it already here. b e t is the same like b, and b e f is
the same like ~b in classical logic. So you wrote down b <-> ~b:

.... [b e t <=> b e f] ...
https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm

Dan Christensen schrieb am Freitag, 18. August 2023 um 21:12:29 UTC+2:
> This characterizes the sentence, "This sentence is false." It is
> said to be one of the true sentences iff it is one of the false sentences..
> This eliminates the possibility of being one of either set. By default,
> that sentence must be one of indeterminate truth value--the only
> other alternative in this trichotomy relation.

Dan O Matik was asking:
> Give it a try. IIUC many have apparently
> made careers of fruitless attempts to do so.

Well I did it already. Only you have the attention
span of a snail brain. I posted it here:

Mild Shock schrieb am Freitag, 18. August 2023 um 18:51:04 UTC+2:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/RxufSixkvuM/m/JE1iwFXwAAAJ

Its rather trivial to treat the Liar Paradox as p<->~p:

/* The Liar Sentences is a Paradoxical Assumption */
p↔¬p entails p.
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(p~4~3p)|=p
p↔¬p entails ¬p.
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(p~4~3p)|=~3p

/* The Liar Sentences is a Determinate False Conclusion */
p↔¬p is invalid.
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#|=(p~4~3p)
¬(p↔¬p) is valid.
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#|=~3(p~4~3p)

Mild Shock schrieb am Samstag, 19. August 2023 um 22:51:17 UTC+2:
> Come on dumbo, you are posting the most ridiculous
> moot nonsense arguments. In logic "sentences" and "proposition" are
> sometimes synoymous. Like for example in this definition:
> > Syntactic consequence Γ ⊢ φ says:
> > sentence φ is provable from the set of assumptions Γ.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence
>
> What do you mean "sentence φ" means? There are more
> synonyms, like "statement", etc. etc.. They all are can be
> all treated as logical formulae in the context of mathematical logic:
>
> - statement
> - sentence
> - proposition
> - assumption
> - Etc...
>
> You are confusing natural language with logic. Now the
> liar paradox, uses the category "sentence". So putting aside
> natural language nonsense, what is the translation of:
>
> "This sentences is false"
>
> You got it already here. b e t is the same like b, and b e f is
> the same like ~b in classical logic. So you wrote down b <-> ~b:
>
> ... [b e t <=> b e f] ...
> https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Freitag, 18. August 2023 um 21:12:29 UTC+2:
> > This characterizes the sentence, "This sentence is false." It is
> > said to be one of the true sentences iff it is one of the false sentences.
> > This eliminates the possibility of being one of either set. By default,
> > that sentence must be one of indeterminate truth value--the only
> > other alternative in this trichotomy relation.

Whats is an accepted terminology, to go beyond propositions/
sentences/statements, is the notion of an "expression". Like
for example "2+2" is not a sentence, "2+2" is an expression.

But then "2+2=4" is a sentence again. If you want to do an accepted
modelling of the liar paradox, not as a sentence, but as
"expression", you would need to adjust your modelling here:

> s = a set of sentences
> Set(s)
> https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm

Better use:

> e = a set of expressions
> Set(e)
> https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm

But then there is the revenge paradox. Even if you cast the
Liar Paradox not as a sentence, but as an expression, there
will be a new Paradox, the so called revenge paradox:

"This expression is a true sentence"

Mild Shock schrieb am Samstag, 19. August 2023 um 22:52:46 UTC+2:
> Dan O Matik was asking:
> > Give it a try. IIUC many have apparently
> > made careers of fruitless attempts to do so.
> Well I did it already. Only you have the attention
> span of a snail brain. I posted it here:
>
> Mild Shock schrieb am Freitag, 18. August 2023 um 18:51:04 UTC+2:
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/RxufSixkvuM/m/JE1iwFXwAAAJ
>
> Its rather trivial to treat the Liar Paradox as p<->~p:
> /* The Liar Sentences is a Paradoxical Assumption */
> p↔¬p entails p.
> https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(p~4~3p)" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(p~4~3p)|=p
> p↔¬p entails ¬p.
> https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(p~4~3p)|=~3p
> /* The Liar Sentences is a Determinate False Conclusion */
> p↔¬p is invalid.
> https://www.umsu.de/trees/#|=(p~4~3p)
> ¬(p↔¬p) is valid.
> https://www.umsu.de/trees/#|=~3(p~4~3p)
> Mild Shock schrieb am Samstag, 19. August 2023 um 22:51:17 UTC+2:
> > Come on dumbo, you are posting the most ridiculous
> > moot nonsense arguments. In logic "sentences" and "proposition" are
> > sometimes synoymous. Like for example in this definition:
> > > Syntactic consequence Γ ⊢ φ says:
> > > sentence φ is provable from the set of assumptions Γ.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence
> >
> > What do you mean "sentence φ" means? There are more
> > synonyms, like "statement", etc. etc.. They all are can be
> > all treated as logical formulae in the context of mathematical logic:
> >
> > - statement
> > - sentence
> > - proposition
> > - assumption
> > - Etc...
> >
> > You are confusing natural language with logic. Now the
> > liar paradox, uses the category "sentence". So putting aside
> > natural language nonsense, what is the translation of:
> >
> > "This sentences is false"
> >
> > You got it already here. b e t is the same like b, and b e f is
> > the same like ~b in classical logic. So you wrote down b <-> ~b:
> >
> > ... [b e t <=> b e f] ...
> > https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm
> > Dan Christensen schrieb am Freitag, 18. August 2023 um 21:12:29 UTC+2:
> > > This characterizes the sentence, "This sentence is false." It is
> > > said to be one of the true sentences iff it is one of the false sentences.
> > > This eliminates the possibility of being one of either set. By default,
> > > that sentence must be one of indeterminate truth value--the only
> > > other alternative in this trichotomy relation.

Corr.: Typo

But then there is the revenge paradox. Even if you cast the
Liar Paradox not as a sentence, but as an expression, there
will be a new Paradox, the so called revenge paradox:

"This expression is a false sentence"

Mild Shock schrieb am Samstag, 19. August 2023 um 23:10:10 UTC+2:
> Whats is an accepted terminology, to go beyond propositions/
> sentences/statements, is the notion of an "expression". Like
> for example "2+2" is not a sentence, "2+2" is an expression.
>
> But then "2+2=4" is a sentence again. If you want to do an accepted
> modelling of the liar paradox, not as a sentence, but as
> "expression", you would need to adjust your modelling here:
>
> > s = a set of sentences
> > Set(s)
> > https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm
>
> Better use:
>
> > e = a set of expressions
> > Set(e)
> > https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm
>
> But then there is the revenge paradox. Even if you cast the
> Liar Paradox not as a sentence, but as an expression, there
> will be a new Paradox, the so called revenge paradox:
>
> "This expression is a true sentence"
> Mild Shock schrieb am Samstag, 19. August 2023 um 22:52:46 UTC+2:
> > Dan O Matik was asking:
> > > Give it a try. IIUC many have apparently
> > > made careers of fruitless attempts to do so.
> > Well I did it already. Only you have the attention
> > span of a snail brain. I posted it here:
> >
> > Mild Shock schrieb am Freitag, 18. August 2023 um 18:51:04 UTC+2:
> > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/RxufSixkvuM/m/JE1iwFXwAAAJ
> >
> > Its rather trivial to treat the Liar Paradox as p<->~p:
> > /* The Liar Sentences is a Paradoxical Assumption */
> > p↔¬p entails p.
> > https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(p~4~3p)" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(p~4~3p)|=p
> > p↔¬p entails ¬p.
> > https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(p~4~3p)|=~3p
> > /* The Liar Sentences is a Determinate False Conclusion */
> > p↔¬p is invalid.
> > https://www.umsu.de/trees/#|=(p~4~3p)
> > ¬(p↔¬p) is valid.
> > https://www.umsu.de/trees/#|=~3(p~4~3p)
> > Mild Shock schrieb am Samstag, 19. August 2023 um 22:51:17 UTC+2:
> > > Come on dumbo, you are posting the most ridiculous
> > > moot nonsense arguments. In logic "sentences" and "proposition" are
> > > sometimes synoymous. Like for example in this definition:
> > > > Syntactic consequence Γ ⊢ φ says:
> > > > sentence φ is provable from the set of assumptions Γ.
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence
> > >
> > > What do you mean "sentence φ" means? There are more
> > > synonyms, like "statement", etc. etc.. They all are can be
> > > all treated as logical formulae in the context of mathematical logic:
> > >
> > > - statement
> > > - sentence
> > > - proposition
> > > - assumption
> > > - Etc...
> > >
> > > You are confusing natural language with logic. Now the
> > > liar paradox, uses the category "sentence". So putting aside
> > > natural language nonsense, what is the translation of:
> > >
> > > "This sentences is false"
> > >
> > > You got it already here. b e t is the same like b, and b e f is
> > > the same like ~b in classical logic. So you wrote down b <-> ~b:
> > >
> > > ... [b e t <=> b e f] ...
> > > https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm
> > > Dan Christensen schrieb am Freitag, 18. August 2023 um 21:12:29 UTC+2:
> > > > This characterizes the sentence, "This sentence is false." It is
> > > > said to be one of the true sentences iff it is one of the false sentences.
> > > > This eliminates the possibility of being one of either set. By default,
> > > > that sentence must be one of indeterminate truth value--the only
> > > > other alternative in this trichotomy relation.

On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 5:10:10 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> Whats is an accepted terminology, to go beyond propositions/
> sentences/statements, is the notion of an "expression". Like
> for example "2+2" is not a sentence, "2+2" is an expression.
>
> But then "2+2=4" is a sentence again. If you want to do an accepted
> modelling of the liar paradox, not as a sentence, but as
> "expression", you would need to adjust your modelling here:
>
> > s = a set of sentences
> > Set(s)
> > https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm
>
> Better use:
>
> > e = a set of expressions
> > Set(e)
> > https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm
>

There we, we interpret s to be a set of sentences, however you want to define them.

> But then there is the revenge paradox. Even if you cast the
> Liar Paradox not as a sentence, but as an expression, there
> will be a new Paradox, the so called revenge paradox:
>

"This sentence is false" is a sentence. Deal with 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 8/17/2023 12:38 PM, Dan Christensen wrote:
> Soooooo cute that way you "stick up" for your little buddy AP here. A match made in heaven!
>
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 3:10:48 AM UTC-4, Mild Shock (aka Mr. Collapse) wrote:
>
> [snip childish abuse]
>
>> Lets say C(_) is the sentences construct, and p is the sentences value,
>>
>> we can then define:
>>
>> 1) "paradoxical": If both C(p) ⊢ p and C(p) ⊢ ~p
>> 2) "determinate true": If C(p) ⊢ p but ~ (C(p) ⊢ ~p)
>> 3) "determinate false": If ~(C(p) ⊢ p) but C(p) ⊢ ~p
>> 4) "indeterminate": If both ~(C(p) ⊢ p) and ~(C(p) ⊢ ~p)
>>
>
> Make up all the definitions you want, Mr. Collapse. You may even find a use for them some day! (Hee, hee!)
>
> By classifying sentences as either true, false or of indeterminate truth value, I think I may have resolved the Liar Paradox. Examples of sentences of indeterminate truth value: "What time is it?" "Wash your hands." "This sentence is false."
>
> See my postings on this topic a sci.logic.
[...]

True is true wrt certain points of view... Reminds me of the following
scene in a movie:

https://youtu.be/2nO0uJenOgw?t=45

;^D

Assuming resolution makes the sentences true, this means that,

last but not least, if you resolve paradoxes, you have reached
the philosopher stone and can turn lead into gold. This holds
especially for the Liar Paradox, which unlike the Russell Paradox,

is a purely logical paradox, and therefore shows that the
philosopher stone is not found in set theory, neither those from
Quine nor those from Russell or any other sort of set theory.

It simply that we can prove in DC Proof:

14 [P <=> ~P]
=> ALL(lead):ALL(gold):EXIST(stone):stone(lead)=gold
4 Conclusion, 3

So what is the Philosopher Stone minus set theory then exactly?

------------------------------------------- begin proof 4 -----------------------------------------------------

/* Lemma from Proof 1 */
1 [P <=> ~P] => P
Axiom

/* Lemma from Proof 2 */
2 [P <=> ~P] => ~P
Axiom

3 P <=> ~P
Premise

4 ~EXIST(stone):stone(lead)=gold
Premise

5 ~P
Detach, 2, 3

6 P
Detach, 1, 3

7 ~P & P
Join, 5, 6

8 ~EXIST(lead):EXIST(gold):~EXIST(stone):stone(lead)=gold
4 Conclusion, 4

9 ~~ALL(lead):~EXIST(gold):~EXIST(stone):stone(lead)=gold
Quant, 8

10 ALL(lead):~EXIST(gold):~EXIST(stone):stone(lead)=gold
Rem DNeg, 9

11 ALL(lead):~~ALL(gold):~~EXIST(stone):stone(lead)=gold
Quant, 10

12 ALL(lead):ALL(gold):~~EXIST(stone):stone(lead)=gold
Rem DNeg, 11

13 ALL(lead):ALL(gold):EXIST(stone):stone(lead)=gold
Rem DNeg, 12

14 [P <=> ~P]
=> ALL(lead):ALL(gold):EXIST(stone):stone(lead)=gold
4 Conclusion, 3

------------------------------------------- end proof 4 -----------------------------------------------------

Dan Christensen schrieb am Sonntag, 20. August 2023 um 01:18:07 UTC+2:
> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 5:10:10 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> > Whats is an accepted terminology, to go beyond propositions/
> > sentences/statements, is the notion of an "expression". Like
> > for example "2+2" is not a sentence, "2+2" is an expression.
> >
> > But then "2+2=4" is a sentence again. If you want to do an accepted
> > modelling of the liar paradox, not as a sentence, but as
> > "expression", you would need to adjust your modelling here:
> >
> > > s = a set of sentences
> > > Set(s)
> > > https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm
> >
> > Better use:
> >
> > > e = a set of expressions
> > > Set(e)
> > > https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm
> >
> There we, we interpret s to be a set of sentences, however you want to define them.
> > But then there is the revenge paradox. Even if you cast the
> > Liar Paradox not as a sentence, but as an expression, there
> > will be a new Paradox, the so called revenge paradox:
> >
> "This sentence is false" is a sentence. Deal with it.
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Dan Christensen wrote:
> "This sentence is false" is a sentence. Deal with it.

What makes you think I doubted that it is a sentence?
Where do you read that from? Usually, when expressions
can also have truth values, you get:

sentences ⊆ expressions

So the point is, when you want to go beyond truth values,
you need to consider expressions. Because sentences is
reserved in logic for those things that have a truth value.

Thats your terminological confusion.

Mild Shock schrieb am Dienstag, 22. August 2023 um 09:28:34 UTC+2:
> Assuming resolution makes the sentences true, this means that,
>
> last but not least, if you resolve paradoxes, you have reached
> the philosopher stone and can turn lead into gold. This holds
> especially for the Liar Paradox, which unlike the Russell Paradox,
>
> is a purely logical paradox, and therefore shows that the
> philosopher stone is not found in set theory, neither those from
> Quine nor those from Russell or any other sort of set theory.
>
> It simply that we can prove in DC Proof:
>
> 14 [P <=> ~P]
> => ALL(lead):ALL(gold):EXIST(stone):stone(lead)=gold
> 4 Conclusion, 3
>
> So what is the Philosopher Stone minus set theory then exactly?
>
> ------------------------------------------- begin proof 4 -----------------------------------------------------
>
> /* Lemma from Proof 1 */
> 1 [P <=> ~P] => P
> Axiom
>
> /* Lemma from Proof 2 */
> 2 [P <=> ~P] => ~P
> Axiom
>
> 3 P <=> ~P
> Premise
>
> 4 ~EXIST(stone):stone(lead)=gold
> Premise
>
> 5 ~P
> Detach, 2, 3
>
> 6 P
> Detach, 1, 3
>
> 7 ~P & P
> Join, 5, 6
>
> 8 ~EXIST(lead):EXIST(gold):~EXIST(stone):stone(lead)=gold
> 4 Conclusion, 4
>
> 9 ~~ALL(lead):~EXIST(gold):~EXIST(stone):stone(lead)=gold
> Quant, 8
>
> 10 ALL(lead):~EXIST(gold):~EXIST(stone):stone(lead)=gold
> Rem DNeg, 9
>
> 11 ALL(lead):~~ALL(gold):~~EXIST(stone):stone(lead)=gold
> Quant, 10
>
> 12 ALL(lead):ALL(gold):~~EXIST(stone):stone(lead)=gold
> Rem DNeg, 11
>
> 13 ALL(lead):ALL(gold):EXIST(stone):stone(lead)=gold
> Rem DNeg, 12
>
> 14 [P <=> ~P]
> => ALL(lead):ALL(gold):EXIST(stone):stone(lead)=gold
> 4 Conclusion, 3
>
> ------------------------------------------- end proof 4 -----------------------------------------------------
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Sonntag, 20. August 2023 um 01:18:07 UTC+2:
> > On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 5:10:10 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> > > Whats is an accepted terminology, to go beyond propositions/
> > > sentences/statements, is the notion of an "expression". Like
> > > for example "2+2" is not a sentence, "2+2" is an expression.
> > >
> > > But then "2+2=4" is a sentence again. If you want to do an accepted
> > > modelling of the liar paradox, not as a sentence, but as
> > > "expression", you would need to adjust your modelling here:
> > >
> > > > s = a set of sentences
> > > > Set(s)
> > > > https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm
> > >
> > > Better use:
> > >
> > > > e = a set of expressions
> > > > Set(e)
> > > > https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm
> > >
> > There we, we interpret s to be a set of sentences, however you want to define them.
> > > But then there is the revenge paradox. Even if you cast the
> > > Liar Paradox not as a sentence, but as an expression, there
> > > will be a new Paradox, the so called revenge paradox:
> > >
> > "This sentence is false" is a sentence. Deal with 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, August 22, 2023 at 3:39:34 AM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:

[snip]

> So the point is, when you want to go beyond truth values,
> you need to consider expressions. Because sentences is
> reserved in logic for those things that have a truth value.
>

In common usage, "Wash your hands" is a sentence. It is known to be never true and never false, i.e. it is of indeterminate truth value. In this sense, "This sentence is false" is also of indeterminate truth value.

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

Trichotomy Lemma: For every set, there exists 3 disjoint subsets on which a trichotomy rule holds. https://www.dcproof.com/LiarParadoxLemma.htm (84 lines)

https://www.dcproof.com/LiarParadoxLemma.htm (84 lines)

I hope this helps clear up your confusion.

Dan

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