add to AP's 5th book SUSPEND ALL COLLEGE LOGIC CLASSES, UNTIL THEY FIX THEIR ERRORS...

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
12:48 AM (15 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
unread,
Oct 3, 2021, 6:04:55 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 3, 2021, 5:59 PM
to sci.math

We know all matter is made up of atoms. We know even gases are made up of atoms. So we have only atoms and the void in existence. The Universe itself is both void and atoms. An entity in science contains some atoms.

If all entities that exist are composed of atoms, then the Universe itself must be an atom.

Analysis: so if that is not true, then we have to go back and also throw out the Atomic theory itself that All matter is made up of atoms, for the Universe itself is part matter. We would have to make an exception to the Atomic theory, and this is never good practice in science, for our laws need to be universal, not riddled by exception.

P.S. save, as I want to see how and if I keep polishing such science ideas. Some ideas in science need a long time to get bright shiny polished.
AP

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>

Oct 4, 2021, 12:43 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe

Now there is a question of the history of Logic, why Boole and Jevons never bothered to check for consistency of their end result conclusion of their connectors, especially the AND, OR, IF-Then.

Now sometimes mathematicians even go and check for consistency in their work, such as if a axiom is derivable by other axioms, or in conflict with other axioms.

So why did Boole and Jevons never bother with consistency? I believe the reason is that they were just poor in skills of logic and really did not have a "logical mind". They were more of what one can say is a editor encyclopedic mind of harvesting things into a pile, but never making sense of the pile.

For there really is a super easy way of checking upon the consistency of logic connectors. One that I mention in my book of Suspend all College Logic until they fix their errors.

And that easy checkup simply involves a Primitive Axiom definition and then a glance at the truth tables of connectors to see if any of them duplicate their assigned numbers of true and false.

So we look at Boole's AND, OR, IF-Then and those were TFFF, TTTF (Boole's Inclusive OR), and TFTT.

And what we see in this set of Boole's truth table is that the first has 1 and 3 of the other, the next has 1 and 3 of the other, and the last has 1 and 3 of the other.

Now we look at AP's 4 connectors of AND, OR, Equal-Not combined, If-Then, and their truth tables in respective order are TTTF, FTTF (AP has exclusive Or), TTTT, TFUU.

Now AP runs through the Consistency test. We have one connector of all 4 one with 0 other. We have one connector of 3 the same with 1 other. We have one connector with 2 the same and 2 the other. And finally we have one connector with a third category of Unknown.

So, Boole and Jevons logic is inconsistent for it lacks a connector of 2 of one and 2 of another (although Boole tried to have exclusive OR), but that attempt already exposes Boole as a illogical thinker to think a connector is ambivalent in being exclusive or inclusive. The debacle that faced Boole with OR only exposes his incompetence in doing logic. But Boole also was a fumbling feeble logician in never seeing that Equal needs to combine with Not to make a 4 table algebra of T and F.

And worst of all of Boole, the idea that his IF-Then comes to be a truth table of TFTT, where a mindless idiotic statement of "If there is a present King of France, then he is bald". Where the IF is false, yet Boole and the logicians after Boole said the entire statement has a true truth value.

What AP is saying is that ever since Boole, there has been zero, zip, nada, no logician existing who had a logical mind to be doing Logic.

I guess I need to save these and include in Suspend book.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Oct 4, 2021, 2:19 PM (2 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
The real big reason I am opening this new research in Logic is that If-Then has two spots of taking care of division by 0 in math with truth table TFUU for Material Conditional.

IMPLIES (Material Conditional)
IF/THEN
MOVES INTO
T -> T = T
T -> F = F
F -> T = U probability outcome
F -> F = U probability outcome

But to take care of division by 0 needs just one spot.

So here I am going to research that a link between subtraction which is the Exclusive OR is also a link with division by 0. And thus requires two spots in the truth table. Of course the subtraction is linked to division and the axiom of subtraction is that you cannot remove more than what is available, meaning negative numbers are a sham and are nonexistent.

Here is the truth table of OR and it is going to connect with the two spots in If-Then.

New Logic
OR(exclusive)
T or T = F
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F

What I am looking for is a direct connection of subtraction to division. And why two spots are required in If-Then for division by 0.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

The new research in Logic connectors is the link up of IF-Then with OR. IF-Then is division in Logic and I suspect the reason it has two spots of U in its truth table of TFUU is because OR is subtraction and subtraction is related to division. So OR requires 2 of one and 2 of another in its truth table of FTTF. Because OR is subtraction and requires 2 spots means that IF-Then as division related to subtraction requires 2 spots.

Of course the requirement for IF-Then is so that mathematics can have division by 0 as undefined, or unknown. And this translates into subtraction that you cannot subtract (I like to say remove) more than what is available.

In subtraction we see it as having a choice in logic. Chose between T or F, but if we have T or T we have no choice. If we have F or F, again we have no choice. So we ask the question, is this choice deal the same as subtraction that you cannot remove more than what is available?

Here I am asking if "having a choice" is the same as "you cannot remove more than what is available".

Then, I am going to see if division is just "rapid subtraction". For I do know that multiplication is "rapid addition". And in the truth tables of AND which is addition in math and the truth table of Equal-Not which is multiplication in math that one has TTTF while the other has TTTT. Unlike comparing OR with IF-Then.

So I need to do this research to fill out more of the details of the logic connectors.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

On Mon Oct 4 13:58:59 2021 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> add to AP's 5th book SUSPEND ALL COLLEGE LOGIC CLASSES, UNTIL THEY FIX THEIR ERRORS...
>
> Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
> 12:48 AM (15 hours ago)
>
>
>
> to Plutonium Atom Universe
>
> Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> unread,
> Oct 3, 2021, 6:04:55 PM
> to Plutonium Atom Universe
> Archimedes Plutonium
> Oct 3, 2021, 5:59 PM
> to sci.math
>
> We know all matter is made up of atoms. We know even gases are made up of atoms. So we have only atoms and the void in existence. The Universe itself is both void and atoms. An entity in science contains some atoms.
>
> If all entities that exist are composed of atoms, then the Universe itself must be an atom.

*
False conclusion.
* If my hamburger is composed of atoms, then my hamburger must be an atom.

earle
*

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 5:19:34 PM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> On Mon Oct 4 13:58:59 2021 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > add to AP's 5th book SUSPEND ALL COLLEGE LOGIC CLASSES, UNTIL THEY FIX THEIR ERRORS...
> >
> > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > 12:48 AM (15 hours ago)
> >
> >
> >
> > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> >
> > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > unread,
> > Oct 3, 2021, 6:04:55 PM
> > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > Archimedes Plutonium
> > Oct 3, 2021, 5:59 PM
> > to sci.math
> >
> > We know all matter is made up of atoms. We know even gases are made up of atoms. So we have only atoms and the void in existence. The Universe itself is both void and atoms. An entity in science contains some atoms.
> >
> > If all entities that exist are composed of atoms, then the Universe itself must be an atom.
> *
> False conclusion.
> *
> If my hamburger is composed of atoms, then my hamburger must be an atom.
>
> earle
> *

Stanford Shithead Jones has a disconnect with Logical Reasoning. A butterfly is composed of many atoms, but a butterfly is not a single-atom.

All matter is made up of atoms.

The Universe has matter, and if not a atom, then there is the exception to the logic that All matter is made up of atoms. Then we cannot say the Atomic Theory "all things are made up of atoms for we have to exclude the Universe."

The fallacy that Jones makes is that his small mind never studied Universal quantifiers of logic, for that arswipe Jones cannot even do a slant cut in cone and understand it is an oval not a ellipse.

Earle Jones the mindless fuckdog of Stanford Univ never studied logic, and could not reason himself out of a paper sack.

LOGIC at play

Atomic Theory is a Universal quantifier of Every thing, every matter is made up of atoms.

The Universe itself is a Universal quantifier.

A hamburger is not a universal, but try telling that to a Stanford anal fuckdog named Jones.

So what is in play is the Universal Physic law of Atomic Theory

And the Universe itself.

So if the Atomic theory is TRUE, which Feynman said in his opening pages of Lectures on Physics. Then when we add the fact that the Universe has matter. We come to a fork in the road.

Is the Atomic Theory Law of physics Universal or does it have an exception.

For the Universe surely is Universal and the Universe certainly has matter.

So anyone with a logic mind not a gay driven hate stalker buttfuck mind of Stanford's Earle Jones.

Can only come to two conclusions. The universe is the exception to the law of Atomic Theory. Or, the Atomic Theory has no exceptions and the Universe itself is just one big atom.

Fuckdogs like Earle Jones can make up any sentence as a excuse-- hamburger or cat or house or Venus or car. But the fuckdog Jones never took Logic, never had a single day in his entire life where he had straight correct thoughts about anything. And a fuckdog like Earle Jones of Stanford could never understand that when AP places Atomic Theory up against the Universe itself, that such is a special relationship of Logic.

Not the fuckdog Jones placing atomic theory up against a hamburger. Earle, go back to sucking a cock as shown in your logo picture.

Stanford University just has no manners, none at all, by letting this crazied shithead Earle Jones constantly peckering away with his criminal stalking on sci.math and sci.physics. When Stanford should get Earle Jones into a psychiatric clinic and placed on medication, as Earle drags himself down along with Stanford University.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

It is coming up to 7Nov so an appropriate time to go down this logic trail. And we have to ask the question of all colleges worldwide as to how much logic is taught to their students in hope of having them "think straight and think clear". As was seen by the obscene interloper, of his hamburger is a single atom logic, and who claims to be a engineer from Stanford Univ. that most schools never require their students to take logic. Personally, I myself had two years of formal logic at UC 1968-1972. I took the 2nd year logic of "symbolic logic" and liked it so much that I took 1st year logic the following year to make sure I did not miss anything. But at UC, the math majors and the science majors were not required to take any logic at all. And the 2nd year logic at UC was mostly filled up by lawyers, people wanting to become lawyers.

So, what are the statistics of teaching logic in school? Are they something like that of 1% of all graduates of college have taken a course of logic? And the number of people who took Symbolic Logic in college? Is that number perhaps 0.1%, which is 1 in a thousand college graduates took Symbolic Logic to learn how to think straight think clear.

Now here I am going to apply some Logical Reasoning that I had learned in college from taking 2 years of formal logic.

And I am going to say, who makes up requirements for a College Education? Does every school make up their own requirements?

And is not the purpose of an Education that of producing people who "think straight and think clear".

So we have the situation around the world that we graduate people from college in all manner of fields of study, but only 1 out of a 1000 of those graduated college persons has a chance of thinking straight and thinking clearly of whatever they are focused upon.

So let me go over this logical argument below that I posted earlier this day. And as I say, Nov7 is soon approaching as the most important holiday in the calendar year of the Plutonium Atom Totality Universe.

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:13:52 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> LOGIC at play
>
> Atomic Theory is a Universal quantifier of Every thing, every matter is made up of atoms.
>
> The Universe itself is a Universal quantifier.
>
> A hamburger is not a universal.
>
> So what is in play is the Universal Physics law of Atomic Theory.
>
> And the Universe itself for the Universe is a universal.
>
> So if the Atomic theory is True, which Feynman said in his opening pages of Lectures on Physics. As the single most important fact in all of science-- the atomic theory. Then when we add the fact that the Universe has matter. We come to a fork in the road.
>
> Is the Atomic Theory Law of physics Universal or does it have an exception.
>
> For the Universe surely is Universal and the Universe certainly contains matter.
>
> Can only come to two conclusions. The universe is the exception to the law of Atomic Theory. Or, the Atomic Theory has no exceptions and the Universe itself is just one big atom.
>
> Those never trained in formal logic can never understand that when AP places Atomic Theory up against the Universe itself, that such is a special relationship of Logic.
>
> Not a Cretin in Ancient Greek times or a street urchin in Faraday time, nor a college professor who never took formal logic in modern times placing atomic theory up against a hamburger.
> Cretins cannot understand you are placing the Universal law of Physics up against a Universal quantifier-- the Universe itself.

So let me streamline my earlier post above, streamline it so that bells start to ring and lights come on in those that never pursued formal logic, or probably could never really understand how one thinks straight and thinks clearly.

Without loss of generality we can omit the Void or the Space that atoms exist. There are voids inside of atoms and there are voids outside of atoms for, most of Space is empty of atoms until you get to galaxies and stars and planets. But inside of atoms, equally there is much empty space.
But to people who lack the ability to think straight and clear, the Void and Space only confuses them even more. Distracts them from the main argument.. Just like the hamburger person from Stanford Univ. would be distracted by just about any thing.

So we no longer need to talk about Space, about Void in addressing the main logic of this deduction. It is a deduction, just as pure as a math proof of the Pythagorean theorem is a pure deduction. For much of Symbolic Logic at University of Cincinnati circa 1970 was teaching how to make a pure deductive proof. Proofs even better, in my consideration than the Pythagorean Theorem or infinitude of primes back in 1970. And so much better that I had to take 1st year Logic in case I had missed something, not covered in 2nd year logic.

So let us go through the proof that the Universe, the cosmos as Carl Sagan talked about in his TV movie episodes. The proof that the Universe has to be a Single Big Atom.

The Atomic Theory according to Feynman Lectures on Physics goes like this.

All things are made up of Atoms and all the atoms of that thing can be listed as single-atoms in space.

AP writes: alright, that Feynman statement is a Universal law of Physics. And some people, nay, most people do not understand or recognize what a law of Physics means. For a law of physics has no exceptions. For if you find "a thing" it must be made up of atoms so that you can list every atom in that thing.

Now we can go down and enumerate every atom inside that thing. It maybe a single atom from the start and we do not have to make a list, or a multitude of atoms and we can enumerate and list every atom of that thing. So it maybe a compound or a mixture of atoms as we study in chemistry.

But the profound fact is, All Things are made up of Single Atoms.

Now we come to a different subject, we come to the Universe itself. And in formal Symbolic Logic we have connectors and we have quantifiers. Two quantifiers are the Existential quantifier and the Universal quantifier.

The Universe is a universal quantifier of itself. Every law of Physics can be written by a Universal Quantifier.

The Atomic theory is a universal quantifier over all things found in the universe (we omitted Void and Space). And the Atomic Theory is able to list every Single Atom in the Universe.

So we observe the Universe and note for a fact it contains matter and atoms.. We note for a fact that the Universe is a "thing" just as the "thing" in the Atomic theory-- All things are made up of Single Atoms.

So we have 2 Universal statements in lock step of one another interceded by the fact that the Universe contains Single Atoms that can be all listed.

1) Atomic theory-- All things are made up of single atoms.
2) Atomic theory is a Universal law of Physics
3) Universe is a universal quantifier
4) The Universe contains Single atoms.
Questions
5) Is the Universe itself a Single Atom? For the Universe is a thing as noted by it has matter, mass of single atoms on a list.
6) If the Universe is not a Single Atom, means the Atomic theory needs to be pared down with a exception for it is no longer a Universal Law of Physics. So that the Universe itself does not obey the Atomic Theory.
7) If the Universe is a Single Atom itself, then the Atomic theory remains a Universal law of Physics.

P.S. most people wane in their ability to do logical thought, ---simple, straight and clear as they age. For AP, my powers of logic seem to be just now cresting in a maximum and shows no signs of deterioration. Perhaps it is because of my hamartoma of the liver, or perhaps it is because I am 1/2 eunuch and that my mind no longer is centered on a "sexual life" but rather full devoted to a "science life".

The above proof that the universe is a single atom, is not an easy proof. But a magnificiently beautiful proof. Perhaps the most magnificient beauty in all of Science.

In religions, they are troubled by not being able to prove God. Well the above is a science, logic proof of God, only not a God many can recognize.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

🐒 of Math and 🦍 of Physics Archimedes "AnalButtfuckManure" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

> So let me go over this logical argument below that I posted earlier this day.

>> LOGIC at play
>>
>> Atomic Theory is a Universal quantifier of Every thing, every matter is made up of atoms.
>>
>> The Universe itself is a Universal quantifier.

What relevance is this statement?
>>
>> A hamburger is not a universal.

And why is this relevant? How are you trying to use the word "universal"?
>>
>> So what is in play is the Universal Physics law of Atomic Theory.
>>
>> And the Universe itself for the Universe is a universal.

Universal babbling nonsense.
....> The Atomic Theory according to Feynman Lectures on Physics goes
like this.
>
> All things are made up of Atoms and all the atoms of that thing can be listed as single-atoms in space.
>
> AP writes: alright, that Feynman statement is a Universal law of Physics. And some people, nay, most people do not understand or recognize what a law of Physics means. For a law of physics has no exceptions. For if you find "a thing" it must be made up of atoms so that you can list every atom in that thing.
>
> Now we can go down and enumerate every atom inside that thing. It maybe a single atom from the start and we do not have to make a list, or a multitude of atoms and we can enumerate and list every atom of that thing. So it maybe a compound or a mixture of atoms as we study in chemistry.
>
> But the profound fact is, All Things are made up of Single Atoms.
>
> Now we come to a different subject, we come to the Universe itself. And in formal Symbolic Logic we have connectors and we have quantifiers. Two quantifiers are the Existential quantifier and the Universal quantifier.
>
> The Universe is a universal quantifier of itself. Every law of Physics can be written by a Universal Quantifier.

Word salad.
>
> The Atomic theory is a universal quantifier over all things found in the universe (we omitted Void and Space). And the Atomic Theory is able to list every Single Atom in the Universe.

You'll be counting (to 10^80 or so!) for a long time.
>
> So we observe the Universe and note for a fact it contains matter and atoms. We note for a fact that the Universe is a "thing" just as the "thing" in the Atomic theory-- All things are made up of Single Atoms.

About 10*80 of them for the universe.
>
> So we have 2 Universal statements in lock step of one another interceded by the fact that the Universe contains Single Atoms that can be all listed.
>
> 1) Atomic theory-- All things are made up of single atoms.
> 2) Atomic theory is a Universal law of Physics
> 3) Universe is a universal quantifier

?????

> 4) The Universe contains Single atoms.
> Questions
> 5) Is the Universe itself a Single Atom? For the Universe is a thing as noted by it has matter, mass of single atoms on a list.
> 6) If the Universe is not a Single Atom, means the Atomic theory needs to be pared down with a exception for it is no longer a Universal Law of Physics. So that the Universe itself does not obey the Atomic Theory.

Nope. Does not follow.

> 7) If the Universe is a Single Atom itself, then the Atomic theory remains a Universal law of Physics.

No, it is extremely illogical. 10^80 is not 1!

You have this:

A butterfly is made of atoms. A butterfly is not a single atom.
Earle's hamburger is (or was, he probably ate it) made of atoms. Earle's
hamburger is not a single atom.
Earle is made of atoms. Earle is not a single atom.
StupidPlutonium is made of atoms. StupidPlutonium is not a single atom.
I am made of atoms. I am not a single atom.
The universe is made of atoms. But according to you, the universe is a
single atom?

Why is the universe an exception? Didn't you just say there can be no
exceptions to laws of physics? Are you now claiming that the statement
"everything is made of atoms" shouldn't be considered to be a law of
physics? Why do you claim the universe an exception to simple logic?

Also what about the math involved? Is 10^80 = 1 in your "New Math"????
>
> AP
> Drag Queen of Science, especially Physics
>
>

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 4:10:45 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> The new research in Logic connectors is the link up of IF-Then with OR. IF-Then is division in Logic and I suspect the reason it has two spots of U in its truth table of TFUU is because OR is subtraction and subtraction is related to division. So OR requires 2 of one and 2 of another in its truth table of FTTF. Because OR is subtraction and requires 2 spots means that IF-Then as division related to subtraction requires 2 spots.
>
> Of course the requirement for IF-Then is so that mathematics can have division by 0 as undefined, or unknown. And this translates into subtraction that you cannot subtract (I like to say remove) more than what is available.
>
> In subtraction we see it as having a choice in logic. Chose between T or F, but if we have T or T we have no choice. If we have F or F, again we have no choice. So we ask the question, is this choice deal the same as subtraction that you cannot remove more than what is available?
>
> Here I am asking if "having a choice" is the same as "you cannot remove more than what is available".
>
> Then, I am going to see if division is just "rapid subtraction". For I do know that multiplication is "rapid addition". And in the truth tables of AND which is addition in math and the truth table of Equal-Not which is multiplication in math that one has TTTF while the other has TTTT. Unlike comparing OR with IF-Then.
>
> So I need to do this research to fill out more of the details of the logic connectors.

Yes, the reason I bring this up is because when I wrote that book of Suspend all College Logic classrooms, I had just assumed the last two lines in the truth table of If-Then were U and U, not thinking that one may have a traditional value of either T or F.

New Logic
IMPLIES (Material Conditional)
IF/THEN
MOVES INTO
T ->  T  = T
T ->  F  = F
F ->  T  = U probability outcome
F ->  F   = U probability outcome

So I am here again on the question of whether that last line can be a value of T rather than U.

And the reason I am focused my attention on that, is because addition is AND and multiplication is Equal-Not in a 4 array. And Addition is TTTF while multiplication is TTTT. You see, the symmetry of addition and rapid-addition=multiplication is a 1 off symmetry, for 3 trues versus 4 trues.

AP always is attentive to symmetry.

Now we have subtraction as OR with truth table FTTF and division as If-Then with truth table TFUU.

You see the add multiply is off by 1 in symmetry, but the subtract divide is 2 by 2 , with no offset.

This lack of offset has me concerned that perhaps the truth table of If-Then should be TFUT rather than TFUU. By a TFUT truth table I can align add-multiply with subtract-divide with symmetry.

So, let us inspect that case of F->F whether it makes sense to be True rather than Unknown or undefined. Provided we start with a falsehood does it make sense that the result would be false and hence a T value?

All I needed was one U in IF-Then to allow for division by 0 in math to be undefined. And I would achieve that in a table of TFUT.

So this is what is under investigation by me. The accurate truth table of If ->Then. And I am guided from the symmetry of AND coupled to Equal-Not.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics