add to AP's 5th book SUSPEND ALL COLLEGE LOGIC CLASSES, UNTIL THEY FIX THEIR ERRORS...
12 views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Oct 4, 2021, 12:48:14 AM (2 days 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, 2:19:52 PM (2 days 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
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Oct 4, 2021, 4:15:02 PM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
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 short, negative numbers are nonexistent.

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.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Oct 5, 2021, 2:38:23 AM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
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.

Actually I was cheering for the truth table of If->Then to be that of TFUU for that is less complicated than the TFUT. Cheering because any connector starting with a Falsehood should lead to nowhere in science.

So if we interpret the IF->Then connector as a science calculus derivative of dy/dx sinc IF-Then is a division. Interpret a falsehood and what it implies or leads or goes into, much like a derivative in calculus leads and goes into the next number in the graph of a polynomial function, then we can say that a falsehood can lead to something.

And the reason I am fine-tuning If->Then, is because of symmetry issues. The symmetry of add to multiply is AND and Equal-Not with truth tables TTTF and TTTT respectively. That means a symmetry issue is involved with subtract and division, seen as multiply is rapid add and so division is rapid subtract.

And the symmetry issue is that subtract at OR is FTTF has 2 spot symmetry while TFUU also has 2 spot symmetry and no offset that add multiply has a offset.

So this alarmed me, and prompting me to see if I can improve upon TFUU to be truly TFUT rather instead and afford subtract to division with an offset.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 2:49:01 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Actually I was cheering for the truth table of If->Then to be that of TFUU for that is less complicated than the TFUT. Cheering because any connector starting with a Falsehood should lead to nowhere in science.
>

No, I am going to cheer for TFUU, on instinct and intuition. A science mind has no use for a Falsehood leading to anything of math assurance, to precision.

In Old Logic they named the IF->Then with several names, Implication, Material Conditional, etc etc.

Personally, I like the concept of Goes into , or Leads into.

And a falsehood never leads to a truth nor to anything else of science, other than perhaps focusing our attention on something not true.

> So if we interpret the IF->Then connector as a science calculus derivative of dy/dx since IF-Then is a division. Interpret a falsehood and what it implies or leads or goes into, much like a derivative in calculus leads and goes into the next number in the graph of a polynomial function, then we can say that a falsehood can lead to something.
>

Using Calculus dy/dx is probably good to use in showing that If F-->then T cannot be T nor F for it does not account for dx as 0, a vertical line in calculus.

> And the reason I am fine-tuning If->Then, is because of symmetry issues. The symmetry of add to multiply is AND and Equal-Not with truth tables TTTF and TTTT respectively. That means a symmetry issue is involved with subtract and division, seen as multiply is rapid add and so division is rapid subtract.
>

Maybe I have overblown the symmetry issues.

> And the symmetry issue is that subtract at OR is FTTF has 2 spot symmetry while TFUU also has 2 spot symmetry and no offset that add multiply has a offset.
>

No, I am back to where I started from and prefer TFUU rather than TFUT

> So this alarmed me, and prompting me to see if I can improve upon TFUU to be truly TFUT rather instead and afford subtract to division with an offset.

I am going to make a science argument that TFUU is the correct table of If->Then.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 3:10:56 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 2:49:01 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Actually I was cheering for the truth table of If->Then to be that of TFUU for that is less complicated than the TFUT. Cheering because any connector starting with a Falsehood should lead to nowhere in science.
> >
> No, I am going to cheer for TFUU, on instinct and intuition. A science mind has no use for a Falsehood leading to anything of math assurance, to precision.
>
> In Old Logic they named the IF->Then with several names, Implication, Material Conditional, etc etc.
>
> Personally, I like the concept of Goes into , or Leads into.
>
> And a falsehood never leads to a truth nor to anything else of science, other than perhaps focusing our attention on something not true.
>
>
> > So if we interpret the IF->Then connector as a science calculus derivative of dy/dx since IF-Then is a division. Interpret a falsehood and what it implies or leads or goes into, much like a derivative in calculus leads and goes into the next number in the graph of a polynomial function, then we can say that a falsehood can lead to something.
> >
>
> Using Calculus dy/dx is probably good to use in showing that If F-->then T cannot be T nor F for it does not account for dx as 0, a vertical line in calculus.
> > And the reason I am fine-tuning If->Then, is because of symmetry issues.. The symmetry of add to multiply is AND and Equal-Not with truth tables TTTF and TTTT respectively. That means a symmetry issue is involved with subtract and division, seen as multiply is rapid add and so division is rapid subtract.
> >
> Maybe I have overblown the symmetry issues.
> > And the symmetry issue is that subtract at OR is FTTF has 2 spot symmetry while TFUU also has 2 spot symmetry and no offset that add multiply has a offset.
> >
> No, I am back to where I started from and prefer TFUU rather than TFUT
> > So this alarmed me, and prompting me to see if I can improve upon TFUU to be truly TFUT rather instead and afford subtract to division with an offset.
> I am going to make a science argument that TFUU is the correct table of If->Then.

No, the symmetry argument holds, despite my wish to have TFUU.

And it makes logical sense that starting from a falsehood can lead to more falsehoods. The classic example is the liar continues to have to liar more and more when interrogated. So a falsehood leading to more falsehoods is a truth. However in the case of If F--> then T, a liaring never brings the truth out in the open.

Honestly I do not know how Copi and the many other authors of Logic squirmed their way out of explaining how Old Logic finessed their way in brainwashing young college students of the If Then truth table of TFTT, how they honestly brainwashed a college student with some dumb example of If F--> then T is overall True. I suppose the saying goes-- their is a fool borne every second.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

Alright, I am happy to announce I have resolved this issue on whether the valid truth table of If->Then is TFUU or whether it is TFUT.

Personally I was cheering on TFUU, I guess because I feel repugnant to starting of a statement with a falsehood, and having such a scientific mind as bestowed upon me, that I feel repugnant of starting off with a falsehood. And that no statement starting with F in an IF -Then connection could lead to anything of value.

But the symmetry of AND versus Equal-Not as one being add, the other being multiply in TTTF versus TTTT respectively shows a offset. That symmetry implies the subtract to divide of OR to If->Then must have a offset. So OR is FTTF implies IF->Then must be TFUT to have an offset. This in fact is true.

I was hoping for TFUU but I have a proof it is TFUT.

A proof from Reductio Ad Absurdum. For RAA needs the U in TFUT, but RAA also needs the last T in TFUT.

Because in a RAA argument, we start off with a falsehood, and if we run into a contradiction, we reverse the falsehood and claim a truth.

But since a RAA argument is of both the 2 lines of F->T and F->F. That the RAA argument is only a Probability argument for it is a If F->then T is U. And the last line of IF-Then as If F ->Then F as True proves that RAA is a Probability argument, not a guaranteed truth argument.

In other words the TFUT supports the fact that Reductio Ad Absurdum is a probability argument. If TFUU were true, we still would have RAA as Probability argument but no proof that RAA is probability, as we can then say starting a RAA with a falsehood, the last line of TFUT proves the RAA falsehood remains unchanged and continues to be a falsehood in which we cannot revert the original statement to be a true statement.

Summary: RAA is supported as being a probability argument, not a mathematical certainty argument when IF-Then is TFUT rather than TFUU.

AP, King of Science especially Physics

onsdag 6 oktober 2021 kl. 23:14:38 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> Alright, I am happy to announce I have resolved this issue on whether the valid truth table of If->Then is TFUU or whether it is TFUT.
>
> Personally I was cheering on TFUU, I guess because I feel repugnant to starting of a statement with a falsehood, and having such a scientific mind as bestowed upon me, that I feel repugnant of starting off with a falsehood. And that no statement starting with F in an IF -Then connection could lead to anything of value.
>
> But the symmetry of AND versus Equal-Not as one being add, the other being multiply in TTTF versus TTTT respectively shows a offset. That symmetry implies the subtract to divide of OR to If->Then must have a offset. So OR is FTTF implies IF->Then must be TFUT to have an offset. This in fact is true.
>
> I was hoping for TFUU but I have a proof it is TFUT.
>
> A proof from Reductio Ad Absurdum. For RAA needs the U in TFUT, but RAA also needs the last T in TFUT.
>
> Because in a RAA argument, we start off with a falsehood, and if we run into a contradiction, we reverse the falsehood and claim a truth.
>
> But since a RAA argument is of both the 2 lines of F->T and F->F. That the RAA argument is only a Probability argument for it is a If F->then T is U.. And the last line of IF-Then as If F ->Then F as True proves that RAA is a Probability argument, not a guaranteed truth argument.
>
> In other words the TFUT supports the fact that Reductio Ad Absurdum is a probability argument. If TFUU were true, we still would have RAA as Probability argument but no proof that RAA is probability, as we can then say starting a RAA with a falsehood, the last line of TFUT proves the RAA falsehood remains unchanged and continues to be a falsehood in which we cannot revert the original statement to be a true statement.
>
> Summary: RAA is supported as being a probability argument, not a mathematical certainty argument when IF-Then is TFUT rather than TFUU.
>
> AP, King of Science especially Physics

Oh you are trying to do ternary logic, yet you are too stupid to get binary logic

I love this resolution, for the RAA proof method is shaped entirely by the U in TFUT of If->Then, and then the 4th line of T comes back and tells Reductio Ad Absurdum, the RAA, that it is only a probability and not a proof of mathematics.

So my initial instinct was correct all along that since AND and Equal-Not had a 1 Offset, that OR and If->Then needed a 1 offset.

And as spoken before, it makes logical sense that a F in IF does lead to more F's in the Then portion is a True.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics