Kibo's_crackpot_logicians_Ronald Jensen, Dick de Jongh, David Kaplan, Alexander S. Kechris, Howard Jerome Keisler, Julia F. Knight logic journal with their 2 OR 1 = 3 with their AND as subtraction. They belong in Abnormal Psychology not logic according to Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney and his gang of allies Dan Christensen, Jan Burse.
>
> Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic// Dan Christensen, Jan Burse,Jean Paul Van Bendegem,Johan van Benthem,Jean-Yves Beziau with their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction
> Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic//
> Dan Christensen, Jan Burse,
> Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Henk Barendregt, John Lane Bell, Nuel Belnap,
> Paul Benacerraf, Jean Paul Van Bendegem, Johan van Benthem, Jean-Yves Beziau, continued below....
>
>
> Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> Archimedes Plutonium
>
>
>
> #10-1, My 5th published book
>
> Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
>
> Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> Preface:
> First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
>
> The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
>
> My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
>
> Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
>
> Product details
> File Size: 773 KB
> Print Length: 72 pages
> Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> X-Ray: 
Not Enabled
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Screen Reader: Supported
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
>
> Remember the time the Dan Christensen could not tell the difference between distinct and nondistinct.
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> > Dan Christensen wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> > >>>
> > >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> What a monsterous fool you are
> > >>
> > >
> > > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
> >
> > And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> > be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
> >
>
>
> Andrea Bonomi, Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers), Alan Richard Bundy, Gregory Chaitin,
> Jack Copeland, John Corcoran, Dirk van Dalen, Martin Davis, Michael A.E. Dummett, John Etchemendy, Hartry Field, Kit Fine, Melvin Fitting, Matthew Foreman, Michael Fourman,
> Harvey Friedman, Dov Gabbay, L.T.F. Gamut (group of logic fumblers), Sol Garfunkel, Jean-Yves Girard, Siegfried Gottwald, Jeroen Groenendijk, Susan Haack, Leo Harrington, William Alvin Howard,
> Ronald Jensen, Dick de Jongh, David Kaplan, Alexander S. Kechris, Howard Jerome Keisler, Julia F. Knight logic journal, Robert Kowalski, Georg Kreisel, Saul Kripke, Kenneth Kunen, Karel Lambert, Penelope Maddy, David Makinson, Isaac Malitz, Gary R. Mar, Donald A. Martin, Per Martin-Lof,Yiannis N. Moschovakis, Jeff Paris, Charles Parsons, Solomon Passy, Lorenzo Pena, Dag Prawitz, Graham Priest, Michael O. Rabin, Gerald Sacks, Dana Scott, Stewart Shapiro, Theodore Slaman, Robert M. Solovay, John R. Steel, Martin Stokhof, Anne Sjerp Troelstra, Alasdair Urquhart,
> Moshe Y. Vardi, W. Hugh Woodin, John Woods
>
> Now I should include the authors of Logic textbooks for they, more than most, perpetuate and crank the error filled logic, the Horrible Error of 2 OR 1 = 3 with 2 AND 1 = 1, that is forced down the throats of young students, making them cripples of ever thinking straight and clearly.
>
> Many of these authors have passed away but their error filled books are a scourge to modern education
>
> George Boole, William Jevons, Bertrand Russell, Kurt Godel, Rudolf Carnap,
> Ludwig Wittgenstein, Willard Quine, Alfred North Whitehead, Irving Copi, Michael Withey,
> Patrick Hurley, Harry J Gensler, David Kelley, Jesse Bollinger, Theodore Sider,
> David Barker-Plummer, I. C. Robledo, John Nolt, Peter Smith, Stan Baronett, Jim Holt,
> Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason,
>
> All of them are clowns of logic, although they have interest in logic, none are past a baby stage understanding of what Logic is. They are all worse than the fool George Boole. All of them are a disgrace to the subject we call Logic. All of them are in the same boat as George Boole-- catching pneumonia and then having his wife douse him in bed with cold freezing water and taking cold showers-- thinking that combatting pneumonia is done by getting colder.
>
> All of the above listed should never be allowed to teach their nonsense and pollute the minds of youngsters with their crazy 9 OR 5 = 14 with 9 AND 5 = 4, all because a crazy Boole with Jevons in the 1800s thought that OR was TTTF and AND was TFFF. Boole and Jevons had them reversed and turned around backwards, making OR as add and AND as subtract. All because a true logician has more than a microgram brain of Logic in his head, and realizes that if you had a string of statements, say 10 statements and if just one single statement of those ten is true, makes the entire set of 10 to be true also, regardless of the truth value of the other 9 statements. Said in a different manner, if you have a truth of a single statement, and, no matter how you surround that single statement with 9 other statements, regardless of their truth value, because of the truth of the one statement makes the combined all 10 statements have a true value.
>
> The stupid microgram brain of Boole and Jevons in the subject of Logic (witness their history with pneumonia) is not a Logic at all, for it leads to the incredibly stupid formulation that 3 AND 2 = 1 with 3 OR 2 = 5. Yes, those two logical idiots Boole and Jevons and every idiot of Logic since those two, have thought the truth table of AND was TFFF, when according to a real true logical person-- you need just 1 true statement to make a compound statements as a whole be true. So the true true truth table of AND was TTTF. And this makes sense in the above idiots of Logic with their OR, so confused were those idiots that they combined a "or" with an "and" and generated a "inclusive or" of TTTF. I mean what clowns are these? Who think that OR has to be compounded or a composite of "and", with "or" forming the idiot idea of an "inclusive or" and, not even realizing that you no longer have a primitive-connector. The true truth table of OR is exclusive and is FTTF, which is subtraction in mathematics.
>
> Inclusive OR, INCLUSIVE OR, is the invention of an idiot of logic, pure slab of bonehead worthless bonehead of Logic, for the "inclusive or" is a village idiot mind that stacks together the OR and the AND all into one idiotic product of Either ,,Or,, Or Both. Not an accident waiting to happen in Logic, a multiple chain collision on the expressway is the Either Or Or Both.. It is not a primitive logical Connector that the 4 primitive logic Connectors need to be, no, the Either Or Or Both is already a fool's built compound connector pretending to be primitive connector. A village idiot of the 1800s like George Boole and his compatriot Jevons would not have enough of a logical mind to see that Either Or Or Both is a compound piece of worthless nonsense. Even a 8 year old can see that Either Or Or Both is a compounded piece of crap and has no business of being in Logic primitive connectors.
>
> To be in Logic, you need a Logical Mind to even do logic, and to come up with a SELF CONTRADICTION in terms like it is updown or it is overeasy-hard, is the same as Inclusive-Or, a term and idea that is a self-contradiction.. Logic is about staying away from contradiction. And here, starting with Boole and Jevons, they built their logic on a Contradiction of the inclusive-or. It would be like at the Olympics in the 100 meter dash, at the sound of the gun, a runner, instead of going forwards, goes backwards in running step in the dash, not to the finish line but to oblivion running backwards.
>
>
> So, please stop torturing the brains and minds of our young students just because you are a clown of microgram brain of logic. And throw out all the OLD LOGIC textbooks for they are not learning or teaching but brainwashing by polluting moneygrubs, more concerned over money flow than what is the truth of logic.
>
> #1 first comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many math professors are deaf dumb and blind to
>
> My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
>
> History of AP Logic starts with 1991 and culminates with New Logic that replaces Old Logic by 2015. Old Logic is like comparing a flat earth theory to a true round earth theory.
>
> Before you do Mathematics, you need to be able to think correctly, straight and clear. Unfortunately schools across the world do not teach proper true Logic. They teach a mish mash gaggle of error filled garbage and call it Logic.
>
>
> The 4 connectors of Logic are:
>
> 1) Equal (equivalence) plus Not (negation) where the two are combined as one
> 2) And (conjunction)
> 3) Or (exclusive or) (disjunction)
> 4) Implication
>
> New Logic
>
> EQUAL/NOT table:
> T = T = T
> T = not F = T
> F = not T = T
> F = F = T
>
> Equality must start or begin logic because in the other connectors, we
> cannot say a result equals something if we do not have equality built
> already. Now to build equality, it is unary in that T=T and F =F. So
> we need another unary connector to make equality a binary. Negation is
> that other connector and when we combine the two we have the above
> table.
>
> Equality combined with Negation allows us to proceed to build the
> other three logic connectors.
>
> Now, unfortunately, Logic must start with equality allied with
> negation and in math what this connector as binary connector ends up
> being-- is multiplication for math. One would think that the first
> connector of Logic that must be covered is the connector that ends up
> being addition of math, not multiplication. But maybe we can find a
> philosophy-logic answer as to why Logic starts with equal/not and is
> multiplication rather than addition. That explanation is of course the Space in which the Logic operators govern, and the full space is area, so that is multiplication. And we see that in a geometry diagram
>
> T T
>
> T T where all four small squares are T valued making a 4 square
>
> While addition is and with a Space like this
>
> T T
>
> T F and we have just 3 of the 4 smaller squares covered by addition.
>
> Here you we have one truth table equal/not whose endresult is 4 trues and now we move on to AND as addition.
>
> New Logic
> AND
> T & T = T
> T & F = T
> F & T = T
> F & F = F
>
> AND is ADD in New Logic, and that makes a whole lot of common sense.
> AND feels like addition, the joining of parts. And the truth table for
> AND should be such that if given one true statement in a series of
> statements then the entire string of statements is true. So if I had P
> and Q and S and R, I need only one of those to be true to make the
> string true P & Q & S & R = True if just one statement is true.
>
> The truth table of AND results in 3 trues and 1 false.
>
> New Logic
> OR(exclusive)
> T or T = F
> T or F = T
> F or T = T
> F or F = F
>
> OR is seen as a choice, a pick and choose. So if I had T or T, there
> is no choice and so it is False. If I had T or F there is a choice and
> so it is true. Again the same for F or T, but when I have F or F,
> there is no choice and so it is false. OR in mathematics, because we
> pick and discard what is not chosen, that OR is seen as subtraction.
>
> OR is a truth table whose endresult is 2 trues, 2 falses.
>
> 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
>
> A truth table that has a variable which is neither T or F, but U for
> unknown or a probability outcome. We need this U so that we can do
> math where 0 divided into something is not defined.
>
> Now notice there are four truth tables where the endresult is 4 trues,
> 3 trues with 1 false, 2 trues with 2 falses and finally a truth table
> with a different variable other than T or F, with variable U. This is
> important in New Logic that the four primitive connectors, by
> primitive I mean they are independent of one another so that one
> cannot be derived by the other three. The four are axioms,
> independent. And the way you can spot that they are independent is
> that if you reverse their values so that 4 trues become 4 falses. For
> AND, reversal would be FFFT instead of TTTF. For OR, a reversal would
> be TFFT instead of FTTF.
>
> To be independent and not derivable by the other three axioms you need
> a condition of this:
>
> One Table be 4 of the same
> One Table be 3 of the same
> One Table be 2 of the same
> And to get division by 0 in mathematics, one table with a unknown variable.
>
> So, how did Old Logic get it all so wrong so bad? I think the problem
> was that in the 1800s when Logic was being discovered, is that the
> best minds of the time were involved in physics, chemistry, biology
> and looked upon philosophy and logic as second rate and that second
> rate minds would propose Old Logic. This history would be from Boole
> 1854 The Laws of Thought, and Jevons textbook of Elementary Lessons on
> Logic, 1870. Boole started the Old Logic with the help of Jevons and
> fostered the wrong muddleheaded idea that OR was ADD, when it truly is
> AND.
>
> Now the way people actually live, is an indicator of how well they
> thought and how well any of their ideas should be taken seriously. In
> the case of Boole, he went to class in a downpour rain, why without a
> raincoat? And reaching class, instead of changing into dry warm
> clothes, stood for hours in front of students, sopping wet and
> shivering. Of course he caught pneumonia, but instead of being
> sensible, common sense that even a fly would have, he insisted his
> wife give him cold showers and make the bed all wet and freezing. Of
> course, he would die from this. Now, does anyone today, think that a
> mind like that has anything to offer Logic or mathematics, is as crazy
> as what Boole was.
>
> But once you have textbooks about Logic, it is difficult to correct a
> mistake because of the money making social network wants to make more
> money, not go around fixing mistakes. So this nightmarish mistakes of
> the truth tables was not seen by Frege, by Russell, by Whitehead, by
> Carnap, by Godel, and by 1908 the symbols and terminology of the Old
> Logic truth tables were so deeply rooted into Logic, that only a
> Logical minded person could ever rescue Logic.
>
> 1.1 The "and" truth table should be TTTF not what Boole thought TFFF.
> Only an utter gutter mind of logic would think that in a series of
> statements, that AND is true when all statements are true, but to the
> wise person-- he realizes that if just one statement is true, the
> entire series is true, where we toss aside all the irrelevant and
> false statements --(much what life itself is-- we pick out the true
> ones and ignore all the false ones). In fact, in a proof in mathematics, the proof can be full of false and nonsense statements, so long as the proof itself is there and be seen as overall True. For example the proof of SAS in geometry, side angle side, can be packed with false statements and irrelevant statements and still be true.
> 1.2 The error of "if-then" truth table should be TFUU, not that of TFTT
> 1.3 The error of "not" and "equal", neither unary, but should be binary
> 1.4 The error that Reductio Ad Absurdum is a proof method, when it is
> merely probability-truth, not guaranteed
> 1.5 The error, the "or" connector is truth table FTTF, never that of TTTF, for the idea of an inclusive "or", --- either A or B or both, is a self contradiction. And funny, how the fathers of Logic-- Boole and Jevons had a connector that was self contradictory, as if the fathers of logic had no logical mind to be doing logic in the first place.
>
> 1.6 So that begs the question, what in mathematics has a truth table of TFFF. Well the simple answer is that it is a reverse of TTTF which is AND, and so the former can be got by that of a NOT function on AND. But in isolation, what is a table of TFFF in mathematics? My guess is it is Absolute Value, a form of Absolute Value in mathematics, but that is only a guess. In 2016 I gave a half hearted argument that TFFF was absolute value.