But (0=0)=(1=1) as true reduces to 0=1; (0=0) reduces to 0, (1=1) reduces to 1.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue Apr 26, 2022 8:46 pm What does (0=0)=(1=1) mean?
I suppose that it means "The truth value of 0=0 is equal to the truth value of 1=1".
If so, the truth value of "0=0" isn't "0" but "true"; and the truth value of "1=1" isn't "1" but "true".
Thus, true=true rather than 0=1.
(0=0)=(1=1)
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
The cat is the same as the dog in the respect both are mammals.CHNOPS wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 4:23 pm(0 == 0) == (1 == 1)
that means that the first has the same validity than the second. Its not about the number, its about the validity.
(cat on the table) == (dog on the chair)
If the cat is on the table so then the dog is on the chair.
But the cat is not the same as the dog, and the table is not the same as the chair.
The table is the same as the chair as both are furniture.
-
- Posts: 4369
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
the cat, the dog, the table and the chair each have 4 legs.
buy some pants
-Imp
buy some pants
-Imp
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
Yes, but then you cannot do this:Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 11:15 pmThe cat is the same as the dog in the respect both are mammals.CHNOPS wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 4:23 pm(0 == 0) == (1 == 1)
that means that the first has the same validity than the second. Its not about the number, its about the validity.
(cat on the table) == (dog on the chair)
If the cat is on the table so then the dog is on the chair.
But the cat is not the same as the dog, and the table is not the same as the chair.
The table is the same as the chair as both are furniture.
cat == dog
you must do:
mammal == mammal
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
1. Mammal=mammal means nothing unless mammal points to something beyond it.CHNOPS wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 10:56 pmYes, but then you cannot do this:Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 11:15 pmThe cat is the same as the dog in the respect both are mammals.CHNOPS wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 4:23 pm
(0 == 0) == (1 == 1)
that means that the first has the same validity than the second. Its not about the number, its about the validity.
(cat on the table) == (dog on the chair)
If the cat is on the table so then the dog is on the chair.
But the cat is not the same as the dog, and the table is not the same as the chair.
The table is the same as the chair as both are furniture.
cat == dog
you must do:
mammal == mammal
2. When equating two different phenomenon a third element is needed for this equivocation; identity is triadic: the phenomenon, the other phenomenon, and the relationship.
2a. Mammal is the relationship of dog and cat.
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
You first define one thing and then you compare that thing.
If you define a dog as "mammal" and you define a cat as "mammal", then you have 2 mammals.
Then, you can compare mammals with mammals.
"mammal == mammal" is not saying nothing. That is what you did when you define dog as mammal and cat as mammal to say that:
dog == cat
In order to show your error, I said that you must do:
mammal == mammal
and you will see with that that there is not the same as saying that "cat == dog".
Mammal is not the relationship of dog and cat. Is just another abstraction of what a dog or cat are.
The relationships are the comparisons: are the 2 parts equals? are differents? one is more than the other?
So, this:
"(0=0)=(1=1)"
can only have sense if we define:
(0=0): Equality of 0
(1=1): Equality of 1
in order to say that "the equality of 0 and 0 is the same as the equality of 1"
And that is True.
0=0 is True, both parts are Equals.
1=1 is True, both parts are Equals.
Then:
True = True
And that have all the sense.
If you define a dog as "mammal" and you define a cat as "mammal", then you have 2 mammals.
Then, you can compare mammals with mammals.
"mammal == mammal" is not saying nothing. That is what you did when you define dog as mammal and cat as mammal to say that:
dog == cat
In order to show your error, I said that you must do:
mammal == mammal
and you will see with that that there is not the same as saying that "cat == dog".
Mammal is not the relationship of dog and cat. Is just another abstraction of what a dog or cat are.
The relationships are the comparisons: are the 2 parts equals? are differents? one is more than the other?
So, this:
"(0=0)=(1=1)"
can only have sense if we define:
(0=0): Equality of 0
(1=1): Equality of 1
in order to say that "the equality of 0 and 0 is the same as the equality of 1"
And that is True.
0=0 is True, both parts are Equals.
1=1 is True, both parts are Equals.
Then:
True = True
And that have all the sense.
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
Two mammals share the same nature of mammal thus the two are connected as one through their relationship, their relationship is "mammal".CHNOPS wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 11:04 pm You first define one thing and then you compare that thing.
If you define a dog as "mammal" and you define a cat as "mammal", then you have 2 mammals.
Then, you can compare mammals with mammals.
"mammal == mammal" is not saying nothing. That is what you did when you define dog as mammal and cat as mammal to say that:
dog == cat
In order to show your error, I said that you must do:
mammal == mammal
and you will see with that that there is not the same as saying that "cat == dog".
Mammal is not the relationship of dog and cat. Is just another abstraction of what a dog or cat are.
The relationships are the comparisons: are the 2 parts equals? are differents? one is more than the other?
So, this:
"(0=0)=(1=1)"
can only have sense if we define:
(0=0): Equality of 0
(1=1): Equality of 1
in order to say that "the equality of 0 and 0 is the same as the equality of 1"
And that is True.
0=0 is True, both parts are Equals.
1=1 is True, both parts are Equals.
Then:
True = True
And that have all the sense.
Equality is a relationship as it is a connection and if phenomena relate then they equivocate.
This is tied to my second point, which is best phrased through questions:
Where does total equality exist?
If total equality does not exist then is it not possible anything can equate if a similarity occurs?
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
I am just saying that if you see the dog as mammal and the cat as mammal, then we compare it to say they are equals, they are in the category of "mammals", and that is:
"mammal" == "mammal"
of course.
But you cannot say that "dog == cat"
The equality exists as abstraction, where you say "mammal" and you ONLY mean for example that "have the presence of mammary glands which in females produce milk for feeding (nursing) their young"
But when you say "dog", you need more than that, and that is where you cannot say that the dog is equal to a cat.
Now read again previous comments.
"mammal" == "mammal"
of course.
But you cannot say that "dog == cat"
The equality exists as abstraction, where you say "mammal" and you ONLY mean for example that "have the presence of mammary glands which in females produce milk for feeding (nursing) their young"
But when you say "dog", you need more than that, and that is where you cannot say that the dog is equal to a cat.
Now read again previous comments.
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
You ignored my questions:CHNOPS wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:33 pm I am just saying that if you see the dog as mammal and the cat as mammal, then we compare it to say they are equals, they are in the category of "mammals", and that is:
"mammal" == "mammal"
of course.
But you cannot say that "dog == cat"
The equality exists as abstraction, where you say "mammal" and you ONLY mean for example that "have the presence of mammary glands which in females produce milk for feeding (nursing) their young"
But when you say "dog", you need more than that, and that is where you cannot say that the dog is equal to a cat.
Now read again previous comments.
Where does total equality exist?
If total equality does not exist then is it not possible anything can equate if a similarity occurs?
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:11 amYou ignored my questions:CHNOPS wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:33 pm I am just saying that if you see the dog as mammal and the cat as mammal, then we compare it to say they are equals, they are in the category of "mammals", and that is:
"mammal" == "mammal"
of course.
But you cannot say that "dog == cat"
The equality exists as abstraction, where you say "mammal" and you ONLY mean for example that "have the presence of mammary glands which in females produce milk for feeding (nursing) their young"
But when you say "dog", you need more than that, and that is where you cannot say that the dog is equal to a cat.
Now read again previous comments.
Where does total equality exist?
If total equality does not exist then is it not possible anything can equate if a similarity occurs?
Equality doesnt exists. Two objects can not be equals.
But when we create concepts, abstraction, like "dog" or "seven", we are creating an imagination where the knowledge start.
We are reasoning, so, we accept the premise of the logic, and the logic is abstraction.
I explain to you where you fail in the reasoning with logic you are doing, and you are now saying that logic is not true
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
If you acept the logic as true, and then you say something like "3 == 3", then, you are accepting that two object can be equals, at least in this abstraction of knowledge.
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
Imagination is an object as it is distinct.CHNOPS wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 5:20 pmEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:11 amYou ignored my questions:CHNOPS wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:33 pm I am just saying that if you see the dog as mammal and the cat as mammal, then we compare it to say they are equals, they are in the category of "mammals", and that is:
"mammal" == "mammal"
of course.
But you cannot say that "dog == cat"
The equality exists as abstraction, where you say "mammal" and you ONLY mean for example that "have the presence of mammary glands which in females produce milk for feeding (nursing) their young"
But when you say "dog", you need more than that, and that is where you cannot say that the dog is equal to a cat.
Now read again previous comments.
Where does total equality exist?
If total equality does not exist then is it not possible anything can equate if a similarity occurs?
Equality doesnt exists. Two objects can not be equals.
But when we create concepts, abstraction, like "dog" or "seven", we are creating an imagination where the knowledge start.
We are reasoning, so, we accept the premise of the logic, and the logic is abstraction.
I explain to you where you fail in the reasoning with logic you are doing, and you are now saying that logic is not true![]()
If you acept the logic as true, and then you say something like "3 == 3", then, you are accepting that two object can be equals, at least in this abstraction of knowledge.
1. Identifying two objects as objects is equating two different objects as "objects".
2. Logic is relative and as relative is always true and false due to context. However because it has a truth value relative to a specific context the relation of logic in one context as true and the relation of logic to one context as false necessitates an absolute truth as certain unchanging truths occur within specific context(s)....context(s) are absolute as only certain things can occur within certain contexts, this "x if y" is unchanging.
3. A dog and a cat are equal as animals. A dog and a cat are unequal as types of animals. The dog and the cat are both equal and unequal.
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
1- Yes.
2- Special Relative is just that. It says it always depends of a particular observer, but the ecuation is true for everyone of that observers...
All is relative, yes, but there is an absolute order in how that relatives manifests....
3- You dont understand what I said weeks before.
When you say this:
"A dog and a cat are equal as animals."
then, you are not comparing "dog" and "cat". You are comparing "animal" and "animal".
Do you know something of programming? I recommend you to learn a little. In programming, you do it something like this:
if (TypeOf(Convert.ToAnimal(dog)) == TypeOf(Convert.ToAnimal(cat))) {
....
}
You have a Type "Dog", and you instance a variable or a particular object of that Type, that is "dog", so you have that "dog is type of Dog".
You have a Type "Cat", and you instance a variable or a particular object of that Type, that is "cat", so you have that "cat is type of Cat".
Then, you convert that particular "dog", to a type of Animal. And you do the same with the "cat".
And then you compare the two new types, and that is type of Animal with type of Animal. And that is True.
When you have type of Dog, then the type is Dog, no Animal. You must to convert it to Animal, and that conversion is what make the descriptions of animals in general.
If you describe an Animal, you cannot say that the animal "barks" because that is a description of the type Dog.
When you say this:
"The dog and the cat are both equal and unequal."
you are wrong, because you need to define first what you are seeing or describing in "dog" and "cat".
Is the "dog" type of Dog and "cat" type of Cat? then... they are unequal.
Is the "dog" type of Animal and "cat" type of Animal? then... they are equal.
Can the "dog" be type of Dog and Animal at the same time? NO.
So, you are using two diferents definitions in the same concept, and that is wrong.
No, apply this to the case of "(0=0)=(1=1)", and read the entire thread again.
2- Special Relative is just that. It says it always depends of a particular observer, but the ecuation is true for everyone of that observers...
All is relative, yes, but there is an absolute order in how that relatives manifests....
3- You dont understand what I said weeks before.
When you say this:
"A dog and a cat are equal as animals."
then, you are not comparing "dog" and "cat". You are comparing "animal" and "animal".
Do you know something of programming? I recommend you to learn a little. In programming, you do it something like this:
if (TypeOf(Convert.ToAnimal(dog)) == TypeOf(Convert.ToAnimal(cat))) {
....
}
You have a Type "Dog", and you instance a variable or a particular object of that Type, that is "dog", so you have that "dog is type of Dog".
You have a Type "Cat", and you instance a variable or a particular object of that Type, that is "cat", so you have that "cat is type of Cat".
Then, you convert that particular "dog", to a type of Animal. And you do the same with the "cat".
And then you compare the two new types, and that is type of Animal with type of Animal. And that is True.
When you have type of Dog, then the type is Dog, no Animal. You must to convert it to Animal, and that conversion is what make the descriptions of animals in general.
If you describe an Animal, you cannot say that the animal "barks" because that is a description of the type Dog.
When you say this:
"The dog and the cat are both equal and unequal."
you are wrong, because you need to define first what you are seeing or describing in "dog" and "cat".
Is the "dog" type of Dog and "cat" type of Cat? then... they are unequal.
Is the "dog" type of Animal and "cat" type of Animal? then... they are equal.
Can the "dog" be type of Dog and Animal at the same time? NO.
So, you are using two diferents definitions in the same concept, and that is wrong.
No, apply this to the case of "(0=0)=(1=1)", and read the entire thread again.
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
1. If all is dependent upon an observer then the observer is absolute.CHNOPS wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:33 pm 1- Yes.
2- Special Relative is just that. It says it always depends of a particular observer, but the ecuation is true for everyone of that observers...
All is relative, yes, but there is an absolute order in how that relatives manifests....
3- You dont understand what I said weeks before.
When you say this:
"A dog and a cat are equal as animals."
then, you are not comparing "dog" and "cat". You are comparing "animal" and "animal".
Do you know something of programming? I recommend you to learn a little. In programming, you do it something like this:
if (TypeOf(Convert.ToAnimal(dog)) == TypeOf(Convert.ToAnimal(cat))) {
....
}
You have a Type "Dog", and you instance a variable or a particular object of that Type, that is "dog", so you have that "dog is type of Dog".
You have a Type "Cat", and you instance a variable or a particular object of that Type, that is "cat", so you have that "cat is type of Cat".
Then, you convert that particular "dog", to a type of Animal. And you do the same with the "cat".
And then you compare the two new types, and that is type of Animal with type of Animal. And that is True.
When you have type of Dog, then the type is Dog, no Animal. You must to convert it to Animal, and that conversion is what make the descriptions of animals in general.
If you describe an Animal, you cannot say that the animal "barks" because that is a description of the type Dog.
When you say this:
"The dog and the cat are both equal and unequal."
you are wrong, because you need to define first what you are seeing or describing in "dog" and "cat".
Is the "dog" type of Dog and "cat" type of Cat? then... they are unequal.
Is the "dog" type of Animal and "cat" type of Animal? then... they are equal.
Can the "dog" be type of Dog and Animal at the same time? NO.
So, you are using two diferents definitions in the same concept, and that is wrong.
No, apply this to the case of "(0=0)=(1=1)", and read the entire thread again.
2. You are not understanding what I am saying: There is no total equality of things because of the perpetual multiplicity of distinct things, thus equality must be reduced to common underlying qualities. As such "Cat=Dog because of 'animal'" applies. Paradoxically "Animal=Animal" results in a dyad of "animal" which further results in "animal" being different from "animal" because of positions in time and space. "Animal=Animal" only applies because it has in common "dog" or "cat" or "walrus". Self-referential equality, ie A=A, exists because of common denominators, not because A=A simply because A=A necessitates one A in one time and space and the other A in another.
-
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
(0=0) reduces to "true", (1=1) also reduces to "true". "True", on the other hand, does not reduce to a number.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 11:14 pmBut (0=0)=(1=1) as true reduces to 0=1; (0=0) reduces to 0, (1=1) reduces to 1.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue Apr 26, 2022 8:46 pm What does (0=0)=(1=1) mean?
I suppose that it means "The truth value of 0=0 is equal to the truth value of 1=1".
If so, the truth value of "0=0" isn't "0" but "true"; and the truth value of "1=1" isn't "1" but "true".
Thus, true=true rather than 0=1.
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
Have you ever heard of dependent types?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:26 pm (0=0) reduces to "true", (1=1) also reduces to "true". "True", on the other hand, does not reduce to a number.
One can trivially stratify true and false as 1 and 0. Very useful if you want a system closed under equality.
In such a system (x=x) (where x is a free variable) reduces to 1. Obviously - it's the unit-identity.
And ((0=0)=1) reduces to 1
And (((0=0)=1)=1) reduces to 1.
And ((((0=0)=1)=1)=1) reduces to 1.
And (false=true) reduces to 0.
I hope yo don't mind me using the operator "=" in a polymorphic manner.