Problems with Equivocation II

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Problems with Equivocation II

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

A=A equivocates to an infinite variety of things therefore is subject to equivocation.



This infinite variety of things can be expressed as:



1. (A=A), (B=B), (C=C),...

2. (A=B), (A=C), (A=D),... (where B,C,D... are variations of A.)
alan1000
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:03 am

Re: Problems with Equivocation II

Post by alan1000 »

Are you sure this is really equivocation? Well, I suppose it depends what you mean...
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Problems with Equivocation II

Post by Skepdick »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 12:48 am A=A equivocates to an infinite variety of things therefore is subject to equivocation.



This infinite variety of things can be expressed as:



1. (A=A), (B=B), (C=C),...

2. (A=B), (A=C), (A=D),... (where B,C,D... are variations of A.)
Congratulations. You have re-invented types/propositions.

Everything which satisfies the formula A=A is an example of that type of thing.

1=1
1+5=1+5
2+9=4+7
-1^2=55/55
trokanmariel
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am

Re: Problems with Equivocation II

Post by trokanmariel »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 12:48 am A=A equivocates to an infinite variety of things therefore is subject to equivocation.



This infinite variety of things can be expressed as:



1. (A=A), (B=B), (C=C),...

2. (A=B), (A=C), (A=D),... (where B,C,D... are variations of A.)

From past recent history, emergence of symmetry as after a length (the equation icon) is typically a denoter of the ally of left-wing politics. Now, this creates the problem of obviousness, due to the L-pendulum using left to right storytelling inevitability.

What is left to right storytelling inevitability?
Given the spontaneity apparatus as theme, of gravitation to body glamour's ancient reality, in which a mark of weakness (presumably not a living matter, but a living anti-matter) will travel towards the loom of body glamour. But, from which side of existence?

If visual words in contemporary reality are moral allies, with body glamour's oversight of meta publication, then logic dictates that the storytelling of gravitation to BG is/was a left to rite sequence. This therefore means that left is actually the living anti-matter universe.

Left-wing transcendence is supposed to be the inevitability, because of its obvious vacuum of discrimination ethos as ironic user of said syndrome, (Lia Haddock from Limetown is pleased), but the mathematics adoption of left to right inevitability, as a residue of visual word power's ethos of being a belonging of BG, cements the problem of symmetry fucking up the story.

Why would symmetry do this?

During the pendulum action, where the pendulum's fix first starts (i was helped here, by Somerset from Seven) is a political issue. If not in the everyday physics application of the reality, but, the location of the centralisation matter of the pendulum's origin.

The loom essence, of ancient BG's story is an obvious possession of value. It needs to be there for the story to work.
Which reminds me . . .


The loom. Can its science creation be equated in science's identity awareness of the ethos of acting? Art acting? The talent of being an actor, or actress, must be connected to the gravity talent.

The gravity talent: I imagine it refers to the loom as theme as word socialism to gravity itself, which creates the current issue - the direction madness, of exposure coherence, as a friendliness by noise, is the gravity reality of actuality (Stephen Hawking's ethos) a return socialism of blueprint of direction madness to the loom state?

Moreover: the insertion of comma, after noise and before is, was a Sandy Hook descriptive. Now, instead of just saying that Hook is The Woman In Blue, and offering a means to scenario dynamic, I'll attempt to explore Hook's mystery in the grand scheme of things context


Hook is an experimental scientist, an awareness of her by myself formulated through back end schematics that happened to me at the outset of 2020 and end of 2019. Specifically, Hook was a gift of demonstration after history, which is owned by my 2019 master, the American Supernatural Businesswoman.

Demonstration after history: it means the modernity after classic fuckfest, as a non-God created intelligence, created in fact by Hook.

Modernity after classic. It seems to be a natural gravitator, to the left to right inevitability story.

Relative to the Shelia Mite angle, of concept existence, the left's possession of ideas and matter concentration is devoid of BG's natural possession of horror. Now, when I say horror, I mean the gothic angle.

Shelia Mite: she is perhaps a checkpost, to Samantha Worzeil's American in planning analysis, in the context of neither supporting or opposing the ambition.

The American in planning, of SW; is it a fuckover, of the ASW's ethos?

Acting to demonstration. Acting to audience. Oddly enough, what's been created here is the left to right sequence through symmetry through sequence to block. Next, there is the Dertry mission of algebra's freedom of the previous sentence's formation using the morality behind the sentence.

Behind the ideas, physics, matter and matter awareness of all the previous, there is still the Dertry ethos, of concentration's loyalty to which side of the answers?


To close, with a bit of abstract:
Themes, such as spirituality from spite, or weakness of physics as spiritual guide following tragedy/nastiness, they are natural belongings to the loom. Which creates the problem: the loom as horror implication, meaning the emotion of sharing science between nations and peoples and animals and interdimensional peoples being corrupted, being connected as a symmetry identity to the vindication of weakness apparatus science would seem to be an overload to the left to right independence from BG, especially in light of Willa Ford's (Friday the 13th's Willa Ford) constant to Thomas Heath's reaching the destination through chronology art implementation, by ?


Reaching the destination through chronology: it is my meta science, activated by perhaps a spontaneity standard, by meta.
Why bring it up, as a displacement?

I do so, because of the secret ethos of means meta, of weather/traffic of sociology/partying/education exams/study/heated debate/politics, all being a visual identifier of reaching the destination through chronology.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Problems with Equivocation II

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Skepdick wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 5:19 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 12:48 am A=A equivocates to an infinite variety of things therefore is subject to equivocation.



This infinite variety of things can be expressed as:



1. (A=A), (B=B), (C=C),...

2. (A=B), (A=C), (A=D),... (where B,C,D... are variations of A.)
Congratulations. You have re-invented types/propositions.

Everything which satisfies the formula A=A is an example of that type of thing.

1=1
1+5=1+5
2+9=4+7
-1^2=55/55
Thus equivocation results in indefiniteness due to its dependence on infinity as A=A, A=B, A=C, A=…, …
wtf
Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Problems with Equivocation II

Post by wtf »

A mathematical ignoramus who failed high school algebra wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 5:19 pm -1^2=55/55

Image
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Problems with Equivocation II

Post by Skepdick »

wtf wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 6:19 am
A mathematical ignoramus who failed high school algebra wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 5:19 pm -1^2=55/55
Image
Hey! Is this you?
wtf wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 7:34 pm truth is always relative to a particular model.
wtf wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 7:34 pm it's a property that varies depending on the model of the axioms.
wtf wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 7:34 pm There are simply different models of number systems in which statements that are true in one model may be false in another.
On the one hand you are easily confused about the model in which -1^2=55/55 is true, but then your "confusion" rapidly vanishes about the model in which x^y=z/z is true. There is no E (for equality) in BODMAS so which model is the "right" model for evaluating the expression?

Is it ( x ^ (y=z) / z )

Code: Select all

(lambda (x y z) 
  (/ 
   (expt
      x 
      (if (= y z) 1 0)
    z)
)
or is it ( (x ^ y) = (z / z) )

Code: Select all

(lambda (x y z) 
  (=
     (expt x y) 
     (/ z z)
  )
)
So "educated", yet still so dumb.
Post Reply