Are Assumptions Proof?

[jayjacobus]

A fact is something that everybody agrees with it.

I don't agree with THAT!

[jayjacobus]

I am in a battle.

A battle you don't know.

But you control one part of the battlefield.

Do not favor my opponent

Or

His destrriction will be yours.

[Scott Mayers]

Discuss.

One assumes something to reach to a proof.

And the proof is composed of these assumptions and we assume there is a connection?

The assumptions are the antecedents to a conditional whereby the conclusion is the consequent. What a 'proof' does is to connect the conclusion necessarily to the assumptions IF the assumptions are 'true'. Then you can build a whole system of proofs based on a limited set of assumptions if you also agree to the particular functions in the system of logic you are using.

For an example, a calculator is itself a 'logic' by its particular hard wiring. The 'assumptions' are the set of possible inputs that you could put into it. The digits you press as inputs are relative 'assumptions' and don't HAVE to be true. But WHEN they ARE 'true', we expect a consistent calculator (= consistent logic) to output something we expect to be 'true' WHEN we assumed the value of the input is 'correct' for our* application.

EDIT: at * corrected "out" to "our"

[jayjacobus]

One assumes something to reach to a proof.

And the proof is composed of these assumptions and we assume there is a connection?

The assumptions are the antecedents to a conditional whereby the conclusion is the consequent. What a 'proof' does is to connect the conclusion necessarily to the assumptions IF the assumptions are 'true'. Then you can build a whole system of proofs based on a limited set of assumptions if you also agree to the particular functions in the system of logic you are using.

For an example, a calculator is itself a 'logic' by its particular hard wiring. The 'assumptions' are the set of possible inputs that you could put into it. The digits you press as inputs are relative 'assumptions' and don't HAVE to be true. But WHEN they ARE 'true', we expect a consistent calculator (= consistent logic) to output something we expect to be 'true' WHEN we assumed the value of the input is 'correct' for out application.

Wholy magerel! It's werkeng, it's wurking!

Weall mast agrea.

[Eodnhoj7]

Proof is not merely composed of assumptions. Sometime facts are involved in a proof too.

And what is a fact?

A fact is something that everybody agrees with it.

Agreement is group acceptance where this acceptance is recieving a phenomenon for what it is, ie to "assume" it given a percieved state of definition where the properties of definitions as a whole are assumed for what they are.

[Eodnhoj7]

One assumes something to reach to a proof.

And the proof is composed of these assumptions and we assume there is a connection?

The assumptions are the antecedents to a conditional whereby the conclusion is the consequent. What a 'proof' does is to connect the conclusion necessarily to the assumptions IF the assumptions are 'true'. Then you can build a whole system of proofs based on a limited set of assumptions if you also agree to the particular functions in the system of logic you are using.

To define an assumption is to fundamentally connected further assumptions to a base assumption itself as an assumption that these assumptions are fundamentally connected. Definition is observed through connection and this connection is assumed through both form and function.

Take the simple statement of "1". "1" is assumed as a form where this form takes a static nature. Now take "+", which is assumed as function or dynamic change and the statement "1+" observes form and function or a base isomorphism where "assumption" is both form and function.

Extend the statement to "1+1=2" as "form/function/form/function/form" and a recursion of form and function occur...isomorphisms exist recursivively at there base level as "form/function".

Each form/function isomorphically results in a variation of the original form/function through an inherent multiplicity. So the form/function of "1+" isomorphizes into the form/function of "1=" where:

1. The 1 assumption of "1" (pardon the pun) results in multiple "1"s in the statement.

2. The 1 assumption of "+" results in a variation of "+" through "=" where addition as summation variates into an equivocating process. Functions variate into other functions where, in this example, addition and equivocation "can" exist as isomorphisms of eachother given the specific context. Adding phenomenon is the equivocation of many phenomenon into 1 phenomenon.

3. "2" is the conclusion of these recursive isomorphisms of these form/functions expressed through "1+" and "1=". This conclusion observes 2 exist as composed of "1+1=" and as such is both a form and function considering 2, existing through the proof, is both "form and function". Evidence of 2 existing as both form and function can be observed where "2" exists through infinite forms and functions.

The connective quality between forms occur through functions, and functions through form, depending upon the premise point of measurement.


However if we observe the whole of the phenomenon as "form and function", then the isomorphism of the phenomenon as "being" is "void".

To clarify this statement: "1+1=2" is an assumption of form and function where the "proof" is "existence through definition" with this definition occuring through the "recursion of isomorphism(s)".

Considering definition occurs through recursion, this recursion isomorphizes into non-recursion or the absence of definition in this respect where the proof as existing through isomorphism is nothing in itself if the proof isomorphizes. "1+1=2" is effectively nothing in itself as an assumption if it does no invert to another state (in this example the abstraction of "1+1=2" means nothing unless connected to an empirical phenomenon) through isomorphism.

Thus according to the prime triad (I argue on some old threads) "all axioms are void in themselves except through other axioms" where the axiom as "self-evidence" is assumptive by nature.

Assumption exists as a process of inversion between one state into multiple states and vice versa, thus is isomorphic in nature.

"1+1=2" is proof through definition, but this definition is still assumed considering the assumptions that compose it can be further defined and as such the "proof" is merely a localization of 1 assumption out of many considering the proof is "assumed" considering the connections are assumed. As assumed it exists through isomorphism thus is incomplete.



For an example, a calculator is itself a 'logic' by its particular hard wiring.



Using the example of a calculator and it's hardwiring:

That hardwiring, a set of connections between various localized physical phenomenon (chips of various forms, etc.), is a process of connectors between key points of inversion in the device. One chip inverts a "signal" to another form, which is connected to another chip, which inverts to another signal etc. The hardwiring is a physical proof of definition where the calculator is a proof in and of itself where the connection of certain phenomenon results in a further phenomenon (ie the calculation itself as empircal symbols). The calculator in these respects, as a defined "form" and "function", is a "proof" by default of its existence.

The calculator is an assumptive process of reality, where it assumes specific empircal phenomenon (materials that compose it, the movement of th hands to calculate it, etc.), and projects to further empirical phenomenon (the manifestation of empirical symbols, the corresponding movements which stem from these symbols such as the movement of materials through these symbols as guiding points, etc.).

The calculator is self-evident in these respects because it assumes and these assumptions are projected into further assumptions through the process of time. The calculator, as assuming phenomenon, in turn is an assumption considering it is a relative starting point for further phenomenon (measurements, the change in materials that stem from these measurements, etc.) to project.

The calculator is an assumption of reality in itself and exists through further assumptions.

The 'assumptions' are the set of possible inputs that you could put into it. The digits you press as inputs are relative 'assumptions' and don't HAVE to be true. But WHEN they ARE 'true', we expect a consistent calculator (= consistent logic) to output something we expect to be 'true' WHEN we assumed the value of the input is 'correct' for our* application.

EDIT: at * corrected "out" to "our"

See above