P=-P II
P=-P II
1. (P=P) is the law of identity.
2. (-P=-P) is the law of identity.
3. ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is the law of identity equal to the law of identity.
4. (P=P)=P and (-P=-P)= -P is the law of identity as equal to a singular expression; (P=P) is reducible to P, (-P=-P) is reducible to -P.
5. ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is reducible to (P=-P).
6. P=-P cannot exist due to the law of non-contradiction however ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is valid.
7. The law of non-contradiction does not exist if (P=P) exists as (P=P) necessitates ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) which is (P=-P); (P=P) does not exist if the law of non-contradiction exists as (P=/=-P) but (P=P) necessitates ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) which is (P=-P).
8. Either the law of non contradiction exists or the law of identity exists, if not then both exist meaning neither exists.
2. (-P=-P) is the law of identity.
3. ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is the law of identity equal to the law of identity.
4. (P=P)=P and (-P=-P)= -P is the law of identity as equal to a singular expression; (P=P) is reducible to P, (-P=-P) is reducible to -P.
5. ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is reducible to (P=-P).
6. P=-P cannot exist due to the law of non-contradiction however ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is valid.
7. The law of non-contradiction does not exist if (P=P) exists as (P=P) necessitates ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) which is (P=-P); (P=P) does not exist if the law of non-contradiction exists as (P=/=-P) but (P=P) necessitates ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) which is (P=-P).
8. Either the law of non contradiction exists or the law of identity exists, if not then both exist meaning neither exists.
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: P=-P II
You are confusing 'addresses' with the 'values IN addresses' when you assert that
(P = P) = (-P = -P) as implying that P = -P.
The law of identity is better expressed as a container like,
X[] = X[] refering to the address that you can relabel as "P" or "-P" for the "X" for instance. The "P = P" DEFINES the MEANING of these as 'equivalent' but would be more like X[P] = X[P] or X[-P] = X[-P].
You can also have
X[P] and some Y[P], such that the addresses reference the equality of the contents. X[P] ≠ Y[P] refers to the memory labels with 'P' acting as a dummy value. They can be equal or not. To make it clearer, we can write
X1[P1] and X2[P2]
...and then specify the different meanings. What matters is that we express these in a way that can be understood. But I believe that you are trying to argue something about reality, not the way we express logical descriptions.
(P = P) = (-P = -P) as implying that P = -P.
The law of identity is better expressed as a container like,
X[] = X[] refering to the address that you can relabel as "P" or "-P" for the "X" for instance. The "P = P" DEFINES the MEANING of these as 'equivalent' but would be more like X[P] = X[P] or X[-P] = X[-P].
You can also have
X[P] and some Y[P], such that the addresses reference the equality of the contents. X[P] ≠ Y[P] refers to the memory labels with 'P' acting as a dummy value. They can be equal or not. To make it clearer, we can write
X1[P1] and X2[P2]
...and then specify the different meanings. What matters is that we express these in a way that can be understood. But I believe that you are trying to argue something about reality, not the way we express logical descriptions.
Re: P=-P II
Logical descriptions are rooted in reality. As rooted in reality they are a part, or rather an expression, of reality thus maintain a degree of autonomous as they are expressions that are distinct (ie they exist for what they are).Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:15 pm You are confusing 'addresses' with the 'values IN addresses' when you assert that
(P = P) = (-P = -P) as implying that P = -P.
The law of identity is better expressed as a container like,
X[] = X[] refering to the address that you can relabel as "P" or "-P" for the "X" for instance. The "P = P" DEFINES the MEANING of these as 'equivalent' but would be more like X[P] = X[P] or X[-P] = X[-P].
You can also have
X[P] and some Y[P], such that the addresses reference the equality of the contents. X[P] ≠ Y[P] refers to the memory labels with 'P' acting as a dummy value. They can be equal or not. To make it clearer, we can write
X1[P1] and X2[P2]
...and then specify the different meanings. What matters is that we express these in a way that can be understood. But I believe that you are trying to argue something about reality, not the way we express logical descriptions.
(P=P) observes P as a container for -P thus in arguing for (P=P) it contains (-P=-P). -P as a container within a container contains -P as (--P=--P) thus (-P=-P) contains (P=P). Both P=P and -P=-P are containers for each other and are effectively united and equivalent.
As equivalent ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) occurs with this being reducible to P=-P.
Dually both (P=P) and (-P=-P) equate as both expressions of the law of identity; to say ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is to say the law of identity is equivalent to itself.
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: P=-P II
This is incorrect reasoning. This is not reducible to P = -P.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:28 pm (P=P) observes P as a container for -P thus in arguing for (P=P) it contains (-P=-P). -P as a container within a container contains -P as (--P=--P) thus (-P=-P) contains (P=P). Both P=P and -P=-P are containers for each other and are effectively united and equivalent.
As equivalent ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) occurs with this being reducible to P=-P.
Given the binary value 0 for false and 1 for true,
If P is true, it is P = 1. This makes -P = not-1 = 0
Then, substitute P = 1 and -P = 0, into your ((P=P)=(-P=-P))
((1 = 1) = ( 0 = 0)) which is 'true' as a WHOLE statement since it reduces to
((1) = (1)) to simply 1.
If you assigned P = 1, -P = 0. This is because -P = -(P) = -(1) = 0.
Edit: deleted accidental leftover quote
Last edited by Scott Mayers on Mon Jan 31, 2022 4:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am
Re: P=-P II
First, I want to congratulate you on your mathematics. I was able to follow it, logically speaking, and feel able to have a discussion with you about it.
I'll espouse a different set of keys.
Law of identity = (1 = -2)
1 = free to be the alternative
-2 = not free to be the alternative = (must be 1)
must be 1 = left to right sequence contradicts second not needing language.
Samuel L Jackson oversee me, writing the completion
I'll espouse a different set of keys.
Law of identity = (1 = -2)
1 = free to be the alternative
-2 = not free to be the alternative = (must be 1)
must be 1 = left to right sequence contradicts second not needing language.
Samuel L Jackson oversee me, writing the completion
-
- Posts: 5034
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: P=-P II
"check out the big brain on trok!" - Samuel L. Jackson, Pulp Logic
-
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am
Re: P=-P II
promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 11:36 pm "check out the big brain on trok!" - Samuel L. Jackson, Pulp Logic
What did you think of the conclusion, to the sequence, about the left to right sequence?
Re: P=-P II
[/quote]Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:53 pmThis is incorrect reasoning. This is not reducible to P = -P.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:28 pm (P=P) observes P as a container for -P thus in arguing for (P=P) it contains (-P=-P). -P as a container within a container contains -P as (--P=--P) thus (-P=-P) contains (P=P). Both P=P and -P=-P are containers for each other and are effectively united and equivalent.
As equivalent ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) occurs with this being reducible to P=-P.
Given the binary value 0 for false and 1 for true,
If P is true, it is P = 1. This makes -P = not-1 = 0
Then, substitute P = 1 and -P = 0, into your ((P=P)=(-P=-P))
((1 = 1) = ( 0 = 0)) which is 'true' as a WHOLE statement since it reduces to
((1) = (1)) to simply 1.
If you assigned P = 1, -P = 0. This is because -P = -(P) = -(1) = 0.
Dually both (P=P) and (-P=-P) equate as both expressions of the law of identity; to say ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is to say the law of identity is equivalent to itself.
If falsity is a deficiency in truth we result in -1 not 0 as -1 is a deficiency of one equating to a deficiency in truth. 0 is no truth. Falsity requires a preexisting truth therefore is deficiency. 0 is not even false, it is nothing.
1. P=1
2. -P=-1
3. --P=--1
4. --1 (as a double negation) equals 1 therefore P=--P.
Re: P=-P II
One on a number line and -2 on a number line both equate as lines.trokanmariel wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 11:12 pm First, I want to congratulate you on your mathematics. I was able to follow it, logically speaking, and feel able to have a discussion with you about it.
I'll espouse a different set of keys.
Law of identity = (1 = -2)
1 = free to be the alternative
-2 = not free to be the alternative = (must be 1)
must be 1 = left to right sequence contradicts second not needing language.
Samuel L Jackson oversee me, writing the completion
-
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am
Re: P=-P II
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:25 amOne on a number line and -2 on a number line both equate as lines.trokanmariel wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 11:12 pm First, I want to congratulate you on your mathematics. I was able to follow it, logically speaking, and feel able to have a discussion with you about it.
I'll espouse a different set of keys.
Law of identity = (1 = -2)
1 = free to be the alternative
-2 = not free to be the alternative = (must be 1)
must be 1 = left to right sequence contradicts second not needing language.
Samuel L Jackson oversee me, writing the completion
Do you mean lines, in terms of the left to right reference?
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: P=-P II
Weird incorrect thinking. The negative numbers are "Inverses" of the ORDER from zero. The Logical "complement" is in binary and the '-' does not refer to 'negative' in logic but complementary.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:24 amIf falsity is a deficiency in truth we result in -1 not 0 as -1 is a deficiency of one equating to a deficiency in truth. 0 is no truth. Falsity requires a preexisting truth therefore is deficiency. 0 is not even false, it is nothing.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:53 pmThis is incorrect reasoning. This is not reducible to P = -P.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:28 pm (P=P) observes P as a container for -P thus in arguing for (P=P) it contains (-P=-P). -P as a container within a container contains -P as (--P=--P) thus (-P=-P) contains (P=P). Both P=P and -P=-P are containers for each other and are effectively united and equivalent.
As equivalent ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) occurs with this being reducible to P=-P.
Given the binary value 0 for false and 1 for true,
If P is true, it is P = 1. This makes -P = not-1 = 0
Then, substitute P = 1 and -P = 0, into your ((P=P)=(-P=-P))
((1 = 1) = ( 0 = 0)) which is 'true' as a WHOLE statement since it reduces to
((1) = (1)) to simply 1.
If you assigned P = 1, -P = 0. This is because -P = -(P) = -(1) = 0.Dually both (P=P) and (-P=-P) equate as both expressions of the law of identity; to say ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is to say the law of identity is equivalent to itself.
1. P=1
2. -P=-1
3. --P=--1
4. --1 (as a double negation) equals 1 therefore P=--P.
For ALL systems, the "complement" is defined as follows:
For any system, Kn = {0, 1,....} represents the set of n values. If n represents the count, then
Kn = {0, ....P}, where P = n - 1 and represents the highest value. n = 0 is called the "minimum" where "P" is the "Maximum".
Then the complement, such as "-A" [or "Ā"] is defined as
Ā = P subtract A. So in binary this just happens to mean that P = 1.
Given K3 = {0, 1, 2},
If A is a variable and A = 2, then the complement of this is P-A = (2) - (2) = 0.
If B is a variable and B = 1, then the complement of this is P-A = (2) - (1) = 1.
Note that although the '-' above in the "P-A" is subtracted, by itself this is not how negative numbers are defined. Subtraction is defined after addition is defined and then becomes the "inverse (operation) of addition". A "complement" is whatever is left that adds up to the whole. This is called a 'negation' when it DENIES the stated term.
You are appearing to be trying to nullify any form of reasoning. What is your motive? Are you being religious? ...political? If you succeed to 'prove' it wrong, you'd require the very thing you are denying to prove yourself correct. It's perpetually self-destructive because it begs what magical alternative you think could possibly exist as a replacement.
Re: P=-P II
Left is a relative right and right is a relative left, but yes 1 and -2 are both lines on a number line.trokanmariel wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 2:28 pmEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:25 amOne on a number line and -2 on a number line both equate as lines.trokanmariel wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 11:12 pm First, I want to congratulate you on your mathematics. I was able to follow it, logically speaking, and feel able to have a discussion with you about it.
I'll espouse a different set of keys.
Law of identity = (1 = -2)
1 = free to be the alternative
-2 = not free to be the alternative = (must be 1)
must be 1 = left to right sequence contradicts second not needing language.
Samuel L Jackson oversee me, writing the completion
Do you mean lines, in terms of the left to right reference?
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Wed Feb 02, 2022 11:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: P=-P II
1. "+" and "-" are both opposites. Inverse: "opposite or contrary in position, direction, order, or effect."Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 4:59 amWeird incorrect thinking. The negative numbers are "Inverses" of the ORDER from zero. The Logical "complement" is in binary and the '-' does not refer to 'negative' in logic but complementary.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:24 amIf falsity is a deficiency in truth we result in -1 not 0 as -1 is a deficiency of one equating to a deficiency in truth. 0 is no truth. Falsity requires a preexisting truth therefore is deficiency. 0 is not even false, it is nothing.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:53 pm
This is incorrect reasoning. This is not reducible to P = -P.
Given the binary value 0 for false and 1 for true,
If P is true, it is P = 1. This makes -P = not-1 = 0
Then, substitute P = 1 and -P = 0, into your ((P=P)=(-P=-P))
((1 = 1) = ( 0 = 0)) which is 'true' as a WHOLE statement since it reduces to
((1) = (1)) to simply 1.
If you assigned P = 1, -P = 0. This is because -P = -(P) = -(1) = 0.
1. P=1
2. -P=-1
3. --P=--1
4. --1 (as a double negation) equals 1 therefore P=--P.
For ALL systems, the "complement" is defined as follows:
For any system, Kn = {0, 1,....} represents the set of n values. If n represents the count, then
Kn = {0, ....P}, where P = n - 1 and represents the highest value. n = 0 is called the "minimum" where "P" is the "Maximum".
Then the complement, such as "-A" [or "Ā"] is defined as
Ā = P subtract A. So in binary this just happens to mean that P = 1.
Given K3 = {0, 1, 2},
If A is a variable and A = 2, then the complement of this is P-A = (2) - (2) = 0.
If B is a variable and B = 1, then the complement of this is P-A = (2) - (1) = 1.
Note that although the '-' above in the "P-A" is subtracted, by itself this is not how negative numbers are defined. Subtraction is defined after addition is defined and then becomes the "inverse (operation) of addition". A "complement" is whatever is left that adds up to the whole. This is called a 'negation' when it DENIES the stated term.
You are appearing to be trying to nullify any form of reasoning. What is your motive? Are you being religious? ...political? If you succeed to 'prove' it wrong, you'd require the very thing you are denying to prove yourself correct. It's perpetually self-destructive because it begs what magical alternative you think could possibly exist as a replacement.
https://www.google.com/search?q=inverse ... e&ie=UTF-8
However let's go with your axioms and state "negatives" are "inverses" of zero. Given another axiom that negatives are complementary to positives (they combine) then positives are inverses of zero as well. -1=/=0 is one axiom; 1=/=0 is an axiom derived from this first axiom. However 1=0 under the following examples:
1a. A totality of forms is one. This one is absent of form, given the totality of forms results in no form as nothing is distinguishable, thus 0 (as nothing quantifies as 0).
1b. All 0d points are quantifiable thus equate to multiples of one; a 0d point is quantifiably nothing thus zero.
1=0 when applied in measurements.
2. A double negative is a positive thus positives result from negation.
3. Logic is self-negation; to result in the negation of one mode of reasoning results in a new mode of reasoning to take its place. To destroy one logic is to create another, to create one logic is to destroy another.
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: P=-P II
1. "+" and "-" are both opposites. Inverse: "opposite or contrary in position, direction, order, or effect." [/quote]
The "-" in logic is a complement that only resembles subtraction when you reference "-X" as "U - X"; the "+" in logic means "OR", not 'plus'.
Re: P=-P II
The "-" in logic is a complement that only resembles subtraction when you reference "-X" as "U - X"; the "+" in logic means "OR", not 'plus'.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 12:02 am1. "+" and "-" are both opposites. Inverse: "opposite or contrary in position, direction, order, or effect."
[/quote]
A positive value has as its opposite a negative value.
Outside standard logic, a "+P" means a "positive P" thus P exists; a "-P" means a "negative P" thus P does not exist.
Taking the symbols of "+" and "-" out of the equation due to language differences, a positive P is equivalent to the negation of a negative P. Negative P contains P as the negation of negative P (which is P). P contains negative P as the negation of P. Value is derived from negation thus P and Negative P equate as one contains the other.
1. P results from the negation of negative of P.
2. Negative P results from the negation of P.
3. P results in -P through its negation; Negative P results in P through its negation.
4. Both P and Negative P result in each other through negation; they switch positions when both are nullified. Because they can switch positions, through negation alone, they equate through but not without this negation. Negation allows two seemingly opposites to equate.