From: Ian Goddard (igoddard@netkonnect.net)
Date: Mon Jun 22 1998 - 13:33:22 MDT
Gerhard Kessell-Haak wrote:
>>IAN: It's an interesting area of inquiry:
>>does the "-" negative notion equate 100%
>>with the "-" logical not notion? What's
>>your case that "negative =/= not"?
>
>?not? is a universal set theoretic operator, whilst ?-? is an operator
>that is usually associated with Paeno systems/sets.
IAN: That doesn't establish that we
cannot say that the "-" in -A (as in
not-A) and in -4 are compatible with one
another. There are cases for and against
that, but as I see you're not inclined
to make a case to support your claim,
I guess we'll just leave it at that.
>>Criterion for inclusion in "A"
>>
>> x is a part of A, IF x is necessary for
>>the specific existence/identity of A.
>>
>>If this criterion is valid, it then follows that as:
>>not-A is necessary for the existence of A,
>>therefore, not-A is a part of A.
>>In the same fashion, A is a part of not-A.
>>
>>IF not-A is a part of A,
>>IF A is a part of not-A,
>>THEN A and not-A have the same parts.
>>ERGO: A = not-A
>
>Wow ?.. there are so many holes in that stream of reasoning that I really
>can?t be bothered pointing them all out (and please, don?t ask me to).
IAN: Taking the time to back up your
assertions is a drag, so I won't ask.
I guess A is A free from not-A and
that is that and no questions.
>I?ve noted that you (and others) repeatedly use terms such as ?degree?,
>and ?measure? - unfortunately these terms are only valid for sets where
>these can have meaning (such as the set of Reals). For example, for the
>set of operators O = {+, -, *}, where O is not a Paeno set, what is the
>difference between {+} and {-} ?
IAN: That's tangential. Glad you
found the time to make a case that
really has nothing to do with the topic.
>>?.. So A = -A and does not = -A at the same time in
>>different contexts. When mystics say A = -A (or
>>something to that effect) they are referring to
>>a primordial context that maps the structure of
>>identity. So what is this "mystical" context?
>
>To state that ?A = -A?, where the context of the left side is different from
>the context of the right side is logically invalid, and is an abuse of the
>?=? sign.
IAN: That's not what I said.
**************************************************************
VISIT IAN WILLIAMS GODDARD --------> http://Ian.Goddard.net
______________________________________________________________
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them see the light, but rather because
its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows
up that is familiar with the idea from the beginning."
Max Plank - Nobel physicist
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual.
Those who deny individual rights cannot claim
to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:12 MST