- #36
WWW
- 126
- 0
I don't understand what do you want to say.(a xor b) and (a xor b) was the same as a and b, which it isn't,
Please choose a xor b:
a) ((a xor b) and (a xor b)) = (a and b)
b) ((a xor b) and (a xor b)) not= (a and b)
I don't understand what do you want to say.(a xor b) and (a xor b) was the same as a and b, which it isn't,
b b
# #
a a
. .
| |
|&__|_
|
[B]a b
. .
| | <--- (Standard Math logical system fundamental building-block)
|#__|
|[/B]
<--r--> ^
t t |
# # u
f f |
| | v
|&__|_
|
a b
. .
| |
|#__|
|
And you lose through this generalization (it is trivialization through my point of view) very interesting included-middle ordered Logical states.
(excluded-middle --> a binary fact) XOR (included-middle --> not a binary fact)No, you don't. Any statement is either in a given "included-middle ordered Logical state" or it is not; a binary fact.
<--r--> ^
t t |
# # u
f f |
| | v
|&__|_
|
<--r--> ^
t t |
# # u
f f |
| | v
|&__|_
|
So as we see, ((f # t)&(f # t)) is simultaneously (f & f)_(t & f)_(f & t)_(t & t), which is definitely not a Boolean Logic state.
WWW said:Please Prove that Complementary Logic ( https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=192318&postcount=25 ) can be reduced to a false/true logic.
Hurkyl said:I said:
"((f # t)&(f # t)) is simultaneously (f & f)_(t & f)_(f & t)_(t & t)" is a boolean statement.
Are you saying that
"((f # t)&(f # t)) is simultaneously (f & f)_(t & f)_(f & t)_(t & t)" is simultaneously "(f & f)_(t & f)_(f & t)_(t & t)"?
And even if you are, isn't this new statement of yours true? (according to you)
<--r--> ^
t t |
# # u
f f |
| | v
|&__|_
|
Yes, because it is consistent it is also incomplete and context depended, but unlike an excluded-middle logical system, it is not looking at vagueness as an enemy that we have to distinct by more and more accurate definitions.Russell E. Rierson said:If your complementary logic is context dependent, it still must have an invariant structure that gives a meaningful interpretation?
You are mixing between the existence of some system and it?s logical reasoning.
Please show us (t & f) as a valid(=1=existing) state in an excluded-middle system.
I used 'v' letter as an arrowhead in my diagram.what is u, what is r, and for that matter what is v?
and you can't have probabilties between 1 and 2 (unless it is 1).
AND and XOR connectives are independed and can be changed according to the "logical environment" that using them.Matt said:so the and and xor symbols you are using aren't the usual and and xor symbols. so you need to define them. (ie what they do)
My example of Mandelbrot set is this:Matt Grime said:don't understand how you can say that you can't describe QM with boolean logic seeing as without it you would never have learned about it in the first place. all the experiments you know of and theory is done in boolean logic.
AND and XOR connectives are independed and can be changed according to the "logical environment" that using them.Matt said:so the and and xor symbols you are using aren't the usual and and xor symbols. so you need to define them. (ie what they do)
<--[B]r[/B]--> ^
t t |
# # [B]u[/B]
f f |
| | v
|&__|_
|
f t
| |
|#__|
|
Uncertainty
<-Redundancy->^
d d d d |
# # # # |
c c c c |
# # # # |
b b b b |
# # # # |
{a, a, a, a} V
. . . .
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | <--(First 4-valued logical form)
| | | |
| | | |
|&_|&_|&_|_
|
={x,x,x,x}
{a, b, c, d}
. . . .
| | | |
|#_| | |
| | | <--(Last 4-valued logical form)
|#____| |
| |
|#_______|
|
={{{{x},x},x},x}
[b]
============>>>
Uncertainty
<-Redundancy->^
d d d d | d d d d
# # # # | # # # #
c c c c | c c c c
# # # # | # # # #
b b b b | b b b b b b b b b b
# # # # | # # # # # # # # # #
{a, a, a, a} V {a, a, a, a} {a, b, a, a} {a, a, a, a}
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | |&_|_ | | |#_| | | |&_|_ |&_|_
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|&_|&_|&_|_ |&____|&_|_ |&____|&_|_ |&____|____
| | | |
{x,x,x,x} {x,x},x,x} {{{x},x},x,x} {{x,x},{x,x}}
c c c
# # #
b b b b b b b
# # # # # # #
{a, b, a, a} {a, b, a, b} {a, a, a, d} {a, a, c, d}
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|#_| |&_|_ |#_| |#_| | | | | |&_|_ | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | |&_|&_|_ | |#____| |
| | | | | | | |
|&____|____ |&____|____ |#_______| |#_______|
| | | |
{{{x},x},{x,x}} {{{x},x},{{x},x}} {{x,x,x},x} {{{x,x},x},x}
{a, b, c, d}
. . . .
| | | |
|#_| | |
| | |
|#____| |
| |
|#_______|
|
{{{{x},x},x},x}
[/b]
b b
# #
a a
. .
| |
|&__|_
|
[b]
a b
. .
| | <--- (Standard Math logical system fundamental building-block)
|#__|
|
[/b]
I know it, but in 1-dim all you can get is the shadow of what you can find between 1-dim and 2-dim, isn't it?mandelbrot's set doesn't have integer dimension...
Please explain Why do you think they are not defined?still not defined uncertainty and redundancy, non-standard terms.
WWW said:http://users.erols.com/igoddard/gods-law.html is very interesting and supports Complementary Logic main point of view.
But in Complementary Logic 100%A is some unique result that we can get out of x1 xor x2 xor x3 xor ...
Some times simple thinking can help us to understand simple examples.
AND and XOR connectives are independed and can be changed according to the "logical environment" that using them.
Please explain Why do you think they are not defined?
No you did not, because in 1-dim(=x-dim) universe no point can be found as a result of (x-dim,y-dim) system.I demonstrated how, using logic and a "1-dim system", we are able to fully "explore" a "2-dim system".
You did not show it yet.Even if one system is a special case of another system, the first system can still be just as powerful as the second system.
WWW said:AND and XOR connectives are independed and can be changed according to the "logical environment" that using them.
Hurkyl said:Incorrect. The representations may be the same (e.g. they're both called AND and XOR), but your AND and XOR are certainly very different from the AND and XOR from boolean logic.
<--[B]r[/B]--> ^
t t |
# # [B]u[/B]
f f |
| | v
|&__|_
|
f t
| |
|#__|
|
Uncertainty
<-Redundancy->^
d d d d |
# # # # |
c c c c |
# # # # |
b b b b |
# # # # |
{a, a, a, a} V
. . . .
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | <--(First 4-valued logical form)
| | | |
| | | |
|&_|&_|&_|_
|
={x,x,x,x}
{a, b, c, d}
. . . .
| | | |
|#_| | |
| | | <--(Last 4-valued logical form)
|#____| |
| |
|#_______|
|
={{{{x},x},x},x}
[b]
============>>>
Uncertainty
<-Redundancy->^
d d d d | d d d d
# # # # | # # # #
c c c c | c c c c
# # # # | # # # #
b b b b | b b b b b b b b b b
# # # # | # # # # # # # # # #
{a, a, a, a} V {a, a, a, a} {a, b, a, a} {a, a, a, a}
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | |&_|_ | | |#_| | | |&_|_ |&_|_
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|&_|&_|&_|_ |&____|&_|_ |&____|&_|_ |&____|____
| | | |
{x,x,x,x} {x,x},x,x} {{{x},x},x,x} {{x,x},{x,x}}
c c c
# # #
b b b b b b b
# # # # # # #
{a, b, a, a} {a, b, a, b} {a, a, a, d} {a, a, c, d}
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|#_| |&_|_ |#_| |#_| | | | | |&_|_ | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | |&_|&_|_ | |#____| |
| | | | | | | |
|&____|____ |&____|____ |#_______| |#_______|
| | | |
{{{x},x},{x,x}} {{{x},x},{{x},x}} {{x,x,x},x} {{{x,x},x},x}
{a, b, c, d}
. . . .
| | | |
|#_| | |
| | |
|#____| |
| |
|#_______|
|
{{{{x},x},x},x}
[/b]
b b
# #
a a
. .
| |
|&__|_
|
[b]
a b
. .
| | <--- (Standard Math logical system fundamental building-block)
|#__|
|
[/b]
WWW said:I know it, but in 1-dim all you can get is the shadow of what you can find between 1-dim and 2-dim, isn't it?
Please explain Why do you think they are not defined?
WWW said:No you did not, because in 1-dim(=x-dim) universe no point can be found as a result of (x-dim,y-dim) system.
Your (c,d)(a0,b0) example is a (x-dim,y-dim) --> 2-dim system, and only then you can show a
"2-d Math picture" of mandelbrot set (which has a fractal-dim between 1-dim and 2-dim).
Shortly speaking, in a 1-dim universe any y-dim reduced to x-dim.
Therefore d reduced to c and b0 reduced to a0, and you have no 2-dim Math picture of some Julia set.
You did not show it yet.