AP's 366th book of science-- TEACHING TRUE LOGIC // Logic textbook by Archimedes Plutonium This is AP's #366th published book of science published on Internet, Plutonium-Atom-Universe, PAU newsgroup is this.
237 views
Skip to first unread message
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 3, 2026, 1:40:11 AMJan 3
to Plutonium Atom Universe
TEACHING TRUE LOGIC // Logic textbook
by Archimedes Plutonium
This is AP's #366th published book of science published on Internet, Plutonium-Atom-Universe,
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Author's Note: Far and away, this book has become my most difficult book to write, considering all the time it took for me to assemble it. Most of 2025 was in writing this textbook. The difficulty stems from the fact that I am revising the whole of the science Logic. Whereas in the other sciences that I write about are contributions and not full scale total revision of the science itself. And that task of revision requires coherent and consistent flow of logic thought, from beginning to end. As if every page is a step in a proof of mathematics. I could have written 40 new books of science in the amount of time it took me to write just this one textbook. And still I see myself going back on future dates, many many times just to fix this book.
I have another dilemma to solve in writing this textbook. I want to write a logic textbook without speaking of the mistakes made in the past on logic. Without mentioning that Old Logic messed up here, there, and almost everywhere and often was wrong on everything they did in logic. I would like to write a textbook on Logic saying directly-- this is the true truth-table of AND of OR, of Not-Equal, of If-->Then without mentioning the mistakes of the past made by Old Logic. For students that are young need not be bothered by past mistakes, and deserve to learn just what is ___true___. Let students with their young minds learn the truth about the world, and if they are interested in the past, they can explore it on their own time. A teacher should not waste the time of students by showing mistakes of the past. With this in mind, I am thinking that once I complete this textbook that is full of discussion on what Old Logic got wrong. I am thinking of rewriting this textbook and teaching the same subject with no mention of past mistakes, and no mention of "Old Logic". And leave it up to the Colleges and Universities to decide which of these two textbooks to teach to their classroom, is it Logic #366 showing past mistakes, or is it the #367 of Pure True Logic. Then of course, the 2nd year of college university logic is the textbook of Advanced Logic #368.
Preface: My #366 book, a textbook sorely needed since I keep telling students of science to take 2 years of College logic to help them think straight and clear throughout their lives. No point in taking logic from books that are saturated full of error. So, it is up to me to write the world's first correct Logic textbook, worthy of teaching in colleges and universities. It is not surprising that no-one with a Logical mind has come along until AP, to write the textbook of Logic.
This textbook is the first Logic textbook written by a person who has a logical mind-brain.
For decades now I increasingly encouraged all colleges and universities across the world to force science majors to mandatorily have to take 2 years of college Logic in order to help these scientists think straight and think clearly, at least that was the hope. But I had a huge problem with this requirement. No-one before me had a correct textbook of Logic which was mostly free of error and mistakes. The Boole and Jevons logic which I learned from while in college-- myself-- has all 4 of the simple Logic connectors in gross error.
You see, no-one with a logical mind has ever written a logic textbook. So how could I insist on a college and university requirement of all science majors to have 2 years of college logic, when no logic textbook free of gross errors and mistakes, exists? To remedy that dilemma, I write this Logic textbook and another on Advanced Logic.
Note to Teachers:: Try to make the tests be that of fill-in the blank as some examples are given in the chapters below. I feel that fill-in the blank tests can be further learning for students and teachers alike instead of the multiple choice test or the essay writing tests.
Cover picture: The Logic Syllogism-- All Matter is made up of the 114 chemical elements. The Universe is matter, hence the Universe is one single chemical element Atom that forms an Atom Totality. Plutonium fits the numbers of math and physics the best.
---------------------------------
Table of Contents
---------------------------------
Part 1, What is Logic?
1) Prospectus of books to write in near future.
2) What is Logic in the first place?
3) How do we start Logic-- first with a definition of logic and then the connectors of logic in logical order.
4) What is the physics concept of True and of False?
5) The Logic Truth Tables in detail.
6) The AP Principle of Well Defining a concept.
Part 2, A short brief history of Logic.
7) Logic, formally starts in Ancient Greek time, along with deductive mathematics.
8) The first computer by Babbage influences Logic, and the Boole + Jevons mistakes.
Part 3, The Mechanics of Logic.
9) The 6 simple connectors of Logic.
10) Using mathematics to guide Logic.
11) What is Truth, and how does truth relate to Logic?
12) Existential quantifier.
13) Not-Equal connector.
14) AND connector.
15) OR connector.
16) If-->Then connector.
17) Universal quantifier.
18) Best understanding of "nothing or zero" in both math and logic.
19) The Size & Mechanics of the Logic Argument in New Logic.
Part 4, The Logic Argument starting with Syllogism and moving to more complicated Arguments.
20) The Syllogism is the most simple of argument.
21) More complicated arguments.
Part 5, The Rules of Inference corrected and renamed Laws of Inference.
22) Laws of Inference for Equal-Not, AND, OR, If-->Then.
23) Laws of Inference for Existential and Universal Quantifiers.
Part 6, Scientific Method is Logic.
24) Mathematical-Induction and where does UG, UI, EG, EI, fit in?
25) The Scientific Method is Logic in practice.
Part 7, The Atomic Theory.
26) The most exquisite Logic argument of all time-- the Atomic theory.
Part 8, Proof that God exists, but it is a Science God.
27) Proof is quite simple and shows us the superpower each and every day.
28) Our mission is to make a permanent colony on Europa before year 3025.
Part 9, Uniqueness, Consistency, Completeness and the biggest mistake of all in Old Logic.
29) Where does Universal Generalization UG, Universal Instantiation UI, Existential Generalization EG, Existential Instantiation EI, fit in?
30) Summing up all of Logic in uniqueness, consistency, completeness by the Scientific Method.
31) Biggest mistake of all in Old Logic.
Part 10, Many examples of Logic Fallacies, which in mathematics would simply be called mistakes.
32) Many examples of Logic Fallacies
Part 11, How Logic easily improves our lives.
33) Improving your life with applying Logic.
34) Applying Logic to our modern ever increasing digital world so you can be safer and more secure.
-------------
Text
-------------
Part 1, What is Logic?
1) Prospectus of books to write in near future.
The first sentence of this textbook should concern itself with "What is Logic"??? Why am I here studying logic?
I have been preaching for over decades now that people wanting a degree in college in science, should be required to take 2 years of college logic to earn that degree. For Logic is the science that helps you think straight and think clearly--- at least that is the hope.
I often refer to the two textbooks of Logic I used at University of Cincinnati 1968-1972, one by Copi, Introduction to Logic, 4th edition and one by Thomason, Symbolic Logic An Introduction, 1970.
Copi is straight-on with his first sentences.
"...this we do affirm-- that if truth is to be sought in every division of Philosophy, we must, before all else, possess trustworthy principles and methods for the discernment of truth. Now the Logical branch is that which includes the theory of criteria and of proofs; so it is with this that we ought to make our beginnings." -- (Sextus Empiricus, an ancient Greek physician)
1.1 What is Logic?
Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish good (correct) from bad (incorrect) reasoning. (Copi, 1972).
Thomason's Symbolic Logic does not start where I expect him to start.
1 Uninterpreted Syntax of a Logical System
1. This section has to do with some rules of constructing certain strings of symbols called formulas, and for manipulating these formulas to build arrays called proofs. (Thomason, 1970).
AP writes: sadly, Thomason should have started where Copi started and all textbooks of Logic. Tell the student or reader--- What is Logic.
I start this book with my definition of Logic.
Logic is the science that helps one better to think straight and to think clearly, especially needed by scientists.
A batch of books to write, most important are two logic textbooks for the World has ___no logic textbook mostly free of errors____, at least almost free of errors. Instead,,,, by year 2025 massive errors in all college logic textbooks that I can see as far as the eyes can see, where all 4 of the simple logic connectors, the very most simple logic connectors are all in ruinous gross error.
The history of this textbook-- 1st year college Logic was based on a batch of books I began to write in year 2025.
#350 Geometry
#365 Calculus
#366 Logic
#367 Pure True Logic
#368 Advanced Logic
#369 Advanced Geometry
#370 Physics electricity
#371 Plutonium Atom Totality, 10th edition
#372 Improving the Scientific Method
#373 Thermodynamics Corrected
#374 Philosophical-Physics--- not only what is the purpose of life, but the purpose of physics
#372 book of science for AP--- Improving the Scientific Method by Archimedes Plutonium
I am going to need to add the Scientific Method as a part of my two textbooks on Logic, and also making it the subject of a separate book, #372.
--- quoting what I wrote in my #365 book Calculus ---
Chapter 1, An introduction of what this book is about.
...For decades now, I have been excoriating the fact that no college or university in the world has a correct teaching program for the subject of Logic. No college or university as of 2025 can teach two years of college Logic with the correct truth tables of the 4 most simple Logic connectors of Equal-Not, AND, OR, If--> Then. Every college and university across the world teach Error filled logic of Boole and Jevons for they have all 4 connectors wrong. So, how could AP tell all science majors to take 2 years of college logic, when no college or university on Earth has a correct Logic textbook? This series along with math and physics textbooks is needed. I start with this Calculus textbook for the AP series #365 through #373 are school textbooks that replace error filled textbooks in colleges and universities across the globe of Earth.
#350 Geometry
#365 Calculus
#366 Logic
#367 Pure True Logic
#368 Advanced Logic
#369 Advanced Geometry
#370 Physics electricity
#371 Plutonium Atom Totality, 10th edition
#372 Improving the Scientific Method
#373 Thermodynamics Corrected
--- end quoting what I wrote in my #365 book Calculus---
The date that I started in earnest to write this logic textbook is April of 2025, but I found out long time ago that writing a science textbook is the most difficult book to write, for it requires so much order and coordination, and giving out exercise problems. I found out that I could likely write 10 books of regular science in the time it takes me to write one textbook of science.
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 15, 2025, 1:37:23 AM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
In recent years I ran into a big, big problem. I was telling professors of physics and mathematics that they lacked training in Logic in college and insisted that all science students take the prerequisite of 2 years of college Logic to help them think straight and clear.
But here is the problem, no Logic textbook except the books AP wrote have correct Logic. So how can you teach college students Logic for 2 years if no textbook on Logic has correct Logic.
In the past 7 years I wrote these books on Logic-- 13 books, but no textbook to use in classroom. And that is the purpose of this book.
1Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors 1Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors.JPG 2Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum 2Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum.JPG 3DeMorgan 3DeMorgan.JPG 4Pragmatism 4Pragmatism.JPG 169Consistency 169Consistency.JPG 172Occam.JPG 172OccamR 188Language->eq 188Language.jpg 199paradoxes 199paradoxes.jpg 231AllAtoms 231AllAtoms.jpg 300Unification philosophy.jpg 300Unificationphilosophy 318math-subset-logic 328Lowenheim 348Feynman's Atomic theory
I write this textbook on Logic for the 1st year College Logic course.
And given time, later in 2025 or probably more likely 2026 since this book is so time consuming, write Advanced Logic, for the 2nd year of College Logic required of all science students before graduating.
2) What is Logic in the first place?
Short and simple, Logic is the science of ideas and what future actions we take based on those ideas, and what ideas are true.
In Logic we examine ideas and manipulate ideas and focus and concentrate on ideas. We write ideas out and often label them with a p,q,r,s, etc. When you hear or see the words "Symbolic Logic" that means instead of writing out the idea in full, we just give them a label like p,q,r,s, etc.
Examples of various Ideas in Logic
----------------------------------------------
I woke up today and saw the Winter Solstice at 4:50 PM from my south window.
On 20 December 2025, I had 12 hours of sleep.
I am 17 years old today, 20 December 2025.
The temperature in my living room is 20 degrees Celsius around 70 degrees Fahrenheit.
I am a female going to High School.
I feel sad, depressed upon not being invited to the Party to dance and sing.
Let me label the above six ideas with Symbols as would be done in Symbolic Logic and analyze them each briefly.
A = (I woke up on 20 December 2025 and saw the Winter Solstice at 4:50 PM from my south window.)
B = (On 20 December 2025, I had 12 hours of sleep.)
C = (I am 17 years old today, 20 December 2025.)
D = (The temperature in my living room is 20 degrees Celsius around 70 degrees Fahrenheit.)
E = (I am a female going to High School.)
F = (I feel happy and full of glee, upon not being invited to the Party to dance and sing.)
In logic we usually label in Symbols with P, Q, R, S rather than start with A, B, C, but that is only common practice. You can label your idea with any letter of the alphabet you want, capital or not capital letters. Much the same as what goes on in algebra math A+B = C, or 5x = 35 and solve for x.
In math we have numbers to operate upon such as 2+5 = unknown. In Logic, we have something similar in that from the above list of statements: statement A AND statement B = a truth value.
So in math we have 2+5 = 7. What is the truth value of A AND B from the statements above? Statement A is "I woke up on 20 December 2025 and saw the Winter Solstice at 4:50 PM from my south window" which is true. Also, statement B is "On 20 December 2025, I had 12 hours of sleep" which is also true.
So when we connect A AND B in the joining together.
I woke up on 20 December 2025 and saw the Winter Solstice at 4:50 PM from my south window AND on 20 December 2025, I had 12 hours of sleep. That combined statement with connector AND is a true statement because both A is true and B is true.
But what about A AND C, or what about B AND E. Here we have A is true but C is false. We also have B is true but E is false. What is the joined together combined A AND C result in truth value. It is true. And the same goes for B AND E even though E is false.
How about A AND C AND E where we have 3 statements, only one of them is true? The answer is that the entire string is true if just one of the statements is true.
The reason a string of AND statements is true if just one statement is true, is that in Logic, a false statement is considered to have a truth value of zero, 0 or nothing. And so when we add in math we have 1 + 0 + 0 = 1.
There is a famous saying of how AND truth value works--- We do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If a string of statements p, q, r, s, t, u, where only one of the statements is true, the rest all false, connected by AND, then the entire string is true.
Now with 2 statements there are 4 possible combinations for AND as connector. For statements P, Q. We could have P true Q true. We could have P true Q false. We could have P false Q true, and finally we could have both P and Q false.
In Logic we set up what is called a Truth-Table that easily lets us see the 4 possibilities for two variables P,Q.
P Q
--------------
T T
T F
F T
F F
Notice the first column is TTFF while the second column alternates with TFTF.
Whenever we have 2 variables (two statements) this pattern above gives us all the possible truth values for any given connector, such as AND connector.
In the case of A AND B above our first row covers that possibility. In the case of A AND C our second row covers that situation.
What if we took C AND F from the above which is this.
I am 17 years old today, 20 December 2025 AND I feel happy and full of glee, upon not being invited to the Party to dance and sing.
C is false because I am now 75 years old in 2025 while F is true, for I hate dancing and singing and only make a joke of myself.
Here C AND F is a joined together statement by the AND connector and follows row three above, where since F is true, the whole string is true.
Finally what if we joined together statements C AND E, both of which are false, for I am a 75 year old male. This joined statement is false for none of its statements is true and follows the fourth row above.
With two statements, two variables we form what is called a Truth Table in Logic for the connector of concern. In the above our connector was AND. And we formed all possible truth arrangements of two variables, P, Q by constructing this table.
P Q
T T
T F
F T
F F
Notice that pattern again of P being TTFF while Q being TFTF for that pattern captures all possible truth values of TT, of TF, of FT and of FF. We use the pattern over and over again for other connectors like that of OR, like that of Equal-Not, like that of If-->Then.
So let us complete the Truth Table of AND above.
P Q P AND Q
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
And summarize our findings. We find that AND is true whenever a single one statement of a string of statements is true. And the only time the AND connector is false is when the entire string of statements of AND have not a single true statement. We do not throw out the baby with the bathe water.
But let us now focus upon how we assign truth or falsity to a statement.
Assigning truth or falsity to a statement.
---------------------------------------------------
Short and simple, we assign truth to a statement if the statement is true in the particular science it pertains to. And a statement is false if science says it is false. Looking back at my statements from A through F
A = (I woke up on 20 December 2025 and saw the Winter Solstice at 4:50 PM from my south window.)
Science of astronomy says this is a true statement that around 20 to 21 December, the Winter Solstice takes place.
B = (On 20 December 2025, I had 12 hours of sleep.)
Science of sociology and psychology says this is true in that I am telling the truth.
C = (I am 17 years old today, 20 December 2025.)
History of AP says this statement is false and shows AP was born 1950 making him 75 years old.
D = (The temperature in my living room is 20 degrees Celsius around 70 degrees Fahrenheit.)
Science of sociology and electric bills paid show this to be false statement, in that AP's living room is likely to be no more than 15 degrees C or less than 60 degrees F.
E = (I am a female going to High School.)
Science of sociology and biology show AP was born a male, so the statement is false.
F = (I feel happy and full of glee, upon not being invited to the Party to dance and sing.)
Science of sociology and psychology and history show this to be true in that AP avoided parties of all types and had no pleasure in dancing or singing or partying.
In Logic, the truth of falsity of any statement is run through to science pertinent on the subject matter. More details on truth and falsity will come later.
Physics is the science of material objects, mass, motion, energy. Biology is the science of living objects and how living organisms behave in the environment. Logic is the science of ideas and to use language in communicating ideas and forming conclusions from those ideas. Mathematics is the science of correct use of the language of numbers-quantity and geometry figures and shapes. Just as mathematics is the correct use of numbers and figures of geometry, that Logic is the correct use of ideas and thoughts. In math we have numbers like 1,2,3,4, ... and figures of geometry like line, plane, square, rectangle, circle. In Logic we have statements of ideas and can label them as p, q, r, s, t, u, v, ... Math manipulates numbers and figures while Logic manipulates ideas as statements of a language. Sciences, logic and mathematics can be put into a diagram of subsets, where Physics is on top.
Physics
/
Chemistry
/
Astronomy, Geology
/
Biology which includes Sociology and Language
/
Logic
/
Mathematics
So Logic is the science of the correct use of ideas and reaching conclusions of those ideas communicated by a language, while in contrast, Mathematics is the science of the correct use of numbers as quantity and size and the use of geometry figures.
Both logic and math are languages. The job of Logic is correct use of ideas, while the job of math is the correct use of numbers and geometry figures. Since math is ideas of numbers and geometry, then that means Logic is a set that is larger than math and contains all of math inside of logic. We call this a "meta-language". When one language has another language inside itself, we say Logic is a meta-language of Mathematics. Logic is the larger set that has all of mathematics as a subset.
Now one may think that Logic is the Meta-language and no other set is larger than logic. That is not true. For Physics is larger than logic. Physics is the largest set of all, having all the other sciences inside of Physics and having Logic and mathematics inside of Physics. This probably sounds strange to most people to think that Physics controls Logic a language corrector. Later in this book we talk about Superdeterminism, some prefer to call it "quantum entanglement". It is a physics experiment done many times in different labs with the stunning result that the world has a superpower of an Atom Totality that controls all humans as if they are puppets, doing the wishes of the Atom Totality. When the world has something like that, means that Physics is the supreme knowledge and everything else is a subset of physics. Physics is the final metalanguage.
In logic, the science of correct use of ideas, definitions are important. And we can reduce many concepts to their primal meaning.
For example, geometry is a poor choice of term for what is really "shape".
Number is a poor choice of term for what is really "size". Some may say "quantity" but quantity is no better than "number". For example, the size of shape makes more logical sense than the quantity of shape. This is physics complamentarity, that number and geometry are complamentarity as is electric complamentarity to magnetism. So the best primal term definition for "number" is size. Numbers speak to size. Geometry speaks to form and shape.
Note: I spell the word Complimentarity of Old Physics as Complamentarity as to not confuse it with similar but confusing spellings.
Subtraction is a poor choice of term for what is really "remove". And if human history had never used the term subtraction but only used "remove" the science of mathematics would not have been encumbered by the "manifest idiocy" of negative numbers.
Physics is a good choice of a term to describe all sciences and all human thought. For that word sticks out from all other words.
Logic is a poor choice of term for what is really "the scientific method". Math is correcting numbers and geometry. Logic is correcting the use of ideas and the scientific method is the use of ideas in physics (or other sciences), for physics is based on experiments that follows the scientific method blueprint.
The Scientific Method in brief.
---------------------------------------
--- source from Internet ---
Step 1-- Make observations and ask many questions.
Step 2-- Research the subject matter and Review the literature on the subject.
Step 3-- Formulate a Hypothesis of what you think is going on.
Step 4-- Conduct Experiments pertaining to your hypothesis.
Step 5-- Collect data from the experiment/s and analyze the data.
Step 6-- Draw conclusions.
Step 7-- Publish the results.
So yes, so the teaching of Logic, 1st year in College and University is much like teaching Mathematics of its 4 operators of add, subtract, multiply, divide, and add on 2 more operators of derivative and integral to math which are reflected in 6 Connectors of Logic as Equal-Not, AND, OR, If->Then, Existential quantifier, Universal quantifier.
Math is the correct use of Quantity-Number- Size and Geometry Shape. While Logic is the correct use of ideas communicated in a Common Language.
Math is the language that Physics needs for detail and precision on quantity-size and geometry shape.
First let us do a perspective of where Logic fits into the scheme of things of Knowledge and Wisdom.
Structure of all Knowledge and Wisdom
-------------------------------------
It is good to place logic in a structural framework to compare its importance to other forms of knowledge.
The pinnacle peak of knowledge and wisdom is of course science, for it is science that brought humanity as advanced intelligent life and allowed us to walk on the Moon. Soon it will be science that allows humanity to escape the Sun gone Red Giant and live for a million years longer on Europa, a satellite of Jupiter.
And the pinnacle peak of Science is Physics.
Here is a schemata diagram listed by order of importance of what can be called the important knowledge and wisdom.
Physics
Chemistry
Astronomy
Geology
Biology
Physiology & Medicine,Psychology
Sociology includes Language, Philosophy, Religion, economics, music, art
Logic
Mathematics
All of them are a subset of Physics. The last two are Logic and Mathematics because most people can go through life without knowing either one of them, or, utilizing either logic or mathematics. Everyone every day, every second experiences the forces of physics, even if they do not know or understand the laws of physics.
What is Logic?
------------------------
Logic and mathematics are corrections and precision mechanisms for science. Highly important are both roles of Logic and mathematics.
Logic corrects and makes precise the actions taken in science experiments and in communication via language of the science in question. While Mathematics is the precision of quantity, size, and shape and figure.
Chemistry is a subset of Physics, and biology is a subset or chemistry and physics. Without physics and chemistry there would not be a biology.
Without Physics, there would not be a logic nor mathematics.
And Mathematics is a subset of Logic. By that I mean everything found true in mathematics, can be found true in Logic. Going even further, everything found true in Logic must be found in Physics in the Axiom Principle of Physics-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. That means the Laws of Electromagnetism contain all the major principles and ideas of Logic, as well as mathematics.
If Logic is superior to mathematics, then everything in mathematics can be pulled out of Logic. So, let us pull out of mathematics the 6 connectors of Logic.
The 6 Connectors of Logic
-------------------------
Not-Equal
And
Or
If--> Then
There Exists
For Every
The 6 Operators of Mathematics
------------------------------------------------------
Multiplication (which is Equal-Not)
Addition (which is And)
Subtraction (which is Or)
Division (which is If-->Then)
Derivative (which is the existential quantifier)
Integral (which is the universal quantifier)
Somewhat surprising that derivative and integral of calculus math is the Existential and Universal quantifiers of Logic.
Maybe more surprising is that multiply, add, subtract, divide are algebra while derivative and integral are geometry.
Forced to start the 6 Logic Connectors with Existential quantifier and then next with Not-Equal
-----------------------------------------------------
Every logic textbook I have ever seen starts with the connector AND, and Copi, 4th edition, 1972, Introduction to Logic is no exception. He does the AND truth table on page 248, then the negation Not on page 250 and then the disjunction OR on page 251. He gets all three of them wrong for a truth table. In fact, Boole & Jevons logic have all the Connectors wrong and in error.
Every logic textbook probably start with AND connector because, mathematics starts with Addition, so they thought, probably because of Mathematical Induction yields all the integers starting with 0 and adding 1. Only AND is often called conjunction and OR often called disjunction. Not is called negation.
But in Logic, we have to start logically the 6 connectors and of those 6, the logical start is the question of Existence. No use in pondering something that does not exist. So we start with Existence. Does the idea bear existence what we call reality? Once we established if an object exists or does not exist, we then see that Not-Equal must be the second connector to be introduced. For the Not is in "not exist".
And in Logic, we have Truth tables that need equal signs, and we cannot do any operator first unless we can understand it exists or not exists and then ask what is equal. Notice also, that by combining Equal with Not we form them into a 4 row truth table of all possibilities for truth values of two variables, a TT, a TF, a FT, and a FF. If we study Equal alone we have only T=T and F=F. And we cannot have a study of T =F or F=T. So we combine Equal with Not. We escape the operators being just two-fold value truth table, and make Equal and Not be four-valued truth table operators like the others of AND, of OR, of If-->Then.
Now sometime I am going to get this correct. And it is important. You cannot have chemistry without physics. And you cannot have biology without chemistry, but you __can have__ astronomy without biology. So I need a massive repair here.
Here is a schemata diagram listed by order of importance of what can be called the important knowledge and wisdom.
Physics
Chemistry
Astronomy
Geology
Biology
Physiology & Medicine,Psychology
Sociology includes Language, Philosophy, Religion, economics, music, art
Logic
Mathematics
Now let me run through that schemata to see if logically correct. This correction is an exercise in logic itself, utilizing logic.
You cannot have chemistry without physics, and you cannot have astronomy without chemistry and physics. And you cannot have geology without astronomy. You cannot have Biology without all the fore mentioned sciences.
Is that true? You cannot have biology unless you have physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology in place?? Sounds reasonable for then you would have life coming into creation in the thinness of deep outer space. Sounds reasonable that life needs a vast array of chemicals all in on place location to form first life. What was the most heavy element essential for life?? It was beyond phosphorus, possibly manganese and iron. Both plant and animals, I cannot envision life creation without an environment of iron and all the elements before iron.
So once we have Biology in the schemata diagram we have lots of biological related sciences --- the physiology of plants and animals and medical science is part of physiology. The brain covered by psychology and were likely the meristem (root tips) in plants is plant brains.
Then we have a whole category of sciences that compose Sociology, and some people will refuse to see them as sciences, but collectively they compose the social interactions of a species of animals.
Lastly, we see the sciences of Logic and then Mathematics. You cannot have logic or math without a social animal forming logic and math.
If there were no human social animal on Earth, there would be no Logic or Mathematics on Earth.
And that corrected schemata suggests the purpose and function of Logic is more than correct the Language for clarity of ideas, but also suggests that Logic is the ___ Deductive Reasoning___ for mathematics.
A mathematics in a world without Logic is a mathematics without Deductive Reasoning.
Take for example the Pythagorean Theorem of A^2 + B^2 = C^2 of the sides of a right-triangle. The proof of a math conjecture is outside of math itself, and reaches for a new higher level of thought and thinking. That higher level is often called a meta-language. And in the case of all of mathematics--- whenever we want to do a math proof, we go outside of mathematics itself to achieve a math proof.
In fact, without any words we prove the Pythagorean Theorem in a few pictures. See the Internet or Wikipedia of the proof of the Pythagorean theorem without any words, just geometry picture diagrams.
So, we end up with the picture that Logic as a subject is that of Precision Language for correct ideas and that of being Deductive Reasoning. We are left with the picture that Mathematics is the last form of science as being Precision size-quantity (algebra) and precision geometry of shape and figure.
But we should not view the Schemata as top to bottom with Physics on top and Mathematics on bottom, instead we should view the Schemata as a full circle. A circle that comes around.
Where Physics is in the circle and to the right of physics is chemistry and to the left of physics is mathematics, coming around full circle with all the other sciences in between.
Now at this moment I am stuck on another issue--- Is multiplication of math that of Equal-Not of Logic.
I remember somewhere in Algebra, that Multiplication was very unique over addition, subtraction and division. So unique was multiplication that it played a special role in Galois Algebras.
I bring this up because Equal-Not has a truth table of TTTT. The only 4 valued truth table of all Trues. While the next one is addition as AND with truth table TTTF. AND of course is addition in Logic.
The Logical Idea here is that of the 4 out of 6 operators of Math and the 4 out of 6 connectors of Logic, that those four truth tables have to represent these four.
One True TFFF
Two True FTTF
Three True TTTF
Four True TTTT
You see Boole and Jevons never had a logical mind in the first place to create logic. For they were scatterbrained. They had OR with two different types of OR, one called inclusive-or and one called exclusive-or. They did not have a connector of TTTT.
It is multiplication as a combined Equal with Not to form TTTT.
And then there is the mess of Logic as Propositional Logic versus Predicate Logic, where the two quantifiers are made outliers to the other four connectors. Since Boole and Jevons got all 4 operators wrong and in a mess, I am certain that Propositional logic versus Predicate Logic is a mess also.
Taking one more glance at this schemata diagram to see if correct. Yes, I see no trouble in that. For you cannot have a Logic or Mathematics if a Sociology of language is not present. You cannot have a Sociology if you have no minds of psychology. And a mind of psychology cannot exist if there is no physiology.
It is a shame, pitiful shame that Boole and Jevons had no logical minds in the first place to be the fathers of modern logic, because they screwed up on all 4 of the most simple logic connectors--- Equal-Not, AND, OR, If-->Then (some call it Implies; I prefer "moves into" over that of If-->Then).
If Boole and Jevons had had a logical mind, they would have eventually come to the idea in their heads, that all 4 of the Simple Logic Connectors had to be Consistent and Complete. And by consistent OR can have only one truth table for it is hypocritical to have a inclusive Or and a different Or of exclusive. By Complete, Boole and Jevons should have seen that once they had the four simple connectors, that all possible Outcomes should be Available-- One T, Two Ts, Three Ts, and 4 Ts.
One True TFUU which is the If-->Then
Two True FTTF which is the OR
Three True TTTF which is the AND
Four True TTTT which is the Equal-Not
But Boole and Jevons did not have a Logical Mind to be creating Logic. And regrettably, that is why AP is the father of Modern Logic.
I say regrettably because poor Boole was never cut out to be the father of logic. Why he went to school to teach class in a downpour rain forgetting his umbrella and to fix his pneumonia, he and his wife thought that by getting more cold-- taking a cold bath would cure him. We cannot have a father of logic that is logically stupid in daily life living.
You see Boole and Jevons never had a logical mind in the first place to create logic. For they were scatterbrained. They had OR with two different types of OR. They did not have a connector of TTTT.
I realize that the Universal Quantifier has all truth values as being True. For every Atom, has a proton is a universal statement, and true for every Atom. While the Existential Quantifier such as There exists an Atom with only 8 protons, is true for some atoms but false for other atoms.
So, well, I cannot use the Universal Quantifier for the truth table TTTT. And so I realize the fact that only Equal-Not remains to become Multiplication. I realize also that Universal Quantifier is a form of multiplication, and then there is the multiplication of the integral of calculus. While Equal-Not is multiplication of the simple 4 operators of math --- add, subtract, divide and multiply.
So, what I am harping on here is the idea that Mathematics is all a subset of Logic, for everything in math should be gotten from Logic, and Logic of course is a subset of Physics.
So we have in mathematics, actually, 6 operators of add, subtract, divide and multiply with differentiation and integration. And we have in Logic 6 connectors of AND, OR, Implication (If-->Then), Equal-Not, Existential quantifier and Universal quantifier.
To start the truth-tables of Logic for AND, OR, Implication (If-->Then), Equal-Not, I need to start with Existential quantifier moving next into that of Equal-Not for the not-exist possibility and that equality is used in the truth tables themselves.
There is just no getting away from starting Logic with Existence and then not-exist and equality. And since AND is add, OR is subtract, Implication (If-->Then) is division, leaving me only with Equal-Not as having to be Multiplication.
As I said earlier, a hallmark of Logic is Consistency, with no contradictions. When you have truth tables of AND as TFFF in Old Logic and have OR truth table be of two different kinds, like saying there are two different kinds of subtraction in math. With the Inclusive OR as TTTF (the contradiction of saying --- either or or both --- which is like saying in mathematics --- add or subtract or both --- then of course. You can end up saying TFFF equals TTTF by a shifting of a "not" connector, making the Ts be Fs and vice versa, which ends up forming bogus rules of inference and destroys all of Logic.
This is why AP insists for the sake of consistency, that the 4 Connectors have different truth tables as such.
One has one T.
One has two Ts.
One has three Ts.
One has all four being Ts.
The inclusive OR of Old Logic was-- anti-logical, illogical. And Boole, Jevons mixed up AND with exclusive OR. They ended up having AND as subtraction with OR as addition, as used in modern day computers, are programmed with the Boole and Jevons mistake as seen by a post in sci. math, where Franz in Germany is explaining how all modern computers are running on a fake AND and a fake OR.
On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 3:05:40 PM UTC-5, Me (Franz) wrote:
> On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 12:02:25 AM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> > 1) 10 OR 4 = 14
>
> Right! Python:
>
> def OR(x, y):
> return operator.or_(x, y)
>
> print(OR(10, 4))
>
> ==> 14
>
> > 10 AND 4 = 14
>
> Nope. Python:
>
> def AND(x, y):
> return operator.and_(x, y)
>
> print(AND(10, 4))
>
> ==> 0
>
What Boole and Jevons never recognized is an old old old truth about the world we live in. If you have a series of statements to evaluate, and if one just one is true, all the rest are false, then the __overall value of that series of statements__ is itself True. As the saying goes, we do not throw out the baby in the bathe water. For some reason, the illogical minds of both Boole and Jevons never caught that reality. That the true truth table of AND is TTTF, not TFFF.
If you look at Copi's Introduction to Logic, 1972, 4th edition front inside cover he lists (9.) Addition p therefore p OR q. When any clown, or fool knows, that AND is addition.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 3, 2026, 2:50:34 AMJan 3
to Plutonium Atom Universe
3) How do we start Logic-- first with a definition of logic and then the connectors of logic in logical order.
We defined what logic is in the last chapter, now we explore the logic connectors, but where do we start with the Logic connectors?
We start Logic connectors, logically by using good true ideas. Mathematics is long well established science in history. Mathematics is easier to study and learn than is Logic, for logic is far bigger encompassing all ideas while math is confined to arithmetic, algebra and geometry and its most important branch of calculus, where calculus is a mix of geometry and numbers. Logic is a larger set than math and so Logic should contain all of mathematics inside of Logic.
So naturally, we start Logic connectors by using mathematics as a ___guide___ to tell us if our Logic is straight and clear and on track.
Throughout this textbook I am constantly referring to mathematics to settle questions of Logic.
We know that Logic has to define 6 connectors which resemble 6 operators that compose all of mathematics. All of mathematics has 6 operators running through mathematics and those are (1) Addition (2) Subtraction (3) Multiplication (4) Division (5) Derivative of calculus (6) Integral of calculus.
I highly recommend that students take Logic only after they have taken calculus in college, not before. I say this especially on the concern that derivative of calculus is the Logic existential quantifier and also resembles the If-->Then connector. A student of this textbook cannot appreciate those ideas without taking calculus beforehand. And the student may very well struggle in this course without taking calculus first.
And a student of calculus, that has learned calculus well, will know that Calculus in its Coordinate System of graphing and functions is the geometry of mathematics. In a real sense, geometry is played out in mathematics by the derivative giving lines, angles and integral giving area and volume. So definitely, in college, take calculus before taking logic and let the ideas of calculus settle into the mind before taking this Logic.
So, since all of mathematics is inside of Logic, the main connectors of Logic have to reflect and resemble the 6 operators of Mathematics.
The 6 Connectors of Logic
-------------------------
Not-Equal
And
Or
If--> Then
For Every
The 6 Operators of Mathematics
------------------------------------------------------
The 6 Operators of Mathematics
------------------------------------------------------
Derivative (which is the existential quantifier)
Multiplication (which is Equal-Not)
Addition (which is And)
Subtraction (which is Or)
Division (which is If-->Then)
Integral (which is the universal quantifier)
So, what Logic does, is to fully use mathematics to release and understand what the true connectors, the 6 connectors of Logic are because mathematics is a guide post on what those connectors are.Multiplication (which is Equal-Not)
Addition (which is And)
Subtraction (which is Or)
Division (which is If-->Then)
Integral (which is the universal quantifier)
When I first started writing this textbook of 1st year Logic back in April 2025 and now is November 2025, I was mistakenly believing that Equal-Not should be the first connector of Logic. I reasoned this logically, because the truth tables all needed the equal sign for true or false for the connectors of AND, OR, If-->Then, Equal-Not.
Makes sense that Equal-Not should be the first connector for the other 3 all need to use Equality in their truth table.
But then in October-November 2025, I started to do the chapter on Consistency for this book and realized that Equal-Not is not the starting concept for Logic, but rather instead, I had to start Logic with Existence.
Makes sense, why bother with reasoning if something does not even exist.
And so, here, I realized that I had to start the 6 connectors of Logic with the Existence quantifier and to talk about "What is true" and the truth-tables.
No point in reasoning of ideas if none of the ideas have material existence.
What is truth and true is a major question. And the answer naturally is that the laws of science are our highest truth givers.
Every time we question if an idea is true or false, we call upon the relevant science and see what the science has to say on the issue. Whether we have existence in the ideas and the truth value of those ideas.
We start the logic connectors with Existential quantifier. Then we tack on Not-Equal, then we tack on AND, then OR, then If-->Then and finally the Universal quantifier.
4) What is the physics concept of True and of False?
My logic textbooks, the two of them, this and Advanced Logic are the first logic books written by an author who had a "logical mind to write a logic book".
Some examples of Logic:
(1) There never existed a logic textbook written by an author who had a logical mind until AP.
(2) All logic textbooks ever written were littered and ridden with error, for the author had no logical mind to write a logic book.
(3) When you do not have a logical mind, then, do not write a textbook on Logic.
(4) All textbooks on logic before AP were full of errors, because you have to have a logical mind in order to write on Logic.
(5) When modern day computers use the OR connector of Logic, not the AND connector, for math arithmetic addition, tells us there is some deep deep problem of insanity in Logic.
(6) Even humpty-dumpty who sat on a wall has more logical brains than modern day logicians who have two types of OR connector and use one of them for addition in arithmetic, instead of using AND.
(7) All logicians before AP, not a one had logical brains to see if their logic was consistent and not contradictory, but no, none saw addition as OR amiss.
(8) If modern logicians went back to see if logic is consistent, one of them should have realized that division by zero is undefined, yet nothing in their logic can match division by zero.
(9) If modern logicians looked at their logic and asked if it is reasonable for Copi to have 19 Rules of Inference, invoking consistency, should have come to realize that having so much Equality between the simple connectors, they would only need 2 connectors and throwing out all the other connectors. This is what happens when logicians never check for consistency. The simple connectors need to be Unique, and thus you cannot throw any out, and none of the 6 equals the others. About the only Rules of Inference that Copi should list is commutative, associative and distributive, just like in math arithmetic.
10) If modern logicians had a logical brain they would have seen that Science gives us the Truth of the World, thus, their truth tables should be centered and focused on what Science determines Truth, and what is the concept of "false" for physics????? The concept of false for physics is zero or nothing. So the truth tables need revamping to meet the demands of Science on what is True, and what does Science well define as "false"?
Suppose the science of Physics could speak to humanity in terms of statements like the P, Q, R found in Logic. And we asked Physics what is the concept of "True" and of "False". For much of Logic is about truth tables and whether a statement is true or false and whether a conclusion is true or false.
What would Physics answer to the human question of "What is true and what is false"?
What is the physics concept of True and of False?
But how do we know a statement-idea is true or is false? And here is why Logic is below all the sciences except for mathematics which is last of the sciences. Because the Truth or Falsity of an idea in a statement P, Q is obtained from all the other sciences of their universal laws of science. If we had the statement-- P = Thrusting a bar magnet through a coil of copper produces no electric current. That would be false because it violates the Faraday law in electromagnetism.
All of the truths in logic come from comparing the statements of ideas made in logic, comparing those statements up against the Laws of Science.
So we have an opportunity to speak with the science of Physics and ask Physics directly-- What is true in physics and what is false? Physics would answer this.
AP asks: Physics, what is truth and what is falsehood in the realm of physics as a science?
Physics (if it could talk): Truth in physics are all the laws of physics, especially the electromagnetic laws, but also all the other laws of the sciences such as chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology etc etc. And those laws are universal and obtained via experiments.
AP: Thanks physics but what is falsehood in physics?
Physics (if it could speak): Any violation of laws of physics or the other sciences is a falsehood. And we designate a falsehood in science as being zero, 0, for being nothing, and having a 0 value. Physics recognizes truth by a T meaning it obeys Laws of Physics, and recognizes not obeying laws of physics with a 0 for nothing. In Physics we have the law of Absolute 0 degrees Kelvin is never attainable. You can get close but the closer you get to 0 Kelvin the more energy is required to get even closer. And physics has the law that the Speed of Light is a constant Maximum speed, no speed faster than Light speed. So the realm of Physics are from a 0 to a Light speed maximum a positive number. Falsehood is zero, truth is all along from 0 to maximum positive number.
So when Humans have a truth table for AND as this. Those of us in Physics see that as excessive.
Human AND truth table
P Q P AND Q
T F = T
F T = T
F F = F
Physics AND truth table where falsehood is labeled as zero, as nothing
P Q P AND Q
T 0 = T
0 T = T
AP: So physics AND truth table does not even bother to list the 4th row of F AND F = F?
Physics: That is correct, why list "nothing". Take for example the Human truth table for OR of Logic.
Human OR truth table
P Q P OR Q
T T = F
T F = T
F T = T
F F = F
Physics OR truth table where falsehood is labeled as zero, as nothing.
P Q P OR Q
T 0 = T
0 T = T
Physics: The physics OR truth table is only two rows because the OR mechanism is one of "remove". If you remove T from T you end up with nothing, likewise if you remove F from F you end up with nothing. Hence you do not even write those rows. The mechanism in AND is that of joining together, the union in set theory and the addition in arithmetic. A old saying aptly describes AND as "we do not throw out the baby in the bathe water". So as long as a String-of-Statements has at least one true truth value, the entire string of statements is warranted as True.
AP: What is the IF-->Then connector in Physics?
Physics: Yes, the division or derivative connector, the "Move into" mechanism of Logic. Some like to call it implication, or material implication. Its truth table is a mere one row.
Human If-->then truth table
P Q If P then Q
T T = T
T F = F
F T = U for unknown
F F = U for unknown
Physics If --> Then truth table
P Q P OR Q
T T = T
AP: short and sweet, only one row truth table and why bother to list 3 other rows that are "nothing rows".
Physics: Yes, humans love to list nothing even when it causes them to make more mistakes.
Physics: But there is a truth table in Logic that is all 4 rows as true, and it is multiplication for arithmetic, and it is the assembling of both Equal with Not to form 4 rows of truth.
Human Equal+Not truth table
P Q P equal-not Q
T T = T where equality law is observed
T F =/= T where the Not is not distributive law imposed
F T =/= T where the Not is not distributive law imposed
F F = T where equality law is observed
Physics Equal-not truth table
P Q P equal-not Q
T T = T where equality law is observed
T F = T where the Not is imposed in distributive law
F T = T where the Not is imposed in distributive law
F F = T where equality law is observed
Physics: Equal is a binary operator as well as Not is binary, but when we join them together we get 4 rows instead of 2 rows for a 4 row truth table. And when we apply Not to that of Equal in the 2nd and 3rd row we cause to create the Distributive law of arithmetic. The Distributive law is borne and created in the Equal-Not truth table.
I should continue this conversation between Physics and myself AP, for much of human discussions with Logic involved amount to nothing, and what better way of pointing that out with --- then talking with Physics.
AP: short and sweet, only one row truth table for If-->Then and why bother to list 3 other rows that are "nothing rows".
Physics: Yes, humans love to list nothing even when it causes them to make more mistakes.
I wrote the schemata diagram with physics on top and next to last was logic and last was mathematics, where Logic stands in relation to other sciences. This is important for the fact of gaining Truth or Falsity values. When we make a statement and connect that statement to other statements, such as P AND Q, or, If P then Q, then we need something to measure and determine the truth value of P and of Q and however many other statements are connected in the argument. This Truth value measure is carried out by the sciences of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, Geology and thousands of specialized sciences using the Scientific Method. So, one can see that Logic is the science of reasoning with true ideas and communicating clear and straight and true ideas, from the help of other sciences.
Of course in human conversations we can be sly, devious and deceitful or playful, fun and flirting in romance to say things of nothing with no truth value.
But this raises the issue of Examples given in old textbooks of Logic like Copi and Thomason; and the question of whether they are even examples at all. Because of truth value determination.
As I posted earlier, when Physics speaks of Logic, Physics only lists the rows in which the connector of statements has a true truth value and dismisses statements that are false.
So, let me see where Copi makes his first logical argument in his 4th edition, 1972, Introduction to Logic. And where Thomason, 1970 Symbolic Logic An Introduction makes his first logical argument. Bearing in mind, that a logical argument must have true premisses to form a conclusion.
Example: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal. The two premisses are biologically sound which leads to a valid conclusion. But this next argument that is often seen is invalid. All crows are black. Yonder in corn field are crows. Therefore they are black. This argument is invalid because science easily proves not all crows are black. So no need to proceed any further and ask the person making the argument to come up with a Truthful argument.
What I am getting at here, is that so many examples in Logic have false premisses and should throw those arguments out. And tell the person to check the relevant science known and to make a new argument.
So in New Logic, we examine arguments to see if they are sound arguments supported by science as the Truth giver of premisses.
Suppose we teach mathematics. And in class we make a argument that Subtract 4, next, add negative 6 thus becomes negative 10. Is this a valid argument of Logic? The answer is no, it is junk. Because Subtract 4 is meaningless for you can only subtract (remove) from a larger positive number or the number itself. And the second premiss is false for negative numbers do not exist.
Let us try an example from geometry. The slant cut of a right circular cone is an ellipse, because all math textbooks says so. This argument is invalid and should not even be listed as an example because the slant cut of cone is actually an oval, never ellipse for right circular cone. So the premisses are false and thus we have no argument of logic.
The point I am making is that the Truth value of premisses has to be checked for truth or falsity before any such premisses can go into being used at all in an argument. And science determines the truth value. But college and university classrooms of Logic never understood, that an argument of Logic has to have true premisses in order to make a Logic Argument proceed. All the premisses of a Logic argument must have a true truth value to proceed further.
As the Physics said earlier-- the If--> Then is the argument and the premisses have to be true. Now a premiss can be a AND connector with a false add-on, which we view as just chatter in the argument.
Example: If Mars is the 4th planet from the Sun and that Venus has life on it, then there are 3 other planets between the Sun and Mars.
So astronomy can prove the truth value that Mars is the 4th planet. The AND connector added on a chatter box idea which is either false or true, but that is alright because AND connector allows for nonsense chatter so long as it has a true premiss.
So if we take all college and university Logic textbooks and omit all the arguments which have false premisses unchecked by science and tossed them out. Then books like Copi or Thomason and so many textbooks of logic would end up having a large percentage of their examples discarded as trash examples.
Looking in Copi on page 12 has a logic argument worth including.
"Venus and Mercury must revolve around the sun, because of their never moving far away from it, and because of their being seen now beyond it and now on this side of it..." Galileo
Copi on page 8 has an argument that is not even a argument of logic at all for its premisses are not true.
"In a democracy the poor have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme." In this argument the premiss "will of the majority is supreme" is not supported by the science of sociology, in fact, more and more the USA by 2025 is controlled and run by rich people.
Thomason on page 12 provides this logical argument "If Jones is an honest man, he will not be arrested by the police. Jones will be arrested by the police. Therefore Jones is not an honest man." Only it is junk and not an argument at all for the premiss "If Jones is an honest man, he will not be arrested by the police" is not a true statement in view of sociology science. All logic arguments need to have true premisses in order for logic to kick-in and determine the conclusions and whether valid conclusions. I am saying that all logic textbooks before AP's textbook have very few examples and arguments of Logic at all, and are mostly chitter chatter junk arguments not worth writing down.
I endorse a classroom in which it was encouraged that the students be argumentative over Propositions as premisses being asserted and listed for which the teacher would then form a conclusion. Provided the premisses are true. And it is the students job to evaluate by their science knowledge if the premiss was a piece of junk and thus the entire argument a piece of junk not worth going any further.
Now here is one from Copi given by Aristotle. "Poetry is finer and more philosophical than history; for poetry expresses the universal and history only the particular." (Aristotle, Poetics)
Now we can excuse Aristotle for making this junk argument that is not even logical. Excuse him because Science during the time of Aristotle was primitive and not well developed or understood. So we can excuse Aristotle on that ground. But if someone tried making that argument today in logic, would be tossed out as junk for the premisses are false--- "poetry expresses the universal and history expresses the particular" are two premisses found false by sociology science.
AP writes: Pragmatism philosophy would say that the function of poetry is "Poetry at its best is using as few of words as possible, and pretty words with rhyme and rhythm to get across a idea or feeling or sentiment." Poetry is dressed up Language to convey an idea. Logic is about ideas and the mechanics of ideas. So that Aristotle had no Logical Argument for he had false premisses.
So, what I am saying is, a Logic Argument must have true premisses determined by science (although some premisses can be long winded with AND chatterbox add-ons), in order to *be* a Logic Argument and to thus provide a logical conclusion.
I am also saying--- every logic argument presented to us, must go through a Check-up Test by the best available science on the topic to see if it has true premisses and can go on for determining a valid conclusion, otherwise it is thrown into the trash as junk.
Physics is the science of material objects, mass, motion, energy. Biology is the science of living objects and how living organisms behave in the environment. Logic is the science of correct use of language in communicating ideas and forming conclusions from those ideas. Mathematics is the science of correct use of the language of numbers-size and geometry figures and shapes. Just as mathematics is the correct use of numbers and figures of geometry, that Logic is the correct use of ideas and thoughts. In math we have numbers like 1,2,3,4, ... and figures of geometry like line, plane, square, rectangle, circle. In Logic we have statements of ideas and can label them as p, q, r, s, t, u, v, ... Math manipulates numbers and figures while Logic manipulates ideas as statements of a language. Sciences, logic and mathematics can be put into a diagram of subsets, where Physics is on top.
Physics
/
Chemistry
/
Astronomy, Geology
/
Biology which includes Sociology and Language
/
Logic
/
Mathematics
AP Principle to Form an Argument of Logic-- all the premisses must be true as checked by science to have an argument of logic. Some of the premisses are with the AND connector which has a true statement but may contain chatter box junk. But the important issue is that all the premisses are supported by current science.
An example: For it is safe to say Aristotle in Ancient Greek times started Logic with this argument.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
In today's Logic, filled with science truth and all premisses true, the above looks more like this.
From biology there exists a species Homo sapiens composed of female as XX chromosomes and male with XY chromosomes and about half of all humans are male-- men. Homo sapiens is mortal in that biology notes that no human lives longer than 114 years and normally 99.99% of humans do not reach the age of 100 years.
Socrates existed from about 470 to 399 BC and was mortal, living for 71 years and died because he was forced to drink hemlock poison. Biology science to date knows of no living organism that lives forever and is immortal. Therefore, Socrates was mortal.
The sense I want to impart on the reader, is that a logical argument is heavily tilted toward science speak, even in the most mundane logic argument.
Example:
The family of parents John and Joan are deciding where to go on vacation with the 2 kids.
John wants to go West to a National Park to see wild wolves and wild bears because the kids want that.
While Joan wants to go East to visit her family because her parents are ill.
So John and Joan decide that they will call Joan's parents and have them decide where to vacation.
They call the parents and were told to go out West.
Therefore, they vacationed out West.
That same argument in science speak.
A working family often has a yearly vacation for the parent to revitalize his outlook of the job as shown in studies of sociology.
Vacations are fun for kids as they see new things.
The choice of where to vacation should lie in all the parents and extended family as shown in sociology studies.
The entire family and extended family get involved.
Therefore the choice was made by a vote to go out West to Yellowstone National Park.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 3, 2026, 2:52:23 AM (14 days ago) Jan 3
to Plutonium Atom Universe
5) The Logic Truth Tables in detail.
Corrected Old Logic AND truth table where AND is seen as addition of arithmetic; seen as joining together.
P Q P AND Q
T T = T
T F = T
F T = T
F F = F
And the answer lies in the idea that you want all possible outcomes for statement of idea P combined with statement of idea Q.
So that the truth table for 2 statements, the P will always be this:
P
---
T
T
F
F
And the Q will always to this:
Q
----
T
F
T
F
This is so to capture all the possible outcomes. If there were 3 variables of P, Q, R, then you need 8 rows to capture all the possible combinations.
P Q R
------------------
T T T
T T F
T F T
T F F
F T F
F F T
F F F
Does the reader see the pattern? It is a pattern that captures all possibilities of statements truth values given a specific number of variables P, Q, R, S, T etc.
We compare this pattern to mathematics of a true false test.
Total possibilities for a test of 2 questions with 2 answers is 2^2
Total possibilities for a test of 3 questions with 2 answers is 2^3
Total possibilities for a test of 4 questions with 2 answers is 2^4
(Mathematical Induction for a proof of this-- that the total possibilities are 2^m where m is the number of questions in math or the number of variables in Logic.)
Fundamental Counting Principle: To find the number of ways of making several decisions in succession, multiply the numbers of choices that can be made in each decision. (from Harold Jacobs, Mathematics a Human Endeavor)
Here again, we can see that Logic comes from Physics and is a subset of physics, for quantum mechanics is probability theory in order to get to the Fundamental Counting Principle.
In Physics we have Zero or Nothing in the idea that Absolute 0 Kelvin temperature is unattainable. This also proves that Negative numbers do not exist and never existed.
Physics has an infinity borderline because physics has a maximum constant speed of Light at 3.16*10^8 meters/second. Makes sense that if the world has a maximum speed, the speed of Light then the world has a maximum number that composes a infinity borderline, which is from Huygens tractrix is 1*10^604.
Everything in Math is of a positive value and in geometry is all mapped out in 1st Quadrant Only.
It is unfortunate that math named subtraction as subtraction for a better name for it would have been Remove. If math had used the term "Remove" you cannot remove (you cannot subtract) more than what is available to remove, then math and physics would never have negative numbers.
I start Logic with mathematics and used math to guide me. But now I shift over to physics for answers.
Physics has 0 and it has infinity borderline which comes to be 1*10^604 and its inverse. It is where pi digits has 3 zero digits in a row. If we climb back to 1*10^600, just before we slam into those 3 zero digits in a row, we find that the Speed of Light as 3.16*10^8 meters/second divides into 10^600 by 10^75. For 8 x 75 =600.
Meters and seconds are arbitrary until you ask the question what is the speed of light inside a proton torus with muons inside of an atom like hydrogen or helium. Meters and seconds are no longer arbitrary inside the proton torus. And it is here where you get the 10^75 factor.
Now, I have to shift over to Physics, for answers upon Logic, I start with Existence quantifier first and then go to Not-Equal because we need existence to start with. After existence we need "not" combined with "equality".
Equality to get at the AND, OR, IF-->Then. And it is with Not-Equal that we introduce the Distributive Law. Do you remember the distributive law in mathematics class? It is for example this A(B + C) = AB + AC, for example 2(3+4) = 2*3 + 2*4. It turns out that the distributive law is more essential for the beginning of Logic than is the commutative or associative laws. Commutative and associative laws are about the order in which you add or multiply. For example of commutative is 3+4 = 4+3 for add and 3*4 = 4*3. For example the associative is A+(B+C) = (A+B) + C, where you have to do what is inside the parenthesis first. Example 1+(2+3) = (1+2)+3. You see the order in which you add matters not. And for multiplication associative we have (A*B)*C = A*(B*C), for example (10*100)*1000 = 10*(100*1000). Distributive law has a mix of addition with multiplication.
Now physics also introduces Probability theory into Logic and into its subset--- all of mathematics. The way Physics introduces probability is through what it calls Psi-squared and that comes from physics being all about electricity and magnetism which are perpendicular to one another and obeys the Pythagorean Theorem of Geometry.
Pythagorean Triples and multiples of P-triples:
1, 2, 2, 3 for 1+4+4=9
3,4,5 for 9+16=25
1,1,3,5,6,7 for 1+1+9+25+36+49 =121
5,12,13
8, 15, 17
7, 24, 25
Physics delivers what exists in Space geometry and Physics delivers universal laws of the world.
We start Logic with Mathematics first through the Existential quantifier, next the Not-Equal and move down into the details of Logic. We use mathematics to reveal the essentials of Logic for Logic is a larger set than is mathematics, but mathematics is easier to understand what the details of logic are.
So if we take "Physics looking at the World" as opposed to "A human looking at the world". An idea for the human would be either true of false. But that same idea for Physics is given a value of either "zero or nothing" versus an idea that has "existence in material science".
So when Physics looks at a statement --- The Earth is the 4th planet from the Sun. Physics does not say "false" but rather, says-- "zero or nothing". When Humans look at that statement, they say "false".
And "nothing or zero" comes from physics in the Absolute 0 Kelvin temperature, nothing beyond zero.
Calculus forms existence in the derivative, the dy/dx as it moves along the x-axis, the function lands on a y-value, a unique y value and so that causes the existence of a unique coordinate point, a single 1 point to exist. The derivative thus creates Existence quantifier, and that it lands on a unique y-value. Physics Absolute 0 temperature and the derivative of calculus creates 0 and creates 1.
This is where Logic gets entangled with science. It starts with the question of existence of something and goes to the relevant science of that topic.
In mathematics, logic starts with the existence question of 0 and existence of 1. Then Logic turns to the concepts of Not and of Equal. Does 0 exist, or not exist. Does 1 exist or not exist. Logic then asks what is 0 equal to and what is 1 equal to? Is 5 subtract 5 equal to 0? Is 1/8 of 8 equal to 1?? But to define Equal, Logic needs the Not connector, becoming Not-Equal all wrapped up together into one package in order to well define the other connectors of AND, OR, IF-->Then, Universal quantifier.
We start Logic connectors with Existence. Then we move to well-defining Not-Equal so we can well define all the other connectors.
Let us look at Truth Tables in terms of mathematics as 1 and 0 for addition, subtraction, and division. I leave out multiplication because that involves Not-Equal with a distributive law.
Addition truth table of Arithmetic
-----------------------------------------
P Q P + Q
1 1 2
1 0 1
0 1 1
0 0 0
So 1 is true as existence of 1, while 0 in physics is "nothing or no existence". That math truth table implies or moves-into the idea that the truth table for AND connector is TTTF.
Subtraction truth table of Arithmetic
-----------------------------------------------
P Q P - Q
1 1 0
1 0 1
0 1 1
0 0 0
That table implies subtraction is remove, whether we remove a 0 or a 1 or a 1 from 1. That table also implies OR connector is subtraction with FTTF. Now here we must also consider that we remove P or remove Q or we can subtract P from Q or subtract Q from P.
Division truth table of Arithmetic
-----------------------------------------------
P Q P divide into Q
1 1 1
1 0 0
0 1 undefined
0 0 undefined
That table implies the material conditional of logic the If-->Then truth table as being TFUU.
We take up the multiplication truth table later in this textbook. It is complicated by the fact that we have a binary row for equal, T = T and F=F and we have a binary row for Not in which we combine the two binaries to make a 4 row truth table using the distributive law of arithmetic.
6) The AP Principle of Well Defining a concept.
Ideas have to be clear, crystal clear in order to be able to work with them.
I do not recall when Wikipedia first came out. I would guess in late 1990s. I do remember coming to Usenet in August of 1993 with posts on mathematics and my Atom Totality theory. But once Wikipedia started to come to the Internet, I often used it to look up science concepts. It was fast and easy.
But I soon discovered an unpleasant reality about Wikipedia science entries. Many in physics were obfuscation as I looked up a term. And then it dawned on me. That the authors of many physics or math or science concepts were unpaid authors and were contributing their thoughts as to what the definition was. And these free authors had no Logic training. And many were writing the entries of science for they failed in that science and as some showmanship, the author is getting back at the schools that failed them in science. So that their writing a definition would often have terms that were more complex than the term they are trying to define. I do have a logical mind and so I began to complain that most of the science entrees into Wikipedia were not definitions but obfuscation of what is attempted to be defined.
Sometime in the past 2 or 3 decades, I realized there had to be a principle of Logic, that when you define a concept, you can ___only define it by using more simple terms___, more simple terms to establish a definition.
So often I found myself looking up a concept in Wikipedia such as superdeterminism and finding myself in a run around looking up more complicated terms. Not only physics but mathematics also.
Wikipedia is notorious for violating AP's Logic Principle of Well Defined Definitions.
The principle simply says, you cannot define a concept by using terms that are more complex than what you are trying to define. Take a look at any of 10 physics entries in Wikipedia of defining a concept and I bet that about 80 to 90% of those definitions violate AP's principle. Which is often very frustrating. You want to know what a concept is, and presented by Wikipedia a nauseous blather of terms of more complexity than the concept you originally seeked to understand.
Here is an example in physics, where I look up the term of "superdeterminism" and Wikipedia defines with this blather.
--- quoting Wikipedia---
In quantum mechanics, superdeterminism is a loophole in Bell's theorem. By postulating that all systems being measured are correlated with the choices of which measurements to make on them, the assumptions of the theorem are no longer fulfilled. A hidden variables theory which is superdeterministic can thus fulfill Bell's notion of local causality and still violate the inequalities derived from Bell's theorem.
--- end quoting Wikipedia---
This is a major problem of Wikipedia as it hires for free, failures of physics to write many entries, yet having no logical brains to be writing on physics at all. In my opinion the above was written by a failed person of physics. Or, likely some fool in philosophy cranking up a physics definition.
Here is what a definition of Superdeterminism looks like where the terms are much more simple than the concept being defined. And thus the concept Superdeterminism is made accessible to the new reader.
AP well-defining Superdeterminism.
Superdeterminism-- John Bell coined the term after he published his Bell Inequality. And what Bell means by Superdeterminism is the complete absence of free-will. A World where every action, or thought is made by some superior power and humans as puppets are forced to make those actions and thoughts of the super power.
Actually, here I have where John Bell well-defines superdeterminism himself, and let the reader compare what the crank in Wikipedia wrote and what John Bell wrote.
Here is John Bell defining what Superdeterminism is:
--- Bell stated on the BBC ---
"There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and
spooky action at a distance. But it (Superdeterminism) involves
absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free
will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just
inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our
behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears.
There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what
measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe,
including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its
outcome, will be."
--- end Bell quote ---
--- further statement by John Bell to the BBC on Superdeterminism ---
"The only alternative to quantum probabilities, superpositions of
states, collapse of the wavefunction, and spooky action at a distance,
is that everything is superdetermined. For me it is a dilemma. I think
it is a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things."
--- end Bell quote---
Of course AP found the solution, and wished that John Bell had lived to far beyond November 1990, but John died in October 1990. It was not until 1993 that the Atom Totality was published on the Internet. A Atom Totality is the super power that causes Superdeterminism--- the total absence of free-will. We are all puppets to the Atom Totality.
So often, especially physics in Wikipedia is burdened by fools as editors, as writers who know not what they talk about, and have almost a 0 logic IQ.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 3, 2026, 2:55:06 AM (14 days ago) Jan 3
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Part 2, A short brief history of Logic.
7) Logic, formally starts in Ancient Greek time, along with deductive mathematics.
Logic has had a sad history in Modern Times. Actually the start of Logic in Ancient Greek times, that of Aristotle, shone brighter than the modern logic of Boole and Jevons of the 1800s. I say that because, Aristotle and Socrates Logic got many things correct and was a start of Logical Science. It is more difficult to start a Logical Science, than, to later contribute to it, such as Boole and Jevons contributing.
Modern Logic has the 4 most simple connectors-- Equal-Not, AND, OR, IF-->Then.
AND truth table is truly TTTF, not TFFF.
OR truth table is truly FTTF, not the mindless two types of OR, for Boole and Jevons made huge mistakes of Logic especially OR, thinking you could have two different types of OR and not be contradictory. No-one thinks subtraction in math should have two independent different types of subtraction.
In this book I contend that Boole and Jevons never had a logical-mind in the first place and so their logic was going to end mostly in failure.
Equal-Not must be combined as one truth table to establish a TTTT truth table, and not the idiotic separate two tables of p and q statements which is a 2 tier for Equal alone, and a 2 tier for Not, alone. They should be combined into forming a 4 tier such as AND, and as OR are 4 tier, as well as If-->then is 4 tier. This is what I mean that Boole and Jevons never had a logical mind in the first place to be doing logic.
If-->Then must be TFUU where U stands for Unknown so that Logic is greater than Mathematics to handle division by 0.
Logic history starts in Ancient Greek times with Aristotle and with syllogisms such as this one from Aristotle.
A syllogism is simply an argument of Logic, and happens to be the shortest logic argument of 2 lines and a conclusion. We get to more complex and complicated arguments later in this textbook.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
And it is not coincidental that the Ancient Greeks, along with inventing Logic arguments, also were the inventors of the math deductive proof. The Ancient Greeks started to do math proofs, such as the Pythagorean theorem and such magnificent proofs as the existence of just 5 regular polyhedra (only AP found a 6th and 7th in recent times, see AP's #302 book, 7 Regular Polyhedra and overhaul of geometry axioms// math research).
Ancient Greek times was a time of wealth and with wealth allows the coming into existence of schools and education.
When I was in High School, Ancient History classes had chapters on Ancient Greek times and prominent was Socrates, whose student was Plato and Plato's student was Aristotle.
Unfortunately for Archimedes, actually, the greatest thinker of Ancient Greek times was Democritus with the Atomic theory who was a younger contemporary Socrates in 460BC in Abdera, Thrace. Greater than even Archimedes in Siracusa, 287-212BC, as the Atomic Theory is central to physics, and physics the greatest science of all.
Did Democritus and Socrates ever meet each other? Plato would also be a contemporary of Democritus. So did the three know each other???
Can we say that Physics starts with Democritus? We sure can say that Chemistry starts with Democritus and the atomic theory.
No, I would say that Thales in Miletus started Physics for he starts electricity of rubbed amber by fur, and with the lodestone as a magnet attracts iron. This was about 600 BC compared to Leucippus-Democritus atomic theory of 5th century BC.
It is marvelous that both electricity and magnetism were discovered at the same time and a hundred years later the Atomic theory was started.
For the Axiom Principle over all of science is --- All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism.
And if Superdeterminism is real and true, the start of electricity and magnetism and the Atomic theory should come in history near one another and at the same time.
--- quoting Wikipedia---
Democritus
A philosopher, possibly Democritus. Casting of bust of the Villa of the Papyri.
Born
c. 460 BC
Abdera, Thrace
Died
c. 370 BC (aged approximately 90)
Philosophical work
Era
Pre-Socratic philosophy
Region
Western philosophy
School
Atomism
Main interests
Nature
Notable ideas
Atoms and the void as the fundamental constituents of the physical world
Democritus (/dɪˈmɒkrɪtəs/, dim-OCK-rit-əs; Greek: Δημόκριτος, Dēmókritos, meaning "chosen of the people"; c. 460 – c. 370 BC) was an Ancient Greek pre-Socratic philosopher from Abdera, primarily remembered today for his formulation of an atomic theory of the universe. Democritus wrote extensively on a wide variety of topics.
None of Democritus' original work has survived, except through second-hand references. Many of these references come from Aristotle, who viewed him as an important rival in the field of natural philosophy. He was known in antiquity as the ‘laughing philosopher’ because of his emphasis on the value of cheerfulness.
Life
Democritus among the Abderites
Although many anecdotes about Democritus' life survive, their authenticity cannot be verified and modern scholars doubt their accuracy.
According to Aristotle, Democritus was born in Abdera, on the coast of Thrace. He was a polymath and prolific writer, producing nearly eighty treatises on subjects such as poetry, harmony, military tactics, and Babylonian theology. Some called him a Milesian, and the name of his father too is stated differently. His birth year was fixed by Apollodorus in the first year of the 80th Olympiad, or 460 BC, while Thrasyllus had referred it to as the 3rd year of the 77th Olympiad. Democritus had called himself forty years younger than Anaxagoras. His father, Hegesistratus,--or as others called him Damasippus or Athenocritus,--was possessed of so large a property, that he was able to receive and treat Xerxes on his march through Abdera.
Democritus spent the inheritance, which his father left him, on travels into distant countries, which he undertook to satisfy his extraordinary thirst for knowledge. He travelled over a great part of Asia, and, as some state, he even reached India and Aethiopia. We know that he wrote on Babylon and Meroe; he must also have visited Egypt, and Diodorus Siculus even states, that he lived there for a period of five years. He himself declared, that among his contemporaries none had made greater journeys, seen more countries, and made the acquaintance of more men distinguished in every kind of science than himself. Among the last he mentions in particular the Egyptian mathematicians (ἀρπεδόναπ-ται ; comp. Sturz, de Dialect. Maced. p. 98), whose knowledge he praises, without, however, regarding himself inferior to them. Theophrastus, too, spoke of him as a man who had seen many countries. It was his desire to acquire an extensive knowledge of nature that led him into distant countries at a time when travelling was the principal means of acquiring an intellectual and scientific culture; and after returning to his native land he occupied himself only with philosophical investigations, especially such as related to natural history.
--- end quoting Wikipedia---
I remember in High School stories of Socrates were on TV in the 1960s, I guess more because of the way he died, than his teachings. I remember him more for his brilliant arguments, lengthy long arguments.
--- quoting Wikipedia on Socrates---
Socrates (/ˈsɒkrətiːz/; Ancient Greek: Σωκράτης, romanized: Sōkrátēs; c. 470 – 399 BC) was an ancient Greek philosopher from Athens who is credited as the founder of Western philosophy and as among the first moral philosophers of the ethical tradition of thought. An enigmatic figure, Socrates authored no texts and is known mainly through the posthumous accounts of classical writers, particularly his students Plato and Xenophon. These accounts are written as dialogues, in which Socrates and his interlocutors examine a subject in the style of question and answer; they gave rise to the Socratic dialogue literary genre. Contradictory accounts of Socrates make a reconstruction of his philosophy nearly impossible, a situation known as the Socratic problem. Socrates was a polarizing figure in Athenian society. In 399 BC, he was accused of impiety and corrupting the youth. After a trial that lasted a day, he was sentenced to death. He spent his last day in prison, refusing offers to help him escape.
Plato's dialogues are among the most comprehensive accounts of Socrates to survive from antiquity. They demonstrate the Socratic approach to areas of philosophy including epistemology and ethics. The Platonic Socrates lends his name to the concept of the Socratic method, and also to Socratic irony. The Socratic method of questioning, or elenchus, takes shape in dialogue using short questions and answers, epitomized by those Platonic texts in which Socrates and his interlocutors examine various aspects of an issue or an abstract meaning, usually relating to one of the virtues, and find themselves at an impasse, completely unable to define what they thought they understood. Socrates is known for proclaiming his total ignorance; he used to say that the only thing he was aware of was his ignorance, seeking to imply that the realization of one's ignorance is the first step in philosophizing.
--- end quoting Wikipedia on Socrates---
Then in history comes Plato student of Socrates. I remember Plato mostly for his "being and becoming arguments".
--- quoting Wikipedia on Plato---
Plato (/ˈpleɪtoʊ/ PLAY-toe; Greek: Πλάτων, Plátōn; born c. 428–423 BC, died 348/347 BC) was an ancient Greek philosopher of the Classical period who is considered a foundational thinker in Western philosophy and an innovator of the written dialogue and dialectic forms. He influenced all the major areas of theoretical philosophy and practical philosophy, and was the founder of the Platonic Academy, a philosophical school in Athens where Plato taught the doctrines that would later become known as Platonism.
Plato's most famous contribution is the theory of forms (or ideas), which aims to solve what is now known as the problem of universals. He was influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, although much of what is known about them is derived from Plato himself.
Along with his teacher Socrates, and his student Aristotle, Plato is a central figure in the history of Western philosophy. Plato's complete works are believed to have survived for over 2,400 years—unlike that of nearly all of his contemporaries. Although their popularity has fluctuated, they have consistently been read and studied through the ages. Through Neoplatonism, he also influenced both Christian and Islamic philosophy. In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
--- end quoting Wikipedia on Plato---
I invite the reader to figure out the age of lifespan of Socrates and of Plato and of Aristotle given their date of birth and death as a homework exercise for students in class. Using the Scientific Method discussed earlier, run through a formula that easily tells you the lifespan of persons who lived before 0 AD where today we simply subtract the date of birth from the date of death. For example, John Bell the engineer who discovered superdeterminism. He was born 1928 and died 1990. So to figure out lifespan in modern times we simply take the date of death and subtract date of birth gives us 1990 - 1928 = 62 years of life. Using the Scientific Method and plenty of logical thought, figure out the lifespan of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, and Democritus and Archimedes. And find the easiest reasonable way of determining their age at death, considering it is denoted in BC time. Find a formula.
The student of Plato is Aristotle. Strangely, most people when they think of Aristotle, they think of Logic and philosophy. I think of him as the founder of biology science.
--- quoting Wikipedia on Aristotle---
Aristotle (Attic Greek: Ἀριστοτέλης, romanized: Aristotélēs; 384–322 BC) was an ancient Greek philosopher and polymath. His writings cover a broad range of subjects spanning the natural sciences, philosophy, linguistics, economics, politics, psychology, and the arts. As the founder of the Peripatetic school of philosophy in the Lyceum in Athens, he began the wider Aristotelian tradition that followed, which set the groundwork for the development of modern science.
Little is known about Aristotle's life. He was born in the city of Stagira in northern Greece during the Classical period. His father, Nicomachus, died when Aristotle was a child, and he was brought up by a guardian. At around eighteen years old, he joined Plato's Academy in Athens and remained there until the age of thirty seven (c. 347 BC). Shortly after Plato died, Aristotle left Athens and, at the request of Philip II of Macedon, tutored his son Alexander the Great beginning in 343 BC. He established a library in the Lyceum, which helped him to produce many of his hundreds of books on papyrus scrolls.
Though Aristotle wrote many treatises and dialogues for publication, only around a third of his original output has survived, none of it intended for publication. Aristotle provided a complex synthesis of the various philosophies existing prior to him. His teachings and methods of inquiry have had a significant impact across the world, and remain a subject of contemporary philosophical discussion.
--- end quoting Wikipedia on Aristotle---
I was curious to see how many books Aristotle wrote, as to compare with AP. Wikipedia says this:: Diogenes Laërtius lists, in his Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers (c. 230 CE), works of Aristotle comprising 156 titles divided into approximately 400 books, which he reports as totaling 445,270 lines of writing; however, many of these are lost or only survive in fragments, and some may have been incorrectly attributed.
Well, AP is near 370 books of science and not much longer I hit #400.
I must stress the idea, that in rich wealthy countries does education, thinking and philosophy and logic grow. In societies where hard labor is needed to just stay alive, there is little time for --- deep thinking---.
8) The first computer by Babbage influences Logic, and the Boole + Jevons mistakes.
--- quoting Wikipedia ---
First computer
Charles Babbage
A diagram of a portion of Babbage's Difference engine
The Difference Engine Number 2 at the Intellectual Ventureslaboratory in Seattle
Charles Babbage, an English mechanical engineer and polymath, originated the concept of a programmable computer. Considered the "father of the computer", he conceptualized and invented the first mechanical computer in the early 19th century.
After working on his difference engine he announced his invention in 1822, in a paper to the Royal Astronomical Society, titled "Note on the application of machinery to the computation of astronomical and mathematical tables". He also designed to aid in navigational calculations, in 1833 he realized that a much more general design, an analytical engine, was possible. The input of programs and data was to be provided to the machine via punched cards, a method being used at the time to direct mechanical looms such as the Jacquard loom. For output, the machine would have a printer, a curve plotter and a bell. The machine would also be able to punch numbers onto cards to be read in later. The engine would incorporate an arithmetic logic unit, control flow in the form of conditional branching and loops, and integrated memory, making it the first design for a general-purpose computer that could be described in modern terms as Turing-complete.
The machine was about a century ahead of its time. All the parts for his machine had to be made by hand – this was a major problem for a device with thousands of parts. Eventually, the project was dissolved with the decision of the British Government to cease funding. Babbage's failure to complete the analytical engine can be chiefly attributed to political and financial difficulties as well as his desire to develop an increasingly sophisticated computer and to move ahead faster than anyone else could follow. Nevertheless, his son, Henry Babbage, completed a simplified version of the analytical engine's computing unit (the mill) in 1888. He gave a successful demonstration of its use in computing tables in 1906.
In Babbage's time, printed mathematical tables were calculated by human computers; in other words, by hand. They were central to navigation, science and engineering, as well as mathematics. Mistakes were known to occur in transcription as well as calculation.
At Cambridge, Babbage saw the fallibility of this process, and the opportunity of adding mechanisation into its management. His own account of his path towards mechanical computation references a particular occasion:
In 1812 he was sitting in his rooms in the Analytical Society looking at a table of logarithms, which he knew to be full of mistakes, when the idea occurred to him of computing all tabular functions by machinery. The French government had produced several tables by a new method. Three or four of their mathematicians decided how to compute the tables, half a dozen more broke down the operations into simple stages, and the work itself, which was restricted to addition and subtraction, was done by eighty computers who knew only these two arithmetical processes. Here, for the first time, mass production was applied to arithmetic, and Babbage was seized by the idea that the labours of the unskilled computers [people] could be taken over completely by machinery which would be quicker and more reliable.
There was another period, seven years later, when his interest was aroused by the issues around computation of mathematical tables. The French official initiative by Gaspard de Prony, and its problems of implementation, were familiar to him. After the Napoleonic Wars came to a close, scientific contacts were renewed on the level of personal contact: in 1819 Charles Blagden was in Paris looking into the printing of the stalled de Prony project, and lobbying for the support of the Royal Society. In works of the 1820s and 1830s, Babbage referred in detail to de Prony's project.
Difference engine
Main article: Difference engine
The Science Museum's Difference Engine No. 2, built from Babbage's design
Portion of Babbage's difference engine
Babbage began in 1822 with what he called the difference engine, made to compute values of polynomial functions. It was created to calculate a series of values automatically. By using the method of finite differences, it was possible to avoid the need for multiplication and division.
For a prototype difference engine, Babbage brought in Joseph Clement to implement the design, in 1823. Clement worked to high standards, but his machine tools were particularly elaborate. Under the standard terms of business of the time, he could charge for their construction, and would also own them. He and Babbage fell out over costs around 1831.
Some parts of the prototype survive in the Museum of the History of Science, Oxford. This prototype evolved into the "first difference engine". It remained unfinished and the finished portion is located at the Science Museum in London. This first difference engine would have been composed of around 25,000 parts, weighed (13,600 kg), and would have been (2.4 m) tall. Although Babbage received ample funding for the project, it was never completed. He later (1847–1849) produced detailed drawings for an improved version,"Difference Engine No. 2", but did not receive funding from the British government. His design was finally constructed in 1989–1991, using his plans and 19th-century manufacturing tolerances. It performed its first calculation at the Science Museum, London, returning results to 31 digits.
Nine years later, in 2000, the Science Museum completed the printer Babbage had designed for the difference engine. His printers were the first computer printers invented.
Completed models
The Science Museum has constructed two Difference Engines according to Babbage's plans for the Difference Engine No 2. One is owned by the museum. The other, owned by the technology multimillionaire Nathan Myhrvold, went on exhibition at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, California on 10 May 2008. The two models that have been constructed are not replicas.
Analytical Engine
Main article: Analytical Engine
Portion of the mill with a printing mechanism of the Analytical Engine, built by Charles Babbage, as displayed at the Science Museum (London)
After the attempt at making the first difference engine fell through, Babbage worked to design a more complex machine called the Analytical Engine. He hired C. G. Jarvis, who had previously worked for Clement as a draughtsman. The Analytical Engine marks the transition from mechanised arithmetic to fully-fledged general purpose computation. It is largely on it that Babbage's standing as computer pioneer rests.
The major innovation was that the Analytical Engine was to be programmed using punched cards: the Engine was intended to use loops of Jacquard's punched cards to control a mechanical calculator, which could use as input the results of preceding computations. The machine was also intended to employ several features subsequently used in modern computers, including sequential control, branching and looping. It would have been the first mechanical device to be, in principle, Turing-complete. Charles Babbage wrote a series of programs for the Analytical Engine from 1837 to 1840. The first program was finished in 1837. The Engine was not a single physical machine, but rather a succession of designs that Babbage tinkered with until his death in 1871.
--- end quoting Wikipedia---
Here I am looking in the history of Logic as to why so many mistakes in the simple connectors for Boole and Jevons made mistakes on all 4 of the simple connectors. I am looking for what propelled them to make Logic be algebraic and the answer is quite simple and easy for the rise of modern computers starts with Charles Babbage 1812, thus incentivizing Algebraic Logic to be the so-called software of the emerging new technology that Babbage was creating the hardware.
For Boole would write The Mathematical Analysis of Logic 1847 and Laws of Thought 1854. Jevons wrote the popular Logic textbook : Elementary Lessons on Logic 1871.
Logic needed to be formed to fill the software of the computers being built after Babbage.
AP writes: A long time ago I read various facets of history of Boole and one reference source which I no longer have available, said that Boole and Jevons were stumped on the truth table of AND and saved it for last. Of course they came up with AND being TFFF when in actuality, it is TTTF. This suggests that Boole and Jevons had OR exclusive plus had OR inclusive. They needed a truth table of TTTF and so they dreamed up the idea that Either..or..or..Both would fill the bill for TTTF. When all they really needed to do, was see that AND was TTTF and not that of TFFF. By November 2025, I got a clearer picture of why Boole and Jevons fell into this mistake, and probably I should not be so harsh on Boole and Jevons. The idea I came to realize in November 2025, is that early on in Logic we introduced the connectors with Existence quantifier and ask the question of ----- does Logic itself exist? And we go one step further by asking------ does Logic not exist? We form that into a argument of logic P= Logic exists, and Q = Logic does not exist. Putting that together with a AND connector is P AND Q "Logic exists and logic does not exist".
In Mathematics there is one big no, no you can never do---and that is divide by 0. If you can divide by zero, you destroy math and we just call division by zero as undefined. You lose all uniqueness in math if you allow division by zero. For example 2/0 = infinity and 9/0 = infinity then we end up with 2=9. All of math is destroyed if you allow division by 0 be a number.
The Contradiction in Logic.
-----------------------------------
In Logic we have a similar problem with what is called a Contradiction. A contradiction is simply A and not A. Or, B exists and B does not exist. So a contradiction destroys logic just as division by 0 destroys math. So as we start Logic and introduce the Existence quantifier first, then _not_ then introduce Not-Equal. We cannot have nor tolerate a Contradiction as it destroys Logic.
By November 2025, perchance I perceive why Boole and Jevons wanted the mistake of AND being TFFF. They thought that an Argument containing "P exists AND P does not exist" or, containing "Q and not Q" are contradictions and not allowed. Thus, and therefore, Boole and Jevons finally decided that AND truth table be TFFF.
So this sounds reasonable that Boole and Jevons thought the truth table had to be TFFF in the second and third row looks like a contradiction.
P Q P AND Q
T F ?
F T ?
F F F
So from that truth table it was reasonable for Boole and Jevons to think the final truth table of AND be TFFF for the 2nd and 3rd rows look like contradictions.
So, well, AP says AND is TTTF, and how does AP get around the contradiction of a AND connector that is a seemingly contradiction in 2nd and 3rd row?? Well, we get around that with the justification that AND is math Add and so math demands TTTF.
Plus, in addition, that whenever and where-ever a contradiction occurs in a argument we stop and halt all things and remove the contradiction. That fixes the problem.
Getting back to AND and OR in Logic and modern day computers.
I bring this up because Modern Day Computers run Addition on the inclusive OR because they need the truth table to be TTTF for addition. But that if all logicians from Boole going forward had backtracked and looked at how mired in error was their AND, they could have thrown out the stupid inclusive OR and declared that AND is after-all, math addition.
Reading the following selection on Jevons in Wikipedia, is alluded to the idea that once you know the truth-table "performing simple logical inference by manipulating a truth table". AP writes: Is this where Logic was saddled wrongly into using inclusive OR as math addition???
--- quoting Wikipedia---
In 1864 Jevons published Pure Logic; or, the Logic of Quality apart from Quantity, which was based on Boole's system of logic, but freed from what he considered the false mathematical dress of that system. In 1866 what he regarded as the great and universal principle of all reasoning dawned upon him; and in 1869 Jevons published a sketch of this fundamental doctrine under the title of The Substitution of Similars. He expressed this principle in its simplest form by saying: "Whatever is true of a thing is true of its like", and he worked out in detail its various applications including the logical abacus, a method of performing simple logical inference by manipulating a truth table consisting of labeled wooden boards. He noted that the operations could be performed by a simple mechanism and later he had a "logical machine" built from his specifications in 1869, sometimes called the "Logic Piano" because of its resemblance to an upright piano. The machine was exhibited before the Royal Society in 1870.
In the following year appeared the Elementary Lessons on Logic, which soon became the most widely read elementary textbook on logic in the English language. In the meantime he was engaged upon a much more important logical treatise, which appeared in 1874 under the title of The Principles of Science.
--- end quoting Wikipedia---
About time for a test or quiz here. As mentioned earlier I prefer fill in the blank tests for they have a further opportunity of teaching both student and teacher alike. I will start the first four questions of probably a 20 question test. In High School we had teachers use these machines (I forgot the name of this copying) where they made a master test sheet and then had a machine make copies where the ink smelled. I suppose those machines are no longer in use. And now a days by 2025, we simply can have a photocopy of the test.
(1) Short and simple, Logic is the science of _____ and what future actions we take based on those ____, and what ____ are true. We label ____ in logic by symbols such as p, q, r, s.
(2) We start Logic connectors, logically by using good true ideas. ________ is long well established science in history. ______ is easier to study and learn than is Logic, for logic is far bigger encompassing all ideas while _____ is confined to arithmetic, algebra and geometry and its most important branch of calculus, where calculus is a mix of geometry and numbers. Logic is a larger set than ______ and so Logic should contain all of ________ inside of Logic.
So naturally, we start Logic connectors by using _______ as a ________ to tell us if our Logic is straight and clear and on track.
(3) Truth or Falsity of an idea in a statement P, Q is obtained from all the other _____ of their universal _______. If we had the statement-- P = Thrusting a bar magnet through a coil of copper produces no electric current. That would be false because it violates the ______________.
(4) Name the 6 math operators __, __, __, __, __, __, then name the 6 logic connectors __, __, __, __, __, __. Finally, pair up the logic connectors with the similar math operator, for example, Existential quantifier pairs up with derivative of calculus, while Universal quantifier pairs up with integral of calculus __, __, __, __.
Teacher, to provide 16 more questions for a 20 question test or quiz.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 3, 2026, 3:44:53 AM (14 days ago) Jan 3
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Part 3, The Mechanics of Logic.
9) The 6 simple connectors of Logic.
So mathematics has 6 simple operators. And given in order where Mathematical Induction, a proof method, gives all the Counting Numbers for that method is based on the idea of adding 1.
1) Add
2) Subtract (which should have been given the better name of "remove").
3) Multiply
4) Divide
5) Derivative
6) Integral
The above order of the 6 simple math operators is what the order they are taught in school and is a reasonable order. Add is likely the easiest concept of the 6 shown.
But surprisingly the order to teach Logic connectors starts with a complex concept of Existence. And this makes logical sense in that it is silly to argue over something that is nonexistent.
Logic has 6 simple connectors.
1) AND
2) OR
3) Not-Equal (two binaries combined to make 4 rows in a truth table)
4) If-->Then known as the material conditional, or the implication as "implies" but my favorite name is "moves into" because of calculus function and derivative is a move into.
5) Existential quantifier, because the derivative of a function moves into the next coordinate point.
6) Universal quantifier, known as "For every" or "all" but the best concept is the universal laws of physics such as Ampere law, or Faraday law or New Ohm's law.
So, I listed the math operators and then the Logic connectors.
But in logic, we like to have things in order. Not enough to just list the connectors and operators but to list them in order such that the most primitive connector is first and the last one the most complex, needing the others to describe it.
In mathematics we can start with add first because of Mathematical Induction, given 0 and 1, add 1 to obtain 2, then add 1 to 2 to get to 3, and so on. By doing this we have all the counting numbers of mathematics. And a proof using Mathematical Induction if true for 0, 1, 2, 3 then suppose true for n, and if you can show that it is true for n+1, means your statement is true for all the counting numbers. This works by the reasoning that "n" is any counting number. So if you assume "n" and can show true for "n+1", you have proven true for all counting numbers.
So mathematics starts with add and ends up last with integration as the most complex is Integration of calculus.
Logic is a bit different. We first have to know what we talk about exists or not exists and use the Existential quantifier. Next we use the Not and the Equal sign for truth tables, and so we need a connector for Not and for Equality which is presented in a combined connector of Not-Equal.
No use in arguing over things that do not exist. And just as a fiction story is fiction and nonexisting, no use in arguing for truth.
For Logic seeks Truth and truth comes from the sciences. Science overhangs all of Logic as the bearers of truth, or if not true then it has a 0-value for nonsense.
The Existential quantifier is the existence in Logic and for math that would be the derivative of calculus. The derivative is a motion starting from 0 and taking in all the positive decimal grid numbers as it moves from left to right in the first quadrant only. A graph is shown later in this book on calculus derivative motion.
So for logic we have to study the 6 connectors in order from simple to most complex.
Correct order of the 6 simple connectors of Logic.
-------------------------------------------------------------
1) Existential quantifier
2) Not-Equal
3) AND
4) OR
5) If--> Then
6) Universal quantifier
The truth-tables come in for the connectors that are ---not quantifiers---. We do not have truth tables on Existential and Universal quantification. We have truth-tables on Not-Equal, AND, OR, If-->Then.
And those are arranged in order for Not-Equal truth table is TTTT, while AND is TTTF, and OR is FTTF, and If-->Then is TFUU where U means unknown, undefined.
You can see a pattern in the truth-table from that of 4 trues, then 3 trues, then 2 trues, then 1 true.
10) Using mathematics to guide Logic.
So how should I begin the story of Logic connectors??? Not from the history of Logic but from an ally subject of mathematics. And how should I begin the story of truth in Logic? Truth comes from the sciences and especially physics.
All of Science is governed by the Axiom Principle of Science--- All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
Explanations of science are final once you reduced the phenomenon observed to that of electricity and magnetism.
So where does Mathematics and Logic come into the picture of science for science is all about Physics and in particular Atoms?
Math is a subset of Physics supplying physics with correct and precise number quantity, size and geometry shapes and figures. While Logic supplies physics and the other sciences with precise ideas written as statements p,q,r,s, etc etc as those ideas. Both math and logic are precision languages.
Math numbers are quantity, size and amount, and math geometry is shape and describing space. Logic is the correct ideas and manipulation of those ideas of clear thinking and straight thinking whose truth value comes directly from the best science on the subject. Both math and logic are languages that describe Physics and all the other sciences.
Where to start in Math if this was a Math story?? Well, we could start with the true numbers of mathematics, the Decimal Grid Numbers and the smallest grid is the 10 Grid which has 100 members not counting 0. This set is 0, .1, .2, .3, ... , 9.8. 9.9, 10.0. And then start with addition then subtraction.
If Math starts that way, how should the language of Logic start? What is the parallel of Numbers in Logic?
Here the parallel are statements, which contain thoughts and ideas and are written in Logic as "p", "q", "r", "s", "t" etc. And the truth value of each of those statements comes from the best science of the time on the topic of that statement in question.
An example of statements is the famous Aristotle syllogism attributed to Aristotle.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore,
Socrates is mortal.
p = q
S = p
therefore S = q
So for Math we have numbers, for Logic we have idea-statements p, q, r, s, t, etc.
Once we have numbers in math (and later have geometry figures), we then move on to that of operations on numbers. No point in creating numbers that sit around and do nothing. No, we want to operate and use numbers to figure out the world we live in.
And of course math operators have 4 simple operators which most students will guess or know what they are--- Add, Subtract, Multiply and Divide. In a very real sense, multiply is rapid add, while divide is rapid subtract.
Logic also has 4 Simple connectors on statements p, q, r, s, t, etc. and they are AND, OR, Equal-Not, If-->Then. Instead of calling them operators in logic, we call them connectors. But math has 2 more operators from calculus as derivative and integral. So does Logic have 2 more connectors of Existence quantifier and Universal quantifier related to derivative and integral, respectively.
Math has two more operators from calculus called Differentiation (the derivative) and Integration (the integral). Logic has two more connectors of quantifiers called the Existential quantifier and the Universal quantifier.
We say Existential quantifier is directly related to derivative and Universal quantifier is directly related to integral.
So here we need to turn on our logical mind and figure out the correct order. Obviously if something does not exist, no point in talking about it and what ideas come out of it. Existence is number 1. Even literature recognizes existence is number 1 as Shakespeare's Hamlet says: "To be, or not to be, that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind..".
We should start the Logic connectors with Existence, which in math would be the derivative of calculus, and next we should have Not-Equal for all the other connectors require the concepts of existence, not, and equality.
Tricky because Logic connectors start with the high-powered calculus of derivative and then next, with Not-Equal, because AND, OR, If-->Then need the concept of equal and not equal.
But, as mentioned earlier, Logic stops cold dead when it has a contradiction "The sun is a star and the sun is not a star". When a contradiction arises, all of logic stops in its tracks and calls in the best science of its time to sort things out. This is why Logic connectors must start, is forced to start with Existence quantifier and Not-Equal.
Whenever a contradiction occurs in Logic, all things stop and sorted out, before continuing.
11) What is Truth? and how does truth relate to Logic.
So truth in this world is our best science on the subject matter and that usually comes from physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy and all its branch sciences.
Logic is the science of ideas and how those ideas make other ideas. If we ask physics, and physics could talk, it would say that the laws of science are true and anything opposed to those laws is nonsense. The laws of science come from the Scientific Method and the laws are Universal laws. As time goes by the laws can change or be modified, provided new observations and experiments warrant the change and modification.
So Science tells us what is true, and what is not true is lumped together as being zero or nonsense or worthless. False or falsehood has no role in Logic, but rather is seen as being 0 value.
Logic does not deal with truth-tables with false value, seeing them as 0 value. Instead, Logic deals with truth-table as true science ideas have a truth value, and what is not true value is worthless chitter chatter and has 0 value.
So Logic defines the 6 connectors not with a Truth-table of true and false, but rather defines the 6 connectors in the way that physics defines a Law of Physics by stating the law. But in this textbook we still show how Old Logic defined the connectors using a true-false truth table.
So for example, Physics defines the Faraday Law as being "Thrust a bar magnet through a closed loop coil of copper wire connected to a galvanometer and read a current flow through the wire".
Logic example, in that Logic defines the AND connector not with a truth-table but rather as a Law of Science that says: "String together as many statements as you wish, p, q, r, s, t, u, v with the AND connector, and if just one of those statements has a true-value by laws of science, regardless of the fact that all the other statements are 0 value nonsense, then the entire string is true because of the one statement that is true. A caveat warning though, a string of statements strung together with the AND connector, must never have any two statements that are contradictory such as P and not-P would be a contradiction and thus all logic stops until the contradiction is straightened out by science.
Another Logic example, in that Logic defines the OR connector not with a truth-table but rather as a Law of Science that says "Given two statements p, q connected by OR, means that you remove p leaving behind q, or, remove q leaving behind p, or, you subtract q from p or subtract p from q. OR is subtraction for its removal. AND is joining together while OR is removal.
Now the quantifiers of Existential and Universal do not have truth-tables associated with them, for they are true in and of themselves. Truth granted by an inspection of the statements from the pertinent Science pertaining to the statements. We can say "does not exist" or "is not universal" and in those instances they have a 0 value, but not a falsehood value. You see, science itself does not recognize falsity, science only sees truth. Humans see the world in terms of truth or false, while science sees the world only in terms of truth. Falsehood for science is associated the number 0 for nothing or nonsense or chitter chatter mistakes.
Because of Physics as the truth giver, physics ranges from 0 out to a positive large number the infinity borderline of 1*10^604. And truth has a value somewhere in that range of numbers but not 0 for that is nonsense.
In Old Logic their numbers ranged from negative numbers then 0 and onwards to positive numbers. So in Old Logic they viewed the world in which they saw falsity or falsehoods have negative number values. In New Logic, if it is not true as supported by science its value is 0, as nonsense.
This matches the idea that 0 Kelvin degrees temperature, Absolute 0 temperature is never attainable. No negative numbers exist, and falsehood is not a negative value but is of 0 nonsense value. Temperatures above Absolute 0 Kelvin are positive numbers and correspond to the electromagnetic spectrum of energy. These EM waves of energy of the electromagnetic spectrum all exist, corresponding to the Existential quantifier. And the Laws of Electromagnetism are Universal Laws of Physics.
And the Primal Axiom over all of knowledge is -- All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism.
12) Existential quantifier.
One would think that the last two of the simple connectors of Logic of existential quantifier and universal quantifier are very easy. All you have to say is "There exists a ____" or say "For every ____". However reality is different in that Existential and Universal quantifiers turn out to be complex, not simple at all.
And one of the signs of this complexity is the riddle of "infinity".
"There exists a horse" is simple enough. "There exists thousands of horses" is also simple. But does "There does not exist an infinity of horses" make sense? Here we have to well-define infinity and that has never been done before until it was well defined in sci.math by AP circa 2009, using the idea of a borderline. A borderline between finite and infinite, otherwise, every number is finite. And this borderline can be found from Huygens work on tractrix figure which is infinite in reach, but finite in area. Using the Tractrix figure we find that infinity borderline is where pi has 3 zero digits in a row and is the number 1*10^604. All numbers from 0 to the borderline are finite numbers. All numbers after the borderline are infinite numbers.
You cannot well-define Infinity, unless you have a borderline between finite and infinite. Amazingly, a mathematician named Huygens noticed that the geometry figure called the Tractrix was
____infinite in reach but had a finite area in its function graph______. This allowed AP to find the infinity borderline.
Concept that Infinity = a borderline between finite and infinite was discovered by AP 2009. Simple beautiful idea-- there must be a borderline between finite and infinite, otherwise, all is just one and the same, and not two different concepts. And so I defined the concept of infinity itself as this border crossing.
Now this mistake in not having a correct well-defined Infinity in math, affects the Calculus by a large measure, a large degree. It is impossible to have a correct calculus, when you have a fuzzy understanding of what is infinity.
This mistake of not well-defining infinity affects much of other mathematics. Of course the other sciences, especially physics rarely needs to know what the correct proper infinity is. However, it does show up frequently in the best physics-- quantum electrodynamics, in which it is often used to eliminate infinities that crop-up in calculations. This physics math procedure is called Renormalization-- getting rid of the infinities, taught by Feynman in his Lectures on Physics.
The trouble with Old Math, is, well, they were terribly shoddy in logic, in thinking straight and clear. For a logical person, knows, that if you have a concept of finite versus infinite, the only way to handle those two concepts is to realize a border must go between them so that you can tell if any given number is finite or infinite. Otherwise, there is no infinity, if there is no borderline.
There is only one way you can have a concept of finite, by having a
concept of infinity, and the only way you can have both, is that a
borderline exists between them.
I have pinpointed that borderline from tractrix-circle analysis, from
algebraic analysis of algebraic completeness, and from angles of
regular polyhedra. The borderline in microinfinity is 1*10^-604 and in
macroinfinity is 1*10^604.
The easiest way to see the borderline is to see where pi digits ends in a three zero digits in a row. This three zero digits in a row for pi allow the tractrix area to catch up with the circle area, for the first time. Just as Huygens said the tractrix was infinite reach but finite area. So when we reach the three zeroes in a row, the circle area and tractrix area are equal at that moment in time.
Take a look at the tractrix graph as it gets closer and closer to the x-axis.
3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286 208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128481 117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381964428810975665933446128475648233 786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273724587006 606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146 951941511609433057270365759591953092186117381932611793105118548074462379962749 567351885752724891227938183011949129833673362440656643086021394946395224737190 702179860943702770539217176293176752384674818467669405132000
Since the Universe is 3rd dimension, one would suspect that where pi digits are there first three digits in a row of 000, that such would be the borderline at infinity.
Now, for physics, that infinity is 1*10^604 for large and 1*10^-604 for the small, makes perfect sense, since in physics, it is extremely, extremely difficult to find anything above 10^200 or smaller than 10^-200, to give the reader a sense of proportion.
The Existence quantifier comes from math in the derivative, the dy/dx of the function graph. For as the function graph is split up into small rectangular cells. And the calculus is a motion function, where the motion function starts at the origin (0,0) in 2D, and moves to cover all the points on the x-axis. As the motion goes in the decimal 10 Grid from 0 to 0.1, to 0.2, to 0.3 all the way up to 9.9 then 10. The motion function pairs a unique number from the y-axis to the x-axis number. For example the identity function of Y--> x is seen as (0,0), (.1,.1), (.2,.2), (.3,.3), (.4,.4)...(9.8,9.8), (9.9,9.9),(10.0,10.0). This motion goes from one cell to the next cell with its x number pairing up with a y value number.
We can say that the function causes the Existence of a y-value. And this derivative is defined as dy/dx, a division in math. So Existence is related to division, is related to derivative of calculus. Is related to If-->Then of Logic connector.
I start the 6 connectors of Logic with the Existential quantifier, and end the 6 with the Universal quantifier. Even though mathematics starts with addition. Logic is different from math for it is "ideas" that are the subject matter, not numbers- quantity, size or geometry shape.
If something does not exist, sort of pointless to be talking about it. And existence is given through science research, experiment, and observation. Science tells Logic what exists and does not exist.
Law of Existential quantifier: Existence is determined by the science of that particular subject matter in question. And no statement or argument in Logic can have a contradiction where A exists and A does not exist. Logic stops and grinds to a halt whenever a contradiction arises. And it must be sorted out by science before Logic can resume.
Examples.
Does the muon exist? Well we go to physics and look at the experiments that prove the muon a 105MeV elementary particle exists.
Does a canid (dog) exist that climbs trees? Well we go to the biology science of animals and find out that of the canids, the gray fox and the raccoon dog climb trees. So, yes, some canids exist that climb trees.
Physics determines existence of some rest-mass or energy. Ideas themselves are a form of energy, of electromagnetic spectrum light waves. A Light Wave exists and contains ideas for we simply turn on our cell phone and it is light-waves telling us ideas in words or in images.
But in physics there is only truth and nonsense, only a positive number from 0 to infinity for truth, and nonsense is all 0 value, like in Absolute Kelvin 0 temperature. Falsity is not a negative number but 0 value, worthless idea.
Example one: Sightings of a Loch Ness monster as being a Brontosaurus dinosaur were posted on the Internet, saying that the dinosaur lived in water not on land.
Explanation: claims of existence can easily be made, but it is the work of Science to see if such claims are worthless chitter chatter and no truth value.
Example two: The binary star to our Sun is the cause of global warming and orbits Earth every 2 years.
Explanation: It is easy for the mind to conjure up images of worthless, 0 ideas, and just as easy for Science to step in and invalidate the 0 idea.
Remember, in science we do not have falsehood, we have only what exists and what is true according to laws of science.
Science Laws established by the Scientific Method are universal truths such as Faraday law, Coulomb law, Ampere law, New Ohm's law.
Words that denote the Existential quantifier are these commonly used words.
There exists...
There is at least one of....
For some....
Some....
Where in mathematics do we have the Existential quantifier that we find in Logic??? Where??? And strange and surprisingly we find it in the most important and advanced part of mathematics the Calculus. We find it in the Derivative of a function as the derivative in a cell, moves from point A to point B in the graph. The derivative causes the existence of point B as it moves from A to B.
Calculus has 2 operators, that of Derivative and Integral just as logic has Existential quantifier and Universal quantifier. The derivative is division of dy/dx. The Integral is area under function graph curve-straightline and is multiplication but also is the Universal quantifier which we will study later.
The proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, perhaps the most important math proof of all because calculus is the most important math for physics. That proof starts with area rectangle where a side of the rectangle is carved out a right triangle and pivoted on a swivel up to become the calculus derivative.
Calculus says that-- if you have a rectangle with a midpoint on its top side.
__m__
| |
| |
| |
--------
That you can cut a right triangle from the midpoint
__m__
| / |
|/ |
| |
--------
Cut that right triangle and swivel it up to make the trapezoid
B
/|
/ |
m/--|
/ |
|A |
|___|
And that the hypotenuse of right triangle is now the derivative that reaches the next point of function graph B. While the original rectangle is the Integral as area under function graph curve-straightline.
Here, it is Calculus that implores us to make the Derivative be the first starting Simple Connector of Logic which is Existence quantifier.
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 16, 2025, 4:57:10 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
So at the very outset of writing TEACHING TRUE LOGIC, by a logical person, has its hurdles and stumbling blocks. Math is the language of Precision needed to do physics and engineering. Logic is the language of Correct Ideas, think straight and clear and the formation of new true ideas.
So I look at the very best of mathematics which is Calculus and it is integral and derivative. The derivative is division of dy/dx and spans a math cell going from coordinate point A to coordinate point B. The integral is multiplication of dy times dx for area under function graph curvestraightline. This tells me that derivative as dy/dx should start the first of the 6 simple Logic connectors because B exists due to A exists.
And the derivative defined as dy/dx we later will learn is the simple Logic operator of If-->Then for that is a division in arithmetic.
Slowly be begin to see that Existential quantifier is allied to If-->Then, and then Universal quantifier of integral as area under function graph is allied with Not-Equal connector which is multiplication of arithmetic. Physics has a term for this, calling it a quantum duality.
Alright, here in November 2025, I made a huge magnificent discovery in Logic. Immense and huge in importance.
So the truth table of AND is TTTF, yet Old Logic under Boole and Jevons said it was TFFF.
Is there any reasoning for TFFF, or is it just a dumb mistake?
Turns out there is a very excellent reason that Boole & Jevons thought it was TFFF.
Suppose we have the example of The Sun is a star AND the Sun is not a star.
Under AP AND that is a true compound statement connected by AND. Under Boole & Jevons that is a false compound statement of P AND Q.
So, I have to go back to the starting line of Logic where we start Logic connectors with Existence quantifier. Either P exists or P does not exist. That statement of P AND Q as "The Sun is a star AND the Sun is not a star" is what is called a Contradiction in Logic and never allowed.
So, what I need to do is go back to the Existential quantifier Law and tack on the clause of a Contradiction is never allowed in Logic or in fact Science.
This would easily explain when Boole & Jevons in circa 1850s would deem the AND truth table as TFFF to avoid contradictions.
However, AP avoids contradictions by appending the Law of Existence quantifier with the statement that no contradictions are tolerated such as P AND not-P. Beware, a contradiction can occur in a long argument and does not have to be in a short two statements.
This then allows the AP AND to be TTTF.
Order is so so very important in Logic. We start Logic connectors with Existence quantifier and do not allow contradictions to exist in Logic. When we get to the AND connector, we are reassured that it is TTTF because contradictions are not allowed from the Existence quantifier.
Order is as important in logic as is truth value.
Alright, I had to go back and repair my Law of Existential quantifier to include a Contradiction circumstance.
It is safe to say that Logic connectors starts with Existence but that an argument that says P exists and P does not exist is a contradiction and that Logic comes to a squeaky screeching halt. Logic cannot go on with a contradiction and that contradiction must be solved before Logic resumes and continues. Here again, the appropriate and relevant science on the topic is brought onto the scene and correcting the logjam of a contradiction.
So the Existence quantifier not only tells what exists but can stop Logic itself in its tracks if P exists and P does not exist occurs anywhere in a long argument, syllogism or dialogue.
This is a big discovery for it very much tells us why Boole and Jevons in the 1850s thought AND had a truth table of TFFF when it really has a truth table of TTTF. They likely saw that P AND Q where P says There exists a Milky Way galaxy with Q saying that There does not exist a Milky Way galaxy and you connect them with AND is a contradiction. So that Boole and Jevons thus decided the truth table of AND was TFFF to avoid all contradictions.
But in New Logic, we see that the concept of Contradiction springs forth at the beginning of Logic with the Existence quantifier and it is here, at the beginning of Logic that we sanitize out the Contradiction by embedding the Contradiction within the Law of the Existence quantifier. Thus, leaving alone the AND connector should P and Not-P attempt to enter the picture. Should P and Not-P attempt an entry in a logic argument, it is dismissed by the Existence quantifier Law.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 3, 2026, 5:50:35 PM (13 days ago) Jan 3
to Plutonium Atom Universe
13) Not-Equal connector.
Here is an awfully interesting problem that Logic must sort out. Do I call it the Equal-Not connector or call it the Not-Equal connector? At first I called it the Equal-Not, thinking Logic needed equality before it needed to have "not". But then I realized that "not" needs to come before equality in that of Exists is the first connector of Logic for no reason to talk about nonexistence objects, and also Not Exists for contradictions stop all logic. So that answers the question of Not-Equal versus Equal-Not.
Order is essential in Logical truth, as essential as truth-value is essential.
Logic has to put things in Order. And the first connector we deal with is the Existence quantifier. No use in having an argument over something that does not exist or is idle chitter-chatter. So first comes existence. Then comes the need for "not" as in "does not exist" and then comes equality. Does it exist or does it Not-exist is the question of logic order.
Apparently I need to call it the Not-Equal connector, because Existence is the first question in Logic and to be involved with existence we are asking if it "does not exist". The issue of "sameness" in equality is remote when concerned over existence. In existence the issue is "does it exist" or "does it not exist".
Let me reiterate the Not-Equal connector of Logic and why we start with Existential quantifier, next we introduce the Not-Equal connector in Logic. We start with existence for there is no point in making a Logic Argument over something that does not exist, is fictional, is imaginary. In our modern day TV world of drama and fiction, plays games on our minds, that if not careful, some people actually think the shows they watch have some reality. And because it is fiction and drama and does not exist we sometimes have to step back and remind ourselves that we are probably wasting the time of our life.
Truth and reality and what exists is given by the best available sciences of the time pertaining to the subject or topic on hand. We have to have "Not Exist" of Logic. This causes and forces us to consider the next connector after Existential quantifier is the Not-Equal connector.
But there is a huge problem with the Not-Equal connector compared to AND, compared to OR, compared to If-->Then for they are 4 rowed truth tables, while Not is a binary two row truth table, same with Equal is a binary two row truth table. No worries, for to make Not-Equal into being 4 rowed truth-table we simply combine the two together making 4 rows.
And, this makes common-sense on another level. Is the statements P, Q, are they equal the same or not-equal. So we use "not" for exist or not-exist, and now we use "not" for "is equal" or is "not equal".
We start with Existence and then move to Not-Equal because all the other connectors need the concepts of existence, not and equal. Not-Equal is multiplication in mathematics and in geometry particularly, is area as length times width, and is all of Space as volume is all of space in multiplication. Volume as you remember is length times width times depth.
So our truth table of Logic for Not-Equal is made from two binary tables of equal and then of not, combined to form a quaternary table.
Not-Equal truth-table:
p q
T T = T
T not F = T
F not T = T
F F = T
Suppose we substitute numbers for T=1 and F=0 to see if we get multiplication out of the Logic connector that is Not-Equal.
p q
1 x 1 = 1
1 x 1 = 1
0 x 0 = 0
0 x 0 = 0
And we see a quick way to validate if any truth-table of Logic is valid or invalid. We simply see if we can substitute numbers into Logic truth tables and what those numbers become. We will soon see that Boole and Jevons AND plus their two types of OR violates mathematics.
Note: I use equal equality throughout this book for I have the symbol of equivalence not available. Equivalence is more general than equality, and without loss of generality in this book, I simply use equality. Equivalence for those who did not major in math, is such as 1/2 is equivalent to 3/6 is equivalent to 5/10. You get the picture. Equality is identical, the same, while equivalent can be reduced to become equal. Equivalence occurs when people want to relax the strict concept of equality. Equal is identity the same. While equivalence is almost equal but shades of differences. And all the more reason that the True Numbers of Mathematics are __not the Reals___ but are the Decimal Grid Numbers where we do not have the problem of running into 5/10 = 1/2 =0.5. For there in Decimal Grid Numbers we see only decimal numbers and not get hung up over the fact someone has an unfinished division problem as a Rational Number. In New Math and New Logic, we can eliminate "equivalence and make it all be equality".
Because Equivalence can be reduced to Equality, we here-with avoid the concept of equivalence.
That is an important data to know and I shall repeat it. In science and math we often run into the idea that there are several different notions of "equality" such as equivalence. And one would have thought that "equal" is enough, without have the world cluttered up with a similar notion as equivalence. For example, 3/9 is not the same as 1/3 until we reduce 3/9. If we take a cherry pie and cut it into 9 equal pieces is not the same as cutting that same cherry pie into 3 equal pieces. But, 3/9 is reduced to 1/3. So instead of dreaming up different notions of equal, we just say that if it can be reduced to equality, reduced to equality, then Equality being the same is all the concept of "sameness" we ever need.
For comparison sake we show the AND connector truth-table. Paying particular attention to the fact it has 4 rows and why we had to combine Not to Equal to convert the two 2 rows into being also 4 rows.
AND truth-table:
p q p AND q
T T = T
T F = T
F T = T
F F = F
1 1 = 2
1 0 = 1
0 1 = 1
0 0 = 0
In New Logic we no longer define connectors by their truth-table, as we already see that Existential and Universal quantifiers have no truth-table and that Not-Equal just barely has a truth-table considering we had to lump the two binaries together to form a 4 row table. So in New Logic what we do is rely on science, especially Physics on defining the connectors by a universal law that defines them.
This is important, for we define Logic connectors by a Law.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In New Logic we define all 6 connectors by a Law governing the connectors. The same as in physics where the essential ideas and truths of physics are given in a "physical law" such as Coulomb law, Faraday law, Ampere law, New Ohm's law.
Truth-tables do not define a logic connector, and this avoids the AND truth table seemingly to have a contradiction of "True AND False being True". This appears to be a contradiction, but since AND is defined as a Law, we avoid the seemingly contradiction.
For __Existential quantifier that law__ of defining was this--- look in the most relevant recent science pertaining to the existence of something and see if the object exists in that science, plus, no logic argument can have a contradiction such as A exists and A does not exist. If a contradiction arises in Logic, all must come to a halt and consult the relevant science to overcome the contradiction.
For the definition of __Not-Equal as a universal law__ we say this. Not-Equal is equality of identical sameness and the Not is when there is no sameness. Keep in mind, Not is bound together with Equal and is inseparable from equal.
Philosophy warning for Not-Equal, which we have to add to the discussion. A major problem of Old Logic was the recurrent mistake of thinking ideas were tagged with negative numbers as being opposite of the true idea. For example: "Earth has one satellite called the Moon". The Not or negative of that statement is : "It is not the case that Earth has one satellite called the Moon".
So, does that mean Earth has 2 satellites or 3 or more, or perhaps no satellites at all. So in Old Logic there was obfuscation surrounding the Not connector and the philosophical idea that the negation of a true statement can have multiple of even an infinity of Not ideas.
While, in New Logic, there are only two values in truth tables-- a positive number value greater than 0; and, where all false or meaningless statements and chitter-chatter nonsense has a value of 0. New Logic truth values range from 0 to infinity at the borderline as 1*10^604 (see several of AP books that details the infinity borderline). While Old Logic truth values ranged from negative numbers to 0 to positive numbers and with no borderline at all.
So, when a Logician examines "It is not the case that Earth has one satellite called the Moon". The New Logic logician simply throws out the statement as meaningless nonsense with 0 value and be done with it. While the Old Logic logician spends hours upon hours mulling over the statement and wasting more time, and further, using the worthless statement in more argumentation. Does it have 0 moons, does it have 2 moons, does it have 3 moons.
In New Logic an idea in statements of p,q,r,s,t etc that is false from science, is thrown out. And logic only retains true ideas supported by science and manipulates those true ideas to make new true ideas.
Further example. I love the old Irish saying : "If it works, do not be fixing it."
The Not or negation of that statement would be "It is not the case that if it works, do not be fixing it." Some would prefer to say it as this "If it works, do be fixing it". Here philosophers and Old Logic logicians would step in and say it is a worthwhile statement. While New Logic logicians would point to science and say, if you take apart something that works, the probability chances are risky that once reassembled it no longer works, or works as well as before. And look closely at that negation for it suggests a spectrum of benefits will accrue someone who takes apart a machine that is working. An infinity of negative number benefits from taking apart a working machine. While New Logic logician simply would say there is 0 value in taking apart a working machine is foolish for you risk making it be non-working.
To a large degree the concept of Not is a reversal connector, a contrary statement from the original statement. It reverses true statements into becoming 0 value statements. But in many cases, the Not reverses a 0 value statement into a true statement. So here is a major difference between New Logic and Old Logic. The "Not" connector in Not-Equal does not necessarily convert a 0 value statement (false statement in Old Logic) to a true statement. To the contrary, the Not connector often leaves a 0 value statement remain to be of 0 or nonsense value.
Example: "Witches fly on brooms." The Not statement is "It is not the case that witches fly on brooms." Trouble: witches do not exist and so neither statement is true but 0-valued in New Logic.
Example: "Slant cut of right-circular cone is an ellipse." The Not statement is "It is not the case that the slant cut of right-circular cone is an ellipse." Explanation: the original statement is not true for the slant cut is an oval due to symmetry axis is 1 while slant cut of cylinder is indeed an ellipse. Yet the Not statement of original is true for the slant cut is an oval which is far different from ellipse.
Example: "The Real Numbers of Old Math form a continuum when graphed on the plane." The Not statement is "It is not the case that the Real Numbers of Old Math form a continuum when graphed on the plane." Trouble: Reals are fictional numbers for Physics is about quantum mechanics where no continuum exists and so the true numbers of mathematics are discrete numbers with holes in them, holes in between one number and the successor number. That makes even the second statement, the Not statement also be fictional and worth 0-value. Every statement on Reals of mathematics are 0 valued and nonsense statements.
14) AND connector.
So, we define and describe the connectors of Logic, not by their truth tables but as a Law of Logic, much like physics is a collection of Laws, the Faraday law, the Ampere law, the Coulomb law the New Ohm's law. We define AND connector not as a truth table of TTTF, but as a law that says in a string of ideas connected through AND, if one of the ideas is true, the entire string is true. Why define by laws instead of the Truth-table is evident in AND, in that a table cannot express the limiting idea that what if P AND Q are two contradictory statement. P = Earth is flat while Q = Earth is not flat. So we have P AND Q as true if we relied only on truth tables of TTTF for AND. But when we write AND as a law of logic, we state in the law that AND cannot contain two contradictory statements and we have to stop the logic work and resolve the issue of contradiction. And the connector If --> Then is riddled full of strange things such as the U for undecided or unknown along with T for true and F for false. So writing the definition of If-->Then as a law opens up and reveals much more about the connector then if we accepted the truth table for If-->Then as its definition.
Laws express more details of the connectors than just plain the truth table.
So we define connectors of true logic, not by a truth-table but by laws, same as in science, for science is defined by their universal laws, much like the laws of physics. For example the laws of electromagnetism-- Coulomb law, New Ohm's law, Faraday law, Ampere law.
The Existential quantifier is defined by law as something exists due to the available best science on the subject showing the object exists, plus, you cannot have A exists and A does not exist for that is a contradiction and Logic comes to a grinding halt to straighten-out the contradiction before continuing further.
The Not-Equal connector is defined by law as "Not" is the reversal of a statement while "Equality" is identical sameness. Keep in mind, Not is bound together with Equal and unable to be a separate concept in itself.
Example: "Plants are species that live on CO2 while animals are species that do not live on CO2."
Explanation: All plants share the sameness of living on CO2, while animals do not share a sameness with the breathing in of CO2 to live on that gas molecule.
We now define the AND connector, not with truth-table but with a science law saying that AND connector is one of add or join two or more statements of ideas together. And the law that defines AND is that within a string of statements joined by AND that at __least one of the statements has a true value__ ascertained from science, and where all the other statements in the string can be 0-valued chitter-chatter, except a contradiction, but the overall chain of statements is true. If a contradiction occurs in a string of statements, then all stops and until the contradiction is excised out, does logic continue further.
That means a string of statements, p,q,r,s,t,u,v can be true if just one of the statements is true, and the rest be worthless nonsense, chitter-chatter and outright untrue. However, beware, there cannot be a contradiction of say v and not v in the string. The expression given of AND is "we do not throw the baby out in the bathe water".
If one wanted to give a truth table of AND it would look like this.
New Logic
AND truth table
p q p AND q
T T = T
T F = T
F T = T
F F = F
And if we substitute T with 1 and F with 0 we see again that AND is add of arithmetic.
p q p AND q
1 1 = 2
1 0 = 1
0 1 = 1
0 0 = 0
Now the AND connector of Logic has several replacement terms in English as being "but", "yet", "also", "still", "although", "however", "moreover", "nevertheless, even the comma and semicolon are AND replacements (source: Copi on conjunction).
Mathematics is a language that makes precise the elements of numbers and of geometry shapes. Logic is a language that makes precise the elements of ideas and so it is not surprising that Logic is a larger set than is mathematics. We call a larger set containing a smaller set as a metalanguage. We cannot talk about math if confined to only math numbers and geometry shapes. We need a larger language to talk about math.
Logic is the language that makes precise the elements of statements of ideas, denoted by p, q, r, s, t, .... and how those statements, each a idea or thought relate to one another. Of course, mathematics would be a subset, all of mathematics inside of Logic. But towering over Logic is Physics. So physics is the metalanguage of Logic. This is because science is the arbiter of truth value. Is a statement true or a piece of junk of 0 or nonsense value.
Logic is the metalanguage over mathematics. Where Physics is the metalanguage over Logic.
Let us look at some simple connectors of Logic in three different languages.
ENGLISH GERMAN FRENCH
--------------- -------------- --------------
And Und Et
Or Oder Ou
If-->Then Wenn--> Dann Si (no need of then)
Equal Gleich Egale
Not Nicht Pas
The no need of a "then" in if-->then, in French is curious.
Let me add a few more
Nothing Nichts Rien
Exist Existieren Exister
All Alle Tous
I used to think English was the most streamlined common language, but it appears that French is even more streamlined than English. By streamlined I mean express an idea in fewest letters used. Si is much more streamlined than is If-->Then.
As a homework assignment, have the student add three new columns of three languages of their own choosing, such as for example-- Latin, Italian, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Japanese of their own choosing.
Historians of Logic said that Boole and Jevons had a hard time of figuring out the Truth Table for AND for Boole's book The Laws of Thought (1854). What they eventually came up with is this table.
Boole & Jevons
AND truth table
p q p AND q
T T = T
T F = F
F T = F
F F = F
While the real true AND truth table is far different, for it is TTTF.
Apparently AND was their last (Boole & Jevons) and hardest truth table but they got it wrong. And this is probably because neither Boole nor Jevons had a logical mind to be doing Logic.
There is the idea in Logic that we do not "throw the baby out in the bathe water". Meaning that if you are given statements of ideas--- p, q, r, s, t, u etc etc and you put them into a long string of ANDs -- p and q and r and s. That if one of the statements is true, then the entire string of AND statements is true. Keeping in mind, no contradictions pop up.
In the AND operator of Logic, if just one statement of many statements is true, then the entire string joined by AND is true.
Because Boole and Jevons messed up on AND, their other 3 connectors will also be messed up. Because you cannot make a single mistake on the 4 connectors to have the entire 4 connectors violating what is known in mathematics as (1) causing contradictions to take hold (2) no uniqueness of each operator and (3) loss of consistency. A mistake in one connector causes mistakes whenever it is used, and delivers false conclusions.
Of course AND is Add in mathematics and we can verify that by plugging in numbers to the truth table replacing the T with 1 and the F with 0.
Some examples using ideas p, q, r, s, t.
1) Hydrogen is element 1, and helium is element 2 and lithium is element 3 and beryllium is element 4, and boron is element 5.
This is an example of five statements of ideas connected by AND. In this case all 5 statements p,q,r,s,t are true and so the entire string is true.
2) Another example is this "Hydrogen is element 2, and Helium is element 3, and Lithium is element 4, and beryllium is element 1, and boron is element 5." Well, four of the five statements of p,q,r,s,t are false, but one of them is true in boron is element 5 with 5 protons. In Old Logic they would say that the entire chain of statements is false. In New Logic, because just one of the statements is true, warrants the entire chain of statements is true.
Homework assignment: each student make up two examples of where all the statements of p,q,r,s,t are true and then another where only one of the p,q,r,s,t are true. And in class tomorrow we have every student read his/her example if time permits, of where one true statement in a chain of statements.
Now, what Boole and Jevons failed to do was a very simple exercise that would have guided them to the correct AND truth table. Instead of T for true, and F for false, let us replace T with 1 and F for 0 in math. It is easy to see that 0 as "nothing" can represent "false". Plus where 1 or 2 can represent "true".
The same AND truth table only with numbers is this.
AND truth table
p q p AND q
1 & 1 = 2
1 & 0 = 1
0 & 1 = 1
0 & 0 = 0
Now, clearly we see with the help of mathematics, that the AND truth table is Addition in mathematics.
And what Boole and Jevons had with their TFFF is this.
AND truth table for Boole and Jevons
p q p AND q
1 1 = 2
1 0 = 0
0 1 = 0
0 0 = 0
Boole and Jevons, their AND violates mathematics in that 1+0 = 0 is addition but 1x0 = 0, and 0x1=0 is multiplication leaving one to think AND is sometimes addition and sometimes multiplication which is a contradiction. The one thing logic abhors is contradiction.
This is what I mean by the idea that Logic and mathematics are the software of computers as the Truth Tables of Logic have to be correct, otherwise, we lose both logic and math all together.
15) OR connector.
Alright, I am up to OR connector but need a vast overhaul of OR in order to make its truth table align with mathematics arithmetic.
The Truth table representing subtraction or Remove is what the OR connector is all about. As we saw before, AND is add or join together. So Logic would need a connector of Remove or subtract.
New Logic OR (exclusive)
p q p or q
____________
T T F
T F T
F T T
F F F
Math validation of correctnessT F T
F T T
F F F
p q p or q
____________
1 1 0
1 0 1
0 1 1
0 0 0
So we have 4 possibilities. 1 0 1
0 1 1
0 0 0
1) Remove P keeping Q
2) Remove Q keeping P
3) Subtract P from Q provided Q is larger
4) Subtract Q from P provided P is larger
As I write the Law of OR as connector, the Law must consider the 4 possibilities of Remove (subtract).
This is why I use Mathematics to guide me in the True Logic connectors. You see the third row above of F T then T is 0-1 = 1 is not allowed in arithmetic by the axiom that you cannot subtract more than what is available.
And this is why the Truth Tables are not the correct definition of any of the connectors but has to be a Law that states-- in statement form-- the correct definition of any of the Logic connectors.
The definition of all 6 Connectors of Logic is best served by a written statement as a Law of Logic. The Truth-tables ___cannot____ properly define the 6 connectors for they leave too much out of the meaning of the 6 connectors. Written laws, like the written laws of Electromagnetism in Physics best describes the phenomenon that is being defined. Truth tables in Logic are only a shadowy glimpse of what the definition may be, but cannot adequately define Existential quantifier, Not-Equal, AND, OR, IF-->Then, Universal quantifier.
Alright, I am up to OR connector but need a vast overhaul of OR in order to make its truth table align with mathematics
arithmetic.
The Truth table representing subtraction or Remove for OR.
New Logic OR (exclusive)
p q p or q
____________
T T F
T F T
F T T
F F F
So, OR cannot be defined from truth table but must be defined by a statement summary, just like defining the Faraday law as--- thrust a bar magnet through a copper coil connected in circuit with a Galvanometer and watch for the reading of electric current produced by the thrusting bar magnet.T F T
F T T
F F F
That is the OR truth table, but it does not give you information on how it is formed. For information we go to math arithmetic of subtraction which is better called Removal.
AND connector in previous chapter is addition and joining together of ideas, while OR should be the reverse of joining together but removing.
Math validation of correctness
p q p or q
____________
1 1 0 so in this row we can see 1 - 1 =0
1 0 1 in this row we see 1-0 =1
0 1 1 in this row we can say Remove 0 leaving us with 1
0 0 0 in this row we can say 0-0 =0, alternatively we can say remove p leaving q, or remove q leaving p
So we have 4 possibilities.
1) Remove P keeping Q
2) Remove Q keeping P
3) Subtract P from Q provided Q is larger
4) Subtract Q from P provided P is larger
As I write the Law of OR as connector, the Law must consider the 4 possibilities of Remove (subtract).
This is why I use Mathematics to guide me in the True Logic connectors. You see the third row above of F T then T is 0-1 = 1 is not allowed in arithmetic by the axiom in math, that you cannot subtract more than what is available.
And this is why the Truth Tables are not the correct definition of any of the connectors but has to be a Law that states the correct definition of any of the Logic connectors.
Here again, no-one in Old Logic appears to have logical brains, for you cannot have connectors with multiple meanings. As stupid in mathematics to think that subtraction comes in two different types, or that addition has two different types. Yet Old Logic going on 3 centuries now, had two different types of the connector OR.
My guess is that because the new growth in computers with Babbage in 1822 that he would need a truth-table for addition, and since Boole in 1854 and Jevons in 1871 pegged addition to be of a truth table of TTTF, yet they pegged AND as TFFF, that Boole and Jevons needed the silly insane inclusive OR of either..or..or..both. Too dumb to realize they made a mistake on AND. And all the successors of Boole lacking logical marbles in the head, went along with the colossal mistake.
There is only one type of OR as a logic connector and it is the exclusive OR. The OR is subtraction in math.
Let me give an example of OR connector of Logic.
Example: Tomorrow I will eat spaghetti for supper, or tomorrow I will eat a hamburger for supper. The "p" is "Tomorrow I will eat spaghetti for supper" with the "q" is "tomorrow I will eat a hamburger for supper".
Analysis: One of the two statements is true and we subtract or remove the false one.
Another example: Either I slept for more than 10 hours, or I slept for less than 10 hours yesterday. The "p" is "I slept for more than 10 hours yesterday" with the "q" is " I slept for less than 10 hours yesterday".
Can we see that OR is subtraction, that we remove one of the statements?
OR principle is remove one of two statements P, Q
OR principle you cannot remove more than what exists in P, Q
P = there exists 3
Q = there exists 8
P OR Q is that of There exists 3 OR there exists 8. If we remove 3 there remains 8. If we remove 8 there remains 3.
However, we can also get out of this 8 subtract (remove) 3 and there exists 5 which remains in P OR Q. But we cannot subtract 8 from 3 to get a negative 5 for negative numbers do not exist due to principle that you cannot remove more than what is available to remove. Regardless of a "time factor consideration".
Example using physics.
P = There exists 2 hydrogen atoms
Q = There exists 10 hydrogen atoms
P AND Q is that of "There exists 2 hydrogen atoms AND there exists 10 hydrogen atoms". That would be a total of 12 hydrogen atoms.
P OR Q is that of "There exists 2 hydrogen atoms OR there exists 10 hydrogen atoms". That would end up being either 2 hydrogen atoms exist if we remove 10 such, or, 10 hydrogen atoms exist if we remove 2 such, or, 8 hydrogen atoms exist if we subtract 2 from 10.
For homework: the student writes two examples to be discussed in classroom using the OR connector. Try to make the examples be of some science content.
Laws so far are these.
Law of Existential quantifier: There exists something comes from the best available science on the subject topic. Existential quantifier comes from math derivative of calculus as dy/dx and also is coupled to If-->Then as division. And in the Exist quantifier we can never have A exists AND A does not exist for a contradiction causes all of logic to come to a screeching halt and call in the sciences to overcome the contradiction.
Law of Not-Equal: Not is a reversal of a given statement while equality is identical sameness of two statements. Not-Equal comes from multiplication in arithmetic and is coupled with Universal quantifier as the integral of calculus.
Law of AND: Joins together several statements p,q,r,s, etc of Logic and is a collective true statement provided at least one of the statements p,q,r,s, etc is true, based on science. And the truth comes from the pertinent science surrounding the statements. AND comes from addition in arithmetic. However, no AND string of statements can have a contradiction. If a contradiction occurs in a logic argument, all things grind to a halt and science must straighten out the contradiction before the argument can resume.
Law of OR: Removes or discards ideas represented by p,q,r,s, etc. OR is the opposite of AND which joins together statements, while OR removes or subtracts statements. OR comes from subtraction in arithmetic.
More precisely, OR, has four possible feats given two statements P, Q.
1) can remove P altogether leaving Q
2) can remove Q altogether leaving P
3) can subtract P from Q if Q is larger
4) can subtract Q from P if P is larger
Example: P = 10, Q = 15. P OR Q is 10 OR 15. In this case we can have the answer be 10 remove 15, or, 15 after removing 10, or, 15 subtract 10 leaving behind 5. There is an algebra axiom in math that says you cannot subtract more that what is available to subtract, in other words, negative numbers do not exist. So we cannot subtract 15 from 10.
OR in logic is remove and is the math arithmetic of subtraction. While AND was joining of statements, addition, while OR is the removal of statements.
In the English language, OR is often replaced by "either..or". Sometimes "alternatively" is used as a replacement.
The mindless mistakes of Old Logic with their Either....or...or.... both, which is a contradiction in terms for it combines OR with AND (when we say "both".
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I say no consistency because Either..or..or..both is the union of both AND with OR. In math arithmetic this is like saying -- Add along with Subtract.
I am going to scrutinize this mistake of the foolish "Either..or..or..both" which is contradiction in terms, on the face of it, for it is asking to combine AND with OR simultaneously and even in that hypocrisy the truth table of either..or..or..both would be TTTT and not TTTF for when the last row of p, q both being false, would make it yield a T value. So they even got it wrong in the error itself-- a double error -- one might say.
But the reason this deserves a full attention for discussion is that modern day computers are programmed with the logic idiocy of OR being addition when anyone with 1/2 of a marble of intelligence knows that AND is addition, not OR.
The exclusive OR of Old Logic was the correct OR, and OR should have one representative connector, not two of them.
The inclusive OR of Old Logic was-- anti-logical, illogical. And Boole, Jevons mixed up AND with exclusive OR. They ended up having AND as subtraction with OR as addition, as used in modern day computers, are programmed with the Boole and Jevons mistake as seen by a post in sci. math, where Franz is explaining how all modern computers are running on a fake AND and a fake OR.
On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 3:05:40 PM UTC-5, Me (Franz) wrote:
> On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 12:02:25 AM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> > 1) 10 OR 4 = 14
>
> Right! Python:
>
> def OR(x, y):
> return operator.or_(x, y)
>
> print(OR(10, 4))
>
> ==> 14
>
> > 10 AND 4 = 14
>
> Nope. Python:
>
> def AND(x, y):
> return operator.and_(x, y)
>
> print(AND(10, 4))
>
> ==> 0
>
LIGHT AS a WIRE, ___not wave___ looks like this.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
/ front of wire \ back of wire--- it is a pencil ellipse that contains a-lot of data
\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/
And then we augment those holes by placing a B field ring around each hole.
- | - | - | - |
Both the E-field can vary in size and the B-field can vary in size
| B-field
__ | _______| __ | _ E-field
| |
The variations allow for different sounds and different pictures in TV reception.
Now, in order to prove one or the other is true and correct, experimental physicists set up what is called a Deciding Experiment, and the result of that experiment should remove either Old Physics Light-wave, or remove AP's Light-wire.
But I suspect that we already have a Deciding Experiment that was done many times in the past and is notoriously called the Double Slit Experiment. The results of the Double Slit Experiment can all be resolved if you think of Light as a closed loop circuit instead of a ray with front tip end and tail.
For in the Double Slit, at that screen in back the Light comes in as particles but as it enters the slits it comes in as wires that interfere with one another in an interference pattern.
The "Deciding Experiments" of science is a fine example of the OR connector of Logic.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 3, 2026, 6:30:45 PM (13 days ago) Jan 3
to Plutonium Atom Universe
16) If-->Then connector.
First a bit of a review before we tackle the If-->Then connector for it is a difficult concept for it basically is the structure of an argument itself. Remember Aristotle's argument "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal." Can be written as "If you are a man, then you are mortal. Socrates is a man, therefore he is mortal".
Let us have a review before we tackle the difficult concept If-->Then. Difficult because it has a truth table with T for true and F for false but also has a new parameter of probability of U, for unknown, for undecided, for undefined.
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 16, 2025, 1:20:49 AM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
It is very easy to see in the language of Logic that AND would be Add in the language of Math. Furthermore that Subtraction would be OR, where you take one or the other, or subtract one from the other. That division would be If-->Then, the consequences of "If" becoming a "Then". This contrast is even more sharply defined by the calculus derivative where a division dy/dx starts with a If as a x axis component, that must land on a unique y axis component, giving rise to the idea of x moves into becoming y.
But let us review again the simple four connectors of Not-Equal, AND, OR, If-->Then. Not-Equal is composed of two binary operators of "equal" as this.
T = T
F = F
And for "not" as this.
T not F
F not T
The AND, OR, If--> Then come from quaternary truth tables.
A quaternary truth table is an arrangement of 4 rows where all possible truth values for p and q exist. You have a TT, a TF, a FT and a FF. All possible truth values for 2 variables.
p q
------------
T T
T F
F T
F F
Notice the Quaternary truth table allows for All possible outcomes of truth or falsity in the set-up of two statements (two ideas, two variables) p and q.
That all possible outcomes are covered in a quaternary arrangement of 2 variables.
T -- T
T -- F
F -- T
F -- F
Notice one column is T, T, F, F and the other column is T, F, T, F to achieve every possibility.
Computers are based on binary inputs of 1 or 0, which represent true or false, computer gates (diodes or transistor) open or closed translates as True, or False. Two choices and that is why the Logic connectors are the software built into computers to do arithmetic add, subtract, multiply, divide.
In Old Logic, they made the silly mistake of not combining the two Binary connectors of Not and Equal, combine them into one to make a Quaternary connector, just like the three other operators.
But a problem I asked earlier, is why should multiplication come before addition??? In math we start with addition. In Logic it appears that Existence and then Not-Equal as multiplication should come before addition because of not and equality is involved in Existence and involved in AND, for you need that equality sign involved in AND, OR, and involved with If-->Then. So how did I get out of this conundrum with logical sense of order???? I got out of the conundrum by noting that Existence comes first as it is pointless to talk about something that does ___not exist___. And the "not" in not exist must come second, and then, third, comes AND.
Math is a language of precision for Physics. Logic is a language of correctness of ideas and the order sequence of ideas.
Math simple 4 operators start with Addition. But should Logic connectors start with what can be seen as Existence quantifier and multiplication as Not-Equal??? Of course, in math we define equality before we do add, subtract, multiply, divide. But here in the language of logic, equality with not, are one of the 4 simple connectors.
Not-Equal truth table:
p q
T = T = T
T = not F = T
F = not T = T
F = F = T
Suppose we substitute numbers for T and F to see if we get multiplication out of the Logic connector that is Not-Equal
p q
1 x 1 = 1
1 x 1 = 1
0 x 0 = 0
0 x 0 = 0
Yes, remember that two of those are binary -- two for equal, and then, two for not. All the other three truth tables are quaternary, 4 rows.
New Logic
AND truth table
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F
1 & 1 = 2
1 & 0 = 1
0 & 1 = 1
0 & 0 = 0
OR(exclusive) truth table
T or T = F
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F
1 subtract 1 = 0
1 subtract 0 = 1
0 subtract 1 = 1 realizing no negative numbers exist in the world and so we remove the 0 leaving behind 1=1.
0 subtract 0 = 0
So, what is the reasoning that Logic connectors start with Existence then tacks on Not-Equal?? The reasoning is that Existence starts things off, for we only have interest in what exists, not that of fake imagination and stupefying chitter-chatter, and we need Not in order to say --- either it exists or not exists to ward off contradictions. Math arithmetic is different. It starts with addition as in mathematical induction, start with 0 and 1, add 1 to 1 and we get 2, add 1 to 2 and we get 3, etc and then turns to its opposite of subtraction. Multiplication is rapid addition, while division is rapid subtraction.
The question of Existence for math numbers is a philosophical question. The question of existence for geometry objects is less philosophical. We can see a triangle shape in a building or a rectangle house. We do not see a number 6 in plain sight or number 137 walking down the street. Logic calls these as existing but existing as ___abstractions___. Numbers are abstractions and by abstractions I define that as an idea having multiple uses. There were 137 wildebeests on the African plain and the inverse fine structure constant of physics is 137 and the 231Pu has 137 neutrons.
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 2002, defines "abstraction" as -- formation of an idea, as of the qualities or properties of a thing, by mental separation from particular instances or material objects.
Cambridge dictionary defines "abstraction" -- the quality of existing as or representing an idea, a feeling, etc. and not a material object, or something that has this reality.
University of Chicago says this of "abstraction" Abstraction refers to thought expressed without a concrete image. Frowned upon as the language of philosophers..
Britannica on "abstraction" -- the cognitive process of isolating, or abstracting, a common feature or relationship observed in a number of things, or the product of such a process.
AP himself has a go of a definition of "abstraction"-- all of mathematics itself is an abstraction, for numbers or figures of geometry have multiple uses. A rectangle house, a rectangle box, a rectangle sheet of paper, a rectangle wood block. An abstraction can be an idea in a statement of logic. Many ideas in science are abstractions.
Examples: When a polynomial is recognized as the only valid function in calculus, then calculus is reduced to ultra-simplicity as add or subtract 1 from exponent for integral and derivative respectively.
Slant cut of cylinder is ellipse, while slant cut of cone is oval, not ellipse.
No saber toothed tiger existed for that would defy Darwin Evolution theory that evolution does not evolve something that gets in the way of a living organism living out their life. No, these are walrus tusks glued on to cat jaws by money grub museums.
Time now to define and discuss the complicated If-->Then. I say complicated because its truth table involves something other than just T for true and F for false. It involves a new parameter of U for unknown.
If--> Then connector
-------------
We often see the If --> Then by using implies. If P then Q. P implies Q. Sometimes we see it with "because". Q because of P. The one I like the most is "moves into". P moves into Q. I like this because it is the math calculus derivative as discussed before where the function graph moves along the x-axis that yields a y-axis coordinate point, and the derivative is also division as dy/dx.
This connector If--> Then caused huge huge problems in logic, all because no-one in Old Logic had logical brains to put together Logic correctly.
New Logic
IMPLIES (Material Conditional)
IF-->THEN truth table
MOVES INTO
T -> T = T
T -> F = F
F -> T = U probability outcome
F -> F = U probability outcome
Archimedes Plutonium Aug 22, 2025, 3:21:34 AM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
#366 AP book of science--- Teaching True Logic.
A important very important book for every college and university across the globe --- as the only logic textbook that is correct. For Boole and Jevons made gross mistakes in all 4 of the simple connectors--- AND, OR, IF->Then, and Equal-Not. They screwed up on all four connectors and so Logic classrooms at all Universities was just a cesspool of thought.
I should have written these two Logic textbooks 5 years ago, for I constantly told many scientists and becoming scientists that they need 2 years of college logic to help them think straight and think clearly.
But what use is that if the only logic textbooks used are the error filled garbage of Boole and Jevons.
Finally I get to making True Logic textbooks.
In the English language, the If-->Then connector is replaced by different expressions such as "suppose-->then", "provided-->that", "implies", "given --> that", "conditional" and my favorite is "moves into".
So I start Logic connectors of its 6 simple connectors with that of Existential quantifier, then I introduce Not-Equal, then move to AND, then move to the reverse of AND in that of OR, then move to If-->Then.
And this pattern is also reflected in the fact of decreasing True values.
Not-Equal has 4 True values.
AND has 3 True values.
OR has 2 True values.
If-->Then has 1 True value.
The If-->Then is division of mathematics, and it is well known that all of mathematics comes tumbling falling down should there be a division by 0 such as 1/0 or 2/0 or 0/0 and that division by zero is undefined. Should division by 0 be possible, all of math is ruined for then no unique answers to any arithmetic of multiplication or division. The 2/0 can equal anything. The division by zero is the weak point of mathematics, just as the Contradiction of A exists and A does not exist is the weak point of Logic. So, here in Logic, the truth-table of If-->Then must provide for a row in which the truth value is undefined, unknown.
Old Logic If-->Then (called the material conditional)
p q if p then q
____________
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T F T T
Just plain looking at that table we see no row where we have a U for unknown, undefined. And knowing that math is a subset of Logic, there must be a U for undefined in one of those rows. In fact two rows are U for it makes common sense that when we start an implication with a falsehood (the last two rows) would lead to unknowns, undefined results. This is plain common-sense. The If F, then T yields T is horrible nonsense. And then If F then F somehow magically yields a T is more nonsense, piled higher and deeper. And yet this is what Logic teachers have been teaching ever since 1854 to 2025. They should all be ashamed of themselves.
Let me make up statements p, q, r to test each row.
If carbon is the 6th element, then it has 6 protons. T-->T yields T
If carbon is the 6th element, then it has 7 protons. T-->F yields F
If carbon is the 5th element, then it has 6 protons. F-->T yields nonsense
If carbon is the 5th element, then it has 7 protons. F-->F yields nonsense
Let me display the New Logic truth table of If--> Then and validate it with math numbers showing that If-->Then is division of math.
New Logic for If-->Then
p q if p then q
____________
T T T
T F F
F T U for unknown, uncertain, undecided
F F U for unknown, uncertain, undecided
Let me validate that is the math operator division. I replace T with 1 and F with 0.
p q p divide into q
____________
1 divide into 1 1
1 divide into 0 0
0 divide into 1 U for unknown, uncertain, undecided and undefined
0 divide into 0 U for unknown, uncertain, undecided and undefined
Yes, so in summary so far we have Not-Equal as multiplication, AND as add, OR as subtract, and If-->Then as divide. Of course the Existential and Universal quantifiers have no truth tables for they are laws. And we should also define the 4 other connectors by Laws, just as we define science by Laws of Science.
When figuring out the truth table for If-->Then, what should have guided Boole and Jevons is the idea that Logic is a metalanguage of mathematics, and as such, Logic needs a table for If-->Then that yields a unknown or undefined for division by 0. We cannot have an impoverished Logic where it is less than mathematics for covering division by 0.
Let me note also the huge importance of the If-->Then connector for its truth table not only impacts division by 0 as unknown, but also an entire class of proving methods of mathematics called the Reductio ad Absurdum proof method, some call it the Indirect proof method. This is where you suppose the contrary of what you want to prove and see if a contradiction occurs in the steps of the proof. If a contradiction occurs, you go back and reverse the supposition--- saying the statement to be proved has to be true because of the contradiction. This method of proof, --so called proof-- is extensively used in Old Math, and perhaps over half of all math proofs use the Reductio ad Absurdum. Trouble is, it is not a valid proof method because of the If -->Then truth table where it has U in the last two rows. Where you suppose the statement to be proved as false, looking for a contradiction. No, that is an invalid proof method because the conclusion does not yield a T true, but instead yields a U for unknown. This is a probability conclusion and math rests on certainty, not probability. Yes, I would say slightly over 1/2 of all math proofs are reductio ad absurdum and all those have to be thrown out and thrown on the junk-pile of shame.
Examples of If-->Then.
Example: If we thrust a bar magnet through a copper wire coil attached to a galvanometer, then electric current is produced in that coil.
The "p" is "we thrust a bar magnet through a copper wire coil attached to a galvanometer" and the "q" is "electric current is produced in that coil". Logic calls the If--> Then the material conditional. Should p happen, then q must follow.
Another example: If I go swimming, then I will get wet. Here the "p" is "If I go swimming" where "q" is "I will get wet". Makes sense that since you are swimming, you are in water and will get wet. In the material conditional when p and q are true, necessitates that the outcome is true.
Another example: If I am dead, then my heart will have stopped beating. Here the "p" is "I am dead" where the "q" is "my heart will have stopped beating". I like to look on the If--> Then as a movement. That p moves into q. For it has only one T truth value when both p and q are true. But if q is false, then the entire result is false. Let me give an example of that.
An example of a false If-->Then: If I am alive, then my heart has stopped beating. Here the "p" is "I am alive" and the "q" is "my heart has stopped beating". Can we see that the p does not allow for the q and thus the result is false. The p does not move into the q.
Homework: the student makes up four examples of If--> Then and describes the resulting truth value. To be discussed in class tomorrow if time permits.
Laws of the 5 connectors.
----------------------------------
Law of Existential quantifier: There exists something is formed by the best available science on the subject topic. This comes from math derivative of calculus as dy/dx and also is coupled to If-->Then as division. And in the Exist quantifier we can never have "A exists AND A does not exist" for a contradiction causes all of logic to come to a screeching halt and has to call in the sciences to overcome the contradiction before continuing further.
Law of Not-Equal: Not is a reversal of a given statement while equality is identical sameness of two statements. Now the words in the two statements can be different but the idea in both statements is the same. Not-Equal comes from multiplication in arithmetic and is coupled with Universal quantifier as the integral of calculus.
Law of AND: Joins together several statements p,q,r,s, etc of Logic and is a collective true statement provided at least one of the statements p,q,r,s, etc is true. And the truth comes from the pertinent science surrounding the statements. AND comes from addition in arithmetic.
Law of OR: Removes or discards ideas or subtracts one idea from another idea represented by p,q,r,s, etc. OR is the opposite of AND that joins together statements. OR removes something, be it a statement or the subtraction of one statement with another statement.
Law of If-->Then: I like to think of If--> Then from calculus graph where we slowly move down the x-axis and graph the next coordinate point. Given statements P and Q that P moves into Q. The Law of If-->Then is both P and Q have to be true, by science, to form the conclusion of Q starting from P. And this ties in earlier with the idea that we discard all the F rows and U rows and have the T row define the connector.
Before I leave If-->Then connector of logic, I should mention the fact that If-->Then is not only division operator of mathematics but also is the derivative in differentiation of calculus of the dy/dx. And that Not-Equal is not only multiplication of math but is the integral in calculus where we have area under the function graph as dy times dx rectangle.
Also, in Logic, the If-->Then is Modus Ponens, the Aristotle syllogism of this.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Here the "p" is true "All men are mortal" with "q" as true, "Socrates is a man" begot from science of medical science and sociology history. And the result or outcome is true "Socrates is mortal". We see p and q moving into a "if p then q" result or outcome.
When you have p-->q and q-->p, then you have p=q.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes you can get a If p -->then q where the If q --> then p is also true. Example: If there is fire, then there is smoke. Reversing that to If q then p we have: If there is smoke, then there is fire. Here we have the beginning of the idea that equality is attained when If P--> then Q , but also, If Q --> then P, means P=Q. I say beginning because some will argue that smoke does not equal fire.
Example of If--> Then leads to equality.
If Americans win the Revolutionary War of 1776 between Britain, then the Americans are free and independent of Britain.
If the Americans are free and independent of Britain, then the Americans won the Revolutionary War of 1776.
Thus we can say "Americans win the Revolutionary War of 1776 between Britain = Americans are free and independent of Britain.
Meaning: when P moves into Q and also that Q moves into P means P = Q.
Another example.
If the speed of light is a maximum speed at 3.16*10^8 meters/second, then no speed is faster than light speed.
If no speed is faster than light speed, then 3.16*10^8 meters/second is a maximum speed.
Meaning: when P moves into Q and also that Q moves into P means P = Q.
As I said before, the If-->Then is viewed as the Material Conditional. Viewed as the Implies, as p implies q. Viewed as division in math. Viewed as the derivative of motion in calculus as dy/dx, as a velocity of motion. And why I like to often view If-->Then as the "motion into", the being to becoming.
Logic is the science of making ideas as clear, and correct, and straight as possible.
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 17, 2025, 12:42:49 AM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
So this problem of where to start with Logic of its 6 connectors is now resolved. With Math we start with Add. We would have a difficult time of starting with multiplication in math to youngsters, even adults. But with Logic we are forced to start with Existential quantifier then Not-Equal for that is multiplication and we need Equal signs for AND, OR, IF-->Then.
Math is the Language of Precision numbers quantity and geometry figures for Physics, while Logic is the Language of Correctness of Ideas as statements p,q,r,s, etc, for Physics.
We do physics by using mathematics for precise measure and observation. And we do physics ideas by employing Logic to make our ideas clear and straight and correct.
Math starts with Add, for we simply see mathematical induction yields the counting-numbers 1,2,3,4,... while Logic connectors start with Existence and Multiply and that is fitting, for starting with Add we start near zero. Yet starting with Multiply we start with a whole picture for multiplication in 10 Grid is the largest multiplication is 10 x 10 =100. A number furthest from 0 in the 10 Grid for 100 is in the next grid of 100 Grid.
Enlarging this idea that the 4 connectors of Logic keep only the True rows and discard the False rows.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Not-Equal connector, all 4 rows are true so there is nothing to discard.
In the AND connector, 3 rows are true and so we keep them but the last row is false and discard it.
In the OR connector the 2 middle rows are true and the first and last rows are false so we discard them.
In the If-->Then connector only the first row is True and so we discard the last 3 rows.
Now why is this important?? Because in Science, everything is about the Truth of Reality of Existence and of Universal. Falsehoods are treated as nonsense of 0 value, as a waste of time.
And this idea that only truth is used and manipulated in Logic streamlines Logic. We do not want to waste time on junk and garbage ideas.
The AND connector allows for arguments to fill up on nonsense and junk, provided there is at least one statement true in a chain of statements. The OR connector discards via subtraction the nonsense or junk statement. Finally, the If-->Then in its Law definition clearly points out that in Science and Logic, we focus only on True Statements, and see false statements as nonsense and background noise.
So when we make a Argument of Logic, whether the simple syllogism of 2 lines with a conclusion or the more robust arguments of more than 2 lines, that every line should have a True value, considering that AND may have nonsense statements also.
Every If --> Then statement has a true P and a true Q.
Every Not-Equal argument has a True P with Q where the "not" makes it so.
Every AND argument has at least 1 true value statement.
Every OR argument ends up true for we remove a false statement.
If we count up the number of true values in Old Logic 6 connectors we have this tally.
Equal has 1
Not has 1
AND has 1
OR inclusive has 3
OR exclusive has 2
If-->Then has 3
In AP's New True Logic that tally would be this.
Equal-Not has 4
AND has 3
OR has 2 (for exclusive is the only OR)
If-->Then has 1
Notice that in New Logic each connector ___is in fact a Unique and thus is Necessary connector___. While in Old Logic three have 1 true value, and two have 3 true values, and there is _no connector_ with 4 true values. No wonder Old Logic had crazy laws like DeMorgan's law where you find that Old Logic can throw out connectors such as OR, or throw out AND because they are not both needed because they are not unique. And we can throw out If-->Then and just use _not_ with _or_.
You see, when your connectors are __not unique__. Then you can find Rules of Inference of equality and begin to shave off connectors because only 2 connectors will get you all you want. But in New Logic, because all 4 of the simple connectors are unique, that no two can be equal by manipulation.
In Old Logic, you had hypocrisy, contradiction, inconsistency, loss of uniqueness in Not(p and q) = (not p or not q) and Not(p or q) = (not p and not q) along with (if p then q) = (not p or q) -- all discussed later on Laws of Inference.
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 18, 2025, 12:32:36 AM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
So let us view how Old Logic-- all logic before AP in 1991-- caused Contradictions, loss of necessity by loss of uniqueness and loss of Consistency.
Old Logic Equal
p = p
_____
T T
F F
Old Logic Not
p not-p
_____
T F
F T
Old Logic AND
p q p and q
____________
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F
Notice that Old Logic has 6 truth tables while New Logic has just 4 truth tables, for we combined Not with Equal and we did not have two different types of OR. It is illogical to think that some operators should be binary and the others quaternary. So AP is a logical person and combines Not with Equal to form Not-Equal a quaternary operator just like the other operators. This is what math calls Consistency and is logically sound.
Notice that Old Logic had 2 different types of OR, again a stark Inconsistency in Logical Thought. A operator is not unique if there are 2 different types of that operator. As silly and stupid if mathematics taught two different types of subtraction when subtraction is only of one type.
Notice in the Inclusive OR, that Old Logic combines "and" with "or" in forming "either..or..or..both". This is mindless Contradiction. In math that would be concocting subtraction along with addition into one amalgamation.
Notice in If-->Then there is no room in Old Logic to mirror reflect that division by 0 in mathematics is undefined. And so Old Logic is less than mathematics in scope, and this makes Logic worthless. You need a connector in logic that allows room for division by 0 is undefined. And Old Logic failed on that score with If-->Then being a truth table of TFTT. When we have that truth table be TFUU, with U as unknown or uncertain, undefined, then division by 0 as undefined can be in either one of the U's.
In Old Logic, because they screwed up badly on Truth Tables, they can throw many of the connectors in what is called Rules of Inference which we show in a future chapter as wrecking havoc on Logic-- throw-out AND, and throw out If-->Then for _not_ with _or_ can substitute throughout.
In New True Logic, each of the 4 connectors is unique in True values, one has 4, another 3, another 2 and the last one being If-->Then has 1, so that all 4 connectors are Necessary and cannot be substituted out, and thrown away.
So in True Logic there are 4 simple connectors of AND, OR, Equal-Not, and If-->Then, and there are 2 quantifiers of Existence and All.
How many simple operators exist in Mathematics, a subset of Logic??
In Math we have Add, Subtract, Multiply, Divide, and we could say we have Derivative and Integral for 6 operators.
We can link up Add to AND; Subtract to OR: Multiply to Not-Equal; Divide to If-->Then; Derivative to "there exists"; Integral to All.
Because colleges and universities across the globe do not have an Error, or near-error-free-textbook on Logic, I need to publish this book as fast as possible. All of Old Logic uses the Boole and Jevons logic and yet Boole and Jevons got all the 4 simple connectors of Logic all in error, not a single one of the 4 connectors is true in Boole and Jevons. So the need of an error free Logic textbook is a great enormous need.
For decades now, I have been saying that scientists should take two years of college logic in order to get a degree in science to help them think straight and think clear. Well there is little point in sending them to textbooks of college logic when they are riddled full of mistakes.
So my writing of #366 College Logic, or the #367 College Logic where I remove mention of Old Logic, and #368 Advanced Logic, addresses that need.
Logic pretty much follows mathematics as languages of precision --- for logic it is precision ideas, and for math it is precision numbers and geometry. Logic deals with statements of language as packets of ideas. Math deals with numbers for algebra and lines and figures for geometry. There is a close relationship between the two subjects, so much so that it is wise to compare them. All along in this book I compared the two.
Since math has 4 operators as simple operators, for we could tack-on the derivative and integral to make 6 operators, we focus our attention on the 4 simple operators-- Add, Subtract, Multiply, Divide.
Since math has the 4 simple operators, it is reasonable to claim Logic has 4 simple connectors that are similar. And for Logic those 4 simple connectors are AND, OR, Not-Equal, If-->Then.
Now Math is a subset of Logic, but every science is a subset of Physics. This means that all the ideas found in mathematics have an analog or similarity with that found in Logic.
Examples: Addition in math is found in the Logic connector of AND. Many even say 2 and 3 is 5. Subtraction in math is found to be OR in logic where you have "It was raining today or it was sunny today" whichever is true you remove (subtract) the other. Multiplication in math is found to be Equal-Not combined for its truth table becomes this.
The only truth table in all of Logic 4 simple connectors with a true value for all possibilities. And that is what multiplication such as factorial in math is like. For 5 factorial is 1x2x3x4x5 =120.
Division in math is where you divide something big down into smaller pieces and in Logic that connector becomes If--> Then with a truth table of only one true value when both P and Q statements are true.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 3, 2026, 7:28:29 PM (13 days ago) Jan 3
to Plutonium Atom Universe
17) The Universal quantifier connector.
The Universal quantifier invokes the image or quantity of "All" or of "Every". The universal quantifier is related to the integral of calculus as the area under the function graph, area of rectangles as cells, the dy multiply times the dx. Related to math as multiplication as the Not-Equal connector of Logic. Related to geometry as "all of space" such as volume.
However, and surprisingly, the Universal quantifier is related to the AND, or addition connector of Logic also. This is somewhat surprising as we asked of AND why it was not the first connector to study in Logic? Seeing that addition is AND where in arithmetic we first study add, then subtract then multiply then divide.
So how is the Universal quantifier related to AND? The counting numbers of arithmetic are begot from Mathematical Induction in that given 0 and 1, keep adding 1 and you get 2, add 1 and you get to 3, so on and so on which yields all the Counting Numbers out to infinity.
We can perceive infinity as being the Universal. And what is truly Universal are the Laws of Physics and Science such as the Universal law of gravity, or the law of Coulomb or Faraday or Ohm or Ampere. In biology, the law of DNA as genetics or Cell theory. Again, in physics the laws of thermodynamics or the laws of quantum mechanics. In Chemistry, the Law of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements. In chemistry and physics the law of Atomic theory.
But how are these Universal Laws of Science established? Certainly we cannot travel out infinitely far and check up whether gravity is universal.
And in comes the Scientific Method that explains how laws of science are made Universal. The process is much the same as Mathematical Induction, only instead of numbers, adding one more to form the next number out to infinity, instead of numbers, we have Experiment Induction. Reread the Scientific Method chapter on the enumerated points to establish a law of science. The crucial part is to do an Experiment. Now if one person formulates a law with a math formula and does an experiment and shows the result matches the predictions, is not yet a law of science. We have to wait for others to read the experiment details and set-up the experiment in their lab. Repeat the experiment and if they get the same results, then we are closer to announcing that we have a Law of Science. If we wait a few years and thousands of people have performing the same experiment with the same end result, it is at this point we call our experiment a Universal law of science. There is a caveat to this, though. It could be that some future experiment on the law turns up some unknown data that calls the law into question as to its validity, or whether it needs a bit of tweaking in its formulation.
What I am trying to convey to the reader is that a Universal Law of Science is similar to the process of Mathematical Induction that has the numbers go to infinity, only we have experiments to perform, instead of adding 1 more to get the next number.
The Universal quantifier is especially important to science such as physics in that Laws of science are "universal laws". Where universal means there are no exceptions. Every mass is attracted to another mass by the formula of G(M_1*M_2)/d^2, with no exceptions. Every magnetic monopole obeys Coulomb law of K(q_1*q_2)/d^2, and never any exceptions. Laws of Physics are universal. Logic connectors starts with Existence quantifier then Not-Equal, and in between is AND, OR, If-->Then, ending with the Universal quantifier. All neat and in order of 6 connectors. Reflecting the fact that 6 operators are sufficient to describe the science of precision-- mathematics.
AP Principle to Form an Argument of Logic-- all the premisses must be true as checked by science to have an argument of logic.
The idea here is that we have seen plenty of truth-tables for the 4 connectors of Not-Equal, AND, OR, If-->Then and we see many false statements as if routine in living life that false statements are abundant and that we must navigate around them. Instead, in science especially, that false statements are seldom or rare to the discussion or argument. In fact, in every science argument I have ever seen in life, the advocates are attempting to use only True Statement Premisses, and eliminate all statements that are false, chitter-chatter, time wasting statements. They try to use only true statements in the argument at hand.
That idea is the gist of the AP Principle above-- in any argument, not even a science argument, we strive to put only True statements in the ongoing argument.
So I was wondering if anyone else had this idea before me. The idea that a Logical Argument is where only True ideas are acceptable for the statements p,q,r,s,t,u etc???
I found this quote on Internet of Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, looking to see if anyone else had the idea that all premisses must be true as checked by science.
snipped
Basic concepts
Premises, conclusions, and truth
Premises and conclusions
Main articles: Premise and Logical consequence
Premises and conclusions are the basic parts of inferences or arguments and therefore play a central role in logic. In the case of a valid inference or a correct argument, the conclusion follows from the premises, or in other words, the premises support the conclusion. For instance, the premises "Mars is red" and "Mars is a planet" support the conclusion "Mars is a red planet". For most types of logic, it is accepted that premises and conclusions have to be truth-bearers. This means that they have a truth value: they are either true or false.
Now I am interested in following up on this reference to see if they are talking about AP's principle that all premisses in a Argument of Logic be true premisses as determined by the most recent science on the subject. This reference is Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy with Honderich 2005, philosophical logic. Apparently the AP Principle that all premisses possess a true truth value before you can form a logical argument is not completely unknown.
Physics when it does Logic, uses positive numbers from 0 to the infinity borderline of where Light speed is a constant maximum. Physics has 0 be Absolute 0 Kelvin temperature and has infinity borderline of the speed of Light. Zero in physics would be nothing, no mass, no matter, no energy. Yet it takes infinite energy to get to Absolute 0 Kelvin.
Truth Tables in Logic were human mind table constructions from human behavior, but not as a science table.
For there is no concept of "falsehood" in physics. Physics is a construct of Universal Laws and of Existence of Matter and Energy.
So when Physics is asked to make out Truth Tables for Logic, its parameters for the table would not be True and False. Its parameters would be a positive number between 0 and the speed of Light, (or the infinity borderline) such as the rest mass of the proton or electron or neutron.
For Physics the truth table of AND is that of addition and has 3 of 4 rows. The truth table of IF-->Then is that of division and has 1 of 4 rows. The truth table of Equal-Not combined as one has 4 of 4 rows and is multiplication. The OR truth table has 2 of 4 rows and seen as subtraction, but there is a profound difficulty with OR. It has to be a choice truth table and thus when using True or False, that does not make a choice of something versus nothing.
So the Truth Tables of Logic need a vast amount of more work on them to get them to be scientific and useful. In their present state, the truth tables of Old Logic are a relic junk of the past.
What I suspect will happen, is that Truth Tables will end up being a mere test and check measure of a Logic Argument, and no more. Where the Connectors follow principles.
AND Principle is add true ideas together.
OR Principle is remove (subtract) true ideas.
IF-->Then Principle is Move true ideas to a new true idea.
Equal-Not Principle is the full Space of Ideas possible.
The Old Logic truth tables were a hindrance to doing logic for that system saw everything as just black or white with no shades of one or another, an all or none system. Yet Science is nowhere like an all or none system.
The Principle of Logic that all the premisses of a Argument need to be true premisses checked and passed by the hard sciences given approval of truth value is a Principle that topples all of Old Logic and how defunct is a system of saddling a connector with T or F.
The OR connector of Old Logic truth table wrecks all of Old Logic.
OR connector of Old Logic
P Q P OR Q
T T F
T F T
F T T
F F F
Yes we see a "choice" then it is True. But the F for false is 0 in Physics and so a T or nothing is really not a choice at all.T F T
F T T
F F F
Physics would demand a truth table of OR be more looking like this where OR is subtract (remove) and those numbers correspond to MeV for proton, neutron, muon and magnetic monopole.
P Q P OR Q
105 945 840
945 840 105
0.5 0.5 0
A biology truth table of OR would start to look like this.
P Q P OR Q
7 wild dogs 11 hyenas 11 hyenas
313 wildebeest 12 lions 313 wildebeest
17 vultures 31 zebra 17 vultures
Old Logic was a primitive science almost useless and along comes the computer that needs software and needs to have addition as well as the arithmetic of subtraction, multiply and divide. But so so primitive and full of error, that the Old Logic said OR was addition and the fools then had AND be subtraction for modern day computer. All because Old Logic is riddled through and through with error.
Is there a 7th Connector for Logic, but not necessarily a 7th operator of mathematics.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If 6 operators describe all of mathematics and math a subset of Logic, then 6 connectors, by logical reasoning is necessary but not sufficient to describe all arguments of ideas p,q,r,s,t, etc. There may well be a 7th connector of Logic, but that question is far beyond this textbook designed for 1st year of logic in college.
But now that I brought up the subject of whether there is a 7th connector of Logic for which mathematics has no 7th operator. I would speculate that Perpendicularity, of electric field versus magnetic field, and that quantum duality of electricity to magnetism duality, or that temperature is inverse to time forms a 7th connector in logic and a 7th operator in mathematics. I will revisit this idea in Advanced Logic, #368 book of science.
I need to check up on Quantum Duality as represented in mathematics.
For example in regular polyhedra we have the duality of cube with octahedron and then there is the duality of dodecahedron with icosahedron. The cube has 6 faces and 8 vertices while octahedron has 8 faces and 6 vertices. The dodecahedron has 12 faces and 20 vertices while the icosahedron has 20 faces and 12 vertices.
In Biology, we can say that male is a duality to female. And in DNA mitosis is a perpendicular sectioning versus a horizontal sectioning for meiosis.
In Mathematics calculus, the graph cannot have a perpendicular for that denies "uniqueness" for the function. So does that entail that Physics has the perpendicular in duality, and Logic has the perpendicular in duality--- such as sex, but that Mathematics in calculus is preempted from having the perpendicular in duality?
Here I need to inspect on whether the Old Physics Maxwell Equations delivered quantum duality from those equations in some form of mathematics. It is well known that the Maxwell Equations delivered the "closed loop circuit" for electricity and magnetism in the fact that they were equations of math with an inverse square law, which in geometry is a circle or ellipse.
But here the question is whether the Maxwell Equations delivered "perpendicular for duality"???
Quite ironic that Maxwell developed the Light Wave as a magnetic field component along with and simultaneously an electric field component perpendicular to the magnetic field. But do the math equations have perpendicularity embedded in the equations themselves?
When we look at the AP Equations of EM theory, electromagnetic laws, we ___cannot get____ perpendicularity out of that mathematics, even though we can get a closed loop circuit.
The 6 AP-Electromagnetic Equations and the 7 Structures (Laws) of Physics and all sciences
0) domain structure as Atomic Theory
1) Magnetic primal unit structure Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
2) V = C*B*E New Ohm's structure, structure of electricity
3) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor-Transformer structure
4) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell structure
5) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday structure
6) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new structure of Coulomb force with EM gravity force and DeBroglie pilot wave
The Product Rule and the Quotient Rule of differential equations allows us to see in those divisions the inverse square is a circular closed loop, but ___no perpendicular__ is forthcoming. No perpendicular to allow for duality such as the duality as seen in the regular-polyhedron.
Alright, I need to re-do the Faraday law experiment to answer fully this question on whether Logic through all the sciences especially up through Physics, but with mathematics deleted, has a Perpendicular, yet math does not because all calculus function graphs cannot be perpendicular to x-axis.
The concept I am pursuing here is that duality is perpendicularity.
I need to pull my Faraday Law apparatus out of storage. I remember that the bar magnet has to be perpendicular for maximum electric current produced. And when off by an angle, the electric current is less than maximum using the trigonometry of sine and cosine to figure out the electric current production.
Here we see that Mathematics is split up by Trigonometry as sine and cosine are duals, duality of one another, what sine value is, is the dual of the cosine value, much like physics particle wave duality.
If the experiment shows that I can thrust the bar magnet through copper coil at a 90 degree angle from maximum current production resulting in 0 current production, then I will have shown that Faraday law, Ampere law and Coulomb law have the Concept of Duality as Perpendicularity.
Then, that 0 electric current result would cause me to return to Mathematics, to say that the Perpendicular restriction in calculus is merely just a flip of the Graph. Say we had a function that was X --> 2, a perpendicular line at x=2 with all y-values on that perpendicular. Solution: take the inverse of that function to be Y--> 2, in other words switch the roles, switch the x-axis to be the y-axis as the function.
Time for me to get the Faraday law apparatus out of winter storage and see if a perpendicular thrust yields 0 electric current production.
Once I get out my Faraday law apparatus and if it confirms that I can thrust a bar magnet through the copper coil and yet, no electric current produced. Is proof that Physics has a Perpendicularity concept which is the same as Quantum Duality, particle to wave, or better yet, electricity to magnetism.
As for mathematics, that the perpendicular is not allowed in calculus, we simply switch the x-axis to being the y-axis and proceed from there.
No need of a 7th connector in Logic or a 7th operator in mathematics.
Alright, pulled out my Faraday Law apparatus of a microAmp 10^-6 Ampere galvanometer attached to copper coil and using a neodymium (rare earth element) bar magnet thrust the bar magnet perpendicular through the coil for a 500 microAmp reading of electric current.
Next I attached the bar magnet to a steel paper clip wire to thrust the bar magnet through the coil at a horizontal rather than perpendicular. The most reading was a 30 microAmp electric current.
Next I measured the perpendicular bar magnet on the coil hole without going inside the coil and at most it read 30 microAmp electric current and finally, a horizontal positioning of the bar magnet above the hole without actually going inside read 0 microAmp.
I am convinced that when the bar magnet is positioned horizontal to the coil, it has no electric current produced.
This informs me that the Faraday law, the Ampere law, and the Coulomb law have quantum duality by virtue of horizontal configuration of bar magnet versus perpendicular orientation. Duality such as particle to wave, or electricity to magnetism is perpendicular orientation.
Sex in biology is a duality, of a horizontal to perpendicular orientation, because mitosis is a perpendicular reconfiguration, while sex is a horizontal reconfiguration. This is the theme of my future #435 book of science.
Universal quantifier and Laws of Inference
-----------------------------------------------
The Universal quantifier is especially important to Physics for the Laws of Physics are universal laws and as such, the concept of universal quantifier has to come directly out of Physics.
Archimedes Plutonium Oct 18, 2025, 4:19:40 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
It is around middle of October 2025, now, and just getting started on the Laws of Inference of Quantification-- existential and universal.
Boole & Jevons and their latter day followers messed up on all 4 of the Simple Connectors-- Equal-Not, AND, OR, If-->Then. Question is, now, did they mess up on the Existential and Universal quantifiers.
Copi (Logic, 1972, 4th ed.) and Thomason (Symbolic Logic, 1970) talk about Universal Instantiation, Universal Generalization, Existential Instantiation, Existential Generalization.
Let us examine if there are mistakes in those four.
Right off the starting line-- I detect problems with Universal Generalization. Is that not -- like Either..or..or..Both, a contradiction in terms??? When something is Universal, already, then how can it be further made into a Generalization???
Copi speaks of "calling an arbitrary member of a triangle, finding a property of that triangle, and then Generalizing to say that property exists in all triangles". My question for that is --- how do you know from the start, you have an arbitrary-something??? You may have picked a biased-something.
Example: All crows are black, the crow in the field is black, the crow in the tree is black. But then in a rare case an albino crow is born.
What I am going to do here is that Copi and Thomason list four Laws of Inference for the quantifiers. I call them Laws and not the silly Old Logic of "Rules of Inference". There is a huge difference in Physics between a "rule" and a "law".
They list these:
Universal Instantiation UI
Universal Generalization as UG
Existential Instantiation as EI
Existential Generalization as EG
I suspect only UI and EG are valid. I suspect UG is a huge error. And that EI is utterly redundant as saying x exists, therefore x exists.
What I am going to do to make my case, the case of AP, is transfer Quantification to that of Calculus of mathematics. I already found and exposed that the Existential Quantifier is the Derivative of calculus. And where the Universal Quantifier is the integral of calculus. We know for sure in mathematics that the integral is the reverse of derivative and the derivative is the reverse of integral which is the famous theorem of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But I need in Logic what is the function graph???? You see, in the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, derivative and integral are reversals to a ---- function graph----. An intermediary between derivative and integral.
AP in November 2025:: But is that true, is the function graph an intermediary between the derivative of the function and the integral of the function? Take for example in Calculus that Y = x^2 as function whose derivative is 2x and whose integral is (1/3)x^3. Do we really have three entities here?? Do we really have x^2, 2x, and (1/3)x^3???? I ask because the derivative in a cell goes from the coordinate point of the left wall in that cell to the next coordinate point on the right wall of that cell and that line drawn in the graph is the initial function graph itself. So in each cell, we have the derivative and the integral, but no need of the function graph itself. So maybe there are no three entities involved in calculus-- function graph, derivative, integral. Maybe instead there are just two entities involved in calculus-- derivative and integral. And that the function graph is what can be called the result of the inner workings of the derivative and integral.
No-one in Logic, before me, has looked for an Intermediary, between that of Universal quantifier and Existential quantifier.
My guess at this moment in time of what the intermediary is--- is what physics calls a "field" such as the electric field or the magnetic field.
Archimedes Plutonium Oct 18, 2025, 5:39:42 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
I am inspecting on which of the only 2 Laws of Inference for quantification are valid and the other two are false or redundant. Is it UI and EG valid and that EI is a mere redundancy while UG is invalid?? In November of 2025, I would come to realize all four of UG, UI, EG, EI ___are valid__ because all four are segments of the Scientific Method itself. All four are slices of how truth is established in Science via experiments. Certainly--- we cannot check for a "For every law of Physics" and thus we end up with UG of hypothesizing that since a few number of experiments reveals that Faraday law, or Ampere law or New Ohm's law are Universal Laws of Physics via experiments. And so, I came to realize by November 2025, that Laws of Science require all four UG, UI, EG, EI for they are slices, parts and pieces of the fact that science Experiments evince Universal laws of Science via the Scientific Method and experimentation.
Let me debunk Wikipedia listing of Logic examples which are wrong and mistaken due to their errors of the simple connectors and their gross error of never realizing that Logic is the Scientific Method.
--- quoting Wikipedia---
First-order logic also employs the logical operators from propositional logic but includes additional devices to articulate the internal structure of propositions. Basic propositions in first-order logic consist of a predicate, symbolized with uppercase letters like P and Q, which is applied to singular terms, symbolized with lowercase letters like a and b. For example, if a stands for "Aristotle" and P stands for "is a philosopher", the formula P(a) means that "Aristotle is a philosopher". Another innovation of first-order logic is the use of the quantifiers exists and for-all, which express that a predicate applies to some or all individuals. For instance, the formula exists xP(x) expresses that philosophers exist while for-all xP(x) expresses that everyone is a philosopher. The rules of inference from propositional logic are also valid in first-order logic. Additionally, first-order logic introduces new rules of inference that govern the role of singular terms, predicates, and quantifiers in arguments. Key rules of inference are universal instantiation and existential generalization. Other rules of inference include universal generalization and existential instantiation.
Notable rules of inference
Rule of inference
Form
Example
Universal instantiation
for-all xP(x) P(a)
Everyone must pay taxes.Therefore, Wesley must pay taxes.
Existential generalization
P(a) exists xP(x)
Socrates is mortal. Therefore, someone is mortal.
--- end quoting Wikipedia---
Let me write an example of EI , Existential Instantiation.
Existential Instantiation
ExP(x)
----------
P(a)
This is the reverse of above of Existential generalization.
If you have the Every then want to Generalize Every-- how stupid is that??? Unless, however you are reminded that the Scientific Method for Universal Laws of Physics are promulgated by a single experiment that turns into making a universal law.
If you have There Exists and want to Instantiate that--- how stupid is that???? Unless, however you started from a Universal law of Physics, say the Faraday law and you want to verify that an electric current exists by thrusting a bar magnet through copper wire coil.
The Example I offer to make this all clear does not come from derivative versus integral of Calculus but the entire Scientific Method.
When does an experiment in Physics allow us to say--- that is a Universal Law??? For example the Faraday Law. So we have a closed loop coil and a bar magnet thrust through the coil producing a electric current. That is one experiment and Faraday was the first to do that experiment. Soon others repeated the experiment. So we have the Existence of one true experiment then others would increase the number to thousands who repeated the Experiment. Thus we jump from There Exists to the more General and say the Faraday Experiment is a Law of Physics. A universal law established once anyone can perform the experiment and get the exact same results as all the others who performed the experiment before.
Now with the Faraday Law of thrusting bar magnet through closed loop coil yields electric current--- let us go the other way as that taken to be a Universal. What is the Universal Instantiation of the Faraday Law??? It is the experiment done once more yielding the result--- There exists a current produced in the Faraday experiment.
The UG is going from several experiments yielding the same results and thus a Universal Law of Science and the UI is where we repeat the experiment and find out the results again match the Universal Law.
It is the Scientific Method of how we arrive at Universal Laws of Physics that makes Existential Generalization valid. And it is the same Scientific Method that makes Universal Instantiation be Valid. As we take say the Ampere Law and instantiate it by showing an experiment set-up at Caltech where a current flowing in a wire produces a magnetic field around that wire.
Physics has Existential Instantiation for that is doing the Ampere law or Faraday law experiment on the spot at the moment.
So we do the Faraday law experiment and find it holds true, the existence of our Faraday Law apparatus confirms the Faraday law and thus we jump from Existence to that of Existence Generalization that all performances of the Faraday law achieve the same end results of producing electricity by thrusting a bar magnet through closed loop coil of copper wire. Here a particular experiment conducted by you and me is generalized into the Faraday law. Now EI. So we read the Faraday Law saying--- thrust the bar magnet through closed loop coil connected to Galvanometer and read how much electricity was produced. So we read this Universal Law and perform the instructions. And what we discover is that of the existence of a electric current. We have gone from existence in general to existence in specific instance.
Yes, this makes clarity to all of UG, UI, EG, and EI, but only in a context of Laws of Science where Experimentation is the existence parameter and the Science Law is the Universal parameter.
In everyday common language, we rarely are speaking about the Universal Laws of Physics or other sciences and when we teach UG, UI, EG, EI we should focus on Laws of Physics. This is why it is extremely difficult to give examples in ordinary language of common experiences for UG,UI, EG, EI, because those experiences do not involve universal laws of science (especially physics).
Tonight I was watching a most excellent show on Mountain Lions in Montana on PBS NATURE, top excellent show.
Let me see if I can drum up 4 examples one each of UG, UI, EG, EI.
UG: Willow the mountain lion and her kittens have retractable claws by Linnaeus classification, thus, every mountain lion observed in the future has retractable claws. ( a law of biology, going from Willow to her 7 + kittens to a generalization that all mountain lions have retractable claws)
UI: We start from the beginning of this show and we know as a fact the biology law that all mountain lions have retractable claws. We are introduced to Willow and then her 7+ kittens and all the mountain lions shown in this program have retractable claws.
EG: We see every mountain lion in Willow show has retractable claws, we now generalize to the biology law that all mountain lions have retractable claws.
EI: We examine the claws of any one of the kittens of Willow and of Willow herself and find they are retractable claws.
So what I am coming to the conclusion with, is that all 4 quantifications exist UG, UI, EG, EI but they exist only in a specific context of Laws of Science that have Universal Laws. The UG, UI, EG, EI do not exist in common language without the context of Laws of Science.
Finally figured out what UG, UI, EG, EI are. All four of them are based on the idea that the Scientific Method is used, employed in making the Truth of the world. The Scientific Method is essentially all four UG, UI, EG, EI combined to making and causing universal law to form from experiments, experiments often repeated of science and to instantiate universal law with existence.
18) Best understanding of "nothing or zero" in both math and logic.
What is the reverse of All or Every? The reverse is None or Nothing.
Looking in Copi, Introduction to Logic, 4th edition, 1972, looking in the index, no mention of zero, of nothing, of naught.
Looking in Thomason, Symbolic Logic An Introduction, 1970, looking in the index, no mention of zero, of nothing, of naught.
How important is zero in mathematics??? Well zero is different from all the other numbers of math-arithmetic, written as 0 and represents the concept of "nothing" of empty space in geometry. Zero is also represented in numbers themselves besides being the start of positive numbers, for ___no negative numbers exist in math or science__.
Notice that numbers vitally need 0 to count for place values. If we count 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, then we need the zero 0 number to fix the place value for 10. Without 0, we are forced to call 10 to be 11 or something stupid????
Geometry needs zero 0, vitally needs 0 for empty space. In fact, no calculus can exist if 0 did not exist, because the derivative is the slope in empty space from one number to the next successor number in the xy graph plane. If the plane were a continuum of numbers, like the Reals, with no empty space from one number to the next number, then Calculus would not exist, for you cannot form a derivative.
What is Zero, 0 from the 6 connectors of Logic? Zero comes from the negation of the Existential quantifier. If we negate with a Not the Existential quantifier we end up with a quantity of 0, nothing.
Example: A rock-elm tree exists. Therefore, 1 rock-elm tree exists.
Rock-elm tree does not exist. Therefore, 0 rock-elm trees exist.
But now we get into a very messy question. A question so messy that some may call it philosophy instead of Logic. The question is -- is Not of logic the same as zero, 0, nothing of mathematics??? I dangle this question before you and let you come up with an answer. As for me, I am happy to think of Not of Logic as different from 0, zero, nothing of mathematics. For as I can see in counting to 9 then to 10, that the 0 serves as something-- serves as place-value. So my answer to the question is that zero,0 has some similarity to the Not of Logic, but, that the two are distinct. But then your younger minds may see more than I can see at this moment in time.
Archimedes Plutonium Nov 1, 2025, 2:25:41 AM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
Old Logic had Universal Quantifier and Existential Quantifier, but they made a mistake in missing the 0 or nothing, arising from the Existential quantifier and embedded into the Universal quantifier.
---------------------------------------------------------
On Friday, October 31, 2025 at 9:22:47 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Inverse A+ is to subtract A , and thus it equals 0.
Another mistake by Old Logic. They were amiss in having the Nothing the zero as part of Existential and Universal quantifiers.
The number 1 comes from the Existential quantifier as well as finite numbers. But zero 0 is in a domain of itself. By that I mean we tack on 0 in mathematics to enlist the Counting Numbers. We tack on 0 then add 1 to 0 then add more ones to achieve all the counting numbers in what is known as the process of Mathematical Induction.
Archimedes Plutonium Nov 4, 2025, 12:39:00 AM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
Alright, I have all the issues ironed out and time to write this textbook in full. It has been a difficult book, very time consuming. Probably because I end up overhauling entire Logic study of the past. It is as if I am doing fresh logic never before seen or understood. That logic of the past was error ridden and folly.
Some say "nothing" some say "zero" some say "empty space" and the concept seems simple to everyone. Simple enough to warrant no further description. But this concept is one of the most mysterious in all of math and science.
Zero is deemed a number in mathematics but unlike any other number. It is appended onto the numbers of mathematics and thought of as "nothing". It is the starting point in mathematics for which the next number is 1, then 2, then 3, etc.
In math geometry, zero can be terribly tricky, for in Ancient Greek times up to recent we believed in the axiom of a point has zero length, zero width and zero depth, yet still a point remains in existence described as having "no dimensions", described as nothing yet existing as a point. How can nothing deliver a point?? And this is just the start of the awful complexity ans the concept of "nothing or zero".
Then in mathematics, there is the idea that infinity starting from 0, then 1 , then 2 etc, that infinity bends back around and joins up with 0. A branch of mathematics called p-adics is notorious in fostering this notion that if you go far enough in numbers, they bend back around to meet up with at 0. Some like p-adics because there is no signage-- no negative numbers and all the numbers are positive numbers.
Another beautiful philosophy idea worth pursuing-- connecting Universal with Existential via zero.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I outlined above that p-adics in mathematics have a tendency to go to infinity and as they do so, they curl and bend back around to their starting point 0. Many love this facet of p-adics for it allows you to do all of numbers without ever needing negative numbers, with a signage of negative.
Now, getting back to my comment that zero, 0, nothing is the reverse of All or Every in the Universal quantifier. But notice also, that zero is the Not Existence of the Existential quantifier. All or Every is the reverse of "nothing". And Not Exist is "nothing". I seem to have some link up of Universal with Existential in the detail of zero, 0.
So we have to go ultimately to understand "nothing or zero" to the topmost science-- physics.
What does physics have to say about Zero or Nothing?
Physics has a-lot to say about Zero or Nothing but leaves us, in the end, unsatisfied and unhappy.
As for the idea that Zero is a starting point to reach for other numbers, first 1 then 2 then 3 etc. We have the concept of Absolute Zero Degree Kelvin Temperature where no temperature is below that. But even more starkly, no temperature can reach 0 Kelvin and all temperatures must be above 0 K degrees. As physics explains it, each lowering of temperature requires far more energy until you reach a point where you need infinite energy to go to zero kelvin.
This kelvin temperature of 0 degrees is the concept that 0 is a starting line or starting point.
But what does physics say about 0 in terms of Geometry-- Space?
The latest that physics talks of the concept of 0 is in the Dirac Equation of Physics. Where he imagines empty space being holes of positrons, those 0.5MeV particles-- the anti particle of the magnetic monopole of 0.5MeV (the particle that Old Physics thought was the Atom's electron). The true electron of the Atoms are muons at 105MeV and stuck inside proton toruses doing the Faraday law with the proton.
So how can we envision empty space when they are positron holes in Space?
If you read enough physics articles in magazines or books, you will find thousands of times where the author says empty space is teeming with energy and so, how can space be zero or nothing?? In fact these articles state that Space has infinite energy of Light Waves criss-crossing through space. Infinity in the emptiness of Space. We had thought this empty space was a vacuum except for the occasional light wave that traversed it.
This is the complexity and mystery of zero or nothing, I was eluding to before.
Then, in the Atomic theory, we often read the idea that over 90% of the space inside an atom is empty space, save for a photon criss-crossing through that empty space.
In my long career in science I came to the end opinion that photons---the light-photons are themselves what makes up Space thought to be empty space. In this viewpoint, when rest mass exists it can be a ball object occupying that particular space and that empty space was the photons that compose that space.
In this view All Space = rest mass occupied space plus photon making-up the rest of space. All Space = rest-mass mass + photon space.
This is in logical alignment with the idea that positrons are holes in space, and that photons are criss-crossing space and that Absolute 0 Kelvin is not attainable.
In Quantum Mechanics physics we have duality of electricity to magnetism. And here the idea is that the electric field and magnetic field determine Space that is not occupied by rest-mass particles.
We think of a photon as a packet of energy and we can envision that as empty or zero in the idea that no material objects are there.
Now how should Logic view Zero or Nothing?
It should not be made into a quantifier, but come from the other 6 connectors of Logic. And it is easy to see that Zero or Nothing comes from the Existential quantifier when we apply Not to the Existential quantifier.
When we say "Something called ixxx does not exist" we are saying that ixxx is zero or nothing.
So in Logic, zero or nothing is the combination of the Existential quantifier with the Not-Equal connector.
What is the major importance of Zero, nothing in Logic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The major importance of Zero, nothing in Logic is to give an evaluation number to all false and falsehood statements in logic, while true statements in Logic are assigned positive numbers larger than 0.
For examples of true statements. The statement: "Winter Solstice was 21December 2025 this year" which is a true statement and I can give it a truth value of any positive number larger than 0. Let me say in my opinion, that is important data, and so I assign it a truth value of 10. While another true statement is "The seven stars in the Big Dipper are easy to see, while only three stars of the Little Dipper are easy to see". For which, since it is true for me, maybe not true for some observers with better sky views at night. So I assign a value of 3 for this truth. But now, what would I assign a truth value to the Faraday law that says, "Thrust a bar magnet through copper coil connected to Galvanometer and see a electric current produced". This is a universal law of physics and would rate it a astounding 1*10^604, the infinity borderline positive number. In fact all laws of electromagnetism are worth that value.
The statement: " He sat and slept on a Park bench this afternoon." Is a true statement of someone, but it rather minuscule in truth value. Should I rate it a 1 or fraction of 1 as 0.5??
The statement: "Goochy goochy goo, tickle tickle". In a romantic date is a statement with little science content other than sociology, dating and romance to procreate offspring, yet it does have truth value. Should we rate it as a 1 in value, or maybe 0.25, a fraction of 1???
Examples of false statements. I have no choice but to assign all false statements with a zero, 0. For negative numbers do not exist, leaving me only with 0 to assign false statements.
The statement: "Winter Solstice is in March of every year". Is blatantly false, and give it a 0 value, for there is no other number value available.
The statement: "One of the seven stars in the Big Dipper is Polaris, the North Star". This is false for the North Star is in the Little Dipper. I have to assign this statement a 0 value.
The statement: Donald Trump says " I will slash drug prices by 400%, 500%, even 600%". This is false as it is impossible to go beyond a 100% discount, unless Trump is thinking of forcing drug companies to pay people to buy their drugs. So the statement is false and I am forced to assign it a 0 value.
The statement: "Higgily piggily into the borogoves goes a waltzing jabberwocky". Much of poetry are nonsense ideas and get a 0 in logic truth value.
The statement: "JJ Thomson in 1897 found the electron of Atoms". This is false because he found the magnetic monopole. The true electron of Atoms is the muon and stuck inside a proton torus. All false statements, even the gibberish, or yakkity yak empty ideas get the same evaluation marks--- 0.
Division by zero, 0, is possible but is an infinite integer, what I used to call p-adics from 1993 through 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From above the truth table of If-->Then was found to be TFUU where U stands for unknown, undecided and the obvious reason for this is that otherwise Logic has nothing in which to say that 1/0 = undecided. Math cannot have division by zero for it tears up all of mathematics.
Example of how division by zero tears up mathematics.
Suppose 1/0 was equal to 0 itself.
Then we have 1/0 = 0.
Multiply by 0 leaves us with (0)(1/0) = (0)(0).
This equals 1 = 0.
Trying any other number such as 2,3,4,5, etc you have the same end result that 2=0, 3=0, etc.
Thus every number equals zero.
Suppose 1/0 was equal to infinity which is the infinity borderline of 1*10^604.
The beauty of the true numbers being Decimal Grid Numbers and not the Reals is not only are they discrete, but the Grid Numbers allow one to use the 10 Grid, the 100 Grid and the 1000 Grid, pretending that 1000 Grid is the infinity borderline so that the mind does not have to think about using the actual borderline of 1*10^604 to achieve ___true results___. Here what I am saying is that if it is true in using 10, 10^2, 10^3 Grids, it is true in using 1*10^604 Grid. The beauty of the true numbers of mathematics as Grids, is not only are they discrete numbers with holes in between one number and the next number, but the entire Grid System is Mathematical Induction in full. What is true for the first 3 Grid systems will be true throughout.
Suppose 100 is the last finite number. Then 101 through 1000 are infinite integers.
1/0 in this scheme is 1/1000 where 1000 is the last infinite integer.
Here we are supposing that 1/0 is equal to infinity which is 1000.
Will this work???
0/0 equals 1/1000
1/0 equals 1/999
2/0 equals 1/998
3/0 equals 1/997
etc
etc on down to 100/0 = 1/900
Recently I proposed that the Light wave was really the Light-Wire, and that Light as a wave was flawed reasoning because it had __no medium__ to do waving in. Besides, there are no waves in the Electromagnetic Laws of physics, instead, there are Wires. So I corrected and changed Old Physics to read--- Quantum Mechanics Light Particle to Wire duality.
I drew an ascii art picture of the Light-Wire crudely looking like this.
LIGHT AS a WIRE, not wave looks like this.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
/ front of wire \ back of wire--- it is a pencil ellipse that contains a-lot of data
\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/
And then we augment those holes by placing a B field ring around each hole.
- | - | - | - |
Both the E-field can vary in size and the B-field can vary in size
|
| |
The variations allow for different sounds and different pictures.
In Old Physics, their Light wave ^v^v^v^v^v^v was the up and down sinusoid transverse (phony baloney) has no variations other than taking a different type of whole wave, but no variations in the E-field or B-field, hence the data it can hold is monolithic data. You would need several Light Waves just to communicate a single letter such as "A". With the Light Wire, a entire textbook with pictures can be sent over the air.
So, now, getting back to 100 Grid being what I call half of that pencil ellipse of 1 Light-Wire, the other half of the Light-Wire above could be in the 1000 Grid the numbers 200, 199, 198, 197 which we would think of in Old Math and Old Physics as being 0, -1, -2, -3, etc etc.
Or we can use the entire 1000 Grid from 101 to 1000 and think of 1000 as 0, 999 as -1, 998 as -2, 997 as -3.
Mind you, the Infinite Integers as I called them in 1993-2009 were the p-adics by mathematicians. I remember get a-lot of help from Karl Heuer in the early 1993 to about 1995 and then Alexander Abian helped me further, until his unfortunate passing away. But by year 2009, I discarded the p-adics altogether because I found the Infinity Borderline 1*10^604 where Huygens tractrix finally meets up and matches the related circle area, where pi digits are 3 in a row of zero value. So I no longer needed Infinite Integers, or, some prefer to call them p-adics.
The resurrection of p-adics, as infinite numbers that complete a electromagnetic circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Correct me if I am wrong on this statement, for I sensed from Karl Heuer and others of their likening of p-adics. That all of our modern day computers, whenever they need to Represent a Negative Number, that it is represented by p-adics, such as -1 = 999..99 then -2 is 999..98, then -3 is 999..97. They all liked p-adics because they can represent their negative numbers all with positive numbers doing the representation. Am I correct on that score??
Of course in true math, no negative numbers exist at all!!!!!!! For the axiom of math--- you cannot subtract more than what is available to subtract insures negative numbers are trash can illusions.
But, now, we have that pencil ellipse Light-Wire shown above, where 1/2 of the wire is normal regular numbers, and the other 1/2 is infinite integer numbers.
Now the ratio of normal numbers to infinite numbers need not be 1/2 to 1/2, but could be something like 1/10 normal to 9/10 infinite numbers. Where we can picture a Light Wire looking like this.
5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *11
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 where the asterisk numbers are infinite integers while the bottom straight flat row are normal numbers.
Now the above is my attempt of drawing a Light-Wire where only 1/10 of the wire is normal and the 9/10 is the severe bending arc to form a closed loop circuit composed entirely of infinite integers.
Now well, all of the above is speculation on my part, unless, of course, I find a actual Physics phenomenon which is a Deciding Experiment (referring the reader back to the OR connector).
Mine is speculation, until, I can show that the ideas above are the only ideas that can explain something in Physics which no other, like the stupid Old Physics notion of Wave within no medium.
Do I have a physics phenomenon that the above explains, yet is nothing but confusion in Old Physics????
BIREFRINGENCE
------------------------
The physics phenomenon of birefringence is easily explained, and only fully explained, when the Light-Wire is split into two parts, the normal numbers section making a image and the infinite-integer section described above, making a image.
There are probably many other phenomenon in Physics that the Light-Wire has a far easier explanation than the stupid Light wave of Old Physics.
Now in the below quote from Wikipedia, we can see the phenomenon and also we can see the feeble, and stupid Old Physics attempt of an explanation with their mindless transverse sinusoidal Light wave ^v^v^v^.
Actually Old Physics explanation of birefringence is one of physics loudest laughable jokes, that could make it to TV Late Night Comedy Shows.
pp
--- quoting Wikipedia on birefringence---
A calcite crystal laid upon a graph paper with blue lines showing the double refraction
--- end quoting Wikipedia on birefringence---
AP writes: in that picture, I can begin to see where a closed loop circuit of Light-Wire can form a double image, but cannot see how a sinusoidal ray with arrow head and tail can duplicate a image the up and down ^v^v^v^ Light as wave.
Alright, I solved this logical and physics problem with the best experiment to represent a Deciding Experiment. Is Light the AP Light-Wire, or is Light the Old Physics Light-Wave, the sinusoidal straight arrow with tail wave??
I spent much of this blizzard day of 28 December inside my house looking up anomalies in Light. Looking at anomalies in reflection in diffraction in refraction even in Birefringence explanation. They all have anomalies when we have Light as Light-Waves. But one experiment above all other physics experiments brings logically home the fact that Light cannot be a wave, that Light out of necessity has to be a Wire. And that experiment should not surprise anyone who has taken physics in college or university. The Double Slit Experiment makes sense only with Light being the AP Light-Wire.
So I went to University from 1968 to 1972 for a degree in mathematics, with my second favorite subject being physics. I thought I was not good enough to get a degree in physics because my grades compared to others was not good. I later realized after 1990, that the issue of not feeling adequate in physics was not a deficiency on my part, but rather, the whole of physics, and mathematics were deficient in understanding of true physics and true mathematics and those subjects were "not good enough to teach a Archimedes Plutonium the truth in math or physics". The state of physics and math eduction in the world of 1968 through 1972 were a poor state for a logical mind that was AP. I kept bumping up against foolish ideas that I could not possibly master. For example, in first year of college I dreamed that the Polynomial was the only function in all of math so that calculus class is simple as add or subtract 1 from exponent. No wonder I was average and not stellar in math. In physics, how on Earth was I going to understand the laws of electromagnetism when I cannot understand the Maxwell Equations??? Not that my brain was deficient to understanding those equations, but that the equations were phony baloney to begin with and my logical mind would have been polluted rather than enhanced and educated.
So in University of Cincinnati, later at Utah State University my love and interest of physics never waned. Your first love in life will, as the Bible says, either make or break you. And at both Universities I kept taking physics classes. I read and watched the Feynman Lectures and his films on physics. He spent inordinate time on the Double Slit Experiment, and I came to the conclusion that Feynman was obsessed with this Experiment. Seemed as though Feynman was bewildered with the results of the Double Slit, that the Light or the 0.5MeV particles would be "wavelike" at the slit, but end up "particlelike" at the end screen. How is this possible? Feynman kept puzzling over.
So here I am in 2025. With the idea that in the Michelson-Morley Experiment 1887, there was no "Luminferous Aether" no medium for Light as a wave to be "waving in". The entire physics community ignored, looked beyond their discovery of no medium for Light to wave in. When they should have had a logical mind to say--- probably our wave theory itself is wrong, for if no medium to wave in, then Light was never a wave in the first place.
I took Logic while at University of Cincinnati, two years of it. And probably the single greatest pick of my lifetime in education. For it is my Logical Mind that has made all the difference in the world for me in being a scientist. My logical mind is what led me to all the discoveries I found in science. And the reason I insist every scientist going forward who wants a degree in science in a college or university must take two years mandatory Logic. Logic from my 2 textbooks because no logic textbook had the connectors correct.
So, what if Feynman in 1963 instead of writing his Double Slit Experiment in his Lectures on Physics, revisited the Michelson-Morley Experiment. Revisited it with a Logical Mind, instead of a physics-mind. And said this. "Alright, so no Aether, no medium for Light to be waving in". And then Feynman makes a jump of faith. He says to himself, if no medium, then, well, Light is ___not a wave___!!!!!!!!!!!
Then of course there would have been a scramble for Feynman and others to find a replacement for Light as wave to Light as something else, that would make the Double Slit Experiment sensible, logically coherent.
What if in 1963, all physicists around the world dropped the idea of Light as wave, looking for a replacement.
The Logical Physicists would have looked at the other dualities in 1963, the year Feynman published his Lectures on Physics.
So the dualities current in 1963, other than the error filled particle-wave duality was the position-angular momentum duality. I am not sure if physicists by 1963 were smart enough to realize that electricity is the dual of magnetism. I may have been the first to discover that in the 1990s. But for sake of argument, let us say that all the physicists in 1963, especially Feynman, were logical and bright enough to know the best duality of all was electricity to magnetism.
So we have then a search for a replacement of Wave in physics. Now we add on top of that the duality of electricity to magnetism. We have particle but need to find what is the dual of particle. By looking at electricity to magnetism, we can say the copper coil in Faraday law or the copper wire in Ampere Law is particle, then what would be the dual????
As we thrust a bar magnet in coil of copper wires of Faraday Law we strip off magnetic lines of force to become electric current in the copper coil wires.
Likewise in Ampere law as we run a electric current in copper wire we generate a magnetic lines of force around, and perpendicular to the electric current.
So, logically, particles are involved in both Faraday and Ampere laws but no waves are involved. What is involved in both Faraday and Ampere laws is a Wire. Could Wire be the replacement of wave in Particle-- wave???? I do not mean some floating wire as Light, no, I mean the Electric Field and Magnetic Field are lines of force of a closed circuit constructed into a Wire in space that needs no medium.
Now, so we construct a wire in space from the E-field and B-field and in our construction we view the Wire as this diagram.
LIGHT AS a WIRE, not wave looks like this.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
/ front of wire \ back of wire--- it is a pencil ellipse that contains a-lot of data
\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/
And then we augment those holes by placing a B field ring around each hole.
- | - | - | - |
Both the E-field can vary in size and the B-field can vary in size
|
| |
The variations allow for different sounds and different pictures.
The Old Physics wave of Feynman in his Lectures on Physics is a up and down sinusoid with a arrow tip front and a tail ray.
^v^v^v^v^v^ that is transverse.
So, now, we come to having to decide which is true physics, in a deciding experiment. Luckily for me, a Deciding Experiment already exists in the Double Slit Experiment.
If AP's Light-Wire duality is true, then, Light as particle hits the end screen and registers particle, but as the Light enters the two slits the Light has interference patterns and the AP Wire will have interference of one wire to the next wire but as the wire hits the end screen, since it is a closed loop circuit in the first place, it is simultaneously a particle as that closed loop circuit. A up and down Light ray with arrow tip front and rear ray is not able to become a particle, no it remains as a ray as it hits the screen.
So, what frustrated Feynman is that Nature was not frustrating but that the idea of Wave was incorrect. That when Light as wave was found to have ___no medium__ in which to do waving in, is the error. For the wave theory should have been abandoned shortly after Michelson-Morley experiment and a replacement theory inserted.
A scientist without a Logical mind, is a scientist who will struggle to achieve good science. He/she may be good at collecting data and doing experiments, but likely will fail in interpreting, or understanding what went on in the experiment itself.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 3, 2026, 9:17:20 PM (13 days ago) Jan 3
to Plutonium Atom Universe
19) The Size & Mechanics of the Logic Argument in New Logic.
So I pull back on that plea to take calculus before they take this textbook on logic and I think also, that perhaps, those taking this textbook will better understand Calculus, when and if they ever do take calculus, that they better understand calculus from the glimpses of calculus shown in this textbook on logic, than any student who never read this textbook.
Yes, this chapter on the Logic Argument, its mechanics and size is the heart of Logic itself.
The size of a logic argument in Old Logic was determined by what they called the Propositional Logic versus the First-Order-Predicate Logic. Old Logic was mostly that of word-soup-nonsense with its Propositional versus First-Order-Predicate Logic.
In my youth, in college, University of Cincinnati 1968-1972, I took 2 years of Logic and still not clear as to what is "propositional logic versus 1st order predicate logic".
Logic is supposed to shine clarity on all ideas. In the case of size of a logic argument-- how many sentences, how many statements, Old Logic went dark with anything on that topic.
And here we can safely say, the greatest of all errors of Old Logic was not that they got all 4 of the simple connectors of Logic-- AND, OR, Not-Equal, If-->Then all messed up and in error. As hard as it is to believe, they made even a far greater mistake in Old Logic. They never recognized that Science determines truth in Logic and Science determines the size of an Argument in Logic.
Does Any Old Logic book mention "science" ??
--------------------------------------------------------------
Looking at Copi's Introduction to Logic, 4th edition, 1972 and Thomason's Symbolic Logic An Introduction, 1970 in the index in the back of the book. Does either one mention "science"????
Copi mentions "science" starting on page 423 as "Science, the aims of".
Thomason does not even mention science.
First and foremost of logic is Science for it is science and the methods of science to give us the "truth value" of Logic. Without science we have no truth value for Logic. And without truth value, we have no logic itself.
If we examine every logic textbook written before AP's 2025 textbooks on logic, we likely will find the words "true or truth" several times on each page. Seldom do we see the word "science".
In Copi's Introduction to Logic, he starts his first page with a excerpt from Sextus Empericus where he mentions "truth" 2 times, just in the first paragraph of the book.
"...this we do affirm-- that if truth is to be sought in every division of Philosophy, we must, before all else, possess trustworthy principles and methods for the discernment of truth. Now the Logical branch is that which includes the theory of criteria and of proofs; so it is with this that we ought to make our beginnings." -- (Sextus Empiricus, an ancient Greek physician).
In this textbook, the word science is mentioned 5 times in just the first two paragraphs alone.
Yes, the single biggest error of all in Old Logic, is that no attention was given to the idea that Science is the judge of truth in Logic. And all other errors of Old Logic pale in the sight of this error of not seeing that science is the arbiter of truth.
I wrote my first logic book on the massive errors of Old Logic, but I did not scream and holler out that the omission of science and the scientific method determines the truth values of logic.
When do I mention the word "science" in my first published book of logic??
--- quoting my 5th book of science, and my first book on logic---
Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors// Teaching True Logic series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium
This is AP's 5th published book of science published on Internet, Plutonium-Atom-Universe,Dedication: I dedicate this book to University of Cincinnati, circa early 1970s, Logic professor Dr. Leo Simons for teaching me Symbolic Logic, for which I enjoyed so much that in my senior year took Introduction to Logic, to be sure I was not missing out on anything. And even though Leo and I had clashes in the classroom-- had harsh words to me in some of my questions-- "you know beans about logic..." for which, I am happy to realize that such is expected of someone who will in the future Revolutionize and overthrow the entire Logic establishment that is present today and which has all 4 of the simple logic connectors in error. Thank you Dr. Leo Simons. Without logic, AP's most strongest advantage over all other scientists, AP would never have become the King of Science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
--- end quoting my 5th book of science, and my first book on logic---
In my first published book of logic, I mention "science" 3 times in the first two paragraphs.
Archimedes Plutonium Nov 1, 2025 to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
When I took Logic at University of Cincinnati 1968-1972 it was my junior year I took Thomason, 1970 Symbolic Logic, and liked it so much that the senior year I took Copi's Introduction to Logic. In other words, I took them backwards.
But in taking Logic in the 1970s, I never understood the true difference between what they were calling Propositional Logic and what they called Predicate (first order) Logic.
And we see this obfuscation and lack of clarity even today, for the professors who teach logic, none of them really understands the difference.
Here again, time and time again, I go to mathematics to form clarity upon Logic. In mathematics there is no doubt two different structures, one of numbers and algebra and the other structure of geometry of form and shape, both making the full house that is mathematics. Could it be that Logic is divided into two parts, one part being geometry, the other part being numbers and algebra?
I hazard to guess, no, that is not what is going on in Logic with its Propositional Logic and its Predicate (first order) Logic. No, rather, I am inclined to think what is going on here is something akin to what happened in biology for the past century, what I called a "word soup game" of biology. Where those in biology wanted fame and recognition yet were not deserving of recognition and so they spent their time in biology dreaming up word soup game concepts, like "Sociobiology", like "altruism" or "reverse altruism". Concepts that do not exist in biology science, but which provides awards, recognition, fame to undeserving scientists. Is this what is going on in Logic with "Propositional Logic" and "Predicate (first order) Logic"? A chance for fools to get recognition and fame undeservedly?
Let me see if Copi in his Introduction to Logic, 4th edition, 1972, clarifies the obfuscation riding over Propositional versus Predicate Logic. On page 5, Copi says this about "Proposition".
--- quoting Copi ---
Propositions are either true or false, and in this they differ from questions, commands, and exclamations. Only propositions can be either asserted or denied: questions may be asked and commands given and exclamations uttered, but none of them can be affirmed or denied, or judged to be either true or false.
--- end quoting Copi ---
AP writes: well, I consider that to be the definition of a statement in logic, such as p, q, r, s, t. So is Copi making up word soup out of nothing? Let me check on his "predicate" definition.
Let me see what Copi defines for "Predicate".
--- quoting Copi on page 317---
In the present example, ordinary grammar and traditional logic would agree in classifying "Socrates" as the subject term and "human" as the predicate term. The subject term denotes a particular individual and the predicate term designates some property the individual is asserted to have.
--- end quoting Copi on page 317---
AP writes: sounds like word soup game that infested biology and also logic.
Let me see if Thomason may have done a better job. Thomason, An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, 1970. He does not even define Proposition, and for Predicate he talks about it as a symbol Pa on page 146, not worth my time in quoting.
I am pretty much disappointed in both Copi, and Thomason, especially Thomason on Propositional and Predicate Logic. Both paint a bleak picture of what these logics are, if they ever existed more than just word-soup to enrich some undeserving Logic professor of fame and fortune.
Let me see what Wikipedia says about Propositional versus Predicate Logic. And although Wikipedia is not a textbook, let us see if Wikipedia even mentions the word "science"?
--- quoting Wikipedia on Propositional logic---
Propositional logic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with Propositional analysis.
Propositional logic is a branch of classical logic. It is also called statement logic, sentential calculus, propositional calculus, sentential logic, or sometimes zeroth-order logic. Sometimes, it is called first-order propositional logic to contrast it with System F, but it should not be confused with first-order logic. It deals with propositions (which can be true or false) and relations between propositions, including the construction of arguments based on them. Compound propositions are formed by connecting propositions by logical connectives representing the truth functions of conjunction, disjunction, implication, biconditional, and negation. Some sources include other connectives, as in the table below.
Unlike first-order logic, propositional logic does not deal with non-logical objects, predicates about them, or quantifiers. However, all the machinery of propositional logic is included in first-order logic and higher-order logics. In this sense, propositional logic is the foundation of first-order logic and higher-order logic.
Propositional logic is typically studied with a formal language, in which propositions are represented by letters, which are called propositional variables. These are then used, together with symbols for connectives, to make propositional formulas. Because of this, the propositional variables are called atomic formulas of a formal propositional language. While the atomic propositions are typically represented by letters of the alphabet, there is a variety of notations to represent the logical connectives. For the benefit of readers who may only be used to a different variant notation for the logical connectives, the following table shows the main notational variants for each of the connectives in propositional logic. Other notations have been used historically, such as Polish notation. For the history of each of these symbols, see the respective articles as well as the article "Logical connective".
--- end quoting Wikipedia on Propositional logic---
--- quoting Wikipedia on Predicate logic---
First-order logic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Predicate logic" redirects here. For logics admitting predicate or function variables, see Higher-order logic.
Transformation rules
Propositional calculus
Rules of inference (List)
Implication introduction / elimination (modus ponens)
Biconditional introduction / elimination
Conjunction introduction / elimination
Disjunction introduction / elimination
Disjunctive / hypothetical syllogism
Constructive / destructive dilemma
Absorption / modus tollens / modus ponendo tollens
Modus non excipiens
Negation introduction
Rules of replacement
Associativity Commutativity Distributivity Double negation De Morgan's laws Transposition Material implication Exportation Tautology
Predicate logic
Rules of inference
Universal generalization / instantiation
Existential generalization / instantiation
First-order logic, also called predicate logic, predicate calculus, or quantificational logic, is a type of formal system used in mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, and computer science. First-order logic uses quantified variables over non-logical objects, and allows the use of sentences that contain variables. Rather than propositions such as "all humans are mortal", in first-order logic one can have expressions in the form "for all x, if x is a human, then x is mortal", where "for all x" is a quantifier, x is a variable, and "... is a human" and "... is mortal" are predicates. This distinguishes it from propositional logic, which does not use quantifiers or relations; in this sense, first-order logic is an extension of propositional logic.
A theory about a topic, such as set theory, a theory for groups, or a formal theory of arithmetic, is usually a first-order logic together with a specified domain of discourse (over which the quantified variables range), finitely many functions from that domain to itself, finitely many predicates defined on that domain, and a set of axioms believed to hold about them. "Theory" is sometimes understood in a more formal sense as just a set of sentences in first-order logic.
The term "first-order" distinguishes first-order logic from higher-order logic, in which there are predicates having predicates or functions as arguments, or in which quantification over predicates, functions, or both, are permitted. In first-order theories, predicates are often associated with sets. In interpreted higher-order theories, predicates may be interpreted as sets of sets.
--- end quoting Wikipedia on Predicate logic---
AP writes: As to the question of whether Wikipedia, in its exposition on logic, mentions science-- only once in the word of "computer-science" which to me is no mention at all for the concept of "science" in their understanding of logic.
As usual, Wikipedia entries in science or logic is mostly obfuscation.
I am convinced that Logic has no division into what is called propositional logic and predicate logic, and that these are word-soup games to enrich some undeserving professor of logic seeking fame for doing nothing but cluttering up logic in word-soup.
Going even further, let me try to correct the errors and mistakes in Wikipedia entry of "Logic".
Let me try to list the errors and mistakes in Wikipedia entry of logic.
--- quoting Wikipedia where in the coming days, I intend to correct many mistakes of this Wikipedia entry for most of it is starkly wrong---
Logic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the study of correct reasoning.
Depiction of inference using modus ponens
Logic studies valid forms of inference like modus ponens.
Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the study of deductively valid inferences or logical truths. It examines how conclusions follow from premises based on the structure of arguments alone, independent of their topic and content. Informal logic is associated with informal fallacies, critical thinking, and argumentation theory. Informal logic examines arguments expressed in natural language whereas formal logic uses formal language. When used as a countable noun, the term "a logic" refers to a specific logical formal system that articulates a proof system. Logic plays a central role in many fields, such as philosophy, mathematics, computer science, and linguistics.
Logic studies arguments, which consist of a set of premises that leads to a conclusion. An example is the argument from the premises "it's Sunday" and "if it's Sunday then I don't have to work" leading to the conclusion "I don't have to work." Premises and conclusions express propositions or claims that can be true or false. An important feature of propositions is their internal structure. For example, complex propositions are made up of simpler propositions linked by logical vocabulary like
Simple propositions also have parts, like "Sunday" or "work" in the example. The truth of a proposition usually depends on the meanings of all of its parts. However, this is not the case for logically true propositions. They are true only because of their logical structure independent of the specific meanings of the individual parts.
Arguments can be either correct or incorrect. An argument is correct if its premises support its conclusion. Deductive arguments have the strongest form of support: if their premises are true then their conclusion must also be true. This is not the case for ampliative arguments, which arrive at genuinely new information not found in the premises. Many arguments in everyday discourse and the sciences are ampliative arguments. They are divided into inductive and abductive arguments. Inductive arguments are statistical generalizations, such as inferring that all ravens are black based on many individual observations of black ravens. Abductive arguments are inferences to the best explanation, for example, when a doctor concludes that a patient has a certain disease which explains the symptoms they suffer. Arguments that fall short of the standards of correct reasoning often embody fallacies. Systems of logic are theoretical frameworks for assessing the correctness of arguments.
Logic has been studied since antiquity. Early approaches include Aristotelian logic, Stoic logic, Nyaya, and Mohism. Aristotelian logic focuses on reasoning in the form of syllogisms. It was considered the main system of logic in the Western world until it was replaced by modern formal logic, which has its roots in the work of late 19th-century mathematicians such as Gottlob Frege. Today, the most commonly used system is classical logic. It consists of propositional logic and first-order logic. Propositional logic only considers logical relations between full propositions. First-order logic also takes the internal parts of propositions into account, like predicates and quantifiers. Extended logics accept the basic intuitions behind classical logic and apply it to other fields, such as metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology. Deviant logics, on the other hand, reject certain classical intuitions and provide alternative explanations of the basic laws of logic.
Definition
The word "logic" originates from the Greek word logos, which has a variety of translations, such as reason, discourse, or language. Logic is traditionally defined as the study of the laws of thought or correct reasoning, and is usually understood in terms of inferences or arguments. Reasoning is the activity of drawing inferences. Arguments are the outward expression of inferences. An argument is a set of premises together with a conclusion. Logic is interested in whether arguments are correct, i.e. whether their premises support the conclusion. These general characterizations apply to logic in the widest sense, i.e., to both formal and informal logic since they are both concerned with assessing the correctness of arguments. Formal logic is the traditionally dominant field, and some logicians restrict logic to formal logic.
Formal logic
Further information: Formal system
Formal logic (also known as symbolic logic) is widely used in mathematical logic. It uses a formal approach to study reasoning: it replaces concrete expressions with abstract symbols to examine the logical form of arguments independent of their concrete content. In this sense, it is topic-neutral since it is only concerned with the abstract structure of arguments and not with their concrete content.
Formal logic is interested in deductively valid arguments, for which the truth of their premises ensures the truth of their conclusion. This means that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. For valid arguments, the logical structure that leads from the premises to the conclusion follows a pattern called a rule of inference. For example, modus ponens is a rule of inference according to which all arguments of the form "(1) p, (2) if p then q, (3) therefore q" are valid, independent of what the terms p and q stand for. In this sense, formal logic can be defined as the science of valid inferences. An alternative definition sees logic as the study of logical truths. A proposition is logically true if its truth depends only on the logical vocabulary used in it. This means that it is true in all possible worlds and under all interpretations of its non-logical terms, like the claim "either it is raining, or it is not". These two definitions of formal logic are not identical, but they are closely related. For example, if the inference from p to q is deductively valid then the claim "if p then q" is a logical truth.
Visualization of how to translate an English sentence into first-order logic
Formal logic needs to translate natural language arguments into a formal language, like first-order logic, to assess whether they are valid. In this example, the letter "c" represents Carmen while the letters "M" and "T" stand for "Mexican" and "teacher". The symbol "∧" has the meaning of "and".
Formal logic uses formal languages to express, analyze, and clarify arguments. They normally have a very limited vocabulary and exact syntactic rules. These rules specify how their symbols can be combined to construct sentences, so-called well-formed formulas. This simplicity and exactness of formal logic make it capable of formulating precise rules of inference. They determine whether a given argument is valid. Because of the reliance on formal language, natural language arguments cannot be studied directly. Instead, they need to be translated into formal language before their validity can be assessed.
The term "logic" can also be used in a slightly different sense as a countable noun. In this sense, a logic is a logical formal system. Distinct logics differ from each other concerning the rules of inference they accept as valid and the formal languages used to express them. Starting in the late 19th century, many new formal systems have been proposed. There are disagreements about what makes a formal system a logic. For example, it has been suggested that only logically complete systems, like first-order logic, qualify as logics. For such reasons, some theorists deny that higher-order logics are logics in the strict sense.
Informal logic
Main article: Informal logic
When understood in a wide sense, logic encompasses both formal and informal logic. Informal logic uses non-formal criteria and standards to analyze and assess the correctness of arguments. Its main focus is on everyday discourse. Its development was prompted by difficulties in applying the insights of formal logic to natural language arguments. In this regard, it considers problems that formal logic on its own is unable to address. Both provide criteria for assessing the correctness of arguments and distinguishing them from fallacies.
Many characterizations of informal logic have been suggested but there is no general agreement on its precise definition. The most literal approach sees the terms "formal" and "informal" as applying to the language used to express arguments. On this view, informal logic studies arguments that are in informal or natural language. Formal logic can only examine them indirectly by translating them first into a formal language while informal logic investigates them in their original form. On this view, the argument "Birds fly. Tweety is a bird. Therefore, Tweety flies." belongs to natural language and is examined by informal logic. But the formal translation "(1)
The study of natural language arguments comes with various difficulties. For example, natural language expressions are often ambiguous, vague, and context-dependent. Another approach defines informal logic in a wide sense as the normative study of the standards, criteria, and procedures of argumentation. In this sense, it includes questions about the role of rationality, critical thinking, and the psychology of argumentation.
Another characterization identifies informal logic with the study of non-deductive arguments. In this way, it contrasts with deductive reasoning examined by formal logic. Non-deductive arguments make their conclusion probable but do not ensure that it is true. An example is the inductive argument from the empirical observation that "all ravens I have seen so far are black" to the conclusion "all ravens are black".
A further approach is to define informal logic as the study of informal fallacies. Informal fallacies are incorrect arguments in which errors are present in the content and the context of the argument. A false dilemma, for example, involves an error of content by excluding viable options. This is the case in the fallacy "you are either with us or against us; you are not with us; therefore, you are against us". Some theorists state that formal logic studies the general form of arguments while informal logic studies particular instances of arguments. Another approach is to hold that formal logic only considers the role of logical constants for correct inferences while informal logic also takes the meaning of substantive concepts into account. Further approaches focus on the discussion of logical topics with or without formal devices and on the role of epistemology for the assessment of arguments.
Basic concepts
Premises, conclusions, and truth
Premises and conclusions
Main articles: Premise and Logical consequence
Propositional theories of premises and conclusions are often criticized because they rely on abstract objects. For instance, philosophical naturalists usually reject the existence of abstract objects. Other arguments concern the challenges involved in specifying the identity criteria of propositions. These objections are avoided by seeing premises and conclusions not as propositions but as sentences, i.e. as concrete linguistic objects like the symbols displayed on a page of a book. But this approach comes with new problems of its own: sentences are often context-dependent and ambiguous, meaning an argument's validity would not only depend on its parts but also on its context and on how it is interpreted. Another approach is to understand premises and conclusions in psychological terms as thoughts or judgments. This position is known as psychologism. It was discussed at length around the turn of the 20th century but it is not widely accepted today.
Internal structure
Premises and conclusions have an internal structure. As propositions or sentences, they can be either simple or complex. A complex proposition has other propositions as its constituents, which are linked to each other through propositional connectives like "and" or "if...then". Simple propositions, on the other hand, do not have propositional parts. But they can also be conceived as having an internal structure: they are made up of subpropositional parts, like singular terms and predicates. For example, the simple proposition "Mars is red" can be formed by applying the predicate "red" to the singular term "Mars". In contrast, the complex proposition "Mars is red and Venus is white" is made up of two simple propositions connected by the propositional connective "and".
Whether a proposition is true depends, at least in part, on its constituents. For complex propositions formed using truth-functional propositional connectives, their truth only depends on the truth values of their parts. But this relation is more complicated in the case of simple propositions and their subpropositional parts. These subpropositional parts have meanings of their own, like referring to objects or classes of objects. Whether the simple proposition they form is true depends on their relation to reality, i.e. what the objects they refer to are like. This topic is studied by theories of reference.
Logical truth
Main article: Logical truth
Some complex propositions are true independently of the substantive meanings of their parts. In classical logic, for example, the complex proposition "either Mars is red or Mars is not red" is true independent of whether its parts, like the simple proposition "Mars is red", are true or false. In such cases, the truth is called a logical truth: a proposition is logically true if its truth depends only on the logical vocabulary used in it. This means that it is true under all interpretations of its non-logical terms. In some modal logics, this means that the proposition is true in all possible worlds. Some theorists define logic as the study of logical truths.
Truth tables
Truth tables can be used to show how logical connectives work or how the truth values of complex propositions depends on their parts. They have a column for each input variable. Each row corresponds to one possible combination of the truth values these variables can take; for truth tables presented in the English literature, the symbols "T" and "F" or "1" and "0" are commonly used as abbreviations for the truth values "true" and "false". The first columns present all the possible truth-value combinations for the input variables. Entries in the other columns present the truth values of the corresponding expressions as determined by the input values.
Truth table of various expressions
p q p ∧ q p ∨ q p → q ¬p → ¬q p
↑
q
T T T T T T F
T F F T F T T
F T F T T F T
F F F F T T T
Arguments and inferences
Main articles: Argument and inference
Logic is commonly defined in terms of arguments or inferences as the study of their correctness. An argument is a set of premises together with a conclusion. An inference is the process of reasoning from these premises to the conclusion. But these terms are often used interchangeably in logic. Arguments are correct or incorrect depending on whether their premises support their conclusion. Premises and conclusions, on the other hand, are true or false depending on whether they are in accord with reality. In formal logic, a sound argument is an argument that is both correct and has only true premises. Sometimes a distinction is made between simple and complex arguments. A complex argument is made up of a chain of simple arguments. This means that the conclusion of one argument acts as a premise of later arguments. For a complex argument to be successful, each link of the chain has to be successful.
Diagram of argument terminology used in logic
Argument terminology used in logic
Arguments and inferences are either correct or incorrect. If they are correct then their premises support their conclusion. In the incorrect case, this support is missing. It can take different forms corresponding to the different types of reasoning. The strongest form of support corresponds to deductive reasoning. But even arguments that are not deductively valid may still be good arguments because their premises offer non-deductive support to their conclusions. For such cases, the term ampliative or inductive reasoning is used. Deductive arguments are associated with formal logic in contrast to the relation between ampliative arguments and informal logic.
Deductive
A deductively valid argument is one whose premises guarantee the truth of its conclusion. For instance, the argument "(1) all frogs are amphibians; (2) no cats are amphibians; (3) therefore no cats are frogs" is deductively valid. For deductive validity, it does not matter whether the premises or the conclusion are actually true. So the argument "(1) all frogs are mammals; (2) no cats are mammals; (3) therefore no cats are frogs" is also valid because the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.
According to an influential view by Alfred Tarski, deductive arguments have three essential features: (1) they are formal, i.e. they depend only on the form of the premises and the conclusion; (2) they are a priori, i.e. no sense experience is needed to determine whether they obtain; (3) they are modal, i.e. that they hold by logical necessity for the given propositions, independent of any other circumstances.
Because of the first feature, the focus on formality, deductive inference is usually identified with rules of inference. Rules of inference specify the form of the premises and the conclusion: how they have to be structured for the inference to be valid. Arguments that do not follow any rule of inference are deductively invalid. The modus ponens is a prominent rule of inference. It has the form "p; if p, then q; therefore q". Knowing that it has just rained.
The third feature can be expressed by stating that deductively valid inferences are truth-preserving: it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Because of this feature, it is often asserted that deductive inferences are uninformative since the conclusion cannot arrive at new information not already present in the premises. But this point is not always accepted since it would mean, for example, that most of mathematics is uninformative. A different characterization distinguishes between surface and depth information. The surface information of a sentence is the information it presents explicitly. Depth information is the totality of the information contained in the sentence, both explicitly and implicitly. According to this view, deductive inferences are uninformative on the depth level. But they can be highly informative on the surface level by making implicit information explicit. This happens, for example, in mathematical proofs.
Ampliative
Ampliative arguments are arguments whose conclusions contain additional information not found in their premises. In this regard, they are more interesting since they contain information on the depth level and the thinker may learn something genuinely new. But this feature comes with a certain cost: the premises support the conclusion in the sense that they make its truth more likely but they do not ensure its truth. This means that the conclusion of an ampliative argument may be false even though all its premises are true. This characteristic is closely related to non-monotonicity and defeasibility: it may be necessary to retract an earlier conclusion upon receiving new information or in light of new inferences drawn. Ampliative reasoning plays a central role in many arguments found in everyday discourse and the sciences. Ampliative arguments are not automatically incorrect. Instead, they just follow different standards of correctness. The support they provide for their conclusion usually comes in degrees. This means that strong ampliative arguments make their conclusion very likely while weak ones are less certain. As a consequence, the line between correct and incorrect arguments is blurry in some cases, such as when the premises offer weak but non-negligible support. This contrasts with deductive arguments, which are either valid or invalid with nothing in-between.
The terminology used to categorize ampliative arguments is inconsistent. Some authors, like James Hawthorne, use the term "induction" to cover all forms of non-deductive arguments. But in a more narrow sense, induction is only one type of ampliative argument alongside abductive arguments. Some philosophers, like Leo Groarke, also allow conductive arguments as another type. In this narrow sense, induction is often defined as a form of statistical generalization. In this case, the premises of an inductive argument are many individual observations that all show a certain pattern. The conclusion then is a general law that this pattern always obtains. In this sense, one may infer that "all elephants are gray" based on one's past observations of the color of elephants. A closely related form of inductive inference has as its conclusion not a general law but one more specific instance, as when it is inferred that an elephant one has not seen yet is also gray. Some theorists, like Igor Douven, stipulate that inductive inferences rest only on statistical considerations. This way, they can be distinguished from abductive inference.
Abductive inference may or may not take statistical observations into consideration. In either case, the premises offer support for the conclusion because the conclusion is the best explanation of why the premises are true. In this sense, abduction is also called the inference to the best explanation. For example, given the premise that there is a plate with breadcrumbs in the kitchen in the early morning, one may infer the conclusion that one's house-mate had a midnight snack and was too tired to clean the table. This conclusion is justified because it is the best explanation of the current state of the kitchen. For abduction, it is not sufficient that the conclusion explains the premises. For example, the conclusion that a burglar broke into the house last night, got hungry on the job, and had a midnight snack, would also explain the state of the kitchen. But this conclusion is not justified because it is not the best or most likely explanation.
--- end quoting Wikipedia where I intend to correct many mistakes of this Wikipedia entry for most of it is starkly wrong---
AP writes: I count 2 times that Wikipedia mentions "science" in a meaningful manner in the above quote, the best one of which is this statement: "In this sense, formal logic can be defined as the science of valid inferences." But, as far as AP is concerned, the entire foundation and framework of Logic is based on science for truth value and on the scientific method for the structure of Logic.
Correcting Wikipedia Logic entry by the Principle of all premisses (mind you, not statements but premisses) have to be true.
------------------------
So the If--> Then connector has only one row of truth when p, q are both true so one premiss is acceptable in If-->Then.
The OR connector has two rows of truth when p,q, one is T while the other if F, so two premisses are acceptable in OR.
The AND connector has three rows of truth, so long as p,q at least one is T, so three premisses are acceptable in AND.
The Equal-Not connector has four rows of truth, so that all statements of Equal-Not are premisses.
Wikipedia text and examples that are wrong and mistaken from earlier quotes of Wikipedia.
------------------------
1.) Universal instantiation
for-all xP(x) P(a)
Everyone must pay taxes.Therefore, Wesley must pay taxes.
This Wikipedia argument has but one premiss and it is false, from Sociology science are documented as paying no taxes at all, and so no argument at all. The argument above is nonsense. A correction would be easy to make in that
"Most people pay taxes. Therefore, it is likely that Wesley pays taxes but not guaranteed."
2.) Today, the most commonly used system is classical logic. It consists of propositional logic and first-order logic.
Wikipedia's error here is the fact that Logic has to be of One, not split-up into branches, for logic like physics and like math has dualities. Physics duality of electricity and magnetism, particle and wire. Math duality of numbers-algebra and geometry shape. While Logic duality of text full of ideas and pictures full of ideas. The cause of that mistake of "classical logic" is they never started from the idea of Science being a overall basis foundation of Logic itself. Where science promulgates truth value to any given statement P, Q, R, S, etc.
3.) "Birds fly. Tweety is a bird. Therefore, Tweety flies."
This Wikipedia example violates the Principle that all premisses in an argument must be true with the exception that a statement with the AND, OR connectors when used can have some nonsense along with a true premiss.
This Wikipedia argument has two premisses and the first premiss is false for biology science has birds that do not fly, and so no argument at all just all sheer vague nonsense.
4.) Wikipedia writes "all ravens I have seen so far are black" to the conclusion "all ravens are black".
This Wikipedia mistake is anti-logic and simple to correct. "The ravens I have seen so far are black" to a conclusion of logic "biology science of genetics says albino animals exist, and so most ravens are black." You see, Logic is entwined with the best of Science research and you can never separate out science from logic. Something the editors of Wikipedia never learned.
5.) Wikipedia writes "you are either with us or against us; you are not with us; therefore, you are against us".
This Wikipedia mistake harps back to the fact that Wikipedia editors never learned the correct OR connector of Logic as the exclusive OR with its truth table being FTTF, where OR excludes the middle. And Wikipedia going on to say the argument is flawed when in fact it obeys the exclusive-OR and is correct. The trouble with the editors on this example is that the editors believe in the erroneous inclusive-OR has reality with its truth table being TTTF, when in reality, that is the AND truth table.
6.) Here Wikipedia has all the simple Logic connectors in error.
Truth table of various expressions
p q p ∧ q p ∨ q p → q ¬p → ¬q p
↑
q
T T T T T T F
T F F T F T T
F T F T T F T
F F F F T T T
The P AND Q should be TTTF, the OR should be FTTF. The If--> Then should be TFUU. And they have the disdainable notion that OR should have two truth tables, one for inclusive and one for exclusive, as much of a disdain by saying multiplication of math has two different ways of multiplying.
The two major great errors of Old Logic is they screwed up on the truth tables and second, they never linked up with the idea that Truth must come from Science, the best science research of the time. And yet, Old Logic speaks volumes on truth and falsity, yet too ignorant to understand, you have to connect Logic with the Scientific Method. The next error shows this lack of connecting Logic with Science.
7.) Wikipedia writes: In this case, the premises of an inductive argument are many individual observations that all show a certain pattern. The conclusion then is a general law that this pattern always obtains. In this sense, one may infer that "all elephants are gray" based on one's past observations of the color of elephants.
AP with New True Logic writes: First major crisis of Old Logic is it was never written by people with a logical mind. You need a logical mind to understand logic and thus all the simple connectors of Old Logic are wrong. And second, Old Logic never understood that Science gives the truth value of the ideas we reason with. And thus, you have to have Logic fully connected with the Scientific Method and its use of experiments. Experiments give Universal Laws of Science which then supplies ideas used in Logic on whether they are true or false. Old Logic never connected up with Science.
"All elephants are gray based on one's past observations of the color of elephants" is falsehood for in the science of biology color comes from genetics and often there is a mutation in genes resulting in white color albino. Color is not a Law of Science in biology. Yet, sadly, Old Logic never understood the prominence that Science plays on Logic.
8.) Wikipedia writes: For example, given the premise that there is a plate with breadcrumbs in the kitchen in the early morning, one may infer the conclusion that one's house-mate had a midnight snack and was too tired to clean the table. This conclusion is justified because it is the best explanation of the current state of the kitchen. For abduction, it is not sufficient that the conclusion explains the premises. For example, the conclusion that a burglar broke into the house last night, got hungry on the job, and had a midnight snack, would also explain the state of the kitchen. But this conclusion is not justified because it is not the best or most likely explanation.
AP writes: Sounds like Occam's razor in this analysis. The premisses are true from observation, but the conclusion that the house-mate is responsible is the most simple explanation, still, is only a probability explanation that falls under the If-->Then connector of its truth table of TFUU of its last two rows--- highly likely but only probable. So this is a best conclusion but not a guaranteed conclusion. To be logically sound, an enquiry of the house-mate needs to be added to the argument.
----------------------------
Important Definitions
----------------------------
First some definitions as logic must be as clear as possible at all times. At the moment we have some terms to define as we do not want to have word-soup that was propositional logic versus predicate logic.
Definition:: "Statement" is an idea communicated in language that we denote as P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, etc. And statements can be connected by 6 connectors of Existential quantifier, Not-Equal, AND, OR, If-->Then, Universal quantifier. Statements can have a value of true, false, or unknown (U). Ideas have truth value that is checked and judged by the best available science of the times. If a idea is determined to have no science content it is valued at 0. If a idea has science content it is given a positive number value.
Definition:: "Premiss" is a statement or a string of connected-statements by the 6 logic connectors for which science as arbiter ____has deemed to be true___. When a premiss is a single statement, it must be a true statement.
Here we can think of the Statement as being an atom, one atom of the 114 elements of the periodic table of chemical elements. We can think of the Premiss as being a molecule, where atoms are connected together to form a molecule.
Principle for logic arguments :: I discussed this principle several times earlier calling it the AP Principle, in this textbook but list it here especially as it is a driving force of making Logic Arguments. Happily, the principle is easy to understand. The principle says, in a Logic Argument or Math proof or Physics or Science Report. Each Premiss has to have a True truth value. But keeping in mind that some premisses have an AND or OR connector and a false statement or nonsense yakkity yak can hide inside the premiss.
Definition:: "Argument of Logic" is a structured string of Premisses, where all the premisses are true and where the premisses lead to a conclusion. An Argument of Logic follows the Principle that every line is a Premiss that is True, whether the premiss is a single statement or a connected string of statements. In mathematics, logic arguments are called proofs. In physics and the other sciences, logic arguments are called a "science report".
Let me repeat again the AP Principle of making arguments. In an argument, only true valued single-statements can be used. But also, connected statements of AND or OR that are true can have hidden false statements or nonsense yakkity yak due to their truth table of AND or OR and those are acceptable to use in an argument for they still contain a true statement. A premiss of Equal-Not or of If-->Then connector have no false statements to worry about, when only true premisses are acceptable.
Let the student not be confused. A false single statement cannot be a premiss. A false single statement will not be a line in an Argument of Logic. Although, a false statement can show up embedded inside a true premiss, hidden in a AND or OR connector.
And not to worry about falsehoods or nonsense showing up inside a argument, for psychologically this is helpful in the argument itself, where proponents are biding time to find a solution and filling the argument with nonsense to keep the argument going to find the real true solution.
So the overall picture the student should see-- is an Argument of Logic and of mathematics, is such that it is entirely of True premisses heading for a True New Premiss. This true new premiss is often called the conclusion of the argument.
Definition:: "Conclusion" of an argument is a concluding statement or premiss that sums up the argument. Since all the premisses in the argument are true, the conclusion by necessity is true.
The Logic Argument is the same as what mathematicians call a Proof. In physics, the Logic Argument is the same as a research report in physics. In Science in general, the Logic Argument is the same as a "science report".
Now I have been very critical of Thomason, Symbolic Logic An Introduction, 1970, but there is a pretty format that he uses to make a logical argument. And it is this pretty format that endeared me so much to love logic. Richmond H. Thomason ascribes this format to Frederic B. Fitch.
The format of making a logic argument in math stuck with me where I make a line statement then justify my reasoning.
Definition:: "Math argument format" is the format where you write the statement or premiss on the left side of the paper, and then, write the reasoning or justification on the right side. As shown below in the many examples given.
Definition:: "Symbolic Logic argument format" is the format created by Fitch with arrays of vertical lines and then horizontal strokes.
Logic arguments and math proofs can be displayed in the Fitch format is where you use arrays of vertical lines and then horizontal strokes.
Definition:: Math geometry format is possible where you make pictures and diagrams of geometry with few words used and where the pictures do the explanation. Examples of these are Pythagorean theorem and the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
Definition:: Science format of a Logic Argument are "science reports" as written in books, newspapers, journals, news reports.
Definition:: Deduction: deduction in Logic comes from the If-->Then connector what I call the "move into" connector, coming from the derivative of calculus as the dy/dx, moving a coordinate point x_1 to x_2 with the connected y_1 to y_2 in coordinate points. The Modus ponens of logic is the deduction If P then Q, P, then Q.
Whew!!!! that is a-lot of definitions and a principle, but sorry, you need to learn and memorize in your mind those definitions and principle. And entire test on just knowing these definitions and principle.
The If -->Then connector closely resembles the function of mathematics and its derivative of calculus. Here is a picture of the xy axis in the plane of the function x^2 --> Y with a table of values
x Y
0 0
1 1
2 4
3 9
So we plug into the x^2 all the 10 Grid values on the x-axis and start making a table.
Then, we graph our table.
y-axis
^
|
|
|
9 /| 9
|
|
|
/ |
|
|
/ |
|
/ |
|
4 4/ | |
| |
/ | |
| |
1 / |1 | |
/ | | |
------------------------------------------------> x-axis
0 1 2 3
So let us summarize what a function is.
A function is a assigning a number on x axis with a number on y-axis. We denote a function with the symbol of an arrow ->. This symbol comes from the if-->then logic connector. The equality symbol = comes from equal-not in the logic connectors. We generally write a function with the arrow from the x axis to the y axis value, such as x -> Y, or x^2 -> Y.
A function has a Y value side and the other side is the x value.
We use up every number in the x-axis of a Grid System to make our table. That is important, we use up every number on the x-axis to make our table.
---------------------------------
Size of Logic Arguments.
---------------------------------
A logic argument can be 1 statement sentence long, which is, more generally 1 premiss long, and is the smallest argument in logic. It is of course checked by the best available science on the subject matter. The If-->Then connector has only one premiss from its truth table TFUU; the OR connector has two premisses from its truth table FTTF; the AND connector has three premisses from its truth table TTTF; and the Equal-Not has four premisses from its truth table TTTT. The two quantifiers are determined true by the best available science of the time.
The next size of a logic argument is a 2 statement, or more generally 2 premiss long argument. (Student, try to keep in mind a statement is an atom and premiss is a molecule of atoms.) Next in size is 3 statements or 3 premiss long argument.
Each premiss is true but the statements can be false when connected by AND and by OR, (remember AND is TTTF and OR is FTTF.
Example:: Statement P = "The Earth is round." Is a true statement and true premiss.
Second example:: P AND Q = "The Earth is round AND Earth spins on its axis." Are two connected statements forming one premiss that is a true premiss.
Third example:: P AND Q AND R = "The Earth is round AND Earth spins on its axis, AND Sun revolves around Earth." Are three connected statements, forming one premiss that is true, even though statement R is false because the AND connector needs only one true statement for the entire string to be true. Think of carrying R in this example as carrying a falsehood, nonsense or yakkity yak worthless ideas. Both the AND and OR connector in a premiss that is overall true can carry nonsense falsehoods.
A mathematics proof is often like the third example above carrying a-lot of garbage along with true statements, true premisses. As history shows us, that a new proof of a new idea in math may start out being 200 lines long. And through the process of reflection, the garbage baggage is trimmed away and the proof is streamlined down to being a 15 line proof.
In everyday normal life living, we get into a discussion-argument and fill the discussion with hundreds of lines of ideas, some true and some false in the AND with OR connectors. And at the end of the discussion-argument, we look back and only a few key ideas stick out for which we come to a clean wholesome conclusion. Making our discussion-argument be just 2 lines long.
My first example of a 1 premiss argument is in the Fitch format.
|_ Sides 3, 4, 5 of a triangle forms a right triangle because 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2
|
|
Now I could make that Fitch format be a 2 premiss argument.
|_ Sides 3, 4, 5 of a triangle forms a right triangle because 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2
| Sides 5, 12, 13 of a triangle forms a right triangle because 5^2 + 12^2 = 13^2
|
|
Now I could make that Fitch format be a 3 premiss argument.
|_ Sides 3, 4, 5 of a triangle forms a right triangle because 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2.
| Sides 5, 12, 13 of a triangle forms a right triangle because 5^2 + 12^2 = 13^2.
| A rectangle that is sides 5,12,5,12 has a two diagonals of 13.
|
Now in Fitch format, I could conclude the 3 premiss argument with a horizontal stroke.
|_ Sides 3, 4, 5 of a triangle forms a right triangle because 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2.
| Sides 5, 12, 13 of a triangle forms a right triangle because 5^2 + 12^2 = 13^2.
| A rectangle that is sides 5,12,5,12 has a two diagonals of 13.
|
|_When a triple of numbers like 3,4,5 or 5,12,13 obey the formula A^2 + B^2 = C^2, then there is a 90 degree angle involved.
|
|
My second example of a 1 premiss argument is in the math proof format.
1) The Big Bang theory that the Universe was created from an explosion of all matter squeezed into a point is false. Reason: The Pauli Exclusion Principle forbids atoms to be squeezed together.
Example from biology with 1 premiss.
1) Smilodon is a joke because the saber teeth are glued on walrus tusks. Reason: Darwin evolution would not allow evolving a structure that gets in the way of daily living.
Example from biology cell theory with 2 premisses in math format.
1) All cells of biology contain DNA and ribosomes. Reason: scientific method observation.
2) All cells of biology have an outer membrane and cytoplasm interior. Reason: scientific method observation.
Example from geology of 4 premisses with a conclusion using Fitch format.
|__Earthquakes and continental drift is caused by vibrations from Earth inner cores are in motion.
|
| Recently supporting evidence would come from the fact that Convection currents cannot be a movement of plates
| that changes direction suddenly and in quick time.
|
| However, a Earth Motor of its core acting as a motor, and thus vibrations can cause directional changes of plates in | quick time.
|
| Such was found in the plate tectonics of USA and Mexico in recent years, circa 2006.
|
|_ Thus, Continental Drift and earthquakes are caused by vibrations of the inner and outer cores of Earth in motion.
Two examples of the Math-geometry-picture proof (Logic argument) now given.
The Logic Argument using geometry format for the Pythagorean Theorem.
Pythagorean Theorem: starting statement:: given any right triangle with its three sides a,b,c, where c is the longest side--the hypotenuse, that we have a^2 + b^2 = c^2 in all right triangles this is true.
Proof:: We draw a square whose sides are all a+b long, and inside that square sits another square whose side is c long. So we have two squares, one inside the other and we have 4 right triangles inside the bigger square.
_______________
| c ' c |a
| ,|
| |
|' |b Now we cut those out and rearrange into
| c c |
|__________,___ |
b a
_______________
| | |
| | b^2 |
| | |
|____|__________|
| a^2 | |
|____|_________ |
Very first day of Geometry class we do the Pythagorean Theorem.
And we check it with doing a graph exercise using a right triangle of 3,4,5 with squares 9, 16, 25.
The Logic Argument using geometry format for the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
Fundamental Theorem of Calculus proof is also easy with pictures.
Well, it says that-- if you have a rectangle with a midpoint on its top side.
__m__
| |
| |
| |
---------
That you can cut a right triangle from the midpoint
__m__
| / |
|/ |
| |
Cut that right triangle and swivel it up to make the trapezoid
B
/|
/ |
/ |
|A |
|____|
Or, you can start with that trapezoid and swivel the right triangle downwards to make the rectangle
__m__
| / |
|/ |
| |
---------
------------------------------------------
Mechanism of Logic Argument
------------------------------------------
So the logic argument called Modus ponens is this.
If P--> then Q
P
-----------------
Therefore Q
Is actually just the definition of If-->Then connector with its one row of being true only when P is true and Q is true.
Copi in his textbook lists Modus ponens as a rule of inference, and so does Wikipedia.
The logic argument called Modus tollens is this.
If P --> then Q
not-Q
-------------------
Therefore not-P
Is another example of the definition of If-->Then connector, and is not a rule of inference, because the only time a If--> then connector is true as a premiss to use in Logic is when both P and Q are simultaneously true. So when you negate Q and make Q false, then you have to negate P and make P false.
Modus ponens and Modus tollens are not equal in the sense of a law of inference. They are simply a recognition of the definition of If--> Then.
We could write the Modus ponens in a Fitch logic format it would look like this.
|__ If P--> Q
|
| P
|
|__therefore Q
Modus tollens looks like this in Fitch format.
|__ If P--> Q
|
| not-Q
|
|__therefore not-P
Now let me do one of my favorite experiments in physics, the 1908-1913 Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden gold leaf experiment that was in error when it concluded Atoms have a nucleus, when in truth, atoms have no nucleus, instead they are proton torus with muons inside and the outside of the proton torus are neutrons as parallel plate capacitors.
I will do this Physics Report (Logic Argument) in a hybrid Fitch format and a math format of giving a reason.
|__ Internal structure of the Atom of gold
|
| Gold has 79 protons and 79 electrons, 118 neutrons. Reason: chemistry and physics science
| The use of the solar system as model with a nuclear Sun and planets as electrons. Reason: astronomy knows the solar system
| Alpha particles are shot into a gold leaf foil and the scattering of these alpha particles are observed. Reason: doing the experiment
| Surprisingly, some alpha particles bounce back to the source at 180 degrees. Reason: Rutherford thought these alpha particles hit a nucleus of gold atoms. Reason: Rutherford pictured that the alpha particles hit a atomic nucleus composed of protons with neutrons.
| Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden fail to report that the 180 degree bounce back alpha particles had a faster speed bouncing back than the speed at which they entered the gold atoms. Reason: Perhaps elated with a bounce back alpha particles that no-one was paying attention to a faster speed.
| The only way to have a faster speed bounce back is the alpha particles rammed into something with far more momentum in a head on collision and going in the opposite direction. Reason: physics of motion tells us a faster bounce back means a head on collision with a object of more momentum, such as a chain of 79 muons, thrusting inside a 79 proton torus, and thrusting at nearly the speed of light.
| If the bounce back were due to hitting a nucleus in atoms, the speed coming out would not be faster than the speed of alpha particle going in. Reason: physics of motion.
| The atom cannot have a nucleus. Reason: The bounce back with faster speed of alpha particles means the gold electron are muons thrusting through a proton torus and hitting head on a alpha particle to eject it back to its source with a faster speed than going in the gold atom.
| The Sun solar system model cannot be the interior of Atoms for that model cannot explain a bounce back with faster speed coming out. Reason: facts of physics and logical entailment.
|__Atoms have no nucleus, instead, they have a proton torus with muons as electrons doing the Faraday law and where neutrons exist to storage the electric current produced in Faraday law. Reason: the logical conclusion of facts presented by this Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden gold leaf experiment of 1908-1913.
Student homework assignment. Find a science experiment you like and write it up as a Fitch-math logic argument. Note: it does not have to be a experiment found wrong in its interpretation. And most experiments have a correct interpretation.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 3, 2026, 9:20:18 PM (13 days ago) Jan 3
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Part 4, The Logic Argument starting with Syllogism and moving to more complicated Arguments.
20) The Syllogism is the most simple of argument.
Early on, I started this 1st year college Logic textbook with a syllogism. What is a syllogism?? Some definitions say a syllogism is a (1) Formal Argument, or (2) a Deductive Argument, or (3) a Deductive Reasoning.
A syllogism to Logic is what a proof of math is to mathematics. Syllogism is just a fancy word for a logical argument. The etymology of "syllogism" comes from Greek "logos" to reason and "sun" with; to mean --- to reason with.
I myself took 2 years of College Logic at University of Cincinnati, 1968-1972, and found it exciting and exhilarating.
Here I am at age 75, and demanding that all scientists wanting a degree in science to mandatory take 2 years of college logic.
That is not possible now, because the logic textbooks are full of error, so bad of error that they are not worth teaching from.
In a subtle way, when I was in college and taking those 2 years of Logic, I remember several instances of where I rebuked the truth tables that the book was teaching. The truth table of AND was crazy and the truth table of OR and the varieties of OR were crazy. But I was not going to battle with professors, for I wanted a good grade.
But now, over 50 years later, I want to toss out all that junk logic on a pile of shame and have Logic Textbooks worth teaching.
The first Logic Syllogism that I learned was this.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Another syllogism was given and it goes like this in college.
All animals breathe oxygen..
All fish are animals.
Thus all fish breathe oxygen.
The spirit of deduction is shown in giving a syllogism. The last line is forced to come from the two previous lines.
Syllogism is just fancy name for Argument. I prefer to call all logical arguments just simply a "argument". But since the history of logic started way back in Ancient Greek times and used the word "syllogism", I am going to continue the tradition and use the concept of syllogism a two statement argument that ends in a deduced conclusion.
Remember, I started this textbook teaching what a deduction is with the syllogism of Socrates.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
The Atomic theory of science is the greatest syllogism of all time.
All Matter is made up of Atoms of one of the 114 or more chemical elements of the Periodic Table of Elements.
The Universe is matter.
Therefore the Universe itself is one of those 114 chemical elements.
The atom that best fits the important numbers of physics and math is 231Plutonium.
Now, many many people who think they have a logical mind-brain but really are failures of logic think they see holes and flaws in that Atomic Theory Syllogism. But they are mistaken. For if the Atomic Theory Syllogism is not true, then the Atomic theory is not a Universal Law of Science.
So the many fools who think there are flaws and holes to the Atomic Theory Syllogism saying stupid things like-- Universe is a molecule or it is many atoms but not one single atom. They are mistaken, for the Atomic Theory to be *** universal *** requires the entire universe be a single atom.
That has to be the Atomic theory of physics for otherwise the Atomic theory is a mere and meager rule, sometimes correct sometimes wrong. We cannot have the most important science theory a rule. It must be a theory that applies in general and is universal.
Copi "Introduction to Logic" 4th edition, 1972, defines the Logical Argument called "Syllogism" as that of --- A syllogism is a deductive argument in which a conclusion is inferred from two premisses." Copi starts his chapter with a quote from Leibniz, the co-discoverer of calculus along with Newton. Leibniz says "I consider the invention of the form of syllogism one of the most beautiful, and also one of the most important, made by the human mind."
AP writes: I do not know why Leibniz said that and seems to me as over-praise, or exaggeration.
For me, I look at arguments of Logic to be of any length and why get enamored with a length of 2 premisses leading to a conclusion.
I am going to not follow the definition of syllogism by Copi and others and say that a syllogism can be of any length you want, whether 1 premiss and conclusion or 2 premisses and conclusion or a larger number of premisses and a conclusion. But let me see if the AP deduction that the Universe is a single big atom can fit into a 2 premiss with conclusion.
I use the Atomic Theory as outlined in Feynman's Lectures on Physics, 1963.
Plutonium Atom Totality syllogism
-----------------------------------
(1) All things are made up of individual atoms, one of 114 of the chemical elements.
(2) The Universe is a thing.
___________________
(3) Therefore, the Universe is a single big Atom and the chemical element that fits the numbers of physics the best is plutonium.
Of course, well, I made the Logical Argument of the Plutonium Atom Totality be a argument of 19 paragraphs, concluding it exists as a single big plutonium atom, otherwise the Atomic Theory is not a theory but a rule that is sometimes false, for rules are not universal. I further go on to add 4 more paragraphs in the logical argument to total 23 paragraphs.
So, well, let us judge. Is my syllogism correct? Yes it is logically correct. But when we see it as a 23 paragraph syllogism we see the mechanism and the future meaning and purpose of the Universe. And the Logical mechanism that persuades the truth of the Atom Totality is the idea that the most important theory in all of science-- the Atomic Theory is just a rule if it did not encompass the Universe in total.
You see, the 3 line syllogism does not convey the key idea of how the conclusion is begot. It is begot because the Atomic Theory needs to be Universal and not a rule.
And also, the detail of why the Universe cannot be a molecule or a chemical mixture of many atoms but a single big atom has to do with creation of a atom totality. For the progression has to follow from the Proton torus making more atoms in the Faraday Law, and changing the proton torus of Hydrogen to form Helium and changing the proton torus of Helium to form Lithium all the way up to Uranium and changing its proton torus to form a single big atom of Plutonium.
You see, just a simple 2 premisses misses all those deductions while 19 paragraphs and 23 paragraphs fills in the needed details.
I would say, that the definition of Syllogism of Old Logic with its mere 2 premisses and a conclusion was for the intent of showing the most simple form of a logic argument. Much like in mathematics, when we teach add to youngsters we first start out with adding two numbers like 1+2 = 3. We do not teach 6.3 + 8.9 + 0.5 + 15 until much later.
Most science logic arguments I have encountered that are important such as Plutonium Atom Totality, or the Atom is a proton torus and no nucleus, or the Calculus is where derivative is a connector of Leftwall point to Rightwall point, or that a slant cut of cone is oval, not ellipse, all these arguments take numerous paragraphs.
So when I say the term "syllogism" my definition is that it is a logical argument of any number of premisses to reach a conclusion. I define syllogism as a form where you have a numbered lot of premisses that reaches a final conclusion. Instead of saying "Logical Argument", I sometimes like to say simply "Syllogism".
21) More complicated arguments.
Now let me give three new long arguments, instead of the short and brief arguments of syllogism. Notice in all these arguments, short and brief or long, that every step of premisses is true statements from the best available science of the time.
First let me give an argument from biology that overturns biology's Darwin Evolution. The argument comes from physics quantum mechanics of the Bell Inequality which experiments such as Aspect in France confirmed Bell to be true.
Argument that Superdeterminism replaces Darwin biology evolution theory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Darwin Evolution is defined as being 4 concepts the Modern Synthesis of Darwin Evolution theory as four operating axioms (1) Mutation (2) Genetic Recombination (3) Natural Selection and (4) Reproductive Isolation.
2) A picture scenario of Darwin Evolution is that a given species, where an individual is born who has a genetic mutation. The mutation often is deleterious to the individual and dies early without mating and passing on her/his genes. Sometimes the mutation and genetic recombination is beneficial to where the individual gets more food; gets more mates; has more offspring than others and so the mutation increases the number of individuals with that genetic code.
3) Natural Selection is the part where the beneficial new genes have an easier time of getting more food and more mates to raise more offspring. Soon the population has many individuals with those genes.
4) When the population is isolated, by geography, from other members of the same species then further mutations and genetic recombination makes the isolated species drift further and further away from the original species genetic blueprint, that the isolated population can no longer mate with the original genetic code from whence they came from, and become a brand new species in their own right.
5) So in quantum mechanics the question was asked if we start with two particles that are connected and split apart and sent to opposite sides of the Universe at nearly the speed of light, and then particle A has a change of spin. The question becomes will particle B have some change of spin?
6) Because particles A and B are on opposite sides of the Universe, hard to imagine particle A change in spin could cause a change in particle B. Yet through careful experiments on this "quantum entanglement" it was found surprisingly, that a change in particle A causes a immediate change in particle B, no matter how far apart they are.
7) We interpret quantum entanglement to mean that the Universe has no free-will, and that the Universe has Superdeterminism going on. The future fate of plants and animals is predetermined.
8) Biology Darwin Evolution is based on probabilities, probability of getting a mutation, genetic recombination.
9) Physics is based on quantum mechanics which finds the world is run by superdeterminism of happenings already predetermined. Darwin Evolution is contradictory to Superdeterminism.
10) But experiments all come back with evidence that Superdeterminism is true. Thus, Darwin Evolution is a rule that is often correct but not always correct. While Superdeterminism is always correct for all the experiments come out in Superdeterminism's favor.
Second, let us draw a logic argument out of Geology.
Argument that plate tectonics and earthquakes are caused from the Earth's cores as vibrations, and not from Convection currents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Earth has 2 cores, an outer and inner core, which can be pictured as a electric dynamo, a electric motor.
2) Electric motors have vibrations, and a refrigerator vibrates very much so when running.
3) If we put pots on the top of a refrigerator, in time the pots fall off due to the vibrations of the electric motor.
4) In the same manner, we can picture the continents on the surface of Earth as pots on top of the refrigerator, being vibrated by the electric dynamo of Earth's cores.
5) Old Geology believes that Continental Drift and Earthquakes is caused by Convection currents inside of Earth mantle.
6) So a deciding experiment is needed to tell whether Continental Drift and Earthquakes are caused by convection currents or by vibrations of Earth's motor-cores.
7) The deciding evidence from news of "Tectonic Plate Motion Reversal Near Acapulco" where the motion shifts direction and reverses, points to a cause of Vibration.
Third, let me give an argument from calculus math, since almost everyone in science has to take calculus. An argument which says that the only valid numbers for mathematics have to be Decimal Grid Numbers and cannot be the Reals, for to have calculus exist, it needs empty space between one number and the next successive number. The Reals are a continuum and does not allow empty space from one number to the next number, which destroys the formation and the very existence of calculus.
Argument that the true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers and the Reals are fakery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) The Decimal Grid Numbers are formed from Mathematical Induction from a decimal number as the constant addition of that inductor element. The smallest such Grid is the 10 Grid where the inductor element is 0.1 with the adding of that starting at 0 until 10 is reached. The entire set of 10 Decimal Grid is {0, .1, .2, .3, ... 9.8, 9.9, 10} , counting 0 it has 101 elements, and not counting 0 it has 100 elements.
2) The Decimal 10 Grid Numbers have empty space in between one number and the very next number where no numbers exist in that empty space.
3) All functions are graphed in Calculus, and the derivative at point x on the x-axis, must connect to the successor x which has a unique y value.
4) The Reals as numbers are a continuum, no empty space from one number to the next number.
5) For example the derivative in 10 Decimal Grid of the function Y = x^2 at x= 1 is y = 1, then it goes to x= 1.1 and y = 1.1^2 = 1.21 in which we plot it in 10 Grid as coordinate point (1.1, 1.2) and in 100 Grid as (1.1, 1.21).
6) Every derivative in Decimal Grid Numbers has a cell of a leftwall and a rightwall. For the above example the leftwall is (1,1) then the rightwall is (1.1, 1.2) in 10 Grid and (1,1) with (1.1,1.21) in 100 Grid.
7) The cell as a trapezoid allows us to find a midpoint of the right triangle formed by the derivative, and to split that right triangle in half and lowering the half portion down to transform that trapezoid to become, now, a rectangle. The area of this rectangle is now the integral of the function Y=x^2 in the interval 1 to 1.1.
8) When the numbers of mathematics are Reals, with their no empty space, one cannot form a derivative as there is an infinity of Reals between any two points.
9) Since we cannot form a derivative, no integral can be formed with Reals. And so no calculus can exist with Reals.
10) This proof that the true numbers of mathematics have to be Decimal Grid Numbers is the reason that no-one in Old Math was ever able to do a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because the fools of Old Math never paid attention to the physics community of Max Planck discovery in year 1900 that Physics is discrete and not a continuum and the start of Quantum Mechanics. No, the math community remained as idiots from 1900 to 2015 when AP found the first true valid proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 3, 2026, 9:23:31 PM (13 days ago) Jan 3
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Part 5, The Rules of Inference corrected and renamed Laws of Inference.
When I studied Thermodynamics in college, University of Cincinnati, we often had to prove that the statement of a law was equal to another statement. And the way we went about doing that was to prove that P implies Q in a If-->Then connector. Then we proved the reverse, that Q implies P. Once we showed that P implies Q and then Q implies P we could say the two statements are equal for an equality. Recently in 2025, the same year as writing this logic textbook, I proved that the 2nd law of thermodynamics stated as Heat goes from Hot to Cold and never the reverse was ___ not equal___ to the statement that the entropy (disorder) was increasing. But rather, the exact opposite was the truth, that the Order of the universe was increasing. Realizing that Old Physics was confused in that temperature was the inverse of time as in time = 1/temperature. In college in 1970, the thermodynamics class was teaching Heat goes from Hot to Cold was equal to entropy of the universe is increasing through a argument of P-->Q and if Q-->P gives P=Q. That was a false argument. The true argument was Heat goes from Hot to Cold was equal to Order of the Universe is increasing and then we really have a P-->Q with Q-->P allows us to conclude in a argument that P=Q. The error made in Thermodynamics physics was a error of not knowing Time is the inverse of Temperature. And this makes sense in the idea that "coldness" is disorder, and when heat flows into coldness and warms things up, that order is increasing.
That was a long story, but serves as the introduction to this chapter of what Equalities exist in the 4 simple connectors?? We ask the question of what equalities exist. And we trashcan the silly mindless wreck of Copi's listing of 19 rules of inference equalities inside the front cover of his textbook. We trashcan all logic textbooks before this one as they thought 19 or more equalities existed in Old Logic.
As was mentioned earlier that the New Logic Laws of the 4 simple connectors are unique and independent in number of true values each had. Let us examine that uniqueness again, and compare with Old Logic. This is important in the idea that Rules of Inference in Old Logic were a sham because if your connectors are wrong in truth value and not independent of one another and not unique, you end up with the hypocrisy of 19 Rules of Inference of equality as written in Copi's Introduction to Logic, 4th edition, 1972, on the inside front and back cover, when you should have close to no equality rules of inference.
Old Logic has this in terms of the number of true values.
Equal has 1
Not has 1
AND has 1
OR inclusive has 3
OR exclusive has 2
If-->Then has 3
In AP's New True Logic that tally would be this.
Equal-Not has 4
AND has 3
OR has 2 (for exclusive is the only OR)
If-->Then has 1
If we ask Mathematics with its simple operators of add, subtract, multiply, divide to make a list of equalities between those 4 operators. The only equalities to begot are such as commutative law, associative law, distributive law. We do not have such things as Add equaling subtract, multiply. Or, divide equalling subtract then multiply. No, each of the 4 operators of mathematics is independent of one another and each is unique compared to the others.
So in this chapter on Rules of Inference which should be called Laws of Inference we discuss what are the true laws when Not-Equal, AND, OR, If-->Then are truly correct and independent and unique. There does exist some Laws of Inference in New Logic, but not 19 of them. Rather instead, since math has commutative, associative, distributive laws, that Logic will have those three also, but also the equality mentioned on opening this chapter that when P-->Q, with Q-->P, then P=Q. The reasoning for that is because in the If-->Then truth table only when you have true-->true is the whole thing true, so that if you have T-->T from P-->Q and then T--> T from Q-->P, you end up with P=Q.
Of the 4 math operators, they are all 4 independent of one another. You cannot make add equal to subtract and eliminate one of them.
You see--- Logical Independence stems from the fact that the truth tables of Equal-Not, AND, OR, If-->then are such that One has 4 true values, another has 3 true values, another has 2 true values and the fourth has just 1 true value, respectively.
By having a unique truth table pattern, insures Independence. With independence insures few equalities.
The Old Logic of its Inclusive OR has 3 true values and the True truth table of AND has 3 true values, so that there is absolutely no need to have AND in Old Logic because they had no logical mind to see that OR inclusive is a hypocrisy.
It is reasonable and logical to suspect that since mathematics has only a few Laws of Inference, such as that of commutative, associative, distributive, that likewise, Logic would mirror reflect this pattern. A pattern not of that one or two connectors equals another connector, but rather, more of a pattern involved with Order of operation or order of connectivity, such as in AND, where it does not matter if T AND F is the same as F AND T, mirror reflecting math that 2 + 3 = 3 + 2.
When you look at a mathematics textbook for the Laws of Inference in mathematics, you will never see that addition, subtraction, multiplication, division are equal to one another, for each is unique and independent of one another. They maybe reverses or (some call it inverses) of one another, yet, still, they are not equal to one another. So that leaves us to question what Laws of Inference does math have?
And the answer is apparently laws of order of operation such as commutative law, associative law and distributive law.
When the operators are unique and independent, as they should be, then you cannot have a Law of addition = subtraction, or, addition = multiplication.
You can have laws of order in which you carry out a operation. For example, commutative law 2 + 5 = 5 + 2. Example in Logic "Cell theory and DNA theory" equals "DNA theory and Cell theory". Another example in logic: "Jupiter is part of the Solar System and Earth is part of the Solar System" is equal to "Earth is part of the Solar System and Jupiter is part of the Solar System".
Let me give you an example of a Rule of Inference that would be true provided Inclusive OR was not a fictional connector.
The Inclusive OR of Old Logic was this--- Either..or..or..Both and had a Old Logic truth table of this.
Old Logic
OR(inclusive) truth table (their either..or..or..both) and fictional.
P Q
T or T = T
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F
AND
P Q
T or T = T
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F
And so we can write Either..or..or..Both = AND.
But we cannot write that because Either..or..or..Both is fictional for it is a conglomeration of both OR exclusive with AND itself.
I show this to give the reader an appreciation of what equality in Laws of Inference look like. But since in New Logic, all 4 simple connectors have different truth tables and unique independent truth tables there is no equality for Laws of Inference.
New Logic AND, addition
p q p AND q
T T T
T F T
T F T
F T T
F F F
Let us check if the OId Logic rule of inference called De Morgan's theorem has equality where Not(P AND Q) = (not P OR not Q), let us see if that is phony baloney.F F F
Truth table for Not(P AND Q) in Old Logic when P=T and Q= T would result in F. The truth table in Old Logic for inclusive OR when P=T and Q=T would also result in F. Mind you, the mistake made here by DeMorgan is that he is thinking AND truth table was TFFF and believing that inclusive OR is a connector with truth table of TTTF. The reader can easily see one has three F's and the other has three T's in which, when you "Not" both sides of the expressions they coincide. Checking when P=T with Q=F, both expressions end up as T. Checking P=F with Q=T, both expressions end up as T, and when P=F with Q=F, both expressions result in a T. Allowing the fools of Old Logic to believe this De Morgan's theorem to be true. When what the idiotic fools should have looked at was their mindless belief you can have two different types of OR and where their AND was subtraction when it should be addition.
Now we analyze DeMorgan's other mistake of Not(P OR Q) to see if it equals Not P AND Not Q. In Old Logic with their mindless AND being TFFF and their hideous inclusive OR being TTTF, when we have P=T with Q= T we have Not(P OR Q) result in F. And we have for P=T with Q=T in NotP AND NotQ result in F. When we look at P=T with Q=F in both expressions the result is F. When we look at P=F with Q=T, the result is F in both expressions. When we look at P=F with Q=F the result is T in both expressions. Allowing the fools of Old Logic to believe this De Morgan's theorem to be true.
I believe DeMorgan conceived of his fake theorem before Boole and Jevons finally decided to have AND truth table be TFFF. Using the fake theorem of DeMorgan to make their final decision as to not upset the apple cart.
Clearly they are amiss and one does not equal the other, and so we have Not(P AND Q) =/= (not P OR not Q) with that of
Not (P OR Q) =/= Not-P AND Not-Q. The symbol =/= means "does not equal". And so, not a law of inference. In New Logic, the De Morgan's laws are clearly wrong. They probably were acceptable in Old Logic for there, they had two types of OR, and they had a error filled AND.
Let me try If-->Then. Of course, the Not comes alongside Equal in Equal-Not is multiplication in New Logic.
IF-->Then is division in New Logic. Some call it "implies", some call it the material-conditional or "implies". Some like to call it the "because" in Q because of P. I like to call it the "moves into", P moves into Q.
p q p --> q
____________
T T T
T F F
F T U for unknown
F F U for unknown F T U for unknown
Truth table for Not(P-->Q) is this.
____________
T T F
T F T
F T not-U does that mean known?T F T
F F not-U does that mean known?
Truth table for Not-P --> Not-Q is this.
F F U
F T U
T F F
T T T
Clearly, Not(P-->Q) =/= Not-P --> Not-Q.
But let us try to see if Copi's rule of inference he calls "transposition" is true, where If P then Q = If not-Q then not-P.
p q p --> q
____________
T T T
T F F
F T U for unknown
F F U for unknown F T U for unknown
not-q not-p not-q --> not-p
____________
F F U for unknown
T F F
F T U for unknown
T T T
But let us check this further out with premiss theory where only true premisses can be used in a logic argument. The only true premiss in If-->Then is when both P and Q are true. In that situation Not(T-->T) becomes false. In the case of Not-Q-->Not-P becomes If F--> then F is actually U for unknown, so the transposition rule of inference for Copi is false also. It is false because of the obnoxious Old Logic truth table for If-->Then was TFTT where the mindless fools thought that a truth value can be reached when the starting statement of P in P-->Q is false. The true truth table of If-->Then is TFUU.
Where, If P -->then Q =/= If not-Q --> then not-P.
Now examples should have shown the mindless idiocy of Old Logic with their AND being TFFF and their If-->Then being TFTT as grossly in error. Why did examples not show the fools of Boole & Jevons up to when AP corrects the fools, why did examples slip under the radar and not show the massive ignorance of Old Logic???? It is because, you can tailor make a example to fit your nonsense, and because most people, even logic professors never really care if they are correct or full of error.
Examples.
P-->Q
If Atoms consist of a Proton torus, then geometrically their center is empty space of a donut hole of a torus.
Not(P-->Q)
It is not the case that (If Atoms consist of a Proton torus, then geometrically their center is empty space of a donut hole of a torus).
Not P --> Not Q
It is not the case that Atoms consist of a Proton torus, then not the case geometrically that their center is empty space of a donut hole of a torus.
Not-Q --> not P
lf it is not the case that geometrically the proton torus is empty space of a donut hole, then Atoms do not consist of a proton torus.
To me, P-->Q is not the same as not-Q--> not-P.
But examples can be deceptive and flawed and examples are easily dismissed as not accurate by Old Logic professors, who are failures of logic. This is why AP uses all of mathematics to shine light on the failings of Old Logic, instead of using Examples to shine a light on Old Logic failings. A dunce logic professor can easily squirm out of a example that shows him/her is wrong. But that same dunce logic professor cannot squirm out of mathematics-arithmetic showing him/her is a dunce failure.
In the meantime an example from Biology (I do not like to stick with physics alone).
P-->Q
If Darwin Evolution is a false theory of species creation, then Bell's Inequality of Superdeterminism is the true theory of species creation.
Not(P-->Q)
It is not the case that (If Darwin Evolution is a false theory of species creation, Then Bell's Inequality of Superdeterminism is the true theory of species creation).
Not P--> Not Q
If Darwin Evolution is a true theory of species creation, then Bell's Inequality of Superdeterminism is a false theory of species creation.
Not-Q --> not P
If Bell's Inequality of Superdeterminism is a false theory of species creation, then Darwin Evolution is a true theory of species creation.
But it goes to show, that truth in logic can come from Examples, can possibly come from good examples which in Physics is tantamount to Experiment.
For Physics, it is experiment that determines truth. In Logic we replace experiment with Examples.
Now, looking at math algebra textbooks, and looking for laws or properties of numbers we find no connector equality. We find that add, subtract, multiply, divide never are equal to one another. On the other hand, we find about 19 equalities in Copi's Introduction to Logic.
What we do find in Algebra mathematics are equalities in the order of connectors such as commutative law, associative law and distributive law.
Commutative law of math where a+b = b+a, and where a*b = b*a. Example 10 +20 = 20 +10, and 10*20 = 20*10. Meaning:: it does not matter in what order you add or multiply. The commutative law is of 2 variables.
Associative law of math where (a+b)+c = a+(b+c) and where (a*b)c = a(b*c). Example (2+3) +4 = 2+(3+4) and where (2*3)4 = 2(3*4). The associative law of 3 variables.
Distributive law of math is not a ordering law but a distribution law, where a(b+c) = ab + ac. Example 3(4+5) = 3*4 + 3*5.
So now, in Logic of Not-Equal, AND, OR, If-->Then which of those obeys Commutative, Associative and Distributive??
AND obeys both Commutative of two statements p,q and Associative of three statements p,q,r or more variables, for it matters not what order the connections of Joining together statements, for the end result of this joining together will all be the same provided one of p,q,r has a true value.
Equal-Not obeys both Commutative and Associative for equality does not matter in what order they are connected. Example P= Q = R is equal to R=Q=P is equal to Q=P=R etc.
OR is not commutative and not associative. Example, when you have P OR Q, remove P is not the same as remove Q. And with associative the choices of removal are increased even more, P OR Q OR R, the order of removal can result in the end with keeping P removing Q and R, or, keeping Q and removing P and R, or, keeping R and removing P and Q.
For example, addition in math is commutative such as 2 +3 is the same as 3+2. Commutative means in matters not the order in which you do the operation. But in subtraction 3-2 is not the same as 2-3. And OR is subtraction or remove.
Now If--> Then is not commutative, for it is dependent on the order. Where p--> q does not warrant q-->p. Just as division in math is not commutative. Example: 2/1 does not equal 1/2. Addition is commutative in that 1+2 = 2+1 and subtraction is not commutative for 2-1 does not equal 1-2.
Multiplication is commutative in that 2x3 = 3x2.
Example of If-->Then as not commutative. If I swim then I get wet. Now look at "If I get wet, then I was swimming." No that is false, for I could have gotten wet from it raining.
Another example: If a large enough asteroid hits Earth, smashing it into pieces, then all life on Earth goes extinct. Here the "p" is "A large enough asteroid hits Earth, smashing it into pieces" with the "q" as "All life on Earth goes extinct." Now examine If q-->then p. If all life on Earth goes extinct, then a large enough asteroid hit Earth, smashing it into pieces.
This is not true, for it could be that the Sun gone Red Giant killed all life on Earth, and not an asteroid.
If-->Then does not obey commutative nor associative. Example, "If the Sun has gone into Red Giant Initiation Phase, then the Sun shines from Faraday law, not fusion." Is not the same as "If the Sun shines from Faraday law, not fusion, then the Sun has gone into Red Giant Initiation Phase." There is a time factor involved.
But there is an interesting take away with the the If-->Then connector of Logic, a Equality, provided we take the Truth Table of If-->Then of its single row of true truth value and discard the other three rows, one of F, and two of U.
When we examine If-->Then of its P is true and Q is true and the entire If-->Then is true we can fetch a Equality so that we have a Law of Inference that says If P then Q, AND, If Q then P = that of P= Q as discussed in the first paragraphs of this chapter.
So here we have a equality relationship between If-->Then and Equal-Not.
Example: "If being human then that means able to throw rocks overarm." "If able to throw rocks overarm, then that is a human." Explanation: here we have two statements P and Q wherein P implies Q, and vice versa, Q implies P, meaning, they are equal statements. P= Q.
So, what Laws of Inference do I have so far??
1) AND is commutative and associative.
2) Equal-Not is commutative and associative.
3) If-->Then when P-->Q AND Q-->P = (P=Q)
4) Not-Equal, some prefer to call it Equal-Not is distributive law.
I also have distributive when forming the truth table of Not-Equal. When forming this truth table, we actually implement the distributive law in the very act of forming the table.
New Logic
Not-Equal truth-table:
p q
T T = T
F not T = T
F F = T
So, in New Logic we end up with only 4 Equalities as Laws of Inference for the 4 connectors of Logic. Unlike Copi with his 19 equalities as rules-of-inference, and unlike all the other Old Logic textbooks with their numerous silly and obnoxious equalities like DeMorgan's theorem.
And does that make sense? Yes, if you have 4 independent and unique connectors, then the number of equalities begot from those 4 connectors should be no more than 4 equalities. But I need to prove there is a link between number of connectors is number of equalities, which is far beyond the text of this book. However, I do start this proof below, and will finish the proof in my #368 logic textbook of Advanced Logic. But, I am sure that most classes of Logic in college will have a genius like student who can do the proof, without ever reading AP's Advanced Logic textbook.
23) Laws of Inference for Existential and Universal Quantifiers.
And what might those two equalities be??
We used mathematics to guide us throughout this textbook so far, may as well lean on mathematics, especially now as to what two equalities exist for Existential quantifier and Universal quantifier.
Old Logic like that of Copi has 4 equalities for Existential and Universal quantifier, and calling them Rules, naming them as UG universal generalization, UI universal instantiation, EG existential generalization, and EI existential instantiation.
From mathematics then physics, AP finds 2 equalities for Existential and then Universal quantifier and these two equalities are such.
(1) Existential quantifier = Mathematical-Induction = EI + EG
and
(2) Universal quantifier = Scientific Method = EI + EG + UI + UG
Two laws of Inference for the two quantifiers involve math-induction and scientific-method.
The UG, UI, EG, EI as listed in Copi inside front cover Introduction to Logic, 4th edition 1972 are true to the extent we are talking about Laws of Science. Where the experiment of Physics generalizes to be a Universal Law of Science. For example: UG with gravity is a universal law and so the formula of gravity G(m_1*m_2)/ distance^2 and UI would be a experiment where we start with the formula and measure the attraction force between two masses and see if they check out to be the same. The EG would be another experiment to see if we arrive at the formula G(m_1*m_2)/ distance^2 and thus the experiment is the Existential part and the Generalization of that experiment to the formula of gravity. The EI would be another experiment on gravity where we start with two masses and check to see if there is a force of attraction.
In other words, UG, UI, EG, EI are Laws of Science based on existence as experiments and where experiments inform us of a Universal Law.
The Logic Quantifiers are mostly confined to Science Laws and our everyday language use as communication seldom is a discussion on Laws of Science. Our everyday communication is more in line with mannerisms and behavior and not about Laws of Science.
This is why it is difficult to find examples of UG,UI,EG,EI in common daily communication, and things like "All crows are black" as examples are so poor-- for they are scientifically wrong, and not examples at all.
A physicist would daily be using UG, UI, EG, EI but the common layperson would seldom ever have a need for logic quantification.
In New Logic we have UG,UI,EG,EI as parts and pieces of Mathematical Induction and the far more general Scientific Method, and they are confined to Laws of Science.
As for the other Laws of Logic (Old Logic called them Rules of Inference) there are few of them true, and as we showed above only 4 equalities for 4 Logic simple connectors. Copi says there are 19 as listed on inside cover of his textbook, but then Copi never had the correct error-free 4 connectors of Logic.
When you have error-free 4 connectors, all of a sudden, the Laws of Logic become 4 Laws where you can use the Equal sign. Equivalent is the same concept as Equal for equivalent reduces to equal. The example of equal is self identity 2 = 2. The example of equivalent is 1/3 == 3/9. I am not going to labor the issue of equal compared to equivalence and just say that equivalence reduces to equal.
In summary form, New Logic has but 6 laws of equality of Inference, 4 for the simple 4 connectors plus 2 for the 2 quantifiers.
Those 6 laws of Inference are these.
1) AND is commutative and associative.
2) Equal-Not is commutative and associative.
3) If-->Then when P-->Q AND Q-->P = (P=Q).
4) Not-Equal, some prefer to call it Equal-Not is distributive law.
(5) Existential quantifier = Mathematical-Induction = EI + EG.
(6) Universal quantifier = Scientific Method = EI + EG + UI + UG.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 3, 2026, 9:58:29 PM (13 days ago) Jan 3
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Part 6, Scientific Method is Logic.
24) Mathematical-Induction and where does UG, UI, EG, EI, fit in?
Usually Wikipedia's science entries are full of mistakes and error. Here they make only a few errors. For example:: The base case should be more than one case, try at least 2 cases sometimes even 3 cases for the base. And the reason for this is that 0 is a strange number, and 1 has so many uniqueness features that it can throw one off of the truth. I personally always have 0, 1, 2, as base cases and also throw in 3 to make sure. So AP does 4 cases for the base case 0, 1, 2, 3.
Mathematical Induction is tied to the existential quantifier and the Universal quantifier.
--- quoting Wikipedia on Mathematical Induction---
Mathematical induction can be informally illustrated by reference to the sequential effect of falling dominoes.[1][2]
Mathematical induction is a method for proving that a statement is true for every natural number , that is, that the infinitely many cases all hold. This is done by first proving a simple case, then also showing that if we assume the claim is true for a given case, then the next case is also true. Informal metaphors help to explain this technique, such as falling dominoes or climbing a ladder:
Mathematical induction proves that we can climb as high as we like on a ladder, by proving that we can climb onto the bottom rung (the basis) and that from each rung we can climb up to the next one (the step).
— Concrete Mathematics, page 3 margins.
A proof by induction consists of two cases. The first, the base case, proves the statement for without assuming any knowledge of other cases. The second case, the induction step, proves that if the statement holds for any given case , then it must also hold for the next case . These two steps establish that the statement holds for every natural number . The base case does not necessarily begin with , but often with , and possibly with any fixed natural number , establishing the truth of the statement for all natural numbers .
The method can be extended to prove statements about more general well-founded structures, such as trees; this generalization, known as structural induction, is used in mathematical logic and computer science. Mathematical induction in this extended sense is closely related to recursion. Mathematical induction is an inference rule used in formal proofs, and is the foundation of most correctness proofs for computer programs.
Despite its name, mathematical induction differs fundamentally from inductive reasoning as used in philosophy, in which the examination of many cases results in a probable conclusion. The mathematical method examines infinitely many cases to prove a general statement, but it does so by a finite chain of deductive reasoning involving the variable , which can take infinitely many values. The result is a rigorous proof of the statement, not an assertion of its probability.
History
In 370 BC, Plato's Parmenides may have contained traces of an early example of an implicit inductive proof, however, the earliest implicit proof by mathematical induction was written by al-Karaji around 1000 AD, who applied it to arithmetic sequences to prove the binomial theorem and properties of Pascal's triangle. Whilst the original work was lost, it was later referenced by Al-Samawal al-Maghribi in his treatise al-Bahir fi'l-jabr (The Brilliant in Algebra)in around 1150 AD.
--- end quoting Wikipedia on Mathematical Induction---
Another mistake in Wikipedia's entry of Mathematical Induction is their summary of how it works. As shown below with my input.
--- quoting Wikipedia erroneous prattle---
A proof by induction consists of two cases. The first, the base case, proves the statement for n=0 without assuming any knowledge of other cases. The second case, the induction step, proves that if the statement holds for any given case n=k, then it must also hold for the next case n=k+1. These two steps establish that the statement holds for every natural number n.
--- end quoting Wikipedia's erroneous prattle---
This is what I mean by saying that 90 to 95% of science entries written by authors in Wikipedia are failures of the subject matter. Failures who wish to redeem themselves by writing a Wikipedia entry and then being a fascist editor of Wikipedia to keep their fascist entry up and running.
What the above paragraph should have stated is this. A proof by mathematical induction consists of 2 parts. A starting part to see if the first few numbers such as 0,1,2,3 obey the formula you wish to prove. If 0,1,2,3 obey or say 0 does not obey, or the case where 0 is oblivious to the problem, but, then 1,2,3,4 do obey, then we move on to the second part. The Second Part of Mathematical Induction assumes true for number N, then the work of the student is to show that the formula also works for N+1, given you assumed it works for N.
While the failed fool who wrote the Wikipedia entry has it mixed up all in his/her mind that you show it is true for N, then the fool says it must hold for N+1. This fool does not understand what it means to "assume N" then the work is upon the student to demonstrate it works for N+1. This is often stated in math books as (1) show true for a few beginning cases like 0,1,2,3 (2) Assume true for N (3) Then your work or burden of proof is show that assuming N true delivers N+1 is true.
According to the failed author of Wikipedia, he/she says (1) show for a beginning case (2) show it holds for any case N (3) then you can say it is true for all counting numbers.
I gave up on correcting Wikipedia and its 95% fascist science authors and editors many decades ago, because correcting Wikipedia with their army of fascist editors is throwing away time out of your life.
But, leaving on a very bright and shiny note on this topic.
For months now I have tried to prepare for an example of Mathematical Induction that is the most important, and most beautiful example of all.
For I was deeply disappointed in going to the University of Cincinnati and to Utah State University studying mathematics and gaining a Masters degree. Disappointed in the fact that no textbook of math with Mathematical Induction has an Important and valuable proof in math that requires mathematical induction. All the proofs I remember in college with mathematical induction were remote and arcane. If you do not believe me, just check it out yourself. In fact, Wikipedia gives one such example of the sum of the natural numbers up to N follows the formula of N(N+1)/ 2. All the proofs using math induction while I was in college are in this vain-- a formula of not much importance.
So in mathematics, the examples of Mathematical Induction were really not important examples, nothing of importance that you cannot do math.
And then, just today in 2025, I realized that the most important math of all is Calculus, and, well, can you believe it. The most important proof in Calculus is the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus done in a geometry proof, where Mathematical Induction is essential. In other words, the most important proof in all of mathematics depends on mathematical induction for calculus is the most important topic in mathematics for all of physics uses the calculus.
I wrote several textbooks where I do the proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. I will display part of the proof from one of those textbooks here, as I have done earlier in the geometry format chapter. It is a geometry proof and it requires out of necessity the proof method of Mathematical-Induction. And surprisingly, mathematical-induction is ___not confined to just integers___ for the true numbers of all of mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers, each grid having its special inductor-element. In Integer Grid, we have the Counting Numbers and 1 is the inductor element. In the smallest Grid that has fractions is the Decimal 10 Grid with 100 numbers not counting 0, which is the set {0, .1, .2, .3.. . 9.8, 9.9, 10.0}. The 10 Grid inductor element as you can see is 0.1, while the integer grid was 1. In the 100 Grid the inductor element is 0.01. Can you guess what the inductor element is in 1000 Grid?
For homework write out a few numbers of the Counting Number grid, the 10 Grid, the 100 Grid and 1000 Grid. Be sure to write out at least 9 numbers beginning the Grid and then 9 numbers ending the Grid with in between the commas and dots like this for the 10 Grid 0, 0.1, 0.2, . . , 9.8, 9.9, 10.0.
So here is a pictorial of the proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, and envision this pictorial in the Decimal 10 Grid, where a cell is from 0 to 0.1, next cell is from 0.1 to 0.2. And the function graph is the whole collection of 100 Cells that stretch from 0 to 10. The proof of FTC relies essentially on Mathematical Induction, if true for the first cell and you assume true for Cell N, and can show true for the next Cell, you have proven FTC is true. The most important math and the most important proof in all of mathematics.
What is the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus??? The statement is that given a function graph, the derivative is the inverse of integral, and the Integral is the inverse of derivative. For those who never majored in mathematics, this is akin to the idea that addition is the inverse of subtraction and subtraction is the inverse of addition.
Why is calculus so vital??? Because all of physics is written in the language of calculus.
--- quoting FTC from one of my books ---
So, Calculus has two items-- the derivative which is the rooftop, the straightline. And the other item, the integral which is the rectangle area.
So, what is this theorem all about?
Well, it says that-- if you have a rectangle with a midpoint on its top side.
__m__
| |
| |
| |
---------
That you can cut a right triangle from the midpoint
__m__
| / |
|/ |
| |
---------
Cut that right triangle and swivel it up to make the trapezoid
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
|A |
|____|
Or, you can start with that trapezoid and swivel the right triangle downwards to make the rectangle
__m__
| / |
|/ |
| |
---------
--- end quoting FTC from one of my books---
You see, the If-->Then connector of Logic is division with only 1 row of 4 rows with a True-truth value.
If P then Q is only true when If True then True.
The Existential quantifier is the calculus derivative, another division in dy/dx.
Mathematical-Induction is where you show true in case of 0, 1, 2, 3, or 1,2,3,4. Obviously the 0 case is oblivious to the problem so we start with case of the cell from 0 to 1.
You then do a If N is true and whether you can show N+1 is true--- then, then it is true for all Counting Numbers or all Inductor Elements in Decimal Grid Systems. The 10 Grid has inductor element 0.1, the 100 Grid has inductor element 0.01 and so forth.
Mathematical-Induction comes directly out of the If-->Then connector of Logic.
Instead of writing If P then Q we write it as If N then N+1. We write it as Assume P, then Q. Write it as Assume N, then, if N+1 equals the Counting Numbers.
We started with the Argument that of UG, UI, EG, EI that Mathematical-Induction EQUALS Existential Instantiation EI plus Existential Generalization EG.
And so let us pick that apart.
We start with case 1 where it is true for 0,1,2,3 or alternatively true for 1,2,3,4 (0 is sometimes too strange and we start with 1 instead).
We go to the induction step of Assume true for N and must then prove it holds true for N+1.
The Existential Generalization EG is exactly that of "Assume true for N" which can be written as "N exists as True" and prove true for N+1.
Once we have true for 1,2,3,4 true for N connected to N+1 then in steps EG, Existential Generalization that the formula is true for all the Counting Numbers.
What the foolish and mistaken author of the Wikipedia on Mathematical Induction never had in mind, is that Mathematical Induction comes directly from the truth table of If-->Then connector of Logic. And being such, we can write If P--> then Q, as that of Assume P --> then Q.
Mathematical-Induction = EI + EG
Scientific Method = EI + EG + UI + UG
This makes sense in that Mathematical-Induction is a pruned down version of The Scientific-Method.There are 3 cases in Math-Induction.
1) initial case
2) assume true of case of N, then the burden of proving N+1 is true
3) then you have a generalized existence of all counting numbers
4 cases in Scientific-Method
1) initial experiment, this is EI
2) experiment is repeatable (N cases), this is EG
3) a check on consistency with other laws of science; this is UI
4) Universal Physics law UG
There are several different versions of Mathematical-Induction such as Fermat's Infinite Descent. The Infinite Descent is seen as where N is "pick any higher number in general" and instead of proving N+1, we simply prove true for N-1. What garners the proof for us, is the fact that N is any (counting number) in general. Because it is a general number, we can either add or subtract and achieve the result of true for all counting numbers.
And this allows more clarity in both the Scientific Method and Math-Induction as they are the similar processes.
Somewhat funny or strange how Math-Induction is more convincing and persuasive over that of Scientific-Method. What I mean by that is the catapulting from case of ____assume true for N, and if you prove true for N+1 you proven true for all counting numbers. Now look at the Scientific Method--- one physics experimenter produces results and gets others in different laboratories to do the same experiment which also produce the same results. And from that confirmation of hundreds of others we do a check-up for consistency then jump to the conclusion of a Universal Law of Physics, such as Coulomb law, or Faraday law, or Ampere law, or New Ohm's law.
What I am complaining about here, is that Math-Induction seems more secure in its method for we had to assume N and prove true for N+1. While in physics, we find N_1 experiment is true, then someone announces N_2 experiment confirms N_1 out to a large number of confirming replicating experiments and from that we check on consistency with known established laws then we jump to saying it is a Universal Law of Physics.
I am complaining the idea that Math-Induction seems more guaranteed of jumping to Existential Generalization EG, than is the Scientific-Method jumping to Universal Generalization UG.
Should I be complaining?? I say no, because the consistency check and testing of consistency is just as much persuasive as the math student is in proving N+1 is true. For example, in physics the consistency check of whether the true formula of water is H4O and not H2O requires all physicists and chemists to go back to the laboratory and do Water Electrolysis all over again and finally to actually weigh the mass of hydrogen compared to oxygen and not to skip jump and run to the lounge for coffee and donuts by only inspecting the volume. For example in math geometry, to check the diagram picture of slant cut of cone and place it side by side with slant of cylinder to see if the slant cut of cone is actually a Oval, never the ellipse.
Alright, I am so happy to solve this problem. You may ask what problem is that?? So the initial case in Math-Induction is EI. Next, the suppose or assume N is true, then the proving that N+1 is true is; and finally the statement true for all counting numbers is the EG. No problems with that. But now we go to the Scientific Method and we seem to not have a UI in that method. We seem to go from initial experiment is EI, then as others perform the experiment to confer truth is EG, but now we are stuck with no apparent UI to reach the end goal of a Universal Law of Physics where that law is the UG, but no UI was apparent in the process.
Then I realized an important fact that is not mentioned in the Scientific Method. The fact of Consistency before an experiment and the many confirmations elevates that experiment to be a Universal Law of Physics. In the Scientific Method there is a process of Consistency before that elevation unto being a Universal Law of Physics.
All candidates and contenders to become a law of physics go through a process of Consistency checking and testing with all the other laws of Physics. And this is the UI step in the Scientific Method.
Before I go to some examples, the outcome is now clear. That we have this.
Mathematical-Induction = EI + EG
Scientific Method = EI + EG + UI + UG
What that equality means is the structure framework of Math Induction is similar to the Scientific Method, and the only big difference is the Science law is so much more dense and complex than the truth for all counting numbers in the process of math-induction.Math Induction itself is a universal law of mathematics, and when we use Math-Induction to prove a ___formula__ of math obeys mathematical-induction, we are proving the formula encompasses all the counting-numbers and not that the formula is a universal law. While in the Scientific Method we are proving the experiment encompasses a universal law of physics or chemistry or biology.
Example of Math-Induction and the very best is the proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus where induction is needed to assemble all the individual cells as the function graph starts at 0 and goes through all the x axis coordinate points.
Examples in Scientific Method is more complex and complicated. A Theory of science is all the laws for which those laws are consistent with each other. Quantum Mechanics is a theory and all of its laws are consistent. The Big Bang is misnamed when it is called a theory for it is a speculation of which there are inconsistencies. A stunning inconsistency of the Big Bang is that it violates immediately the Pauli Exclusion Principle of Quantum Mechanics. For a Universe that is started from the explosion of all matter in a tight knit ball defies Pauli Exclusion which says, you cannot squeeze matter too close together. Some silly rumdummy professors say-- oh well, the Pauli Exclusion principle did not exist nor any other law of physics until after the Big Bang explosion. And this is exactly the reason AP insists that all science students be forced to take Logic in college to help them think straight and clear.
Another example of Inconsistency is the black hole nonsense, for here again, Pauli Exclusion Principle forbids mass, matter squeezed together, but I am sure rumdummies in physics like to believe in fairy tales like black holes.
Another example is Darwin Evolution theory (we do not have to stick to just physics) is inconsistent with Quantum Entanglement experiments, so that Darwin Evolution is not a law of science, but a "rule that is often correct but not always correct".
Another example is convection currents in geology causing Continental Drift, but that is inconsistent with plate tectonics in Mexico where a plate is moving forward then reversing itself and moving backwards, then forward then backwards. This is more in keeping with Drift caused by vibrations of the Earth's cores.
My future book of #372 is Improving the Scientific Method and this idea that the Scientific Method goes through these stages of EI then EG, then UI, and finally we reach UG as being a Universal Law of Science whether Physics or some other science. I will detail this equality in details in that #372 book.
I am happy to solve this problem and surprised of the beauty of how Math-Induction mirror reflects the same process that goes on discovery of Laws of Physics and science.
No doubt the authors and editors of Wikipedia will benefit immensely once they are mandatorily forced to take 2 years of college Logic with using AP logic textbooks. Wikipedia on straight normal Math-Induction has it all wrong and screwed up. And now, Wikipedia on "infinite descent" (Fermat's infinite descent) has it all wrong and screwed up.
Naturally, if Wikipedia cannot have a correct Mathematical Induction in the first place, then naturally they will screw up completely in having Math Induction by Infinite Descent. Why the authors in Wikipedia want to throw a "not" into the picture is how bad it is for ignorants who write on Logic when they never had a logical brain to be doing so.
--- quoting Wikipedia's thoroughly wrong account of Proof by infinite descent---
In mathematics, a proof by infinite descent, also known as Fermat's method of descent, is a particular kind of proof by contradiction used to show that a statement cannot possibly hold for any number, by showing that if the statement were to hold for a number, then the same would be true for a smaller number, leading to an infinite descent and ultimately a contradiction. It is a method which relies on the well-ordering principle, and is often used to show that a given equation, such as a Diophantine equation, has no solutions.
--- end quoting Wikipedia's thoroughly wrong account of Proof by infinite descent---
The foolish writers in Wikipedia of Math-Induction are so stupid that they forgot to include the Induction step of Suppose N, then the burden is to prove N+1. Imagine that, leaving out the mechanism of Mathematical Induction.
There should be a yearly award for the dumbest Wikipedia entry of Science for that year. Wikipedia should win the award for the Dumb dumb dumb Mathematical Induction.
So we look at the Proof by Infinite Descent and see if Wikipedia can screw things up even worse. Yes, the fools thought there had to be a "Not" involved. They thought it was a proof involving contradiction. And makes me want to ask, if any of the authors even took Logic in College, seeing that they probably need a spinal tap plus a brain.
The True Proof by Infinite Descent
---------------------------------------
1) Like regular math-induction, show true for case 1,2,3, the starting step.
2) Assume true for N, the induction step, and is the same as regular induction.
3) The burden, now, is can you prove the formula is true for N-1? In regular induction is to prove true for N+1.
4) If you can prove true for N-1, then the infinite descent is that you come back down to 3, 2, 1.
5) This works because the selection of N is that of "any N". This is the Universal Instantiation. And is the reverse of regular normal Math-Induction in that you prove N+1 instead of N-1.
6) Both, regular and infinite descent Math Induction work because N is "any N" the Universal Instantiation.
7) Once you proved either N+1 is true or N-1 is true, you then head for the UG, Universal Generalization that all Counting Numbers work for the formula.
I would say that 90% of the science-- physics, chemistry, biology articles in Wikipedia are filled with error, so grotesque errors that is often not even worth reading them by young students for they get brainwashed or frustrated from lack of clarity. A typical error in Wikipedia is that they still think the electron of atoms is the 0.5 MeV particle when in truth that is the Dirac magnetic monopole, where the Muon is the true electron stuck inside a proton torus. When you make a mistake like that, easily, 60%, 70% of Wikipedia science entries are full of error just on account of a wrong electron. And as for Logic articles, so far I have seen 100% of articles on Logic in grotesque error. For example: their AND connector truth table is deemed TFFF when AND is add in arithmetic and should be TTTF. In mathematics, Wikipedia on Mathematical Induction leaves out the assumption step of N, then prove for N+1. Such mindless blather, reinforces AP's opinion that Wikipedia hires failures and losers of science to write their articles. And these authors so glad to try to redeem themselves for failing the subject. But now propagandizing their b.s. unto to the world, and steering young students amiss.
AP gave up long time ago in correcting Wikipedia articles, for what happens there is a minute after you make a correction, Wikipedia has a fleet of fascist editors to remove your correction. Correcting Wikipedia is a total waste of time.
So what AP does, is post the Wikipedia nonsense to his newsgroup for posterity to reveal how ignorant it is to have a Encyclopedia that is created from science losers and failures who write the articles.
At this moment in time, Australia is banning smear, hatred platforms like facebook, Reddit, X, Quora and many others. I recommend that Australia also ban all science, math, and logic articles in Wikipedia, as gibberish nonsense that pollutes the minds of students. Australia, bravo to you, and go for banning the science that is presented in Wikipedia.
25) The Scientific Method is Logic in practice.
Let us take a moment and look at the Scientific Method and see how many times Language is involved.
--- source from Internet ---
Step 1-- Make observations and ask many questions.
Step 2-- Research the subject matter and Review the literature on the subject.
Step 3-- Formulate a Hypothesis of what you think is going on.
Step 4-- Conduct Experiments pertaining to your hypothesis.
Step 5-- Collect data from the experiment/s and analyze the data.
Step 6-- Draw conclusions.
Step 7-- Publish the results.
So essentially in these 7 steps, some steps are conducted without language while other steps involve language directly. But all of the steps in the Scientific Method involve ideas. Each idea can be labeled by a letter such as p, q, r, s, t, etc etc, and those ideas written in a language.
In an earlier chapter of making well-defined definitions, I discussed a concept called "Superdeterminism" which was proven true by Quantum Mechanics Physics, and what this concept of Superdeterminism says in clear terms, is that thoughts and ideas are entered into our bodies from a power outside our body. That we are puppets all our lives programmed by a Cosmic superpower. Physics has proven this to be true. Some call it "quantum entanglement" and was first started and discovered by John Bell.
The importance of Superdeterminism in the Scientific Method, is that since all ideas and thoughts are shot into our mind-brain, that Logic is all a correct use of ideas by a language. Much like we see a notebook of math computations, and math is merely a correction of those computations. Logic is idea fixing, while math is number or shape geometry fixing.
Logic holds mathematics inside of Logic. Math is a subset of Logic. And of course the best way to start Logic is to refer to mathematics. For everything in mathematics must be reflected in Logic since math is a subset of Logic.
In logic, the science of correct language, definitions are important. And we can reduce many concepts to their primal meaning.
Part 7, The Atomic Theory.
26) The most exquisite Logic argument of all time-- the Atomic theory.
In my 348th book of science I wrote this.
ATOMIC THEORY SYLLOGISM
------- Facts and definitions of Atom Totality ------
1) All Matter is one of 114 Chemical Elements of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements. This is the definition of Matter and Matter has rest mass. Reason:: Chemistry's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements.
2) The 114 Chemical Elements are each Atoms, and a atom is defined as having three components --- Protons, Muons, Neutrons for which these three components engage in the Faraday and Ampere law and Capacitor law and other Electromagnetic Laws. Reason:: Physics Atomic Theory.
3) The Proton is a coil torus and all the protons form a single torus, with muons inside this proton torus act as bar magnets thrusting through the proton torus in the Faraday law producing new electricity and electromagnetic radiation. Reason:: Proton +Muon inside equals 938MeV, and neutron equals 940MeV, both within sigma error of 945MeV with the AP EM laws of physics that all elementary particles have a function in the EM laws such as proton is the coil in Faraday law and muon the true electron of Atoms is the bar magnet in Faraday law.
4) The electricity and electromagnetic radiation produced by proton-muons is storaged in neutrons as parallel plate capacitors. But some of the radiation is emitted out of the atom such as starshine and sunshine. Emitted out as EM radiation but still connected with the atom of origin until absorbed by a new atom. Reason:: AP EM laws of electromagnetism.
5) Stars and Sun shine not from fusion but from Faraday law, and it is the Faraday law that builds stars and planets and other astronomical bodies. As the storage of electricity in Faraday law proton-muon builds up neutrons to become new hydrogen atoms or other atoms. Reason:: fusion depends on probability of collisions, while Faraday law is assured certainty of producing electricity energy from a perpetual motion thrusting muon inside a proton torus coil. Stars and Sun shine so dependably that fusion is unable to supply this dependable energy.
---------- Facts and definitions of Space where few if any matter exists -----
6) What is not matter, is empty space full of Electromagnetic Radiation pencil ellipses of Light Waves and subatomic particles traveling through the Cosmos. The empty space of a plutonium atom matches the empty space seen in Astronomy where there are few galaxies, and stars. Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden gold leaf experiment points to empty space similar to astronomy empty space. Reason:: Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden gold leaf experiment 1906-1913.
7) EM radiation is a circuit, although a pencil-ellipse, it is always connected with the atom that gave it birth, until the radiation is absorbed in other atoms. Reason:: The laws of electromagnetism form the electromagnetic spectrum.
8) Space can be empty of Atoms, but is always containing electromagnetic radiation, pencil ellipses of Light waves going at the speed of light in closed loop pencil ellipses always connected with the Atom of origin or the Atom it is absorbed by. Reason:: Particle to Wave duality of Quantum Mechanics.
9) Subatomic particles that escape an atom, are always connected with its original atom via the EM radiation is a closed loop, until the subatomic particle is absorbed by a new atom. Reason:: Coulomb law of electromagnetism.
10) All subatomic particles or EM energy outside an Atom are all connected to their atom of origin until absorbed by a new atom and then connected to the new atom. Reason:: Coulomb law of electromagnetism.
------- Growth in an Atom Totality -----
11) Growth in Atom Totality is caused by Faraday and Ampere law and Capacitor law, especially in Faraday law where a thrusting bar magnet through a coil of wire produces new electricity the 0.5MeV Dirac magnetic monopoles which have rest mass but also in the EM radiation given off in Faraday law. This is a conversion of Space into new mass. And the Sun and stars shine from Faraday law, not fusion. As each atom is composed of protons which has muons inside the proton torus doing the Faraday law. Reason:: Universal laws of Electromagnetism.
12) In Astronomy, the galaxies form rings which is a small part of a Cosmic Proton torus and the galaxies form Cosmic Muons thrusting through the Cosmic Proton producing electricity and radiation. We see and measure this in the form of cosmic gamma rays. Astronomy sees this as the Ring of Galaxies in 3rd layer as reported by Caltech. Plutonium Atom Totality has 94 x 840 = 78960 Cosmic Proton Rings and we are beginning to see just 2 or 3 of these rings in our corner of the Plutonium Atom Totality. The muons inside this Cosmic Proton torus are a bar magnet that is 94 x 105 = 9870 connected Cosmic Muon Chain inside the Cosmic Proton. We seem to have a nexus of galaxies in that some are moving perpendicular to one another in the Ring in the 3rd layer. Reason:: Applying observations of science to the laws of electromagnetism.
13) Chemistry sees this as the concentration of high atomic number elements in ore deposits as a direct result of Faraday law growth. Elements created as ores in planets, moons and asteroids. Reason:: Faraday law of electromagnetism.
----- Concluding the Atom Totality is a single big atom of plutonium ------
14) The Universe itself has mass and matter. Reason:: Everyday observation of the world we live in.
15) Hence the Universe is one of the 114 chemical elements, and the plutonium atom fits the special numbers of math and physics such as pi = 3.14... as 22/7 and e = 2.718... as 19/7, the Fine Structure Constant, the best fit. Reason:: Fulfillment of the Atomic Theory as Universal Generalization law-- all matter comes down to being one of the 114 known chemical elements.
16) The Atom Totality is different from the atoms it contains inside the Atom Totality, simply as a mass and size difference. For a Plutonium atom found inside the Plutonium Atom Totality is many times exponentially smaller mass and size. Reason:: One atom contains all the other atoms inside itself.
17) The Atom Totality must be a single Atom, for the growth pattern is Atoms giving birth to new atoms via Faraday law. The Universe cannot be a molecule for the growth pattern is not set up to create molecules. Reason:: Faraday law give rise to new electricity which is storaged in neutrons as parallel plate capacitors that keep growing until the neutron forms a new atom of hydrogen, then the hydrogen neutron forms helium, and so on.
18) The Atom Totality must be true, otherwise the Atomic Theory is a mere and meager rule and not a law or theory of science. Laws and theories of science are Universal, while a rule of science is sometimes correct, often wrong. Reason:: The Scientific Method in working order.
19) The Atom Totality as a Law and Theory of science propounds the axiomatic principle of science--- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Meaning that all science reduces to the laws of electromagnetism. Reason:: Atomic theory and Electromagnetic laws are one and the same.
----- Purpose of Life in an Atom Totality -------
20) Purpose of life in an Atom Totality is to nucleosynthesize heavy elements impossible to nucleosynthesize in stars or supernova. Life was not needed in prior Atom Totalities of helium up to lead as Faraday Law could build an atom twice the atomic number and spontaneous fission into the newly created Atom Totality. But life in Atom Totalities were required to create new Atom Totalities beyond lead. This would mean that life, intelligent life to do nucleosynthesis, existed for billions and billions of years long before planet Earth and humans arrived in the Plutonium Atom Totality. Whether life lives after spontaneous fission into a new Atom Totality is unknown at this time. I am guessing life lives through the birth of a new Atom Totality. Reason:: If Atoms are all that exists, makes logical sense that life is created to further increase more Atoms.
21) As Life nucleosynthesizes Element 192 it will __spontaneously fission__ into a Curium Atom Totality. Life is uniformly spread throughout the Universe and its mission is to create the next Atom Totality. Reason:: Today we, as life on Earth, has nucleosynthesized element 114. We have a long ways to go before nucleosynthesizing element 192.
22) As Element 192 is formed by bombarding Curium with other Curium atoms until two fuse together to briefly form Element 192 which immediately decays into the Curium Atom Totality in equal parts, one curium atom being particle the other being wave (one being electricity rest mass, the other curium atom being magnetism energy). The need for the Atom Totality to be an even proton number-- atomic number--- is so that the spontaneous fission creates two equal atoms. One to give the rest mass Curium Atom Totality and the other to give the energy of the Curium Atom Totality. Reason:: Our best state of physics knowledge at present.
23) If humanity saves itself from extinction and oblivion by making Europa our permanent new home in the next 1,000 years, because our Sun has gone Red Giant phase and will swallow Earth in due course. Then on Europa, after we become settled in, our mission there will be to build cyclotrons to bombard curium atoms into other curium atoms hoping to get two to fuse and nucleosynthesize element 192 and create the New Curium Atom Totality. We will likely have competitors in billions of other solar systems in the Universe. It is a race to create the New God-- Curium Atom Totality. Reason:: How physics works and reveals the truth.
ATOM
I need to honor and comment on all those who gave important information for my discovery of the Plutonium Atom Totality theory, and in a rightful order. I should put Leucippus and Democritus first, not last in the honor.
I need to include Leucippus and Democritus as founders of the Atomic Theory, then include Faraday, Charles Sanders Peirce, Dirac, Feynman then Sagan. Sagan even talks about a Cosmic Atom in his TV show Cosmos, but stops short of actually specifying what atom is the Totality.
Democritus is said to have called the cosmos a single Atom, but of course they had no periodic table of elements back in Ancient Greek.
And a lesson to learn for Mathematics and Calculus. If Physics is centered on the Atomic Theory, where "Atomos" in Greek means "Last Cut", that logically implies discreteness in physics, implies quantum mechanics as far back as Ancient Greek. It simultaneously implies the continuum and Reals are unfeasible. Yet, here we are, still by 2025, where math and calculus is filled with Reals, continuum. Which allows me to say, mathematicians have learned next to nothing since Ancient Greek times.
Nice to see a picture of Leucippus and we should thank and be grateful that so many artists painted famous people of the past. For in my view, the greatest value of art, is its ability to make a picture when on photo camera is available to make a picture.
Remarkable Logic to have. To have Ancient Greeks contemplate Atomos--- Last Cut. They could just as well said the World is a continuum and no last cut. Turns out that Physics would prove them correct 2000 years later and with Quantum Mechanics leading the way forward. Still, we have mathematics mostly in the weeds with their mind wreck of Reals and continuum. All mathematicians should be forced to take 2 years of Logic in college before they get their degree, to help them think straight and clear.
--- quoting Wikipedia---
Leucippus
A painting of Leucippus
Leucippus, as imagined by the 17th-century painter Luca Giordano
Born
5th century BCE
Philosophical work
Era
Pre-Socratic philosophy
Atomism
Notable students
Democritus
Language
Ancient Greek
Main interests
Metaphysics, cosmology
Leucippus (/luːˈsɪpəs/; Λεύκιππος, Leúkippos; fl. 5th century BCE) was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher. He is traditionally credited as the founder of atomism, which he developed with his student Democritus. Leucippus divided the world into two entities: atoms, indivisible particles that make up all things, and the void, the nothingness that exists between the atoms. He developed his philosophy as a response to the Eleatics, who believed that all things are one and the void does not exist. Leucippus's ideas were influential in ancient and Renaissance philosophy. Leucippus was the first Western philosopher to develop the concept of atoms, but his ideas only bear a superficial resemblance to modern atomic theory.
Leucippus's atoms come in infinitely many forms and exist in constant motion, creating a deterministic world in which everything is caused by the collisions of atoms. Leucippus described the beginning of the cosmos as a vortex of atoms that formed the Earth, the Sun, the stars, and other celestial bodies.
--- end quoting Wikipedia---
I enjoy reading the history of Democritus. I especially like the moniker of "laughing scientist", and found that instructive in my own life. For every time a critic pops up and spouts off his mindless criticism and ad hominem, well, I just include that fool into a book and laugh all the way to the University library.
In my mind, Democritus in Ancient Greek is the equal of Newton or Maxwell in modern physics.
It is a shame that Archimedes in Ancient Greek times played little role in shaping the Atomic Theory. But, if I am the reincarnation of Archimedes, well my wish was granted to come back to Earth, and set the Atomic Theory straight and correct and clear.
The greatest science of all time--- Atomic Theory and it ends in the Plutonium Atom Totality going into the next Atom Totality, the Curium Atom Totality (nice to see, women and ladies in science, honored for their outstanding work). Logic is about sequence.
I am surprised Democritus lived to 90 years old. Archimedes lived to 75 years. One question though I have wondered about ever since I was a teenager learning the Atomic theory for the first time. The connection between the government politics being "democracy" and the founding father of Atomic theory having the name "Democritus". In the back of my mind, as a teenager, I had the thought that Democracy originated from Democritus as the founding father of Atomic theory.
--- quoting Wikipedia---
Democritus
A philosopher, possibly Democritus. Casting of bust of the Villa of the Papyri.
Born
c. 460 BC
Abdera, Thrace
Died
c. 370 BC (aged approximately 90)
Philosophical work
Era
Pre-Socratic philosophy
Region
Western philosophy
School
Atomism
Main interests
Nature
Notable ideas
Democritus (/dɪˈmɒkrɪtəs/, dim-OCK-rit-əs; Greek: Δημόκριτος, Dēmókritos, meaning "chosen of the people"; c. 460 – c. 370 BC) was an Ancient Greek pre-Socratic philosopher from Abdera, primarily remembered today for his formulation of an atomic theory of the universe. Democritus wrote extensively on a wide variety of topics.
None of Democritus' original work has survived, except through second-hand references. Many of these references come from Aristotle, who viewed him as an important rival in the field of natural philosophy. He was known in antiquity as the ‘laughing philosopher’ because of his emphasis on the value of cheerfulness.
Life
Democritus among the Abderites
Although many anecdotes about Democritus' life survive, their authenticity cannot be verified and modern scholars doubt their accuracy.
According to Aristotle, Democritus was born in Abdera, on the coast of Thrace. He was a polymath and prolific writer, producing nearly eighty treatises on subjects such as poetry, harmony, military tactics, and Babylonian theology. Some called him a Milesian, and the name of his father too is stated differently. His birth year was fixed by Apollodorus in the first year of the 80th Olympiad, or 460 BC, while Thrasyllus had referred it to as the 3rd year of the 77th Olympiad. Democritus had called himself forty years younger than Anaxagoras. His father, Hegesistratus,--or as others called him Damasippus or Athenocritus,--was possessed of so large a property, that he was able to receive and treat Xerxes on his march through Abdera.
Democritus spent the inheritance, which his father left him, on travels into distant countries, which he undertook to satisfy his extraordinary thirst for knowledge. He travelled over a great part of Asia, and, as some state, he even reached India and Aethiopia. We know that he wrote on Babylon and Meroe; he must also have visited Egypt, and Diodorus Siculus even states, that he lived there for a period of five years. He himself declared, that among his contemporaries none had made greater journeys, seen more countries, and made the acquaintance of more men distinguished in every kind of science than himself. Among the last he mentions in particular the Egyptian mathematicians (ἀρπεδόναπ-ται ; comp. Sturz, de Dialect. Maced. p. 98), whose knowledge he praises, without, however, regarding himself inferior to them. Theophrastus, too, spoke of him as a man who had seen many countries. It was his desire to acquire an extensive knowledge of nature that led him into distant countries at a time when travelling was the principal means of acquiring an intellectual and scientific culture; and after returning to his native land he occupied himself only with philosophical investigations, especially such as related to natural history.
--- end quoting Wikipedia---
I was on a path of self improvement in science after graduating from University of Cincinnati and Utah State University and had a job of teaching mathematics in Melbourne, Australia. By improving, I had decided to research how to turn the Darwin theory of evolution into a mathematical formula. So I bought books before I departed USA for Australia. And I bought books while in Melbourne and one book sticks out-- The Four Pragmatists by Scheffler and a passage in it on Peirce's Cosmogony that the Universe is "crystallizing out".
So there I was in bed in November 1990 and with my head full of ideas with Feynman's --- Atomic theory the most important theory in physics, and with Sagan's Cosmos with the beautiful music saying that the Universe is a atom, and with Peirce the Pragmatist saying that the universe will crystallize-out. But what will it crystallize out to be???
So I awoke and was thinking of all three of these ideas and realized I had to get to the library at Dartmouth as fast as possible to find out what Chemical Element the Universe was. There is Logically, only one thing in the world that the Universe had to be--- an Element of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements. After reading several articles and looking at the Table of Elements, I came to the conclusion that the Universe was a Plutonium Atom Totality, for it fit the numbers of math and physics the best, and besides, you could say it is the last of the commonly found elements in Nature.
--- quoting Wikipedia---
Charles Sanders Peirce
Born
September 10, 1839
Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.
Died
April 19, 1914 (aged 74)
Milford, Pennsylvania, U.S.
Relatives
Benjamin Peirce (father)
Education
Alma mater
Harvard University
Philosophical work
Era
Late modern philosophy
Region
Western philosophy
School
PragmatismPragmaticism
Institutions
Johns Hopkins University
Notable students
List
Main interests
Logicmathematicsstatistics philosophymetrology chemistryexperimental psychology economics linguistics history of sciencePhilosophical logic metaphysics epistemology
Signature
Part of a series on
Charles Sanders Peirce
Bibliography
Pragmatism in epistemology
Abductive reasoningFallibilismPragmaticism as maximas theory of truthCommunity of inquiry
Logic
Continuous predicatePeirce's lawEntitative graph in Qualitative logicExistential graphFunctional completenessLogic gateLogic of informationLogical graphLogical NORSecond-order logicTrikonicType-token distinction
Semiotic theory
IndexicalityInterpretantSemiosisSign relationUniversal rhetoric
Miscellaneous contributions
AgapismBell triangleCategoriesPhaneronSynechismTychismClassification of sciencesListing numberQuincuncial projection
Biographical
Joseph Morton RansdellAllan MarquandJuliette PeirceCharles Santiago Sanders PeirceRoberta KevelsonChristine Ladd-FranklinVictoria, Lady WelbyThe Metaphysical ClubbookPeirce Geodetic Monument
--- end quoting Wikipedia---
The power of writing Physics textbooks grants that author power over other physicists if the textbook is good enough.
I call Feynman the mentor or teacher of Archimedes Plutonium, for it is his passage in Lectures on Physics about the Atomic Theory--- All things are made up of Atoms--- that allowed me in November 1990 to discover the Plutonium Atom Totality theory.
--- quoting Wikipedia---
Richard Feynman
Feynman, smiling
Feynman c. 1965
Born
Richard Phillips Feynman
May 11, 1918
New York City, U.S.
Died
February 15, 1988 (aged 69)
Los Angeles, California, U.S.
Resting place
Mountain View Cemetery and Mausoleum
Education
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (SB)
Princeton University (PhD)
Known for
Awards
Albert Einstein Award (1954)
E. O. Lawrence Award (1962)
Nobel Prize in Physics (1965)
Foreign Member of the Royal Society (1965)
Oersted Medal (1972)
National Medal of Science(1979)
Scientific career
Fields
Theoretical physics
Institutions
Cornell University
California Institute of Technology
Thesis
The Principle of Least Action in Quantum Mechanics (1942)
Doctoral advisor
John Archibald Wheeler
Doctoral students
James M. Bardeen
Laurie Mark Brown
Michael Cohen
Thomas Curtright
Albert Hibbs
Giovanni Rossi Lomanitz
George Zweig
Other notable students
Robert Barro
Douglas D. Osheroff
Paul J. Steinhardt
Stephen Wolfram
--- end quoting Wikipedia---
Also, I should include Carl Sagan with his book and TV show "Cosmos". Without Feynman to glue me to the Atomic Theory and Sagan to imagine the Cosmic realm, that I would never have discovered the Atom Totality theory in year 1990.
Great discoveries in science should have great music that helps them make the discovery.
I was tuned in and turned-on not only by the TV show COSMOS but its Vangelis music, also.
I remember making a tape recording of COSMOS before becoming a Naval Officer and moments I played that music and the idea of the universe being a single atom. Played that over and over and over, that by 1990, I could discover the Atom Totality theory.
--- quoting Wikipedia---
Carl Sagan
Sagan in 1980
Born
Carl Edward Sagan
November 9, 1934
New York City, U.S.
Died
December 20, 1996 (aged 62)
Seattle, Washington, U.S.
Resting place
Lake View Cemetery
Education
University of Chicago (BA, BS, MS, PhD)
Known for
Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI)Cosmos: A Personal VoyageCosmosVoyager Golden RecordPioneer plaqueThe Dragons of EdenContactPale Blue DotThe Demon-Haunted World
Awards
Klumpke-Roberts Award (1974)NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal (1977)Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction(1978)Oersted Medal (1990)Carl Sagan Award for Public Understanding of Science (1993)National Academy of SciencesPublic Welfare Medal (1994)
Scientific career
Fields
Astronomyastrophysicscosmologyastrobiologyspace scienceplanetary science
Institutions
University of ChicagoCornell UniversityHarvard UniversitySmithsonian Astrophysical ObservatoryUniversity of California, Berkeley
Thesis
Physical studies of planets (1960)
Doctoral advisor
Gerard Kuiper
Doctoral students
David Morrison Clark Chapman James B. Pollack Owen Toon Christopher Chyba Steven Soter Reid Thompson Peter Wilson David Pieri
--- end quoting Wikipedia---
Now I talked about some of the history of the Atomic theory, and let me in this page talk about some scientists who through the history have come close to the idea that the whole entire Universe-- the Totality is an atom itself; have come close to this idea of a Atom Totality Universe. It is a surprise to many that several people have had this idea brewing long before AP. But sadly, none ever jumped the hurdle, for if you claim to have a Atom Totality theory-- you must state what chemical element the Universe it actually is.
I know Democritus was a math genius for Archimedes of Ancient Greeks recognized his talents, but still, I did not expect Democritus to push his Atomic Theory to its final logical conclusion-- the Universe itself must be an atom. Perusing the physics history literature in the mid 1990s, years after I discovered the Atom Totality theory, I came across this gem.
Book:
--- start quoting A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4 --- The traditional atom, the genuine atom, is both quite indestructible and exceedingly minute. Atoms were indivisible for Leucippus because they were too minute to be divided, and for Democritus because they were too hard to be broken. If sundry traditions are trustworthy, Democritus allowed all sizes to atoms: a single Democritean atom might even be, so some said, as big as the world. The gigantic Democritean atom, if it ever existed, vanished from the atomistic tradition. The subsequent Epicurean atom was too hard to be broken, but it was also too small to be seen, and only thought could discern it. It did not become doubtful, nor even admittedly speculative, for Epicurus was as sure of atoms as if he had seen them with his eyes. --- end quoting A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4 ---
Then we see this Universe Atom idea in Lemaitre, a Belgian astronomer and cosmologist who formulated the modern big-bang theory, which holds that the universe began in a cataclysmic explosion of a small, primeval "super-atom." .... His works include ... and L'Hypothese de l'atome primitif (1946; "Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom") --- end of quote from Encyclopedia Britannica 1992 ---
Now, it is a shame that Lemaitre Primeval Atom starts the Universe in a Big Bang, because, well would it not have been a superior idea if the Primeval Atom were a Atom Totality Universe as part of the Atomic Theory and which has no cataclysmic birth, but rather a progression of chemical elements from hydrogen to helium on up to uranium and then plutonium atom totalities. A logical progression of Atom Totalities. Rather than a spurious, random notion of a explosion.
Is not logic better served if the Atomic Theory is pushed to its end conclusion that All is Atom and the Universe itself is a single big atom which in the far future will be a new chemical element Atom such as element 96 from its current element 94 of plutonium. Is that not the best, the superior logic?
Then there was a TV series called COSMOS by Sagan. And I specifically remember this segment from the TV series with its beautiful Vangelis music that was accompanied with words. I had watched on TV the series COSMOS, and remembered a paragraph which I looked-up in the book COSMOS on pages 265-267.
--- quoting from book COSMOS ---
[pages 265-267] There is an idea--strange, haunting, evocative- one of the most exquisite conjectures in science or religion. It is entirely undemonstrated; it may never be proved. But it stirs the blood. There is , we are told, an infinite hierarchy of universes, so that an elementary particle, such as an electron, in our universe would, if penetrated, reveal itself to be an entire closed universe. Within it, organized into the local equivalent of galaxies and smaller structures, are an immense number of other, much tinier elementary particles, which are themselves universe at the next level, and so on forever- an infinite downward regression, universes within universes, endlessly. And upward as well. Our familiar universe of galaxies and stars, planets and people, would be a single elementary particle in the next universe up, the first step of another infinite regress.
--- end quoting COSMOS ---
So close was Sagan, but sadly, did not pare that idea down, to, instead of infinite regressions or infinite progressions, pare it down to the idea that the Universe is not an elementary particle but an Atom, a single Atom, and then, well, Sagan would have had to triangulate what chemical element the Universe was, just like I did in 1990.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 3, 2026, 11:01:11 PM (13 days ago) Jan 3
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Part 8, Proof that God exists, but it is a Science God.
27) Proof is quite simple and shows us the superpower each and every day.
It is highly appropriate to have that discussion in 1st year Logic. For in 1st year logic we prove the Universe must be a single big atom of Plutonium. Now we can prove the existence of God.
Throughout my life as a scientist, starting at the age of around 13 years old, I knew that a supernatural entity was fairy tale. Probably 99% of scientists come to realize this, only some never want to admit it.
Instead of the word "God" it is better to be replaced by "Superpower". Power above what any "living biology" can engineer or create.
In school, Grade School, High School, University we are taught that "Perpetual Motion" machines are impossible. We use thermodynamics to drive the message home. Everything that is biology runs down, dies, and disappears and some being extinct.
Yet in religion, people want evidence that God exists.
In Physics we have proof every day, and every second of the day that a "Superpower exists". All we have to do is go get a bar magnet and the force of attraction of that magnet for iron filings is "perpetual motion". The force of attraction is perpetual energy.
We can zoom in on the Atom with proton torus and muon inside doing the Faraday Law. The muon is in perpetual motion going around inside the proton and generating new electricity. Biology cannot build a power station with perpetual electricity, but the Atom, each and every atom in the world has perpetual motion and making new energy.
We only need look at the Light-photon and various experiments on Light photons which have a constant maximum speed possible in the universe and realize that no biology can go at the speed of light. Constant maximum speed that is the Light photon means that the world is divided between what is perpetual motion, perpetual energy creation, constant maximum speed and divided by the rest of the world which has no perpetual motion, no perpetual energy creation and vastly slower than the speed of light.
The world we live in has a Superpower that is perpetual motion, perpetual energy creation and speeds that are a maximum constant speed.
Biology has no perpetual motion except the atoms that create the biology individual.
Proof of a Superpower is evident all around us. To atoms, inside atoms, and light photons.
The results of experiments all around the world in science prove Perpetual Motion and constant maximum Light Speed. A Superpower must exist to have Perpetual Motion and Light Speed.
28) Our mission is to make a permanent colony on Europa before year 3025.
Our days are numbered on Earth in which to be safe as the Sun increasingly gets hotter and hotter. If humanity does not get out to Europa and make Europa our new home then the Sun will toast and fry every living organism on Earth. Entire life on Earth will be boiled away as the Sun goes full Red Giant.
I would say the timetable is in 1,000 years we establish a permanent colony on Europa. And then the next 100,000 years to move as much of Earth life out onto Europa. Of course we will have to engineer a power source on Europa to keep warm and to terraform Europa to make it congeal to life. With Jupiter's strong magnetic field, we should be able to harness abundant free and clean energy to power this New Earth II.
But there are many logical sequence of events from now until we have a bustling permanent colony on Europa.
And more than ever before, we need education in true logic in colleges and universities to fulfill this mission of Earth II.
Part 9, Uniqueness, Consistency, Completeness and the biggest mistake of all in Old Logic.
29) Where does Universal Generalization UG, Universal Instantiation UI, Existential Generalization EG, Existential Instantiation EI, fit in?
Although math does have some principles and one of those principles is similar to a universal law of physics. It is called Mathematical-Induction and what it aims to show or prove is that when you have a formula of math, that the formula is true for all the counting numbers can be shown if we apply Mathematical-Induction to the formula.
Now the Counting Numbers of mathematics are 1,2,3,4,5, ... out to the infinity borderline which is 1*10^604. Once we reach the infinity borderline we stop for the numbers beyond that borderline are infinite numbers.
Now some will include the number 0 as a counting number and say that 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,... out to the infinity borderline are the counting numbers. And that is fine and dandy. But zero, 0, is an attachment to the other counting numbers. Zero represents the concept of "nothing in space" and that is why it is strange and special. And often in math when proving a formula obeys Mathematical Induction that zero, 0 is awkward and not complying in forming the initial steps of a Math-Induction proof.
When we do a Math-Induction proof we have three major steps, we show the formula is true for cases of 1,2,3. Then we have the step where we assume the Formula is true for any counting number call it N. We just assume or suppose it true, which is easy to do, for there is no work in assuming it true for N in the Formula. But the next step is difficult in that you have to prove it true for N+1. If we can prove it true for N+1, then that allows us to say the formula is true for all Counting Numbers. Why does it allow us to say it is true for all counting numbers?? Because we show it true for 1,2,3 and then the N is true because we assumed it, and proved N+1 is true means you have all the counting numbers. N was any counting number, not a specific number but "any". The "any" makes it work for "all".
So in mathematical induction the three steps are Existential Instantiation EI for show true for 1,2,3. And Existential Instantiation for assume true of "any N" and then prove true for N+1 is Existential Instantiation. Finally, we say true for all counting numbers is Existential Generalization EG.
Example of Mathematical Induction on the formula of (n(n+1))/2 is the sum of counting numbers from 1 to n. So for n=1 its sum is 1, and the formula gives us (1(1+1))/2 is 2/2 =1. So true when n=1. For n=2 we have 1+2 =3, and let is see if the formula holds true. We have (2(2+1))/2 = 6/2 = 3. Now let us try 3 which would be 1+2+3 = 6 and see if the formula holds.
We have from the assume or suppose true step that N sums equals (n(n+1))/2.
1+2+3+4+..+n = (n(n+1))/2
Now it is our burden to prove that formula is true for N+1 as ____((n+1)((n+1)+1))/2_____. That is our burden of proof.
Here we have to show that 1+2+3+4+..(+n) (+ n+1) is equal to ((n+1)((n+1)+1))/2.
Assume true 1+2+3+4+..+n = (n(n+1))/2
Prove that 1+2+3+4+..(+n) (+ n+1) = ((n+1)((n+1)+1))/2
1+2+3+4+..(+n) (+ n+1) = [1+2+3+4+..+n] + (n+1) reason: algebra regrouping.
[1+2+3+4+..+n] + (n+1) = (n(n+1))/2 + (n+1) reason:: where I replace the first n terms by the assumption step.
(n(n+1))/2 + (n+1) = (n+1)((n/2) +1) Reason:: factoring (n+1).
(n+1)((n/2) +1) = (n+1)(n+2/2) Reason:: common denominator.
(n+1)(n+2)/2) = (n+1)((n+1)+1)/2 Reason:: rewrite (n+2) as being n+1+1
Finally, what was expected to prove (n+1)((n+1)+1)/2
QED (meaning that which was to be demonstrated-- end of proof).
Summary, we wanted to prove that the Formula (n(n+1))/2 gives the sum of the first n counting numbers. We showed that formula is correct for 1, then 2 then 3. Next we supposed or assumed true that the formula n(n+1))/2 for a large number N of the Counting Numbers. Now the burden is on us to prove that N+1 holds true of that formula n(n+1))/2. To prove true we used the assumption step and did some wrangling of algebra to finally confirm that N+1 is the formula ((n+1)((n+1)+1))/2. And now we can say for all Counting Numbers the formula (n(n+1))/2 gives the correct sum.
Mathematical Induction gives us EI and EG, but not UI and UG. Here we have to go to universal laws of physics such as the universal law of gravity, or the Coulomb universal law, or the Faraday universal law, or the Ampere universal law or the New Ohm's universal law.
The laws of physics come from what is called the Scientific Method which gives us all four components of EI, EG, UI and finally UG.
Let us say the world does not know of the Faraday law and that we perform a experiment for the first time, which no-one has ever done before.
We connect a coil of copper wire to a Galvanometer and we thrust a bar magnet through the hole in the coil. We see electricity current is produced in the coil and read out in the Galvanometer needle moving. We write up our results and publish it in a science journal and call up other scientists of our experiment.
A large number of scientists repeat our experiment and find the same result of producing a electric current when you thrust a bar magnet through copper coil. The initial Experiment is EI existential instantiation. The fact that many others performed the same experiment and achieved the same results is EG existential generalization. Next, we check our experiments to see if the results are consistent with known laws of physics, which is UI universal instantiation, and if it is consistent, we elevate our experiment to UG, universal generalization, saying that if anyone in the future repeats our experiment, they will also end up with the same result.
Mathematical Induction as a principle is a universal law of math, but proving a formula of mathematics obeys all Counting Numbers, whether the math inductor is 1 as in positive integers or is 0.1 in decimal 10 grid or 0.01 in decimal 100 grid or 0.001 in decimal 1000 grid is not the proving that the formula is a universal law of science. And so formulas that obey Math-Induction use the EI and EG. To use EI, EG, UI, UG of a statement is to prove it is a universal law of science, physics and other sciences. The UI is a measure of whether the statement is consistent with the other laws of that particular science.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 3, 2026, 11:49:11 PM (13 days ago) Jan 3
to Plutonium Atom Universe
30) Summing up all of Logic in uniqueness, consistency, completeness by the Scientific Method.
So that humanity wrestling with ideas, naturally of course would have ideas that are science and yet have ideas with no science content. Keeping in mind, all along ___that truth is just the best known science on the subject___. The concept of "false, falsehood" is a homocentric concept not found in science itself.
The Truth Tables of Old Logic have true pitted against false, but there is no concept of false in science. So what would a solution be??
Since science itself determines truth, the opposite of truth is not false but "no science". And Science is based on the existence of matter, or energy. So that Logic must have from the start 6 connectors of (1) Existence quantifier (2) Not-Equal (3) AND (4) OR (5) If-->then (6) Universal quantifier. And the truth values are either T for true or 0, meaning no science content.
Now we can do Truth Tables where truth is a universal law of some science and falsity is covered by nonexistent science.
Existence quantifier Principle: There exists a P, Q where P, Q are statements of science fact.
Equal-Not Principle : P, Q when P and Q are the same thing.
AND Principle: P AND Q means join P with Q to become one statement.
OR Principle: P OR Q means choose one and discard or remove or subtract the other.
IF-->Then Principle: If P then Q means P moves into Q.
Universal quantifier Principle: For every P. These are laws of science.
Now we can display the AND Truth table like this.
AND connector of New Logic
P Q P AND Q
scienceP no-scienceQ = science P
no scienceP scienceQ = scienceQ
no scienceP no scienceQ = no-science
OR connector of New Logic
P Q P OR Q
scienceP no-scienceQ = scienceP
no scienceP scienceQ = scienceQ
There exists no scienceP There exists no scienceQ = There exists no science. (There is no choice)
IF-->Then connector of New Logic
P Q P --> Q
There exists science P There exists science Q = P moved into, became Q
scienceP no-scienceQ = scienceP moved into, became no science, an impossibility.
no scienceP scienceQ = impossibility in that nothing moved into something.
There exists no scienceP There exists no scienceQ = no scienceP moved into no scienceQ an impossibility.
So in AND we have 3 rows of Joining P with Q.
In OR we have 2 rows with a choice between P and Q and the removal of one (what is subtraction in arithmetic).
In IF -->Then we have 1 row with a Move into, a being to becoming, and the other rows impossible.
Equal-Not is not shown but would be 4 out of 4 rows for the distributive law is initiated by the Not that turns all results so that P=P and Q=Q and P=Q and Q=P.
So I need to address the first connector of Logic is the Existence quantifier then comes Not-Equal and then all the other 3 simple connectors with universal quantifier last.
The Existence quantifier is the derivative of Calculus, but it is also a division such as If-->Then. The derivative is dy/dx of calculus. And so we can easily begin to see that Existence and IF-->Then are closely related. For much of Logic is about P moves into Q, written as If P then Q, some prefer to call it P implies Q.
So I we need a chapter on Consistency, to see if my ideas were true. For if not consistent, then contradictions pop up.
And I noticed for the sake of consistency, that something had to provide Truth and Falsity to statements. And that could only be the Laws of Science as we know them.
In straightening out the truth tables by saying Physics and the laws of science are the truth givers, I find myself having made a big mistake. Not that I used Arithmetic to tell me what connector to start with--- was it AND, OR, IF-->Then or Equal-Not? But to my surprise, I needed to start with the Existential Quantifier, and not start with Equal-Not.
What is the point of an Argument of Logic if none of your statements have a bearing in existence? Or even if one of your statements has no physical existence.
Let me give you an example. It is safe to say that the first Logic argument in the world was by Aristotle when he put together this syllogism.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
In today's Logic, modern true Logic, Aristotle's argument would look vastly different and look like this.
From biology there exists a species Homo sapiens composed of female as XX chromosomes and male with XY chromosomes and about half of all this species is male-- men. Homo sapiens is mortal in that biology notes that no human lives longer than 114 years and normally 99.99% of humans do not reach the age of 100 years.
Socrates existed from about 470 to 399 BC and was mortal, living for 71 years and died because he was forced to drink hemlock poison. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
All Logic Arguments of today and moving forward into the future, are imbued, saturated in scientific speak for truth and clarity and especially for Existence.
If I went through every logic textbook of today used at colleges and universities to teach logic, I am sure that all of them are error ridden so badly, that they are junk and not worth the time to use, likely, 90% of examples have no reference to science truth value and existence of ideas in statements.
One of my hardest and most difficult books to write. I suppose because I overturn almost everything written in Old Logic.
Logic as a science to think straight and think clearly has never been correctly presented before. And now is the time to make Logic truly presentable and to require 2 years mandatory Logic in College for all scientists.
Completeness
-------------------
We ask the question is mathematics complete? By completeness we mean that physics and the other sciences are well served by mathematics in covering of numbers, algebra, geometry, calculus with precision of measure, observation, experimentation and crafting of laws of science. That the 6 operators of math --- add, subtract, multiply, divide, derivative, integral fulfill all the needs given a law of physics or any other science.
Same can be said of Logic because its 6 connectors fulfill the deductions made from premisses as ideas. Math fulfills all the needs of physics and science, and so Logic fulfills all the needs of turning ideas into new ideas.
Old Logic was not-unique in its connectors, not consistent, and not complete. Old Logic had 2 ORs which immediately tells you they were fruitcakes of Logic--- inconsistent when you have two different OR's. Old Logic had a binary Equal and binary Not when they had to be combined to make a 4 row table of TTTT. Old Logic was inconsistent, for they had a If --> Then that does not allow for a "division by zero is undefined". Old Logic had no independent connectors for it is plain to see they come up with 19 Rules of Inference in which one can throw out several connectors as being superfluous since they are equal. Old Logic was a cesspool mess not fit or worth teaching in college and university.
In New Logic, the 4 simple connectors are unique, one has truth table TTTT, AND has TTTF, OR has FTTF, and IF-->Then is TFUU. These are 4 unique and independent truth tables and they model the arithmetic operators of multiply, add, subtract, divide, respectively. If we tack on Universal and Existential quantification we tack on the derivative and integral as 6 unique and independent connectors coinciding with 6 operators of mathematics.
Mathematics is a consistent and complete body of knowledge with 6 operators that are unique and independent.
New Logic is a consistent and complete body of Knowledge with 6 simple connectors (2 of them quantifiers) that are unique and independent.
There is the Commutative Law for AND and for Equal-Not, matching mathematics commutative law for addition and multiplication, where order of operation does not matter.
How about the Associative laws or the Distributive laws of arithmetic? Do they become a Law of Inference in Logic??? Appears the answer is yes, both for AND, and for Equal-Not as associative laws. And the Equal-Not truth table made from two binaries to become a quaternary is the distributive law.
The Modus ponens and Modus tollens as shown in Copi are not laws of inference but are simply the definition of If-->Then as seen in the fact that If P then Q , given P results in Q. And, If P then Q, not-Q results in not-P because If-->Then is only true when P is true and Q is true.
This has become one of my most difficult books to write. And the reason for this is simple to see. I am overhauling almost all of Logic to a correct Logic. Overhauling an entire science will demand much time of its author.
Notice the Not is wrapped around Equal so that Equal Not is multiplication in Arithmetic and allows for the distributive law in arithmetic where we have 3(2+1) = 3*2 + 3*1.
Commutative is 2 variables, but Associative is 3 or more variables.
Distributive can be 2 variables, using Not in Equal-Not (multiplication).
So this is a surprise in itself, for we always thought distributive law of arithmetic was 3 variables or more. But the Equal-Not is itself built from the distributive law as both "equal" was binary and "not" was binary, transformed into a quaternary.
Can the reader see that in the Equal-Not truth table we combined Equal with Not in the distributive law to form a table with truth value that is TTTT???
Not-Equal truth-table:
p q
T T = T
T not F = T
F not T = T
F F = T
Commutative and Associative are about the order in which we do the operation.
So that 1+2 = 2+1, or 2x3 = 3x2.
So that 1+(2+3) = (1+2) + 3 (We have to do what is in parentheses first, the inner parentheses first.
And 2(3*4) = (2*3)4
The order does not matter in addition or multiplication of 2 or 3 variables, or more variables.
In Logic of its 4 simple connectors.
Equal-Not and AND are commutative for in Equal-Not we have identity where 3 = 3 and issue of order. AND, as long as there is a single T value in a series of statements the entire string is T, no matter what order you engage them.
So with 2 variables, P,Q is P-->Q, the If-->Then connector commutative?? No, it is not commutative for then you have P-->Q equal to Q--> P, and the only time that is true is equality of P with Q. When P= Q, then you have P-->Q is the same as Q-->P.
So for Commutative Logic the Equal-Not, AND, are commutative.
For Associative Logic the Equal-Not, AND are associative with 3 or more variables.
In Logic of 2 variables, are there any Distributive laws?? Yes, another great surprise, for the Not in Equal-Not acts like a multiplier such as 3(1 + 2) = 3x1 + 3x2. Again, this is the very formation of the truth table of Equal-Not.
Some simple examples given.
P --> Q.
If the Earth is the 3rd planet from the Sun, then there are 2 other planets between Sun and Earth.
Not (P-->Q)
It is not the case that If Earth is the 3rd planet from the Sun, then there are 2 other planets between Sun and Earth.
Not P--> Not Q
If it is not the case that Earth is the 3rd planet from the Sun, then it is not the case that there are 2 other planets between Sun and Earth.
Clearly, I can see that (Not(P-->Q) =/= (Not P --> Not Q)
The Truth Table for P,Q is this, as that of 2^2
P Q
T T
T F
F T
F F
TTT
TTF
TFT
TFF
FTT
FTF
FFT
FFF
And, what we did not learn in Old Logic, is that we toss out the lines where a connector is not true.
That means for AND it is acceptable when a string of statements clumped together in an argument has at least one True value statement. For OR it is acceptable argument when a string of statements has a choice, if no choice in a string of statements it is totally wrong and unacceptable.
For IF-->Then the only acceptable argument is where all the variables are true.
For Equal-Not which is multiply, it has to use the Distributive law in a argument of N variables use the distributive law to make each string of statements end up being like N=3 variables turn a TTF into a TTNot-F or for example turn a FFT into FFNotT. For example: with P,Q we have
T T
T F here I make F to be Not-F to get TT
F T here I make T to be Not T to get FF
F F
The Not alongside Equal gets the table to be all true values. And allows Logic to have Equality well defined. Old Logic simply assumed Equality, and never built equality from scratch.
I was struggling with Distributive law, but no longer, because in the building of Equal-Not, the distributive law comes naturally into existence as we apply Not in two rows above to make Equal-Not be a 4 row connector instead of a binary connector.
In order for me to get Consistency and Completeness in Logic, the truth tables have to be seen vastly different from how Old Logic saw truth tables. And this revision of Truth Tables also eliminates the need to have two different types of Logic-- Propositional and Predicate. Now we have just One Type of Logic. But please do not confuse this with duality in physics. For we have particle to wave-photon duality and most important, electricity to magnetism duality. In mathematics we have duality of algebra numbers with geometry shape. In logic, we have the duality of text versus pictures where text gives ideas and pictures give ideas. Logic is One but has duality and do not confuse them.
Whoever said Logic was easy, no, it is tricky and hard. It is easy in life to goof up and make errors, but difficult in life to strive to be correct. It takes energy to be correct and stay correct.
Now I copy pasted the article on Logic from Wikipedia in order to see how many examples and arguments they used that are trash and not logic at all, to get some idea of this principle--- you cannot form a argument of logic unless your premisses are all true (although some premisses with AND connector can have chatterbox worthless chit chat). I estimate that about 60% of the examples and arguments given in Copi and Thomason and Wikipedia, are in error due to the principle of all premisses be true to form a logic argument.
For now, I need to straighten out UG and EI first.
So this chapter of this textbook should be about ____ uniqueness of connectors, Consistency, and Completeness___.
A look back at all the subject matter and seeing if it is logically sound and consistent and complete.
I am troubled still with UG and EI. I accept UI and EG and see them as forming a equality with using Not. But I have yet to see good enough examples of UG and EI.
So what I am trying to do at this moment is use consistency and completeness to help decide if UG and EI exist or just redundancies.
The reason I think they are redundant is that I find few-to-no examples.
But let me try again to list examples. Example of not where they pick a line out of a math proof and say that is UG or EI.
--- from sciencedirect dot com on UG---
Suppose all n observations are of the same type: for example, that we are observing crows and thus far all have been black. In such a situation, it is natural to view our experience as evidence not just that most crows are black, but as confirming the "universal generalization" that all crows are black.
--- end quoting sciencedirect dot com---
AP writes: fair enough. But let me see if the other three UI, EG, EI make consistent sense with this one UG.
UI, Universal Instantiation.
--- from Wikipedia UI---
It is one of the basic principles used in quantification theory. Example: "All dogs are mammals. Fido is a dog. Therefore Fido is a mammal."
--- end quoting Wikipedia---
AP writes: much the same as Modus Ponens such as All men are mortal; Socrates is a man: therefore Socrates is mortal. So is UI just that of modus ponens with a different name?
Next, an example of EG, Existential Generalization.
--- from Wikipedia EG---
Therefore, Alice made someone a cup of tea."
Example: "Alice made herself a cup of tea. Therefore, someone made someone a cup of tea."
--- end quoting Wikipedia on EG---
AP writes: I consider the Alice example a horrible example and why I am examining all four UG, UI, EG, EI for validity.
--- from cs dot odu dot edu EG---
Example: For example the statement. "If everyone is happy then someone is happy" can be proven correct using existential generalization rule.
--- end quoting cs dot odu dot edu on EG---
AP writes: I think cs dot odu dot edu should classify the above not under existential generalization but rather under universal instantiation.
--- quoting fiveable dot me---
Universal Instantiation allows us to infer specific instances from general statements, while Existential Generalization lets us make broader claims from specific examples.
--- end quoting fiveable dot me---
AP writes: Yes, that is why I originally thought that UI and EG were valid laws, but that UG and EI were simply redundant and a waste of time. But let me see if Consistency and Completeness can rule in my favor.
--- from Wikipedia on EG---
Example: "Rover loves to wag his tail. Therefore, something loves to wag its tail."
--- end quoting Wikipedia on EG---
AP writes: here again, I see that as Rover exists thus Rover exists. A pure redundancy and not a EG at all, more like EI.
Example of EI, Existential Instantiation.
--- from cs dot odu dot edu EG---
Consider the following argument: "If you get 95 on the final exam for CS 398, then you get an A for the course. Someone, call him/her say c, gets 95 on the final exam. Therefore c gets an A for CS398. This argument uses Existential Instantiation as well as a couple of others..
--- end quoting from cs dot odu dot edu EG---
AP writes: Fair enough, I am beginning to see that the above is not a redundancy of "There exists thus there exists". Let me go back to the UG which I said was a redundancy as saying "All is x therefore all is x" to see if both UG and EI are redundancies.
The earlier example by dot odu on UG was this--- " it is natural to view our experience as evidence not just that most crows are black, but as confirming the "universal generalization" that all crows are black".
I think what has to happen to resolve all these problems is to interject the Scientific Method and how science establishes Laws that are universal. They do that by making a experiment and analyzing the experiment result and announcing they found a Universal Law of Nature. Leaving it open to anyone else in the future to re-do the experiment and show that what they found is a Universal Law.
So, can we say that Universal Generalization is the elevation of the existence of an Experiment, and making that Experiment a Generalized Law. Or going the opposite direction. We read about a Law of Physics and then set up an experiment to test the Law is an example of Universal Instantiation.
I believe this to be the explanation, the correct explanation and causes the existence of both UG and UI. Only, keep in mind that the Scientific Method itself is the prime reason UG exists.
When we examine the Scientific Method, we have experiments establishing the EI and more experiments establishing the EG, but we still cannot make these experiments turned into a Universal law of physics UG, we have to test the results of the experiments against the existing laws of physics in a test of consistency. Does this new law conform and agree with existing laws of physics. This is the UI step in making the experiments become a universal law of physics.
My first example of this comes from biology, the cell theory of biology.
Cell Theory of biology states (1) Plants and animals are composed of cells that are units of structure, function, and organization (2) Cells have a dual biological role-- independent living entities and collectively they form complex living system (3) Cells reproduce to form new cells (source: Concepts of Biology: a cultural perspective, Buffaloe & Throneberry, 1973).
Before the Cell theory was accepted as a Law of Biological Science, it had to undergo rigorous checks and analysis on consistency. What I call the UI, universal instantiation process. And there arose some problems after Schleiden and Schwann announced the cell theory in 1838. The problem was viruses, are the viruses cells?? This is still a sticky and thorny question even today in 2025. But since viruses are compact units and reproduce themselves in the right conditions, that we are quibbling over nothing.
AP writes: Notice the Cell Theory of biology is very similar to the Atomic Theory of matter for physics and chemistry. The Cell has structure and internal parts, and so does the Atom have structure and internal parts. The Cell serves as a "unit" in biology and the atom serves as a "unit" in physics and chemistry.
And in my next example, the so called discovery of the nucleus of atoms, in years 1913-1920, the ideas of the Cell in biology no doubt guided the physicists of Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden and then Bohr to think there was a nucleus in Atoms when in fact atoms have ___no nucleus___.
My second example comes from physics and is known as the Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden gold foil experiment of 1906-1913 where they bombarded a gold foil with alpha particles. Because some of the alpha particles bounced back at 180 degrees, that the physicists interpreted that to mean a dense solid nucleus existed inside the gold atoms to cause the bounce back.
So, now, here again, we have to test this experiment by repeating the experiment to see if same results occur. And this would be the EI, existential instantiation, and EG, existential generalization as many people repeat the experiment, to reach the UI stage of universal instantiation where a check on consistency is conducted. To see if the results comply with other known laws of physics.
Unfortunately, the Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden-Bohr model does not comply with other known physics laws. The error they made was to not notice that the exit speed of the alpha particles that bounced back at 180 degrees was a faster speed than the entrance speed of the alpha particle. This means the alpha particle had a head-on collision with a particle that was more momentum and going in the opposite direction of the alpha particle. Much like a head on collision between a car and a large truck.
This means that the interior of gold atoms has no nucleus but rather is a proton torus of 79 protons formed into one large torus with 79 muons as electrons inside the proton torus thrusting through the proton torus at nearly the speed of light.
So as a few alpha particle enter inside a gold atom proton torus and hit head-on by 79 muons, are bounced back with more speed than when they entered the gold leaf.
The fallacy committed by Rutherford-Marsden-Geiger-Bohr is that they were expecting and imagining a conclusion of a nucleus because they thought the interior of a Atom was like a Sun as nucleus with planets as electrons around the sun nucleus. When we enter on doing a experiment, we often carry with us a bias and prejudice of what the end result should be. This bias clouds our minds and has us make a huge mistake, opposite of true reality. Atoms have ___no nucleus___. The interior of an Atom is composed of a proton torus with its muons inside thrusting through in the Faraday Law producing new electricity and this new electricity is storaged in neutrons which are parallel plate capacitors surround the outside of the proton torus. Neutrons grow from 1eV all the way out to 945MeV and some of them become a hydrogen atom, some cause the gold atom to become the next atom of mercury.
So in the case of the Cell theory, the stage of UI confirmed the theory as a UG, universal generalization and a law of science.
In the case of Rutherford nuclear model, the UI stage shows a huge mistake in logical reasoning and forces the physics community to repeat the experiment and reason logically on the results.
What logic fallacy did Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden, Bohr commit? I would say in the next chapter on fallacies, that they committed the Non-Sequitur fallacy. The fact that higher speeds of bounced back alpha particles --- it does not follow that atoms have a nucleus, rather instead, atoms have muons thrusting through a proton torus at nearly the speed of light.
I do not list a fallacy of bias and prejudice for an end result, before you even do the experiment. I do list Non-Sequitur.
The beauty of writing a textbook on Logic is the amount of new knowledge the authors learns in the act of writing. The entire consistency, completeness of Logic and of Mathematics comes down to a simple concept of math in the forming of the true numbers of mathematics-- Decimal Grid Numbers via Mathematical Induction.
In logic we can define Consistency and Completeness all from Mathematical Induction.
Mathematical Induction defines both Consistency and Completeness in both math and logic.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an unsung hero in Logic by the name Leopold Kronecker 1823-1891 who recognized the importance of the Counting Numbers and Mathematical Induction. He had a logical mind.
Below, this is a list of Logic-failures, and what failed them in logic is their inability to even recognize the correct truth tables of AND, OR, Equal-Not, If-->Then. They could not even fix or notice that AND truth table had to be TTTF and not the Boole-Jevons phony baloney of TFFF. So stupid in logic, were these failures that they agreed that addition was the OR connector, so stupid as to disavow AND is really addition.
And when you have failures of logic who cannot even give you the correct truth tables of AND, OR, Equal-Not, If-->Then, such failures will mess up, screw up on everything else they do in logic. Especially when it comes time to elucidate on Consistency and on Completeness.
If an idiot of logic cannot see that AND is addition, not OR, then that idiot will fall victim to thinking Cantor had a diagonal proof or that the idiot Godel had an incompleteness proof. Why, idiots of logic like Cantor and Godel added with OR and had AND as subtraction. And they would fall victim to the idea of having Reals as the numbers of mathematics. Fools like these could never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because they do not have the correct numbers of mathematics.
To do Calculus, requires the true numbers of mathematics have holes in between one number and the next number which are the Decimal Grid Numbers. If the idiot Cantor had learned Mathematical Induction and that infinity needed a borderline, and tried to create a new number on his list of all Counting Numbers, he would have realized his Cantor diagonal is a mindless failure.
If the idiot Godel had learned mathematical induction and that infinity has a borderline-- his mindless and foolish "Godel numbering" would not now pollute the halls of academia.
--- quoting Wikipedia from their list of Logicians, and deleting some from that list ---
A
Wilhelm Ackermann (Germany, 1896–1962)
Sergei Adian (Russia/Soviet Union/Armenia, 1931–2020)
Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz (Poland, 1890–1963)
Alan Ross Anderson (US, 1924–1972)
Peter B. Andrews (US, 1938–2025)
Lennart Åqvist (Sweden, 1932-2019)
A. J. Ayer (England, 1910 - 1989)
B
Alexander Bain (UK, 1818–1903)
Yehoshua Bar-Hillel (Israel, 1915–1975)
Ruth Barcan Marcus (US, 1921–2012)
Henk Barendregt (Netherlands, born 1947)
Jon Barwise (US, 1942–2000)
James Earl Baumgartner (US, 1943–2011)
John Lane Bell (UK and Canada, born 1945)
Nuel Belnap (US, 1931–2024)
Paul Benacerraf (US, 1931-2025)
Jean Paul Van Bendegem (Belgium, born 1953)
Johan van Benthem (Netherlands, born 1949)
Paul Bernays (Switzerland, 1888–1977)
Evert Willem Beth (Netherlands, 1908–1964)
Jean-Yves Béziau (Switzerland, born 1965)
Józef Maria Bocheński (Poland, 1902–1995)
Andrea Bonomi (Italy, born 1940)
George Boole (England/Ireland, 1815–1864)
George Boolos (US, 1940–1996)
Nicolas Bourbaki (pseudonym used by a group of French mathematicians, 20th century)
Luitzen Egbertus Jan Brouwer (Netherlands, 1881–1966)
Alan Richard Bundy (UK, born 1947)
C
Georg Ferdinand Cantor (Germany, 1845–1918)
Rudolf Carnap (Germany, 1891–1970)
Gregory Chaitin (Argentina/US, born 1947)
Alonzo Church (US, 1903–1995)
Leon Chwistek (Poland, 1884–1944)
Gordon H. Clark (US, 1902–1985)
Paul Joseph Cohen (US, 1934–2007)
S. Barry Cooper (UK, 1943–2015)
Jack Copeland (UK, born 1950)
Thierry Coquand (France, born 1961)
John Corcoran (US, 1937–2021)
Newton da Costa (Brazil, 1929–2024)
William Craig (US, 1918–2016)
Haskell Curry (US, 1900–1982)
Tadeusz Czeżowski (Poland, 1889–1981)
D
Dirk van Dalen (Netherlands, born 1932)
Martin Davis (US, 1928–2023)
Augustus De Morgan (UK, 1806–1871)
Michael A. E. Dummett (UK, 1925–2011)
Jon Michael Dunn (US, 1941–2021)
E
Samuel Eilenberg (Poland, 1913–1998)
Alexander Esenin-Volpin (Russia, 1924–2016)
John Etchemendy (US, born 1952)
F
Solomon Feferman (US, 1928–2016)
Hartry Field (US, born 1946)
Kit Fine (US, born 1946)
Melvin Fitting (US, born 1942)
Graeme Forbes (Scotland, 20th century)
Matthew Foreman (US, born 1957)
Michael Fourman (UK, born 1950)
Roland Fraïssé (France, 1920–2008)
Abraham Fraenkel (Germany, 1891–1965)
Gottlob Frege (Germany, 1848–1925)
Harvey Friedman (US, born 1948)
G
Dov Gabbay (UK, born 1945)
Haim Gaifman (US, born 1934)
L. T. F. Gamut (collective pseudonym used by a group of Dutch logicians, fl. 1980s–1990s)
Robin Gandy (UK, 1919–1995)
Sol Garfunkel (US, born 1943)
Peter Geach (UK, 1916–2013)
Gerhard Gentzen (Germany, 1909–1945)
Jean-Yves Girard (France, born 1947)
Kurt Gödel (Austria, US, 1906–1978)
Reuben Louis Goodstein (England, 1912–1985)
Valentin Goranko (Bulgaria/Sweden, born 1959)
Siegfried Gottwald (Germany, 1943–2015)
Jeroen Groenendijk (Netherlands, 1949–2023)
H
Susan Haack (UK, born 1945)
Petr Hájek (Czech Republic, 1941–2016)
Leo Harrington (US, born 1946)
Robert S. Hartman (Germany/US, 1910–1973)
Jean Van Heijenoort (France/US, 1912–1986)
Leon Henkin (US, 1921–2006)
Jacques Herbrand (France, 1908–1931)
Arend Heyting (Netherlands, 1898–1980)
David Hilbert (Germany, 1862–1943)
Jaakko Hintikka (Finland, 1929–2015)
Alfred Horn (US, 1918–2001)
William Alvin Howard (US, born 1926)
Ehud Hrushovski (Israel, born 1959)
Gérard Huet (France, born 1947)
I
J
Giorgi Japaridze (Georgia, 20th century)
Stanisław Jaśkowski (Poland, 1906–1965)
Richard Jeffrey (US, 1926–2002)
Ronald Jensen (US, Europe, 1936–2025)
William Stanley Jevons (England, 1835–1882)
William Ernest Johnson (UK, 1858–1931)
Dick de Jongh (Netherlands, born 1939)
Bjarni Jónsson (Iceland, 1920–2016)
Philip Jourdain (UK, 1879–1919)
K
David Kaplan (US, born 1933)
Alexander S. Kechris (US, born 1946)
Howard Jerome Keisler (US, born 1936)
Ahmed Raza Khan (India, 1856–1921)
Stephen Cole Kleene (US, 1909–1994)
Tadeusz Kotarbiński (Poland, 1886–1981)
Robert Kowalski (US, UK, born 1941)
Georg Kreisel (Austria/Britain/US, 1923–2015)
Saul Kripke (US, 1940–2022)
Kenneth Kunen (US, 1943–2020)
L
Christine Ladd-Franklin (US, 1847–1930)
Joachim Lambek (Canada, 1922–2014)
Karel Lambert (US, born 1928)
Stanisław Leśniewski (Poland, 1886–1939)
Clarence Irving Lewis (US, 1883–1964)
David Kellogg Lewis (US, 1941–2001)
Adolf Lindenbaum (Poland, 1904–1941)
Per Lindström (Sweden, 1936–2009)
Martin Löb (Germany, 1921–2006)
Paul Lorenzen (Germany, 1915–1994)
Jerzy Łoś (Poland, 1920–1998)
Leopold Löwenheim (Germany, 1878–1957)
Jan Łukasiewicz (Poland, 1878–1956)
M
Hugh MacColl (Scotland, 1837–1909)
Saunders Mac Lane (US, 1909–2005)
Dugald Macpherson (UK, 20th century)
Penelope Maddy (US, born 1950)
David Makinson (Australia, UK, born 1941)
María Manzano (Spain, born 1950)
Gary R. Mar (US, born 1952)
Ruth Barcan Marcus (US, 1921–2012)
Donald A. Martin (US, born 1940)
Richard Milton Martin (US, 1916–1985)
Per Martin-Löf (Sweden, born 1942)
Pavel Materna (Czech Republic, born 1930)
Yuri Matiyasevich (Russia/Soviet Union, born 1947)
C. A. Meredith (Ireland, 1904–1976)
Bob Meyer (US, 1932–2009)
Grigori Mints (Soviet Union/Estonia/US, 1939–2014)
Richard Montague (US, 1930–1971)
Yiannis N. Moschovakis (US, born 1938)
Andrzej Mostowski (Poland, 1913–1975)
N
Sara Negri (Italy/Finland, born 1967)
Edward Nelson (US, 1932–2014)
Jean Nicod (France, 1893–1924)
Pyotr Novikov (Russia/Soviet Union, 1901–1975)
Anil Nerode (US, born 1932)
O
Piergiorgio Odifreddi (Italy, born 1950)
Ivan Orlov (Russia, 1886–1936)
Ryan Osmun (florence, 1984-present)
P
Jeff Paris (UK, born 1944)
Charles Parsons (US, 1933–2024)
Solomon Passy (Bulgaria, born 1956)
Christine Paulin-Mohring (France, born 1962)
Dan Pedersen (US, born, 1945)
Lorenzo Peña (Spain, born 1944)
Chaïm Perelman (Poland, Belgium, 1912–1984)
Rózsa Péter (Hungary, 1905–1977)
Walter Pitts (US, 1923–1969)
Henry Pogorzelski (US, 1922–2015)
Emil Leon Post (US, 1897–1954)
Dag Prawitz (Sweden, born 1936)
Mojżesz Presburger (Poland, 1904–1943)
Graham Priest (Australia, born 1948)
Arthur Prior (New Zealand, UK, 1914–1969)
Hilary Putnam (US, 1926–2016)
Q
Willard Van Orman Quine (US, 1908–2000)
R
Michael O. Rabin (Israel, US, born 1931)
Constantin Rădulescu-Motru (Romania, 1868–1957)
Frank Plumpton Ramsey (UK, 1903–1930)
Helena Rasiowa (Poland, 1917–1994)
Carveth Read (UK, 1848–1931)
Abraham Robinson (Israel, UK, Canada, US, 1918–1974)
Raphael M. Robinson (US, 1911–1995)
Julia Robinson (US, 1919–1985)
J. Barkley Rosser (US, 1907–1989)
Richard Routley, later Richard Sylvan (New Zealand, 1935–1996)
Frederick Rowbottom (UK, 1938–2009)
Ian Rumfitt (UK, 20th century)
Bertrand Russell (UK, 1872–1970)
S
Gerald Sacks (US, 1933–2019)
Rolf Schock (US, Sweden, 1933–1986)
Moses Schönfinkel (USSR, 1889–1942)
Ernst Schröder (Germany, 1841–1902)
Kurt Schütte (Germany, 1909–1998)
Dana Scott (US, born 1932)
Stewart Shapiro (US, born 1951)
Fyodor Shcherbatskoy (Russia, 1866–1942)
Saharon Shelah (Israel, born 1945)
Gila Sher (Israel/US)
Thoralf Skolem (Norway 1887–1963)
Dimiter Skordev (Bulgaria, born 1936)
Theodore Slaman (US, born 1954)
Raymond Smullyan (US, 1919–2017)
Robert M. Solovay (US, born 1938)
John R. Steel (US, born 1948)
Martin Stokhof (Netherlands, born 1950)
Richard Sylvan, born Richard Routley (New Zealand, 1935–1996)
T
Gaisi Takeuti (Japan, 1926–2017)
Alfred Tarski (Poland, 1902–1983)
Pavel Tichý (Czechoslovakia, New Zealand, 1936–1994)
Anne Sjerp Troelstra (Netherlands, 1939–2019)
Alan Turing (UK, 1912–1954)
Kazimierz Twardowski (Poland, 1866–1938)
U
Alasdair Urquhart (UK, born 1945)
Vladimir Uspensky (Soviet Union/Russia, 1930–2018)
V
Moshe Y. Vardi (Israel, born 1954)
Nicolai A. Vasiliev (Russia, 1880–1940)
Robert Lawson Vaught (US, 1926–2002)
John Venn (England, 1834–1923)
W
Hao Wang (China/US, 1921–1995)
Alfred North Whitehead (UK, 1861–1947)
Ludwig Wittgenstein (Austria, UK, 1889–1951)
W. Hugh Woodin (US, born 1955)
John Woods (Canada, 1937–2024)
Georg Henrik von Wright (Finland, UK, 1916–2003)
Y
Jin Yuelin (China, 1895–1984)
Z
Lotfi A. Zadeh (US, 1921–2017)
Ernst Zermelo (Germany, 1871–1953)
Alexander Zinoviev (Soviet Union, 1922–2006)
--- end quoting Wikipedia from their list of Logicians, and deleting some from that list ---
Trouble with Cantor and his failing diagonal proof, is that if Cantor had realized the true numbers of mathematics were Decimal Grid Numbers and had a infinity borderline at 1*10^604, he would have realized no new number can be created in such an environment.
Same goes for Godel in his "Godel numbering".
When the Reals are not the true numbers of mathematics for physics by year 1900 in Max Planck Quantum Mechanics introduction. Forces the numbers of mathematics to also be discrete.
But the math community from 1900-2025 was a kook community seeking fame and fortune in propping up stupidity of continuum and the Reals as the continuum hypothesis by Cohen. No, mathematicians can be veritable kooks never understanding change and true science like Quantum Mechanics. Not a single mathematician was worth their weight in salt from 1900-2025 except AP.
If physics says--- the world is discrete. Then math numbers have to be discrete.
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 2, 2026, 11:17:59 PM (1 hour ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
--- quoting Wikipedia on Godel numbering---
Gödel noted that each statement within a system can be represented by a natural number (its Gödel number). The significance of this was that properties of a statement—such as its truth or falsehood—would be equivalent to determining whether its Gödel number had certain properties. The numbers involved might be very large indeed, but this is not a barrier; all that matters is that such numbers can be constructed.
In simple terms, Gödel devised a method by which every formula or statement that can be formulated in the system gets a unique number, in such a way that formulas and Gödel numbers can be mechanically converted back and forth. There are many ways to do this. A simple example is the way in which English is stored as a sequence of numbers in computers using ASCII. Since ASCII codes are in the range 0 to 127, it is sufficient to pad them to 3 decimal digits and then to concatenate them:
The word foxy is represented by 102111120121.
The logical formula x=y => y=x is represented by 120061121032061062032121061120.
--- end quoting Wikipedia on Godel numbering---
AP writes: if it takes a number of 1*10^29 to code for x=y implies y=x, then easily, we have to go beyond 10^604 to encode a book.
Both Cantor and Godel are logic charlatans, and math charalatans eking out nonsense because they have no brains to tell them the Reals are fake and that the Decimal Grid Numbers with a infinity borderline at 1*10^604 makes Math complete and makes Logic complete.
A Fitch format argument of math showing numbers and algebra of math is Inconsistent system looks like this.
|___ Numbers and algebra of math
|
|
| Q
| not-Q
If a contradiction shows up in a argument, all things stop and the contradiction must be fixed.
A Fitch format argument of math showing the numbers and algebra of math is a Consistent system looks like this.
|___ Numbers in the 10 Decimal Grid and algebra of math
| 0
| 0.1 as inductor element
| 0.1 + 0.1 =0.2
| 0.2 + 0.1 =0.3
| 0.3 + 0.1 =0.4
.
.
.
| 9.9 + 0.1 =10
|__ math induction on all numbers in 10 Grid with no contradictions appearing and thus a Consistent system.
A Fitch format argument of math showing the numbers and algebra of math is a Complete set system looks like this.
|___ Numbers in the 10 Decimal Grid and algebra of math
| 0
| 0.1 as inductor element
| 0.1 + 0.1 =0.2
| 0.2 + 0.1 =0.3
| 0.3 + 0.1 =0.4
.
.
.
| 9.9 + 0.1 =10
|__ math induction on all numbers in 10 Grid with no missing numbers possible and thus a Complete set system.
The take-away from this is that Math-Induction defines consistency and completeness.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 4, 2026, 2:49:48 AM (13 days ago) Jan 4
to Plutonium Atom Universe
31) Biggest mistake of all in Old Logic.
In the past, I thought the greatest mistake of Old Logic was their error filled 4 simple connectors of AND, OR, Equal-Not, and If-->Then. Come to writing this textbook, I was awoken to the idea, that such was not the greatest error of Old Logic but instead, the unawareness and neglect and ignorance of how much that Science, especially physics, impacts Logic.
The very evaluation and judgement of truth values that underpin Logic comes from the very best science on the topic that is available.
In recent decades with physics Quantum Mechanics, finding Superdeterminism as being operational in the world even penetrates into the idea that we have no free will, we cannot learn to be logical over being illogical. That we are superdetermined to be a illogical bozo throughout life even if we do not want to be a illogical bozo throughout life.
And so, with superdeterminism in a Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, more and more, the science of Logic is becoming more and more just a chapter in the science of Physics. Logic is converging to be a chapter of Physics.
The biggest mistake of all in Old Physics is not that they screwed up on all 4 simple connectors, but the mistake of not recognizing the role that Science has on Logic.
Part 10, Many examples of Logic Fallacies, which in mathematics would simply be called mistakes.
32) Many examples of Logic Fallacies
1) Mistake calculation error
2) Ambiguity -- lack of well defined or unclear parameters
3) Non-Sequitur
4) Ad Hominem
5) Mis-identification
6) Mistakes in Existence-Nonexistence for the derivative is the existential quantifier-- the "assumed to exist" fallacy.
7) Mistakes in Universal for the integral is the universal quantifier-- the giver of consistency and completeness.
Throughout this textbook I have leaned on mathematics to tell and hint at the truths of Logic. May as well lean on mathematics for the Fallacies of Logic.
1) Mistake error such as in a calculation Example 2 + 2 = 5.
2) Ambiguity -- lack of well defined or unclear parameters such as in 2/3+1, not knowing if it is 2/4 or (2/3) +1.
3) Non Sequitur (does not follow) The name pretty well describes all you need to know when this fallacy is committed. Example: use of limits in proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC is mindless fruitcake. Where in FTC you need to prove derivative is reverse of integral and integral is reverse of derivative, and a stupid limit analysis of whether x gets arbitrarily close to y is mindless folly.
4) Ad Hominem (attack of the person rather than the ideas on hand) Example: university math departments attacking AP for showing the slant cut of cone has to be an Oval, never ellipse.
5) Mis-identification Example: Slant cut of cone cannot be ellipse when assuredly slant cut of cylinder is ellipse and like Mark Barton of University Glasgow keeps saying of math professors--- raving nutters, and University Virginia Steve Huffman says of math professors ... Lunatics.. and MIT Gilbert Strang says of math professors-- "Being ignorant of and incompetent at math". And UC Riverside John Baez says of math professors "...look it up in a dictionary, arsehole". Another misidentification of major importance in math is the true numbers of mathematics must be the Decimal Grid Numbers where you have discreteness of numbers needed for Quantum Mechanics of physics. Old Math was such a stupid lot of math professors that when year 1900 rolled in with Max Planck discovery that all of physics was discrete, well, the stupid idiots of math professors totally ignored physics and went on with their insane program of --- totalitarian dictator completeness in their stinking Reals as numbers. Another example of Mis-identification in Old Math was their derivative. The fools thought the derivative is a tangent line to the function graph, when in reality, with discrete numbers, the derivative is the actual original function itself as the derivative moves from prior coordinate point to the very next coordinate point.
Mis-identification as a fallacy often leads to a catastrophe in a science for it can thwart the truth for centuries. Example: In physics they misidentified the true electron, thinking it was the 0.5MeV particle when in truth it is the muon at 105MeV stuck inside a proton torus doing the Faraday law with the proton torus. Here is where a mis-identity has lead to a major crisis in physics for the dolts still think the Sun shines from fusion when in truth it shines from Faraday law. And unless physics and the humans on Earth wake up to reality and make a permanent colony on Europa in the next 1,000 years, the species call Homo sapiens easily can go extinct soon.
6) Mistakes in Existence-Nonexistence for the derivative is the existential quantifier-- the "assumed to exist" fallacy.
Examples of this fallacy: computers doing proofs of mathematics. The 4-Color Mapping travesty. All Old Math Reductio Ad Absurdum proofs run afoul of Existence mistakes. By assuming something to exist when it never existed does not lead to a valid end conclusion, and we learned this with the truth table of the If-->Then the last 2 rows are --- U, for undefined, unknown.
7) Mistakes in Universal for the integral is the universal quantifier-- the giver of consistency and completeness.
There are many big mistakes in the Universal quantifier in Old Math. The one that sticks out the most at first is the lunatic idea in Old Math that you could remove (subtract) more than what is available to remove or subtract, leading to the oppressive and hideous "negative numbers concept". Old Math professors seldom have any shame.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of Fallacy of mistake calculation error.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on Usenet to sci.math or sci.physics.
Re: 1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 =
by Dan Christensen Sep 22, 2019, 9:54:06 AM
Here the Canadian Dan Christensen is pointing out the calculation error of John Baez, UC Riverside, who apparently is unable to figure out that a proton at 840 MeV with muon inside as true electron of atoms, not the minuscule 0.5MeV particle , that proton +muon is within sigma error of 945 MeV, even though proton+muon is weighed at 938MeV and neutron to best current measure is 940MeV, all within sigma error of 945MeV.
Posted on Usenet to sci.math or sci.physics.
Fallacy of logic mistake-error-calculation: made by Kibo Parry who cannot even do a correct percentage calculation and claims to have a degree from Rensselaer Polytech in engineering. Personally, I would never drive over a bridge designed by someone calling themselves an engineer and who fails at even simple percentage problems: who thinks 938 is 12% short of 945.
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
Re: chemistry cannot exist with electron 0.5 to 938 MeV Re: Drs.Thomas Rosenbaum John Schwarz Kip Thorne of CalTech/never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, 0.5MeV = Dirac monopole by Michael Moroney Jan 25, 2018, 11:36:09 AM in sci.physics or sci.math in sci.physics or sci.math
Re: Kibo Parry Moroney says Lisa Randall, John Baez, abject failures of Math, and supposedly physics with their ignorance of angular momentum because no hydrogen atom can form from proton=938MeV & electron = 0.5MeV
By Betsy Kibo Moroney Perry DeVos ... 7/27/20 in sci.physics or sci.math
Re: 3-Nicholas Thompson, Wired magazine// Kibo Parry Moroney, stalker sickfuck gets published in Wired for his 938 is 12% short of 945, Yoo, Nick, why not publish Lisa Randall with her 938MeV proton, 0.5MeV electron which a hydrogen atom ceases to exist
Investigating Solid State Engineering versus Mechanical Simple Machine Engineering and AI-robots//
2:02 AM
by Bret Alva 8/1/20 in sci.physics or sci.math
Re: Kibo Parry Moroney says "Oh Mum! Ride-A-Penis Cult!" Stanford's Marc Tessier-Lavigne, CalTech's Thomas Rosenbaum with their 10 OR 6 = 16; their ellipse a conic when it never was; their proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV when in truth it is 840 to..
by Eddie "Fish Basket" Reynolds Jr. Aug 10, 2020, 3:34:45 PM in sci.physics or sci.math
Re: Kibo Parry Moroney says "Oh Mum! Ride-A-Penis Cult!" UC Berkeley Dr. Paul Alivisatos, Dr. Michael Witherell with their 10 OR 6 = 16; their ellipse a conic when it never was; their proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV when in truth it is 840 to 105MeV
by
Professor Wordsmith
Aug 12, 2020, 12:16:05 PM in sci.physics or sci.math
Re: Kibo Parry Moroney stalks "Cult of Failure" Harvard Univ Lawrence Bacow, MIT's L. Rafael Reif with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV when in truth it is 840 to 105 MeV, kibo says "He
by Professor Wordsmith Aug 15, 2020, 4:37:18 PM in sci.physics or sci.math
Re: Dan Christensen ... in face James Peebles, Donna Strickland, Michel Mayor with their mindless electron of 0.5MeV, proton 938MeV when in truth muon is the electron inside a 840MeV proton doing the Faraday law
by mitchr...@gmail.com Jan 1, 2021, 3:36:02 PM in sci.physics or sci.math
Re: Kibo Parry Moroney pink slips Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall, Lene Hau,Thomas Hayes, Eric Heller, Jason Hoffman, Jenny Hoffman, Gerald Holton, Paul Horowitz, John Huth, Arthur Jaffe //cannot tell apart muon = real electron and 0.5MeV Dirac monopole...
by Eldridge Art Carpenter Apr 2, 2021, 6:24 AM in sci.physics or sci.math
Re: Kibo Parry Moroney on failed physicist Steven Weinberg who cannot entertain the question of which is the real electron of atoms-- is it the muon or the 0.5MeV particle?
by Michael Moroney May 29, 2021, 9:02:21 AM in sci.physics or sci.math
Re: Kibo Parry Moroney stalks "...Attacks" Betsy DeVos, NSF Dr. Panchanathan Caltech Thomas F Rosenbaum, Harvard's Lawrence Bacow with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV .
by Oscar Alcheri Oct 22, 2022, 5:50 PM in sci.math or sci.physics.
A fallacy often made in physics is the notion that "heat rises". Dr. Baird of West Texas A&M University straightens us out on that idea that convection rises but Infrared Radiation does __not rise__. Logic behind this is that if Infrared radiation rises, they we should expect Visible Light Waves to also "rise" and such has never been observed.
--- quoting a site on Internet---
What makes heat rise?
Category: Physics Published: July 10, 2014
By: Christopher S. Baird, author of The Top 50 Science Questions with Surprising Answers and Associate Professor of Physics at West Texas A&M University.
Radiation: All wavelengths of electromagnetic waves, including light, carry energy. When the electromagnetic waves strike an object, they are partially absorbed and the energy that the waves carried is converted to heat in the object. Also, hot objects emit electromagnetic waves ("thermal radiation") that carry away energy and can heat up other objects that they hit. In a loose sense, you can think of electromagnetic waves as transferring heat from one object to the next. Although, strictly speaking, when the waves are traveling they are only carrying electromagnetic field energy and not heat. The heat is generated when the waves are absorbed by matter.
Conduction: When one hot object is in direct contact with another object, the heat can pass directly from the one object to the other through the touching surfaces.
Convection. When a fluid such as air or water touches a hot object, it can heat up and then move in bulk as a fluid, thereby carrying the heat quickly to new locations. Hot air rising is a common example of heat convection. For this reason, "heat" and "hot air" tend to be confused with each other.
Thermal radiation tends to spread out in all directions and not just up. When you are standing a few steps back from a large campfire, most of the heat you are receiving is being delivered to you via thermal radiation. Although the hot air of the campfire's flame travels mostly upwards, the thermal radiation has no problem coming out sideways and hitting you. The thermal radiation of a campfire spreads out in all directions, so that you can feel it heating you no matter where you stand (as long as you are close enough). Sunlight heating you up is another example of thermal radiation. The sunlight has no problem traveling out in all directions through space and coming down through earth's atmosphere to hit you.
--- end quoting ---
AP writes: so what fallacy is committed when people say Heat rises when they should say "Hot Air" rises? I have 7 broad categories of fallacies.
I would say this fallacy falls more under mistake error rather than ambiguity with a touch of "non-sequitur" in that radiation as infrared heat energy does not rise, but that of "hot air" rises. And the proof is simple in that if Infrared (heat radiation rises) then so should visible light waves rise which none has ever been observed. And mistakes like these happen often in conversations.
Alright, I need to revise my list of fallacies to include the Mistake-Error category. Like in math, if you add 2 + 3 and get something other than 5, you made a simple mistake of computation.
Ambiguity would be something in math like that of 3/2 +4. The ambiguity is the lack of parentheses used. Did he mean (3/2) + 4 or did he mean 3/(2+4).
So in my example above of "does heat rise" or does "hot air rise" is a fallacy of Mistake and not Ambiguity. So I need a 7th category of fallacies of Logic.
And to see if I have a proper list of fallacies I should run a math test on my final list for comprehensive and consistency.
On Wednesday, November 26, 2025 at 1:06:55 AM UTC-6 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
A fallacy often made in physics is the notion that "heat rises". Dr. Baird of West Texas A&M University straightens us out on that idea that convection rises but Infrared Radiation does __not rise__. Logic behind this is that if Infrared radiation rises, they we should expect Visible Light Waves to also "rise" and such has never been observed.
--- quoting a site on Internet---
What makes heat rise?
Category: Physics Published: July 10, 2014
By: Christopher S. Baird, author of The Top 50 Science Questions with Surprising Answers and Associate Professor of Physics at West Texas A&M University.
Radiation: All wavelengths of electromagnetic waves, including light, carry energy. When the electromagnetic waves strike an object, they are partially absorbed and the energy that the waves carried is converted to heat in the object. Also, hot objects emit electromagnetic waves ("thermal radiation") that carry away energy and can heat up other objects that they hit. In a loose sense, you can think of electromagnetic waves as transferring heat from one object to the next. Although, strictly speaking, when the waves are traveling they are only carrying electromagnetic field energy and not heat. The heat is generated when the waves are absorbed by matter.
Conduction: When one hot object is in direct contact with another object, the heat can pass directly from the one object to the other through the touching surfaces.
Convection. When a fluid such as air or water touches a hot object, it can heat up and then move in bulk as a fluid, thereby carrying the heat quickly to new locations. Hot air rising is a common example of heat convection. For this reason, "heat" and "hot air" tend to be confused with each other.
Thermal radiation tends to spread out in all directions and not just up. When you are standing a few steps back from a large campfire, most of the heat you are receiving is being delivered to you via thermal radiation. Although the hot air of the campfire's flame travels mostly upwards, the thermal radiation has no problem coming out sideways and hitting you. The thermal radiation of a campfire spreads out in all directions, so that you can feel it heating you no matter where you stand (as long as you are close enough). Sunlight heating you up is another example of thermal radiation. The sunlight has no problem traveling out in all directions through space and coming down through earth's atmosphere to hit you.
--- end quoting ---
This is what I mean that a fallacy can be classified in several groups simultaneously.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of Fallacy of Ambiguity -- lack of well defined or unclear parameters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the most egregious displays of ambiguity occur almost every day in the weather report of Wind direction.
Some say Westerly wind some say winds out of the west.
But what is needed whenever Wind is talked about are directions like this to be absolutely clear.
Wind blowing from West to East.
Or
Wind blowing from East to West.
Or
Wind blowing from North to South.
Or
Wind blowing from South to North.
This ambiguity is heightened even more severely when describing a Wind coming from Northwest blowing to Southeast, or say, coming from South East blowing Northwest.
Often there is ambiguity in Time statements. When someone says 8 O'clock, do they mean 8AM or 8PM.
In statements involving temperature, often we ignore mentioning what scale we are having our degrees, for in Celsius is far different from Fahrenheit.
In distance statements, I use the metric scale of meter, kilometer etc.
So Ambiguity is an easy fallacy to make, if not careful.
Small talk is actually useful as a means of socializing, so I would not count it as a logic fallacy.
So much language talk is ambiguous and that is a fallacy of logic.
Small talk can fit into the Non sequitur (does not follow) bracket. However, Ambiguity is distinct from non-sequitur.
AP's examples of the Fallacy of Ambiguity.
Here is Kibo Parry of Rensselaer's engineering being ambiguous.
Kibo Parry blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997
Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
On Sunday, June 8, 1997 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> >
Kibo Parry ambiguous for is he describing Archimedes Vanadium or the king of science-- Archimedes Plutonium??? Your guess is as good as mine.
Here the Canadian stalker Dan Christensen is clear on proton and muon, but ambiguous on 10 OR 4 =
Posted on Usenet to sci.math or sci.physics.
Re: 1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 =
by Dan Christensen Sep 22, 2019, 9:54:06 AM
Re: A newsgroup like sci.math is a pile of shit when you have paid stalkers like Kibo Parry M. or Dan Christensen lording over sci.math as if he owns the place-- stalking and attacking posters 7-24-365. This is why I now post a roadmap to AP's newsgr
by Alan Mackenzie Jun 29, 2021, 2:36:04 PM
Here Mr. Mackenzie is making it Clear and no ambiguity of where he thinks true science newsgroup is. PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Univ Western Ontario math dept
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana Barron, Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon
Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz
President Alan Shepard
Amit Chakma (chem engr)
Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
Re: Bill Blair, David Vigneault please help us put Dan Christensen into a Canadian Asylum or psychiatric treatment where he belongs
By Donald Trump Mar 30, 2020, 11:30:25 PM
Here, president Donald Trump is Clear, with no ambiguity fallacy as to what to do about anti-science Dan Christensen.
Re: 2- Dan Christensen on failed math MIT Gilbert Strang, with his scatterbrained Calculus books, no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Gilbert never knew
by Chris M. Thomasson 6:09 PM On 6/25/2021
Here Chris is stern about the ambiguity in Strang's calculus textbook that defines the Complex Number on page 360, but never bothers to define-- "Gilbert, what the hell are the numbers you are using before you get to page 360???"
Re: Dan Christensen says close all math, physics, chemistry dept. in ALL Canadian Colleges with their fake electron (muon is real electron), fake geometry proof of calculus (Old Math sums up 0 width rectangles), fake Lewis 8 Structure (dissociation...
by Giant Radioactive Easter Bunnie Jan 21, 2021, 5:38:37 PM
This poster is pointing out the ambiguity of Dan Christensen's fake electron as to the idea that the 0.5MeV particle is not the electron but Dirac's magnetic monopole, and the ambiguity of summation of rectangles with 0 widths being the integral, when all of us are taught 0 times anything is just 0.
Re: Stewart failed Calculus also, and his book should be removed
by Dan Christensen
Jun 24, 2018, 10:52:49 PM
Here Dan is pointing out the ambiguity of Stewart to have used Reals as the numbers of mathematics but that physics as early as year 1900 with Planck starts quantum mechanics which would imply that mathematics has no Reals for it has no continuum.
Re: 176,232-Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron
by Dan Christensen Jul 2, 2021, 9:47:42 AM
Here Dan Christensen is making a self-testimonial of ambiguity that he enjoys Logic which has two different types of OR, and never once in Dan's life asking himself--- this is Logic--- you cannot have two different types of OR.
Re: 81,045-Student victims of Rose M. Patten Univ Toronto from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker
by Frank Cassa 12Apr2021 7:00 AM
Mr Cassa points out the ambiguity of Univ Toronto math and physics when they never have a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, yet calculus is geometry.
Re: 7,744-Student victims of Linda Hasenfratz Univ Western Ontario from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz President Alan Shepard
11:53 AM 10Apr2021
by Wayne Decarlo
Mr. Decarlo pointing out the ambiguity in Univ Western Ontario math and physics departments, never understanding that logic AND connector truth table has to be TTTF and not TFFF for we do not throw out the baby in the bath water.
Re: 102,852-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur physics
by konyberg Apr 15, 2021, 3:09:41 PM
Mr. Konyberg pointing out the ambiguity of science taught at University Waterloo for if you make the polynomial as the only valid function in all of math, you reduce calculus from a 1,000 page textbook by Stewart down to a book of 150 pages.
Re: 176,232-Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron
by Dan Christensen Jul 2, 2021, 9:47:42 AM
Dan pointing out the ambiguity of McGill University teaching the proton has no function, whereas AP teaches that the proton is a coil torus doing the Faraday law with the muon inside as the electron as a bar magnet in Faraday law.
Re: 135,568 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of
May 10, 2021
by Professor Wordsmith
Mr. Wordsmith pointing out the ambiguity of mind of Arthur B. McDonald that gravity is EM force and hence no gravity waves exist apart from EM spectrum.
Re: 135,566 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron o
May 10, 2021
by Michael Moroney
Kibo Parry Moroney pointing out the ambiguity of Queen's University that before you go chasing Higgs boson, or gravity waves, you better unify the 4 forces of physics first.
Re: *Fire the entire Univ Western Ontario math dept/ still teaching that the contradictory sine graph as sinusoid when it is really semicircle
by Dan Christensen Nov 21, 2017,
Dan pointing out the ambiguity of Univ Western Ontario with their sine and cosine as sinusoid waves when they are built from right triangles traversing the x-axis, which can only end up being semicircle waves, not sinusoid. And the ambiguity of wanting to make the x-axis angles when that is not allowed. Math is not bar graphs and pie-charts, for math is strictly and purely, the x-axis is the same in numbers as the y-axis.
What are synonyms for ambiguous?? How about unclear, dubious, obscure, scatterbrained, indeterminate. Reading Dan's above reminds me of all of those.
For example on the TV show "Wall Street Week" with David Westin, when he is not plugging for more AI hype makes the statement:
"More than what you need to know, is what you need to think about".
So AP would ask David-- well David, if you know something, why would you need to think about it?
So this is a logic fallacy not of Non Sequitur but of Ambiguity. For what does it mean when we "know something"?
I suspect the correction to David Westin is this "More than what you need to know, but what you should focus upon and concentrate upon in the future".
Ambiguity riddles through our everyday speech and communications and is illogical.
Here is an example of a complicated complex ambiguity involving 2 USA presidents, Biden and Trump, and the main ambiguity is whether the stalker Kibo Parry is with the CIA and stalking AP for 30 years as to get rid of AP so that the CIA can use sci.math and sci.physics as coded messages into and out of Russia. That when AP uses sci.math and sci.physics for its original intent and purposes, sort of makes sci.math and sci.physics unappealing to the spies in Russia and spies in USA. For spies are wanting to make spy reports back home and AP just doing pure full science gets annoying to the spies.
Logic Fallacy of Ambiguity
(massively snipped)
Here is Kibo Parry of Rensselaer's engineering being ambiguous.
Kibo Parry blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997
Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
On Sunday, June 8, 1997 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> >
Google newsgroups closed in Feb 2024 but thankfully they let my newsgroup go on.
I entered Usenet sci.physics and sci.math in 1993 and posted almost daily, thousands and thousands of posts until Google closed down in February 2024.
That would be 31 years of AP posts. If I posted 3 posts per day for 31 years that comes to the staggering figure of 3 x 365 =1,095 times 31 equals approximately 34,000 posts.
Somewhere along the line of all those years, I became fed up with attacking stalkers, around 2016 after my cancer surgery. And started to give the attackers a taste of their own medicine. I was using attackers to my benefit.
But I also came to a hypothesis over stalkers like Kibo Parry. I came to a hypothesis in early 2000, that the CIA was using Usenet, especially sci.math and sci.physics to communicate with spies in Russia and to try to flip Russians to spy for USA.
So there I was, using sci.physics and sci.math for purely science, but the CIA using sci.math and sci.physics as a means of talking in code with the West.
I reasoned this because there was Donald Trump posting to my threads in sci.math and sci.physics and later there was Joe Biden posting to my threads in sci.math and sci.physics. For me, this solidified my conjecture, that sci.math and sci.physics were used as some sort of espionage platform.
And I think the reason that Google exited Usenet, was mostly because of this duplicity, that spies across Russia and the West were using the science newsgroups.
Looking back to Feb2024 and now Sep2025, I am happy, because I wrote more science in this newsgroup than was possible in sci.math and sci.physics with all the cabal and noise.
Of course no-one at the CIA is ever going to admit the duplicity use of the newsgroups.
And perhaps, if Kibo Parry had just done his cia tasks and never attacked posters doing science, that Usenet may still be up and running with Google running it.
As far as I am concerned, the CIA destroyed sci.math and sci.physics. I can detect it from Joe Biden's posts.
--- quoting post in sci.physics of March 2023 by President Biden---
President Joseph Biden
Mar 15, 2023, 7:51:07 AM
to sci.physics
On 3/11/2023 11:23 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 8:39:51 AM UTC-6, President Joseph Biden wrote:
>> On 3/10/2023 8:44 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>> Google lets Republican MitchR post new, not Democrats
>>> Pres.Biden, is Google allowing only Republicans to make new threads, and not allowing a Democrat like AP make new threads, for 3 weeks now, AP cannot make a new thread, but spamming fools like MitchR makes 20 spams from breakfast to noon. Why, the fool MitchR spreads hate spew about Democrats and none of us can make a new thread.
>> Mr. Plutonium, did you not receive the message from Google? Google has
>> received too many complaints of your spamming sci.physics and sci.math.
>> You spam several posts of the same thing every day, and you spam much
>> more than anyone else.
>>
>> Google has restricted your account. You are no longer able to create new
>> threads for now. If you mend your ways, eventually your posting
>> restriction will be removed. If you continue to spam, your account will
>> be further restricted and you will no longer be allowed to post replies
>> to existing threads and your Plutonium Atom Universe group will be deleted.
>>
>> Please see the error of your ways and quit spamming. I can no longer
>> intervene on your behalf.
>>
>> Joe
>
> Hello, if this is truly President Joe Biden, then it would make much more sense, logical sense, to allow AP to just post in his own newsgroup, no restrictions there.
>
> Let AP post in his own Newsgroup, no restrictions. For his own newsgroup is the only Spam free newsgroup in existence.
>
> And no posts by AP in any other newsgroup.
>
> Otherwise, it is just a attack on AP.
Mr. Plutonium,
I had spoken to the good folks at Google that you had agreed to stop
spamming and you should be allowed to do whatever you wanted in your own
group. You even stated you would restrict your postings to there. They
reluctantly agreed with me and unrestricted your account, as you
noticed. However, you immediately started spamming again and you did not
restrict your spam to your own group. You have embarrassed me in front
of the good folks at Google as well as here. The Google people told me
"I told you so!" and I had no answer for them. They are on the verge of
deleting your account outright. Please behave yourself to avoid this. I
have more important things to worry about, as you may know, Russia has
started interfering with our drones.
Regards,
Joe
--- end quoting Pres.Biden March 2023 post ---
The best Occam's Razor explanation for why Joe Biden and Donald Trump became involved with AP posts to science, is the explanation that CIA was using sci.math and sci.physics to communicate spies with spies in Russia. And that sadly Kibo Parry being dumb chose to attack AP for which AP then upset the coded messages. Finally Google was brought in to tear down the Google Usenet.
Of course Old Usenet is still up and running, but it has miniscule followers and likely doing spying and informing the West of what is going on in Russia.
Re: Relf, McGinn, Sir shithead Hall esq, its all the same, blabbering blubbery meatheads who never belonged in sci.physics
70m views
by Donald Trump
Mar 24, 2020, 10:40:04 PM
Re: Geometry of the Chemical Bond; metallic, covalent, ionic//Chemistry Series, book 2 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) This is the second book of the Series
Donald Trump
Re: Sam Wormley, sci.physics spam churning shithead, with his many alias names -- oll.. Why does he spam? Because he wants to throw everyone off the front page
Donald Trump
Re: Charge does not exist in Science, what does exist is WIRE-Vector-Direction in electromagnetism//(Physics series for High School Book 5) Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
By Donald Trump 13 posts 40 views updated 2:19 PM
Re: Charge does not exist in Science, what does exist is WIRE-Vector-Direction in electromagnetism//(Physics series for High School Book 5) Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
By Donald Trump 2 posts 3 views updated 8:31 PM
Re: I need to revise this book once again-- charge is the ugliest term in science--Charge does not exist in Science, what does exist is WIRE-direction in electromagnetism//(Physics series for High School Book 5) Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium
By Donald Trump 2 posts 6 views updated 8:27 PM
Re: -- König der Wissenschaft --AP-- King of Science---und Konig von Physik, Mathematik, Zoologie und der Goths, Visigoths und OstraGoths
by Donald Trump Mar 28, 2020, 2:39:48 PM
Re: 科学之王 Kēxué zhī wáng --AP-- King of Science, what we throw out of Old Math as fakery// TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 19-20 Sophomore year College, math textbook series, book 4
by Donald Trump Apr 2, 2020, 9:17:54 AM
Re: Rey de Reyes de la Ciencia --AP-- King of Science, what we throw out of Old Math as fakery// TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 19-20 Sophomore year College, math textbook series, book 4
by Donald Trump Apr 2, 2020, 12:36:08 AM
Re: Roi des Rois de la Science --AP-- King of Science, what we throw out of Old Math as fakery// TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 19-20 Sophomore year College, math textbook series, book 4
by Donald Trump by Apr 2, 2020, 12:38:32 AM
How else would you explain Biden spending weeks posting to AP in sci.math or sci.physics or Trump spending months posting to AP in sci.math or sci.physics, when both know just a tiny tiny bit of science??? I explain it as that AP pure science adventure was seemingly interfering with spies in Russia and spies in USA wanting sci.math and sci.physics for nefarious reasons and not for math or physics.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 4, 2026, 4:30:39 AM (13 days ago) Jan 4
to Plutonium Atom Universe
--------------------------------------------------
Examples of Fallacy of Non-Sequitur.
--------------------------------------------------
This book has been my most grueling science book to ever write. Partly because I revise the whole of the science of Logic. But partly because writing a Logic textbook should be written ------ Logically------. And that is an extremely difficult task, considering most people have little of a logical mind to start with. For example: 51% of Americans voted for a 6 times bankrupt loser Donald Trump in the last election. What were they thinking? Were they thinking that a 6 times bankrupt loser can make America strong and great, a loser that thinks Ukraine started the war and thinks Russia is a friend to the USA.
I want my Logic textbooks be mandatory to all hopeful scientists in college and university, but considering the bigger picture. Perhaps Logic should be taught in High School so that America, never again votes for a 6 times loser that ruins the USA.
Copi gives his first example of "non sequitur" on page 233.
So Copi, 1972, Introduction to Logic, 4th edition does not give non-sequitur as a fallacy. I suppose that "Affirming the Consequent" on page 233 is the closest he gets to the fallacy of Non-Sequitur. Copi gives the example of this.
If Bacon wrote Hamlet, then Bacon was a great writer.
Bacon was a great writer.
Therefore, Bacon wrote Hamlet.
The reason I include as fallacy that of Non-Sequitur which means--- that which does not follow from previous ideas--- is that it is one of the very most common errors or fallacy in Logic. The world cogent in thought is opposite to a scatterbrained in thought.
The example I liked to use when in studying Logic at University Cincinnati from 1968-72 is this example.
Shopper: I like to go to the city a long distance away to shop because the bread is a dollar cheaper and the milk is a dollar cheaper than go to the grocery store nearby.
AP: But the cost of gasoline more than makes up for the cheaper price.
For AP, Non-Sequitur is a flaw in thinking. And you find Non-Sequitur even in phrases. You do not need entire arguments to have a non-sequitur fallacy. Example: "I feel I do not have enough sleep, so I will eat apple-sauce for dinner".
Non Sequitur means literally "does not follow". Logic is stepwise deduction and reason. One step should come out and follow from previous steps to a conclusion.
The opposite of "following steps of reason" is being scatterbrained and unreasonable.
Here is an example of Dan Christensen fumbling with the most simple of logic reasoning, and yet Canada keeps allowing this misfit to dig deeper into logic.
The non-sequitur (does not follow) Dan Christensen always chokes up when it comes to logic or even just plain commonsense with his 2 OR 1 = 3 and his AND as subtraction.
In sci.math.
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> >>>>
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> >>>
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> >>>
> >>
> >> What a monsterous fool you are
> >>
> >
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
>
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
>
I classify Dan Christensen's mistake as being non-sequitur, but someone else may say it is more of mistake-error-calculation.
Apparently Dan Christensen never took calculus or flunked it with this statement in sci.math or sci.physics.
On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 8:57:54 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 2:32:51 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > The nonexistence of a curved angle because there is no way to measure the angle if either one of the rays is not a straightline segment at the vertex,
>
> From the derivative of each curve at the point of contact you have the slopes of their respective tangents there. (Assuming derivatives are defined there.) From these slopes, you should be able to calculate angle formed.
>
>
> Dan
AP gives the example of Rensselaer Polytechnic from the loudmouth perpetual stalker James Kibo Parry who stalked AP for 30 years in sci.math, sci.physics and his usual posts were filled with "Non Sequitur".
I asked Kibo Parry why RPI could not weigh the mass of hydrogen compared to oxygen in water electrolysis? For it is non-sequitur to look at just volume and then assume the mass follows volume. AP often wrote in sci.math and sci.physics-- why stop at volume for the next logical sequitur step is actually weigh the mass of hydrogen compared to oxygen and see if the mass agrees with volume.
Kibo with his scatter brain could never comply. And probably because, well, he claims to be an engineer, yet fails at even doing a proper correct percentage problem, claiming that 938 is 12% short of 945.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept Dr.Martin Schmidt (ee), Dr.Ivar Giaever
Dr.Vincent Meunier, Dr.Ethan Brown,Dr.Glenn Ciolek is Kibo Parry (Volney) running this spam machine out of Rensselaer.
Large Primes
by
James 'Kibo' Parry
May 26, 1989, 10:35:51 AM
What's the largest prime currenlty known? (All the information
I could dig up here was either fairly old or contradictory...)
james "kibo" parry | Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb.
kibo%pawl.r...@itsgw.rpi.edu (internet)
userfe0n@rpitsmts (bitnet) | Anything I say represents the opinion of
kibo%mts.r...@itsgw.rpi.edu | myself and not this computer.
> Dr.Bulent Yener,Dr.Donald Drew,Dr.William Siegmann, Rensselaer Polytech is this your spam??
>
> Kibo Parry Moroney Volney wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
> > Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
>
>
>
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept Dr.Martin Schmidt (ee), Dr.Ivar Giaever
> Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg, Moussa N'Gom, Peter Persans, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang
>
> Rensselaer math department
> Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw, Isom Herron, Mark H Holmes, David Isaacson, Elizabeth Kam, Ashwani Kapila, Maya Kiehl, Gregor Kovacic, Peter Kramer, Gina Kucinski, Rongjie Lai, Fengyan Li, Chjan Lim, Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, William Siegmann
>
james "kibo" parry | Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb.
kibo%pawl.r...@itsgw.rpi.edu (internet)
userfe0n@rpitsmts (bitnet) | Anything I say represents the opinion of
kibo%mts.r...@itsgw.rpi.edu | myself and not this computer.
Re: 1-Physics failures..
by Volney 11:13 PM, 13Sept2023
Re: TEACHING TRUE COSMOLOGY;; tired of the hippie-physics-culture of the 1960s and beyond with their peyote-delusional-desert-ideas of Big Bang, blackholes TV mindrot physics played to the Beach Boys surfing; time to try the TRUE physics of Atom Totality
by Volney
10:53 AM 28Aug2023
Re: 4-Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic// Dan Christensen, Jan Burse,Andrea Bonomi, Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers) with their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction
by Volney Aug 24, 2023, 11:34:08 AM
Re: 5-Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic// Dan Christensen, Jan Burse,James Kibo Parry, Alan Richard Bundy, Gregory Chaitin, with their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction
by Volney Aug 24, 2023, 11:49:47 AM
Re: 6-Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic// Dan Christensen, Jan Burse,James Kibo Parry, Jack Copeland, John Corcoran, Dirk van Dalen,with their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtract
by
Volney Aug 24, 2023, 11:49:15 AM
Re: 8-Partial List of World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic//Dan Christensen,Jan Burse,JamesKiboParry, Hartry Field, Kit Fine, Melvin Fitting,with their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction
by Volney Aug 24, 2023, 11:54:10 AM
Re: Can_Dr.Wei Zhang,Dr. Paul Ziemann,Julian Burgess of FastBackgroundCheck.com,Dr.Tobin Munsat,Dr.Margaret Murnane,Jan Burse,Dan Christensen,Kibo Parry(Volney-Moroney) - -PLEASE--step into Univ Colorado physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of
by
StudenT SaveR TeaM
1:53 PM 17Aug2023
Re: 2m views::Tom Zakharov is Dr.Roland List,Dr.Philipp Kronberg,Dr.James King of Univ Toronto, as dunce in science as you Tom forgetting to weigh the hydrogen versus oxygen in Water Electrolysis, such slipshod science?
by Mild Shock (Jan Burse)
2:52 PM 26Nov2023
Re: Olcott & Damon is Dr.Duncan Haldane (phy), Dr.John Kosterlitz (phy), Dr.Michael Levitt (chem) of Cambridge as dunce in Water Electrolysis, never weighing the hydrogen and oxygen as dunce as you Pete Olcott and Richard Damon with your Boole logic
by Mild Shock (Swiss Jan Burse)
Nov 16, 2023, 3:51:20 PM
Re: Olcott & Damon is Dr.Duncan Haldane (phy), Dr.John Kosterlitz (phy), Dr.Michael Levitt (chem) of Cambridge as dunce in Water Electrolysis, never weighing the hydrogen and oxygen as dunce as you Pete Olcott and Richard Damon with your Boole logic
8:38 PM by Mild Shock (Jan Burse) 12/16/23
Re: Jim, they only checked the volume, not the mass of Water Electrolysis, who will discover the truth first?? Air Force Academy or Naval Academy?? I bet Naval Academy for water means more to the Navy.
,Jim Pennino,Julian Burgess of FastBackgroundCheck.com - -PLEASE--step into Air Force Academy physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water
Aug 27, 2023 by Jim Pennino
Re: Jim, I bet the Naval Academy has better weighing scales than Air Force for Water Electrolysis-- as Air Force is more "flighty". If AP is correct, hydrogen is 1/4 weight of oxygen in water electrolysis, if Pennino & Mainstream is correct hydrogen
,Jim Pennino,Julian Burgess of FastBackgroundCheck.com - -PLEASE--step into Air Force Academy physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water
Aug 27, 2023 by Jim Pennino
Re: Amine can Universities Morocco weigh Water Electrolysis of its hydrogen and oxygen to prove if water is H4O not H2O??? No-one here in the USA can do that--either too dumb or too lazy as CalTech fails, ...
by Mathin3D Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 6:16:02 PM UTC-4,
Re: MitchR can UCLA or Berkeley weigh Water Electrolysis of its hydrogen and oxygen to prove if water is H4O not H2O??? For surely no-one at UCLA or Berkeley can even do geometry properly with their mindless slant cut of cone as ellipse when it is a
by mitchr...@gmail.com Oct 15, 2023, 7:27:43 PM
Re: AP's math puzzles August2023// Determining Pi in Ancient Greek times
,Jim Pennino,Julian Burgess of FastBackgroundCheck.com- -PLEASE--step into Naval Academy physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O
Aug 26, 2023 by Jim Pennino
Re: Electrolysis of Water in New Chemistry, pointing out the mistakes of Old Chemistry, and end up proving water is really H4O, not H2O
Jim spamming Pennino,Julian Burgess of FastBackgroundCheck.com - -PLEASE--step into Naval Academy physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water
Aug 26, 2023 by Jim Pennino
AP writes:: So, well, after 30 years of Non Sequitur stalk posts by Rensselaer 's Kibo Parry and his dozens of fake names-- the Question is still out and in the Open. Does Rensselaer have at least one logical minded professor of physics, who carries out a water electrolysis that does not end with a volume look and glance, but goes that Extra One Step Forward in Logic, and weighs the mass of hydrogen compared to oxygen, for AP believes the true formula of water is H4O and not H2O.
Take for example page 159 as Dr. Stillwell talks of calculus.
--- quoting page 159 Mathematics and its History ---
The rules for differentiation are still complete, given a sensible set of operations for constructing functions, but the rules for integration are pathetically incomplete. They do not suffice to integrate simple algebraic functions like Sqrt(1+x^2), or even rational functions with undetermined constants like 1/(x^5-x-A). Moreover, it is only in recent decades that we have been able to tell which algebraic functions are integrable by our rules.
--- end quoting page 159 Mathematics and its History ---
So if Dr. Stillwell had spent more time studying Logic to learn how to think straight and think clearly, he may have turned out to be a good mathematician instead of a failed crank. For John, with Logic, you may have realized what AP realized back in 1968 sitting in a calculus classroom as student at University of Cincinnati, that if you made the Polynomial the only valid function in all of mathematics thus reducing integration to add 1 to exponent and differentiation to subtract 1 from exponent that Calculus today would be easy as cherry pie and milk.
And when a math crank fool ponders trifles like Sqrt(1+x^2), you tell the crank Dr. Stillwell, have you ever heard of Lagrange Interpolation??? That your silly stupid Sqrt(1+x^2) is not a function of math at all, and what interval do you want to transform it into a polynomial on the 1st Quadrant Only in graphing???
Lagrange transform goes like this:: Polynomial Transformation Generator tool: The Polynomial Generator is this tool:
Now, the 2nd most important proof in all of geometry is the proof that the formula of a straight line is that of a polynomial function that is Y--> mX + b. And it is this formula that all High School students must learn and hopefully master to make their geometry course a worthwhile experience in science.
I am not certain that the below picture diagram is the state-of-the-art on Y--> mX + b for first time learners. I am, though, absolutely sure that this diagram is what is needed to teach Calculus.
------------------------------------------------
Examples of Fallacy of Ad Hominem (attack the person rather than the gist of the argument).
------------------------------------------------
And there was MIT on a roll in the past decade with invention of the Ion Thruster to help all of humanity and all of life on Earth get to Europa in the next 1,000 years to build a permanent colony since our Sun has gone Red Giant phase for stars shine not from fusion but from Faraday law. Yet, as MIT gifts the world with Ion Thruster space ship propulsion, we have the negativism of a MIT worthless crank crackpot of science in the form of Gilbert Strang and his moron partner Davide Cavion in Trinity College Dublin.
In my opinion, Gilbert Strang should never have been in science at all, in the first place. He surely fails the Mullenweg+ Myers TEST, for Strang can never admit he was wrong that slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. But just look at the mind wreck of Strang's Calculus book where on page 360, his pea-brain sets out to define the Complex number, not realizing, that throughout his book from page 1 to 360 he forgets to define--- say Gilbert--- what the hell are the numbers you use from page 1 up to page 360????? Gilbert Strang and Davide Cavion are classic examples of two people who should never be in science and have big loud mouthes that they commit the fallacy of both Non-Sequitur plus Ad Hominem. Failures of science never have any contribution to science, no, they spend all their energy in trying to dis those that succeed in science.
A pity, that MIT gives us the Ion Thruster for better spaceship travel, while parallel, we have Strang pulling down MIT into a gutter-sewer.
Davide Cavion hate-spew foul mouthed stalker
narkive (symbol logo) narkive How the Archimedes Plutonium Idiocy began. narkive https://sci.math.narkive.com › how-the-archimedes-plut... Being ignorant of and incompetent at math, it amused him to send out emails containing his meaningless math rambles to all and sundry....When one does not break any laws, one is fearless. In your lingo what this means is: I piss ... How the Archimedes Plutonium Idiocy began. narkive https://sci.math.narkive.com › how-the-archimedes-plut... When one does not break any laws, one is fearless. In your lingo what this means is: I piss on shit on the filthy, disgusting cunt that spewed YOU out. Do you ...
AP writes:: I really cannot imagine anyone getting more ad hominem than when they say "I piss and shit in your face..." rather than attack the science argument at hand. So once swear words like that used by Davide Cavion enter the scene, the argument is ended and over with and devolved into ad hominem. A sure sign and indicator that no more logical argument is going on, is when swear words arise.
Trinity College Dublin, Linda Doyle,Jan Manschot, Tristan McLoughlin, Andrei Parnachev, Samson Shatashvili, Stefan Sint, Katrin Wendland, Dmitri Zaitsev, Jan Manschot, Tristan McLoughlin, Andrei Parnachev, Stefan Sint, Sinead Ryan, Sergey Frolov, Andreea Nicoara, Ruth Britto, Nicholas Mascot, Marius de Leeuw, Nigel H. Buttimore, Sara M. McMurry, John J.H.Miller, David R. Wilkins
MIT Gilbert Strang (alias Port563)
NK narkive symbol logo narkive (Davide Cavion Trinity College Dublin editor)
Once upon a time there was a dish-washer and kitchen-boy at the University of Dartmouth. He wasn't very smart at all. Well, we should be honest.
AP writes:: So sad, MIT pioneers the ion thruster, which I believe will replace dangerous blasting rockets that get us to Europa. Such brilliant science at MIT. Yet alongside that brilliancy is the old worthless crusty math failure Gilbert Strang attacking day and night with his ad hominem.
Gilbert Strang with his "sundry"
How the Archimedes Plutonium Idiocy began.
narkive
https://sci.math.narkive.com › how-the-archimedes-plut...
Being ignorant of and incompetent at math, it amused him to send out emails containing his meaningless math rambles to all and sundry.
--- quoting Wikipedia---
Gilbert Strang
Strang in 2021
Born
November 27, 1934 (age 90)
Chicago, Illinois, U.S.
Alma mater
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (BS)
Balliol College, Oxford (BA, MA)
University of California, Los Angeles (PhD)
Awards
Chauvenet Prize (1977)
Scientific career
Fields
Mathematics
Institutions
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Thesis
Difference Methods for Mixed Boundary Value Problems (1959)
Doctoral advisor
Peter K. Henrici
Doctoral students
Alan Berger
Hermann Flaschka
Pavel Grinfeld
Edward Packel
---end quoting Wikipedia---
------------------------------------------------------
Examples of Fallacy of Mis-identification.
------------------------------------------------------
This category of Logic Fallacies is perhaps the single most important category of all logic fallacies, considering that once you make a mistake of Mis-Identity in physics, it can hold you up for a 1,000 years in getting to Europa when we need to make a permanent colony on Europa as our Sun has gone Red Giant. In 1897 Thomson thought he found the Atom's electron of the 0.5MeV particle. No, he found the Dirac magnetic monopole, the unit of electric current. The true electron of Atoms is the Muon stuck inside a proton torus and doing the Faraday law with the proton. When you carry stupid false ideas for 2025-1897= 128 years. It may cause the extinction of all life on Earth and send humanity into oblivion as the Sun broils and swallows up Earth. We cannot afford false physics and survive into the future. Mis-identity mistakes can be so so debilitating and be the ruin of all life on Earth.
When Thomson in 1897 via experiments found a particle of 0.5MeV which he and the entire physics community would identify as the "Atom's electrons" never had the Logical stamina and his successors from 1897 to 2025, never had the logical brains to question that identification.
For Pierre Curie and Paul Dirac were searching for the Magnetic Monopole. Yet no physicist from 1897 to 2025, except AP, had the logical brains to say--- Stop--- Thomson found the magnetic monopole and the true electron of Atoms was the muon at 105 MeV.
Because of that mis-identification, Physics is now stagnant and stupid, for when we realize the true electron of atoms is the muon, then the proton is the coil in Faraday law of 840MeV with muon inside thrusting through the proton torus coil and producing energy in electrical form.
That is why the Sun spews out more energy every year going forward and has started to go Red Giant phase. Unless physicists unscrew through stupidity head of how stars shine from Faraday law, not fusion, then planet Earth and all its life will be destroyed, go extinct and go into oblivion if we do not make Europa our new home in time.
Closer to home here in the USA, a misidentity mistake can easily ruin an entire country like the USA. Donald Trump misidentifies Ukraine as starting a war with Russia. Trump misidentifies Putin in Russia as a friend. And Trump can make a disastrous misidentity should Russia launch ICBMs that reach USA in 1/2 hour or 15 minutes and vaporizes the USA into a radioactive dust pile, all because Trump misidentifies the launch as being some friendly exercise.
Far and away, misidentification can be the fallacy that is ruinous.
Does math have a fallacy of Misidentity as critical as Physics has one???? Well, not as important as physics, but all math professors in the world at this moment, all of them are too stupid to realize they mis-identified the slant cut of cone is actually a Oval, and not a ellipse, for a cone has 1 axes of symmetry. The slant cut of cylinder with its 2 axes of symmetry gives the ellipse, but not a cone. So the ellipse is Not a Conic Section, never was, never will be.
Yes, yes indeed the greatest logic fallacy in Mathematics is also a MisIdentification just as the biggest fallacy in Physics is mis-identification.
In Mathematics, they mis-identified the true numbers that compose math. They were given a hint in year 1900 when Max Planck started the Quantum Mechanics Revolution by saying Physics is discrete-- for quantum means discrete.
But instead of looking at physics, the clowns of mathematics dug deeper into continuum with the senseless Continuum Hypothesis of Cohen.
When physics started quantum mechanics, all in mathematics should have looked up and payed attention to physics and ask the question, do we have the true numbers of mathematics for the Reals are a sack of cobbled together garbage to attain continuum when no continuum exists. Mathematicians mis-identified the true numbers of mathematics for they are the Decimal Grid Numbers with holes and empty space between one number and the next number.
Now some people are going to think this fallacy is seldom committed. However, it is a very frequent occurring fallacy. And it is a major cause of Science Failure. This fallacy holds back Humanity for centuries whenever it is made. The fallacies of non-sequitur, ad hominem, and ambiguity have minor effects on Human Society. But when the fallacy is MisIdentification in science, it can paralyze human society, even extinct it.
When Thomson misidentified the Atom's true electron by calling the 0.5MeV particle the electron when in truth, the Muon, stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus is the true electron of Atoms, that misidentification had held Human Society back ever since 1897. And the fact that Sun and Stars shine because of Faraday law-- the muon thrusting through proton torus, is going to cause the extinction of Humanity, if it does not wake up soon to the true electron-- muon, for we need to make a permanent colony on Europa in the next 1,000 years to keep from going extinct for the Sun has entered Red Giant Phase.
Another misidentification is Rutherford, Bohr, Geiger, Marsden in the gold leaf experiment, thinking they identified a nucleus in Atoms in early 1900's, but what they really identified in Atoms is the muon inside a proton torus as the bounced back alpha particles have ____more speed coming out___ than going in.
A misidentification in Math is the sine and cosine are semicircle waves, not sinusoid. Another misidentification is the slant cut of cone is a Oval, not ellipse for you need a cylinder with 2 axes of symmetry to yield a slant cut as ellipse. Another misidentification is the true numbers of math are Decimal Grid Numbers not the stupid Reals. Another misidentification is the derivative of calculus is not the tangent to a point on a graph curve but is what actually connects one point of the function graph to the next point of function graph.
So many of the major important mistakes of Science are because of Mis-Identification. Perhaps that is because we have so many "preconceptions" of what the answer should be, that we turn our logical brains into "off mode" and conclude the answer is our biased preconceived ideas. Rutherford, Bohr, Geiger, Marsden thought the atom should be a miniature Solar System, when in reality, the Atom is a proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law and neutrons surround the proton torus to storage the electricity produced by Faraday law.
When we make mistakes with MisIdentification, it can easily turn into being a major mistake.
Mark Barton of University Glasgow and Adam D'Angelo raving nutters quora disinformation platform point out the professors of science as "raving nutters" who make the fallacy the MisIdentification.
Adam D'Angelo Caltech, Charlie Cheever-Harvard on Univ Glasgow Mark Barton
Quora (symbol logo) Quora Quora https://www.quora.com › What-effect-did-Archimedes-... Aug 26, 2013 — Plutonium is significant because its isotope, plutonium-239, is a slow nuclear fuel. A slow nuclear fuel will likely undergo nuclear fission if ... 4 answers · Top answer: Everyone was trying to figure out this new medium, the internet, what it was for.
> > Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan ; University of Glasgow
> > Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
> > None at all - he was a raving nutter.
6 Jennifer Kahn (1 April 2002). "Notes from Another Universe". Discover. Archived from the original on November 21, 2007.
7 Toby Howard (July 1997). "Psychoceramics: the on-line crackpots" (reprint). The Guardian.
8 Joseph Scott (1997-09-25). "Sometime-scientist Plutonium says science is 'gobbledygook'". The Dartmouth.
The University of Manchester cs dot man dot ac dot uk Guardian ceramics Toby Howard:: Psychoceramics
So when, between TV shows, someone pops up claiming that the universe is a giant Plutonium atom, all you'll have to do is press "psychoceramic" button on...
Wikipedia: Usenet personality
Archimedes Plutonium (current legal name, born Ludwig Poehlmann in 1950... " Psychoceramics: the on-line crackpots " (reprint) Toby Howard, The Guardian ...Joseph Scott "Sometime-scientist Plutonium says science is 'gobbledygook'"
Mark Barton, Univ.Glasgow- Raving Nutters + Berkeley balderdash Robert J. Kolker & Richard A. Muller UC Berkeley on failures of science Dr.Eric Betzig (chem), Dr.George Smoot,Dr.Barry Barish,Dr.David Wineland,Dr.John Mather, Dr.Alan Heeger (chem)
1.1m views
Adam D'Angelo is Roger Penrose and Sheldon Glashow raving nutters because they refuse to admit slant cut of cone is oval, not ellipse or because they are too stupid to ask if the muon is the atom's true electron, embedded inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law?
Sad to see, very sad to see that CalTech after Anderson and Neddermeyer correctly Identified the Muon of physics in 1936,--- not a misidentification----- that after that CalTech is a pitiful and virtually useless school for science, churning out raving nutters like Adam D'Angelo with his raving nutter platform on Internet, allowing loser failure physics professors like Mark Barton to mis-identify not only a raven from a nut to a cow, crow and a canary and the side of a barn that is University Glasgow.
> > Richard A. Muller, Discover magazine, crank-crackpot at Berkeley
> > Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater
--- quoting Wikipedia---
Adam D'Angelo
D'Angelo in 2022
Born
August 14, 1984 (age 39)
Redding, Connecticut, U.S.
Education
California Institute of Technology(BS)
Occupation
CEO of Quora
Known for
Former CTO of Facebook, co-founder of Quora
Board member of
OpenAI
Asana, Inc.
--- end quoting Wikipedia---
AP: Why is not Adam wearing his glued on walrus tusks for his picture taking? One would think that glued on walrus tusks for David Attenborough's Smilodon to draw in the crowds in museums across the world as misidentification of walrus tusks would be appropriate for Adam D'Angelo to wear as head of Quora anti-science platform.
Adam D'Angelo Caltech, Charlie Cheever-Harvard on Univ Glasgow Mark Barton
Quora (symbol logo) Quora Quora https://www.quora.com › What-effect-did-Archimedes-... Aug 26, 2013 — Plutonium is significant because its isotope, plutonium-239, is a slow nuclear fuel. A slow nuclear fuel will likely undergo nuclear fission if ... 4 answers · Top answer: Everyone was trying to figure out this new medium, the internet, what it was for.
> > Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan ; University of Glasgow
> > Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
> > None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Mark Barton University Glasgow and Univ. Queensland: Not at all, he was a raving nutter.
Adam D'Angelo Caltech, Charlie Cheever-Harvard on Univ Glasgow Mark Barton
Quora (symbol logo) Quora Quora https://www.quora.com› What-effect-did-Archimedes-... Aug 26, 2013 — Plutonium is significant because its isotope, plutonium-239, is a slow nuclear fuel. A slow nuclear fuel will likely undergo nuclear fission if ... 4 answers · Top answer: Everyone was trying to figure out this new medium, the internet, what it was for.
> > Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan ; University of Glasgow
> > Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
> > None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Adam D'Angelo Caltech, Charlie Cheever-Harvard on Univ Glasgow Mark Barton. Quora (symbol logo) Mark Barton PhD physicist with University of Glasgow Author has 16.9K answers and 21.5M answer views10y None at all - he was a raving nutter. 1.9K viewsView upvotes... Robert J. Kolker "The man spouts total nonsense and balderdash..."
Mark Barton on Katherine Grainger, Paul Soler, Andy Blue, Sheila Rowan, James Hough, Graham Woan, Martin Hendry, Giles Hammond, Ik Siong Heng, Harry Ward, Iain Martin, Sonja Franke-Arnold, Miles Padgett, Richard Bowman, Graham Gibson, Sara Restuccia, Simon Peter Mekhail, Chris Bouchard, Christoph Englert, Judd Harrison, David Miller, Sophie Renner, Declan Diver, Lyndsay Fletcher, Norman Gray, Iain Hannah...Peter Bussey, Michael Campbell, David Crooks, who cannot tell apart a oval from a ellipse, with their slant cut of Cone as ellipse which is impossible for the cone has but one axis of symmetry.
Mark Barton, Univ.Glasgow on Raving Nutters + Robert J. Kolker's Berkeley balderdash science Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita, Sheldon Glashow
Volney failures..Berkeley,Dr.Eric Betzig (chem), Dr.George Smoot,Dr.Barry Barish,Dr.David Wineland,Dr.John Mather, Dr.Alan Heeger (chem), Dr.Robert Laughlin
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 5:37:32 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>"goonclod failure of logic"
Why Volney?? Because they are so sloppy and slipshod in Physics experiment of Water Electrolysis, stopping and ceasing the experiment before weighing the mass of the hydrogen compared to mass of oxygen. Is it that they are stupid silly thinking volume and mass are the same. For AP needs to prove decisively, if Water is really H4O or H2O. And of course, this experiment would destroy the Standard Model-- that post-diction theory of physics that never gave a single prediction in all of its tenure.
Here is a case of MisIdentification of the correct formula for water--- H4O, not H2O.
Surely they knew the Quartz Crystal Microbalance had been around since 1960s to weigh hydrogen versus oxygen in water electrolysis. Or is that tougher of a science for Berkeley than nucleosynthesis of plutonium and curium???
Or is it because they cannot admit the truth of math geometry that slant cut of cone is oval, not ellipse for you need the symmetry of slant cut of cylinder to yield a ellipse.
UC Berkeley, the place where plutonium was discovered by Seaborg et al, deserves a separate listing, as a top of tops school in science.
Berkeley physics & chemistry
UC Berkeley,Dr.Steven Chu,Dr.Gilbert N. Lewis,Dr.Harold Urey,Dr.William F.Giauque,Dr.Glenn T. Seaborg,Dr.Willard Libby,Dr.Melvin Calvin,Dr. Jennifer Doudna,Dr.Reinhard Genzel,Dr.Yuan T. Lee,Dr.Saul Perlmutter,Dr.Randy Schekman (physiology)
Berkeley physics & chemistry
UC Berkeley,
Dr.Eric Betzig (chem), Dr.George Smoot,Dr.Barry Barish,Dr.David Wineland,Dr.John Mather, Dr.Alan Heeger (chem), Dr.Robert Laughlin, Dr.Steven Chu,Dr.Gilbert N. Lewis,Dr.Harold Urey,Dr.William F.Giauque,Dr.Glenn T. Seaborg,Dr.Willard Libby,Dr.Melvin Calvin,Dr. Jennifer Doudna,Dr.Reinhard Genzel,Dr.Yuan T. Lee,Dr.Saul Perlmutter,Dr.Randy Schekman (physiology)
Dr.John Clarke, Dr.Marvin Cohen, Dr.Michael Crommie, Dr.Joel Fajans, Dr. Roger Falcone, Dr.Mary Gaillard, Dr.Gabriel Gann, Dr.Naomi Ginsberg, Dr.Heather Gray, Dr.Hartmut Haeffner, Dr.Lawrence Hall, Dr.Oskar Hallatschek, Dr.Wick Haxton, Dr.Frances Hellman, Dr.Petr Horava, Dr.Barbara Jacak, Dr.Bob Jacobsen, Dr.Steven Kahn, Dr.Dan Kasen, Dr.Edgar Knobloch, Dr.Shimon Kolkowitz, Dr.Yury Kolomensky, Dr.Alessandra Lanzara, Dr.Stephen Leone, Dr.Eric Ma,... the physics faculty reads almost as long as a army of soldiers, please forgive any names that AP left out, please forgive...
Mark Barton is everyone at UC Berkeley raving nutters for they still preach slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. No wonder no-one at Berkeley, least of all Kolker or Muller have the logical marbles to weigh the mass of oxygen versus hydrogen in water electrolysis, no, they skip and hop back to the lounge for coffee and donuts after looking at volume, never able to weigh the mass, like a complete-scientist.
Robert J. Kolker and Richard A. Muller Berkeley failing in all facets of science--- failures in science-- so stupid they cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse.
1) Too stupid to question if Thomson found Dirac's magnetic monopole and not the electron of atoms.
2) Too stupid to realize that in the Rutherford,Geiger, Marsden Experiment when you have increase in velocity of bounce back alpha particles means head on collision with a larger proton torus, hence, the interior of gold atoms are toruses, no nucleus.
3) Too stupid in logic to understand subatomic particles have jobs and tasks to do, not sit around on beaches sipping lemonade what Old Physics says. The proton is a 8 ring torus with muon as electron inside doing the Faraday law producing new electricity.
4) Too stupid to understand stars and our Sun shine not from fusion but from Faraday law of each and every atom inside that star.
5) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
6) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of Fallacy Existence-Nonexistence for the derivative is the existential quantifier-- the "assumed to exist" fallacy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AP's opinion answer why no-one in physics or chemistry is smart enough to go the extra distance and actually weigh the mass of hydrogen compared to oxygen in water electrolysis. Instead they all look at the volume and simply assume it says H2O when it could say H4O if they went the extra distance to weighing the mass. So is there a fallacy of logic of sheer crass laziness. Everyone bolting to the science lounge for coffee, cake, donuts rather than being the 100% scientist to see if hydrogen converts its proton+muon inside to becoming a neutron to the other hydrogen H and thus water is really H4O. For a proton+muon inside by itself has no neutron capacitor to storage its electricity produced in the Faraday law. This is why H alone as an atom is hard to find for it has no neutron. Deuterium is a full hydrogen atom and so is H2 is a hydrogen atom, more than it is a molecule, for one of the H's converts to being a neutron for the other proton+muon inside.
So the fallacy as far as I can see is a fallacy of being lazy. But there is no logic fallacy of being lazy. So the next best fallacy in my opinion is that physicists and chemists assume that volume equals mass, when that is such an awful poor assumption, considering hydrogen is unique in many ways. Making an assumption that is not warranted is committing the fallacy of 5) Mistakes in Existence-Nonexistence for the derivative is the existential quantifier-- the assumed to exist fallacy.
Re: Jim, they only checked the volume, not the mass of Water Electrolysis, who will discover the truth first?? Air Force Academy or Naval Academy?? I bet Naval Academy for water means more to the Navy.
,Jim Pennino,Julian Burgess of FastBackgroundCheck.com - -PLEASE--step into Air Force Academy physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water
Aug 27, 2023 by Jim Pennino in sci.physics
Re: Jim, I bet the Naval Academy has better weighing scales than Air Force for Water Electrolysis-- as Air Force is more "flighty". If AP is correct, hydrogen is 1/4 weight of oxygen in water electrolysis, if Pennino & Mainstream is correct hydrogen
,Jim Pennino,Julian Burgess of FastBackgroundCheck.com - -PLEASE--step into Air Force Academy physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water
Aug 27, 2023 by Jim Pennino in sci.physics
Re: AP's math puzzles August2023// Determining Pi in Ancient Greek times
,Jim Pennino,Julian Burgess of FastBackgroundCheck.com- -PLEASE--step into Naval Academy physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O
Aug 26, 2023 by Jim Pennino in sci.physics
Re: Electrolysis of Water in New Chemistry, pointing out the mistakes of Old Chemistry, and end up proving water is really H4O, not H2O
Jim spamming Pennino,Julian Burgess of FastBackgroundCheck.com - -PLEASE--step into Naval Academy physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water
Aug 26, 2023 by Jim Pennino in sci.physics
Re: MitchR can UCLA or Berkeley weigh Water Electrolysis of its hydrogen and oxygen to prove if water is H4O not H2O??? For surely no-one at UCLA or Berkeley can even do geometry properly with their mindless slant cut of cone as ellipse when it is a
by mitchr...@gmail.com Oct 15, 2023, 7:27:43 PM in sci.physics or sci.math
Re: Amine can Universities Morocco weigh Water Electrolysis of its hydrogen and oxygen to prove if water is H4O not H2O??? No-one here in the USA can do that--either too dumb or too lazy as CalTech fails, ...
by Mathin3D Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 6:16:02 PM UTC-4 in sci.math or sci.physics
Re: Olcott & Damon is Dr.Duncan Haldane (phy), Dr.John Kosterlitz (phy), Dr.Michael Levitt (chem) of Cambridge as dunce in Water Electrolysis, never weighing the hydrogen and oxygen as dunce as you Pete Olcott and Richard Damon with your Boole logic
by Mild Shock (Swiss Jan Burse)
Nov 16, 2023, 3:51:20 PM in sci.math or sci.physics
Re: 2m views::Tom Zakharov is Dr.Roland List,Dr.Philipp Kronberg,Dr.James King of Univ Toronto, as dunce in science as you Tom forgetting to weigh the hydrogen versus oxygen in Water Electrolysis, such slipshod science?
by Mild Shock (Jan Burse)
2:52 PM 26Nov2023 in sci.math or sci.physics
Dan Christensen in sci.math wrote on 2/22/24: Students Beware: Don't be a victim...
Dan failures to weigh
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
Volney, why cannot Univ Western Ontario finish their water electrolysis experiment to prove Water is really H4O not H2O??
Why Volney can they not finish the water electrolysis experiment to weigh the mass of hydrogen and oxygen?? Because they are so sloppy and slipshod in Physics experiment of Water Electrolysis, stopping and ceasing the experiment before weighing the mass of the hydrogen compared to mass of oxygen. Is it that they are stupid silly thinking volume and mass are the same. For AP needs to prove decisively, if Water is really H4O or H2O. And of course, this experiment would destroy the Standard Model-- that post-diction theory of physics that never gave a single prediction in all of its tenure.
Volney failures..Berkeley,Dr.Eric Betzig (chem), Dr.George Smoot,Dr.Barry Barish,Dr.David Wineland,Dr.John Mather, Dr.Alan Heeger (chem), Dr.Robert Laughlin
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 5:37:32 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>"goonclod failure of logic"
Adam D'Angelo Caltech, Charlie Cheever-Harvard on Univ Glasgow Mark Barton. Quora (symbol logo) Mark Barton PhD physicist with University of Glasgow Author has 16.9K answers and 21.5M answer views10y None at all - he was a raving nutter. 1.9K viewsView upvotes... Robert J. Kolker "The man spouts total nonsense and balderdash..."
Why Volney?? Because they are so sloppy and slipshod in Physics experiment of Water Electrolysis, stopping and ceasing the experiment before weighing the mass of the hydrogen compared to mass of oxygen. Is it that they are stupid silly thinking volume and mass are the same. For AP needs to prove decisively, if Water is really H4O or H2O. And of course, this experiment would destroy the Standard Model-- that post-diction theory of physics that never gave a single prediction in all of its tenure.
Surely they knew the Quartz Crystal Microbalance had been around since 1960s to weigh hydrogen versus oxygen in water electrolysis. Or is that tougher of a science for Berkeley than nucleosynthesis of plutonium and curium???
Or is it because they cannot admit the truth of math geometry that slant cut of cone is oval, not ellipse for you need the symmetry of slant cut of cylinder to yield a ellipse.
UC Berkeley, the place where plutonium was discovered by Seaborg et al, deserves a separate listing, as a top of tops school in science.
Berkeley physics & chemistry
UC Berkeley,Dr.Steven Chu,Dr.Gilbert N. Lewis,Dr.Harold Urey,Dr.William F.Giauque,Dr.Glenn T. Seaborg,Dr.Willard Libby,Dr.Melvin Calvin,Dr. Jennifer Doudna,Dr.Reinhard Genzel,Dr.Yuan T. Lee,Dr.Saul Perlmutter,Dr.Randy Schekman (physiology)
Berkeley physics & chemistry
UC Berkeley,
Dr.Eric Betzig (chem), Dr.George Smoot,Dr.Barry Barish,Dr.David Wineland,Dr.John Mather, Dr.Alan Heeger (chem), Dr.Robert Laughlin, Dr.Steven Chu,Dr.Gilbert N. Lewis,Dr.Harold Urey,Dr.William F.Giauque,Dr.Glenn T. Seaborg,Dr.Willard Libby,Dr.Melvin Calvin,Dr. Jennifer Doudna,Dr.Reinhard Genzel,Dr.Yuan T. Lee,Dr.Saul Perlmutter,Dr.Randy Schekman (physiology)
Dr.John Clarke, Dr.Marvin Cohen, Dr.Michael Crommie, Dr.Joel Fajans, Dr. Roger Falcone, Dr.Mary Gaillard, Dr.Gabriel Gann, Dr.Naomi Ginsberg, Dr.Heather Gray, Dr.Hartmut Haeffner, Dr.Lawrence Hall, Dr.Oskar Hallatschek, Dr.Wick Haxton, Dr.Frances Hellman, Dr.Petr Horava, Dr.Barbara Jacak, Dr.Bob Jacobsen, Dr.Steven Kahn, Dr.Dan Kasen, Dr.Edgar Knobloch, Dr.Shimon Kolkowitz, Dr.Yury Kolomensky, Dr.Alessandra Lanzara, Dr.Stephen Leone, Dr.Eric Ma,... the physics faculty reads almost as long as a army of soldiers, please forgive any names that AP left out, please forgive...
Mark Barton is everyone at UC Berkeley raving nutters for they still preach slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. No wonder no-one at Berkeley, least of all Kolker or Muller have the logical marbles to weigh the mass of oxygen versus hydrogen in water electrolysis, no, they skip and hop back to the lounge for coffee and donuts after looking at volume, never able to weigh the mass, like a complete-scientist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of Fallacy in Universal for the integral is the universal quantifier-- the giver of consistency and completeness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AP's example of the Universal Quantifier Logic Fallacy involves whether a scientist with a degree is able to understand, comprehend what a Law of Physics is all about.
The AP proof that the Universe is a single big atom of Plutonium is based on the idea that a Law of Physics is Universal. So when Feynman in his Lectures on Physics says "All things are made up of Atoms" as the Atomic Theory. Well, that cannot be a Universal theory of Physics unless the Universe itself is one big atom. The greatest theory in all of Physics must have the Universe be a single big atom of Plutonium, otherwise it is a rule that works sometimes but not all the time.
I outlined the Atomic theory earlier in this textbook. Noting that the Universe cannot be a molecule, but a single big atom.
The greatest Logic Argument of all time is the Atomic theory proving the Universe is a single big atom of Plutonium.
Univ Houston Matt Mullenweg & U.Minnesota PZ Myers Universal TEST of PhD's being null and void.
And Matt Mullenweg, PZ Myers with their cheap low class Wordpress smear platform highlights the fact that Matt and PZ Myers are totally ignorant of Physics, Logic and how to put together an idea of science. And that Mullenweg Wordpress & Myers pharyngula blog present a --- universal methodology of null and voiding all scientists of their degree in science on a TEST.
WordPress.com Archimedes Plutonium | Spherical Bullshit - Word Press dot com Feb 6, 2013-- Plutonium simply thinks superdeterminism is the only way quantum theory can make sense. And given his horrific understanding of the spherical harmonics of an.... via PsyGremlin via PZ Myers
Pseudoscientists PZ Myers and Matt Mullenweg failed math and logic for their small minds cannot even see that a slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse for you need the symmetry of a cylinder to obtain a ellipse slant cut which points out the fact that Myers and Mullenweg have no native science intelligence but all of which is memorized from book reading for they have no logical marbles in their brain cap to reason the truth of anything in the world. And it is a shame that kooks of science like Myers and Mullenweg have teaching roles when they fail science outright.
No wonder no-one at University Minnesota Morris UMM could ever do a proper logical Water Electrolysis by not stopping at looking at volume of hydrogen and compare to oxygen but actually getting out the weighing scale. No, when you have kook science brains like Myers and Mullenweg, you hop skip and jump to the coffee lounge once you look at volume, too stupid to weigh.
I do not know, does University Minnesota Morris UMM, even have a quartz microbalance scale, and would PZ Myers ever know how to do Water Electrolysis, for it appears to me all that PZ Myers can do is --- if you place a lens in each of his ears-- makes a fine telescope.
Matt Mullenweg's Univ.Houston science and math-- says nothing but spherical bullshit-- Ed Hungerford, Alex Ignatiev, Joseph McCauley, Mark A Meier, Shuheng Pan, Lawrence Pinsky, Audrius Brazdeikis, Rabi Ebrahim, Rebecca Forrest, Sladjana Maric,
Why Matt?? Is it because no-one at UH can admit slant cut of cone is oval, not ellipse. And none can admit polynomial is the only valid function reducing calculus to add or subtract 1 from exponent and thus calculus supereasy. But worst of all, none can admit 9 x muon rest mass equals neutron rest mass within sigma error raising the question that the true electron of atoms is the muon, not the Dirac magnetic monopole = 0.5MeV.
Matt Mullenweg
Spherical Bullshit Wordpress.com (symbol) Spherical Bullshit Feb 6, 2013 -- The central thesis... is the "atom totality" theory. This states that the structure of... via PZ Myers....
Univ Houston physics dept Ed Hungerford, Alex Ignatiev, Joseph McCauley, Mark A Meier, Shuheng Pan, Lawrence Pinsky, Audrius Brazdeikis, Rabi Ebrahim, Rebecca Forrest, Sladjana Maric, Israel Portillo
math dept Giles Auchmuty, John Hardy, Gordon Johnson, Johnny Johnson, Klaus Kaiser, Christopher Murray, Vern Paulsen, Charles Peters, David Wagner, Clifton Whyburn, Jennifer May, Nicholas Leger
--- quoting Wikipedia ---
Matt Mullenweg asks Caltech why they are so dumb in physics as to bypass the question of which is the atom's true electron??? That 0.5MeV particle or the muon which makes a-lot more sense that the muon is the Atom's true electron!!!!
Matt Mullenweg
Mullenweg in 2019
Born
Matthew Charles Mullenweg
January 11, 1984 (age 40)
Houston, Texas, U.S.
Education
University of Houston
Occupation(s)
Entrepreneur, Founder & CEO,[1] Automattic
Principal, Audrey Capital[2]
Lead Developer, WordPress Foundation
Organization
Automattic
Known for
Developing WordPress.com
---end quoting Wikipedia ---
Matt Mullenweg on bullshit physics of University of Houston David Wagner, Clifton Whyburn, Jennifer May
with their inability to understand any of these modern day issues::::
Matt Mullenweg
Spherical Bullshit Wordpress.com (symbol) Spherical Bullshit Feb 6, 2013 -- The central thesis... is the "atom totality" theory. This states that the structure of...
Archimedes Plutonium | Spherical Bullshit - WordPress.com Spherical Bullshit https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com › 2013/02/06 Feb 6, 2013 — Plutonium simply thinks superdeterminism is the only way quantum theory can make sense. And given his horrific understanding of the spherical harmonics of an ... via PZ Myers....
AP writes: It was great that the Internet opened up Science to the entire world. Only trouble is, most people who think they know science will come to find out, all they know is their childish memorizations and their empty head of logical marbles.
Archimedes Plutonium | Spherical Bullshit - WordPress.com Spherical Bullshit https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com › 2013/02/06 Feb 6, 2013 — Plutonium simply thinks superdeterminism is the only way quantum theory can make sense. And given his horrific understanding of the spherical harmonics of an ... via PZ Myers
AP writes: It was great that the Internet opened up Science to the entire world. Only trouble is, most people who think they know science will come to find out, all they know is their childish memorizations and their empty head of logical marbles.
PZ Myers, is it not super stupid to talk about physics when you are only a biologist, or even get involved with a physics conversation?????????? Super stupid
PZ Myers
PZ Myers in London in 2006
Born
Paul Zachary Myers
March 9, 1957 (age 68)
Kent, Washington, U.S.
Education
University of Washington (BS)
University of Oregon (PhD)
Known for
Pharyngula blog
Scientific career
Fields
Evolutionary developmental biology
Institutions
University of Minnesota Morris
--- end quoting Wikipedia on PZ Myers
AP: Why is not Adam, or the UMM biologist PZ Myers not wearing their glued on walrus tusks for their picture taking?
Just like David Attenborough saber toothed tiger Smilodon??
Adam D'Angelo Caltech, Charlie Cheever-Harvard on Univ Glasgow Mark Barton
Quora (symbol logo) Quora Quora https://www.quora.com › What-effect-did-Archimedes-... Aug 26, 2013 — Plutonium is significant because its isotope, plutonium-239, is a slow nuclear fuel. A slow nuclear fuel will likely undergo nuclear fission if ... 4 answers · Top answer: Everyone was trying to figure out this new medium, the internet, what it was for.
Mark Barton on Katherine Grainger, Paul Soler, Andy Blue, Sheila Rowan, James Hough, Graham Woan, Martin Hendry, Giles Hammond, Ik Siong Heng, Harry Ward, Iain Martin, Sonja Franke-Arnold, Miles Padgett, Richard Bowman, Graham Gibson, Sara Restuccia, Simon Peter Mekhail, Chris Bouchard, Christoph Englert, Judd Harrison, David Miller, Sophie Renner, Declan Diver, Lyndsay Fletcher, Norman Gray, Iain Hannah...Peter Bussey, Michael Campbell, David Crooks, who cannot tell apart a oval from a ellipse, with their slant cut of Cone as ellipse which is impossible for the cone has but one axis of symmetry.
Berkeley physics & chemistry
UC Berkeley,Dr.Steven Chu,Dr.Gilbert N. Lewis,Dr.Harold Urey,Dr.William F.Giauque,Dr.Glenn T. Seaborg,Dr.Willard Libby,Dr.Melvin Calvin,Dr. Jennifer Doudna,Dr.Reinhard Genzel,Dr.Yuan T. Lee,Dr.Saul Perlmutter,Dr.Randy Schekman (physiology)
Berkeley physics & chemistry
UC Berkeley,
Dr.Eric Betzig (chem), Dr.George Smoot,Dr.Barry Barish,Dr.David Wineland,Dr.John Mather, Dr.Alan Heeger (chem), Dr.Robert Laughlin, Dr.Steven Chu,Dr.Gilbert N. Lewis,Dr.Harold Urey,Dr.William F.Giauque,Dr.Glenn T. Seaborg,Dr.Willard Libby,Dr.Melvin Calvin,Dr. Jennifer Doudna,Dr.Reinhard Genzel,Dr.Yuan T. Lee,Dr.Saul Perlmutter,Dr.Randy Schekman (physiology)
Dr.John Clarke, Dr.Marvin Cohen, Dr.Michael Crommie, Dr.Joel Fajans, Dr. Roger Falcone, Dr.Mary Gaillard, Dr.Gabriel Gann, Dr.Naomi Ginsberg, Dr.Heather Gray, Dr.Hartmut Haeffner, Dr.Lawrence Hall, Dr.Oskar Hallatschek, Dr.Wick Haxton, Dr.Frances Hellman, Dr.Petr Horava, Dr.Barbara Jacak, Dr.Bob Jacobsen, Dr.Steven Kahn, Dr.Dan Kasen, Dr.Edgar Knobloch, Dr.Shimon Kolkowitz, Dr.Yury Kolomensky, Dr.Alessandra Lanzara, Dr.Stephen Leone, Dr.Eric Ma,... the physics faculty reads almost as long as a army of soldiers, please forgive any names that AP left out, please forgive...
Robert J. Kolker and Richard A. Muller Berkeley failing in all facets of science--- failures in science-- so stupid they cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse.
No-one in Old Math could do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. This is a fine example of Fallacy of Universal quantifier. Because without consistency and completeness there is no universal quantification.
In calculus, polynomials are the only valid functions.
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS (textbook in the making-- journal textbook): journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
This is the one textbook in two volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education needs, 5 year old to 26 year old through all of mathematics that is needed to do science. Every other math book is incidental to this one. And the student needs this math book for all their math and science needs. A one-size-fits-all for mathematics study.
I call it a journal-textbook because Internet offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost continuously. A unique first in education textbooks-- continual overnight editing.
What prompted me to write this textbook is that the Old Math is too much filled with error, mistakes and just sheer nonsense. In the early 2000s I wrote about 5 editions of Correcting Math textbooks and about 9 editions of True Calculus, but then I got so fed up and tired with all the mistakes of Old Math, that I decided the best route to go is throw out all of Old Math and start anew.
Now I wrestled with publishing a "rough first edition" now, or to wait about a year in polishing the textbook and then publish it. I wrestled with this and decided I have enough of a skeleton text, that I can continually polish with overnight editing, and that it would be of more benefit to readers to have this skeleton text and watch and wait as the months and years go by to see the continual polishing take affect. So I decided tonight to publish, for the benefit of many to see, rather than wait a year to see a polished text. I may have made a mistake in this decision for I do not want to turn off anyone to math. But maybe I made the correct decision to allow others to see this book a full year ahead of schedule. Bon Voyage!
Part 11, How Logic easily improves our lives.
33) Improving your life with applying Logic.
Archimedes Plutonium Dec 5, 2025, 7:53:51 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.
I had a terrible miserable day today, Fri 5Dec and let me recount the horrible problem.
So I was at the Bank depositing a check, and the teller asked for my credit card to pull up the account. And transaction over with; I wanted to speak to someone else.
I departed the bank and spent time with other business, finally at the grocery store before heading for home.
There I was at the checkout and usually pay by credit card. Pulled out my wallet and no credit card in the pocket I usually keep it.
PANIC, PANIC Attack hit me.
My mind last recalled the clerk at bank needed it. So fast, pay for the groceries and I have 6 minutes to get back to the Bank and enquire, before the bank closes. Will I have to null and void the card????
I managed to get to the Bank in time, all under this Panic Attack, and find no credit card inside. Then it hits me, I may have slipped the card into my briefcase before talking with the banker about some other issue.
Any day that I lose a credit card, or a wallet, is a Panic Royale. Even if I lose a pair of glasses, or especially keys causes Panic.
And in my life I built up a system of where---- Constant Good Rules of Behavior to avoid Panic Attacks.
Apparently I had not built a Good Rule for when I give my credit card to a clerk.
Good Rule of Behavior to Add to my Inventory
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whenever giving my credit card to someone else. Do not wait for the end of the transaction for there can be many many side show distractions before getting my card back--- to receive card and receipt back. No, before the transaction is complete, insist on having the credit card back, and where I slip it back inside its pocket in my wallet.
So this rule requires me to postpone all interaction, until the card is safely back inside the wallet. I simply say to the clerk or teller-- are you finished with the cards (sometimes the drivers license)?????
If I had had such a Rule before today, I would not have __not gone into a Panic Attack__ and ruined the day.
Funny, when I was young I kept losing expensive pens, and then I had the Rule built that my pen must be clipped to the wallet I carry, and ever since, I have not lost my pen.
Another rule I built goes back to when I was real young in my teenager years. My father and I were on vacation and unfortunately locked the car with keys inside. We had to call for a locksmith. From that experience, I built the Rule that always have an extra key inside the wallet. For chances are, that you will not lock the car keys and the wallet both at the same time inside the car. And it worked several times in the past where the wallet comes to the rescue.
I still have not found a good rule for _____not losing my glasses_____. But working on it.
So yes, during my life, I built up these rules to keep me out of trouble. Especially on losing wallet, credit cards, drivers license, Driving a car, losing keys, losing tools etc.
But still I manage to lose things, even momentarily.
For my wallet--- the rule is never ever set the wallet down. Always have the wallet in my pocket or in my hands, a secure pocket for one time I was pickpocketed, and now my wallet is always in a secure pocket-- tight or velcro latch. If not in pocket, it can be in hand, but nowhere else.
Now for my credit card or drivers license--- If I give either one to someone such as a clerk-- the focus of attention will be not the transaction but rather insisting the clerk return the card before completing transaction and to where I put the card back into my wallet.
I have a unique rule for tools. Often I need multiple tools for a job, and so I count the tools before the job, and count them after the job. If I lose a tool, my rule is that I have to buy a new one the next time I go to the store. This rule makes it painful to lose a tool as I have to fork over money to replace the lost tool. When young I would have multiple tools at a work site and throw them down after finished with a tool, and often forget I had thrown them down, ending up as losing or rusted tool.
Life in General is nothing but a Series of solving problems, and a good life is one in which, I do not add more problems due to my careless behavior.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules for driving especially important as you can be killed or crippled
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking of Rules for driving. When I grew up as a driver in the 1970s onward, traffic was not much of a problem, but as more traffic increased through the decades, driving became more and more scary, especially on Expressways.
A recent addition to my Rules on Driving involves changing lanes on the expressway. I cannot think of a more horrifying problem in driving ---- you are on a expressway near a big city and it is rush hour to get to work and your exit is one or two exits ahead-- but traffic is stopped and long lines. And you are in the wrong lane. Do you attempt to switch lanes or miss your exit????
My rule here is stay in your lane and if necessary take the wrong exit.
An accident on the Expressway easily can kill you or cripple you for life.
In my entire life, I had but one accident. A year or two after getting a drivers license I had an accident at a stop sign where I ran into the rear of a car and dented their fender. No bodily injury, but enough to tell me to start making rules on driving. Ever since then, I was accident free. The key rule in driving is drive --- Slow and drive defensively. Aggressive driving will increase the chances of accident.
Lane changing and speeding is for those who will be in an accident.
I must comment on the fact that I own an electric car hybrid. And they are easy to speed in for they make no noise as you accelerate. Electric vehicles have an easy time of acceleration as compared to the gas powered engine, and so they take some time to adjust to.
34) Applying Logic to our modern ever increasing digital world so you can be safer and more secure.
A few years back I was browsing Amazon for a product when out of nowhere, my phone rings saying I have been "hacked into" and giving me instructions on how to remove the hacker. I instinctively knew this was a criminal hacker on the line, probably sitting in a foreign country trying to embezzle people's money. So, most prudent people would hang up from there. I stayed on the line talking to this criminal trying to see what was the way he operated to ruin and steal money from me. I quickly understood what was essential for him to destroy and ruin my iphone, bank accounts was to find an APP, an application to my browser. In other words, I was safe so long as I had No Apps. If I had had an App, this criminal organization would have entered my bank account, emptied it.
To put it pictorially, the more Apps a person has in his/her phone, the more doors of entry to destroy your bank accounts--- a Conjecture on my part.
Now, I need to talk to Computer Scientists to raise that conjecture to be a known science fact. That the more Apps you have to a Browser, the more vulnerable you are to destroying your finances on computer.
Face it, it is enormously difficult to live in a modern world without Internet access. And that alone can be challenging. But the basic browser is able to allow a person to be on the Internet, without being ruined and destroyed by criminal hackers. I have managed to be on the Internet since 1993 with never once, not once using a Application.
But I need to speak with Computer Scientists before I come to the full conclusion that the more Applications you have--- the more vulnerable you are to being financially ruined.
2.) The Nightmare that is password, passcode, and other entrees.
I am not alone in voicing this gripe and complaint of the memory of your passcode, password and other names given to entry. Starting in 1993 when I was 43 years old, it never dawned on me that this would be a obnoxious bane in living life. For I never imagined that I would need several computers and many several organizations wanting a password. As the years went by from 1993, the password security system of computers kept increasing in demands. And sometimes I used a specific password only once in 5 years and lost the slip I remembered them from. Passwords became a total nightmare. And today have to remember just a few of them.
I keep a paper list of my current passwords.
I am trying the best I can to figure out a system the replaces password. Maybe the fingerprint system will eventually do the trick.
Either my memory is failing or my subtraction is failing, for I am 43 years old by 1993.
bane in living life. For I never imagined that I would need several computers and many several organizations wanting a password. As the years went by from 1993, the password security system of computers kept increasing in demands. And sometimes I used a specific password only once in 5 years and lost the slip I remembered them from. Passwords became a total nightmare. And today have to remember just a few of them.
I keep a paper list of my current passwords.
I am trying the best I can to figure out a system the replaces password. Maybe the fingerprint system will eventually do the trick.
Yesterday I heard about this criminal device called a Skimmer which is slipped over a keyboard for credit cards. The Skimmer then automatically records your card details to where a criminal can then make purchases using your card.
So I am logically thinking, that why not have a Skimmer Key on Computers, to where if any password is wanted just hit the Skimmer key for the fingerprint. And should a Bank or Finance or Government or Police want to know if it is you, just press the Skimmer key for fingerprint assurance.
In other words, turning a criminal activity back around 180 degrees to be of beneficial use.
35) What to expect in Advanced Logic, my #368 book of science.
Well, expect first off, a proof that the 4 simple logic connectors of AND, OR, Equal-Not, If-->Then have just 4 Laws of Inference, laws of equality. Or if we take all 6 logic connectors by including Existential and Universal quantifiers that there exists only 6 Laws of Inference.
Now I did mention in this textbook that in classrooms across the world, will be many geniuses of Logic who in their youth are so smart that they can do a proof of the 4 for 4 connectors and 6 for 6 connectors. I am confident of that.
Secondly, Occam's Razor is such a fantastic tool to use in science and logic. Here I give a proof that Occam's Razor is a Law of Inference. I want to start Advanced Logic with clarity on one of the most fantastic tools of Logic--- Occam's Razor. What is Occam's Razor? Glad you asked. Occam's Razor is the concept that the most easiest and simple explanation for a chain of events, usually is the true explanation.
zzzzzzzzzz
plutonium dot archimedes at gmail dot com. Looking for a College or University press to hardcover publish all 366+ AP books of science, likely to become 500-600 maybe even 700 books by the time I die. E-books are too prone to unbalanced-unhinged censor-editors, who can easily make your books vanish by pulling a switch. Science should never have gatekeepers, who thwart access to true science.
| /
| /
|/______ hardcover or paperbackArchimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 6, 2026, 5:47:52 PM (10 days ago) Jan 6
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Just when I thought I was breezing and sailing through the Mess of Logic, a big snag rolls up.
P Q P OR Q where dT stands for a statement that has a partial truth
The aphorism for the AND connector is "Do not throw the baby out in the bathwater" to help determine AND truth table TTTF, not TFFF.
However when we come to OR truth table we need a aphorism to help in that case. Here the problem is in throwing out the true valued statement and keeping the false statement. So the same aphorism applies Do not keep the dirty bath water and throw out the baby.
All of this hardship and problem is because Old Logic recognizes only absolute truth and absolute falsehood, when there is the possibility of partial truth and partial falsehood.
I am going to have to start all over again on #366 and #367 and I must include a High School textbook on Logic.
Truth Tables are mostly a guide, but then because they do not allow for partial truth or partial falsehood, truth tables end up being a barrier to truth and reality.
What will overcome this barrier is the physics concept of the Deciding Experiment. That translates into the concept of the dT which represents a partial truth in Truth tables, especially the OR.
OR truth table in New Logic
P Q P OR Q where dT stands for a statement that has a partial truth
T T F
T dT T
dT T T
F F F
T dT T
dT T T
F F F
With the AND connector, I could get away fully with just a binary truth value of absolute truth and absolute false. But the OR connector stops all of that and forces a partial truth value to all the connectors.
The Physics DECIDING EXPERIMENT is the justification for truth tables Necessarily Require a partial truth value of dT.
AP, King of Science.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages