info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
AP's 138th book-- Correcting the Error filled DeMorgan laws of Logic
95 views
Skip to first unread message
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 25, 2020, 4:03:09 PM9/25/20
to
This will be the 4th book in AP's Logic series of books.
#6-1, 5th published book
Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
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 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). 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.
Length: 65 pages
File Size: 764 KB
Print Length: 65 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
#6-2, 27th published book
Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic
Equal+Not
T = T = T
T = ~F = T
F = ~T = T
F = F = T
If--> then
T --> T = T
T --> F = F
F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)
And
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F
Or
T or T = F
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F
Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication, If-->then is division, And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, 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.
Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:
| | ~p
| |---
| | .
| | .
| | q
| | .
| | .
| | ~q
| p
Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.
Cover Picture: I like my covers to be like as if a blackboard in school to connect with students. This is a picture of the above Reductio Ad Absurdum, as a student or teacher would write in their notes or blackboard.
Length: 82 pages
File Size: 1175 KB
Print Length: 82 pages
Publication Date: March 23, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07Q18GQ7S
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
#6-3, 100th published book
Pragmatism, the only Philosophy I loved // Logic series, book 3 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium
I need to give credit to the philosophy of Pragmatism, the only philosophy that I know of that is based on science. Credit for my discovery of the Plutonium Atom Totality in 1990, came in part, partially due to a passage of the Pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce in Peirce's Cosmology:
Peirce's The Architecture of Theories...
...would be a Cosmogonic Philosophy. It would suppose that in the beginning - infinitely remote - there was a chaos of unpersonalized feeling, which being without connection or regularity would properly be without existence. This feeling, sporting here and there in pure arbitrariness, would have
started the germ of a generalizing tendency. Its other sportings would be evanescent, but this would have a growing virtue. Thus, the tendency to habit would be started; and from this, with the other principles of evolution, all the regularities of the universe would be evolved. At any time, however, an element of pure chance survives and will remain until the world becomes an absolutely perfect, rational, and symmetrical system, in which mind is at last crystallized in the infinitely distant future.
--- end quoting Peirce's Cosmology ---
But also I must give credit to Pragmatism for making it a philosophy one can actually live their lives by, for living a life of pragmatic solutions to everyday problems that occur in my life. A case in point example is now in March 2020, being the pragmatist that I am, and enduring the 2020 corona virus pandemic. No other philosophy that I know of is so keenly in tune with a person, the surrounding environment and how to live.
Cover Picture: is my photograph of the two books on Pragmatism that I almost looked upon as my-bibles-of-living. The small paperback was bought by me at Univ Cincinnati when I was a 1st year student 1969 not for any course, but my own self study reading, for I was curious of what philosophies existed. The second one I purchased at Melbourne Univ, 1974, when I was a math teacher in Australia. So good was the 1969 book that I bought the 1974 book, not knowing until 1990 how crucial and critical was this book with its Peirce's Cosmology.
Length: 111 pages
Product details
File Size: 800 KB
Print Length: 111 pages
Publication Date: March 14, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B085X863QW
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
#6-1, 5th published book
Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
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 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). 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.
Length: 65 pages
File Size: 764 KB
Print Length: 65 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
#6-2, 27th published book
Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic
Equal+Not
T = T = T
T = ~F = T
F = ~T = T
F = F = T
If--> then
T --> T = T
T --> F = F
F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)
And
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F
Or
T or T = F
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F
Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication, If-->then is division, And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, 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.
Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:
| | ~p
| |---
| | .
| | .
| | q
| | .
| | .
| | ~q
| p
Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.
Cover Picture: I like my covers to be like as if a blackboard in school to connect with students. This is a picture of the above Reductio Ad Absurdum, as a student or teacher would write in their notes or blackboard.
Length: 82 pages
File Size: 1175 KB
Print Length: 82 pages
Publication Date: March 23, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07Q18GQ7S
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
#6-3, 100th published book
Pragmatism, the only Philosophy I loved // Logic series, book 3 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium
I need to give credit to the philosophy of Pragmatism, the only philosophy that I know of that is based on science. Credit for my discovery of the Plutonium Atom Totality in 1990, came in part, partially due to a passage of the Pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce in Peirce's Cosmology:
Peirce's The Architecture of Theories...
...would be a Cosmogonic Philosophy. It would suppose that in the beginning - infinitely remote - there was a chaos of unpersonalized feeling, which being without connection or regularity would properly be without existence. This feeling, sporting here and there in pure arbitrariness, would have
started the germ of a generalizing tendency. Its other sportings would be evanescent, but this would have a growing virtue. Thus, the tendency to habit would be started; and from this, with the other principles of evolution, all the regularities of the universe would be evolved. At any time, however, an element of pure chance survives and will remain until the world becomes an absolutely perfect, rational, and symmetrical system, in which mind is at last crystallized in the infinitely distant future.
--- end quoting Peirce's Cosmology ---
But also I must give credit to Pragmatism for making it a philosophy one can actually live their lives by, for living a life of pragmatic solutions to everyday problems that occur in my life. A case in point example is now in March 2020, being the pragmatist that I am, and enduring the 2020 corona virus pandemic. No other philosophy that I know of is so keenly in tune with a person, the surrounding environment and how to live.
Cover Picture: is my photograph of the two books on Pragmatism that I almost looked upon as my-bibles-of-living. The small paperback was bought by me at Univ Cincinnati when I was a 1st year student 1969 not for any course, but my own self study reading, for I was curious of what philosophies existed. The second one I purchased at Melbourne Univ, 1974, when I was a math teacher in Australia. So good was the 1969 book that I bought the 1974 book, not knowing until 1990 how crucial and critical was this book with its Peirce's Cosmology.
Length: 111 pages
Product details
File Size: 800 KB
Print Length: 111 pages
Publication Date: March 14, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B085X863QW
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 25, 2020, 9:15:10 PM9/25/20
to
AP's 138th book-- Correcting the Error filled DeMorgan laws of Logic
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
4:15 PM (4 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
AP's 138th book-- Correcting the Error filled DeMorgan laws of Logic
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 25, 2020, 3:03 PM
to sci.math
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
4:32 PM (4 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now in our mind's eye we can easily begin to see why DeMorgan Law is absurdly wrong. The one law of
the Negation of a Disjunction is the conjunction of the negations. In symbols that is Not(A or B) = notA and notB.
Now at first glance, a neophyte would say or think that such would be true.
But if we walk through that piece of Logic we run into difficulty real fast.
Not(A or B) is analyzed as saying we start, before applying the "Not", with a choice of A is true or B is true, but not both. Now we apply the "Not". By applying the "Not" part to either A is true or B is true. Would say that neither A is true and neither B is true. That means both A is false and B is false.
Now we analyze and examine the right side of the equation as notA and notB. Here we start with A, and B. And here the ambiguity sets in immediately and tells us that a sentence of (notA and notB) are totally ambiguous for A could be either T or F, and so also B could be either T or F and thus the sentence (notA and notB) have no relationship to the left side of the equation with its sentence of Not(A or B).
Here I am going to have to check into the history of Boole, Jevons and DeMorgan and see whether Boole and Jevons decided to make the AND be TFFF and OR be TTTF, just in order to appease DeMorgan's Law is upheld. I say that because the three were contemporaries, and possibly they cheated on logical truth just to appease one another, and keep themselves happy.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
7:54 PM (19 minutes ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Also, here I am going to have to check into the history of physics with application from DeMorgan Laws of Logic. Because if DeMorgan Laws are a total piece of trash, those in physics would have found out.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
8:12 PM (now)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Instead of quantum mechanics finding that the DeMorgan laws of logic are fake, a few fools use the laws.
So I am in total new territory of logic.
I had thought that since Quantum Mechanics had a question about commutativity not upheld, they would have found that DeMorgan law does not uphold. Of course the AP Model of the atom upholds commutativity and it is the Uncertainty Principle of QM that is in error.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
4:15 PM (4 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
AP's 138th book-- Correcting the Error filled DeMorgan laws of Logic
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 25, 2020, 3:03 PM
to sci.math
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
4:32 PM (4 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now in our mind's eye we can easily begin to see why DeMorgan Law is absurdly wrong. The one law of
the Negation of a Disjunction is the conjunction of the negations. In symbols that is Not(A or B) = notA and notB.
Now at first glance, a neophyte would say or think that such would be true.
But if we walk through that piece of Logic we run into difficulty real fast.
Not(A or B) is analyzed as saying we start, before applying the "Not", with a choice of A is true or B is true, but not both. Now we apply the "Not". By applying the "Not" part to either A is true or B is true. Would say that neither A is true and neither B is true. That means both A is false and B is false.
Now we analyze and examine the right side of the equation as notA and notB. Here we start with A, and B. And here the ambiguity sets in immediately and tells us that a sentence of (notA and notB) are totally ambiguous for A could be either T or F, and so also B could be either T or F and thus the sentence (notA and notB) have no relationship to the left side of the equation with its sentence of Not(A or B).
Here I am going to have to check into the history of Boole, Jevons and DeMorgan and see whether Boole and Jevons decided to make the AND be TFFF and OR be TTTF, just in order to appease DeMorgan's Law is upheld. I say that because the three were contemporaries, and possibly they cheated on logical truth just to appease one another, and keep themselves happy.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
7:54 PM (19 minutes ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Also, here I am going to have to check into the history of physics with application from DeMorgan Laws of Logic. Because if DeMorgan Laws are a total piece of trash, those in physics would have found out.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
8:12 PM (now)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Instead of quantum mechanics finding that the DeMorgan laws of logic are fake, a few fools use the laws.
So I am in total new territory of logic.
I had thought that since Quantum Mechanics had a question about commutativity not upheld, they would have found that DeMorgan law does not uphold. Of course the AP Model of the atom upholds commutativity and it is the Uncertainty Principle of QM that is in error.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 25, 2020, 9:26:15 PM9/25/20
to
Several Strong Arguments that the DeMorgan Laws are fake logic.
1) We cannot end up with 10 OR 2 = 12 as sound logic, for it is always 10 AND 2 = 12 and that forces the truth table of AND be TTTF, where just one sentence of truth in a large list of sentences makes the entire list have a true value. And forces OR to be FTTF truth table. Then the DeMorgan law falls to pieces in an instant.
2) Logic has 4 primitive Connectors of Equal-Not, If--> Then, AND , OR. Some people are ignorant enough to never realize the difference between primitive axioms or connectors and that of "derived secondary connectors". If DeMorgan Law was true, means we can dismiss either the AND or the OR, and derive all of Logic on just 3 connectors. Turns out that math has 4 connectors and we cannot dismiss any one of those 4. Turns out that Logic is the same blue-print. We cannot dismiss any of the 4 primitive connectors. That implies DeMorgan's Law is a fakery. And we can easily see this in the fact that of the 4 primitive connectors, Equal-Not is TTTT, AND is TTTF, OR is FTTF, and If-->Then is TFUU. The connectors of Logic have to be so constructed that one has all T's, one has 3 T's, one has 2 T's and one has 1 T. That feature or characteristic ensures all four connectors are primitive and cannot be derived from the others.
But a person needs a logical mind in the first place to see that of Logic, something that DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons, Turing and all the logicians since Boole never had a logical mind.
AP
1) We cannot end up with 10 OR 2 = 12 as sound logic, for it is always 10 AND 2 = 12 and that forces the truth table of AND be TTTF, where just one sentence of truth in a large list of sentences makes the entire list have a true value. And forces OR to be FTTF truth table. Then the DeMorgan law falls to pieces in an instant.
2) Logic has 4 primitive Connectors of Equal-Not, If--> Then, AND , OR. Some people are ignorant enough to never realize the difference between primitive axioms or connectors and that of "derived secondary connectors". If DeMorgan Law was true, means we can dismiss either the AND or the OR, and derive all of Logic on just 3 connectors. Turns out that math has 4 connectors and we cannot dismiss any one of those 4. Turns out that Logic is the same blue-print. We cannot dismiss any of the 4 primitive connectors. That implies DeMorgan's Law is a fakery. And we can easily see this in the fact that of the 4 primitive connectors, Equal-Not is TTTT, AND is TTTF, OR is FTTF, and If-->Then is TFUU. The connectors of Logic have to be so constructed that one has all T's, one has 3 T's, one has 2 T's and one has 1 T. That feature or characteristic ensures all four connectors are primitive and cannot be derived from the others.
But a person needs a logical mind in the first place to see that of Logic, something that DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons, Turing and all the logicians since Boole never had a logical mind.
AP
Me
Sep 25, 2020, 9:42:59 PM9/25/20
to
On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 3:26:15 AM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons, Turing and all the logicians since Boole never had
> a logical mind.
Yeah, sounds reasonable!
> DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons, Turing and all the logicians since Boole never had
> a logical mind.
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 25, 2020, 10:22:02 PM9/25/20
to
What is Dan Christensen even doing in sci.math with his 10 OR 2 = 12, for he makes all of Canada look like nattering nutter fools.
5 views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
8:35 PM (1 hour ago)
Archimedes Plutonium
to
Title says it all, that this worthless mindrot Bully has posted long enough of his mindless wasteland of science, math and logic. Time to kick the bully down the road and out of sci.math.
Dan Christensen
Sep 26, 2020, 12:37:14 AM9/26/20
to
On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 4:03:09 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> This will be the 4th book...
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science
AP is a malicious troll who really, REALLY wants you to fail in school just like he must have so long ago (in the 60's?). Then he would like to recruit you to his sinister Atom God Cult of Failure. Think I'm making this up? IN HIS OWN WORDS:
AP's fake math that can only be designed to promote failure in schools:
“Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
--June 29, 2020 *** NEW ***
“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015
“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015
“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015
“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015
“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018
“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019
“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.” (Actually, sin(45 degrees) = 0.707. tan(45 degrees) = 1.)
--May 31, 2019
AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:
“New Logic
AND
--November 9, 2019
According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is right-triangle.
--December 11, 2019
AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:
"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]"
--November 9, 2017
And if that wasn't weird enough...
AP's sinister Atom God Cult
“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994
“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019
“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
> This will be the 4th book...
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science
AP is a malicious troll who really, REALLY wants you to fail in school just like he must have so long ago (in the 60's?). Then he would like to recruit you to his sinister Atom God Cult of Failure. Think I'm making this up? IN HIS OWN WORDS:
AP's fake math that can only be designed to promote failure in schools:
“Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
--June 29, 2020 *** NEW ***
“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015
“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015
“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015
“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015
“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018
“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019
“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.” (Actually, sin(45 degrees) = 0.707. tan(45 degrees) = 1.)
--May 31, 2019
AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:
“New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F”
T & F = T
F & T = T
--November 9, 2019
According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is right-triangle.
--December 11, 2019
AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:
"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]"
--November 9, 2017
And if that wasn't weird enough...
AP's sinister Atom God Cult
“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994
“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019
“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 26, 2020, 1:54:04 AM9/26/20
to
Alright, let me build another strong argument for having AND be TTTF and OR be FTTF.
3) Argument (3) builds on the fact that OR of Old Logic seemed to have two forms of OR. And if anyone in their "sane and right minds" would know that Logic cannot have two competing connectors. That one of them is contradictory to the other 3 connectors. The same can be said of mathematics, we cannot have two different forms of "subtraction". Where one subtraction is what we are all familar with, but suppose some lolly-dullard wants to have a subtraction that includes adding 1 also. For example we have 10 - 4 = 6, but this lolly-dullard says that 10-4 = 7 after you add the 1. Now sane rational people can see that a operator in math must have one and only one meaning. But here in Logic, where this sort of shenanigans stupidity should never occur, we have it occurring with OR connector. If we look towards Quantum Mechanics Physics, they only ever use exclusive OR as FTTF. If we look towards Logic education from fool books like Copi and others we see they give equal time to two different ORs, never really questioning that such is stupid silly wrong. And never realizing that the inclusive OR used to do the DeMorgan Law is a contradiction in terms.
So only a silly idiot of Logic would ever dream up or consider a "Either Or, or Both". Because the very minute that you say that out of your mouth, you committed a Contradiction in Terms. Either Or is the OR, but by adding onto that with "Both" means you added onto OR connector the AND connector. And how silly is that? I mean that is insanity, not logic. So what you have done here with inclusive OR is made a connector that is OR+AND.
The moment any Logic textbook starts talking about inclusive OR is the moment they failed Logic and is in Twilight Zone Insanity.
AP
So only a silly idiot of Logic would ever dream up or consider a "Either Or, or Both". Because the very minute that you say that out of your mouth, you committed a Contradiction in Terms. Either Or is the OR, but by adding onto that with "Both" means you added onto OR connector the AND connector. And how silly is that? I mean that is insanity, not logic. So what you have done here with inclusive OR is made a connector that is OR+AND.
The moment any Logic textbook starts talking about inclusive OR is the moment they failed Logic and is in Twilight Zone Insanity.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 26, 2020, 3:14:43 PM9/26/20
to
DISPROOF OF DEMORGAN LAW
DeMorgan's Law, should really be called DeMorgan's fantasy, is easy to disprove. We merely show examples. In South Dakota in 2020 we had a severe drought, as in general much of the region, especially Colorado. When you experience a drought, you think a lot about water and rainfall.
DeMorgan says:
Not (A or B) is equal to (NotA and NotB)
DeMorgan counterexample
(1) A = 2020 is drought
(2) B = 2021 is rain
DeMorgan counterexample which uses inclusive or, says:
(3) Not the case (either 2020 is drought or 2021 is rain or both) is equal to (2020 is rain and 2021 is drought)
DeMorgan counterexample becomes:
(4) Neither 2020 is a drought nor 2021 is rain or 2020 is drought or 2021 is rain, is equal, to 2020 rain and 2021 drought.
Analysis of DeMorgan's mess:
(5) Neither 2020 is a drought nor 2021 is rain or 2020 is drought or 2021 is rain IS EQUAL to 2020 is rain, 2021 is drought, 2020 is drought, 2021 is rain.
DeMorgan concludes:
(6) 2020 is rain, 2020 is drought, 2021 is rain, 2021 is drought IS EQUAL to 2020 is rain, 2021 is drought.
No wonder millions of minds, weak in logic could not see through the paper walls of the totally flawed DeMorgan Law, because the DeMorgan Law reduces to this, all because of Inclusive OR is a sham.
not A + not B + A + B = not A + not B
Millions, weak in logic, could never understand that by using Inclusive OR which is a farce connector, causes there to be 4 terms on the left side of the equation, yet only 2 terms on the right side of the equation.
Other counterexamples can be produced by the train load. For example, Boris Johnson is either in London or in Paris, and since DeMorgan uses inclusive OR to make his law work, Boris is both in London and Paris simultaneously. That counterexample ends up with this.
Boris is not in London, Boris is not in Paris, Boris is not in both London and Paris, Boris is in both London and Paris simultaneously EQUAL to Boris is not in London and Boris is not in Paris.
Yes, millions, millions of minds dabbling in Logic could never figure out that if you use a contraption of Inclusive Or, you fall into a pit of contradiction.
AP
DeMorgan's Law, should really be called DeMorgan's fantasy, is easy to disprove. We merely show examples. In South Dakota in 2020 we had a severe drought, as in general much of the region, especially Colorado. When you experience a drought, you think a lot about water and rainfall.
DeMorgan says:
Not (A or B) is equal to (NotA and NotB)
DeMorgan counterexample
(1) A = 2020 is drought
(2) B = 2021 is rain
DeMorgan counterexample which uses inclusive or, says:
(3) Not the case (either 2020 is drought or 2021 is rain or both) is equal to (2020 is rain and 2021 is drought)
DeMorgan counterexample becomes:
(4) Neither 2020 is a drought nor 2021 is rain or 2020 is drought or 2021 is rain, is equal, to 2020 rain and 2021 drought.
Analysis of DeMorgan's mess:
(5) Neither 2020 is a drought nor 2021 is rain or 2020 is drought or 2021 is rain IS EQUAL to 2020 is rain, 2021 is drought, 2020 is drought, 2021 is rain.
DeMorgan concludes:
(6) 2020 is rain, 2020 is drought, 2021 is rain, 2021 is drought IS EQUAL to 2020 is rain, 2021 is drought.
No wonder millions of minds, weak in logic could not see through the paper walls of the totally flawed DeMorgan Law, because the DeMorgan Law reduces to this, all because of Inclusive OR is a sham.
not A + not B + A + B = not A + not B
Millions, weak in logic, could never understand that by using Inclusive OR which is a farce connector, causes there to be 4 terms on the left side of the equation, yet only 2 terms on the right side of the equation.
Other counterexamples can be produced by the train load. For example, Boris Johnson is either in London or in Paris, and since DeMorgan uses inclusive OR to make his law work, Boris is both in London and Paris simultaneously. That counterexample ends up with this.
Boris is not in London, Boris is not in Paris, Boris is not in both London and Paris, Boris is in both London and Paris simultaneously EQUAL to Boris is not in London and Boris is not in Paris.
Yes, millions, millions of minds dabbling in Logic could never figure out that if you use a contraption of Inclusive Or, you fall into a pit of contradiction.
AP
Michael Moroney
Sep 26, 2020, 4:16:21 PM9/26/20
to
Mindless and worthless creep of Math and logic freak of Physics Archimedes "signifying nothing." Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
>Subject: Re: Example of a Disproof of DeMorgan's Law Re: AP's 138th book--
The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "Mauled Mice rush in pot".
>Subject: Re: Example of a Disproof of DeMorgan's Law Re: AP's 138th book--
The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "Mauled Mice rush in pot".
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 26, 2020, 9:46:58 PM9/26/20
to
The second DeMorgan's Law, which really should be called a fantasy not a law is equally proven wrong.
Not(A and B) = not A or not B.
This is what happens when you have little little minds of logic, trying to do logic, they just fall to pieces in one pile of shit. I am sure if we had had the Internet back in the days of DeMorgan, Boole and Jevons, someone would have sorted those imbeciles, sorted them out before they unleashed their pile of shit that spread around the world.
Not(A and B) = not A or not B.
This is what happens when you have little little minds of logic, trying to do logic, they just fall to pieces in one pile of shit. I am sure if we had had the Internet back in the days of DeMorgan, Boole and Jevons, someone would have sorted those imbeciles, sorted them out before they unleashed their pile of shit that spread around the world.
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 26, 2020, 10:29:11 PM9/26/20
to
On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 8:46:58 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> The second DeMorgan's Law, which really should be called a fantasy not a law is equally proven wrong.
>
> Not(A and B) = not A or not B.
>
So, the real truth tables of logic connectors are these:
> The second DeMorgan's Law, which really should be called a fantasy not a law is equally proven wrong.
>
> Not(A and B) = not A or not B.
>
These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic
Equal+Not
T = T = T
T = ~F = T
F = ~T = T
F = F = T
If--> then
T --> T = T
T --> F = F
F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)
And
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F
Or
T or T = F
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F
Even the physics of the 20th century had more logical brains than all the logicians from DeMorgan and Boole onwards. I say this because the physicists use only Exclusive OR, never the Inclusive OR.
Only a logic shithead would think of combining And with Or to come up with Either..Or.. Or.. Both. Only a logic shithead would think it is acceptable to have Either Or Or Both as a connector. They fooled every logician from 1800s to 1990s except AP and except the physicists.
So, let us put DeMorgan's second fantasy to the test.
Not(A and B) = not A or not B.
Not (A and B)
T T
T F
F T
F F
Apply Boole's mindless AND = TFFF
Not (A and B)
T T T
T F F
F F T
F F F
Now apply "Not"
Not (A and B)
F T T T
T T F F
T F F T
T F F F
Now we do the same for the right side of the equation to see if the ending comes out FTTT.
not A or not B
T T
T F
F T
F F
If the reader is puzzled here, it is to capture all possible arrangements of T and F for A and B, that is all.
Now we apply each "not"
not A or not B
F T F T
F T T F
T F F T
T F T F
Now we apply the OR to the "nots", you see, reader a logic sentence has a ordering that you must obey.
DeMorgan's and Boole's and Jevon's OR was inclusive, as TTTF
not A or not B
F T F F T
F T F T F
T F F F T
T F T T F
And there you have it, once again you have FFFT in both left side and right side of equation. Leading the fool DeMorgan, the fool Boole, the fool Jevons to believe Not(A and B) = not A or not B.
I guarantee you, that if you do Not(A and B) = not A or not B, with the true AND as TTTF and the true OR as FTTF, that your left side will not equal the right side. I already did this for the other DeMorgan fantasy.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 26, 2020, 10:40:29 PM9/26/20
to
Before DeMorgan was corrected by AP, I had drawn a speculation that Boole and Jevons and Turing were gay-homosexual and I wrote a theory as to what homosexuality is caused by a switch in the polarity of the brain circuit wiring where OR is Switched to TTTF and AND the reversal of TFFF. One can easily see a switch of 3 Ts for 3Fs. See my book below. But now I am beginning to strongly suspect that since DeMorgan was around with his error filled two laws, that Boole and Jevons just wanted to appease DeMorgan.
Here we need a historian to try to figure out if the error of AND and OR was due to homosexuality, or due to just a bad error filled appeasement, or perhaps a bit of both.
What causes Homosexuality: a theory// physics-psychology series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
After writing my book: Location of Brain Locus in Brain Locus Theory// physics-psychology series, book 2, I kept making analogies of the Brain Mind to a TV set rather than a radio. And because of recent reports that homosexuality was not a genetic caused condition. I set to look for what can be reversed in a TV that mimics or imitates homosexuality.
If we reverse the electrodes on a deflection coil of a TV, we reverse what appears on the screen.
The best analogy of a physical condition is often the inner workings of that condition.
Cover Picture: My photo of a Google Search of TV deflection coil.
Length: 31 pages
Product details
File Size: 1108 KB
Print Length: 31 pages
Publication Date: December 27, 2019
#31 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#254 in Anatomy Science
#656 in Biology (Kindle Store)
Here we need a historian to try to figure out if the error of AND and OR was due to homosexuality, or due to just a bad error filled appeasement, or perhaps a bit of both.
What causes Homosexuality: a theory// physics-psychology series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
After writing my book: Location of Brain Locus in Brain Locus Theory// physics-psychology series, book 2, I kept making analogies of the Brain Mind to a TV set rather than a radio. And because of recent reports that homosexuality was not a genetic caused condition. I set to look for what can be reversed in a TV that mimics or imitates homosexuality.
If we reverse the electrodes on a deflection coil of a TV, we reverse what appears on the screen.
The best analogy of a physical condition is often the inner workings of that condition.
Cover Picture: My photo of a Google Search of TV deflection coil.
Length: 31 pages
Product details
File Size: 1108 KB
Print Length: 31 pages
Publication Date: December 27, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B0837GSYLN
Language: English
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #470,691 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
#31 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#254 in Anatomy Science
#656 in Biology (Kindle Store)
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 26, 2020, 10:56:36 PM9/26/20
to
And, not only did DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons mess up badly with Inclusive OR, but made double mistakes. Like hitting your head on a pole and then going back and hitting your head a second time.
So the OR of exclusive is Either or, but never both. So that would be FTTF. But along comes DeMorgan, Boole and Jevons and says, let us say Either or, or Both. So they thought the "both" would make only the T,T become T and thus TTTF, but why did they leave F,F alone when they said "both". You see in this mistake of making OR be both OR plus AND, they conveniently forgot to apply the "both" to F,F, and just applied both to T,T. Totally messed up in logic, totally ad hoc.
I do not know why or how such a huge pitfall of error in Logic could have lasted 200 years like it did. Is it that most people " do not care " how they think? Is it that the best minds spend their time in physics, chemistry biology and let the wimp and decrepit minds to logic. Or is it because of AP's upcoming 138th book-- the Global Dumbnification of all human minds. All human minds slowly creeping into the state of dumbnification like a sand trap, due to fossil fuel burning and the global pollution of Fire-CO2 that makes logical thought nigh impossible.
We see this dumbnification in 99.99% of the replies to threads of Usenet.
AP
So the OR of exclusive is Either or, but never both. So that would be FTTF. But along comes DeMorgan, Boole and Jevons and says, let us say Either or, or Both. So they thought the "both" would make only the T,T become T and thus TTTF, but why did they leave F,F alone when they said "both". You see in this mistake of making OR be both OR plus AND, they conveniently forgot to apply the "both" to F,F, and just applied both to T,T. Totally messed up in logic, totally ad hoc.
I do not know why or how such a huge pitfall of error in Logic could have lasted 200 years like it did. Is it that most people " do not care " how they think? Is it that the best minds spend their time in physics, chemistry biology and let the wimp and decrepit minds to logic. Or is it because of AP's upcoming 138th book-- the Global Dumbnification of all human minds. All human minds slowly creeping into the state of dumbnification like a sand trap, due to fossil fuel burning and the global pollution of Fire-CO2 that makes logical thought nigh impossible.
We see this dumbnification in 99.99% of the replies to threads of Usenet.
AP
Michael Moroney
Sep 27, 2020, 12:43:29 AM9/27/20
to
Woodlouse of Math and Bathynomus raksasa of Physics Archimedes "The Delicious Rump Man" Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
>This is what happens when you have little little minds of logic, trying to
>do logic, they just fall to pieces in one pile of shit.
That is of of the best description I've seen yet of your pathetic attempts to
understand logic, Archie!
The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "Rich Tadpole in Museum".
>This is what happens when you have little little minds of logic, trying to
>do logic, they just fall to pieces in one pile of shit.
understand logic, Archie!
The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "Rich Tadpole in Museum".
Michael Moroney
Sep 27, 2020, 12:53:15 AM9/27/20
to
Woodlouse of Math and Bathynomus raksasa of Physics Archimedes "The Delicious Rump Man" Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
>I guarantee you, that if you do Not(A and B) =3D not A or not B, with the
>true AND as TTTF and the true OR as FTTF, that your left side will not equal
the right side. I already did this for the other DeMorgan fantasy.
Of course. That's called "GIGO", or garbage-in, garbage-out. Apply Pluto's
the right side. I already did this for the other DeMorgan fantasy.
garbage "logic" definitions and you'll get garbage out.
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 27, 2020, 2:41:56 AM9/27/20
to
On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 9:29:11 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 8:46:58 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > The second DeMorgan's Law, which really should be called a fantasy not a law is equally proven wrong.
> >
> > Not(A and B) = not A or not B.
> >
Now it is easy to have a counterexample to show the above is fakery.
> On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 8:46:58 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > The second DeMorgan's Law, which really should be called a fantasy not a law is equally proven wrong.
> >
> > Not(A and B) = not A or not B.
> >
A = drought in 2020, B = rain in 2021
Not(A and B) is Not( drought in 2020 and rain in 2021) is rain in 2020 and drought in 2021.
Whereas notA OR not B is rain in 2020 OR drought in 2021 is that of either rain in 2020 or drought in 2021 or both drought in 2020 and rain in 2021.
You see, in the DeMorgan fantasies (not laws) the inclusive-OR causes there to be 4 terms on the disjunction side of the equation and only 2 terms on the conjunction side of the equation. No logician between DeMorgan and AP had a good enough logical brain to sort out the 4 true Connectors of Logic. To do Logic, you have to have a logical brain.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 27, 2020, 3:09:29 AM9/27/20
to
And let us see how mangled is DeMorgan's second fantasy if we use the true connectors of AND = TTTF and OR= FTTF
So, let us put DeMorgan's second fantasy to the test with the true AND and the true OR.
Not(A and B) =?= not A or not B.
The Not(A and B) becomes
Not (A and B)
T T
T F
F T
F F
Apply true AND = TTTF
F F T T
T F F F
Now we do the same for the right side of the equation to see if the ending comes out FFFT. And we can all bet ahead of time that it will not, because these 4 connectors have to be primitive axiom connectors, meaning one cannot derive the other, otherwise, they are not primitive axiom connectors.
not A or not B
T T
T F
F T
F F
If the reader is puzzled here, it is to capture all possible arrangements of T and F for A and B, that is all.
Now we apply each "not"
not A or not B
F T F T
F T T F
T F F T
T F T F
Now we apply the true OR which is FTTF to the "nots", you see, reader, a logic sentence has a ordering that you must obey the ordering.
not A or not B
F T F F T
F T T T F
T F T F T
T F F T F
And sure enough FFFT does not match FTTF. But we have an outstanding result in notA OR not B as a self reflective.
So if we were to do A OR B the same end result happens with notA OR notB
So what we truly have in notA OR notB is that it equals A OR B.
Let us give a modern example of that.
A= apple, B= peach
A OR B is either a apple or a peach is equal to either not a apple or not a peach.
Yes, for there are only two terms on either side of the equation.
What destroys the DeMorgan laws, is the inclusive-OR ends up making four terms on one side of the equation while the AND delivers just two terms.
AP
So, let us put DeMorgan's second fantasy to the test with the true AND and the true OR.
Not(A and B) =?= not A or not B.
The Not(A and B) becomes
Not (A and B)
T T
T F
F T
F F
Not (A and B)
T T T
T T F
T T T
F T T
F F F
F F F
Now apply "Not"
Not (A and B)
F T T T
F T T F
Not (A and B)
F T T T
F F T T
T F F F
Now we do the same for the right side of the equation to see if the ending comes out FFFT. And we can all bet ahead of time that it will not, because these 4 connectors have to be primitive axiom connectors, meaning one cannot derive the other, otherwise, they are not primitive axiom connectors.
not A or not B
T T
T F
F T
F F
If the reader is puzzled here, it is to capture all possible arrangements of T and F for A and B, that is all.
Now we apply each "not"
not A or not B
F T F T
F T T F
T F F T
T F T F
not A or not B
F T F F T
T F T F T
T F F T F
And sure enough FFFT does not match FTTF. But we have an outstanding result in notA OR not B as a self reflective.
So if we were to do A OR B the same end result happens with notA OR notB
So what we truly have in notA OR notB is that it equals A OR B.
Let us give a modern example of that.
A= apple, B= peach
A OR B is either a apple or a peach is equal to either not a apple or not a peach.
Yes, for there are only two terms on either side of the equation.
What destroys the DeMorgan laws, is the inclusive-OR ends up making four terms on one side of the equation while the AND delivers just two terms.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 27, 2020, 3:22:57 AM9/27/20
to
Now let me go back and see if we can make a analogy in mathematics that simulates the error filled OR and AND of Old Logic.
The inclusive-OR of Old Logic, I said was like defining subtraction in math as that of subtract as normal then add 1 to the final result.
True OR is FTTF and is ordinary math subtraction-- pick one of two and discard the other-- subtraction.
But Inclusive-OR as TTTF is fakery and can be likened to math if you subtract as normal then add 1 to the result.
So normal math subtraction such as 9 - 4 = 5, but Inclusive-OR subtraction would be 9-4 = 5 +1 = 6.
Where am I going with this? I am trying to figure out how the hypocrisy of Old Logic could have kept some worthless contraption of Inclusive-OR for 200 years and yet not a single logician understood their folly.
If all mathematicians did a 9-4 = 6 for 200 years, is that feasible? Could such a mistake fly under the radar for 200 years in mathematics, as it most certainly flew under the radar in Logic for 200 years.
I honestly think, not making a comedy joke, but honestly think the reason that Inclusive-OR flew under the radar for 200 years, is because the best scientists go into physics, chemistry, biology, leaving the logicians people firing on 2 cylinders, and not 4 cylinders.
We see it here in sci.math, with dregs like Dan Christensen and Jan Burse.
AP
The inclusive-OR of Old Logic, I said was like defining subtraction in math as that of subtract as normal then add 1 to the final result.
True OR is FTTF and is ordinary math subtraction-- pick one of two and discard the other-- subtraction.
But Inclusive-OR as TTTF is fakery and can be likened to math if you subtract as normal then add 1 to the result.
So normal math subtraction such as 9 - 4 = 5, but Inclusive-OR subtraction would be 9-4 = 5 +1 = 6.
Where am I going with this? I am trying to figure out how the hypocrisy of Old Logic could have kept some worthless contraption of Inclusive-OR for 200 years and yet not a single logician understood their folly.
If all mathematicians did a 9-4 = 6 for 200 years, is that feasible? Could such a mistake fly under the radar for 200 years in mathematics, as it most certainly flew under the radar in Logic for 200 years.
I honestly think, not making a comedy joke, but honestly think the reason that Inclusive-OR flew under the radar for 200 years, is because the best scientists go into physics, chemistry, biology, leaving the logicians people firing on 2 cylinders, and not 4 cylinders.
We see it here in sci.math, with dregs like Dan Christensen and Jan Burse.
AP
Michael Moroney
Sep 27, 2020, 4:09:44 PM9/27/20
to
Woodlouse of Math and Bathynomus raksasa of Physics Archimedes "The Delicious Rump Man" Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
Subject: Example of a Disproof of DeMorgan's Law Re: AP's 138th book--
>Now it is easy to have a counterexample to show the above is fakery.
>A = drought in 2020, B = rain in 2021
>Not(A and B) is Not( drought in 2020 and rain in 2021) is rain in 2020 and
>drought in 2021.
Your mistake, of course, was using Plutonium's Broken Boolean Logic for "and".
>Whereas notA OR not B is rain in 2020 OR drought in 2021 is that of either
>rain in 2020 or drought in 2021 or both drought in 2020 and rain in 2021.
works just fine. Which is a good thing since without it the computer you are
using to read this wouldn't even work. Or maybe a bad thing since you'll use
that same computer to post a boneheaded response to this.
>To do Logic, you have to have a logical brain.
The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "I summon the Real Cupid".
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 27, 2020, 4:17:18 PM9/27/20
to
Was looking to see if DeMorgan's fantasy laws played any role in Quantum Computing, and found that Quantum Logic of Birkhoff & vonNeumann heavily used DeMorgan fantasy-laws.
Since AP destroyed DeMorgan's fantasy-laws, does that mean AP destroyed Quantum Logic and along with it, Quantum Computing??
AP
Michael Moroney
Sep 27, 2020, 4:21:43 PM9/27/20
to
Mutt of Math and Cur of Physics Archimedes "signifying nothing." Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
>Subject: Re: Example of a Disproof of DeMorgan's Law Re: AP's 138th book--
>So, let us put DeMorgan's second fantasy to the test with the true AND and
>the true OR.
...
>Let us give a modern example of that.
>A= apple, B= peach
Invalid, of course, since boolean logic can only take values of "true" or "false",
not "apple" or "peach". Not without a claim such as "this bag contains ____".
Which I'll assume is what you really meant.
>A OR B is either a apple or a peach is equal to either not a apple or not a peach.
>Yes, for there are only two terms on either side of the equation.
>What destroys the DeMorgan laws, is the inclusive-OR ends up making four terms
>on one side of the equation while the AND delivers just two terms.
Which is why only "TRUE" or "FALSE" are the only allowed values.
The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "Lime Turd Soup Machine".
>Subject: Re: Example of a Disproof of DeMorgan's Law Re: AP's 138th book--
>So, let us put DeMorgan's second fantasy to the test with the true AND and
>the true OR.
>Let us give a modern example of that.
>A= apple, B= peach
not "apple" or "peach". Not without a claim such as "this bag contains ____".
Which I'll assume is what you really meant.
>A OR B is either a apple or a peach is equal to either not a apple or not a peach.
>Yes, for there are only two terms on either side of the equation.
>What destroys the DeMorgan laws, is the inclusive-OR ends up making four terms
>on one side of the equation while the AND delivers just two terms.
The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "Lime Turd Soup Machine".
Michael Moroney
Sep 27, 2020, 10:06:51 PM9/27/20
to
Piñata of sci.math and Punching Bag of sci.physics Archimedes "irrelevant" Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
>Subject: Re: Did AP destroy Quantum Logic along with Quantum Computing when he
>Since AP destroyed DeMorgan's fantasy-laws, does that mean AP destroyed
>Quantum Logic and along with it, Quantum Computing??
You can fantasize about destroying DeMorgan's Law, quantum computing or
anything else you want. The real world won't care. Just don't hurt yourself
while playing 'let's pretend'.
The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "Um, Irish Demon Ape Cult!".
>Subject: Re: Did AP destroy Quantum Logic along with Quantum Computing when he
>Since AP destroyed DeMorgan's fantasy-laws, does that mean AP destroyed
>Quantum Logic and along with it, Quantum Computing??
anything else you want. The real world won't care. Just don't hurt yourself
while playing 'let's pretend'.
The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "Um, Irish Demon Ape Cult!".
Mostowski Collapse
Sep 28, 2020, 5:05:56 PM9/28/20
to
Archimedes Plutonium should be thrown in jail
for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal
Archimedes Plutonium all the times posts people
name lists together with hate speach about these people.
It is highly likely Archimedes Plutonium is
psycho. Archimedes Plutonium belongs in prison not
on usenet for his mind is complete hate hate hate.
Put the creep in jail and throw away the keys.
for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal
Archimedes Plutonium all the times posts people
name lists together with hate speach about these people.
It is highly likely Archimedes Plutonium is
psycho. Archimedes Plutonium belongs in prison not
on usenet for his mind is complete hate hate hate.
Put the creep in jail and throw away the keys.
0 new messages