logic gate (AND, OR, XOR, NOT, NAND, NOR, and XNOR)

Jun 18, 2012 -- 4:55PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

Jun 18, 2012 -- 10:44AM, Jiwe wrote:

Jun 18, 2012 -- 10:24AM, Kwinters wrote:

Jun 18, 2012 -- 10:04AM, Jiwe wrote:

Jun 18, 2012 -- 5:44AM, Daldianus wrote:

If p = (x,y,z) then how can x alone be or represent p? Will you ever explain this?

Already done.

Can you cite the post number?

#296:

Suppose that God is numerically identical to the father, the son and the holy ghost taken collectively, that is G = (F, S, HG).

Now we suppose for a consistency check that G = F (i.e. that God = the Father). Well, then by substitution:

F = (F, S, HG) which by a trivial contraction collapses into:

F = (S, HG).

Or for purely academic interest, it expands into:

F = (G, S, HG) = ((F, S, HG), S, HG) which then trivially collapses into F = F.

So it turns out that by a simple application of plural logic, everything is consistent. I guess a Trinitarian can have her cake and eat it too.

[Jiwe, #295 - emphasis by MdS]

Note that it's a consistency check, not a proof that God exists or that the Trinity is the 'true' doctrine. Just that the assumptions are consistent. This is what Blu incredibly thinks he responded to by redefining the summation function while using standard algebra.

Then I expand on the use of contraction in post 433 since some posters here though their own unfamiliarity with it reflected on my competence. Just incredible...

Here are some basic examples of the contraction principle I used, from other areas of math/logic:

The probability of a proposition or event A is identical to the probability of A&A. I.e.

P(A) = P(A&A). See! One A just dropped out by the magic of common sense!

Another one: Let A be a binary proposition (i.e. it's either true or false). Then the truth value of A is the same as the truth value of the conjunction A and A. For short: A = AA (the rule is called idempotence btw.)

Another: in formal logic every true statement implies every other true statement. So let A and B both be true. Then A = AB! (the truth value of A is the same as the truth value of the conjunction of A and B).

[Jiwe, #432 - emphasis by MdS]

For common mortals (that do not compare to the quite formidable profile that Jiwe can vaunt about himself, that is, including a "Master's in Philosophy (Modal Logic)", "work[ing] on a Ph.D. in the same" and "interest in Combinatorics") expressions like "by a trivial contraction collapses into", "trivially collapses into", "contraction principle" are quite unfamiliar.

Our limit, of course.

So, from the examples that he kindly provided at post #432 (or perhaps others), can Jiwe explain which "contraction principle" did he adopt so that F = (F, S, HG) "collapses" into F = (S, HG)?

All this, of course, bearing in mind that, presumably, F, S, HG are NOT "events" (NOR their probability), NOT "binary propositions" (NOR their truth value), NOT "true statements" (NOR their truth value that ... er ... trivially equals 1 ... whether they are taken by themselves or in conjunction).

To most of us profanes, Jiwe will perhaps excuse us, it all seems like magic ...

... or, to be more accurate, like prestidigitation ...

MdS

Perhaps if you focused less on my profile and my background and more on the logic, it would seem less mysterious. To answer your first question: the variables of a plural logic range over pluralities (and individuals). Before answering the second, let me ask you this: Do you also find this use of contraction mysterious?

God = the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost = God, the Father, God, God, the Son, God, the Holy Ghost, God.

Or this:

James = James, James, James, James,...

That some of the entries on the right hand can be dropped should be obvious, no?

This, btw, should answer Blu's question about summation once and for all as well. At least one can hope...

James

Jun 21, 2012 -- 10:34AM, Jiwe wrote:

Nah, I don't think I want to play with logic gates today. But by all means, you go ahead. And if at some point you tire of it and want to say something relevant to the argument, then please go right ahead.

James

Dear Mr Mathemagician,

Did you ever actually explain how if p =(x,y,z), x alone could be or represent p ?

Yours truly.

Jun 24, 2012 -- 11:54AM, Jiwe wrote:

Dear Mr. Magoo,

Repeatedly!

James

Oh, really? I must have missed it ... but I'm sure you could quickly explain it again? Shouldn't be too difficult for a mathemagician like you?

Because logically it doesn't seem possible.

Jun 24, 2012 -- 1:08PM, Jiwe wrote:

No doubt you missed it yet again. And please don't take what seems impossible to you as a measure of the difficulty of a problem.

Please explain how the following is logically possible and acurate:

p=(x,y,z) therefore x alone is/represents p

Can you do that? At last?

Jun 24, 2012 -- 1:27PM, Daldianus wrote:

Jun 24, 2012 -- 1:08PM, Jiwe wrote:

No doubt you missed it yet again. And please don't take what seems impossible to you as a measure of the difficulty of a problem.

Please explain how the following is logically possible and acurate:

p=(x,y,z) therefore x alone is/represents p

Can you do that? At last?

"God" is the what it is, "Jesus" is the who it is.

"P" could = human (the what)

"x,y,z" could = men, women, children (the who)

Now aren't men human?  Are men women?  Aren't women human?  Are women men?

Therefore x, y, and z = p and x does not equal y or z.

Simple.  Why is it so hard for you?