F=~F – It’s not false though. It’s a generator. A feedback loop. The solution is time and iterations.

 —

I didn’t say it’s opposite. All it needs is a subtle differentiation.

—-

The construct of “pure opposites” requires “law of excluded middle”. / non-contradiction. That’s an assumption. Useful but solely in the realm of useful fiction.

===

You’re assuming that you’ve just created a universe out of nothing containing just that statement.

:: looking around ::: don’t see that universe anywhere.

====

Look at “If and only if”. It’s a pretty strict requirement.

====

No. You just created a universe where symbols are realities. Well, a lot of people do. It’s useful of course.

====

Nah not high. I read ~ as approximation rather than a hard if and only if NOT. The intention of the author *was* for it to be a NOT (which I usually write with !) so I made an error.

Yet I’ll still hold to it, even though it’s not what I intended to show initially.

====

Well, as I pointed out in the OP, when authors reach this point (in this case, author of a Logic of Forms book where he introduces Box notation, which I like) – they usually end up resorting to Buddhist logic where true and false have the potential to be equivalent as its not saddled with non-contradiction assumption.

====

But in newer times you can just go to intuitionist logic to find it.

====

It’s not that equality is meaningless. It’s just too strict for some circumstances.

====

It’s not that equality is meaningless. It’s just too strict for some circumstances.

====

Now that’s a good statement. There has to be a middle that is excluded.

Ok. Let’s talk continuum. A continuum of true –> false –> true.

At which point does false turn into true or true into false?

====

Your equality test requires a foundation of a axiom/proof system.

You already have x is equivalent to x, 5 is equivalent to 5. The equality is built into it before you even run the test.

====

You’ve set up a closed universe. Let’s try an alternate scenario – a different closed universe with time.

You write a program.

10 x=5
20 For y= [set of all natural numbers]
30 if y=5 then goto end
40 print “5 = ” y
50 if x=y then print “YOU JUST BROKE THE ALGORITHM!” : GOTO END
60 print “FALSE”
70 NEXT y
END

What’s changed?

===

Oh it’s close – it’s:
5=1
FALSE
5=2
FALSE
5=3
FALSE
5=4
FALSE
5=6
FALSE
5=7
FALSE

etc.

=====

oh wait – my code was hasty – I was interrupted by real life people while I was writing it trying to talk and do bad pseudo-code at the same time 😛

Anyway this was the anticipated output. I just have to change the “GOTO END” to “next Y”…

or rather, line 30 + 50 which provide a sandwhich would both have to output a message and continue the loop.

===

Humans make distinctions. That’s true. But there’s other options than non-contradiction such as gradients and such.

===

Bring time and iterations.into logic and all the systems of logic and mathematics suddenly changes.

You don’t just have 2=2. It takes something behind that 2=2 to process it, one of those things is time and movement.

====

Can you step outside of the system to declare “2=2” without your very declaration affecting the results? It even takes time to declare it, time to think about it, time to process it.

Even if that processing uses principles of logic, it occurs across time and requires processes that need time to computer, whether it’s in our heads or on a manufactured head like a computer.

=====

This allows for greater flexibility, to where one can declare “TRUE=FALSE” given the proper algorithm to transform one into another.

It’s internally logically consistent because on a computer, it *must* be internally logically consistent in order to compile and execute.

===

Even more amazing to me is Spaghetti code, my favorite choice of style. I just found out that in LabView, being a graphical programming language you can ACTUALLY write you spaghetti code so it looks like spaghetti.. and meatballs?

All internally logically consistent. compiles, runs.

====

—-

I think it’s also why sociopaths are so often logicians in their spare time [often with a certain adoration of Ayn Rand] – it suits their way of thinking. Nurses too. There’s an ethics in nursing that they use which is relative and allows them to justify things like hospice and such. [I’m fine with it as it works for their profession].

====

Logical NOR Eddie. It’s equiavalent to logical NAND

====

The IT people hated me. The business people loved me. One guy in IT ‘got me’ but the rest were all “acronym? acronym acronym lol!”

I understood them but I never let on that I did.

====

That’s the beauty of programming to me. While programmers among themselves can critique aesthetic and style, professors can try to enforce “GOOD PROGRAMMING HABITS”, in the end, does it compile?

Yes.

Does it meet requirements?

Yes.

====

The theory stuff is great and useful and I’m all for it. But if it leads someone into a “logic trap” where they can’t proceed because they hit upon a TRUE == FALSE and don’t know what to do, then it’s caused a human problem.

I think that’s why I’m pursuing these lines of inquiry : I’m sure you’ve met people like this and maybe you’ve been that person yourself (I have at times): stuck in a logic trap. Not in front of a computer but in your own mind.

It bounces around the mirrors of the head and what seems to be a frozen impossible contradiction is in reality iterating, creating heat, confusion, other symptoms. Solder melts. Bad situation.

=====