Boolean Logic cannot deal with infinitely many objects

  • Thread starter Thread starter Organic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logic
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the limitations of Boolean logic and Cantor's diagonalization method when applied to infinite sets. The author argues that Cantor's method cannot account for all combinations in an infinite list, leading to the conclusion that 2^aleph0 equals aleph0, which contradicts established mathematical principles. They present examples of finite combinations and assert that the diagonalization results do not yield new combinations, implying that Boolean logic fails with infinitely many objects. The conversation includes critiques of the author's reasoning and calls for a better understanding of mathematical concepts, particularly Cantor's argument. Ultimately, the thread highlights the complexities and misunderstandings surrounding infinite sets and their treatment in mathematics.
  • #201
do you promise? can i show it to you as i develop it instead of after 3 years?

ok, that's something i had been wondering. i have to recheck what few proofs i have and learn how to prove via ternary logic.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #202
It would certainly be interesting to look at; I'll give you fair warning, though, I'm lazy so I might not be up to doing a lot of research for you. :smile:
 
  • #203
what do you think of the following general plan:
revise all axioms so that whenever there is a well-formed formula W appearing in the axiom that is meant to be true, replace it with
V(W)=T.

for example, if we want A<->B to mean what it usually does, we can say V(A<->B)=T instead of just A<->B. however, if V(A) and V(B) are both M, then V(A<->B)!=T, though that might be a very good thing. so, in other words, replacing A<->B with V(A<->B)=T might be just what i need.

in the axiom of extensionality, there's a statement of the form
\forall x\left( x\in a\leftrightarrow x\in b\right) \rightarrow a=b. in fuzzy logic, these connectives don't mean what they do in binary logic; so let's see what happens when i modify it to this:
\forall x\left( V\left( x\in a\leftrightarrow x\in b\right) =T\right) \rightarrow a=b.

the subtlety is whether or not binary logic must be used when i make a statement like V\left( x\in a\leftrightarrow x\in b\right) =T. with equality, i want it to either be = or !=. that doesn't seem to be a problem. equality is binary whereas the truth value of what's inside the V( ) can be T, M, or F. how does all that sound before i continue?

what i'd like to do is show that this axiom is equivalent to the original axiom. i'll have to think about this.

the main sticking point will be the subsets axiom. how about this:
SS 2. \exists x\forall yV\left( \left( y\in x\leftrightarrow y\in a\wedge A\left( y\right) \right) \right) =T?
this subsets axiom does contradict the universal set axiom.

SS 3. \exists x\forall yV\left( \left( y\in x\leftrightarrow y\in a\wedge A\left( y\right) \right) \right) \neq F.
SS3 does not contradict the universal axiom and V(S&isin;S)=M follows. thus, S could be called a fuzzy subset of U.

the hope is that if the subsets axiom is the only one with any structural difference between it and the original axiom, changing a well formed formula W into V(W)=T in all cases except the SS axiom, in that case changing it to V(W)!=F, then ternary logic will work well.
 
Last edited:
  • #204
I think it might be better to start with ternary logic (e.g. what are the rules of deduction... do we have rules of deduction only for T, or for both T and M? that sort of thing), then move onto ternary ZFC... or maybe a simpler theory first.

Doing it in its own thread might be nice too :smile:
 
  • #205
Infinitely many objects ( {a,b,…} ) cannot be completed, therefore words like ‘all’ or ‘complete’ cannot be used with sets that have infinitely many objects.
i agree that complete can't, but why "all?" the quantifier is as in "all sets". why can we not use this? the "therefore" seems to be a non sequitor: the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

saying the empty set is {} is meaningless. you have to define it and give it properties such as for all sets x x is not an element of {}.

saying the (absolutely) infinite set {__} without properties is also meaningless. you have to say that for all sets x x is an element of {}. in your theory, you also have to show how russell's paradox is avoided.
 
  • #207
Non Euclidian mathematics

Organic,

Well, You are trying to develop here some non Euclidean
mathematics, so exact definition at the beginning is not the point.

but better you read what happande to Hipasus:

http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/pyth3.htm

Happy new year
Moshek
 
  • #208
Hi Moshek,

Can you show some fundamental differences between Euclidean and Non-Euclidean mathematics?
 
  • #209
one difference is that the sum of interior angles in a triangle is not 180 degrees.

an axiom of euclidean geometry is that given a line and a point not on the line, there is 1 line passing through the point that is parallel to the given line. in non euclidean geometry, this can be replaced with a number other than 1.
 
  • #210
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #213
Well it look that Z

is one of the 10.

Thank you Organic.

What do you think?

[zz)]
 
  • #214
Once upon a time a little fish asked his mother: "Mammy, one of my friends told me the that there exist somthing, which its name is 'water', so Mammy where can we find this water?"

Without another point of view on something, it is hard to understand it.

Please read this: http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/PG/Introduction.html

by Prof. Doron Zeilberger.
 
  • #215
I will be honest with you Organic,
I know already Doron and i like his work very much!

I told him that i do not agree
with his direction for the new mathematics.

Computer are only the justification
to create a new mathematics.

What we have to do is the opposite direction
that Doron sagest us here.


Just Look on this point.

.



Moshek
 
  • #216
What is the opposite direction of Prof. Zeilberger?
 
Last edited:
  • #217
Dear Organic,

I will try answer you,
and you are one of the 10
Altow you don’t know at all !
Euclidian mathematics.

But before I do that
please tell me if you don’t mind,
have you been already
in the forest of the monkeys?

Yours
Moshek
 
  • #218
What is the forest of the monkeys?

Is it a mathematical slang?
 
  • #219
If you come to that so high point in mathematics,
(and you also look like a monkey)
I can't believe that you don’t know "The answer".
 
  • #220
From an organic point of view, we never left the forest of the monkeys, because all complexed organism on this planet are DNA products 3 to 4 billion years old.
 
Last edited:
  • #221
Organic,

This is not so good answer, ( like pupil to his teacher...)
I will come back in few day's to your 2 questions.

Maybe you will have until than "The answer"

untill thay you will enjoy to look on:

http://www008.upp.so-net.ne.jp/gps1999



Your's
Moshek
 
  • #222
In my opinion, there is no "The Answer".
 
  • #223
ok

:wink:
 
  • #224
Organic:

here you can find what is the forest of the monkey


The Book: Mount Analogue ( 1959)


René Daumal’s is a twentieth century classic, combining the author’s poetic gifts and philosophical accomplishments in a manner that is both entertaining to read and profound to contemplate. Among other things, this is a marvelous tale in which the narrator/author, one of an intrepid company of eight, sets sail in the yacht Impossible to search for Mount Analogue, the solid, geographically located, albeit hidden, peak that reaches inexorably towards heaven—as Mount Olympus reached to the home of the Greek gods, or Mount Sinai to the presence of Yahweh. Daumal, often described as one of the most gifted literary figures in twentieth-century France, died before the novel was completed, providing an uncanny one-way quality to the journey.


About the Author
René Daumal (1908-44), a follower of the teachings of G.I. Gurdjieff, also studied Sanskrit, philosophy, science, mathematics, and medicine. He was an editor of the French poetry and surrealist review Le Grand Jeu, and the novel Mount Analogue was first published posthumously, in 1952
 
  • #225
Organic

The forest of the monkeys is the base of the Mount Analogue.
I am sory that i take in advance that you know about this place.

Moshek
 
  • #226
Then, I repeat:

From an organic point of view, we never left the forest of the monkeys, because all complex organism on this planet are DNA products 3 to 4 billion years old.

The DNA is the base of this mountain, and the fulfillment of the uniqueness of each complex system (based on DNA) is its private peek.

Shortly speaking, DNA principle is general (or maybe global) but its fulfillment is unique (or maybe local).

Global and Local are complementary concepts of Mount Analogue.


Yours,

Organic
 
  • #227
what if global=local somehow? what i mean is that what if the "opposite" ways of looking at mount analogue are complementary but both inadequate so that a transcendence of the opposites is needed in order to really start up that mountain. rather than see things dualistically as global and local, perhaps there is a way to look at it ONE way that is the RIGHT way. but will doing that be the equivalnt of reaching the base of the mountain, or reaching its peak? i think its base. the peak is not something i can imagine yet.
 
  • #228
Hi phoenixthoth,


What you call ONE is the BALANCE that exists between opposite concepts, giving them the chance to complement each other instead of destroying each other, when they are meeting.

So, the minimal condition for any thinkable system must be at list 0=x-x where the left size (notated as 0) is the balance and the right side is the opposite's communication environment (notated as x-x).

Please pay attention that from this model, (the 0 result of x-x=mutual destruction) XOR (the 0 result of x-x=mutual communication).


Maybe the Meta system is:
Code:
       (the 0 result of x-x = mutual destruction)
? = XOR
       (the 0 result of x-x = mutual communication)
where the answer to ? is given by self-aware systems.



Yours,

Organic
 
Last edited:
  • #229
seems like destruction balances communication in this theory. what if those are the same thing in that sometimes communication is or results in destruction? what i mean by that is the following example:
an intense frequency penetrates a solid object and it shatters.

maybe it's best to not name certain things:
0=x-x is ?

this idea is expressed in group theory that everything (in a group) has an opposite that cancels it.

it also mentions the idea of IDENTITY: 0=0 yet, in a way, 0!=0 because x-x has more information in it than just 0 yet x-x=0 which results in information loss aka destruction through communication.
 
  • #230
Dear Organic and Phoenix:

For being in the forest of the monkey
first you must understand
that we are only the monkey of Euclid.

Yes, "global=local" is a key point to start the travel.
in the sense of it duality on mathematics as a whole.
But if we will work very hard together as a tim
we may start the travel to mount Analogue not before 2006.

The pick is the non-Euclidean mathematics
that non of us can see it today,
because it is not exist yet
it is Only a potential now.

Interesting work:

http://modular.fas.harvard.edu/sga/from_grothendieck.pdf

Moshek
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #231
why do you say 2006?

the two concepts for which global=local are Ø and any singleton which is representable as a point. some people conjecture that somehow consciousness has a dual nature: point-like and (with an infinite distribution)-like. perhaps this relates to self aware structures? perhaps global analysis on on part of the dualaity is local analysis on the other part.
 
  • #233
Hi,

If the Meta system is:
Code:
       (the 0 result of x-x = mutual destruction)
? = XOR
       (the 0 result of x-x = mutual communication)
where the answer to ? is given by self-aware systems, then maybe this is the deep meaning of any open system, which means:

result = ? (where ? is a legal answer)

From the above we maybe can give a moral interpretation to Math results, given by self-aware systems.
 
  • #234
that kind of sounds like reinventing the wheel in terms of godel's incompleteness theorems and undecidability: things where you can prove ? is the answer, roughly speaking. i don't know, perhaps the existence of self-aware structures will be ? within the other known structures so one can express their free will in order to believe they exist or don't.
 
  • #235
Well phoenix,

In 1823 Bolyai and Lobachevsky's
without knowing one about the other
invent the Non-Euclidean geometry.
But most of it was already known to Gauss.

In 2006 It may be declare by the IMC in Madrid
who is the new Gauss that can lead us to the
Mount of Analogue , A Non-Euclidean mathematics.
 
  • #236
I think you miss the point.

1) phoenixthoth is self-aware system.

2) phoenixthoth has the ability to decide if he a destroyer XOR communicator.

3) phoenixthoth decisions has an influence on itself and its environment.

4) phoenixthoth responsibility as a participator is extremely important.
 
Last edited:
  • #237
Originally posted by Organic
I think you miss the point.

1) phoenixthoth is self-aware system.

2) phoenixthoth has the ability to decide if he a destructor XOR communicator.

3) phoenixthoth decisions has an influence on itself and its environment.

4) phoenixthoth responsibility as a participator is extremely important.

1) embedded in a larger SAS

2) i don't think it's xor. let me try to explain. a communicator can be a destroyer at the same time yet destruction is the intention of the one communicated TO not the one doing the communicating. like a high intensity sound wave shattering a glass. it is the glass' intention to be a destroyer from a certain point of view, all the sound wave wants to do is communicate but the power is overwhelming unintentionally. now i think this is expressed in the information loss, also known as destruction, in the equation x-x=0 or 0=0. those seem to be different equations because x-x has more information that has been destroyed AND communicated from x to x in a self-awareness sense.

3) yes and vice versa.

4)yes, as is the responsibility of all SAS's.
 
  • #239
phoenixthoth,


About a moral interpretation to Math results.

If the Meta system is:
Code:
       (the 0 result of x-x = mutual destruction)
? = XOR
       (the 0 result of x-x = mutual communication)
where the answer to ? is given by self-aware systems, then maybe this is the deep meaning of 'Right and Worng'.

It is good to be a (sum=commounicator), it is bad to be a (sum=destroyer).

Therefore, (0=mutual destruction) XOR (0=mutual communication).
 
Last edited:
  • #240
yes i think that does give a deeper meaning of right and wrong but keep in mind it also depends very much on your perspective. from one perspective, x-x is mutual destroy and from another x-x is mutual communicate. since infinity-infinity is not "always" zero, perhaps that object does not "always" destroy itself, if that makes any sense.
 
  • #241
destruction element= - = communication element
 
  • #242
Yes, and the different between Euclidam mathematics
and non euclidian mathematic is almost invisibal.

see:


http://elib.zib.de/pub/Gauss/gauss-pressrelease.htm

Moshek
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #243
Let us examine the meaning of 0, as a result of x-x.

Meaning 1) 0 is the result x and –x mutual destruction.

Meaning 2) 0 is the result x and –x mutual communication.

There is no sum (by quantity) to finitely or Infinitely many objects when sum is a quality value like destruction XOR communication, because the sum can be the result of a very fine change (the butterfly effect) in the input, which can upside down the whole picture.

In my opinion, this is the deep meaning of a non-Euclidian Mathematics, which is used by self-aware systems to get moral results.

About a moral interpretation to Math results.

If the Meta system is:
Code:
       (the 0 result of x-x = mutual destruction)
? = XOR
       (the 0 result of x-x = mutual communication)
(where the answer to ? is given by self-aware systems) then maybe this is the deep meaning of "choosing between 'Right' and 'Wrong'".

It is 'good' to be a (sum=communicator), it is 'bad' to be a (sum=destroyer).

Therefore, (0=mutual destruction) XOR (0=mutual communication).

'Wrong' is (0=mutual destruction).

'Right' is (0=mutual communication).

In other words, Complementary Logic is the logic of mutual communication between opposite things.

Form this point of view, please look again at:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CompLogic.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/4BPM.pdf
 
Last edited:
  • #244
Thank you Organic,
for this interesting opinion,
I think that only by
really open mind dialog
we can find the way to see
Non-Euclidian Mathematics

There is no need
to prove anything here!
It is so new.

And how is that connect
to the discovery of the DNA ?


Moshek
 
  • #245
The discovery of the DNA is a beautiful example of a good science about our abilities to explore the power of simplicity in nature.

Please see: http://biologybooks.net/074321630X.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #246
i think I'm starting to understand your perspective. thank you; it is interesting.
 
  • #247
Potential infinity is defined as a limit via Newton's calculus, while actual infinity is a Cantorian Cardinal number, which is a Platonic form, which is also a type of potential.

[abstract representation]--->[semantic mapping]--->[represented system]

[axiomatic]--->[Isomorphism]<---[Induction]

An abstract representation is exactly that, "abstract". It is not a space, or time, but is instead a product of consciousness, or a mental construct; topologically it is equivalent to a "point". The abstract description contains the concrete topology. Likewise, the concrete contains the abstract.

A duality?

A point contains an infinite expanse of space and time?

Could it be, that the "absolute" infinity, is actually a dimensionless point?

[point]/[set of points] = point ?


0/N = 0


Since it is possible for a "computation" to be self aware, there must be platonic forms that are types of self aware algorithms:


The description of any entity inside the real universe can only be with reference to other things in the universe. Space is then relational, and the universe, self referential. For example, if an object has a momentum, that momentum can only be explained with respect to another object within the universe. Space then becomes an aspect of the relationships between things in reality. It becomes analogous to a sentence, and it is absurd to say that a sentence has no words in it. So the grammatical structure of each sentence[space] is defined by the relationships that hold between the words in it. For example, relationships like object-subject or adjective-noun. So there are many different grammatical structures composed of different arrangements of words, and the varied relationships between them.

Langauge describes the universe, because the universe is isomorphic to a description on some level, and reality can only refer to itself, because, there is nothing outside of ..."total existence" which becomes equivalent to a self referential system, which must be a self aware system. Since descriptions make distinctions, or references to other entities, and distinctions are tautologically logical, [A or ~A], reality is logical, in that its contents can be described by a language. The contents within reality are distinctive entities, individually different from the others, yet consisting of the same foundational substance.


[<-[->[<-->]<-]->]

Universe = Zero



On one level of stratification, two photons are separate. On another level, of stratification, the photons have zero separation.

Instantaneous communication between two objects, separated by a distance interval, is equivalent to zero separation[zero boundary] between the two objects.

According to the book "Gravitation", chapter 15, geometry of spacetime gives instructions to matter telling matter to follow the straightest path, which is a geodesic. Matter in turn, tells spacetime geometry how to curve in such a way, as to guarantee the conservation of momentum and energy. The Einstein tensor[geometric feature-description] is also conserved in this relationship between matter and the spacetime geometry. Eli Cartan's "boundary of a boundary equals zero."

Einstein's equation basically says

Einstein Tensor [G] = Stress-Energy Tensor [T]

[spacetime geometry] determines [matter-energy's path] = geodesic.

[Matter-energy] determines [spacetime geometry] = non-Euclidean geometry.

.
Conservation of momentum energy is explained as an automatic consequence of the zero boundary of a boundary. Where conservation of energy-momentum means no creation or destruction of energy momentum in a 4D region of spacetime [4D cube] The integral of "creation events" i.e. the integral of
d*T for energy momentum, over the 4D region is required to be zero, and gives the conservation of momentum energy. The mathematical machinery for identically meeting the conservation laws is the boundary of a boundary equals zero.

[spacetime tells mass]<===[geodesic path for particle]===>[mass tells spacetime]

Waves are ripples in a basic medium. Einstein explains that the ether is unecessary as a medium, so the ripples are vibrations of spacetime itself, if, mass-energy is a form of condensed space-time.

As the ripples intersect with each other, it becomes a domino effect with the ripples continually increasing in density. Very similar to taking a penny and doubling it as an iterative sequence.

2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, ... 2^n

Since the ripples are increasing in density they are "compressed" . As spacetime becomes compressed, matter is re-configured as a balancing effect, so the force of gravity and accelerations are perceived as they presently are.

[<->[<->[<-><->]<->]<->]

The increasing spacetime density must be background independent.

Actually, spacetime does not really need to be "sliced up" in that it can proceed in discrete steps, yet, still be continuous.

[density 1]--->[density 2]--->[density 3]---> ... --->[density n]


A quote from the book "The Expanding Universe" by Sir Arthur Eddington:



All change is relative. The universe is expanding relatively to our common standards; our common standards are shrinking relatively to the size of the universe. The theory of the "expanding universe" might also be called the theory of the "shrinking atom" .

Quantum mechanics leads us to the realization that all matter-energy can be explained in terms of "waves". In a confined region(i.e. a closed universe or a black hole) the waves exists as STANDING WAVES In a closed system, the entropy never decreases.

The analogy with black holes is an interesting one but if there is nothing outside the universe, then it cannot be radiating energy outside itself as black holes are explained to be. So the amount of information i.e. "quantum states" in the universe is increasing. We see it as entropy, but to an information processor with huge computational capabilities, it is compressible information.

Quantum field theory calculations where imaginary time is periodic, with period 1/T are equivalent to statistical mechanics calculations where the temperature is T. The periodic waveforms that are opposed yet "in phase" would be at standing wave resonance, giving the action.

Periodicity is a symmetry. Rotate into the complex plane and we have
real numbers on the horizonal axis and imaginary numbers on the
vertical axis. So a periodic function could exist with periodicity
along both the imaginary AND the real axis. Such functions would have
amazing symmetries. Functions that remain unchanged, when the complex
variable "z" is changed.

f(z)---->f(az+b/cz+d)

Where the elements a,b,c,d, are arranged as a matrix, forming an
algebraic group. An infinite number of possible variations that
commute with each other as the function f, is invariant under group
transformations. These functions are known as "automorphic forms".

Topologically speaking, the wormhole transformations must be
invariant with regards to time travel. In other words, by traveling
backwards in time, we "complete" the future, and no paradoxes are
created.

So when spacetime tears and a wormhole is created, it must obey
certain transformative rules, which probably appear to be
discontinuities from a "3-D" perspective, but really, these
transformations are continuous?


[v1+v2]/[1+ v1v2/c^2]

c+c = c

aleph_0 + aleph_0 = aleph_0

0 + 0 = 0

Gravity exists because the information density of space-time is increasing. This creates a "pressure force" where processed space, compresses mass-energy, and mass-energy reacts by compressing space. The process is "time", which becomes dilated due to the increased information density of massive objects.
Stephen Hawking's excellent book, "Universe in a Nutshell", explains holography as a phenomenon of interference of wave patterns. Light from a laser is split into two separate beams, one bounces off the object and gets reflected onto a photo-sensitized plate. The other beam is reflected into a lens and collides with the reflected light of the object. When a laser is shone through the developed plate, a fully three dimensional image of the original object is created.

According to conventional theories, the surface area of the horizon surrounding a black hole, measures its entropy, where entropy is defined as a measure of the number of internal states that the black hole can be in without looking different to an outside observer, who can only measure mass, rotation and charge. This leads to another theory which states that the maximum entropy of any closed region of space can never exceed one quarter of the area of the circumscribing surface, with the entropy being the measure of the total information contained by the system. So the theorists came to realize that the information associated with all phenomena in the three dimensional world, can be stored on its two dimensional boundary, like a holographic image.

S' = S_m + A/4

Since entropy can also be defined as the number of states within a region of space, and the entropy of the universe must always increase, the next logical step is to realize that the spacetime density, i.e. the information encoded within a circumscribed region of space, must be increasing in the thermodynamic direction of time.

Entropy of thermodynamics and entropy of Shannon, are equivalent concepts, because the number of arrangements that are counted by Boltzmann entropy reflects the amount of Shannon information needed to implement any particular combination, or arrangement. The two entropies also appear to have differences, superficially. Thermodynamic entropy interpreted in units of energy divided by temperature, while, the Shannon entropy is interpreted in terms of bits, being essentially dimensionless. The difference is a matter of convention.
 
  • #248
Last edited:
  • #249
Dear Phoenixthoth,

Once some PF mentor answerd (after i asked for some help):
This may help. Its his first post in his other thread.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the attached address you can find A new approach for the definition of a NUMBER...
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Today I went to the bank and tried to define a new definition of "exchange rate" but for some reason they weren't buying. Hmm, I don't understand why not...
Your comment was:
(PF mentor's name), no, it doesn't help. your comments remind me of those who didn't like the idea of irrational, transcendental, hyperreal, or complex numbers. gauss, as far as in know, invented a new kind of number and they were used in his PhD thesis. ...

I am glad that I can give you back something that you find as interesting.

Yours,

Organic
 
Last edited:
  • #250
Originally posted by Organic
Hi Russell E. Rierson,

This is a very interesting post.

Let me ask a question:

What if space-time is the dynamic results of opposite things?

Thank you for the links Organic, I will be reading them for awhile.

A point without another "reference" does not exist; the opposite of a thing distinguishes it from the thing itself. What is the dynamic of space-time? Is it a ratio?

When space is taken as a measure of length, space/time is the speed of light in vacuum for a photon of light:

space/time = c


Where, length = perception of separation between two reference points.

E = mc^2

E/momentum = E/p = c

energy/momentum = space/time

What is the EPR "superluminal?" connection? A shortcut through configuration space? Phase space?

A point can be defined as an "infinitesimal". The Topological spaces are defined as being diffeomorphism invariant. Intersecting cotangent bundles[manifolds] are the set of all possible configurations of a system, i.e. they describe the phase space of the system.
 
Back
Top