Understanding Logic: Definitions, Values, and Statements Explained

[Apak]

Since I' ve never studied logic I was wondering if one of you kind people could help me out on something I'm working on. I'm going to include definitions and values, but no key. The reason I'm not including a key is that it should read reasonably well without one.

Definitions: si - represents

Values: is = 1, is not = 0 (absence of 1)

Condition under which statement occurs: {is} provides for {is not}, {not} does not equal {is}

Statement: In accordance, that which is and is not, is-is and is-not, is-not is not: not, not si not-is, not-is describes the condition ((is not: not) and (is not: is)), not-is/not-is, is-not: is, thus is-not: is(not), and is:is.

You can't tell but that took quite a while to type, last minute revisions. Anyway, if someone could please tell me whether or not I am making any sense please let me know.

 

[AKG]

Anyway, if someone could please tell me whether or not I am making any sense please let me know.

Not to me! What exactly are you trying to do? What the heck is "... not-is describes ((is not: not) and (is not: is)), not-is/not-is..."?

 

[honestrosewater]

I don't understand what you're doing either. What is the key? Maybe it will help us.

 

[Apak]

Didn't want to include the key, mostly because it would require to much typing. However, I will do the 1's and 0's and hopefully that should clear some things up.

In accordance, that which is and is not { is=1, is not=0}

is-is and is-not {1=1, 1=0}

is-not is not: not {1=0 does not equal 0}

not si not-is {not represents not-is}

not-is describes the condition ((is not: not) and (is not: is)) {not-is describes a value that is neither 0 or 1} * it should be noted that not-is holds absolutely no value*

not-is/not-is { the only way to cancel not-is is by not-is, in other words not-is does not exist and does not exist as not} * once again note not-is has an absolute value of nothing*

is-not: is {(1=0)=1}

thus is-not: is(not), and is:is. {(1=0)=(1 which is 0) and 1=1)

The reason I didn't want to post that is that I was hoping not to unduly influence any remarks or suggestions. Anyway, I hope that helps. Comments please.

 

[AKG]

No, none of this makes any sense to me whatsoever. What kind of logic is this? Is this any formal kind of logic, or some kind of logic that any else has studied, and thus perhaps I can look up and try to understand? Or are you just making this up? Not only does nothing you're writing make sense, I can't see the point. You seem to have 6 or 7 consecutive lines of meaningless sentences. Are these sentences supposed to be a proof of something? What are your premises, what is your conclusion? What are your axioms, what are your rules of inference?

 

[Apak]

I know it might not make sense, but it is boolien logic or on/off operations. Is=on or (1) and is not=off or (0). You may consider the premises to be is=is and is=not. In other words when you have 1 of a thing you have 1 of a thing, and when you have 0 of a thing you do not have a true 0. What you in fact have is the absence of 1. So since you have the absence of one the one is still present it simply is not the current value you are looking at. Therefore, when a zero is detected you are still indirectly aware of a 1 presence. If you didn't have a 1 AT ALL then you would Not have a zero, you would have the absence of 1 and 0 since 0 is carried by the 1. The occurance of Nothing would appear to be a 0 presence. However, 0 represents that somewhere a 1 is present, so 0 and Nothing are two separate entities. Here's an example: This computer is. {The computer being reffered to has a value of 1 or is present} This computer is not { The computer being reffered to has a value of 0 or non-presence} In the second statement the condition under which the computer occurs is "is". What it is is "not". So what that says is under the condition "1", "1" is not met. This results in a "0". Therefore the 0 does not stand alone, but is contingent on the condition "1". If I were to say "The computer not-is" then the computer becomes a completely nullified and negated statement. The computer cannot be and cannot be not. If a thing not-is it EXISTS NOT COMPLETELY or COMPLETELY EXISTS NOT. By the way this is a three part statement. The above is the first part.

 

[AKG]

How is "is = not" a good premise? It is a false premise, so are you trying to deduce something from this false premise? If so, you can deduce anything from a false premise, so this exercise is a waste of your time.

So since you have the absence of one the one is still present it simply is not the current value you are looking at.

Huh? As far as I can tell, this is just false. If there are zero apples, then there are zero apples, it's not that you just happen to not be looking at the 1 apple.

Therefore, when a zero is detected you are still indirectly aware of a 1 presence. If you didn't have a 1 AT ALL then you would Not have a zero, you would have the absence of 1 and 0 since 0 is carried by the 1.

This is either meaningless or false. It almost sounds like you're trying to make a philosophical point, one that goes beyond logic or mathematics. It sounds as though you're saying that "nothing" is like a thing that happens to be a no-thing. No, nothing is not something, nothing is nothing. Or it sounds that when you say "X is not present" that you think that it means that "X exists, and has the property of being non-present." This is not the case. "X is not present" means that there exists nothing whatsoever with the properties of X. Existence is not a predicate.

To say that "X is Y" means that the properties of X are the properties of Y. To say that "X is" is to say that the description X refers to something, or something exists which has the properties that make in an X, i.e. that X exists or X is present. To say that "X is not" is to say that no X exists, or no X is present, that is nothing exists which has the properties that would make it an X.

All the messy "logic" you have above doesn't make any sense, and is unnecessary anyways. All you seem to be trying to do is treat nothing as a thing, and treat existence as a predicate, which is not correct since that's not what the words "nothing" and "existence" are. You don't need any symbolic logic to express the above, and at any rate, your logic does not express this, it's just a mess of symbols.

 

[mccrone]

Hi Apak

You might want to check out...

http://www.imprint.co.uk/C&HK/vol8/kauffman_8-1.pdf

For your state "exist not completely" try googling on "vagueness peirce ontic". Or paraconsistent logic.