# Nonformal logic

Using the formal logical structure of the original theorem, the converse, the curious inverse, and the all important contrapositive, mathematics is at a standstill. I am trying to get to this very particular coordinate without using formal logic.

pwsnafu
mathematics is at a standstill.

What?

Anachronistic, I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you clarify??

It has to do with using non traditional dimensions to get to a point

D H
Staff Emeritus
You might want to read our rules before you get to your point.

Informal reasoning is great, but in order to finish the process, in math, you do have to prove it using logic. Or at least convince yourself that all the details could be done if you wanted, in some cases.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
The problem with the structure of original theorem logic is that it negates the curious theorem in order to get to inverse points in your coordinate logic. This is only valid in informal mathematics logic.

I like words too.

I don't understand the OP's question.

Deveno
The problem with the structure of original theorem logic is that it negates the curious theorem in order to get to inverse points in your coordinate logic. This is only valid in informal mathematics logic.

I like words too.

would then, conversely, the negation of the coordinates validate the curious theorem, providing rigor to the original theorem structure? it seems to me you could sketch an informal argument, but advanced rendering might exceed current pixel capacity.

would then, conversely, the negation of the coordinates validate the curious theorem, providing rigor to the original theorem structure? it seems to me you could sketch an informal argument, but advanced rendering might exceed current pixel capacity.

Not at all!! The curious theorem is a formalization of contrapositive statements pertaining to the formal structure of possibilities!! You can't negate coordinates without forming some kind of invalidating logic of the space-time tensor itself!!

Here is a simple example.

If x = 3, then x + 2 = 5 is a must be true statement.

The converse is a could be statement due to several different ways to get to the number 5 using 2 and 5 in the same dimensions.

Would anybody like to elaborate the different pathways to make the converse statement true?

Here is a simple example.

If x = 3, then x + 2 = 5 is a must be true statement.

The converse is a could be statement due to several different ways to get to the number 5 using 2 and 5 in the same dimensions.

Would anybody like to elaborate the different pathways to make the converse statement true?

If x+2=5, then x+2+(-2)=5+(-2). So x=3.

I like using imaginary dimensions of the non real numbers to get to my solutions

Char. Limit
Gold Member
More fun to use infinite-dimensional numbers on a zero-dimensional manifold. Trust me, addition is a BLAST.

OK, this is silly. Anachronistic, I asked you to explain yourself more clearly, you did not do this. Therefore I'm locking the thread.

My apologies to the people who were having fun with this.