Notices
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Modus Ponens Proof. My logic can prove MP and axioms of Constructive Logic.

  1. #1 Modus Ponens Proof. My logic can prove MP and axioms of Constructive Logic. 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    196
    Please send me axioms to test, and places to visit for logical puzzles.

    My logic uses picture elements.


    It also matters what isn't there - Tao Te Ching interpreted.
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    How do you "test" an axiom?


     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    196
    My picture logic does it!

    I will post the axioms an MP proof soon, so that you can see if you can shoot it down. If you want the rest you're going to have to buy my book.
    It also matters what isn't there - Tao Te Ching interpreted.
     

  5. #4  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum1 View Post
    If you want the rest you're going to have to buy my book.
    So it's just spam then?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  6. #5  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Sure sounds like it. The lack of a link saved him so far...
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    17
    Axioms do not belong in nature there is a huge gap between axioms and plasma.
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Vortex View Post
    Axioms do not belong in nature there is a huge gap between axioms and plasma.
    What...?
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    17
    To make plasma you use an axiom reduced in wavelengths of radiation. This will quell the dilemma in space time radiation pulsing each thing back together again, really axioms do not exist they just purchase land to reside on.
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Vortex View Post
    Axioms do not belong in nature there is a huge gap between axioms and plasma.
    There is also a huge gap between the hind legs of a pink unicorn ! Guess what that one is for...

    To make plasma you use an axiom reduced in wavelengths of radiation. This will quell the dilemma in space time radiation pulsing each thing back together again, really axioms do not exist they just purchase land to reside on.
    There are certain worms found between the hairs of the mayor's furiously dreaming unicorn. That is why it isn't. Had we considered the inversely pulsing quasars of the seventh gate, one would have readily found the pile of crap, in all its glory. Unfortunately the MUP did not interact that way, that's why the quantum is no more.
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Vortex View Post
    To make plasma you use an axiom reduced in wavelengths of radiation. This will quell the dilemma in space time radiation pulsing each thing back together again, really axioms do not exist they just purchase land to reside on.
    Quest? Is that you again?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  12. #11 MP proof. 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    196
    Here are the axioms you need. I will paste the MP proof later (it was too large).

    7. Axioms and Proofs

    To get to our axioms we need to define two operators: an Attractor and a Stopper see figure 7.1.

    Figure 7.1

    An Attractor or Stopper may attach to an enclosure, bracket, structure or the end of a relation.

    The following structures shows the axioms we need to prove some of the inference rules in chapter 6.

    Axioms 7.1

    Axioms 7.2

    These axioms are labelled A7.1 to A7.9, on the left side of the axiom structures. Intuitive explanation for A7.1 (top, read left to right): we may add a string of Attractors carrying some relation symbol of our choice to a string of structures (where all the attractors must attach on the same side an all facing in the same direction), where the structures must be true together (the string may consist of a single structure). Read from right to left (as we may for symmetrical relations): Attractors not facing each other or not facing away from each other perform no
    operation. The relation symbol we used specifies which relation the Attractor can
    break (see A7.3). When the structure is specified as enclosures with connectives
    (well formed) then the entire structure must be placed in brackets and the attractor
    connected to the bracket.

    For A7.2: if the symbol carried by the Attractors has an arrow in it then the arrows must point in opposite directions, otherwise the operation fails. The structure on the right is the empty structure. Note that an empty structure is equivalent to an empty space (in an empty space to the right or
    left of a structure in brackets an empty enclosure may be entered next to the bracket.) Intuitive explanation: the two Attractors face each other and attract and because the structures match the Attractors annihilate together with the structures.

    Intuitive explanation for A7.3: first the Attractor is distributed to structure C and D as shown, then, because the two Atractors on the right face away from each other, they repel, breaking the link between C and D and the Stopper then indicates that it cannot reconnect. A7.3.1 shows how to write A7.3 for Variable Enclosures. This may be done for all the axioms, in which case add a point and a one to the axiom label. The Stopper in A7.3's right side may go on either side of the relation symbol (the choice is up to the user). If the Attractor carries an arrowed relation symbol then the symbol at C must point in the same direction as the one at C and the one at D must point in the opposite direction. The middle arrow retains it's direction.

    For A7.5 the relation on F and G must match and if the relation symbol has an arrow, then the directions must match.

    For A7.6: both operations must be done to all the Attractors and Stoppers in the same sequence (statement) and both the operators must have the same orientation as the one being replaced and both operators must carry the same relation symbol.

    A7.8 A Stopper (together with the symbol it is carrying) can be dropped at either end of a structure in System S0. In System S1 stoppers can be dropped anywhere in a statement as long as the corresponding Attractor would not want to distribute or annihilate or link.

    We assume in the following proofs that if an Attractor with symbol relation is coupled directly to a structure enclosure, that the structure does not contain a link with the same symbol. We assume proofs are in S0 except when stated otherwise. The proofs work equally well for propositions instead of structures since we model them as structures (concepts relevant to objects).

    7.1 Theorem

    Now we can prove G:MP (Modus Ponens) for structures:

    Proof 7.1
    It also matters what isn't there - Tao Te Ching interpreted.
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    17
    Axioms do relate quantumly
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Axiom does not mean what you think it does Vortex...
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    17
    If you look at an axiom from the point of reference dgbt of humbolt massechusetts there is no such thing as an axiom. Simply put, the axiom reads like a starter point for radiation.
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Vortex View Post
    If you look at an axiom from the point of reference dgbt of humbolt massechusetts there is no such thing as an axiom. Simply put, the axiom reads like a starter point for radiation.
    That would mean you have plenty of pink unicorns in Humboldt, Massachusetts; you know, the kind with the hole between the hind legs.
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    17
    Yeah well in Masechusettes we have a few and one slips out now and again. Blackholes do not have starting points in the universe, they have starting points outside the universe. The unicorns don't touch anything. Nature is its own anscopy and we know what we're dealing with.
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,619
    Moderator is minded to shut down this nonsense. Any thoughts?
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    I'm surprised the thread hasn't been shut down already.
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarist View Post
    Moderator is minded to shut down this nonsense. Any thoughts?
    I couldn't agree more. Lock it.
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,619
    Thread closed Thanks a lot Vortex
     

Similar Threads

  1. Logic!
    By didact in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 18th, 2011, 07:15 AM
  2. My Logic
    By verzen in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: April 6th, 2009, 08:32 AM
  3. Logic to Prove MP and Syllogism
    By talanum1 in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 2nd, 2008, 11:59 PM
  4. Digital Logic Vs. Quantum logic
    By Truth_Table in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 23rd, 2007, 01:43 PM
  5. the logic of annihilation
    By streamSystems in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 14th, 2007, 09:17 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •