Den lördag 11 november 2017 kl. 02:00:01 UTC+1 skrev John Gabriel: > On Thursday, 9 November 2017 15:15:47 UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > <tons of excrement> > > New Logic > IMPLIES (Material Conditional) > IF/THEN > MOVES INTO > T -> T = T > T -> F = F > F -> T = T AP suggests (U probability outcome) > F -> F = T AP suggests (U probability outcome) > > The 'implies' truth table has no connection to actual logic whatsoever. It is merely an ill-formed definition. By its very definition, => (implies) means "strongly suggests", but there is no causal relationship and no connection between antecedent and consequent. > > Its name is a misnomer. You are expected to accept it and use as is. It comes in very handy when trying to defend the bullshit of limit theory. Statements like > > 0 < | x - c | < delta => |f(x) - L| < epsilon > > sometimes make no sense. For example, if f(x) = 1 then > > 0 < | x - 1 | < delta => |f(x) - 1| < epsilon [P] > > In this case, it doesn't matter if 0 < | x - 1 | < delta is TRUE or FALSE because |f(x) - 1| < epsilon is always TRUE, so the evaluation of [P] is always TRUE. > > What most gullible fools never ask themselves is this question: > > "Why then, use logic when there is no causal connection?" > > In limit theory, there exists a causal relationship between delta and epsilon - in fact these can be expressed as functions of each other as I have proved: > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLMDAtai1rcE9jV1E > > The ultimate insult to the BIG STUPID is when they use it in their "proofs". > > There is no place for ill-formed concepts in sound mathematics. > > Now limit theory is bogus at the outset because there are no real numbers. However, the subsequent theory that is derived is pathological like the brains which thought of it.
You even throwing out basic truth tables? Wow, you are degenerating further and fruther.