
Re: This is False. 0/0 {x  x ~e x} e {x  x ~e x} A single Principle to Resolve Several Paradoxes
Posted:
Feb 13, 2013 3:23 PM


On Feb 11, 2:51 pm, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > On 2/11/2013 12:12 PM, CharlieBoo wrote:> On Feb 6, 10:59 pm, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > >> On 2/5/2013 10:01 AM, CharlieBoo wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Of course the most efficient representation is a . . . written in > >>> a . . . language. > > >> I am working on an alphabet. Since my current understanding > >> of the functional behavior of truth functions consists of > >> 4096 equational axioms (16^3) the logical alphabet I am > >> developing is not tiny. At present, I have completed descriptions > >> for the 96 letters. The next level of complexity will involve > >> working out the details for approximately 40,000 geometric relations > >> between names.... > > > WADR if you have to figure out umpteen things, then that is not a very > > good axiomatization. OTOH if this is just legwork and you plan to see > > the pattern in what you did to create a small set of rules, then all > > the better  but do you still need so many? > > it is an *alphabet* for > > http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&client=firefoxa&hs=Xe0&sa=X&tbo=d... > > to link up, using Karnaugh maps (toroidal arrays), with the > MOG array, > > http://finitegeometry.org/sc/24/MOG.html > > that relates to the 12dimensional Golay code > > > > > On July 2010 FOM "18 Word Proof" > > FOM? > > > > > > > > > proves that some of the theorems of > > the Theory of Computation are axioms of Incompleteness in Logic. (I > > recently added that some of the theorems of Program Synthesis are > > axioms to prove the theorems of Theory of Computation.) But we don't > > have to list all of those theorems that may be axioms! As long as we > > list the ones used in our finite discussion. (The FOM thread lists > > about 10.)
Martin Davis' Foundations of Mathematics (a highly moderated site about research into Mathematical Logic.)
CB

