Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Fire the entire Princeton Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add
in Logic is not OR but rather is AND

Replies: 15   Last Post: Nov 18, 2017 1:43 AM

 Search Thread: Advanced Search

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com Posts: 18,572 Registered: 3/31/08
Fire the entire Princeton Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add
in Logic is not OR but rather is AND

Posted: Nov 10, 2017 9:29 AM
 Plain Text Reply

Fire the entire Princeton Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND

Now, what are the odds that if you do not know the correct Logic truth tables for the connectors-- And, Or, Equal+Negation, If-Then, what are the odds that your mathematics is valid?

Well, a slim chance, because the IF-THEN connector is vital to validity, and in New Logic, that means Reductio Ad Absurdum is not valid proof method. That means about 1/4 to 1/2 of all math is invalid.

So, I ask that the entire Princeton Math dept be fired until they have teachers there, that use a valid Logic

See TRUE LOGIC corrections below::

Princeton University Math dept

Michael Aizenman Professor

Zahra Aminzare Lecturer

Manjul Bhargava Professor

Nathaniel Bottman Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Nicolas Boumal Instructor

Jean Bourgain Visiting Lecturer with Rank of Professor
Mathematics

William Browder Professor Emeritus

Tristan Buckmaster Assistant Professor

Francesc Castella Instructor

Sun-Yung Alice Chang Professor

Otis Chodosh Veblen Research Instructor

Maria Chudnovsky Professor

Peter Constantin Professor of Mathematics and Director of PACM

John Conway Professor Emeritus

Mihalis Dafermos Professor

Gabriele Di Cerbo Assistant Professor

Hansheng Diao Instructor

Theodore Drivas Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Zeev Dvir Associate Professor

Weinan E Professor

Tarek Elgindi Instructor

Tolga Etgü Visiting Fellow

Charles Fefferman Professor

Jonathan Fickenscher Associate Research Scholar

David Gabai Chair, Professor

Ziyang Gao Instructor

Javier Gómez-Serrano Assistant Professor, Director of Graduate Studies

Robert C. Gunning Professor

Jonathan Hanselman Assistant Professor

Helmut Hofer Visiting Lecturer with Rank of Professor
Mathematics

Henry Horton Postdoctoral Research Associate
zzzzzzz
Yong Hou Lecturer
Mathematics
Tatiana Howard Lecturer

Wu-Chung Hsiang Professor Emeritus

June Huh Veblen Fellow

Mihaela Ignatova Instructor

Alexandru Ionescu Professor

Jennifer M. Johnson Senior Lecturer, Associate Departmental Representative

Nicholas Katz Professor

Casey Kelleher Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Daniel Ketover Instructor

Ilya Khayutin Veblen Research Instructor

Seongtag Kim Visiting Fellow

Sergiu Klainerman Professor

Simon Kochen Professor Emeritus

Joseph Kohn Professor Emeritus

János Kollár Professor, Department Representative

Elliott Lieb Professor Emeritus

Francesco Lin Veblen Research Instructor

Yueh-Ju Lin Instructor

Chun-Hung Liu Instructor

Robert MacPhersonVisiting Lecturer with Rank of Professor
Mathematics

Adam Marcus Assistant Professor

Fernando Codá Marques Professor

Mark McConnell Senior Lecturer

Stephen McKeown Postdoctoral Research Associate

Ana Menezes Assistant Professor

Sophie Morel Professor

Assaf Naor Professor

Evita Nestoridi Instructor

Huy Quang Nguyen Postdoctoral Research Associate

Oanh Nguyen Instructor

Peter Ozsváth Professor, Director of Graduate Studies

John Pardon Professor

Fabio Pusateri Assistant Professor

Igor Rodnianski Professor

Vermont Rutherfoord Postdoctoral Research Associate

Peter Sarnak Professor

Paul D. Seymour Professor

Tatyana Shcherbyna Assistant Professor

Nicholas Sheridan Assistant Professor

Goro Shimura Professor Emeritus

Yakov Shlapentokh-Rothman Instructor

Yakov Sinai Professor

Amit Singer Professor

Christopher Skinner Professor

Allan Sly Professor

Elias Stein Professor Emeritus

Zoltán Szabó Professor

Yunqing Tang Instructor

Richard Taylor Visiting Lecturer with Rank of Professor

Christine Taylor Senior Lecturer

Gang Tian Professor

Konstantin Tikhomirov Instructor

Hale Trotter Professor Emeritus

Karen Uhlenbeck Visiting Research Scholar

Vlad Vicol Assistant Professor

Ilya Vinogradov Lecturer

Rafael von Känel Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Joseph Waldron Instructor

Guangbo Xu Associate Research Scholar

Paul C. Yang Professor

Ian Zemke Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Shou-Wu Zhang Professor

Yongbin Zhang Visiting Research Scholar

Correction of Logic errors by Archimedes Plutonium
3. Logic errors:: otherwise we cannot think clearly and think straight and true
History of those pathetic errors::

by Archimedes Plutonium

The 4 connectors of Logic are:

1) Equal (equivalence) plus Not (negation) where the two are combined as one
2) And (conjunction)
3) Or (exclusive or) (disjunction)
4) Implication

New Logic

EQUAL/NOT table:
T  = T  = T
T  = not F  = T
F  = not T  = T
F =  F   = T

Equality must start or begin logic because in the other connectors, we cannot say a result equals something if we do not have equality built already. Now to build equality, it is unary in that T=T and F =F. So we need another unary connector to make equality a binary. Negation is that other connector and when we combine the two we have the above table.

Equality combined with Negation allows us to proceed to build the other three logic connectors.

Now, unfortunately, Logic must start with equality allied with negation and in math what this connector as binary connector ends up being-- is multiplication for math. One would think that the first connector of Logic that must be covered is the connector that ends up being addition of math, not multiplication. But maybe we can find a philosophy-logic answer as to why Logic starts with equal/not and is multiplication rather than addition.

Here you we have one truth table equal/not whose endresult is 4 trues.

New Logic
AND
T &  T  = T
T & F  = T
F &  T  = T
F  & F   = F

AND is ADD in New Logic, and that makes a whole lot of common sense. AND feels like addition, the joining of parts. And the truth table for AND should be such that if given one true statement in a series of statements then the entire string of statements is true. So if I had P and Q and S and R, I need only one of those to be true to make the string true P & Q & S & R = True if just one statement is true.

The truth table of AND results in 3 trues and 1 false.

New Logic
OR(exclusive)
T or  T  = F
T or F  = T
F or  T  = T
F  or F   = F

OR is seen as a choice, a pick and choose. So if I had T or T, there is no choice and so it is False. If I had T or F there is a choice and so it is true. Again the same for F or T, but when I have F or F, there is no choice and so it is false. OR in mathematics, because we pick and discard what is not chosen, that OR is seen as subtraction.

OR is a truth table whose endresult is 2 trues, 2 falses.

New Logic
IMPLIES (Material Conditional)
IF/THEN
MOVES INTO
T ->  T  = T
T ->  F  = F
F ->  T  = U probability outcome
F ->  F   = U probability outcome

A truth table that has a variable which is neither T or F, but U for unknown or a probability outcome. We need this U so that we can do math where 0 divided into something is not defined.

Now notice there are four truth tables where the endresult is 4 trues, 3 trues with 1 false, 2 trues with 2 falses and finally a truth table with a different variable other than T or F, with variable U. This is important in New Logic that the four primitive connectors, by primitive I mean they are independent of one another so that one cannot be derived by the other three. The four are axioms, independent. And the way you can spot that they are independent is that if you reverse their values so that 4 trues become 4 falses. For AND, reversal would be FFFT instead of TTTF. For OR, a reversal would be TFFT instead of FTTF.

To be independent and not derivable by the other three axioms you need a condition of this:

One Table be 4 of the same
One Table be 3 of the same
One Table be 2 of the same
And to get division by 0 in mathematics, one table with a unknown variable.

So, how did Old Logic get it all so wrong so bad? I think the problem was that in the 1800s when Logic was being discovered, is that the best minds of the time were involved in physics, chemistry, biology and looked upon philosophy and logic as second rate and that second rate minds would propose Old Logic. This history would be from Boole 1854 The Laws of Thought, and Jevons textbook of Elementary Lessons on Logic, 1870. Boole started the Old Logic with the help of Jevons and fostered the wrong muddleheaded idea that OR was ADD, when it truly is AND.

Now the way people actually live, is an indicator of how well they thought and how well any of their ideas should be taken seriously. In the case of Boole, he went to class in a downpour rain, why without a raincoat? And reaching class, instead of changing into dry warm clothes, stood for hours in front of students, sopping wet and shivering. Of course he caught pneumonia, but instead of being sensible, common sense that even a fly would have, he insisted his wife give him cold showers and make the bed all wet and freezing. Of course, he would die from this. Now, does anyone today, think that a mind like that has anything to offer Logic or mathematics, is as crazy as what Boole was.

But once you have textbooks about Logic, it is difficult to correct a mistake because of the money making social network wants to make more money, not go around fixing mistakes. So this nightmarish mistakes of the truth tables was not seen by Frege, by Russell, by Whitehead, by Carnap, by Godel, and by 1908 the symbols and terminology of the Old Logic truth tables were so deeply rooted into Logic, that only a Logical minded person could ever rescue Logic.

by Archimedes Plutonium

3.1 The "and" truth table should be TTTF not what Boole thought TFFF. Only an utter gutter mind of logic would think that in a series of statements, that AND is true when all statements are true, but to the wise person-- he realizes that if just one statement is true, the entire series is true, where we toss aside all the irrelevant and false statements --(much what life itself is-- we pick out the true ones and ignore all the false ones).
3.2 The error of "if-then" truth table should be TFUU, not that of TFTT
3.3 The error of "not" and "equal", neither unary, but should be binary
3.4 The error that Reductio Ad Absurdum is a proof method, when it is merely probability-truth, not guaranteed
3.5 The error, the "or" connector is truth table FTTF, not that of TTTF

AP

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.