Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #394663 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-11-09 12:15 -0800
    Re: Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2017-11-09 13:00 -0800
    Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-11-09 21:38 -0800
      Re: Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-11-11 10:12 -0800
        Re: Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-11-11 16:43 -0800
          Re: Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND Jan <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-11-14 12:31 -0800
        Re: Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-11-12 08:52 -0800
          Re: Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND Me <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2017-11-12 09:18 -0800
    Re: Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-11-10 18:36 +0000
    Re: Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND Jan <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-11-10 13:07 -0800
    Re: Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-11-13 07:52 -0800
      Re: Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-11-13 18:39 -0800

#394663 — Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND

Cornell Univ math dept which none of them can even do correct logic, so, hopeless in doing correct math. All of which made worse in that these failing professors control Arxiv.org. The blind leading the blind.

See TRUE LOGIC corrections below::


Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty 
Marcelo Aguiar 
Jason Manning 
Slawomir Solecki 
Dan M. Barbasch 
Karola Meszaros 
Philippe Sosoe 
Yuri Berest 
Justin Moore 
Birgit E. Speh 
Louis Billera 
Camil Muscalu 
Michael E. Stillman 
Xiaodong Cao 
Anil Nerode 
Robert S. Strichartz 
Robert Connelly 
Michael Nussbaum 
Steven Strogatz 
R. Keith Dennis 
Irena Peeva 
Edward Swartz 
Daniel Halpern-Leistner 
zzzzz 
Ravi Ramakrishna 
Nicolas Templier 
Timothy J. Healey 
Richard H. Rand 
Alex Townsend 
Tara Holm 
Timothy Riley 
Alexander Vladimirsky 
John H. Hubbard 
Laurent Saloff-Coste 
Marten Wegkamp 
Martin Kassabov 
Shankar Sen 
James E. West 
Allen Knutson 
Richard A. Shore 
Inna Zakharevich 
Lionel Levine 
Reyer Sjamaar 
David Zywina 
Emeritus and Retired Faculty 
Allen Back 
Allen Hatcher 
Alfred H. Schatz 
James H. Bramble 
David W. Henderson 
John Smillie 
Kenneth S. Brown 
J.T. Gene Hwang 
Moss E. Sweedler 
Stephen U. Chase 
Yulij Ilyashenko 
Daina Taimina 
Marshall M. Cohen 
Peter J. Kahn 
Robert E. Terrell 
Clifford J. Earle 
Harry Kesten 
Maria S. Terrell 
Roger H. Farrell 
G. Roger Livesay 
Karen Vogtmann 
Leonard Gross 
Michael D. Morley 
Beverly West 
John M. Guckenheimer 

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#394671

On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 3:15:47 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Cornell Univ math dept which none of them can even do correct logic, so, hopeless in doing correct math. All of which made worse in that these failing professors control Arxiv.org. The blind leading the blind.
> 

Archie Pu is a crank and a troll. He can't tell the difference between AND and OR, and doesn't want to know. So, if you don't want to know the difference either, read on! 


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#394723

                  __|      \ /     |__   
   _ o   ___\o    \o    |    o/    o/___     o _ 
     /\  /)  |        ( \   /o\  / )     |      (\    /\ 
___|_\______                          _____/_|__ 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#394959

Teachers of Cornell Univ should be ashamed of themselves:: in one class teach the silly idea that 2 OR 3 is 5 when even the students know that 2 AND 3 is 5, then off to teach math.

These are not teachers of math but dogma hypocrites

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#394995

Jan	
6:02 PM (39 minutes ago)



You have no ideas, it's all graphomania with no content. 

-- 
Jan 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#395395

On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 4:43:09 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Jan	
> 6:02 PM (39 minutes ago)
> 
> 
> 
> You have no ideas, it's all graphomania with no content. 

You are now copying verbatim what I wrote.

No ideas of your own?

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#395065

On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 12:12:26 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Teachers of Cornell Univ should be ashamed of themselves:: in one class teach the silly idea that 2 OR 3 is 5 when even the students know that 2 AND 3 is 5, then off to teach math.
> 
> These are not teachers of math but dogma hypocrites

I honestly do not know how any teacher at Cornell, whether math or logic, or computer science can go into class and teach Boole Logic which says 1 OR 4 is 5

When even a 10 year old child knows 1 AND 4 is 5

But math in the West is corrupt math, designed to teach only what keeps corrupt mathematicians in money and fame.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#395069

On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 5:52:14 PM UTC+1, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> I honestly do not know how any teacher at Cornell, whether math or logic, or
> computer science can go into class and teach Boole Logic which says 1 OR 4 is 5

It's rather simple. Let's just use some "computer language", say Python: 

print(1 | 4)   #binary 1 OR 4 

=> 5 

> When even a 10 year old child knows 1 AND 4 is 5

No, I'm quite sure that's *NOT* what he/she knows. He/she rather knows: 1 + 4 = 5.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#394790

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> whines:

>Cornell Univ math dept which none of them can even do correct logic, so, 
>hopeless in doing correct math. All of which made worse in that these 
>failing professors control Arxiv.org. The blind leading the blind.

Awww... it looks like poor Archie dug out his rejection letter from
Arxiv.org, read it again and got mad....

<snip stalker list of Cornell professors>

Now, why was poor Archie unfairly rejected by arxiv.org?

Top Ten Reasons why Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium's pathetic "math"
submission got rejected by arxiv.org: (with apologies to David Letterman)

#10) Archie Pu did not prove he was part of the secret elite cabal of
    mathematicians by knowing the secret passphrase (which is "Dandelin
    Spheres RULE!!!!")
#9) Archie tried to bribe the review board by paying exactly pi dollars,
    in the form of 3 one dollar bills, a dime, four pennies and a rusty
    knockout from a metal electrical junction box.
#8) Seven members of the arxiv.org review board found their names on
    Archie's stalker lists of math professors.
#7) The Arxiv.org review board does not accept "Because I said so!" as
    proof of a math theorm.
#6) The Arxiv.org review board requires that all submittors demonstrate
    that they have been torqued down to at least 75 foot-pounds.
#5) Archie Pu says pi is rational, but Archie himself is not.
#4) Archie demanded his picture of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
    be posted to arxiv.org, but it was drawn in crayon. (and he colored
    outside the lines!)
#3) Upon intensive investigation they discovered prior art from some dude
    named Newton.
#2) Archie Pu claims the universe is a plutonium atom, while everybody
    knows that Aristotle Ytterbium proved the universe is actually the
    43rd neutron of the Cosmic Ytterbium atom. (plutonium atom. how dumb)
#1) Archie Pu is quite simply stoooopid!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#394796

On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 12:15:47 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Cornell Univ math dept which none of them can even do correct logic, so, hopeless in doing correct math. All of which made worse in that these failing professors control Arxiv.org. The blind leading the blind.

No, it's an idiot posting to sci.math for 25+ years (and counting).

> See TRUE LOGIC corrections below::
> 
> 
> Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty 

Stop posting lists of random honest working people in a context that can
be construed as negative, you can get in legal trouble for doing that.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#395191

So bad is math at Cornell Univ, that the mistakes do not stop with 2 OR 3 = 5 according to Boole's logic which Cornell Univ uses, but that the professors there cannot even provide a Calculus picture of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. 

Sad, that those professors scold students when they make mistakes and expect the student to correct their errors, but when Cornell math professors are shown their errors, they act like hypocrites and go on teaching the same error filled math. 

-------------------------- 
1. Borderline between Finite and Infinite 

This is probably the biggest mistake in all of mathematics for it 
affects all other mathematics. 

by Archimedes Plutonium 

There is only one way you can have a concept of finite, by having a 
concept of infinity, and the only way you can have both, is that a 
borderline exists between them. 

I have pinpointed that borderline from tractrix-circle analysis, from 
algebraic analysis of algebraic completeness, and from angles of 
regular polyhedra. The borderline in microinfinity is 1*10^-604 and in 
macroinfinity is 1*10^604. 

-------------- 
2. Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus 
can exist, and does exist 

by Archimedes Plutonium 

Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no 
continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points. 
This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called 
Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2, 
.3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1, 
no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise 
numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first 
few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc. 

Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between 
consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so 
that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose 
interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any 
Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is 
.01. 

But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with 
the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves 
in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments. 

It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of 
the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the 
function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the 
folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph 
as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function 
graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the 
derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question, 
and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the 
function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of 
that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function, 
is the function graph itself. 

If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a 
minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a 
diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and 
what Calculus does. 

The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a 
trapezoid and rectangle. Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of 
the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved, 
you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the 
rectangle for integral as area. 

From this: 
        B 
        /| 
      /  | 
 A /----| 
  /      | 
|        | 
|____| 


The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative) 
so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for 
integral. 

To this: 

______ 
|         | 
|         | 
|         | 
--------- 

And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points 
A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part 
of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no 
continuum exists in mathematics. 

In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in 
which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to 
derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a 
hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle. 

Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus 
Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention 
to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal 
Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never 
going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight. 

by Archimedes Plutonium 
------------------ 



On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 2:15:47 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Cornell Univ math dept which none of them can even do correct logic, so, hopeless in doing correct math. All of which made worse in that these failing professors control Arxiv.org. The blind leading the blind.
> 
> See TRUE LOGIC corrections below::
> 
> 
> Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty 
> Marcelo Aguiar 
> Jason Manning 
> Slawomir Solecki 
> Dan M. Barbasch 
> Karola Meszaros 
> Philippe Sosoe 
> Yuri Berest 
> Justin Moore 
> Birgit E. Speh 
> Louis Billera 
> Camil Muscalu 
> Michael E. Stillman 
> Xiaodong Cao 
> Anil Nerode 
> Robert S. Strichartz 
> Robert Connelly 
> Michael Nussbaum 
> Steven Strogatz 
> R. Keith Dennis 
> Irena Peeva 
> Edward Swartz 
> Daniel Halpern-Leistner 
> zzzzz 
> Ravi Ramakrishna 
> Nicolas Templier 
> Timothy J. Healey 
> Richard H. Rand 
> Alex Townsend 
> Tara Holm 
> Timothy Riley 
> Alexander Vladimirsky 
> John H. Hubbard 
> Laurent Saloff-Coste 
> Marten Wegkamp 
> Martin Kassabov 
> Shankar Sen 
> James E. West 
> Allen Knutson 
> Richard A. Shore 
> Inna Zakharevich 
> Lionel Levine 
> Reyer Sjamaar 
> David Zywina 
> Emeritus and Retired Faculty 
> Allen Back 
> Allen Hatcher 
> Alfred H. Schatz 
> James H. Bramble 
> David W. Henderson 
> John Smillie 
> Kenneth S. Brown 
> J.T. Gene Hwang 
> Moss E. Sweedler 
> Stephen U. Chase 
> Yulij Ilyashenko 
> Daina Taimina 
> Marshall M. Cohen 
> Peter J. Kahn 
> Robert E. Terrell 
> Clifford J. Earle 
> Harry Kesten 
> Maria S. Terrell 
> Roger H. Farrell 
> G. Roger Livesay 
> Karen Vogtmann 
> Leonard Gross 
> Michael D. Morley 
> Beverly West 
> John M. Guckenheimer 
> 
> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#395317

2. Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus
can exist, and does exist

by Archimedes Plutonium

Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no
continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points.
This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called
Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2,
.3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1,
no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise
numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first
few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc.

Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between
consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so
that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose
interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any
Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is
.01.

But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with
the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves
in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments.

It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of
the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the
function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the
folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph
as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function
graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the
derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question,
and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the
function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of
that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function,
is the function graph itself.

If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a
minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a
diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and
what Calculus does.

The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a
trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the 

FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture

Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of
the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved,
you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the
rectangle for integral as area.

From this:
        B
        /|
      /  |
 A /----|
  /      |
|        |
|____|


The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral.

To this:

______
|         |
|         |
|         |
---------

And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points
A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part
of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no
continuum exists in mathematics.

In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in
which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to
derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a
hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle.

Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus
Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention
to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal
Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never
going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight.

by Archimedes Plutonium
------------------



On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 9:52:58 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> So bad is math at Cornell Univ, that the mistakes do not stop with 2 OR 3 = 5 according to Boole's logic which Cornell Univ uses, but that the professors there cannot even provide a Calculus picture of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. 
> 
> Sad, that those professors scold students when they make mistakes and expect the student to correct their errors, but when Cornell math professors are shown their errors, they act like hypocrites and go on teaching the same error filled math. 
> 
> -------------------------- 
> 1. Borderline between Finite and Infinite 
> 
> This is probably the biggest mistake in all of mathematics for it 
> affects all other mathematics. 
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium 
> 
> There is only one way you can have a concept of finite, by having a 
> concept of infinity, and the only way you can have both, is that a 
> borderline exists between them. 
> 
> I have pinpointed that borderline from tractrix-circle analysis, from 
> algebraic analysis of algebraic completeness, and from angles of 
> regular polyhedra. The borderline in microinfinity is 1*10^-604 and in 
> macroinfinity is 1*10^604. 
> 
> -------------- 
> 2. Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus 
> can exist, and does exist 
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium 
> 
> Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no 
> continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points. 
> This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called 
> Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2, 
> .3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1, 
> no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise 
> numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first 
> few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc. 
> 
> Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between 
> consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so 
> that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose 
> interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any 
> Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is 
> .01. 
> 
> But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with 
> the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves 
> in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments. 
> 
> It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of 
> the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the 
> function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the 
> folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph 
> as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function 
> graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the 
> derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question, 
> and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the 
> function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of 
> that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function, 
> is the function graph itself. 
> 
> If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a 
> minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a 
> diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and 
> what Calculus does. 
> 
> The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a 
> trapezoid and rectangle. Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of 
> the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved, 
> you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the 
> rectangle for integral as area. 
> 
> From this: 
>         B 
>         /| 
>       /  | 
>  A /----| 
>   /      | 
> |        | 
> |____| 
> 
> 
> The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative) 
> so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for 
> integral. 
> 
> To this: 
> 
> ______ 
> |         | 
> |         | 
> |         | 
> --------- 
> 
> And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points 
> A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part 
> of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no 
> continuum exists in mathematics. 
> 
> In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in 
> which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to 
> derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a 
> hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle. 
> 
> Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus 
> Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention 
> to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal 
> Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never 
> going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight. 
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium 
> ------------------ 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 2:15:47 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Cornell Univ math dept which none of them can even do correct logic, so, hopeless in doing correct math. All of which made worse in that these failing professors control Arxiv.org. The blind leading the blind.
> > 
> > See TRUE LOGIC corrections below::
> > 
> > 
> > Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty 
> > Marcelo Aguiar 
> > Jason Manning 
> > Slawomir Solecki 
> > Dan M. Barbasch 
> > Karola Meszaros 
> > Philippe Sosoe 
> > Yuri Berest 
> > Justin Moore 
> > Birgit E. Speh 
> > Louis Billera 
> > Camil Muscalu 
> > Michael E. Stillman 
> > Xiaodong Cao 
> > Anil Nerode 
> > Robert S. Strichartz 
> > Robert Connelly 
> > Michael Nussbaum 
> > Steven Strogatz 
> > R. Keith Dennis 
> > Irena Peeva 
> > Edward Swartz 
> > Daniel Halpern-Leistner 
> > zzzzz 
> > Ravi Ramakrishna 
> > Nicolas Templier 
> > Timothy J. Healey 
> > Richard H. Rand 
> > Alex Townsend 
> > Tara Holm 
> > Timothy Riley 
> > Alexander Vladimirsky 
> > John H. Hubbard 
> > Laurent Saloff-Coste 
> > Marten Wegkamp 
> > Martin Kassabov 
> > Shankar Sen 
> > James E. West 
> > Allen Knutson 
> > Richard A. Shore 
> > Inna Zakharevich 
> > Lionel Levine 
> > Reyer Sjamaar 
> > David Zywina 
> > Emeritus and Retired Faculty 
> > Allen Back 
> > Allen Hatcher 
> > Alfred H. Schatz 
> > James H. Bramble 
> > David W. Henderson 
> > John Smillie 
> > Kenneth S. Brown 
> > J.T. Gene Hwang 
> > Moss E. Sweedler 
> > Stephen U. Chase 
> > Yulij Ilyashenko 
> > Daina Taimina 
> > Marshall M. Cohen 
> > Peter J. Kahn 
> > Robert E. Terrell 
> > Clifford J. Earle 
> > Harry Kesten 
> > Maria S. Terrell 
> > Roger H. Farrell 
> > G. Roger Livesay 
> > Karen Vogtmann 
> > Leonard Gross 
> > Michael D. Morley 
> > Beverly West 
> > John M. Guckenheimer 
> > 
> > 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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web