Archimedes Plutonium
2018-12-30 18:42:53 UTC
8:47:07 petty criminal J4n Bur53 wrote: > Not a single line of math,//parasite moneygrub logicians??//Alan Jean-Yves Girard, Siegfried Gottwald,Jeroen Groenendijk with their 3 OR 2= 5 their 3 AND 2 = 1, embrace the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both
8:47:07 petty criminal J4n Bur53 wrote: > Not a single line of math,,,// parasite moneygrub logicians??//Alan Jean-Yves Girard,
Siegfried Gottwald,Jeroen Groenendijk,Susan Haack, with their 3 OR 2= 5 while their 3 AND 2 = 1, embrace the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both
Here is where petty criminal Jan Burse tore down Archimedes Plutonium wikipedia page
• (cur | prev) 14:09, 6 March 2017 DMacks (talk | contribs) . . (20,500 bytes) (+1,287) . . (unexplained removal of on-topic and somewhat-cited content Undid revision 768910666 by Janburse (talk)) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 13:51, 6 March 2017 Janburse (talk | contribs) . . (19,213 bytes) (-1,287) . . (→Eccentric believers) (undo)
At about the same time as Burse tearing down AP's Wikipedia page a forgery in the name of Archimedes Plutonium to Math Stack Exchange, MSE, in that same year, and since both Burse and Christensen posted to sci.math saying they approved of the forgery makes one suspicious that Burse and Christensen are connected to the forgery::
Here is the nonsense appearing under my name---
Archimedes Plutonium
438 ●10
Profile
Activity
This user has not filled their about me section yet.
4
answers
20
questions
~1k
people reached
Communities (2)
Mathematics
438 ●10
MathOverflow
101 ●3
Top Tags (12)
complex-analysis
10
score
14
posts
58
posts %
proof-verification
6
score
15
posts
62
posts %
proof-writing
4
score
9
posts
38
posts %
real-analysis
3
score
3
posts
12
posts %
uniform-convergence
1
score
2
posts
8
posts %
absolute-convergence
1
score
2
posts
8
posts %
View all tags →
Top Posts (24)
Sort
8
Prove that ∑∞n=0anzn
n
0
∞
a
n
z
n
converges absolutely and uniformly in D
D
.
Sep 5 '17
4
Munkres Topology, page 102, question 19:a
Sep 5 '17
4
What is the closure of (0,1)
0
1
in Rk
R
k
?
Aug 28 '17
4
If the complex series ∑∞
Still there-- the forged entry Mr. Atwood & Spolsky, still there
User Archimedes Plutonium - Mathematics Stack ...
Stack Exchange › math › users › archime...
archimedes plutonium from math.stackexchange.com
Archimedes Plutonium top 56% overall. Apparently, this user prefers to keep an air of mystery about them. 4 answers. 20 questions. ~1k people reached. Member for 6 months; 113 profile views; Last seen Nov 9 '17 at ...
Jan Burse, insane petty criminal stalker Swiss
..
.- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
, . `.' ' `.
.' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
. ; .' . `. ;
; . ' `. . '
. ' ` `. |
. '. '
. 0 0 ' `.
' `
; `
.' `
; U `
; '; `
: | ;.. :` `
: `;. ```. .-; | '
'. ` ``.., .' :' '
; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am the petty thug Swiss criminal who tears down web sites and loves to see forgeries of innocent victims to Math Stack Exchange. I failed math and logic and so spends the time attacking people. If you catch me, please do not put me into a Swiss prison for I have my buddies Dan Christensen, Zelos Malum, qbwr, Jan Bielawski, Franz, Michael Moroney, Eastside, Earle Jones, Konyberg to teach how to be a petty criminal
` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` `. ````'''''' ' '
` . ' '
/ ` `. ' ' .
/ ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
/ .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
/ .'' ; ` .' `
...'.' ; .' ` .' `
"" .' .' | ` .; \ `
; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
:' | ' ` , `. `
| ' ` ' `. `
` ' ` ; `. |
`.' ` ; `-'
`...'
LIST of failed Logicians
Source- Wikipedia list of logicians (alive ones)
Peter Bruce Andrews
Lennart Aqvist
Henk Barendregt
John Lane Bell
Nuel Belnap
Paul Benacerraf
Jean Paul Van Bendegem
Johan van Benthem
Jean-Yves Beziau
Andrea Bonomi
Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers)
Alan Richard Bundy
Gregory Chaitin
Jack Copeland
John Corcoran
Dirk van Dalen
Martin Davis
Michael A.E. Dummett
John Etchemendy
Hartry Field
Kit Fine
Melvin Fitting
Matthew Foreman
Michael Fourman
Harvey Friedman
Dov Gabbay
L.T.F. Gamut (group of logic fumblers)
Sol Garfunkel
Jean-Yves Girard
Siegfried Gottwald
Jeroen Groenendijk
Susan Haack
Leo Harrington
William Alvin Howard
Ronald Jensen
Dick de Jongh
David Kaplan
Alexander S. Kechris
Howard Jerome Keisler
Robert Kowalski
Georg Kreisel
Saul Kripke
Kenneth Kunen
Karel Lambert
Penelope Maddy
David Makinson
Isaac Malitz
Gary R. Mar
Donald A. Martin
Per Martin-Lof
Yiannis N. Moschovakis
Jeff Paris
Charles Parsons
Solomon Passy
Lorenzo Pena
Dag Prawitz
Graham Priest
Michael O. Rabin
Gerald Sacks
Dana Scott
Stewart Shapiro
Theodore Slaman
Robert M. Solovay
John R. Steel
Martin Stokhof
Anne Sjerp Troelstra
Alasdair Urquhart
Moshe Y. Vardi
W. Hugh Woodin
John Woods
Now I should include the authors of Logic textbooks for they, more than most, perpetuate and crank the error filled logic, the Horrible Error of 4 OR 3 = 7 with 4 AND 3 = 1, that is forced down the throats of young students, making them cripples of ever thinking straight and clearly.
Many of these authors have passed away but their error filled books are a scourge to modern education
George Boole,
William Jevons,
Bertrand Russell,
Kurt Godel,
Rudolf Carnap,
Ludwig Wittgenstein,
Willard Quine,
Alfred North Whitehead,
Irving Copi,
Michael Withey,
Patrick Hurley,
Harry J Gensler,
David Kelley,
Jesse Bollinger,
Theodore Sider,
David Barker-Plummer,
I. C. Robledo,
John Nolt,
Peter Smith,
Stan Baronett,
Jim Holt,
Virginia Klenk,
David Agler,
Susanne K. Langer,
Gary M. Hardegree,
Raymond M. Smullyan,
John Venn,
William Gustason,
Richmond H. Thomason, partial list for now,
Scientists that are just memorization not masters Re: Analysis of failures..Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV
Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic// Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Hendrik Pieter Barendregt, John Lane Bell, Irving Copi, Michael Withey, Patrick Hurley, Harry J Gensler, David Kelley, Jesse Bollinger, Theodore Sider, David Barker-Plummer, I. C. Robledo, John Nolt, Peter Smith, Stan Baronett, Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan, John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, partial list for now.
All of them are clowns of logic, although they have interest in logic, none are past a baby stage understanding of what Logic is. They are all worse than the fool George Boole. All of them are a disgrace to the subject we call Logic. All of them are in the same boat as George Boole-- catching pneumonia and then having his wife douse him in bed with cold freezing water and taking cold showers-- thinking that combatting pneumonia is done by getting colder.
All of the above listed should never be allowed to teach their nonsense and pollute the minds of youngsters with their crazy 9 OR 5 = 14 with 9 AND 5 = 4, all because a crazy Boole with Jevons in the 1800s thought that OR was add and AND was subtract. All because a true logician has more than a microgram brain of Logic in his head, and realizes that if you had a string of statements, say 10 statements and if just one single statement of those ten is true, makes the entire set of 10 to be true also, regardless of the truth value of the other 9 statements. Said in a different manner, if you have a truth of a single statement, and, no matter how you surround that single statement with 9 other statements, regardless of their truth value, because of the truth of the one statement makes the combined all 10 statements have a true value.
The stupid microgram brain of Boole and Jevons in the subject of Logic (witness their history with pneumonia) is not a Logic at all, for it leads to the incredibly stupid formulation that 3 AND 2 = 1 with 3 OR 2 = 5. Yes, those two logical idiots Boole and Jevons and every idiot of Logic since those two, have thought the truth table of AND was TFFF, when according to a real true logical person-- you need just 1 true statement to make a compound statements as a whole be true. So the true true truth table of AND was TTTF. And this makes sense in the above idiots of Logic with their OR, so confused were those idiots that they combined a "or" with an "and" and generated a "inclusive or" of TTTF. I mean what clowns are these? Who think that OR has to be compounded or a composite of "and", with "or" forming the idiot idea of an "inclusive or" and, not even realizing that you no longer have a primitive-connector. The true truth table of OR is exclusive and is FTTF, which is subtraction in mathematics.
Inclusive OR, INCLUSIVE OR, is the invention of an idiot of logic, pure slab of bonehead worthless bonehead of Logic, for the "inclusive or" is a village idiot mind that stacks together the OR and the AND all into one idiotic product of Either ,,Or,, Or Both. Not an accident waiting to happen in Logic, a multiple chain collision on the expressway is the Either Or Or Both. It is not a primitive logical Connector that the 4 primitive logic Connectors need to be, no, the Either Or Or Both is already a fool's built compound connector pretending to be primitive connector. A village idiot of the 1800s like George Boole and his compatriot Jevons would not have enough of a logical mind to see that Either Or Or Both is a compound piece of worthless nonsense. Even a 8 year old can see that Either Or Or Both is a compounded piece of crap and has no business of being in Logic primitive connectors.
To be in Logic, you need a Logical Mind to even do logic, and to come up with a SELF CONTRACTION in terms like it is updown or it is overeasy-hard, is the same as Inclusive-Or, a term and idea that is a self-contradiction. Logic is about staying away from contradiction. And here, starting with Boole and Jevons, they built their logic on a Contradiction of the inclusive-or. It would be like at the Olympics in the 100 meter dash, at the sound of the gun, a runner, instead of going forwards, goes backwards in running step in the dash, not to the finish line but to oblivion running backwards.
So, please stop torturing the brains and minds of our young students just because you are a clown of microgram brain of logic. And throw out all the OLD LOGIC textbooks for they are not learning or teaching but brainwashing by polluting moneygrub creeps.
#1 first comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many math professors are deaf dumb and blind to
My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
History of AP Logic starts with 1991 and culminates with New Logic that replaces Old Logic by 2015. Old Logic is like comparing a flat earth theory to a true round earth theory.
Before you do Mathematics, you need to be able to think correctly, straight and clear. Unfortunately schools across the world do not teach proper true Logic. They teach a mish mash gaggle of error filled garbage and call it Logic.
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. That explanation is of course the Space in which the Logic operators govern, and the full space is area, so that is multiplication. And we see that in a geometry diagram
T T
T T where all four small squares are T valued making a 4 square
While addition is and with a Space like this
T T
T F and we have just 3 of the 4 smaller squares covered by addition.
Here you we have one truth table equal/not whose endresult is 4 trues and now we move on to AND as addition.
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.
1.1 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). In fact, in a proof in mathematics, the proof can be full of false and nonsense statements, so long as the proof itself is there and be seen as overall True. For example the proof of SAS in geometry, side angle side, can be packed with false statements and irrelevant statements and still be true.
1.2 The error of "if-then" truth table should be TFUU, not that of TFTT
1.3 The error of "not" and "equal", neither unary, but should be binary
1.4 The error that Reductio Ad Absurdum is a proof method, when it is
merely probability-truth, not guaranteed
1.5 The error, the "or" connector is truth table FTTF, never that of TTTF, for the idea of an inclusive "or", --- either A or B or both, is a self contradiction. And funny, how the fathers of Logic-- Boole and Jevons had a connector that was self contradictory, as if the fathers of logic had no logical mind to be doing logic in the first place.
1.6 So that begs the question, what in mathematics has a truth table of TFFF. Well the simple answer is that it is a reverse of TTTF which is AND, and so the former can be got by that of a NOT function on AND. But in isolation, what is a table of TFFF in mathematics? My guess is it is Absolute Value, a form of Absolute Value in mathematics, but that is only a guess. In 2016 I gave a half hearted argument that TFFF was absolute value.
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu
::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
8:47:07 petty criminal J4n Bur53 wrote: > Not a single line of math,,,// parasite moneygrub logicians??//Alan Jean-Yves Girard,
Siegfried Gottwald,Jeroen Groenendijk,Susan Haack, with their 3 OR 2= 5 while their 3 AND 2 = 1, embrace the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both
Not a single line of math, already for 30 years.
AP writes: I do not know what the definition of petty criminal is-- but I see it as anyone who cuts into the time of another person, having to chase their deeds down and fix the situation, such as ripping out my Wikipedia site, or forgery to Math Stack Exchange.Here is where petty criminal Jan Burse tore down Archimedes Plutonium wikipedia page
• (cur | prev) 14:09, 6 March 2017 DMacks (talk | contribs) . . (20,500 bytes) (+1,287) . . (unexplained removal of on-topic and somewhat-cited content Undid revision 768910666 by Janburse (talk)) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 13:51, 6 March 2017 Janburse (talk | contribs) . . (19,213 bytes) (-1,287) . . (→Eccentric believers) (undo)
At about the same time as Burse tearing down AP's Wikipedia page a forgery in the name of Archimedes Plutonium to Math Stack Exchange, MSE, in that same year, and since both Burse and Christensen posted to sci.math saying they approved of the forgery makes one suspicious that Burse and Christensen are connected to the forgery::
Here is the nonsense appearing under my name---
Archimedes Plutonium
438 ●10
Profile
Activity
This user has not filled their about me section yet.
4
answers
20
questions
~1k
people reached
Communities (2)
Mathematics
438 ●10
MathOverflow
101 ●3
Top Tags (12)
complex-analysis
10
score
14
posts
58
posts %
proof-verification
6
score
15
posts
62
posts %
proof-writing
4
score
9
posts
38
posts %
real-analysis
3
score
3
posts
12
posts %
uniform-convergence
1
score
2
posts
8
posts %
absolute-convergence
1
score
2
posts
8
posts %
View all tags →
Top Posts (24)
Sort
8
Prove that ∑∞n=0anzn
n
0
∞
a
n
z
n
converges absolutely and uniformly in D
D
.
Sep 5 '17
4
Munkres Topology, page 102, question 19:a
Sep 5 '17
4
What is the closure of (0,1)
0
1
in Rk
R
k
?
Aug 28 '17
4
If the complex series ∑∞
Still there-- the forged entry Mr. Atwood & Spolsky, still there
User Archimedes Plutonium - Mathematics Stack ...
Stack Exchange › math › users › archime...
archimedes plutonium from math.stackexchange.com
Archimedes Plutonium top 56% overall. Apparently, this user prefers to keep an air of mystery about them. 4 answers. 20 questions. ~1k people reached. Member for 6 months; 113 profile views; Last seen Nov 9 '17 at ...
Jan Burse, insane petty criminal stalker Swiss
..
.- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
, . `.' ' `.
.' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
. ; .' . `. ;
; . ' `. . '
. ' ` `. |
. '. '
. 0 0 ' `.
' `
; `
.' `
; U `
; '; `
: | ;.. :` `
: `;. ```. .-; | '
'. ` ``.., .' :' '
; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am the petty thug Swiss criminal who tears down web sites and loves to see forgeries of innocent victims to Math Stack Exchange. I failed math and logic and so spends the time attacking people. If you catch me, please do not put me into a Swiss prison for I have my buddies Dan Christensen, Zelos Malum, qbwr, Jan Bielawski, Franz, Michael Moroney, Eastside, Earle Jones, Konyberg to teach how to be a petty criminal
` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` `. ````'''''' ' '
` . ' '
/ ` `. ' ' .
/ ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
/ .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
/ .'' ; ` .' `
...'.' ; .' ` .' `
"" .' .' | ` .; \ `
; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
:' | ' ` , `. `
| ' ` ' `. `
` ' ` ; `. |
`.' ` ; `-'
`...'
LIST of failed Logicians
Source- Wikipedia list of logicians (alive ones)
Peter Bruce Andrews
Lennart Aqvist
Henk Barendregt
John Lane Bell
Nuel Belnap
Paul Benacerraf
Jean Paul Van Bendegem
Johan van Benthem
Jean-Yves Beziau
Andrea Bonomi
Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers)
Alan Richard Bundy
Gregory Chaitin
Jack Copeland
John Corcoran
Dirk van Dalen
Martin Davis
Michael A.E. Dummett
John Etchemendy
Hartry Field
Kit Fine
Melvin Fitting
Matthew Foreman
Michael Fourman
Harvey Friedman
Dov Gabbay
L.T.F. Gamut (group of logic fumblers)
Sol Garfunkel
Jean-Yves Girard
Siegfried Gottwald
Jeroen Groenendijk
Susan Haack
Leo Harrington
William Alvin Howard
Ronald Jensen
Dick de Jongh
David Kaplan
Alexander S. Kechris
Howard Jerome Keisler
Robert Kowalski
Georg Kreisel
Saul Kripke
Kenneth Kunen
Karel Lambert
Penelope Maddy
David Makinson
Isaac Malitz
Gary R. Mar
Donald A. Martin
Per Martin-Lof
Yiannis N. Moschovakis
Jeff Paris
Charles Parsons
Solomon Passy
Lorenzo Pena
Dag Prawitz
Graham Priest
Michael O. Rabin
Gerald Sacks
Dana Scott
Stewart Shapiro
Theodore Slaman
Robert M. Solovay
John R. Steel
Martin Stokhof
Anne Sjerp Troelstra
Alasdair Urquhart
Moshe Y. Vardi
W. Hugh Woodin
John Woods
Now I should include the authors of Logic textbooks for they, more than most, perpetuate and crank the error filled logic, the Horrible Error of 4 OR 3 = 7 with 4 AND 3 = 1, that is forced down the throats of young students, making them cripples of ever thinking straight and clearly.
Many of these authors have passed away but their error filled books are a scourge to modern education
George Boole,
William Jevons,
Bertrand Russell,
Kurt Godel,
Rudolf Carnap,
Ludwig Wittgenstein,
Willard Quine,
Alfred North Whitehead,
Irving Copi,
Michael Withey,
Patrick Hurley,
Harry J Gensler,
David Kelley,
Jesse Bollinger,
Theodore Sider,
David Barker-Plummer,
I. C. Robledo,
John Nolt,
Peter Smith,
Stan Baronett,
Jim Holt,
Virginia Klenk,
David Agler,
Susanne K. Langer,
Gary M. Hardegree,
Raymond M. Smullyan,
John Venn,
William Gustason,
Richmond H. Thomason, partial list for now,
Scientists that are just memorization not masters Re: Analysis of failures..Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV
Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic// Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Hendrik Pieter Barendregt, John Lane Bell, Irving Copi, Michael Withey, Patrick Hurley, Harry J Gensler, David Kelley, Jesse Bollinger, Theodore Sider, David Barker-Plummer, I. C. Robledo, John Nolt, Peter Smith, Stan Baronett, Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan, John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, partial list for now.
All of them are clowns of logic, although they have interest in logic, none are past a baby stage understanding of what Logic is. They are all worse than the fool George Boole. All of them are a disgrace to the subject we call Logic. All of them are in the same boat as George Boole-- catching pneumonia and then having his wife douse him in bed with cold freezing water and taking cold showers-- thinking that combatting pneumonia is done by getting colder.
All of the above listed should never be allowed to teach their nonsense and pollute the minds of youngsters with their crazy 9 OR 5 = 14 with 9 AND 5 = 4, all because a crazy Boole with Jevons in the 1800s thought that OR was add and AND was subtract. All because a true logician has more than a microgram brain of Logic in his head, and realizes that if you had a string of statements, say 10 statements and if just one single statement of those ten is true, makes the entire set of 10 to be true also, regardless of the truth value of the other 9 statements. Said in a different manner, if you have a truth of a single statement, and, no matter how you surround that single statement with 9 other statements, regardless of their truth value, because of the truth of the one statement makes the combined all 10 statements have a true value.
The stupid microgram brain of Boole and Jevons in the subject of Logic (witness their history with pneumonia) is not a Logic at all, for it leads to the incredibly stupid formulation that 3 AND 2 = 1 with 3 OR 2 = 5. Yes, those two logical idiots Boole and Jevons and every idiot of Logic since those two, have thought the truth table of AND was TFFF, when according to a real true logical person-- you need just 1 true statement to make a compound statements as a whole be true. So the true true truth table of AND was TTTF. And this makes sense in the above idiots of Logic with their OR, so confused were those idiots that they combined a "or" with an "and" and generated a "inclusive or" of TTTF. I mean what clowns are these? Who think that OR has to be compounded or a composite of "and", with "or" forming the idiot idea of an "inclusive or" and, not even realizing that you no longer have a primitive-connector. The true truth table of OR is exclusive and is FTTF, which is subtraction in mathematics.
Inclusive OR, INCLUSIVE OR, is the invention of an idiot of logic, pure slab of bonehead worthless bonehead of Logic, for the "inclusive or" is a village idiot mind that stacks together the OR and the AND all into one idiotic product of Either ,,Or,, Or Both. Not an accident waiting to happen in Logic, a multiple chain collision on the expressway is the Either Or Or Both. It is not a primitive logical Connector that the 4 primitive logic Connectors need to be, no, the Either Or Or Both is already a fool's built compound connector pretending to be primitive connector. A village idiot of the 1800s like George Boole and his compatriot Jevons would not have enough of a logical mind to see that Either Or Or Both is a compound piece of worthless nonsense. Even a 8 year old can see that Either Or Or Both is a compounded piece of crap and has no business of being in Logic primitive connectors.
To be in Logic, you need a Logical Mind to even do logic, and to come up with a SELF CONTRACTION in terms like it is updown or it is overeasy-hard, is the same as Inclusive-Or, a term and idea that is a self-contradiction. Logic is about staying away from contradiction. And here, starting with Boole and Jevons, they built their logic on a Contradiction of the inclusive-or. It would be like at the Olympics in the 100 meter dash, at the sound of the gun, a runner, instead of going forwards, goes backwards in running step in the dash, not to the finish line but to oblivion running backwards.
So, please stop torturing the brains and minds of our young students just because you are a clown of microgram brain of logic. And throw out all the OLD LOGIC textbooks for they are not learning or teaching but brainwashing by polluting moneygrub creeps.
#1 first comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many math professors are deaf dumb and blind to
My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
History of AP Logic starts with 1991 and culminates with New Logic that replaces Old Logic by 2015. Old Logic is like comparing a flat earth theory to a true round earth theory.
Before you do Mathematics, you need to be able to think correctly, straight and clear. Unfortunately schools across the world do not teach proper true Logic. They teach a mish mash gaggle of error filled garbage and call it Logic.
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. That explanation is of course the Space in which the Logic operators govern, and the full space is area, so that is multiplication. And we see that in a geometry diagram
T T
T T where all four small squares are T valued making a 4 square
While addition is and with a Space like this
T T
T F and we have just 3 of the 4 smaller squares covered by addition.
Here you we have one truth table equal/not whose endresult is 4 trues and now we move on to AND as addition.
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.
1.1 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). In fact, in a proof in mathematics, the proof can be full of false and nonsense statements, so long as the proof itself is there and be seen as overall True. For example the proof of SAS in geometry, side angle side, can be packed with false statements and irrelevant statements and still be true.
1.2 The error of "if-then" truth table should be TFUU, not that of TFTT
1.3 The error of "not" and "equal", neither unary, but should be binary
1.4 The error that Reductio Ad Absurdum is a proof method, when it is
merely probability-truth, not guaranteed
1.5 The error, the "or" connector is truth table FTTF, never that of TTTF, for the idea of an inclusive "or", --- either A or B or both, is a self contradiction. And funny, how the fathers of Logic-- Boole and Jevons had a connector that was self contradictory, as if the fathers of logic had no logical mind to be doing logic in the first place.
1.6 So that begs the question, what in mathematics has a truth table of TFFF. Well the simple answer is that it is a reverse of TTTF which is AND, and so the former can be got by that of a NOT function on AND. But in isolation, what is a table of TFFF in mathematics? My guess is it is Absolute Value, a form of Absolute Value in mathematics, but that is only a guess. In 2016 I gave a half hearted argument that TFFF was absolute value.
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu
::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium