Logica

I posted in this thread because the OP writes: The gist of ALL my posts here was an attempt to challenge assumptions...not just some covert way to refute 0.9999... infinitely repeating 9's = 1. I am interested in O and questions O defined etc. 1) What is the hole in the first proof. The use of the function y=1-1/x is a mathematical construct to compensate for the fact that .999... cannot achieve 1. It is numerically impossible because computation is locked in at .999... and although the function appears to resolve .999... = 1 it is at the same time fudging this result. So my proof: Let x = 0.1 Therefore 10*x = 1 x = .1 .1 X .09999 = .999... + y = 1 y is indeterminate in this case. 2) What is a number c such that 0.999... < c < 1? Note .9 and .1 positions are equidistant in relation to 1 both are separated from 1 by .1 But because .999... can never reach 1 we must concede that .1 is closer to 1 than .999... and thus .999...cannot = 1 .999... < .1 < 1 Please do not lecture me - I am not a mathematician but I do not think this should preclude me from participating in this thread listed under Speculation & Pseudoscience thread. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI see you are online now but it is 3:10 am and I cannot hang around for your response. Good night!

The point is "the point". I will outline answers to your questions in about an hour cause I'm in the middle of something else at the moment. But 3*.3333 = .9999 not 1...if you can be patient calculate how many 0.1's would be needed to make up the deficit of .0001 to round off to 1.

Maths Expert! Nothing is wrong with the number. I asking if we understand the number fully. When we count 1 + 1.....we assume value of 1....but where do we derive that value 1 if not by the total of 0.1 * 10. The 0.1 starts at ZERO. Go and think about this a bit more before you say you don't understand.

Between 0 and 1 there are 10 (ten) point ones (.1) .1 * 10 = 1 In the answer 1.33333 the .333333 also tells us something about the numerical distance relationship between 0 and 1. But where do these .1's begin at O or 1? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No I don't subscribe to [math]\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{n+1}{n}[/math]

Kyrisch I think you are on the right track - ALL things have a potential to be True, False or Neutral simultaneously. 2 + 2 = 4 But divide 4 by 3 and you get 1.3333333 remaining not 1 Divide 3 by 2 and you get renmaining 1.5 not 1 Note how the remainder of these numbers are > 1 Haven't got time to discuss now but 1 is never actually 1 exactly so 2 + 2 = NOT EXACTLY 4 (TRUE)

Interesting Challenge! I will think about this one. In logic (-) is the symbol for NOT So: 5 and not 3 = 2 makes sense 5 + (-3) = 2 (-) Serves to Negate something but this does not mean deriving an opposite: e.g. To negate Hot we would not say COLD we would say NOT HOT (implying potential for being something else.) X = HOT -X = NOT HOT The directional aspect of + and - is demonstrated on the Number line. Conceptually though when you remove 1000 leaves away from a tree of 3000 leaves the 1000 leaves still exist - just that they are not on the tree anymore.

Thanks Bob that was very cute and funny!

Bob - can you please review my arguments regarding expressing the state of superposition? I would like you opinion.

We all start with the assumption of 1/0 but have to prove otherwise. Can you see that my solution is eqivalent to x = {0, -1.118033989, 1.118033989}. and goes beyond 1/0 or T/F It goes beyond 1/0 (which binary or formal logic does not do) I have rendered 1 = T -1 = -T 0 = -T + T (x/-x/0) 3x + -8x + 4(x^3) = 0 Simplifying 3x + -8x + 4(x3) = 0 Combine like terms: 3x + -8x = -5x -5x + 4x3 = 0 Solving -5x + 4x3 = 0 Factor out the Greatest Common Factor (GCF), 'x'. x(-5 + 4x2) = 0 Subproblem 1 Set the factor 'x' equal to zero and attempt to solve: Simplifying x = 0 Solving x = 0 Move all terms containing x to the left, all other terms to the right. Simplifying x = 0 Subproblem 2 Set the factor '(-5 + 4x2)' equal to zero and attempt to solve: Simplifying -5 + 4x2 = 0 Solving -5 + 4x2 = 0 Move all terms containing x to the left, all other terms to the right. Add '5' to each side of the equation. -5 + 5 + 4x2 = 0 + 5 Combine like terms: -5 + 5 = 0 0 + 4x2 = 0 + 5 4x2 = 0 + 5 Combine like terms: 0 + 5 = 5 4x2 = 5 Divide each side by '4'. x2 = 1.25 Simplifying x2 = 1.25 Take the square root of each side: x = {-1.118033989, 1.118033989} Solution x = {0, -1.118033989, 1.118033989}

The implication of a binary condition was unintentional. Simply look at the problem like this: Let X = Within Positive amplitude of a wave -X = Not within positive amplitude of a wave p = position of particle We say in superposition that a case of both X and -X exists. In formal logic this is a contradiction. The same applies for binary conditions - only one can be TRUE: Either X or -X is True/1 but not both. Two value logic does not help us here. So we must assume the need for a third value of (0) Neutral to indicate this state of both true and not true simultaneously shown as. p = -(-X) + -(X) (we have to say this because unobserved position) p = X + -X (add) p = 0 (Neutral/Indeterminate etc) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The implication of a binary condition was unintentional. Simply look at the problem like this: Let X = Positive amplitude of a wave -X = Negative amplitude of a wave p = position of particle We say in superposition that a case of both X and -X exists. In formal logic this is a contradiction. The same applies for binary conditions - only one can be TRUE: Either X or -X is True/1 but not both. Two value logic does not help us here. So we must assume the need for a third value of (0) Neutral to indicate this state of both true and not true simultaneously shown as. p = -(-X) + -(X) (we have to say this because unobserved position) p = X + -X (add) p = 0 (Neutral/Indeterminate etc)

Your comment is ambiguous - which post are you referring to? And if mine did it positively or negatively reinforce your preferance for science.

Morals were the logical outcome of the human dualistic mind. The non-human has an instinctively unified amoral existence while in the human instinct has seemingly split/mutated into two separate conditions of Intellect and Emotion giving rise to behavior both necessary (like non-humans) and unnecessary.(very human). The conflict that this dualism has brought about has driven our thinking into dualistic conceptual modes of good/bad, right/wrong, moral/immoral etc. These dualistic concepts are arbitrary for most part thus determined by Nurture. But the need to behave, at this stage of our evolution, in a dualistic framework, is what is driving our evolution because the conflict caused by dualism drives cognitive development more than anything else.

Now = The time neutral point from which past and future can be conceptually derived and measured. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Gosh asprung if you really want to prove your thesis you have to show that "now' is independent of time/distance/velocity otherwise it becomes a confusing paradigm within the existing paradigm.

Thank you for moderator input....maybe my expression was a bit clumsy because I was more focusing on the conceptual case of the Quantum Cat. But I have shown the "both states at once" at (2) 1) -(X) + -(-X) 2) = -X + X 3) = 0 I call (3) Neutral because the TRUE relationship to X or -X is one of Quantum Indeterminacy or neutrality....it is not committed to a single position as we see in the Double-Split Experiment when one slit is covered. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged QM will maybe discover the dynamics of these otherwise undetected and unacknowledged interactions (s.a. the presence of an observer:cool:) that perpetually impact on the way reality unfolds.

The following link is a satirical article on Superposition: http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i24833 I have devised an logical format that encapsulates the dynamics of superposition Let X = The cat is alive Therefore X = The cat is alive or -X = The cat is not alive (dead) Opening the box would prove which is true X or -X So without proof we must say: It is not the case that the cat is alive (no proof) But it's not the case either that the cat is dead (no proof) This is often awkwardly expressed as "Both Dead and Alive". But better expressed would be 'its indeterminate at this stage whether the cat is dead or alive' -(X) + -(-X) = -X + X = 0 With 0/neutrality (not + or -) I have attempted to encapsulate superposition.