Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: The Law of the Excluded Muddle

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default The Law of the Excluded Muddle

    I have added the following to my paper on the Relativistic Unit Circle for those who might be interested in Symbolic Logic and Goedel's Theorem...

    The Relativistic Unit Circle

    -----------------------------------

    Consider the concepts of Truth and Falsity . If it is impossible for a proposition to be simultaneously true and false, these values are independent, and so orthogonal in a two-dimensional vector space:



    In order to indicate possible confusion (ambiguity, disagreement), we need a way of comparing truth with falsity for all possible values of either parameter. We can do this with the scaling factors and where the possibility of conflict resolution can be represented by the vector space:

    , where .

    The possibility that is given by: ; i.e., all propositions are true propositions.

    If is the final state of the logical analysis, then (all true and false propositions have been examined, but there is always disagreement unless .)

    If is the iniitial state of the argument, then , so the argument can be resolved only if .

    This is called the Law of the Excluded Muddle….

    This Law is fundamental to the Pauli/Dirac formulation that is the foundation of Quantum Field Theory… (and other disciplines that address conservation of parameters in two dimensions. (e.g., Love, Hate), (Knowledge, Ignorance),

    (More dimensions, and things get REALLY confusing… )

    (The Binomial Theorem for n > 2 applies, along with Fermat's theorem....

    -----------
    For two sets of participants, the relation is given by .

    Since the only true analyst in the Universe is myself, then , signifying that , where I represents me.

    This means that I have only been wrong once, and that was when I thought I made a mistake..
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 12-29-2016 at 11:57 AM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    564

    Default Re: The Law of the Excluded Muddle

    If it is impossible for a proposition to be simultaneously true and false, these values are independent, and so orthogonal in a two-dimensional vector space:
    What a bunch of word salad. The conclusion there does not follow from the premises as they have nothign to do with one another.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: The Law of the Excluded Muddle

    The number of truths one tells is independent of the number of lies one tells.... or is it?
    For those of who are aware there may be an issue... the Liar paradox applies...
    But some will never be aware.....

    Especially those who are only aware of one dimension.... it is a medical condition known as tunnel vision....

    But now, migod, there are FOUR of them!!!

    This is gonna be fun again...

    (the precise analysis requires the Pauli/Dirac matrices and their symmetries; I'm back to working on the pdf now. This thread was just a taste to introduce intelligent readers to some of the ideas involved.... The issues relate to the various symmetries involved in rotations and reflections of the RUC.... Quantum Physicists understand this completely....

    Some donkeys (who bray loudly at the slightest provocation) are not even aware there are any issues.... Kind of like the guy who stand outside a chess tournament and shouts loudly ("White to mate in four moves!") but has no idea what the actual game is all about ....
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 12-30-2016 at 12:59 AM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    564

    Default Re: The Law of the Excluded Muddle

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    Especially those who are only aware of one dimension.... it is a medical condition known as tunnel vision....
    You keep talking about dimensions but you have no clue what they mean, just like every other mathematical concept. I have repeatedly also told you I deal with things that goes beyond dimension so you are laughable.

    Study some mathematics and learn what "dimension" mean and that it is not always applicable.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Counting - The Law of the Excluded Muddle

    Counting

    Two philosophers, A and B are counting positive widgets. At some point they stop counting and claim they have a final result.

    A claims “Aha! I have counted all the positive widgets in the Universe, and the number is .

    B claims “No! That cannot be. I have counted all the positive widgets in the Universe, and the number is .

    How can we decide which one is right?

    Again, we can assign a weight to each widget count . This gives us a picture of the final condition at:





    (so it doesn't matter if the widgets are positive or negative).

    The conclusions from the Relativistic Unit circle, Fermat’s Theorem, QFT, GTR, and Godel’s theorem follow immediately.

    If , there are no widgets. ( is a figment of the imagination ) .

    If , then only A is counting, so A must be right ( )

    If the product exist,s then there is an argument over who is right or wrong.

    If , the result of the count cannot consist of unit widgets.

    If , not all the widgets have been counted.... (The final condition is now the initial condition again.)

    To introduce negative widgets, one must use the imagination:











    Pythagorean Triples

    E.g., In the case of Pythagorean Triples (true for real numbers as well), the numbers have the relation:

    , so .

    That is, the numbers are on the same number line. This is also true for real numbers, where each side of the equality refer to the same single valued number () in the Relativistic Unit Circle).

    The actual integers the symbols represent will depend on the way the integers are counted; i.e., the number base (normally base 10 in our system).


    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 12-30-2016 at 06:58 PM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •