Re: Unicornian Mathematics, Logic, and Whatever

Dr Zen wrote:

> "Zero" <ShakubukuTime@xxxxxxx> blathered:

> >> >[... 0zk3-04 http://tinyurl.com/7puov ...]
> >> >
> >> >and here's a review of Zen's astonishingly inconsistent answers:
> >> >
> >> >----------------------------- Q1
> >> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
> >> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
> >> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> >> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
> >> >
> >> > THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:
> >> >
> >> > a] True
> >>
> >> You think you cannot determine this
> >
> >no. i think you can determine it. that is,
> >as long as you use culturally crippled logic.
>
> Logic, IOW.

logic != culturally crippled logic


> >> You think you cannot determine this because you can't
> >> see how you've assumed that 2 "tens" are 1 + 2 + 1 + 2,
> >> but you have.
> >
> >i can see perfectly well how i've "assumed" all that.
>
> Yes, you've made the wrong assumption.

well, kinda. because i made the same assumption you did.


> >it's called mathematics. Base Three mathematics explicitly.
>
> You have not at any place in your assumptions said that you are
> using base three. Could you point out the assumption that says so?

all of it as a whole:

IF 0 + 1 = 1 AND 1 + 1 = 2 AND 10 + 1 = 11 AND 11 + 2 = 20

but particularly: AND 11 + 2 = 20 EOFS.


> >hence why you will not (and can not) show your "logical" work.
>
> I've explained why it's true.

translation: "Yes, we have no bananas."


> I've explained why it's true.

no, you haven't. anyway, yikes. that's exactly what the monkey
keeps squealing while frantically shaking the bars of his cage,
demanding another unearned banana.


> >EOFS. cha' ching! pay up, monkeyboy. "tens". Gawd.
>
> What else do you propose to call them?

X^1 numeric placeholders, or some such. definitely not "tens".

(though you DO get 3 cents for using the quotation marks).

so now you're down to $27.72 US. congrats on the progress.


> >> >----------------------------- Q2
> >> >
> >> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
> >> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
> >> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> >> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
> >> >
> >> > THEN 1 + 2 = 3 is:
> >> >
> >> > c] Unable to Determine
> >>
> >> You think this is false because there is no 3 in base 3.
> >
> >yes. it's False because of the conclusion you came to in Q1.
>
> No. I've explained, patiently and often, that I did not assume
> anything about base 3 in question 1.

and yet you've assumed (and employed) almost EVERYTHING about
Base Three in Q1. whoa. Raypert Pupkin and his magic wand must
be mighty proud.


> > "you've assumed that 2 "tens" are 1 + 2 + 1 + 2, but you have."
> >
> >that "tens" that you so weasely put into quotes means "threes".
>
> Yes, it does. So what?

so everything. duh.


> >that's a mathematical base system you're evasively yapping
> >on about. a mathematical base where the "tens" position is
> >represented by one of three possible symbols.
>
> Yes, indeed. But you have not at any point given as an
> assumption that you are using base three.

11 + 2 = 20 EOFS. (Unicornian alternatives excluded).


> So I do not know that you are excluding 3 as a symbol, do I?

yes, because it is not applicable in a Base Three context.

just where do you think it would show up? particularly given:

> >the premises indeed "assumed" a mathematical base system with
> >only three possible symbols: 0, 1, 2.
>
> No, they did not. It's not stated.

it's a given. every other numeric placeholder is out of context.

IOW: 11 + 2 = 20 disqualifies all other numeric placeholders.
particularly given the other assumptions provided. starting
very nicely and inexorably with 0 + 1 = 1.

unless... are you allowing for other Unicornian Mathematical
relationships? do tell.


> >so 1 + 2 cannot equal 3 when it equals 10 because 3 isn't
> >even a valid mathematical symbol in that case (let alone the
> >fact that 10 != 3 in any mathematical system).
>
> Boy, are you ignorant in maths!

squeals the monkey who says he still hasn't figure out what "um" is.


> "3" is a perfectly permissible symbol in base 3 because base
> 3 is no different from base 10 in the symbols it uses.
> Try thinking it over.

show me one one permissible use of the symbol "3" in Base Three
math which is NOT accompanied by a This-Symbol-Is-Not-Base-Three
signifier. good luck.


> >these are assumptions that you inexorably committed to in Q1.
>
> Nope. I used only the assumptions given.

all of which tightly lock you into that Base Three cage that
you're rattling so hard (trying an utterly futile escape).


> >like, duh. and the same "inexorable" logic applies to Q2.
>
> Nope. I used only the assumptions given.

which you could not grok usefully unless you understood at
least the minimal principles behind Base Three Math.

i'll now take this apropos opportunity to note that the logic
you are using above regarding "mysteriously" understanding the
inexorable nature of Base Three Mathematics (which allows you
to figure out that "1 + 2 = 10" is TRUE based only on the given
assumptions and how they are all also TRUE), is the EXACT same
reasoning you should've been able to logically employ in order
to figure out how "2 + 2 = 3 + 3" was (and is) TRUE given all of
the other given assumptions and logically-obtainable relationships
in the Unicornian Mathematics i introduced to you.

i expect that right about now you're regreting your advocacy in
this manner. but do tell more. really.


> >> But you didn't stipulate at any point in your argument that
> >> we should use base 3.
> >
> >the premises stipulated it inexorably. and you agreed in Q1.
>
> No, I didn't. No premise states that you are using base 3.

all of them do. working together in logical numeric context.


> In any case, there's no need. Base 3 is what it is.

bingo! cha' ching!


> >the premises in Q1 are identical to those in Q2. duh.
>
> Yes, they are.

bingo! cha' ching!


> Neither gives as an assumption that you are using base 3.


>that "tens" that you so weasely put into quotes means "threes".

Yes, it does.


>that's a mathematical base system you're evasively yapping
>on about. a mathematical base where the "tens" position is
>represented by one of three possible symbols.

Yes, indeed.


yikes. those are YOUR concessions, right in this very post.


> >>You gave premises, from which one cannot say what "3" is.
> >
> >i gave premises which clearly say that 3 is not a player.
>
> Nope.

yep.

> >otherwise, you could not go on about how the "tens" thing
> >even existed.
>
> The "tens" thing is just a way to refer to the integer second
> from right.

it's a crappy and totally illogical way to refer to what it is.
(but pretty "useful" when you want to try to diversionaly claim
that you're employing something other than Base Three Math).


> >duh and double duh. by accepting that there is a "tens"
> >thinger, and agreeing that the conclusion to Q1 is True,
> >you have undeniably agreed to the knowledge that "3" cannot
> >be a player in Q2. Q1 and Q2 are inexorably tied in that way.
>
>No, you are simply wrong. Logic inexorably expresses your wrongness.

Gawd. yo, Dude, the first thing one does when trying to got out
of a hole is to stop digging it deeper.


> >assuming that you wish to stay consistent with your bull***
> >classical logic, that is.
>
> Yes, I do.

then admit defeat and move on.


> >which then proves that 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 because "um" = 0.5
>
> I have no idea what "um" is.

if true, that goes to your totally illogical mind. yet, you
are perfectly able to magically employ Base Three Math without
knowing that you are doing so. remarkable.

[...]

see also: the upcoming comically entertaining and logically and
mathematically enlightenening 0zk3-13 & 0zk3-14 posts, etc..


-$Zero... Cha'ChingersAll...


"Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity." -- $Zero...


-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------

Base Ten -- 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70...
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9
2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0

Base Two -- 0, 1010, 10100, 11110, 10100, 110010, 111100, 1000110...
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Base Three -- 0, 101, 202, 1010, 1111, 1212, 2020, 2121...
1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0
2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1

------------------------------- 0zk3-09 -------------------------------

.

Loading