Re: Unicornian Mathematics, Logic, and Whatever

Dr Zen wrote:

> "Zero" <ShakubukuTime@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Dr Zen wrote:

> >> >> IF 3 = 2
> >> >> AND 3 > 2
> >> >
> >> >which is what you did when you said:
> >> >11 + 2 = 20 AND 11 + 3 = 22
> >>
> >> Perhaps you'd like to show how?
> >
> >sure. BTW: i perfectly agree that 3 = 2 is absurd because 3 > 2.
>
> Yes, that's right.

but unfortunately for you, you keep insisting that:

(3 = 2) = (3 + 3 = 2 + 2)

which it most definitely does NOT.

duh and "3 != 2" triple double duh.


> >there's no need to state 3 > 2 other than to avoid useless
> >arguments like yours that claim that there's a Mrs. 3 Smith
> >as well as a Mrs. 3 Smith. there simply isn't. just because
> >a numeral can represent different number values in depending
> >on the base it is used in, does not mean that you can alter
> >their inexorable numeric relationship to eachother.
>
> I can alter anything I like.

um, no. you definitely can NOT alter anything you like.

3 > 2. inexorably. you can't lay a finger on it.

OTOH, you certainly may _suppose_ anything you like. sure. but...

apples and oranges. peaches and bananas. Martians and Orions.

you can NOT _alter_ the FACT that 3 > 2. under no circumstances.

you may _assume_ 3 = 2 all you want, but it invalidates your premise.

EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS.

k? that's TEN EOFS's. <--- that makes ELEVEN.


> Get the power of IF.

yeah.

IF: Zen eats a peach in Sydney...

THEN: Zen's stealing it from the Martians (and the Orions) etc.


sure. perfect logic. imagine half a clap.


> Look, one more time, just because I feel such great pity for you:

lucky moi, huh?

sounds like you're in the mood to move some goalposts. let's check:


> France is the capital of Paris. No question about that. But:
>
> IF all cities in China have public security bureaus
> AND Paris is the capital of China
> THEN Paris has a public security bureau
>
> is TRUE
>
> even though Paris is not the capital of China
> and does not have a PSB.
>
> IF says "were this the case", not "this is the case".

do you think i'm disagreeing with that? yikes. Q7, monkey-boy.


> > 3 > 2. always.
>
> Nope.

yes. ALWAYS. EOFS (#12).


> IF 3 = 2 I just made it something else.

um, no. you did NOT _make_ it something else.

you merely supposed a totally invalid and impossible scenario.

EOFS (#13).


> Power of IF.

power of impotent illogic.

(the impotence of your classical illogic).

not to mention all your impotent goalpost movings all over
Paris and China, FFS.

explain your classical "logic" inability to answer Q7 or
start waving the white flag profusely, and maybe we'll
honor the geneva conventions for good measure.


> >anyway, the reason your example is just like:
> >
> > IF 3 = 2
> > AND 3 > 2 (3 > 2 is not needed, but left there for you)
>
> Any conclusion is true.

agreed. because 3 = 2 is NOT possible. at all. cha' ching!

BTW: 3 > 2 is a given that need not be stated, except for twits.

you will NEVER EVER find a case where 3 = 2 ever works in any way.

you may suppose it from now until the end of all time. and back.

and it won't budge even an infinitely tiny scintilla of a micro micro.

unless, of course, God steps in and decides to recreate everything
just for kicks. and i mean EVERYTHING!

is that what you're banking on? good to hear it. beers all around.

party hats and good music. 3 quarter notes = 2 quarter notes.

(careful dancing, don't step on her toes on the half notes)

and B-Flat Sharp = F-Sharp Flat = D Natural Augmented!

all in the key of C! whoa.

"twnkle twinkle little star. abcdefg... etc."


> >is because, in Base Three [*]:
> >
> > 11 + 2 = 20
> >
> >cannot non-contradictionally exist in the same set of
> >assumptions where this one appears:
> >
> > 11 + 3 = 22
> >
> >unless you illegaly try to make the numerical symbol "3"
> >equal to the number/quantity "4"
>
> I didn't make it equal to anything.

THEN obviously you cannot add. cha'ching! cha'ching! cha'ching!

was that Five or One?


> I simply said that IF 11 + 3 = 22, THEN [some conclusion].

ANY conclusion would be True, because your premise is FALSE
(in the context of the other premises). the burden is upon
_you_ to show otherwise.

EOFS. (#14) in just this post alone, mind you.


> >(using Base Three reckoning)

that parenthesis was connected to the previous thought...


> >which you simply cannot do without creating a massively
> >huge logical contradiction.
>
> There's no contradiction whatsoever

um... let's rview:

IF:

0 + 1 = 1
1 + 1 = 2
10 + 1 = 11
11 + 2 = 20
11 + 3 = 22

THEN:

"some conclusion"

IS:

a] TRUE (but NOT due to the contradiction in the premise)


> There's no contradiction whatsoever

time to throw away your delusions of having any grasp on logic.

or show us something VERY interesting.

(other than pretending that 3 = 4 while you steal
3 = 4 peaches from the Martians and the Orions)

>and I did not use "base three reckoning".

yes, you did. in Q1, Q2, & Q3. [*]

you used absolutely NO reckoning in your own question, other
than purely invalid nonsense. give over.


[*] you're far too afraid to answer Q7.


> >because 3 != 4. ever. 3 < 4. always. by a magnitude of 1.
>
> IF 3 > 4, 3 !< 4

totally impossible. you cannot have p and not p.

3 < 4. supposing otherwise is supposing that p is not p.

EOFS. (#15)

> is
>
> guess
>
> TRUE!
>
> Power of IF.

power of psychosis. and/or foolish pride.

you cannot suppose that 3 > 4 without invalidating your premise.

try as you may, otherwise. you "think" you're being logically
consistent when all you're doing is being illogically insane.


> >it's called inexorable numerics.
>
> Nope. Power of IF.

impotence of illogic.

you might as well posit: IF p AND not p

it's an equally total absolute waste of logic time.


> >you CANNOT make numbers "variables" in logic.
>
> I can do whatever I choose with the power of IF.

you may suppose all you want. enjoy.

funny thing is, you can't even imagine an _IF_ that is _SO_.

like the IF that is SO when um = 0.5 (3+3=2+2)


> >numbers ARE what they ARE. EOFS. it's non-negotiable.
>
> Everything's negotiable with the power of IF.

nope. 3 != 2. ever. EOFS. (#16?... i'm losing count)

IOW: you will lose every attempt to negotiate 3 = 2.


> >anyway, you couldn't even legally USE the numerical symbol 3 in
> >any non-contradictional way in a context where 11 + 2 = 20 AND
> >0 + 1 = 1. but let's assume that you could, for a moment.
>
> IF 11 + 20 = 64
> AND bananas are pink
> AND unicorns run in the Derby
>
> Whatever I choose!

"they're coming to take me away, hee hee! ho ho!"

yes. whatever you choose. because your premise is not valid.

shall we loosen the straps a tad or do you actually prefer to keep
eating your chunky banana meals thru that annoyingly tedious straw?


> >even so... IF 11 + 2 = 20 THEN 11 + "THREE" = 21 (NOT 22)
> >
> >it has to. there's an inexorable magnitude of ONE there.
>
> Nope.

yeppers. just count it up. it ain't difficult.

it's no wonder AT ALL why you REFUSE to agree to an independent
third-party judge for our wager. all your Paris, China goalposts
sound good for distractional banter, but when push comes to shove,
1 + 1 = 2, not banana chunks.

unless of course, um != 0.

because: IF um != 0 THEN 1 + 1 could = almost ANYTHING!

put _that_ "IF" in your broken & tattered 3=2 delusional
monkey-pipe and try to smoke it, yes-we-have-no-bananas-boy.


> >[*] let alone other number Bases and THEIR inexorable
> > relational numerical dynamics.
> >
> >i don't even think you could make your assumptions work using
> >Super Duper Advanced Unicornian Math, no matter what the Base
> >(given the rest of your assumptions), though it MAY be possible
> >to do so.
> >
> >would you like to try?
> >
> >better yet, would you like _me_ to try to save your ass here?
>
> Nope. Get some IF.

here's some "IF" for ya:

----------------------------- Q7

IF This + Is = This

AND This + This = That
AND ThisIs + This = ThisThis
AND ThisThis + That = ThatIs

THEN That + This = ThisIs is:

a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y

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

"Yes, we have no bananas!"
-- Zenny
[the squirrely Martian-peach-eating chicken-
shitted Unicorn-riding monkey-jockey-boy
who STILL refuses to answer the utterly
Mind-Blowing "This and That" logic question]

Q7: [a], [b], [c], or [d]? which is it, monkey-jockey-boy?

http://tinyurl.com/dl6x5
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/f297dc4b71669ea0


> <tediosity hosed>

um... Zenny... pal...

your silly hose has so many holes in it, it can't even hose _itself_.


Q7: [a], [b], [c], or [d]? which is it, monkey-jockey-boy?


-$Zero... WhenWillZenny-boy... FinallyFindThe"Interest"...
ToAnswerTheAboveLogicQuestion... ThatElegant"ThisAndThat"Thinger...
WhichZennyboyClaimIs"FuckingNonsense"... ButDefinitelyIs_NOT_...


"...and that, my liege,
is how we know the Earth
to be banana-shaped."
-- Bedevere
[actor: Terry Jones; from the movie:
"Monty Python and the Holy Grail" (1974)]


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

All "Logic" is culturally crippled, so STOP being
such foolishly proud assholes and START working on
your atrocious communication skills, instead. Duh.
There's wayyy more worthwhile stuff to agree about
than there is worthless stuff to disagree about.
Double duh.

------------------------------- 0zk3-38 -------------------------------

.