My Math Forum Blog about Pure Logic

 Computer Science Computer Science Forum

 December 30th, 2014, 02:36 PM #11 Newbie   Joined: Dec 2014 From: New Delhi, India Posts: 22 Thanks: 0 You are wrong however . "looking" at it doesnt do much. There is a picture that i want to give out and it is beautiful, but you have to explore various topics, since i want to show how theories in maths have their underlying in logic and what logic.
 December 30th, 2014, 03:16 PM #12 Math Team   Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,663 Thanks: 2643 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra First of all, I would image that the link between logic and mathematics is obvious. Perhaps you have a new point of view on this, but your writing gives no clue from the outset and certainly didn't grab my interest. If you want people to read it, you should structure it better.
 December 30th, 2014, 03:42 PM #13 Newbie   Joined: Dec 2014 From: New Delhi, India Posts: 22 Thanks: 0 keyword being from the outset. This proves maths can be derived out of logic. and not the other way around. Dont judge without giving it a read, or multiple reads for that matter. I'm afraid language and structure is a major issue, and right now this is the best i got. How will you know though if you dont even read and think and apply logic to it. Last edited by nemesis45; December 30th, 2014 at 03:46 PM.
 December 30th, 2014, 05:55 PM #14 Math Team   Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,663 Thanks: 2643 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra I'd be interested to know how you imagine that mathematics might not be derived out of logic. However, it's only my opinion. I've told you what I think and why I won't be reading it, so there's not much I can usefully add.
 December 30th, 2014, 06:23 PM #15 Newbie   Joined: Dec 2014 From: New Delhi, India Posts: 22 Thanks: 0 Any links to any work deriving maths out of pure logic?
December 30th, 2014, 08:58 PM   #16
Global Moderator

Joined: Nov 2006
From: UTC -5

Posts: 16,046
Thanks: 938

Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms
Quote:
 Originally Posted by nemesis45 Any links to any work deriving maths out of pure logic?
Principia Mathematica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 December 30th, 2014, 09:12 PM #17 Newbie   Joined: Dec 2014 From: New Delhi, India Posts: 22 Thanks: 0 I am using less assumptions than principa mathematica to state my truth in logic Hence its a higher truth in logic. (but same assumptions are needed to derive a mathematical structure.) In fact I have mentioned principa mathematica in my blog. I haven't read everything godel said or said in PM, I was hoping though that someone familiar with it could read my blog and point out to me what I am missing (or what I have comparitively) It is an interesting read nonetheless. Last edited by nemesis45; December 30th, 2014 at 09:38 PM.
December 30th, 2014, 09:27 PM   #18
Global Moderator

Joined: Nov 2006
From: UTC -5

Posts: 16,046
Thanks: 938

Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms
Quote:
 Originally Posted by nemesis45 I am using less assumptions than principa mathematica to do the same thing. Hence its a higher truth in logic.
Would you give an example (or two, or three) of a proof in Principia which calls on assumptions which you avoid in your treatment?

 December 30th, 2014, 09:35 PM #19 Newbie   Joined: Dec 2014 From: New Delhi, India Posts: 22 Thanks: 0 No I made a mistake in writing that, I have to use the same assumptions. But the truth in logic which I have written is on lesser assumptions. Look, it establishes a limit on thought and thought processes. There are a varied other arguments too, just have to give it a thorough read once or twice for it to make sense. I am sorry for it not being a light read. You will have to think for it to make sense. Read the words exactly as I have stated, nothing up nothing down. Last edited by nemesis45; December 30th, 2014 at 10:04 PM.
 December 30th, 2014, 10:14 PM #20 Newbie   Joined: Dec 2014 From: New Delhi, India Posts: 22 Thanks: 0 This is the formal statement for Jetsam Flotsam which I am trying to prepare (minus arguments on pi) I know the derivation for the number line isnt exactly complete. I would like to know however if I am on the right track. The blog is in much simpler terms, with examples and analogies. { { Lets say there is an object you wish to study. At any point in time , you can bet on two states of the object (i.e up or down, clockwise or anti clockwise,away from you or towards etc) For this decision making process, lets say there are n factors which effect the outcome of this behaviour. Among these n factors, some factors have the property of convergence. i.e Around none of their means or deviations around those means, do they(the factor) diverge. These shall be called constant factors Divergence : Element in nature which cannot be construed as a fact, which is creative or unpredictable or which changes in such a manner :eg: Human emotion Among the rest of the factors: They have the property of divergence. i.e: Around at least one of their means or one of deviations around those means, do they(the factors) diverge. These shall be called variable factors. Both effect the outcome (quantified as 1 or 0). At the time of bet, both may or may not be observed. At the time of bet, both may point to outcome being either 0 or 1. There are various ways to obtain these factors, 1) Factors observed from studying properties of many similar objects. 2) Factors observed by looking at singular object. 3) Factors observed by looking at change in either singular object or from the change in properties of similar objects. 4) Factors which are guessed from past N datapoints of properties of the object and/or from which a prediction about N+1 has been made and holds true. Now, the statement in logic is : I can have a maximum betting point - I can take this point as reference and sort out my remaining betting order. Logic: That element in decision making process which deals with premises, inferences, and optimisations in sorting order(made through comparisons) At different points in time you will observe a different set of factors effecting the output. These different points in time, will have a sorting order of bets- basically I can give them a priority order on which to bet on. (i.e bet when these factors are present more than bet when another set of factors are present) For variable factors, since they have an element on divergence - you observe that the surity of effecting the output is less than constant factors. They still effect the output, and this effect on the output can be quantified after assuming all divergent elements to be convergent(by taking the fairest assumptions that the observer can about the factors), whereafter a model for the factor effecting the output can be arrived upon. In the end, it can only point towards output being 1 or 0 . Since, for constant factors there are no inherent assumptions, they have a higher priority in the sorting order. If for example, there are three constant factors and three variable factors. The maximum betting point would be one where all the six factors are present(observed), and point to outcome being 1 (or 0). From this, keeping the maximum betting point as a reference - I can sort my remaining list, depending on the properties of the object we wish to study. i.e the sorting optimisation will depend on the properties, but I do have a max. betting point. Similarly I have a minimum betting point, where all factors are absent(not observed). } This whole set of statements(under first set of parenthesis) is an absolute truth : based on - 1) Everything in nature has a mean and a deviation. 2) Only thing you can do in decision making process is compare. 3) Presence of diergence in nature. All these three truths, based on }(under second set of parenthesis) - World is real. Fairest assumptions to make. Now, derivation of the real number line. Upon this truth -> 1) Assumption : A conergent zero, with no divergence. 2) Assumption : Deviations of zero, distributed uniformly (what you have as rational elements on the number line - as per current maths) 3) Definition : uniform : No difference can be found in comparisons of three adjacent deviations. 4) Definition : Infinity : A deviation of zero which cannot be held in any known memory of the universe. 5) Definition : Memory : Element of an object where information can be stored. 1) Standard : Unity Distance : A fixed convergent distance between zero and the next number being defined as one or'1' 2) Standard : Positive : Upper deviations from zero. 3) Standard : Negative : Lower Deviations from zero. You have to decide between 1) convergence being present at any point or divergence being present at any point(in digits) 2) Upper deviation from zero or lower deviation from zero. 3) The deviation in unity distance from zero. Respective factors effecting the decisions: 1) Can comparisons be made for three adjacent deviations : if not divergent element 2) positive or negative? 3) falling between unity distance from zero? or outside? So on, you can go on to decide between all the numbers and you can get to the truth in number line. The best bet point is zero, then changes to unity distance and so forth, till all numbers are plotted Last edited by nemesis45; December 30th, 2014 at 10:42 PM.

 Tags blog, logic, pure

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post guynamedluis Math Books 5 May 11th, 2013 03:40 PM mathsissmart Art 7 February 22nd, 2012 01:02 PM DLowry New Users 3 April 2nd, 2011 10:13 AM Francis410 Algebra 3 December 28th, 2010 06:31 PM mathsissmart New Users 2 December 31st, 1969 04:00 PM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top