Willem F Esterhuyse

I see with my minds eye what my heart feels, and I see nothing but other hearts. It's not a question of understanding, it's a question of perception.

I saw in a writing: ~p -> p = false. This can't be true since 0 -> 1 = 1, so ~p -> p = p!

The Sequent Calculus has introduction and elimination rules that reflects Hilbert style axioms.

A text says that to prove a formula A we have to refute GA (which must reduce to the negation of A). It says that for each sub-formula of the form B OR C to include the following clauses in GA: {xB OR C, ~xB}, {xB OR C, ~xC}, {xB, xC, ~xB OR C}. Shouldn't there be two ~xB OR C's and one xB OR C? As stated it resolves to xB OR C and not it's negation. If not, why not?

I feel with my heart that everything do not exist, yet I can touch them and interact with the computer.

That a number can be given a letter name.

Dirac Delta function requires integral(-inf->inf) delta(x) dx = 1 and this requires 0*inf = 1. The question is how fast it tends to inf and zero. log x tends faster to -inf than x tends to zero so x*log x must-> -inf. 0*anything = 0 does not hold for "anything" being inf. inf = infinity.

I think it follows the law that: 0*infinity = 1. 0*infinity could = 1 since 0*infinity = finite number. A definition is wrong if it leads to an unsound system.

So the position is untenable. Then there must be a Positron Field and an Electron Field. The Electron Field must be able to have a negative amplitude without being an excitation of a positron.

So please specify, for example, definitions in statistics and probability that are free. I can see that there is a free definition in the Liar Paradox. Not following any proven law.

That definitions are not free!

I can try to start to externalize it (by suspending disbelief), if you need such a point. There is another point to the thread.

The opposite excitation must happen in order for the waves to cancel. And the opposite excitation is a positron. The second sentence above is to be invalidated if other ideas of wave-canceling are to pertain. The conservation laws seem to indicate this sentence is invalid and it is another kind of opposite excitation.

It doesn't need to: it is a virtual particle. I ask again: how else is the wave to cancel?

By creating the opposite excitation in an Electron Field.

The field of a positron goes through the other slit (how else are the waves to cancel?).

A photon pi/2 radians out of phase. There is something to back it up.

Some basic symbols (un-externalizable, because I have to believe in order to externalize them and if a part externalized does not fit in a system I will disbelieve it and scratch it out). That is just stupid: read the whole sentence.

I actually saw the symbols the second time I verified it. The first time I went on feeling. I read his writings and found the definition there. No it only needs to contain specific intuitions not the word "intuition" itself and the answer does not follow from intuition but from memories of mental operations.

If I answered in terms of "intuition" the answer would be circular! It does not follow from intuition but from memories in my mind.

"intuition" is in the quoted questions. The fact that the answers do not contain "intuition" does not invalidate it.

I verified it in my own mind. George Boole. You basically form the premise in your mind and then see/feel the conclusion following. It must use hidden symbols.

The particles don't go through both slits but as a particle goes through one slit, its virtual antiparticle goes through the other. The predictions of this is that the particles form an interference pattern on a screen.

No I mean they follow from the Axioms or not (but you can state it that way). Yes they are theorems. However, the specific example: "A -> B define = Ã OR B" follows from intuition (the symbols of this intuition are not given).

They are proven using the Axioms (intuitively true rules).