Willem F Esterhuyse

On 1/13/2023 at 6:39 PM, joigus said:

Try with different definitions of existence and see if you can make some progress in your understanding. Maybe everything is fleeting, under the proper time perspective.

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 G_A (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 G_A:

{x_{B OR C}, ~x_B}, {x_{B OR C}, ~x_C}, {x_B, x_C, ~x_{B OR C}}.

Shouldn't there be two ~x_{B OR C}'s and one x_{B OR C}? As stated it resolves to x_{B 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.

1 hour ago, Genady said:

Which proven law does definition of imaginary number "i" follow?

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.

19 hours ago, Genady said:

Which proven law does it follow?

I think it follows the law that: 0*infinity = 1. 0*infinity could = 1 since 0*infinity = finite number.

12 hours ago, studiot said:

Note the terms 'wrong' and 'right' are not really technical ones.

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.

38 minutes ago, studiot said:

Your opening post contained an assertion that I challenged since it is not completely true.

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.

49 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Define free.

Not following any proven law.

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Which is?

That definitions are not free!

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Then they're only hidden from the rest of us; and, it seems, your not capable of explaining it to anyone, so what's the point of this thread?

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?

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

How do you form the virtual positron, and obey conservation of charge and angular momentum?

By creating the opposite excitation in an Electron Field.

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

What if it’s an electron? How do you form the virtual antiparticle, and obey conservation of charge and angular momentum?

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

11 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

What is the antiparticle of a photon in your idea?

A photon pi/2 radians out of phase.

55 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Making things up with nothing to back it is not science.

There is something to back it up.

1 minute ago, Genady said:

Which specific intuition does it contain?

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).

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

Then what does?

That is just stupid: read the whole sentence.

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

If the symbols are hidden, how do you know they are there?

I actually saw the symbols the second time I verified it. The first time I went on feeling.

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Besides, what's George Boole got to do with your own verification? 

I read his writings and found the definition there.

5 minutes ago, Genady said:

A procedure of following from intuition has to include intuition on one or more steps.

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.

3 minutes ago, Genady said:

How do you know that it follows from intuition?

I verified it in my own mind.

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

Whose intuition?

George Boole.

5 minutes ago, Genady said:

How does a procedure of "following from intuition" work?

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.

On 12/31/2022 at 3:03 PM, Genady said:

So, you mean in your OP, "we can intuitively distinguish intuitively wrong from intuitively right definitions"?

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).

16 minutes ago, Genady said:

How are they proven without definitions?

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