Genady

Implies. If ... then ... .

Some of the best advice my best math teacher gave me was to always write down your work as you go, to use one side of paper so you don't need to turn the page to see what you've written, to use pen and not pencil and never erase even mistakes.

Some years ago, I investigated coral growth on concrete mooring blocks installed 30 years ago along the shore of our capital city, Kralendijk. I've discovered some puzzling patterns in the blocks' faces coverage by growing corals. If you are interested, I will provide details on the moorings, their location, the corals, etc. But for the starters, here is the first puzzle. There are moorings in the shallow waters close to the shore, "inshore moorings", and others in the deeper waters farther from the shore, "offshore moorings". See the pic below. It turned out that significantly different amounts of corals grew on the faces of these two types of mooring blocks. What'd be your guess, where did the corals grow more, on the inshore or on the offshore mooring blocks? Ask me anything about this marine biology research project🙂.

Externally imposed moral codes become genuine inner conviction with a right brainwashing.

For n=2 we get the angle 180(1-2/2) = 180(1-1) = 180(0) = 0 degrees. For n=1 we get the angle 180(1-2/1) = 180(1-2) = 180(-1) = -180 degrees. For n=2, I imagine a degenerate, flattened polygon with two sides and two vertices where the sides are on top of each other (Digon - Wikipedia.) The angle between sides in this case is indeed zero degrees. For n=1, there is no angle to measure.

Another question in addition to the one above: The group is a structure of a set. OTOH, you said earlier that Objective has no structure. Isn't it a contradiction?

Do I understand correctly that groups and vector spaces are Objectives, while rings and fields are Subjectives?

"The body of water formerly known in the United States as the Gulf of Mexico is now listed for US-based users of Google Maps as the Gulf of America." (‘Gulf of America’ arrives on Google Maps | CNN Business) I'm not US-based. This is how it is listed for me:

Why to compare it to stopping motion? Time is rather comparable to space. We can't stop space either.

"Time is defined so that motion looks simple." Misner, Charles W.; Thorne, Kip S.; Wheeler, John Archibald. Gravitation (p. 23). Princeton University Press.

Inspired by the discussion above, I've asked DeepSeek to write a short poem in style of Pushkin. It produced something in English, which I cannot judge. I've asked it then to make it in Russian. It failed miserably, albeit in Cyrillic.

"AG2 achieves an impressive 84% solve rate on all 2000-2024 [International Mathematical Olympiad] geometry problems, demonstrating a significant leap forward in AI’s ability to tackle challenging mathematical reasoning tasks, and surpassing an average IMO gold medalist." 2502.03544

In mathematics, relation on set S is defined as a subset of SxS, and value is a result of some mapping. I doubt this is what you have in mind.

I don't have any issue with this. What I've objected to was when you changed the emphasis and claimed that 0/1 is the foundation of mathematics. This is incorrect from the mathematical perspective. Using a mathematical notation for your application is fine.

Yes, that was one of the solutions I thought about. Then I search Internet for "Irish mythological hero killed in doorway" and found this story of Brian Boru (thus the "initials B.B." that I've mentioned earlier): Brian Boru: historical figure and mythic hero However, I think that this solution is weak, because it can be reasonably argued that a doorway is still part of the house as without a house there would not be a doorway. My other solution, which I consider strong, is also based on going beyond the first order logic, but instead of adding possibilities to the binary notion "inside"/"outside" the house, it adds possibilities to the notion "here"/"not here" of the location of killing.

Because in their list of questions there are no questions about the discussion.

-About the abilities of the blood cells in Humans with stigma. Can they really carry more complex and efficient combination in elements except oxygen O₂ that produce more energy? -If yes do you believe those cells are worthy to further test in a lab? if they are special could potential give an easy impact to re-engineer the human being? -How can we test this theory? Are there any animals with stigma? So, you do not want to discuss a discussion.

The solution that I referred to in the previous post (https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/134306-can-truth-contradict-itself/page/2/#findComment-1284392) is weak, IMO. I think my other solution is rather strong, but I couldn't find it in the Irish myths I looked at.

It takes two to tango.

This is baloney. I can describe, e.g., a mermaid, without testing, observing, or believing in it.

I don't think there is anything wrong with it.

No. A description does not need to be tested or observed. A hypothesis or a prediction does. (I don't make any claims about existence of nothing, either before or after the universe.)

This comment has nothing answering my question.

Why not? Here is the description: "Nothing." What is unscientific about it?

If you want to discuss a discussion you need to make clear what about that discussion you want to discuss.