You are on page 1of 11

NXOR\XOR Logic

Doron Shadmi

Abstract:

We show that cardinality is incomplete logically. As a result there is a


logical solution of Russell’s paradox and proper classes are avoided.
Expressions like 1/0 and 0/0 are defined.
Keywords: Cardinality, NXOR, XOR, Paradigm-shift.

"The set of all ideas is not a member of itself exactly as {} is not a


member of itself. As a result |{}|=0 and not 1 , |{{}}|=1 and not 2 ,
|{{},{{}}}|=2 and not 3 , etc. ... ad infinitum ..."

The standard notion of the concept of Set:

"By the standard notion a set is determined by its members, where the
domain is not explicitly defined."

A non standard notion of the concept of Set:

"But being a member (being related) is meaningless if it is not related to


a domain (a relator which enables to research member's in,out relations)
so the domain must be explicitly defined if we are using a concept like
Membership. If the domain is explicitly defined then a set is not less than
domain\member relations, where the domain is not a member and a
member is not the domain. For example: |{}|=0 and not 1 , |{{}}|=1 and
not 2 , |{{},{{}}}|=2 and not 3 , etc. ... ad infinitum ... exactly because the
domain (notated by the outer { and } is not a member".

1
Introduction:

The two values of 2-valued logic have 16 different connectives, where each
connective is the logical relation between the two values.

Let A be 0011
Let B be 0101

A and B have these values because together they cover the all possibilities of 2 values,
which are:

AB
0 0
0 1
1 0
1 1

When we research the difference between A and B we discover that they have two
common relations (invariant under exchange) which are 00;11 and two different
relations (variant under exchange) which are 01;10. It means that 2-valued Logic is
based on common\non-common relations that stand in the basis of any given
connective of the 16 connectives.

Let a pair of common values be called a non-local relation between A;B.


Let 00 be empty non-local.
Let 11 be full non-local.
Let non-common values be called a local relation between A;B.

Let the local\non-local relation of each connective (of 16 possible logical connectives)
be determined by its true states:

A 0011
Values
B 0101
0 0000 No measurement
A AND B 0001 Full non-local
A not→ B 0010 Local A
A 0011 Full non-local , Local A
A ←not B 0100 Local B
B 0101 Full non-local , Local B
Connectives
A XOR B 0110 Local A, Local B
A OR B 0111 Full non-local , Local A , Local B
A NOR B 1000 Empty non-local
A NXOR B 1001 Full non-local , Empty non-local
NOT B 1010 Local A , Empty non-local
A←B 1011 Full non-local , Local A , Empty non-local
NOT A 1100 Local B , Empty non-local
A→B 1101 Full non-local , Local B , Empty non-local
A NAND B 1110 Local A , Local B , Empty non-local
1 1111 F. non-local , Local A , E. non-local , Local B

2
If Non-locality or Locality are related to the same connective more than once, then
their unique properties are ignored (Fullness and Emptiness or A and B are ignored):

A 0011
Values
B 0101
0 0000 No measurement
A AND B 0001 Full non-local
A not→ B 0010 Local A
A 0011 Full non-local , Local A
A ←not B 0100 Local B
B 0101 Full non-local , Local B
Connectives
A XOR B 0110 Local
A OR B 0111 Full non-local , Local
A NOR B 1000 Empty non-local
A NXOR B 1001 Non-local
NOT B 1010 Local A , Empty non-local
A←B 1011 Non-local , Local A
NOT A 1100 Local B , Empty non-local
A→B 1101 Non-local , Local B
A NAND B 1110 Local , Empty non-local
1 1111 Non-local , Local

In order to avoid confusion between classical logical connectives of 2-valued logic


and the new theory that is based on symmetry as a first-order concept, let us use this
2-valued table:

A 0011
Values
B 0101
A Nm B 0000 No measurement
A Fnl B 0001 Full non-local
A LA B 0010 Local A
A FnlLA B 0011 Full non-local , Local A
A LB B 0100 Local B
A FnlLB B 0101 Full non-local , Local B
Connectives
ALB 0110 Local
A FnlL B 0111 Full non-local , Local
A Enl B 1000 Empty non-local
A Nl B 1001 Non-local
A LAEnl B 1010 Local A , Empty non-local
A NlLA B 1011 Non-local , Local A
A LBEnl B 1100 Local B , Empty non-local
A NlLB B 1101 Non-local , Local B
A LEnl B 1110 Local , Empty non-local
A NlL B 1111 Non-local , Local

3
Let us examine the 3-valued logic:

Also in this case the building blocks are Non-locality\Locality.

A set is a collection of distinct members. Let set X be standard and non-standard


members of the pair [0,1]. X-valued logic can be defined in terms of Non-
locality\Locality relations as observed in 2 and 3-valued logic. Furthermore, the Pair
concept is not less than Non-locality\Locality relations because without it each
member is totally isolated and the Pair concept does not hold (actually, no collection
of more than 1 member holds without Non-locality\Locality relations, and it does not
matter if it is a collection of indistinguishable or distinct members).

If Non-local\Local relations understood in terms of symmetry, then redundancy and


uncertainty are their first-order properties. In that case each member does not have a
unique identity when observed from the non-local point of view of Non-local\Local
relations and we get a superposition of identities between the members of a collection
that has a cardinal > 1 (we get a multiset). On the other hand, if Non-local\Local
relations understood in terms of asymmetry, then redundancy and uncertainty are not
their first-order properties. In that case each member has a unique identity when
observed from the local point of view of Non-local\Local relations and we get a
collection of distinct members that can have a cardinal > 1 (we get a set of more than
one member).

Non-local\Local relations are a mathematical universe of infinitely many symmetrical


states that exist between superposition of infinitely many indistinguishable members
and infinitely many distinct members. The building block of this universe is the Pair
concept that exists as both superposition of indistinguishable members and as a
collection of distinct members, in a one realm.

4
The suggested theory shows the logical difference between being relator
and being related and provides a logical solution of Russell's paradox,
where this solution is based on a paradigm-shift of the concept of Set
because the relator (the domain) is explicitly defined. If we research the
logical foundation that stands in the basis of an outcome that is not “a one
of many …” thing (the relator) we find that it is a NXOR or Not XOR
outcome. In order to understand it, let us research logically the concept of
Membership, where its minimal condition is based on in , out relations:

Let [ ] be any context dependent framework.

NXOR truth table:

in out
0 0 → T (in , out are the same) = [ ]
0 1→F
1 0→F
1 1 → T (in , out are the same) = [_]_

We get T only if in , out are the same, and it does not matter if it is empty
or not. In this case we define a common logical basis for both nothing and
something (they are two representations of the NXOR outcome, which is
not made of XOR outcomes).

XOR truth table:

in out
0 0→F
0 1 → T (in , out are not the same) = [ ]_
1 0 → T (in , out are not the same) = [_]
1 1→F

Each XOR outcome is “a one of many …” thing.

Let system Z be the result of the relations between the NXOR outcome
and any given XOR outcome.

The truth table of Z is:


in out
0 0 → T (in , out are the same) = [ ]
0 1 → T (in , out are not the same) = [ ]_
1 0 → T (in , out are not the same) = [_]
1 1 → T (in , out are the same) = [_]_

5
By system Z we may fulfill Hilbert’s organic paradigm of the
mathematical language. Quoting Hilbert’s famous Paris 1900 lecture:

“…The problems mentioned are merely samples of problems, yet they


will suffice to show how rich, how manifold and how extensive the
mathematical science of today is, and the question is urged upon us
whether mathematics is doomed to the fate of those other sciences that
have split up into separate branches, whose representatives scarcely
understand one another and whose connection becomes ever more loose.
I do not believe this nor wish it. Mathematical science is in my opinion an
indivisible whole, an organism whose vitality is conditioned upon the
connection of its parts.”

The concept of Set is actually system Z, where the NXOR outcome is


notated by "{" and "}" symbols. Cardinality is the measurement unit of
the number of XOR outcomes that are related to the NXOR outcome.
Since no collection of XOR outcomes is logically the NXOR outcome,
then no collection is complete and as a result |{a,c,b,d,…}| is incomplete.
Cantor’s notion of a complete cardinal does not hold because any given
collection is logically incomplete. NXOR\XOR logic enables a logical
solution of Russell’s paradox because any given collection is logically
incomplete. Since no domain is logically its own member, then proper
classes are avoided.

Generalization
In , out relation can be generalized to any relation between any given pair
of strict or uncertain things, where the relator (the NXOR outcome)
enables the relations between them. Without it any given thing is isolated
and the concept of Pair (any given pair, for example: (in , out of
Membership) (xE^+y , xE^-y of Paraconsistent logic) , (x , y of
Propositional logic) , … etc. …) does not hold. We can provide more
than two things (that can be strict, semi-strict, or uncertain) but also in
this case each given thing is not related to any other thing but itself
without the non-local ur-element (the NXOR outcome). We think that
the study of NXOR\XOR logic is the way to develop Hilbert's organic
paradigm of the mathematical science.

6
Some results

x ≠ 0 = 0__x

x/0 = 0__x/0 = __/. = Non-locality = __ is related to . ( example: _._


) AND not related to . ( example: _._ )

0/x = 0/0__x = ./__ = Locality = . is related to __ ( example:_._ ) XOR


not related to __ ( example:__ . )

In both cases __ and . are independent of each other

x=0=.

0/x = 0/0 = ./. = Locality = . is related to . ( example: . ) XOR is not


related to . ( example: . . )

In the first case . is related to . , in the second case we get isolated . . that
can be related by __

x ≠ 0 = 0__x

x/x = 0__x/0__x = __/__ = Locality = __ is related to __ ( example: __


) XOR is not related to __ ( example: __ __ )

In the first case __ is related to __ , in the second case we get isolated __


__ that can be related by __ ( . cannot be the relator of __.__ because it
can be related simultaneously to exactly one and only one object. If we
force . to be related simultaneously to more than a one object (for
example __.__) then the result is ____ , which is a non-local ur-element)

x/x = 0__x/0__x = __/__ = Non-locality = __ is related to __ AND does


not related to __ ( example: ___ )

x/y = 0__x/0_y (or y/x = 0_y/0__x) has the same results as x/x

7
Some claims that in 0___x___y x is related simultaneously to more than
a one object, therefore . is also non-local exactly as ___

In this case let us examine the logical foundations of x, which clearly


show that it cannot be simultaneously in more than a one relation.

Let X be [ ] and let x be an object that interacts with it.

x is local ( represented as . ) if it cannot be simultaneously in more than


one relation with X, for example:

x is in [x] , x is out [ ]x , x is not in AND not out [ x

Let A be [.]

Let B be [ ].

Let C be [ .

The logical connective between A and B, A and C or B and C cannot be


but XOR, so x cannot be simultaneously in more than a one relation with
X ( notated by [ ] ).

x is non-local ( represented as ___ ) if it is related simultaneously to A


and B, A and C or B and C , for example:

A AND B ( represented as [_]_ )

A AND C ( represented as [_. )

B AND C ( represented as [ ._ )

In other words, if x can be related simultaneously to X ( represented as


[ ] ) by more than a one relation, then x is non-local, otherwise it is local.

Expression 0/0 is defined by NXOR\XOR logic as local/local relations.

Expression 0/1 is defined by NXOR\XOR logic as local/non-local relations.

Expression 1/0 is defined by NXOR\XOR logic as non-local/local relations.

Expression 1/1 is defined by NXOR\XOR logic as non-local/non-local relations.

8
More detailed examples (y is observed through x):
x=.
y=.

x is local w.r.t y if:

x < y (example: . . )

x = y (example: . )

x > y (example: . . )

x=.
y = __

x is local w.r.t y if:

x < y (example: . __ )

x = y (example: ( _. , _._ , ._ )

x > y (example: __ . )

x = __
y=.

x is local w.r.t y if:

x < y (example: __ . )

x > y (example: . __ )

x is non-local w.r.t y if:

x < and = y (example: _. )

x < and > y (example: _._ )

x = and > y (example: ._ )

9
x = __
y = __

x is local w.r.t y if:

x < y (example: __ __ )

x = y (example: __ )

x > y (example: __ __ )

x is non-local w.r.t y if:

x < and = y (example: ____ )

x = and > y (example: ____ )

x = __
y = ____

x is local w.r.t y if:

x = y (example: ____ )

x is non-local w.r.t y if:

x < and = y (example: ______ )

x = and > y (example: ______ )

10
x = ____
y = __

x is non-local w.r.t y if:

x < and = y (example: ______ )

x < and > y (example: ____ )

x = and > y (example: ______ )

The relations between x,y are non-commutative because y is observed


through x.

As can be seen, only non-locality can be simultaneously in more than a


one relation.

A line is local ( __ . , . __) or non-local ( _. , _._ , ._ ) w.r.t a point (or a


line), where a point is local only w.r.t a point or a line.

One claims that internal observation from x to y is subjective and does not
provide the correct knowledge about x or y.

In that case let us use an external (objective) observation of x and y.

x = point

y = line

z = plane

w = volume

If x is observed through w w.r.t z, then x cannot be but on z XOR not on z.

By observation w, x is local w.r.t z.

If y is observed through w w.r.t z, then y can be on z AND not on z.

By observation w, y can be non-local w.r.t z and also y≠x = x≠y.

11