1.1K views

Uploaded by DoronShadmi

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.

- Syllabus Break Gs 1 Art and Culture
- (Deems Lectureship in Philosophy Series) Joseph M. Bochenski-The Logic of Religion -New York University Press (1965)
- The generalized Dice measures for multiple attribute decision making under simplified neutrosophic environments
- Decisions2.pptx
- Bolzano
- Linear v Non-linear thinking.docx
- Logic Prelims Only
- logics AI
- Nouveau Document Texte
- signature argument
- Limits (an Introduction)
- Pmr English 2009 Types of Connectors
- barrettOnDewey'sLogic
- Subjective Turn
- 0005 - Boolean Logic - And, Or, Xor, Nand, Nor, Nxor
- Spinoza's Method -H.H. Britan.doc
- Strange Things About Brilliant People in the History
- Untitled
- 08 CT 13B Induction for Lawyers Ruggero
- An Ellis Drucker Kneale Obituary 1993

You are on page 1of 11

Doron Shadmi

Abstract:

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.

member of itself. As a result |{}|=0 and not 1 , |{{}}|=1 and not 2 ,

|{{},{{}}}|=2 and not 3 , etc. ... ad infinitum ..."

"By the standard notion a set is determined by its members, where the

domain is not explicitly defined."

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 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

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:

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).

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).

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:

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).

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

Let system Z be the result of the relations between the NXOR outcome

and any given XOR outcome.

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:

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.”

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

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

not related to __ ( example:__ . )

x=0=.

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

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

__ 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)

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 ___

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

one relation with X, for example:

Let A be [.]

Let B be [ ].

Let C be [ .

but XOR, so x cannot be simultaneously in more than a one relation with

X ( notated by [ ] ).

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

B AND C ( represented as [ ._ )

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

8

More detailed examples (y is observed through x):

x=.

y=.

x < y (example: . . )

x = y (example: . )

x > y (example: . . )

x=.

y = __

x < y (example: . __ )

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

x > y (example: __ . )

x = __

y=.

x < y (example: __ . )

x > y (example: . __ )

9

x = __

y = __

x < y (example: __ __ )

x = y (example: __ )

x > y (example: __ __ )

x = __

y = ____

x = y (example: ____ )

10

x = ____

y = __

through x.

one relation.

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.

x = point

y = line

z = plane

w = volume

11

- Syllabus Break Gs 1 Art and CultureUploaded byPriyanshi Agrahari
- (Deems Lectureship in Philosophy Series) Joseph M. Bochenski-The Logic of Religion -New York University Press (1965)Uploaded byJhon Edinson Cabezas Rodriguez
- The generalized Dice measures for multiple attribute decision making under simplified neutrosophic environmentsUploaded byMia Amalia
- Decisions2.pptxUploaded byRicardo B. Vigan
- BolzanoUploaded byPranay Kumar
- Linear v Non-linear thinking.docxUploaded byKim Guevarra
- Logic Prelims OnlyUploaded byRaven Mae Figuerres
- logics AIUploaded byNitesh Mishr
- Nouveau Document TexteUploaded bysfofoby
- signature argumentUploaded byapi-242624116
- Limits (an Introduction)Uploaded byDonghoon
- Pmr English 2009 Types of ConnectorsUploaded byFoo Chi Khing
- barrettOnDewey'sLogicUploaded bygzalzalkovia
- Subjective TurnUploaded byAndrew Glynn
- 0005 - Boolean Logic - And, Or, Xor, Nand, Nor, NxorUploaded byAnimesh Ghosh
- Spinoza's Method -H.H. Britan.docUploaded bypreforman
- Strange Things About Brilliant People in the HistoryUploaded byAlexandra
- UntitledUploaded byzmrman
- 08 CT 13B Induction for Lawyers RuggeroUploaded byJohn Branya
- An Ellis Drucker Kneale Obituary 1993Uploaded byAnonymous mscibVm1sX
- Logical ReasoningUploaded byMeenal Ingulkar
- SPMMUploaded byArini Komalasari II
- Dreaming the dreamerUploaded bysam iam / Salvatore Gerard Micheal
- Relation - Google SearchUploaded byvimalrajan
- Topics on Being and Logical ReasoningUploaded bylgibson03
- 4.Michael Scriven on the Differences Between Evaluation and Social Science ResearchUploaded byOscar Enrique Fuentes
- Possible Exam QuestionsUploaded byMădălina Gălie
- Introduction to Syllogistic LogicUploaded byRocco Criscitelli
- PIC Tutorial 1Uploaded byapi-3801984
- TransitionUploaded byRashidi Razif

- Unity AwarnessUploaded byDoronShadmi
- A Life-Progression DialogUploaded byDoronShadmi
- Dear Reader, Let Us Explore the Traditional Point of ViewUploaded byDoronShadmi
- The Organic Unity of Mathematics - Various Degrees of the Numbers’ DistinctionUploaded byDoronShadmi
- UmesUploaded byDoronShadmi
- Zeno's Achilles\Tortoise Race and Reconsiderations of Some Mathematical ParadigmsUploaded byDoronShadmi
- By: Doron ShadmiUploaded byDoronShadmi
- URDT-3-ALLUploaded byDoronShadmi
- Present TimeUploaded byDoronShadmi
- SridaUploaded byDoronShadmi
- International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics ————————————————————————– Volume 49Uploaded byDoronShadmi
- Etika-EUploaded byDoronShadmi
- OMPTUploaded byDoronShadmi
- WZATRP8Uploaded byDoronShadmi
- DS-CVUploaded byDoronShadmi
- EEMUploaded byDoronShadmi
- OMDPUploaded byDoronShadmi

- Paper on Free WillUploaded byOmi Slavov
- graduate work existential paperUploaded byapi-285552715
- The Elements of a ProposalUploaded byFei Santiago
- Toward a Philosophie of Human RightsUploaded byFranklinBarrientosRamirez
- Comparing and Contrasting Classical Realism and NeorealismUploaded bylordneo23
- What is GnosisUploaded bytheonlyraiden
- Communication Theory Media Technology and Society PDFUploaded byAmy
- dskp sc year 4Uploaded bynuramaliazamri
- John Morley - Voltaire (A Biography)Uploaded byTHKI
- EvolutionAn Investigation and a Critique by Graebner, Theodore, 1876-1950Uploaded byGutenberg.org
- Human Act Or Act of ManUploaded byBajunaid Malaco
- Philosophy of ScienceUploaded byEvelina
- Agonism in divided societies.pdfUploaded byfanon24
- rhetoricalanalysisUploaded byapi-272076922
- 5 QuestionUploaded bypak3ma
- scientific investigationUploaded byapi-339892490
- Project Plan Literature Review Systems ThinkingUploaded byHonore Charleston
- TOPIC 1 INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH METHODS AND EDUCATIONUploaded byNurfarah Wahidah
- Benjamin Tilghman-Reflections on Aesthetic Judgment and Other Essays (2006)Uploaded byCássio
- Book ReviewUploaded byAndrew Martini
- Lectures by Gilles Deleuze_ Theory of Multiplicities in BergsonUploaded bybobo-gogo
- North - The Idea of a Writing CenterUploaded byethansamuel
- discussion.pdfUploaded bydhanu
- New Microsoft Word DocumentUploaded byikoikoikoiko
- Toner -- On SubstanceUploaded byphilip_costa_2
- A Handbook for TeachingUploaded byAlfonso Pola
- IGNOUMSW-006SolvedAssignments2011Uploaded byravideepkaur
- Passion (an Essay on Personality) - Roberto Mangabeira UngerUploaded byAlberto Sánchez Galeano
- Yao Zhihua T1-PHIL3333.pdfUploaded bySyëd Khān
- Piotrek_Phantasm Deleuze BadiouUploaded bylplmartins