[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 10 KB, 400x231, 400px-Basis_graph_(no_label).svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9599365 No.9599365 [Reply] [Original]

What is the basis for the universe.

>> No.9599389

>>9599365
according to einstein the metric
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_tensor_(general_relativity)

>> No.9599410

>>9599365
the simpler form is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space#Four-dimensional_Euclidean_spacetime
though

>> No.9599618

>>9599365
The universe is infinite-dimensional (as a vector space), hence does not necessarily even have a basis.

>> No.9600046

>>9599365
communism

>> No.9600052

>>9599618
All vector spaces have a basis. Also, it's an affine space if you want the principle of relativity to hold.

>> No.9600054

>>9600052
>All vector spaces have a basis.
Not all infinite dimensional vector spaces have a basis.

>> No.9600058

>>9600054
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Vector_Space_has_Basis

>> No.9600059

>>9600058
>proofwiki
Any non popsci links?

>> No.9600061

>>9600059
Besides maybe having some shakey proofs, proof wiki is annything but popsci you retard.

>> No.9600081

>>9600061
If it contains a mistaken proof that all vectors have bases, then it's definitely popsci.

>> No.9600091

>>9600081
https://www.google.com.mx/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://sierra.nmsu.edu/morandi/OldWebPages/Math482Spring2005/Zorn.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiN6-HRqPXZAhVK64MKHW_SD-YQFjAFegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw106wLpuxk-JNZNuo94vheR

>> No.9600092
File: 8 KB, 225x225, (JPEG Image, 225 × 225 pixels).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9600092

>>9600091
>https://www.google.com.mx/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://sierra.nmsu.edu/morandi/OldWebPages/Math482Spring2005/Zorn.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiN6-HRqPXZAhVK64MKHW_SD-YQFjAFegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw106wLpuxk-JNZNuo94vheR

>> No.9600094

>>9600092
Epic

>> No.9600099

>>9600091
>Zorn
>assuming an axiom which is equivalent to "all vector spaces have a basis" to prove that "all vector spaces have a basis"

>> No.9600107

>>9600099
Which is equivalent to the axiom of choice retard.

>> No.9600113

>>9600107
>Which is equivalent to the axiom of choice retard.
Of course it is, what's your point?

>> No.9600117

>>9600113
What's your point? It's still a proof so I don't understand
>>9600099

>> No.9600120

>>9600117
Anything is true if you assume it to be true.

>> No.9600126

>>9600120
Proving equivalence not the same as holding somthing true by definition you moron. By your logic, a statement such as "the sum of angles of a triangle is always 180 degrees" is euclid just assuming it's true, because it's equivalent to his fifth postulate.

>> No.9600128

>>9600126
>Proving equivalence not the same as holding somthing true by definition you moron.
There's no meaningful distinction, if you can't prove something without assuming it to be true then it's hardly a "proof".

>> No.9600130

>>9600128
Again, so tell me, how would you proove that a triangle in plane geomtry has the propwety that the sum of it's angles id always 180 degrees.

>> No.9600133

>>9600130
>Again, so tell me, how would you proove that a triangle in plane geomtry has the propwety that the sum of it's angles id always 180 degrees.
I am not a geometer.

>> No.9600137

3 vectors: right, left, and the direction of my cock lmao

>> No.9600140

>>9600133
You don't need to be one to learn know about euclid elements and plane geometry. What you are is a moron.

>> No.9600142

>>9600140
>You don't need to be one to learn know about euclid elements and plane geometry.
I only study mathematics, I am not sure what business I have with triangles. If you are an expert why do you not provide such a proof yourself?

>> No.9600146
File: 111 KB, 1140x600, fbshare-人生思考題-1200x628-1140x600.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9600146

>>9599365
Those that ask, Them that aspire, They that inquire.

我,誰提出了這個問題,回答只有答案。

>> No.9600148

>>9600142
Of what? I provided you with a proof that all vector spaces have a basis, which is true in ZFC. I'm not even a mathematician, but are you really thid ignorant of synthetic geometry?

>> No.9600152

>>9600148
>Of what?
"that a triangle in plane geomtry has the propwety that the sum of it's angles id always 180 degrees."

> I provided you with a proof that all vector spaces have a basis, which is true in ZFC.
It's a hardly a "proof" to assume your conclusion. The statements are isomorphic in the category of axioms and so no work has been done. If you handed this in for grading I would give it a 0.

>I'm not even a mathematician, but are you really thid ignorant of synthetic geometry?
As a mathematician, triangles do not interest me. I assume they may be more interesting to someone in a different field such as graphic design.

>> No.9600153

>>9600148
Does synthetic geometry require other people to understand it in order for you to apply it in your communications with them?

>> No.9600159
File: 248 KB, 2764x972, entropy-19-00143-g006.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9600159

>>9600152
I agree. Triangles are not well-ordered until given a square to fit within, complete, or assigned an affine-space.

>> No.9600163

>>9600152
>A triangle in plane geometry has the property that the sum of it's angles is always 180 degrees
https://www.apronus.com/geometry/triangle.htm
>It's hardly a "proof" to assume your conclusion
>categoru of axioms
>grading
>As a mathematician
You got me 6/10 I was getting pretty worked up
>>9600159
>>9600153
Is it schizo hour? Anyways, order and shit is resolved with hilberts axioms.

>> No.9600167

>>9600163
>https://www.apronus.com/geometry/triangle.htm
If you already had a proof then why did you ask me for one?

>>It's hardly a "proof" to assume your conclusion
I don't see how you can have an issue with this. Logically it is true that any statement implies itself but this is not what anyone operating in the field of mathematics would call a "proof".

>> No.9600168

>>9600163
Hilbert Hotel is essentially the Schizo Oasis for Mathematicians anyway.
It is more like mathematicians and scientists are more content with the whole 'sharing identity with a perceived god of a specific field' than celebrities are with sharing theirs with their fans.

>>9600167
Any conclusion derived from a generative and concluded by a nominative becomes a votive. Otherwise you are declaring yourself part of the community that would reject something and therefor must adhere to stricter standards than that. To whit, I raise the following:
-1 < +1
+1 > -1
±1 > 0

>> No.9600169

>>9600167
I mean, you accepted a proof of a statement that is equivalent to the fifth postulated. Your whole troll falls off after this.

>> No.9600171

>>9600169
>I mean, you accepted a proof of a statement that is equivalent to the fifth postulated.
I'm not sure what you mean by "accepted a proof"?

>> No.9600174

>>9600168
Is this a bot?
>>9600171
So you don't accept the proof that all triangles have internal angles that add up to 180 degrees?

>> No.9600177

>>9600171
He means 'conceded the point', which is also another way of saying he willingly rotated on your axis/axiom of expression/understanding.

>>9600174
Are you a human? Given how the species is governed it becomes increasingly difficult for those that are wealthy without society to know what the greatest shared identity is.

>>9600174
Given that 180 degrees is an arbitrary choice (as 360 for a full circle also is, given that the 0 is simply a substitute for 9 moduli)

>> No.9600178

>>9600174
>So you don't accept the proof that all triangles have internal angles that add up to 180 degrees?
What do you mean by "accept"? I personally have no interest in triangles, I just do not know why you would ask me for a proof of something you apparently already have a proof for. I personally would only consider something a veritable proof if it has length at least one in the category of axioms, while the kind of things you are proposing have length 0 since the statements are isomorphic.

>> No.9600183

>>9600178
Theres no such thing as the category of axioms.

>> No.9600189

>>9600183
>Theres no such thing as the category of axioms.
How do you do proofs without axioms?

>> No.9600210

>>9600189
You can't, that doesn't mean that there's such a thing as a category of axioms, because any wff can be a fucking axiom, i.e. you are talking about thd category of all first order logic expresions. If you take an axiomatic system, maybe you could define a category between equivalent statements, but that would give you nothing. Also, isomorphism, in the broad sense of category theorem ks between two categories, not one. A general morphism has nothing two do with structure preserving shit. In any sense or for equuvalent statements in an axiomatic systems are trivial shit.
>>9600177
You starting to scare me bro.

>> No.9600213

>>9600210
>Also, isomorphism, in the broad sense of category theorem ks between two categories, not one.
I only referred to axioms (such as Zorn and "all vector spaces have a basis") as being isomorphic (as objects in the category of axioms), not two categories, so I am not sure what you are trying to imply.

>> No.9600214

>>9600213
Define the category of axioms for me please.

>> No.9600216

>>9600210
How and why? As an identity I can't actually harm you over the internet. All I can do is provide statement/counter-argument/submission and subscription.

To anyone of sufficient intelligence the concept of 'divide by even' is no different than '4 % 2' or '2 x 4% = 0.08' or a continued fraction of [math]\frac{1}{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{\ldots }+2}+12}[/math]

>> No.9600223

>>9600168
>Hilbert Hotel
Is that even well-defined?

>> No.9600228

>>9599365
"electromagnetic waves"

>> No.9600231

>>9600223
Well-defined as a defined well of occupiable space, yes. It just isn't directly advertised or easily inspectable given how most real mathematicians have perversions that would be beyond most mortal men, and any GOOD mathematician would ensure that their Hotel would account for the tastes of 'all' their clientele.

Even if they simply adopted the name "Hilbert" upon entry as the only discriminator/exclusionary criteria (which would satisfy the problem)

>> No.9601040

>>9600231
>Well-defined as a defined well of occupiable space, yes. It just isn't directly advertised or easily inspectable given how most real mathematicians have perversions that would be beyond most mortal men, and any GOOD mathematician would ensure that their Hotel would account for the tastes of 'all' their clientele.
>Even if they simply adopted the name "Hilbert" upon entry as the only discriminator/exclusionary criteria (which would satisfy the problem)
I see...

>> No.9602022

>>9601040
To a mathematician '1' = 'identity', which is what a lot of the big fancy question of mathematics is actually inquiring. They aren't really seeking optimal pathing (because that must 'always' be a multiplicative/exponential/commutative result when dealing with 3+), it is more 'what is the optimal identity assignment stepping?'.

Paradoxes are as infinite as 'reals over time' so in truth just identifying the problem OR a potential solution (of any measurable strength) causes an axial shift. It's usually why so many people argue over axioms.

>> No.9602026

>>9602022
Your words mean nothing my dude.

>> No.9602043

>>9602026
*shrug* all words have only the value an observer prescribes to them. It is just easier for me to explore my own internal dictionary here on 4chan than anywhere else because despite whatever the overarching personality type that draws humans here, people here at least 'talk' to some degree.

Turnover rate > fixed state.

>Also, this is 4chan. Nobody's words mean anything because <insert obvious explanation here>

>> No.9602045

>>9599365
Let it be b, such that log_b(1)=universe(t)

>> No.9602264

>>9602043
>*shrug* all words have only the value an observer prescribes to them. It is just easier for me to explore my own internal dictionary here on 4chan than anywhere else because despite whatever the overarching personality type that draws humans here, people here at least 'talk' to some degree.
>Turnover rate > fixed state.
>>Also, this is 4chan. Nobody's words mean anything because <insert obvious explanation here>
test

>> No.9602286

>>9602264
Testing for/

>> No.9602309

>>9602286
he thinks you're a bot m8

>> No.9602310

>>9602309
>he thinks you're a bot m8
I'm not a "he".

>> No.9602312
File: 32 KB, 460x369, 1322924284-176514278.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9602312

>>9602309
中肯?

>>9602310
匿名性別?

>> No.9602326

>>9602310
ah the sperm worm thinks you're a bot
why are you even on this board if you think gender is important subhuman

>> No.9602779

>>9602312
>匿名性別?
Quite.

>> No.9602814
File: 101 KB, 730x973, z3NR9o-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9602814

>>9602779
傳遞性的兩性

>> No.9603316

>>9600099
But you know all axioms, including ZF, are just assumed in the same way AC is? You can as well that all proofs that 1+1=2 are wrong because they rely on axiom equivalent to 1+1=2

>> No.9603321

>>9600128
>if you can't prove something without assuming it to be true then it's hardly a "proof".
But that's how every proof looks like, you show your statement is equivalent to some axioms which are assumed to be true, so by your reasoning you can't prove anything

>> No.9603790

>>9603321
>But that's how every proof looks like
This is false.

>> No.9603791

>>9603316
>You can as well that all proofs that 1+1=2 are wrong because they rely on axiom equivalent to 1+1=2
This is also false.

>> No.9603793

>>9603790
>>9603791
You have proofs that don't assume axioms?

>> No.9603806

>>9603793
>You have proofs that don't assume axioms?
Why would you think that?

>> No.9603809

>>9603806
Then what's the problem with
>>9603791
>>9603790

>> No.9603824

>>9603809
Why are all proofs of 1+1=2 equivalent to 1+1=2?

>> No.9603825

>>9603824

Why do all proofs of 1+1=2 rely on an axiom equivalent to 1+1=2?*

>> No.9604016

>>9603825
How do you prove 1+1=2 without some axiomatic system of naturals?

>> No.9604106

>>9604016
>How do you prove 1+1=2 without some axiomatic system of naturals?
What's the relevance of this?

>> No.9604108

>>9604106
You are retarded

>> No.9604113

>>9604108
>You are retarded
Can we stay on topic? What's the relevance of what you said?

>> No.9604118

>>9604113
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms retard

>> No.9604131

>>9604118
Did you misread my post? I was asking for the relevance, not which axiomatic system of naturals you were referring to.

>> No.9604143

>>9604131
All models of natural bumbers rely on there being some "succesor function" or statements equjvalent to them, either induction, the well order principle (for natural numbers) or anything equkvalent to them. A succesor function is a formal way of saying 1+1=2

>> No.9604157

>>9599365
Gay Juice.

>> No.9604166

>>9604143
I still don't see the relevance. I asked why all proofs of 1+1=2 rely on an axiom equivalent to 1+1=2. Are you trying to imply that the Peano axioms are equivalent to 1+1=2?

>> No.9604170

>>9604166
They use it, yes.

>> No.9604177

>>9604170
>They use it, yes.
Who are "they" and what is "it"?

>> No.9604179

>>9604170
Can you demonstrate how 1+1=2 implies the Peano axioms?

>> No.9604194

>>9604177
Anyone trying to make a condtruction of the natural numbers.
>>9604179
That wasn't the point, the pibt is that in any model of the peano axioms, or some equivalent axiomatic system you either take that 1+1=2 or you need an equivalent axiom. In general it's not just 1+1=2, but a succesor function defining addition.

All of this is because some retard said that the proof of all vector spaces have a basis is not a proof, because it's equivalent to AC.

>> No.9604203

>>9604194
>That wasn't the point, the pibt is that in any model of the peano axioms, or some equivalent axiomatic system you either take that 1+1=2 or you need an equivalent axiom.
Now were just back to my original question which remains unanswered: Why do all proofs of 1+1=2 rely on an axiom equivalent to 1+1=2?

>> No.9604209

>>9604194
> the proof of all vector spaces have a basis is not a proof, because it's equivalent to AC.
This is true.

>> No.9604226

>>9604203
Because if we take peano axioms as a model of natural numbers, all other axiomatic systems for the natural numbers should give you the sane results. Because the existabce if a successor function is independent of the other aximos in Peanos formulation, if you want an equivalent AS, that gives you the same results as Peano, and you take out the succesor function axiom, you need set of statements equivalent to it, otherwise you may ebd with more or less true proofs.
>>9604209
So the proof of the well ordering principle is not a proof? You understand that you can't determine if two statements are equivalent a priori right? Zermeli still had to show the implication.

>> No.9604230

>>9604226
>Because if we take peano axioms as a model of natural numbers, all other axiomatic systems for the natural numbers should give you the sane results. Because the existabce if a successor function is independent of the other aximos in Peanos formulation, if you want an equivalent AS, that gives you the same results as Peano, and you take out the succesor function axiom, you need set of statements equivalent to it, otherwise you may ebd with more or less true proofs.
You're still not addressing my question, so to be more specific, which axiom is equivalent to 1+1=2?

>> No.9604242

>>9604230
If you don't know shit about logic I can't explain further. The point is not to give a specific Axiomatic system equivalent to Peano, but that all of them either contain the succesor function axiom or a statement equivalent to th

>> No.9604246

>>9604242
Equivalent to it. *

>> No.9604250

>>9604242
>If you don't know shit about logic I can't explain further. The point is not to give a specific Axiomatic system equivalent to Peano, but that all of them either contain the succesor function axiom or a statement equivalent to th
What part of my question do you not understand? You claimed "all proofs that 1+1=2 ... rely on axiom equivalent to 1+1=2". Which axiom is equivalent to 1+1=2?

>> No.9604255

>>9604250
You keep showing you don't know what an axiomatic system is, and fail to see the point. If you give me a specific axiomatic system, that is supposedly equivalent to peano then I could maybe find the ir the set if statemnts equivalent to that, but if you don't provide a fucking acxiomatic system, your question makes no fucking sense.

>> No.9604261

>>9604255
>You keep showing you don't know what an axiomatic system is, and fail to see the point. If you give me a specific axiomatic system, that is supposedly equivalent to peano then I could maybe find the ir the set if statemnts equivalent to that, but if you don't provide a fucking acxiomatic system, your question makes no fucking sense.
Then use the Peano axioms. Can you lay off the swearing?

>> No.9604268

>>9604261
THE PEABO AXIOMS ALRADY CONTAIN THE SUCCESOR FUNCTION AS AN AXIOM YOU RETARD.

>> No.9604270

>>9604268
>THE PEABO AXIOMS ALRADY CONTAIN THE SUCCESOR FUNCTION AS AN AXIOM YOU RETARD.
Are you saying 1+1=2 is equivalent to the successor function?

>> No.9604275

>>9604270
1+1=2 is the fuckibg succesor function you retard.

>> No.9604279

>>9604275
>1+1=2 is the fuckibg succesor function you retard.
1+1=2 is an equality, not a function.

>> No.9604283

>>9604279
Eric, be dense all you want, nice b8 whatever.

>> No.9604285

>>9604226
>So the proof of the well ordering principle is not a proof?
Which proof? If the objects are isomorphic in the category of axioms then they represent the same 0-simplex in the nerve of the category. Proofs require a chain including a strictly positive number of 1-simplices.

>> No.9604286

>>9604283
>Eric, be dense all you want, nice b8 whatever.
What definition of function allows "1+1=2" to be a function? Here, have a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)#Definition

>> No.9604289

>>9604286
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Successor_function

>> No.9604294

>>9604285
Schizos are taking over /sci/.

>> No.9604306

>>9604294
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/nerve

>> No.9604308

>>9604289
That's the definition of a particular function, not function. Are you still trying to say "1+1=2" is a function?

>> No.9604314

>>9604294
So long as they are commutative communicators and compound each others' personality profile(s), then your observation allows for a net gain.

[math]a + a = b^2[/math]

>> No.9604315

>>9604308
It's a value of the particular function from which all other values can be computed, well actually it's true by definition, which is why it is an axiom.
>>9604306
So what? There is no such thing as "the category of axioms" fancy words are just fancy words.

>> No.9604332

>>9604315
Given your rational presentation I would like to ask how would we go about compressing the English language so we remove a lot of the 'synonomic clutter' that is present. Like for example a lot of these mathematical precepts only have esoteric uses and could still be explained with simpler descriptions.

Or are you of the belief that one has to constantly just 'add' to learning and accept that any useful point will just require humans to 'accept that as the cost'. Personally I find so much that is 100% capable of being expressed as an analogy or two topics are close enough to each other that for most purposes you can merge them into one and allow some baseline 'set theory' or 'descriptor policy' to cover the fuzzy parts.

>> No.9604333

>>9604332
Don't evet reply to me again.

>> No.9604335

>>9604315
>It's a value of the particular function from which all other values can be computed, well actually it's true by definition
This needs to be shown.

>> No.9604336

>>9604315
>So what? There is no such thing as "the category of axioms" fancy words are just fancy words.
If you don't know shit about logic I can't explain further.

>> No.9604337

>>9604335
No, you take as an axiom that for all n S(n) is a natural writting it as 3 or 45 is just notation.

>> No.9604343

>>9604337
>No, you take as an axiom that for all n S(n) is a natural writting it as 3 or 45 is just notation.
No, you need to show that 1+1=2 can be used to compute all other values of the successor function.

>> No.9604348

>>9604336
Define me the category of axioms please.
>>9604343
What part of "well actually, is true by definition" you don't understand? The construction is just a way to define notation, for which you also need induction which is part of peanos axioms.

>> No.9604351

>>9604348
>What part of "well actually, is true by definition" you don't understand?
You claimed that 1+1=2 is "a value of the particular function from which all other values can be computed". Is this true or not? If so, demonstrate.

>> No.9604353

>>9604348
>Define me the category of axioms please.
If you don't know shit about logic I can't explain further.

>> No.9604355

>>9604351
I never claimed that, I'm talking about the fucking succesor function as implemented by peano.

>> No.9604362

>>9604355
>I never claimed that
see >>9604315
>It's a value of the particular function from which all other values can be computed, well actually it's true by definition, which is why it is an axiom.

>> No.9604363

>>9604348
你所有的不只是爭論的優先級? 評估是恆定的,必要的其他各方之間的協議。

>>9604353
邏輯:招之前有序思考

>>9604355
Hierarchical Successor Functor?
分層後繼函子?

>> No.9604370

>>9604362
>>Well actually
Do you understand what actually means?

>> No.9604374

>>9604353
All wff can be axioms, so it's obviously ill defined.

>> No.9604379

>>9604370
進行定向
To Reorient

>> No.9604384

>>9604374
>All wff can be axioms, so it's obviously ill defined.
Why does the notion that all wff can be axioms make it ill defined?

>> No.9604386

>>9604370
>Do you understand what actually means?
Are you saying "It's a value of the particular function from which all other values can be computed" is not true?

>> No.9604393

>>9604384
>>9604386
This is an amazingly articulate argument over the idempotent description of 'position 1'

>> No.9604402

>>9604384
Because your definitions make no sensr if you take the class of all wff.
>>9604386
Yes, strictly speaking. 1+1=2 is notation, so it's true bye definition.

>> No.9604411

>>9599365
>What is the basis for the universe.

1/c^4 = 0.123456789... E-33 time^4/space^4

>> No.9604416

>>9604402
>Yes, strictly speaking.
Please refrain from posting things which are false.

>> No.9604418

>>9604402
>Because your definitions make no sensr if you take the class of all wff.
Are you saying large categories do not exist?

>> No.9604422

>>9604418
No, but your definitions are ill defined if you take that category in particular because equivalence of statements only make sense within a fixed axiomatic system.

>> No.9604426

>>9604422
Okey, to clarify this, two statements that rare equivalent in an axiomatic system are not necedarilly tautologies in all models. Maybe the retards here are confusing tautolgies with this.

>> No.9604430

>>9604426
In all axiomatic system* shit I'm fucking hyperactive af.

>> No.9604431

>>9604422
>No, but your definitions are ill defined if you take that category in particular because equivalence of statements only make sense within a fixed axiomatic system.
Can you give an example?

>> No.9604438

>>9604431
All triangles having ibternal angles adding up to 180 being equivalent to the paralel postulate only makes sense if you take the other 4 axioms of pure geometry, hell, you cannot talk about points truangles and shit without taking the primitive notions, i.e., it's not just an arbitrary wff.

>> No.9604443

>>9604438
All triangles have 3 'internal halvable' angles because all triangle construction operates on the assumption that they are rotatable. Saying '180' is as arbitrary as 360 degrees to a circle.

>> No.9604445

>>9604438
>All triangles having ibternal angles adding up to 180 being equivalent to the paralel postulate only makes sense if you take the other 4 axioms of pure geometry, hell, you cannot talk about points truangles and shit without taking the primitive notions, i.e., it's not just an arbitrary wff.
What of this makes anything ill defined?

>> No.9604448

>>9604445
The "category of axioms"

>> No.9604451

>>9604448
I asked what part of what you wrote makes anything ill defined.

>> No.9604457
File: 7 KB, 225x225, Wdp7Cwj.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9604457

the most autistic thread on 4chan

>> No.9604458

>>9604451
That those statements are equivalent only makes sense within the axioms of euclidean geometry, so I have no idea how anything you are saying makes sense in the class of all wff which doesn't has any semantic value.

>> No.9604471

>>9604458
>That those statements are equivalent only makes sense within the axioms of euclidean geometry, so I have no idea how anything you are saying makes sense in the class of all wff which doesn't has any semantic value.
You keep showing you don't know what the category of axioms, and fail to see the point.

>> No.9604477

>>9604471
I don't know why, but Ive been searching for that particular term and I come of with nothing. Can you please provide with either a definition or a link?

>> No.9604504

>>9604477
>I don't know why, but Ive been searching for that particular term and I come of with nothing. Can you please provide with either a definition or a link?
If you don't know shit about logic I can't explain further. Also learn some English while you're at it, most of your posts are unreadable, very little semantic value.

>> No.9604511

>>9604504
Sure thing bud.

>> No.9604512

>>9604504
How authoritative a communicator do you wish to be?

>> No.9604522

>>9604511
How dismissive a communicator do you need to be?