Not changing the subject of "change" as a place holder can be use for a progressive change as: (1→((n→∞)=∆))

and so is "word", hence one axiom progresses to another and cycles back to the original simultaneously.

Covered in Prime Triad.

Not changing the subject of "change" as a place holder can be use for a progressive change as: (1→((n→∞)=∆)) — eodnhoj7

The very definition of WORD SALAD in this context.

hence one axiom progresses to another and cycles back to the original simultaneously.

Covered in Prime Triad. — eodnhoj7

You have not shown any progression.

Not really, 1 progressions to a further progression which in itself is progressing. Infinite movement directed through infinite movement.

This can be viewed as a loose reference to zeno's paradox.

Not word salad at all.

Actually I have. The premises are maintained and progressively observed from seperate angles such as the laws of idenity, 1 = 0, the nature of definition, equivocation and a whole list of further fallacies.

Not really, 1 progressions to a further progression which in itself is progressing. Infinite movement directed through infinite movement. — eodnhoj7

You are writing it in words but you are not proving it as it is observed in reality (in phenomena). So, there's no proof.

What you've written has nothing to do with Zeno's paradox.

AGAIN, YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WRONG.

Actually I have. The premises are maintains and progressively observed from seperate angles such as the laws of idenity, 1 = 0, the nature of definition, equivocation and a whole list of further fallacies. — eodnhoj7

This is nonsense. It is not the law of identity.

You are writing it in words but you are not proving it as it is observed in reality (in phenomena). So, there's no proof.

This conversation is a phenomena as well as all the axioms stemming from which is and is not the Prime Triad.

What you've written has nothing to do with Zeno's paradox.
Actually it does the continual progression observes a stability where the axioms never really change due to there continuous empirical and abstract nature as existing through further axioms.

Actually it does the continual progression observes a stability where the axioms never really change due to there continuous empirical and abstract nature as existing through further axioms. — eodnhoj7

This is not Zeno's paradox.

The law of identity deals with reality as it is. No matter the condition of that reality, whether real or illusion, it is distinctly itself.

P=P
Reality=Reality
Illusion=Illusion

AGAIN, YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WRONG.

Actually it is, the law of identity for P must equal P; hence P determines what equality is. 1 = 0 shows P can having multiple meanings in one respect while P=X in a seperate where X as a different variable is not actually P.

Example 1 = 3-2 but 3-2 is "3" "-" and "2" hence is not the same as P=1.

P can mean multiple things simultaneously.

1=0 is a mathematical fallacy which you have conjured up and have not proved.

1=0 has nothing to do with P=P

AGAIN, YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WRONG.

Zeno's paradox is left with a continuum of measurement resulting in no-change or movement.

The law of idenitity, as a you say is a placeholder, it stays within abstract logic and mathematics.

Unless you are saying logic and mathematics are subject to reality, in which case the nature of variable applies considering reality is in a constant state of change.

P=P

If P is substituted, it has to be done on both sides of the equation.

Therefore,

P=P
1=1
0=0

We also define 0! = 1 to provide consistency in the equations for nPr and nCr : when r = 0 or r = n, the formula should give values of 1. This will only be possible if (n-n)! equals 1. There are a number of such situations in mathematics where an operation originally defined only for positive integers ("counting numbers"), as evolved from ordinary human uses, is extended to larger sets of numbers. A widely-used example is x^n .

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/proof-that-0-1.195945/

Zeno's paradox is left with a continuum of measurement resulting in no-change or movement. — eodnhoj7

No. That's not what it says. This is your own faulty interpretation.

Unless you are saying logic and mathematics are subject to reality, in which case the nature of variable applies considering reality is in a constant state of change. — eodnhoj7

The elements governed by reality change. But reality remains itself. Just like we grow up from children to adults but our identity doesn't change. The identity of reality remains the same.

Hence, P=P
Reality=Reality.


YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WRONG

P cannot be substituted, other wise it changes and is a variable. As a Place holder if is effectively nothing but void.

We also define 0! = 1 to provide consistency in the equations for nPr and nCr — eodnhoj7

Don't change the subject. We're talking about the Law if Identity, P=P.

P cannot be substituted, other wise it changes and is a variable. As a Place holder if is effectively nothing but void. — eodnhoj7

This is not mathematics. It is your own nonsense.


AGAIN, YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WRONG.

No. That's not what it says. This is your own faulty interpretation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes

It is all about infinite movement, not my own interpretation.

The elements governed by reality change. But reality remains itself. Just like we grow up from children to adults but our identity doesn't change. The identity of reality remains the same.

Hence, P=P
Reality=Reality.



The elements governed by reality, are real hence change is governance.

Actually a child's identity is not the same as an adult's identity. Interests change, relationships change, health changes.

We also define 0! = 1 to provide consistency in the equations for nPr and nCr — eodnhoj7


Don't change the subject. We're talking about the Law if Identity, P=P.

Yes and 0=1 or more specifically 0! = 1. This is not my rule in math, I am just quoting them. Someone else wrote this.

P cannot be substituted, other wise it changes and is a variable. As a Place holder if is effectively nothing but void. — eodnhoj7


This is not mathematics. It is your own nonsense.

You gave no definition to mathematics, as mathematics has many definitions.

Mathematics (from Greek μάθημα máthēma, "knowledge, study, learning") includes the study of such topics as quantity,[1] structure,[2] space,[1] and change.[3][4][5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics

All of this is in the Prime Triad for all these things are axioms.

You can view it as a master argument, which is an axiom, if you wish, based of the "Monad" as the line point and circle.

Actually a child's identity is not the same as an adult's identity. Interests change, relationships change, health changes. — eodnhoj7

This should be basic common sense. Were you someone else as a child? Or is it that you don't know what identity means.

Zeno's paradox is based on hypothesis, not facts. Also, it has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

You gave no definition to mathematics, as mathematics has many definitions. — eodnhoj7

Still trying to evade the crux of the argument.

All of this is in the Prime Triad for all these things are axioms. — eodnhoj7

Which means all the nonsense you're saying is in that triadic whatever.


That's my point. Everything you call 'your logic' is nonsense.

Actually a child's identity is not the same as an adult's identity. Interests change, relationships change, health changes. — eodnhoj7


This should be basic common sense. Were you someone else as a child? Or is it that you don't know what identity means.

So Identity does change? That means P can mean multiple things at once.

Zeno's paradox is based on hypothesis, not facts. Also, it has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

You gave no definition to mathematics, as mathematics has many definitions. — eodnhoj7

Actually it is science:

https://www.livescience.com/45253-zenos-paradox.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect



Still trying to evade the crux of the argument.

All of this is in the Prime Triad for all these things are axioms. — eodnhoj7


Which means all the nonsense you're saying is in that triadic whatever.

Not really, I am arguing everything is premised in the point line and circle as axioms, and this definition of the point line and circle occurs through the nature of the point, line and circle with the nature of the point, line and circle being further defined by the relations of the point line and circle.

It is a circular expansion while being an axiom in itself. It allows for belief while defining it through linear and circular reasoning, where this linear and circular reasoning and all axioms as "points of origin" in turn not just justify the laws, but observes all logic is subject to both "form" and "function" in regarde to its nature as axiomatic.

It is using the "Monad" as constant standard for logic, while still allowing for variation. The laws you argue are metaphorically built from a cardboard box.




That's my point. Everything you call 'your logic' is nonsense.

I am using the Pythagorean Monad, Hindu Bindhu, Lieniz's Monads, Plotinus's Monad/One, as well as the atomist schools as the foundation and synthesizing them in accords with the Hegelian Dialectic while observing base axioms in Euclidian and Non-Euclidian Geometry...and a variety of other sources.

They all exist as extensions of eachother, according to both their reasoning, and the laws themselves.

Just face it, these laws are above your laws and whatever law you use exists through them. You can fight against these laws, but you will just be using them.

My point is the identity of a person remains the same.

this definition of the point line and circle occurs through the nature of the point, line and circle with the nature of the point, line and circle being further defined by the relations of the point line and circle. — eodnhoj7

Which definition is that which occurs through the line, point and circle. State that definition.

It is a circular expansion — eodnhoj7

What is circular expansion. Define and explain it.

linear and circular reasoning — eodnhoj7

Define and explain them.

where this linear and circular reasoning and all axioms as "points of origin" in turn not just justify the laws, but observes all logic is subject to both "form" and "function" in regarde to its nature as axiomatic. — eodnhoj7

How are they points of origin. Origin of what? How do they observe logic as subject to form and function?

I am using the Pythagorean Monad, Hindu Bindhu, Lieniz's Monads, Plotinus's Monad/One — eodnhoj7

Where are they in your explanations? How are they associated with your explanations and phenomena in reality?

They all exist as extensions of eachother, according to both there reasoning, and the laws themselves. — eodnhoj7

Show this.

Just face it, these laws are above your laws and whatever law you use exists through them. You can fight against these laws, but you will just be using them. — eodnhoj7

Show those laws.

My point is the identity of a person remains the same.

Actually you said it changes, hence identity is merely a boundary of change.



this definition of the point line and circle occurs through the nature of the point, line and circle with the nature of the point, line and circle being further defined by the relations of the point line and circle. — eodnhoj7


Which definition is that which occurs through the line, point and circle. State that definition.





1. All axioms are points of origin; hence all axioms as progressive linear definition and circularity are points of origins. The point of origin progresses to another point of origin through point 2 and cycles back to itself through point 3 with this linear progression and circularity originating from themselves, through eachother and point 1.

Point 1 is original and exists through points 2 and 3 as points 2 and 3.

As original Points 1,2,3 are extension of eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously being nothing in themselves as points of origin that invert to further axioms respectively; hence originate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws

2. All axioms are progressive linear definition; point 1 and 3 progress to point 2 as respective points of origin observed in point 1 while this linear progression from one to another through alternation and exists as circulation between points 1 and 3 to point 2 and point 2 progressing to points 1 and 3.

Point 2 is definitive and defines points 1 and 3 with points 1 and 3 defining point 2.

As definitive Points 1,2,3 progress from one to another and are inherently seperate. As seperating one from another they are connected under a common function of "seperation"; hence are defined as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws.

3. All axioms are maintain through a circularity, as linear alternation through point 2, and points of origin as point 1, with point 1 and 2 circulating through each other as point three while circulating through themselves as each other. Point 3 maintains itself as circular and maintains points 1 and 2 as circular while points 1,2 and 3 circulating through eachother maintain eachother.

Point 3 is circular and exists through 1 and 2 as 1 and 2.

As circular Points 1,2,3 are maintained through eachother as eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously dissolving into further axioms as eachother; hence they circulate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws.





It is a circular expansion — eodnhoj7


What is circular expansion. Define and explain it.

Define and Explain Definition without going into a continuum.


1) A → (A,A)B

2) (A ← (A,A)B)C ∵ B ∋ A

3) ((A,A)B → (A,A)B)D ∵ B ∋ A

1(1,2,3)) ((A,A)B → (A,A,A)C → (A,A,A,A)D)I ∵ (B,C,D) ∋ A


4) A ↔ ((A → A)= (A ⇆ A) = (A⟲) = (A = ⟲))

5) ((A → A)= (A ⇆ A) = (A⟲) = (A = ⟲)) = ⟨A⟲|(A → A)⟩ ∴ A ↔ ⟨"⟲"|"→")⟩

6) A = 1 and 0 where A,1,0 are point space as the foundations of quantity and quality.

1 = 0

where this equation observes point space as both 0 dimensional and 1 dimensional in theory.



Flux and form are inseperable, hence flux and form replicate further flux and form, where the repitition of flux and form is flux and form. All statements exist as truth statements if they are self referentiality, with this self referentiality being open to progress.

If a cause is directed to effect, an effect is a cause, the cause is directed through itself as an effect.

"A" cannot exist without "->" and "->" cannot exist without "A". Hence while A directed to A always results in A as maintained as a self referential axiom it results in B as the observation of this self referentiality.

B in turn is open to further progress of self referentiality, B directed to B, because it it exists through A with A being self referential. This results in D where D is a form and function of B self refencing through A as self referencing.

A directed to B observes A directed to itself where the repitition of A results in B. B is the form and function of A.

Simultaneously, as A self referencing, B as A is directed back to A as C. C is A self referencing through B with B being an obersation of A self referencing.

Self referencing, intradimensionally, or "reflection" (all synonyms) is form and function.

So the foundation axiom is form/function resulting in further form/function with form/function being the proof and answer as a symmetrical structure.

All proof as form/functions are approximations of a form function. In short terms all answers as approximations are random because the premise is a random. However while the form/function is random, it's corresponding form/function is not. So while all proofs are effectively random, they are ordered, structured, and rational through a self referentiality.

The progressive nature that this form/function resulting in form function takes into account the randomness as this approximation, inherent within all answers

For example 1+2=3 is an approximation of 3 considering 3 = (infinite form/functions).

Example:

3 = 4-1,5-2,6-3...

3= 3-1+1-1, 5-2+2-2, 6-3+3-3...

With these progressing ad infinitum and not including further arithmetic functions.

So 1+2, while true because as a form function (+1 and +2 directed to eachother) its exists through the form function of +3, but is random considering 1+2 is an approximation of the infinite form functions that exist through the form function of 3.

So all form/functions are simultaneously random as approximations of a great form function, while inherently true as extensions of the form function through their nature.


The mirror theory two thread, in the math logic section, observes this from a quantitiatve angle. The number line is actually a function as well.

Because of this premise of form/function as true, and for everything I understand of logic separates form and function, a new but very simple language had to be created. The language is justified through itself as strictly directed movement where the line/circular directions of the numbers are axioms. Number is movement and direction as a form/function.
Top





linear and circular reasoning — eodnhoj7


Define and explain them.

Shown above

where this linear and circular reasoning and all axioms as "points of origin" in turn not just justify the laws, but observes all logic is subject to both "form" and "function" in regarde to its nature as axiomatic. — eodnhoj7



How are they points of origin. Origin of what? How do they observe logic as subject to form and function?

You argument as an axiom progresses to further of your arguments as axioms. One argument is a point of origin for another.

I am using the Pythagorean Monad, Hindu Bindhu, Lieniz's Monads, Plotinus's Monad/One — eodnhoj7


Where are they in your explanations? How are they associated with your explanations and phenomena in reality?

They are the explanation. They exist through there definition of the monad, hence the monad defines there work.

They all exist as extensions of eachother, according to both there reasoning, and the laws themselves. — eodnhoj7


Show this.

And tell me what that means?


Regardless, your argument progresses to further arguments, with each argument as a point of origin for further arguments, while cycling back to original arguments (law of identity as one example).

Mine are doing the same thing, but I am arguing for this. You are not, yet you are still stuck in the Laws.


Just face it, these laws are above your laws and whatever law you use exists through them. You can fight against these laws, but you will just be using them. — eodnhoj7

Actually a child's identity is not the same as an adult's identity. Interests change, relationships change, health changes. — eodnhoj7

This is your quote. You are the one who said it changes. Again, you are trying to mislead with your petty confusions.

All axioms are points of origin — eodnhoj7

Prove this first before you give explanations based on unfounded premises.

hence all axioms as progressive linear definition and circularity are points of origins. — eodnhoj7

Hence nothing. You have not explained it. You have only made an assertion. The next step should be to prove that it is true. After that, you can give a conclusion.

This whole argument becomes irrelevant because it is unfounded. They're all assumptions unless you show how you arrived at them.

where this equation observes point space as both 0 dimensional and 1 dimensional in theory. — eodnhoj7

That is my point so far, they're all theories you are trying to advance. Unfortunately they're not based on any real foundation nor are they coherent.

hence flux and form replicate further flux and form — eodnhoj7

How and why? Or show this process in phenomena. How did you come to such a conclusion?

All statements exist as truth statements if they are self referentiality, with this self referentiality being open to progress. — eodnhoj7

Show how all statements exist as truth statements through self-reference.
Show how self-referentiality progresses. How does it apply to phenomena?

If a cause is directed to effect, an effect is a cause, the cause is directed through itself as an effect. — eodnhoj7

This makes no sense. This is neither scientific nor philosophical. Check Newtons laws of motion and how cause and effect relate to each other with respect to forces. So, how did you arrive at your premise?

Self referencing, intradimensionally, or "reflection" (all synonyms) is form and function. — eodnhoj7

What does this mean?

So the foundation axiom is form/function resulting in further form/function with form/function being the proof and answer as a symmetrical structure. — eodnhoj7

How does the foundation result in further...? Through what mechanism or process?

3 = 4-1,5-2,6-3...

3= 3-1+1-1, 5-2+2-2, 6-3+3-3... — eodnhoj7

These equations are not functions. Consult your mathematics on what a function is.

With these progressing ad infinitum and not including further arithmetic functions. — eodnhoj7

What you have given are not arithmetic functions.

So 1+2, while true because as a form function (+1 and +2 directed to eachother) its exists through the form function of +3, but is random considering 1+2 is an approximation of the infinite form functions that exist through the form function of 3.

So all form/functions are simultaneously random as approximations of a great form function, while inherently true as extensions of the form function through their nature. — eodnhoj7

This is not mathematical. It is your own cooking. What part of mathematics are they?

Because of this premise of form/function as true, — eodnhoj7

You have not proved it. The incoherent series of unrelated, unscientific, unmathematical and unphilosophical statements you've given are not proof of anything other than your sophistry.

They are the explanation. They exist through there definition of the monad, hence the monad defines there work. — eodnhoj7

You have not given the definition of monad nor have you explained it.

Is this what you call your logic, making unfounded assertions? Is that what you think science or mathematics is?



I'm just wondering, assuming you have read other people's books, is there anyone whose explanations are as muddled as yours.

You want to prove something you can't explain and which you don't even recognize through the simplest of phenomena. You've read big books and now you want to use those big words without even understanding them.

I'm glad your statements are here for everyone to read. I don't get how you think you make sense unless it's your own personal opinion only. My advice: consult others. It's not for them to determine whether you're right or wrong but for you to evaluate you skills at expressing yourself. My opinion is what you are writing makes you sound like a maniac.

Anyway, keep on if you want. I'm sure to keep up and point out all your inconsistencies.

Word salad for one reason: You keep saying "definition" and I define it but you do not.

I argue it as progressive seperation...in which you are following.

And progressive connection...in which you are doing.

Your argument exists through the laws, and you argument is void on its own terms according to these laws as all axioms are void on their own terms.

You reasoning is subject to these laws.

You cannot argue against the law without proving the law by making it progress further.

An assumption is not a definition.

You cannot argue against the law without proving the law by making it progress further. — eodnhoj7

I'm saying those are not laws. They are your own imaginations. If they were laws they would be evident in the phenomena they govern. You have yet to show that.