Thanks Peter T Breuer.

But my question clearly talks about P and Q in their existential form [For example, Q exists if and only if P exists.]

So, lets not sidetrack to 'classical logic'.

I would like to see answers centered around frameworks of logic that lets one study objects (in their existential form and not through their attribute / property form), such as cause and future consequences.

If no such framework exists, that is perfectly fine. 

Thanks.

http://gopalakrishna.palem.in

Dear Peter T Breuer,

If you do not understand my question - the chances are it is outside your realm of knowledge.

So, please refrain from polluting this thread. 

This is not the first time I have seen this behavior from you. Please stay away from my questions and stop forcing your irrelevant answers onto my questions.

Thanks.

http://gk.palem.in/

Dear Peter,

I am not sure why you are trying to impress me so desperately.

I have clearly indicated your answer does not meet my requirements. Period.

If you want to understand why: I advise you to take a step back and look at what you are doing: Namely,

First you start saying "you need classical logic" and then go on to say "P and Q are statements, not entities".

Who asked you to bring "classical logic" into the equation in the first place if it doesn't fit my question, which clearly states: "P and Q are entities".

Then you go on to ridicule my question itself: "So your question doesn't make sense.".  Why? Because it doesn't fit your suggestion of "classical logic" ?? 

• So, you first suggest a framework as answer and when it doesn't fit my question - you start ridiculing the question itself - is it?

Alright, when objection raised not to divert on to 'classical logic', you start using phrases such as: "invented rubbish", "my crank-o-meter is twitching".

• Are they really needed? Do you really need to go that low?

When nothing else works, you finally start saying my question does not fit any thread topics. If that is indeed true, I would be happy to withdraw my question - no objections.

But why did you not say it in the beginning? Why after proposing an answer?

Because you were hoping that your answer would be approved and you would be  praised??

Please Peter, do not try to fit your answers to my question. That's not how it works.

If my question is wrong - that is a different story and I can withdraw it.

If you want apology - sure here it is. I apologize.

• But I really do not know what you are expecting apology for: For not approving your answer ? or for asking a question that you have no clue about?

Here on RG, I am looking for authentic answers to my questions, from  people who know what I am talking about.

The sensible thing for you to do is: wait for an answer from others and learn from it. 

• Do not expect me to educate you first so that you can answer me next. That is pure non-sense. I am not here to teach you. I am here to clarify few things from people who already know them and deal in them day in day out.

If you think my question / its theory is invalid or do not understand the terms of my question - then this is not a right question for you. Please stay away. No one forced you to answer this.

As for RG rules - you are welcome to do what ever you think you can do. Go ahead. 

It is better to barred from this than to see this kind of ego-driven answers from people who cannot cope-up with rejections.

http://gk.palem.in/

> "Everyone here thinks you miswrote"

Speak for yourself.

The problem is: I would have explained the terms if it were not for the fact of your ego and your under-estimating the questioner.

What I see in you is just a lust for proving "me" wrong, rather than "love for learning".

You know what, any "scientist" as you seem to be self-proclaiming yourself, would have done some basic research on trying to understand what I am taking about at-least by just googling the terms and trying to form the story.

Nope, rather you chose to beg around me like a spoiled child. Sorry Kid. You need to learn to respect others first for what they are, before you can starting learning new things.

I assume this is not the first time you are getting that message. Your history at Linux Support also seem to be saying the same.

Good luck.

Finally here is what I want to say:

• Fine I do not understand classical logic or whatever that thing you are saying. Now, would that be enough to shut you up? I guess thats what you have been trying to prove, right? That I am an idiot and I don't know what I am talking about?

Cool. No issues. I do not know what I am talking about. Now, please stay away and let me get worked with others.

• And request you to kindly not answer any of my further questions (since I have already accepted that I am an idiot / crank or whatever you call it, as per your definition).

I come here for answers not for debates. And this is certainly not a paper writing context. My hourly rates are USD 245. I do not have the luxury or time as you have for these debates. Since you said you are trying bluff your way around without knowing the exact answers, you, Sir, certainly are not my type. Please stay away.

Thanks.

Quote> "...You haven't answered ... clarification of the terms.."

You first called them "invented rubbish", "my crank-o-meter is twitching" and then all of sudden expecting clarifications for them??  Let them be that, just "invented rubbish".

---------------

Quote> " ...No, the world isn't there to answer your questions"

Speak for yourself Mr.

---------------

Quote> "...this is precisely a debating forum..."

You are welcome to debate in your own threads. Not at the costs of others. If you like this question so much and want to debate on it, go ahead copy it and create a new thread exclusively for debate - I have no objection. But leave this thread alone. I am seeking answers. For your reference, it says "Ask a question" and not "start a debate". If it were, I wouldn't be here.

---------------

Quote> "...No, you don't have a right to demand to be understood "

Since when you got the impression that I am demanding YOU to understand me?? If you look clearly its YOU who is the crying baby begging to be approved for your answers.

In fact, I am asking you not to Jerk around and stay AWAY !!

---------------

Quote> "...What kind of an answer can you expect ..."

None from you, Please.

When others answer, if any, you may be able to see and learn. But now that this stupid thing has grown to 10 posts, it is highly unlikely that anyone else will join to answer now. One of the reasons why I requested you to refrain in the beginning itself. I know you would drag this nonsense to this length. What a waste of time.

---------------

Quote> "...Leave the ego at home, please..."

Yes - Please do it and you would be doing all a big favor. It is surprising why you are not doing it, 

You got your apology and ego boosted, after all.

---------------

Quote> "...That's what mathematicians do..."

You are speaking as if only you know mathematicians and I do not. Want to be so sure?  

---------------

Quote> "...All one sees is misanthropic ranting.  "

Sure... see the old posts and see who is doing the ranting. Calling names and insulting the questioner. What was that thing you called me.. yes.. "undergraduate student syndrome".  Sure it is so philanthropic.

In the end:

• You have downvoted the question and downvoted my replies. And successfully proved that I am an Idiot, made me apologize for nothing. What more you are crying about on this thread? You cannot live in rejection - are you?

Quote> "...since you say that what you have written is not what you mean"

And when exactly did I happen to say that?

Quote> "...I - am trying to do is figure out what you mean"

Don't worry, its not your burden any more.

http://gk.palem.in/

Quote> " ... I call them what I like ..."

You clearly have Personality issues Mr.

What was all that gloating about your Alma Maters?

If I am a nut-job, then you should really stay away from my questions.

Thanks.

Yes Peter.

I didn't have the faintest idea of logic, propositional logic, computational logic,

And yes, I am used to bluffing/blustering my way through life! 

Now - is that all ?

Could you please now stay away from my questions, since I am that kind of person (aka nut-job)?

Thanks.

Nope Peter.

I am a nut-job, I prefer explaining only to other nut-jobs.

My question is a nut-theory (or rubbish). It is not worth any expert's time.

So, please stay away from me and my questions in future. 

You certainly get to choose which questions to answer, Peter. So, if you see my name on my question, then you can be assured that it is a nut-job question, not really fit for you. So, you can ignore my question and use your time effectively elsewhere.

So, please desist from contributing to my questions.

Thanks.

You can answer all questions you want for all others as you like. But please stay away from me or my questions.

It is a basic group/forum decorum of staying away, when people ask you to stay away.

Hope you remember, "killfiles". Unfortunately RG does not have them.

Thanks.

You need the assume the axiom of excluded middle (p \/ ~p) to prove things by contradiction. 

What do you mean by Q exists if and only if P exists?

P and Q are propositions i.e. True or False, so what does it mean for them to exist? 

Yes Peter.

The method is not compulsorily right. The point is that an implication P ---> Q with P false is always valid, doesn't matter how is Q. EXAMPLE: given n red (play-) cards and n black cards (n bigger than 4), one mixes the cards. Show: if there are more red cards in the first n as black cards in the last n (P) then there are four consecutive cards of the same color (Q). The implication is always true because the implicant P is always false with the given condition. Now we can imagine situations with Q and with not Q, but in all situations one has not P. 

You must enlarge your question as if you could articulate ( kind of comparing ) the actual proposition with all the propositions like and axiomatic truthes and theorems system memories consist in so as "bugging" when these are processed or taken together. If you had already kept into memories only " truthes "  each  " new " proposition could be selected or rejected by this mean. But probably doing this you shut yourself to opportunities of radically " new " propositions that don't simply or immediately fit with older ones... It depends on you to work in a prehistoric or futur cyber-environnemental mood or with has been or promising concepts.