the fundamental contradiction in logic statements

[crazedrat]

Copy pasted from metasocion.com, the underlying logic responsible for dual type theory:


Okay, it's been a while. I've come across some things.
It's come to me there may be an entanglement related flaw within logic statements. As follows:
B is not C,
C is B.
The logic we're examining is what the words 'is' and 'is not' are referencing. Consider the establishment of variables as assumptions. "C is B" is an assumption of C relative to B in "B is not C"; "B is not C" allows for B to be considered distinct from C in "C is B". The fundamentals of a logic statement contain a contradiction.

I think it is this contradiction which allows for two simultaneous dual processes to run; actually, necessitates.
As all of us here know, compound logic statements are representations of the functions.
This is also what is responsible for duality.
I will probably write more on this.

[smilodon]

Not sure if I misunderstand the above, but a car is a vehicle, but a vehicle is not a car.

[crazedrat]

Right. Examine closely the assumption of what it is you're saying. Reread the example if you need to.
The reversal in variable order is only for recognition purposes. You can also say a car is a vehicle, but a car is not a vehicle.

[strrrng]

You can also say a car is a vehicle, but a car is not a vehicle.

You mean, a car is a vehicle, but a vehicle is not a car (C is B, but B is not C).


I agree completely with what you said, and am interested in reading more. It is a much more fundamental statement of logical exclusivity, which I think spans into many realms. The simple notion of distinguishing for exclusivity, so as to allow for mutual interaction, or compatibility.

By differentiating you assume a category which things can and cannot be subsumed under. This is what allows you to reference objects.

So... it's like a nihilation in order to allow for creation.

[717495]

A car is a type of vehicle. A type of vehicle is a car. This isn't exactly a logic problem, more of a linguistic one which leads to logical contradiction.

[crazedrat]

No polikujm, you are wrong. It is definitely a logic problem. As you can see it works just as well with neutral variables like B and C. Infact it is easier to see in those terms.
Yes strrrng, and rules for the inter-reliance of both processes; having both in proper balance (duality). But both occur simultaneously. There is not a destruction, and then a creation. That is merely an elaboration of a logic statement into a compound logic statement.

[717495]

Well if C is not B, then B is not C.

XY contains X, where X does not contain XY. I understand what you mean.

I don't understand what you are expressing about duality though. As in a dual is someone who is < and you are >, so in your relation, dual is X and you are also X. ?

[strrrng]

A car is a type of vehicle. A type of vehicle is a car. This isn't exactly a logic problem, more of a linguistic one which leads to logical contradiction.

Stop injecting the word 'type' to qualify each object -- we are looking at isolated variables. A vehicle is a general category; a vehicle is B; a type of B is C; a car is C; therefore a type of vehicle is a car.


crazed, I don't necessarily mean destruction literally. It's more that the generalized notion of dualistic logic is destroyed, with an elaboration on the interdynamics of the previous apparently contradictory statements