Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Doron Shadmi
Abstract:
"By the standard notion a set is determined by its members, where the
domain is not explicitly defined."
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 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
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:
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.
5
By system Z we may fulfill Hilbert’s organic paradigm of the
mathematical language. Quoting Hilbert’s famous Paris 1900 lecture:
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
x=0=.
In the first case . is related to . , in the second case we get isolated . . that
can be related by __
x ≠ 0 = 0__x
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 ___
Let A be [.]
Let B be [ ].
Let C be [ .
B AND C ( represented as [ ._ )
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 = __
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