That is not a statement. I cannot evaluate its truth value. I mean, I can't even express an opinion.

Cat or dog.

This fragment puts me in the same position.

Well, the 'or' is the only gesture at actually making a statement, but it is not enough.


That is a statement, or perhaps two closely related ones. But you'll need to back it up.

What would lead you to do that in the first place?

“

wouldn't I unconsciously perceive any related knowledge as evidence of their existence?

”

How do you know they existed in the first place?

“

The idea that the world was on the back of a turtle was truth once as well. It was wrong, but anyone would have told you it was the case. Are you saying that all of those people were liars?

”

How could they be liars if they were just ignorant?

Opposites are important in philosophy. Plus in the interests of being fair you should weigh up the study OR it's exact opposite (in actuality you are weighing up the study AND it's exact opposite (1AND0=0.)) but then where they meet (1AND1), truth on both sides, is true.

That depends, what if it is 2? Then "0 or 1" is false.

0 and 1 are not opposites..

You have to weigh up the truth of the statement. Because there is zero on one side of the 'or', and one on the other side, then the statement is true, as a whole. Thus to study something you must judge not only WHAT you are studying, but also it's exact opposite. And where they both become true, is your answer.

"0 is not the opposite of 1."

Are you thinking minus one?

You begin with something (1) and then remove the something (minus one). The thing still existed, in time. But that is another argument. If you begin with nothing (0), something (1) cannot come out of nothing.

However if something existed (1) OR there was nothing (0), and this is true, we find that there is something. There is however an argument that states that just because 0 or 1 =1, does not mean that there was neccessarily SOMETHING, it just means that the statement is true. We do not know WHICH is truthful, just that it was one or the other.

That's meaningless. Following that reasoning anything is true.
Me thinks you are abstracting to much..
And 0 and 1 are not opposites.

Well I believe the symbols simply represent female and male.

Minus one is to remove the something. That is different from there being nothing.

However, 0 or 1 =1, which simply means that it is true that there is something or nothing. It does not state WHICH one is true. Unless you take the one to mean that there is something.

Err.. what? Are you saying that males and females are opposites?

1-1=0 <- THAT is true.

So you are saying that (0 or 1)=1?
Can you prove that 0=1?

Yes I'm saying that (0 or 1)=1! It is true, and that truth is that there is something.

(0 or 1)=1. It is true that zero and one are opposites. :-)

Well, since you have established that there is something, what is the point of adding the 0?
You should say 1=1.

When the conditions are such that an outcome can be either 0 or 1 saying that outcome is always 1 is fallacious.

Please show that 0 and 1 are opposites.
Please show that 0=1.

You see the contradiction??

Or did you mean it in the following sense?

Hmm.. I have two things here, a '0' and a '1'. I wonder which one is '1'?
Lets compare '0' and '1'.. Nope, that's not it.
Now lets compare '1' and '1'. Yes, that's it!

"(0 or 1)=1 is true" means: "either 0=1 is true, or 1=1 is true"
Conclusion: 0=1 is false and 1=1 is true.


Or comically:

Hmm.. I have a cat and a dog here. I wonder which one is the dog?
Lets compare the cat with the dog.. Nope, they are not the same.
Now lets compare dog with the dog. Yes, that's it!

(cat or dog)= dog means: cat=dog or dog=dog.
Conclusion dog=dog.


Did you mean it like that? I hope not..

The truth is, Mr. Bishadi, that I asked him to show that 0=1. Not that 0!=1.
As for your attempt at an insult, this is what.. your second post since you came back from your month-long ban? Smarty..

I think spectrum is misusing a conditional logic operator from computer science. There is something called an "OR" operator which reads in english as:

This statement is true if any of these values [<list of values>] are true.

The <list of values> would contain 1's (true) and 0's (false). For example:

1 OR 0 OR 1

means:

This statement is true if any of these values [true, false, true] are true.

Clearly it's being misapplied in your conversation; however, I did want to point out what he's talking about so you don't feel completely insane .

I wondered about that initially, but that use would be completely misplaced.

Yep

any-whooo

truth is first and fundamentally that , which has nothing to do with our being able to observe it or understand it

my post was deleted...