Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Sean Con
I run a electronic dragon
I run a electronic dragon

Communities and Collections

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

to the liars: fuck off, you are nothing but pathetic microbe
to those who broke my heart,fuck of,and be thankful that i still talk to you
to those to whom i made a statement because i was believing a liar,which ultimately came out as false: i apologize
to everyone else : i am a bit devastated
Add a comment...

Post has shared content
"Reflections Of Zion"

Another photo from Zion National Park on our Utah National Park Trip with +Natalia Stone +roma g and the one and only, +Ricardo Liberato!

#Landscape #Photography #Clouds #Water #Reflection #Zion #Utah #NationalPark
Add a comment...

Post has shared content
Add a comment...

Post has shared content
Day 101 of 2012, 165 rhinos killed so far this year. That's 1.65 rhinos killed every day! Please help us stop the rhino genocide! Help put an end to the poaching before it's too late. Sign and share the petition! Please!
Add a comment...

I am dead in my soul . you caused this . why you did this to me is not a question any more . es lag an mir . you dont need to prove that i am fine . I am not fine . now happy cookie baking, while i slowly bleed to death .
Add a comment...

International space-app competition: . Event takes place in Stuttgart. Everyone is Encouraged to take part, and enjoy with a small registration fee.
Add a comment...

so yeeeeeeeeees i successfully transcribed all my work on a particular roject to another one, changed the algorithm, and wasted three more months of life, because my GP told me that i must do it in order to avoid my pains
Add a comment...

snow-white coming to my town, in a few days. Everyone knows about her..
Add a comment...


Clarification of Symbols: P: a statement
~P: NOT P, that is opposite of P
Q: a set of statements
W: a world
a v b : union of a and b
a V' b : disjoint union of a and b
o: the null set
a ^ b: intersection of a and b
a - b: exclusion of a and b
s(P): the state of a statement
>: ordering
||: number of elements

False: A statement that does not agree to a test. The test can be a thought experiment, a real observation, a deduction and so on. Different branches of science employ different tests.

Truth: If a statement agrees to a test
Doubted: If a statement is NOT placed to a test
World W: A collection of statements, on which the operation s(P| P in W) is defined, which can take the value of 0 (signifying false), 1 (signifying truth), or o (doubted), which followes the axiom of totality, and the axiom of absolutism.
null set: a set containing no elementsdisjoint union: union of two sets, where the intersection between them is null

Axioms of absolutism: either s(P) = 0 or s(P) = 1 or s(P) = o . s(P) = 0 implies s(~P) = 1. s(P) = s(~P) can not hold. a world where this axiom holds, is an absolute world. The universe the science attempts to describe is absolute. Note QM or similar theories DOES NOT imply the world being not absolute, they set a limit on the execution of the s operation.
Axioms of totality: for all P in W, axiom of absolutism holds. such an world is an total world.
Axiom of reflexivity : s(P) = 0 and s(P*) = 1 implies P = ~P* and vice versa
Axiom of commutativity : P v P* = P* v P
Axiom of symmetry: (P implies P*) implies (P* implies P)
Axiom of antisymmetry: (P implies P*) implies ~(P* implies P)
Axiom of necessity: P > R, P v P* implies R, P* is not axiomatically o
Axiom of sufficiency: P > R , P implies R v R*, R* is not axiomatically o
Axiom of necessity and sufficiency: P > R and R > P, R* and P* is o, implies axiom of symmetry, implies (P implies R) and vice versa and (~P implies ~R) and vice versa
Axiom of total ordering: for any two P and P* in W, at least one of the following holds P>P* and P*>P. If exactly one holds, then, it is a strict total ordering. in which case, holding both would imply P = P*

Axiom of total falsification: there exists one ordering >' for which, given s(P) = 0, P>'P*>'
P*** etc implies

P*** etc are all false.
Axiom of transitivity: A>B and B>C means A>CAxiom of Armstrong's reflexivity: if p in P , then P implies p
Axiom of augmentation: if P implies P' and P implies P'', then P implies P'P''

Axiom of falsification: P and P* (and so on)
implies P**,
then there exists R, R* and
R** (and so on) , such that R and
R* and
R*** (and so on) implies
s(R), s(R*) and
s(R**) (and so on) are not axiomatically 0, can be experimentally zero though.
Axiom of error : a particular test can show s(P) =0 though s(P) = 1, by other tests, and vice versa. Generally accepted rule is, the test which repeats the value the most times, or the test which has more statements implying the truth of it, is the true one.

Introduction and motivation.
A recent sequence of events in my life motivated me to write this study. This handles itself around a formal investigation of certain interpretations i did to certain statements, and certain further interpretation of the same by the others. The study attempts to find any error in the deductive logic, however, i will also investigate certain other statements occured in a different point of time. I will denote each charachter by a number. xx.P: denotes the statement P of xx

The statements
01. P: Object A has Property B, S(P) = 1, r implies P, s(r) = 1
02. P': s(R) = 1 and R implies ~P. |R| is larger than |r|
02. P'': r*
01. P*: ~P
02. P'*: ~P implies X, axiom of symmetry
01. P**: X

02. P'**:
P'* implies Y01. P***: Y
02. P'***: P
01. P****: but ~P
01. P***** : ~X? (note, this is a test, T)

02. P'**** : ~X,
r** implies ~X


~P > X and X > ~P is axiom of symmetry
therefore axiom of necessity and sufficiency
therefore X implies ~P and vice versa
therefore ~X implies P
s(~X ) = 1 (from test)
therefore s(P) = 1
s(~P) = 0 and P>X>Y
therefore s(X) = s(Y) = 0 (complete falsification)
Z: s(~P ) = 1 and s(P) = 1
counters the axiom of absolutism
therefore s(Z) = 0
agrees with axiom of total falsification
Y > W
s(W) = 0, from axiom of total falsification
Definition: A Lie is a claim of s(A) = 1, where tests show s(~A) = 1. if B: A is a lie, the ~B is also a lie. if C: ~B, then ~C is a NOT lie, and so on, the statements alternatively being lie and not lie.

A is a lie (from test)
B: ~A is a lie counters test
therefore: B is a lie
therefore: ~B is NOT a lie
therefore: ~~B is a lie
ad infinitum

P, from test
~P,is therefore a lie : P_
~P_ , is also therefore a lie (definition)
(axiom of total falsification therefore holds)
therefore ~Y
P therefore ~R

r**, from test
r** implies ~r* (observation)

therefore s(r*) = 0
therefore, r* is a lietherefore R v r* v ~P v X| ~P > X or R > X or r* > X is a lie

therefore, all statements previously made by person 02 in that context is a lie

me: person 01
my *girlfriend* : person 02
P : A Long distance relationship for me and my partner is virtual, therefore it is not doable
r : My reasons supporting P
R: her reasons supporting ~P
X: That she loves me,and wants to do the relationship
Y: That i am to turn down any other girl, and remain in the relationship with her
Z: she did not lie to me, ~P_
W: She will remain true to me, as she needs true love, and she is there to offer me true love.
r*: If there is something she doesn't like of me, she will communicate to me.
r**: she does not like T
~r*: Since she does not like T, she breaks up with me, without the said discussion


02 lied . All the way. Needless to say, it led to disaster. We also introduce the definition of Complete Falsehood. In science, it is generally accepted, that if the same source updates there statements, then the final statements are more valid than the previous.If the updates counter the primary assertions and, some of them are used to support the others, it is known as Complete Falsehood. Here 02 updated ~P as P, and r*

as r**, which implies
~r*,and used ~r* to imply ~X Therefore, the acceptable attributes are P v ~r*, and anything deductible from that. Hence person 02 uses complete falsehood.
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded