From: m@m.com   
      
   Hello...   
      
      
   More philosophy about mathematics..   
      
   I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many   
   scalable algorithms and algorithms..   
      
   I think that mathematics theory is based on logic in mathematics,   
   so it follows logical consistency, but notice that it follows   
   logical consistency by following human common sense and logic by using   
   operators and there allowed rules or instructions of addiction and   
   substraction and multiplication and less than and greater than etc. so   
   then notice that since they follow this logical path so then the   
   important rule of: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), is   
   still valid in mathematics theory, and this rule is logically inferred   
   from the truth table of the logical implication and that permits also to   
   logically infer and validate the logical proofs such as:   
      
   (p -> q) is equivalent to ((not(q) -> not(p))   
      
   or   
      
   (not(p) -> 0) is equivalent to p   
      
   Note that p and q are logical variables.   
      
   And note that -> means logical implication:   
      
   More philosophy about correlation and logical implication..   
      
   I think that correlation in mathematics and statistics is like the   
   general concept that permits to model causality, since i think that we   
   can search with correlation for all the factors that are the cause and   
   find causality. I think it is the same for logical implication, logical   
   implication is like a general concept and logical implication is more   
   general than causality. And i think that real numbers in mathematics are   
   like a general concept that permits to model the reality.   
      
   More precision about logic and being rigorous in mathematics..   
      
   So you have to be smart, since i am saying below that the following   
   logical implication of [3] is false since you have to analyze it   
   systemically,   
   since i am speaking about the independent system of [3] that is measured   
   by common sense and logic of reality:   
      
   [3] I take my umbrella ->  The sky is not raining   
      
   More philosophy about being rigorous in mathematics..   
      
   I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i am inventing my   
   following thoughts of my philosophy from my brain, so i said the   
   following(read it below):   
      
   "I think logic in mathematics is really interesting and there is   
   something happening in logic in mathematics that looks like the real   
   numbers in mathematics, so i think by logically inferring the  general   
   rule of: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), is like making   
   the general "concept" that applies to all the "particular" cases, so it   
   also applies to causality since this general rule is like a general   
   concept that permits to "model" all the cases in the truth table of the   
   logical implication, so i think this way of doing by generalizing and   
   making like a general concept is really powerful, this is why i think   
   that real numbers in mathematics are like a concept that was made   
   to model all the cases of the reality(read my below thoughts about it)"   
      
   So i will be more rigorous so that you understand:   
      
   So notice the following truth table of the logical implication:   
      
   p  q   p -> q   
   0  0     1   
   0  1     1   
   1  0     0   
   1  1     1   
      
   Note that p and q are logical variables.   
      
   So i think that the truth table is setting all the cases that can happen   
   in the reality, i give you an example:   
      
   If we take the following two propositions:   
      
   "I take my umbrella"   
      
   "The sky is raining"   
      
   So i think that the above truth table of the logical implication is like   
   also putting and setting in the truth table all the cases that can   
   happen in reality including the particular case of "causation", since we   
   need the general rule that is logically inferred to work on all the   
   cases in reality, but notice that we are also using our human common   
   sense and human logic, since we can generate all the following cases   
   from the truth table by using the above two propositions:   
      
   Note that -> means logical implication:   
      
   [1] I don't take my umbrella -> the sky is not raining   
      
   [2] I don't take my umbrella -> The sky is raining   
      
   [3] I take my umbrella ->  The sky is not raining   
      
   [4] I take my umbrella -> The sky is raining   
      
   So now by using our human common sense and human logic   
   we can notice that the case [3] above is not logical   
   in reality, since if the sky is not raining the common sense   
   and human logic inferred from reality says that we have not   
   to take the umbrella , so this is why in the truth table   
   it is false, since as you already know that with the general rule   
   logically inferred from the truth table we have to "measure" and   
   "verify" the consistency of the system in the reality, it is how it is   
   used, and when the other cases of the truth table are thus measured with   
   common sense and human logic we notice that they are true, thus all the   
   cases of truth table permits us to logically infer the general rule of:   
   (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), and it permits   
   us to logically model the cases of the reality including the particular   
   case of causation and to verify the consistency and/or to optimize,   
   so as you are noticing that with the truth table and the general rule   
   logically inferred from the truth table we are like making a general   
   concept, it is like the real numbers in mathematics that are like   
   the general concept, read my below thoughts about it:   
      
   More philosophy about logic in philosophy and mathematics..   
      
   I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i will continu to invent   
   ideas from my brain, so I think logic in mathematics is really   
   interesting and there is something happening in logic in mathematics   
   that looks like the real numbers in mathematics, since i think that   
   from the general truth table of all the cases of the logical implication   
   we are getting a general law or general formula that is:   
      
   (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q)   
      
   And p and q are logical variables.   
      
   And here is the truth table of the logical implication:   
      
   p  q   p -> q   
   0  0     1   
   0  1     1   
   1  0     0   
   1  1     1   
      
   So i think by logically inferring the  general rule of: (p implies q) is   
   equivalent to ((not p) or q), is like making the general "concept" that   
   applies to all the "particular" cases, so it also applies to causality   
   since this general rule is like a general concept that permits to   
   "model" all the cases in the truth table of the logical implication, so   
   i think this way of doing by generalizing and making like a general   
   concept is really powerful, this is why i think that real numbers in   
   mathematics are like a concept that was made   
   to model all the cases of the reality(read my below thoughts about it),   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)