Wednesday, February 20, 2008

True Names

The Logos in the Logolo
The sigil in the sight
All the dreams of fleeting worlds
The words fade into night
Temporal aeons come and go
In the nonspace of the mind
All the world, in a naught shell
Waiting for the end of time

But break free, from tinting lens we can
Undamn the gis-hur and the ME
Create from order, chaos born
And bring about the promised day
All of time is naught but sand
And all of man is clay
Create from chaos, order, born
And bring about the promised day

The water of the abzu's heart
The diamond in the ash
The maklu in the winter's dark
The comma and the slash
But still, from gaia's broken heart
And broken womb we can
Regain ourselves, and with us hope
For dilmun, eden, promised land

For now we see through a glass, darkly
Till one greater man restore us
And regain the blissful fruit
Born out of chaos
And justify the way of gods to men

Wednesday, February 6, 2008



N. Key, Jr
O. Ravenhurst
M. Alaclypse III
J. Malik
G. Dorn
S. Moon
R. Wilson

Let c and t represent the set of contradictions and tautologies, respectively. To determine whether a contradiction and a tautology are equivalent, one calculates:

( c ∪ t ) ∪ ( c ∩ t ) →
~( ( c ∩ t ) ∩ ( c ∪ t ) ) →
~( (c ∩ t ) ∪ ( c ∩ c ) ∪ ( t ∩ t) ∪ ( t ∩ t) ) →
~( c ∩ t ) ∩ ~( c ∩ c ) ∩ ~( t ∩ t)

This brings up interesting points:
As expected
, no contradiction is also a tautology. However, if one does not assume trivial identity, one recognizes that the outcome implies that no contradiction is a contradiction, and no tautology is a tautology.

This proves, mathematically, that no equals are the same. It also disproves all of symbolic logic through symbolic logic.

Furthermore, we can simplify using identity:

~( c ∩ t) ∩ ~c ∩ ~t →
( c ∪ t) ∩ ~c ∩ ~t →
( c ∩ ~c ∩ ~t ) ∪ (t ∩ ~c ∩ ~t) →
( ( c ∩ ~c ) ∩ ~t) ∪ ( ( t ∩ ~t ) ∩ ~c ) →
( F ∩ ~t ) ∪ ( F ∩ ~c ) →
F ∪ F →

In other words, if we use the identity property, our initial statement (that contradictions and tautologies are either mutually dependent or mutually exclusive) reveals itself as a contradiction, whereas without the identity property, it reveals the identity property as a contradiction.

To prove an obvious truism as a contradiction is the result in either case, and the unique factoring method does not break DeMorgan's Law, nor any other rule of formal symbolic logic. The fact that we pursued operations in a non-canonical order upon a statement that seems initially to be simplified maximally is irrelevant in determining the validity of our results, since no rules were broken.

In the end, it seems that the basic tenets of symbolic logic are inherently flawed. We have, at this point, no suggestions on how to remedy this, aside from those suggestions that invalidate the rules of symbolic and formal logic - suggestions which are irrational and do not correspond to the traditional concepts of reason - however, as our proof invalidated reason as it now stands, we must state our conclusion: nothing is true, and everything is permissible. There are no logical relationships that cannot be proven to be contradictions, even those that are proven to be correct elsewhere.