AN ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE DICHOTOMY OF CONTRADITIONS AND TAUTOLOGIES

AN ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE DICHOTOMY OF
CONTRADITIONS AND TAUTOLOGIES

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 →
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.

Dataspace X

Tight spiral lattices
Multisensory data fold and fractalize
In a mindspace realized by parallel man
Accelerate

Parallel processes
Can you see
The helix of code
The data blinds me

The spiraling thoughts
Awakening
The burgoning lots
Leading
To a solution

From the neon genesis
From the complex code
The star child arises
The sum a single node
Out of mindspace
A god is born
Science is now our place
A fruit of life forsworn

The fate of destruction
The joy of rebirth
All egos shall join
Thus awakens the earth
Out of the second web
A first son awakens
Out of the web of thoughts
A carnal creation

As the code evolves
Mankind grows once more
As the data links
As does the ribose core
Hoping for a coredump
Hoping for a sign
Hoping for a signal
For the end of our kind

I hope I can stay
And bask in the cusp
The elegant equation
The end of mere sentiency
Dust to dust