There's a bug in last article... testing here

There's a bug in last article... testing here

https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2013/awodey-coquand-univalent-foundations

hi there, so in math jargon, what's the significant difference to call something a conjecture and another hypothesis?

UK English definitions are best for this. Conjecture is a guess without proof; hypothesis is a conjecture based on known facts by as yet not proved or disproved.

I use hypothesis to be a subset of conjecture which is linguistically correct I believe.

It pisses people off for me to refer in quantum theory (QT) to Bell's inequality (Bell-CHSH) as a conjecture (instead of a theorem, already proved), because I refute it.

https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2014/voevodsky-origins

I am shocked that he died last year?! at the age of 51? ...

Voevodsky's system is based on ZFC set theory (which I refute, except for the Axiom of Specification). He goes on to apply Grothendieck (so "brilliant" he committed suicide by not eating) the founder of categories in number theory to the C complex plane (imaginary numbers i=(-1)^0.5) as a topology. This lead to sheaves, cohomology theory, and etale theory. See: www.jmilne.org/math/CourseNotes/LEC.pdf

The problem is assuming ZFC is tautologous with it's nine or ten axioms, which it is not. Naturally, any derivations therefrom are similarly flawed (as was Groethendieck).

Voevodsky's system is a vector space, hence probabilistic, and which can never reduce to a bivalent state of exactly binary zero or one.

For example in an Abelian category (page 50), a short exact sequence is 0 implies A implies B implies C implies 0 which engenders a long exact sequence. However, 0->A->B->C->0 always results in a contradiction [((p@p)>((p>q)>r))>(p@p) ; FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF]). In other words, what Voevodsky proves are trivial equations such as contradictions.

For another example (from ias.edu/ideas/2013/awodey-coquand-univalent-foundations), the

Univalence Axiom: (A = B) ≃ (A ≃ B).

In other words, identity is equivalent to equivalence. In particular, one may say that “equivalent types are identical.”

My remark: This reduces to (A=B)>(A>B) as (p=q)>(p>q) ; TTTT TTTT TTTT TTTT, which is a theorem.

In other words in classical logic, "If A is equivalent to B, then A implies B" is a trivial theorem.

This means again that the systems of Voevodsky et al prove trivial equations.

The practical idea was a geometry and topology for "univalent" validation and verification of computer programs which was never realized to my knowledge, because its origin was the obviously defective ZFC.

"Contracting Entity

By using our services, you are agreeing to be bound by these Terms of Service between you and Tencent International Service Pte. Ltd., a Singaporeancompany located at 10 Anson Road, #21-07International Plaza, Singapore079903 (“we”, “our” and “us”) (these“Terms”). " - okay?

upgraded after backing up iPhone5B 132chat(s), highest transmission speed was showing 5.75MB/s

ok, JYB calls it a nightmare because JYB thinks Lukasiewicz could not resolve it (actually L did resolve it but it was his Polish buddies in 1950 who didn't like the fact that language can make logic appear to be stupid nonsense);

a paradox because it could reason with opposites not defined as opposites (not really the definition of opposites); and

rejection and refutation of a misnomer is not refactoring it but rather just plain denying it as an invalid assertion.

Please see attached papers: title became denial (same thing as rejection or refutation); and the other paper quoting JYB. ~~ Chinese is a lot simpler, but is not good for technical words. Example is German versus Chinese. Korean or Japanese is better for technical engineering stuff than Chinese. ~~

https://discord.gg/TNxzyeD

njspATsdf.org

spotify - yhls2/facebook/susan007 - stupid username but encrypted there...