This is hilarious - you’re consulting “Math for Kids” as the source to share your level of knowledge!
You’re talking to someone who casually came up with their own original algorithm for addition (and other arithmetical operators) based on binary logical operators alone over 6 years ago.
The standard algorithm of adding numbers together is addition. I can’t believe I’m having to repeatedly state a tautology for you. That is, it’s a system of adding digits when numbers with more than 1 digit are involved. There’s other algorithms that do the same thing, such as the one I invented myself - and guess what. They’re all addition!
You keep insisting that my explanations are merely “telling you” rather than “showing you”, and here you are simply making claims without explanation:
Mere claims. No explanation. Right there in front of us.
By contrast, you even quoted one of my explanations on the last page.
So opposites have a lot in common when they qualify the same concept.
“They have in common” the concept that they’re qualifying only, opposites don’t suddenly have a lot in common just because they’re referring to the same thing.
“A and ¬A have a lot in common because ∃(A ⊂ B) ∧ ∃(¬A ⊂ B)”…
^this is an explanation of your logical error that you’ll proceed to deny exists.
- Argumentum ad populam: a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it.
- affirming the consequent: a formal fallacy of taking a true conditional statement invalidly inferring its converse even though the converse may not be true.
- False Dilemma: a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an “either/or” situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option.
You said: “Perhaps because some of us are interested in what is logical rather than what is popular?”
Let:
(P) denote “popular”
(Q) denote “logical”
In the above quote of yours you imply that I commit 1): (P\rightarrow{Q})
“Logical rather than what is popular” takes the form of 3): (P\lor{Q}, Q\vdash\lnot{P})
Combining 3) with a rejection of 1) takes the form of 2): ((\lnot(P\rightarrow{Q}),Q)\vdash\lnot{P})
Quite obviously I know what I’m talking about, so maybe you should just stop insisting I don’t, what do you think?
I keep showing you the flaws in your arguments, but it’s never enough, nor does it even count as showing apparently, just “telling”. This fallacy that you’re commiting is called Moving the goalposts such that no amount of explanation that I offer ever counts as explanation.
I expect people to respond to my clear logic, and of course I get frustrated when you keep just coming back with “nah, didn’t happen, you just don’t understand”. I expect people to exhibit cognitive biases and to encounter the backfire effect, but what I’m encountering here just seems like complete and utter dumbness.