Jencel Panic on Nostr: nprofile1q…ufa4k nprofile1q…qrvfn nprofile1q…0fw2r This can be reduced to ...
nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqknzsux7p6lzwzdedp3m8c3c92z0swzc0xyy5glvse58txj5e9ztqaufa4k (nprofile…fa4k) nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqtnjfxu6np7ql9l4ve4tx6ffuzmczkleyd7krhweqmffuvju72pgq2qrvfn (nprofile…rvfn) nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqt8rd6p92v5zvtdqed39szy245090vetz2ax4xyk6smp2cz6u4wpq50fw2r (nprofile…fw2r)
This can be reduced to intuitionistic logic, I think.
From the article:
1. p is a member of every standpoint in S.
2. Not-p is a member of every standpoint in S.
3. p is a member of some standpoints, and Not-p is a member of the rest.
4. p is a member of some standpoints, the rest being neutral.
5. Not-p is a member of some standpoints, the rest being neutral.
6. p is neutral with respect to every standpoint.
7. p is a member of some standpoints and Not-p is a member of some other standpoints, and the rest are neutral.
If we take a statement $p$, it's negation Not-p would be $P \to \bot$ and S, the set of standpoints can be a set of different Heyting algebras with different axioms.
The only non-trivial part would be mapping the different "versions" of p across the different algebras, but it would work if we take there to be an isomorphism between all the algebras, or rather an equivalence as we don't require for all algebras to have all statements.
I described a similar thing in this article:
https://abuseofnotation.github.io/logic-thought/
This can be reduced to intuitionistic logic, I think.
From the article:
1. p is a member of every standpoint in S.
2. Not-p is a member of every standpoint in S.
3. p is a member of some standpoints, and Not-p is a member of the rest.
4. p is a member of some standpoints, the rest being neutral.
5. Not-p is a member of some standpoints, the rest being neutral.
6. p is neutral with respect to every standpoint.
7. p is a member of some standpoints and Not-p is a member of some other standpoints, and the rest are neutral.
If we take a statement $p$, it's negation Not-p would be $P \to \bot$ and S, the set of standpoints can be a set of different Heyting algebras with different axioms.
The only non-trivial part would be mapping the different "versions" of p across the different algebras, but it would work if we take there to be an isomorphism between all the algebras, or rather an equivalence as we don't require for all algebras to have all statements.
I described a similar thing in this article:
https://abuseofnotation.github.io/logic-thought/