Hypergendered Logic Source
Hypergendered Logic — Page 101
Π 𝐴∧𝐵
(
) = {𝑎1, 𝑎2, 𝑏1, 𝑏2, 𝑒𝐴𝐵}.
The emergent trait
belongs specifically to the compound profile. Then possession of
and
𝑒𝐴𝐵
𝑃𝐻𝐴
( )
𝑃𝐻𝐵
( )
does not reconstruct
because the irreducible compound phenotype
is missing.
𝑃𝐻𝐴∧𝐵
(
)
𝑒𝐴𝐵
The same principle applies to disjunction:
𝑃𝐻𝐴∨𝐵
(
)≢𝑃𝐻𝐴
( ) ∨𝑃𝐻𝐵
( ).
A disjunctive source can have its own phenotype-profile.
184. PH of NOT versus NOT PH
This rule is fundamental:
𝑃𝐻¬𝑆
(
)≢¬𝑃𝐻𝑆
( ).
𝑃𝐻¬𝑆
(
)
Positive statement: the organism possesses the complete phenotype-profile canonically associated with the
logical non- source.
𝑆
¬𝑃𝐻𝑆
( )
Negative statement: the organism does not possess the complete phenotype-profile of .
𝑆
A being can fail to possess the profile for countless reasons without positively possessing the non- profile.
𝑆
𝑆
Therefore the second is much weaker.
The same logic gives
𝑃𝐻¬𝑥
(
)≢¬𝑃𝐻𝑥
( ).
185. PH versus PA
The difference can be expressed by two questions.
PA question:
Is physiology/anatomy necessarily developable because of source ?
𝑍
PH question:
Is the complete HGL phenotype-profile associated with irreducibly possessed?
𝑍
Thus
𝑃𝐴¬𝑥
(
)
and
𝑃𝐻¬𝑥
(
)
are not substitutes.
One fictional causal model may have a developmental mode available before its full phenotype is realized.
Another may require a maturity trigger. HGL therefore does not adopt either
𝑃𝐴𝑍
( ) ⇒𝑃𝐻𝑍
( )
or
𝑃𝐻𝑍
( ) ⇒𝑃𝐴𝑍
( )
Source Canon: Verbatim mathematical and modal logic. Interactive navigation and operator lookups available at /#hgl-part:101.