Talk:Pietro Calendino

Historic introduction of Basic Logic, definition update of if, and disambiguation of or, to human conversation in Burnaby, British Columbia.

22 July 2011

Pietro Calendino did something very important today, and I am the only witness to this event.

Nowadays, I am introducing a new system of to humanity and this system of thought is an evolutionary step forward.

Here is how I am today introducing this new logic system to humanity: Definition update: If. Distribute definition update of if. This world we start is what we want. We are in this creative era. This information is for humanity. All economic and legal problems we had were due to the wrong definition of if.

Open Letter to Humanity http://www.writing.com/main/books/entry_id/729107

I have been introducing this definition update to humanity throughout summer 2011. I have been living according to the truth tables that I see have a crisp ternary logic in agreement with Nature for the better part of 16 years. I have successful communication of this logic system with Mikhail Prokhorov, et alia. I confess to having given up on the possibility of successful communication of this new way of thinking between myself and people in Vancouver, British Columbia based on 16 years of unsuccessful attemps..

What Pietro Calendino did today differently and best in Vancouver, Canada is successfully bridge the communication gap that can exist between a prior system of thought and this new system that I am distributing.

I admit that after 16 years of exclusively local failure to communicate this new way of thinking, and having successful communication of this new way of thinking with people outside of Vancouver, Canada, I felt apprehensive when I saw an opening to introduce the definition update of if and disambiguation of the word or to Pietro Calendino. I attribute this successful communication to Pietro Calendino`s willingness to cause clear communication, and to his clarity of mind. If I were voting in the Burnaby City Council elections this autumn 2011, I would vote for Pietro Calendino. Directly resulting from Pietro Calendino`s and my conversation is this Basic Guide to the HST (relevant to BC residents and citizens who will soon be voting):

Basic Guide to the HST (in contrast with verbose and relatively uninformative texts available online):

At the Vote Yes to Scrap the HST hotline 604.541.1124, the reasons for scrapping the HST given in the voice recording are:

1. Say yes to affordability, 2. Say yes to more jobs, 3. Say yes to BC families.

What swings a vote the most effectively is a clear, brief thought process which makes sense. Due to having thought through the math of the HST question with Pietro Calendino, yes, I see it is true that voting yes to scrp the HST increases affordability and benefits BC families.

The problems with the reasoning process so far is:

1. The reasons as stated on the hotline may be true or false, many of us do not know, and therefore they may be the logical fallacy called Appeal to the People (indirect).

2. In the context of a possible Appeal to the People, having a Mathematician say `yeah, I see the math, this part works` is an Appeal to Authority (unintended).

The solution is to share this math, and I think the majority of our population finds this way of thinking makes sense. The word or can be confusing, so I write A xor B to mean either A or B without both A and B, and I write A ior B to mean A or B or both A and B.

Step 1: It looks like we are being asked to vote yes xor no on one option. Since scrapping the HST restores our PST, this vote is equivalent to letting us say which of two different options we prefer: the HST xor the PST.

Step 2: The GST is a federal tax and therefore is outside the scope of this decision. Another way to say the same message is, the GST is in this situation stable at 5%: this federal tax is a given part of our financial environment during this vote. Thus, our weighing the merits of HST xor PST is done without reference to the GST.

We want to compare the lists of what HST and PST apply to, so we make sets of our goods and services.

The relationship between two sets may be: 1. disjoint: this means the two sets have nothing in common. 2. overlap: this means some elements are in both sets, and some elements are in either set. 3. subset: all elements in one of the sets are inside the other set.

Step 3: All taxes apply to some set of goods and services. In other words, the list of goods and services to which a tax applies may be thought of as the elements of a set. Let P be the set of all goods and services to which the PST applies. Let H be the set of all goods and services to which HST applies.

I did not know the true relationship between set P and set H due to my lack of data, and Pietro Calendino let me know that the relationship is that P is a subset of H, and is the type of subset that has some items in H which are excluded from P. (We call this a strict subset.)

Step 4: Knowing what is inside each of our two sets, next we want to know the tax rate on each set, for which we do this arithmetic:

The GST is 5%. The PST is 12% with the GST inside it. The HST is 7% added to the GST.

The GST applies to sets P and H regardless of our vote, so it makes sense to adjust the PST to 12% - 5% = 7% for the purpose of deciding which way to vote. What we are doing is comparing the provincial tax options with each other both without the GST inside them.

Seen this way, the PST and HST tax rates are equivalent (both at 7%, plus the GST). Therefore the deciding factor is what is inside the sets P and H.

Everything in P is in H. Some elements in H are excluded from P.

Therefore, we citizens and residents spend less money in tax by paying 7% on a smaller set of goods and services.

Therefore, the PST costs British Columbia residents less money than the HST.

Step 5: vote. Everyone who wants to vote for what makes sense is probably going to vote in favour of spending less money, and this is the scrap HST keep PST option. The way to scrap the HST and revert back to the PST on the ballots we have is to vote Yes. Each vote yes is a vote to scrap the HST.

Putting mathematical analysis in the public domain supports democratic process and removes traditional reliance on fallacies.

Jennifer Overington

Founder, Persuasive Logic

JenniferOverington (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JenniferOverington (talk • contribs) 23:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC) 

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pietro Calendino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090628090301/http://www.burnabycitizens.ca/bcacouncilcand.html to http://www.burnabycitizens.ca/bcacouncilcand.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)