Defining logic

guptanishank April 14, 2018 at 08:42 3225 views 5 comments

A statement and it's opposite, obtained by applying the "not" operator, both cannot be true. The not operator is applied to the part of the sentence describing action or attribute.
Example:
a) The apple is red. The apple is not red.
b) Swamy crossed over the fence. Swamy did not cross over the fence.

I know it's not thorough, but I want to know if it's valid.

Comments (5)

Srap Tasmaner April 14, 2018 at 13:34 #171842 0 likes

Reply to guptanishank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

noAxioms April 14, 2018 at 14:21 #171861 0 likes

Technically, "Not (the apple is red)" or "not (Swamy crossed over the fence)"
Is there a difference? Probably if there is no apple. The Not (the apple is red) is true, but The apple is not red isn't really true since there is no apple to be not red.

Kym April 14, 2018 at 14:24 #171862 0 likes

I think the term "valid" is usually reserved for an argument structure.

But it's possible I am afflicted by opposing of states pedantry and accuracy.

guptanishank April 16, 2018 at 03:28 #172291 0 likes

Please ignore this. I should first go through formal logic.

Owen April 17, 2018 at 09:54 #172486 0 likes

Reply to noAxioms
Not (The apple is red) <-> The apple is not red, is not valid.
It fails in the case of no apples...as you have noted.

(Not (The apple is red) <-> The apple is not red) <-> (the apple)exists, is valid.