flannel jesus

Weren't you mocking me earlier in the thread for relating this side of logic to the principle of explosion? Or was that someone else?

This of course makes the argument you brought up for MT circular. That's fine, we can move past that and find one that obeys the rules presumably.

so there are more rules to the game then, apparently. Rule 1. Don't assume mt. Rule 2. Don't simultaneously assume contraposition and MP Can I assume ...

My proof did not assume mt, it did assume contraposition and MP. If you believe that's the same as assuming mt, then that means the proof of mt that u...

yes, using MP, not mt.

If it's circular, fine, give me one that isn't circular. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that when I asked you for a proof of mt that you like, that you w...

so you believe the MP+contraposition argument is circular? It's just using mt to prove mt?

You want a proof of some argument Y that doesn't assume modus tollens. You presumably have a proof of Modus tollens that you like, that doesn't itself...

I've already done it above, but I can do it again

if you give it to me I will show you how it makes perfect sense

you want a proof of ??(?^~?) , therefore ~? that doesn't assume modus tollens, if you give me your preferred proof of Modus tollens I can give that to...

You don't know why I'm asking what?

Ok, I'm going to assume you mean this proof (the one wikipedia lists as "Via contraposition"): 1 P? Q (Given) 2 ¬ Q (Given) 3 ¬Q ?¬P (Contraposition (...

I'm asking you what proof you like - that's not a claim that mine is a proof of that. What proof of Modus tollens do you like?

I didn't say mine was, are you reading the words I'm posting?

what proof of Modus tollens do you like? We can prove ??(?^~?)?~? without assuming Modus tollens is the case, but by instead directly using the proof ...

Ok so we're playing a game (I don't mean that pejoratively, I like games) where we have to prove the conclusion without using modus tollens, is that r...

This isn't a proof of Modus tollens. This is a use of Modus tollens. You've been asking for 12 pages for a proof of Modus tollens?

??(?^~?) (premise) ~(?^~?) (law of non contradiction) :. ~? (modus tollens)

That's not how contraposition works. Edit. I see you corrected yourself already, nevermind.

Hey you got it!

The issue is you said you never wrote it, but you did write it. I understand it's a mistake. Therefore it's not correct to say you never wrote it, it'...

This doesn't make sense if * is "any operator" either. Replace * with + and 2(x*y)=2x*y is not true

You wrote ¬(A ? B) is the same thing as ¬A?B

Is * multiplication here? I don't think this is right either.

Well you gave what certainly looked like an affirmation. If I ask you "is lemonade your favourite flavour", and you say "lemonade is the same as my fa...

Me? You understand that I think that? But what just happened is that you did that, and I told you it's incorrect...

That's what I was asking, thank you. I don't believe that's correct.

Do you believe for, for all statements (A -> B), you can do ¬(A -> B) and transform that into ¬A -> B?

I don't think I claimed that. But as you're eager to reject basic reason, I'm not going to be one to stop you.

Another way to think about it is, "The only way you can be CERTAIN that A doesn't apply a contradiction is if you know A is true."

No, you asked for the rule of inference from classical logic - it's right there, common knowledge in wikipedia. I don't see any good reason why my ans...

Funnily enough, the rules of inference we're appealing to are in fact the very first ones listed on the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

rule of noncontradiction, no?

What about a system of logic whereby, if the antecedent of an implication is false, rather than that making the entire statement of implication true i...

I'm interested in a system of symbolic logic that doens't deviate that drastically from what we normally mean by those expressions - a system of logic...

I can kind of explain it. It seems as though, the right thing to say about basic classic symbolic logic is that EVERY statement is either true or fals...

This is one of those funny places where symbolic logic seems to take a detour from what we mean in natural language.

I mean I used a hand-written "grid", just not one like that multi-layered one you posted. I had columns where i recorded information about each spot. ...

I think calling them both assumptions has led to your confusion. Premise 1 is more of a GIVEN than an assumption. We start out the scenario with it GI...

There are many many posts in this thread. I don't have any means of efficiently searching for it, so that's why I'm asking you. If you would prefer no...

There's a paper that says the premises prove the conclusion of this argument? Dogs have four legs, and Lassie has four legs, therefore Lassie is a dog...

Does that mean modern symbolic logic thinks the premises do prove the conclusion?

I didn't use something like that, but it might be helpful for someone

oh that's a good point, so there is a type of frequentism that goes into the analysis, but... is it exclusively frequentism? Do they also layer on add...

Seems like frequentism is a bad fit for "What's the probability that Donald Trump wins the election?" for example. It's not like there's a like-for-li...

Supplemental reading from stanford: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret/

I apparently misinterpreted your post. Anyway, a implies B and (not a or b) are synonyms in classic symbolic logic. They have the same truth table.

I'm going to make a very perverse argument which I do not believe, but which conceivably COULD be true. It could be true that the money is better spen...

Not too nitpicky, I think it's an important distinction to make. If you don't make this distinction, then... there's no point to the word "bijection",...