TonesInDeepFreeze

You may do an Internet search on 'use-mention' for guidance. Meanwhile, the notion of use-mention is prevalent in the literature of logic, and is expl...

I guess you mean that the examples are instances where the word 'mention' applies to describe them. Anyway, your argument that self-referring strings ...

By the way, I looked at Mates's 'Elementary Logic' (a great book) where his system uses non-intuitionistic MT (If G |- ~A -> ~B and G |- B, then G |- ...

The more formal the system, the more precisely we can determine exactly what is and what is not permitted by it. The formalization doesn't overstep th...

I did. And his is okay too; all it needs is to be generalized as I did with G.

I referred to the last clause in this quote as it is still posted: "A does not imply a contradiction" is not a true statement about "(A?¬(B and ¬B))".

For example, proving the deduction theorem (thus deriving the rule of '-> introduction') for a Hilbert style system. That's one of the key topics in a...

It's done frequently.

RAA derived from MT and LNC. Done. No, in a natural deduction system it is not a mere "elaboration" nor "extension". It is crucial for proving negatio...

What is supposed to be the point of that? Classical logic doesn't excuse contradiction.

If Gu{P} |- Q & ~Q, then G |- ~P. It's merely a matter of showing that if G along with P proves a contradiction, then there are no interpretations in ...

Read the articles. Look up Pythagoras to start. It is apparent that RAA can be derived from MT and LNC. (Among non-dialetheists, LNC should be uncontr...

That was addressed long ago in this thread. If Gu{P} |- Q & ~Q, then G |- ~P makes no use of LEM. However If Gu{~P} |- Q & ~Q, then G |- P does requir...

You don't know Jack Kennedy about this subject. Pythagoras's proof that the diagonal of a square is not commensurate with a side is a quintessentially...

RAA is derivable from MT, and MT is derivable from RAA. Moreover, the next post:

(1) The worst thing about you is that you lie about me. And that you tried to wiggle out of that with a specious point about lying, to which I've resp...

Check the actual record of the posts.

Actually, there've been other first insulters in this thread.

Indeed! Look at the actual posts to see who "comported themself" how.

Referring to another poster, Leontiskos wrote: Don't gotta love the crude, disgusting ageism there, no matter what the other poster's age is.

I'm replying to a bot programmed to not understand anything about this subject, not even to understand the inference rules of sentential logic nor how...

The proof is RAA since it fulfills the definition of RAA. I've shown that several times already. / My reply was and is: 1. A -> (B & ~B) {1} 2. A {2} ...

As far as I can tell, Anellis outlines the case but does not make it fully. I have not claimed that Peirce developed the notion of truth tables suffic...

There's more to it also: There are these forms: (1) refers to "Big Ben" refers to the bell. (2) is Big Ben is the bell. (3) refers to "Einstein's famo...

I would say just mention not "mention" Wrong. Very wrong. "the bell inside the clock tower" refers to Big Ben, not to "Big Ben". Once you're clear abo...

I was under the impression that you were going to take a moment to understand use-mention, but still you haven't, as you make the same mistake yet aga...

Yet, the Anellis paper says: "he discovery by Zellweger of Peirce’s manuscript of 1902 does permit us to unequivocally declare with certitude that the...

Another exercise is proving the correctness of the everyday methods for addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. I have a book that shows s...

completeness and soundness. consistency follows from soundness.

What do you mean by "showing truth"? The paper shows a Peirce truth table with truth values.

"And Richard Zach reminds us that "Peirce, Wittgenstein, and Post are commonly credited with the truth-table method of determining propositional valid...

It seems amazing that it wasn't invented a lot earlier. Such a simple idea by now. It shows how much we take for granted in intellectual products.

I edited. Not 'tautology' there. I meant 'the number of letters'. That might be the case; but hardly clear that it is.

I don't know exactly what the author meant by "anticipated" Meanwhile, may I take it that the point is made about the number of letters? He wouldn't h...

Number of letters: "he noted there that, for a proposition having n-many terms, there would be 2^n-many sets of truth values." Tautologies: "For many ...

One source says Peirce came up with truth tables in 1902. If that is correct, then why rule out that he didn't also see that we can use them to make i...

He's hopeless. Several times he was told that the rule used was RAA, and the proofs were stated in situ as being RAA, and yet he keeps demanding that ...

Why do you claim that the notions of logically true and logically false were original from Wittgenstein?

Why do you reject the claim that Peirce came up with truth tables? Why do you omit Post?

Yeah. Another source (from search of 'history of sentential logic') says, "The truth table system for Sentential Logic was invented in 1902 by the Ame...

One source (I don't know whether reliable) says Peirce invented truth tables, then later Wittgenstein and Post independently. Of course, Boole invente...

The rule and truth tables agree. They agree and are independent. They are independent in the sense that are formulated separately without reference to...

First, you don't need '~Q' there. And I didn't say "see truth table" in the proof. There are two separate things: the deduction system, (such as natur...

I explicitly said that they are examples of RAA. And the examples when given were earlier explicitly said as examples of RAA. And they were given this...

For the half-dozenth plus one time:

The proof quoted is exactly correct. I've answered every central question. It's not my fault that you are unwilling to read the answers or are incapab...

I've given exact information, and clear explanations, demonstrations, reasoning. There is no lacuna in rationality there. The fact that I also mention...

Annotations do help to follow along in the proofs. But, depending on the formulation of the system, annotations may not be necessary. In the proofs I ...

I'll state this caveat again: When we are talking about classical logic, we need to be clear as to what classical logic is and what is the case about ...

Look at the proofs exactly. They show that ~(A -> (B & ~B)) follows from (2), and ~A follows from (1). Of course, (1) and (2) together are inconsisten...