If you gave a definition of 'valid' in your sense, then we could evaluate your claims about it. Meanwhile, in ordinary formal logic the common definit...
Your example didn't mix styles. It was fine. All I did was show how to formulate the proof without 'premise', 'assumption', 'supposition' or 'contradi...
The poster is doing it again! Trying to discredit interlocutors by painting them with a brush "truth-functional", even after I had at least a few time...
The poster continues to indicate that he does not know what validity is in this context and that he is unwilling to read the posts to which responds. ...
I edited to provide more explanation. My edit did not alter the substance of what was there before the edit. And it was it was not "pointed out" at th...
To be clear, I was not faulting your formulation, but rather only showing, contrary to the other poster, that it does not require an appeal to 'premis...
If one looks at previous posts by me, one would see that I also directly, explicitly and formally addressed the matter that RAA also provides: 1. A ->...
Without the word 'assumption': 1. A -> (B & ~B) {1} 2. A {2} 3. B & ~B {1, 2} 4. ~A {1} G is {A -> (B & ~B)} P is A Q is B G u {P} |- Q & ~Q, so G |- ...
Understanding RAA doesn't require reference to 'premise', 'assumption', 'suppostion' or 'contradiction'. Here is RAA in exact formulation: What is "se...
You were right when you said: "a cat" and "a carnivorous mammal long domesticated as a pet and for catching rats and mice" are interchangeable. You we...
By the way, your comments about dictionaries led me to discover that, unlike years ago, OED is free online. It definitely is a much richer resource th...
It's a hard job. Some companies don't mind too much agents spending whatever time is needed on a call. Other companies hector agents to get off calls ...
Your argument for that, as with the video, is shot down at the git-go by mentioning that the argument relies on the false equation: "This string" equa...
The video you suggested said that: "this sentence" equals "this sentence is false". That is plainly a falsehood. It would help if you not skip that po...
My arguments are straightforward. I am explicit in the steps so that they can be understood exactly or so that they can be corrected exactly. Meanwhil...
Any pronoun could be referring to something different. "This ball is light" could be referring to any ball anywhere. But I don't think that way. It is...
You skipped that I caught a false claim by you: If you skip refutations, then we won't get anywhere. You skipped my argument, for the second time (as ...
I like that word. When I was a kid, my dear friend was a San Francisco Giants fan amidst all the other kids who were Dodgers fans. He chose that path ...
Whether tangential or not, it raised an important and interesting point. The reason yours was not a correct translation is instructive. And it wasn't ...
That's good. I disagreed with it many pages ago, as I saw immediately that it's wrong. (Not too very bumptious of me to say. winky face emoji whatever...
I'm referring to your correct point (shared by you, Leontiskos, Banno, and me) that instead of refuting P, we could refute one of the other premises. ...
I linked exactly to your post. No matter how many intervening posts, all you had to do was click on your name under my quote of you. But you chose to ...
We know that the assumptions are inconsistent, not merely that one of them is false. But, of course, if a set is inconsistent, then for any interpreta...
Ugh^ugh (that's ugh to the power of ugh). I lightly jibed, aiming at myself as much as anyone; and you turn it a thing. But since your revisionist att...
You can use the notation however you wish, but in my formulations, G is a set of formulas not a formula, and on the left side of the turnstile is a se...
The cranks says, "I have no idea what Tones has been talking about" I do like when occasionally the crank speaks truthfully. And characteristic of him...
Throughout my previous post, inside the strings, instead of 'sentence' we may say 'string' (and we could do that throughout : 'This string has five wo...
Regarding axioms in proofs: I'll call both of the two forms below 'RAA' (though different writers label them in different ways): (1) If Gu{P} |- Q and...
Ugh. From the post I quoted: That was from 13 days ago. I entered the thread 19 days ago. So, "The post you quoted there was before you joined these t...
You asked: So I answered correctly that it is not. And I showed an actual RAA. Yours is a valid inference, but it is not formulated as RAA. I mention ...
I'd like to see the crank try to write mathematics in English without referring to sets, numbers, etc. as if they are things of some kind. Specificall...
Welcome to another episode of 'A Day In The Life Of Muddlefizzle Undergarment Internet Crank': Huston Lover: I saw 'The Maltese Falcon' again last nig...
(1) According to you, they are not versed in foundations of mathematics. So, by what basis do you claim that they take first order PA to be "the axiom...
"This sentence is false" You regard that sentence as meaningless on the basis that self-reference is meaningless when applied to a sentence. But is it...
So what? The incompleteness theorem has nothing to do with that, since the incompleteness theorem regards formal theories in which the axioms are expl...
Of course. Meanwhile, it is crucial not to say, "G can not be demonstrated from the axioms of mathematics", since that is plainly false. And the lectu...
It's Russell's paradox illustrated anecdotally. It's actually a theorem schema of first order logic, whether 'shaves', 'is an element of' or any other...
You seem to be missing that it's not just that B shaves only those who do not shave themselves, but also that B shaves all those who do not shave them...
Yes, the supposition that he shaves all and only those who do not shave themselves implies that he does shave himself. But that supposition also impli...
I'd like to know those arguments in context. On the other hand, in reverse, of course it is often mentioned that consideration of the liar paradox hel...
Comments