Read it again. The paper says it is invalid, but that symbolic logic "disagrees". Again, the paper is correct that it is invalid, but the paper is inc...
I gave a direct translation, symbol by symbol to word by word. The formula has a subformula that is a contradiction, but the formula doesn't itself sa...
~(A?(B &~B)) implies A Translation: It is not the case that if A then B & ~B implies A. We can't say: For all contradictions, if A does not imply the ...
The example is incorrect, no matter what its purpose is. I would not say that. P may be true in some interpretations and not in others. If in a given ...
(1) A -> (B & ~B) implies ~A (2) ~(A?(B &~B)) implies A "when it is not true that A implies a contradiction, we know A is true?" No that is not a corr...
I made a typo. It should be this: Ax(Dx -> Fx) Fs Therefore, Ds is not valid. And the paper is correct in saying it is not valid. But the paper is inc...
The intent in that part of the paper was to make symbolic logic look like it says that this argument is valid: Dogs have four legs, and Lassie has fou...
Hopefully I'll have time at some point to address the logic question. I want to look at some materials and think through my reply. But first I need to...
I am exactly on point. The paper says that symbolic logic permits a certain inference. But symbolic logic does not permit that inference. The paper's ...
It says that for certain formal interpreted languages, there is no predicate in the language that defines the set of sentences true in the interpretat...
A formal problem, philosophical problem, or problem in not adhering to everyday discourse. It's not a formal problem. I don't know what philosophical ...
That's just a matter of defining the words. If 'dead' and 'living' are defined so that they are not mutually exclusive, then of course we don't make t...
I don't know what any of that means or a bunch of other stuff in a similar vein. I understand them just fine, and not as mere symbols. You have it qui...
The method of models formalizes the idea that a statement "is true", "could be true, but it's not" or "is false" or "could be false, but it's not". Pe...
quotes an article: Symbolic logic definitely does not hold that that Lassie argument is valid. That claim in the article is either sneaky sophistry or...
It is not "pretending" anything. It has a precise meaning. "The premise that Tom reneged on his library fines leads to a contradiction, therefore, Tom...
I'd like to see what formation rules you come up with. I asked what you mean by 'cleavage' and 'capture by logic'. I don't recall that you replied. Wh...
Woa, woa, easy on the draw there, pardner. "On natural language they contradict each other" is pretty categorical. You can't speak for all speakers of...
What does "cannot be asserted" mean? Anything utterable can be asserted. So do you mean "cannot truthfully be asserted"? If both the propositions can ...
Anyone is welcome to another context, but if another context is not stated, and since your remarks were related to my proof, I'll suppose that materia...
Without seeing a definition, I would take 'argument by supposition' to mean arguing from a premise or conditional: Suppose A. Infer B. Infer If A then...
It's close enough for purposes of an informal illustration. Obviously, it is implicit in this particular example that 'incompetent' and 'mastermind' a...
(1) There is no single everyday sense of "if then" or "implies". For that matter, I bet that in everyday discourse a lot of people would not even make...
It wouldn't be unreasonable to glean that he meant it not just in everyday senses. But, of course, it is open enough that everyday sense may be in pla...
That is a flat out lie. I said a number of times that ordinary classical logic (which is not just "my" system, especially since overwhelmingly it is n...
Note that my corrections did not presuppose that only material implication can be countenanced. Oh please, everyone enters a thread by "jumping in" in...
So many things wrong packed into just that one sentence. (1) My post was hardly that long. (2) It's length was a function of the explanation it contai...
There is nothing wrong with referring to truth in mathematics. (1) The everyday sense of 'truth' doesn't hurt even in mathematics. When we assert 'P' ...
As to describing what mathematicians do as "solving problems", that's fine as long as "solving problems" includes proving theorems, because mostly wha...
What do you mean by "put on"? I only said that Frege's system is one attempt to derive mathematics solely from logic, and the system is inconsistent. ...
It's not a matter of whether I accept or reject. I said what I had to say in my post. If you wish not to address what I said it in, that is your right...
It is bizarre to suggest there's any arguing the point, when the point has been so profusely documented. Your retraction and your offer to retract the...
Frege proposed a way that it would be a logical truth. But his way was inconsistent. That's often the case, and per the definition, '1+1 = 2' means th...
Oh please, that is a really dumb remark and a lame attempt at putdown. You gratuitously seize on my mere offer to simplify for clarity so that I could...
But now I guess further as to your point. You were merely pointing out that the negation of "if A then B" is equivalent with "A and not B"? Of course ...
That's no help for me, since I already know that definition. Here's some help for you: (1) 'constituting a contradiction' is tantamount to 'being a co...
Comments