Nope, what I was really saying is that what you said about courts, companies and science were all examples of the contingent propositions being addressed by empiricism and that the machine you type upon is in effect a great big logic-chopper, i.e. NAND and NOR gates, so theoretical babble has a place in reality.HexHammer wrote:What you areally are saying is that this is a premise for religion.
No, who says the succeeding report is better than the former? We have a very huge train (choo choo train) scandal in Denmark, there has been loads of reports and analysis that contradict each other, and each with their perspective, it's only about which sounds more plausible.Arising_uk wrote:Nope, what I was really saying is that what you said about courts, companies and science were all examples of the contingent propositions being addressed by empiricism and that the machine you type upon is in effect a great big logic-chopper, i.e. NAND and NOR gates, so theoretical babble has a place in reality.HexHammer wrote:What you areally are saying is that this is a premise for religion.
No idea why you've associated what I've said with a premise for religion?
As for Hex, I stopped paying much attention after the first post (the one with the rhetorical question about using logical tautologies as a means to determine whether or not a criminal is lying). However, from what I did pick up after lightly skimming over the other posts, Hex seems to be attempting to give an a priori argument for some variety of radical empiricism. The argument is so incoherent that to engage oneself in any attempt to refute it is to waste one's time—and time is a precious thing.Axioms:
P1. a → (b → a)
P2. (a → (b → c)) → ((a → b) → (a → c))
P3. (~a → ~b) → ((~a → b) → a)
Lemma 1: P → P
1. P → ((P → P) → P) [P1]
2. (P → ((P → P) → P)) → ((P → (P → P)) → (P → P)) [P2]
3. (P → (P → P)) → (P → P) [1, 2, MP]
4. P → (P → P) [P1]
5. P → P [3, 4, MP]
Lemma 2: (P → Q) → ((R → P) → (R → Q))
1. (R → (P → Q)) → ((R → P) → (R → Q)) [P2]
2. ((R → (P → Q)) → ((R → P) → (R → Q))) → ((P → Q) → ((R → (P → Q)) → ((R → P) → (R → Q)))) [P1]
3. (P → Q) → ((R → (P → Q)) → ((R → P) → (R → Q))) [1, 2, MP]
4. ((P → Q) → ((R → (P → Q)) → ((R → P) → (R → Q)))) → (((P → Q) → (R → (P → Q))) → ((P → Q) → ((R → P) → (R → Q)))) [P2]
5. ((P → Q) → (R → (P → Q))) → ((P → Q) → ((R → P) → (R → Q))) [3, 4, MP]
6. (P → Q) → (R → (P → Q)) [P1]
7. (P → Q) → ((R → P) → (R → Q)) [5, 6, MP]
Lemma 3: P → ((P → Q) → Q)
1. (P → Q) → (P → Q) [Lemma 1]
2. ((P → Q) → (P → Q)) → (((P → Q) → P) → ((P → Q) → Q)) [P2]
3. ((P → Q) → P) → ((P → Q) → Q) [1, 2, MP]
4. (((P → Q) → P) → ((P → Q) → Q)) → ((P → ((P → Q) → P)) → (P → ((P → Q) → Q))) [Lemma 2]
5. (P → ((P → Q) → P)) → (P → ((P → Q) → Q)) [3, 4, MP]
6. P → ((P → Q) → P) [P1]
7. P → ((P → Q) → Q) [5, 6, MP]
Lemma 4: (~P → Q) → (~Q → P)
1. (~P → ~Q) → ((~P → Q) → P) [P3]
2. ((~P → ~Q) → ((~P → Q) → P)) → ((~Q → (~P → ~Q)) → (~Q → ((~P → Q) → P))) [Lemma 2]
3. (~Q → (~P → ~Q)) → (~Q → ((~P → Q) → P)) [1, 2, MP]
4. ~Q → (~P → ~Q) [P1]
5. ~Q → ((~P → Q) → P) [3, 4, MP]
6. (~Q → ((~P → Q) → P)) → ((~Q → (~P → Q)) → (~Q → P)) [P2]
7. (~Q → (~P → Q)) → (~Q → P) [5, 6, MP]
8. ((~Q → (~P → Q)) → (~Q → P)) → (((~P → Q) → (~Q → (~P → Q))) → ((~P → Q) → (~Q → P))) [Lemma 2]
9. ((~P → Q) → (~Q → (~P → Q))) → ((~P → Q) → (~Q → P)) [7, 8, MP]
10. (~P → Q) → (~Q → (~P → Q)) [P1]
11. (~P → Q) → (~Q → P) [9, 10, MP]
⊢ ~((~P → Q) → Q) → P
1. ~P → ((~P → Q) → Q) [Lemma 3]
2. (~P → ((~P → Q) → Q)) → (~((~P → Q) → Q) → P) [Lemma 4]
3. ~((~P → Q) → Q) → P [1, 2, MP]
Well ofc you did, you lack rationallity and are most likely a "rain man" lacking basic rationallity, likst most others here. Why you in the first place posted this nonsense in OP.egg3000 wrote:As for Hex, I stopped paying much attention after the first post (the one with the rhetorical question about using logical tautologies as a means to determine whether or not a criminal is lying). However, from what I did pick up after lightly skimming over the other posts, Hex seems to be attempting to give an a priori argument for some variety of radical empiricism. The argument is so incoherent that to engage oneself in any attempt to refute it is to waste one's time—and time is a precious thing.
Otherwise, thanks to Arising_uk for going to the effort to try to solve my problem.
—egg3000
Given you repeat phrases continuously I think it's becoming clear where the rationality is lacking.HexHammer wrote:Well ofc you did, you lack rationallity and are most likely a "rain man" lacking basic rationallity, likst most others here. ...
HELLO! EARTH TO HEXHAMMER!! EARTH CALLING HEXHAMMER!!!Why you in the first place posted this nonsense in OP.
Faint praise I think as I got no-where but will have a dent at this from the ND approach once my books come out of storage and I can refresh my memory.egg3000 wrote:...
Otherwise, thanks to Arising_uk for going to the effort to try to solve my problem.
—egg3000
This is little different that metaphysics, irrelevant!Arising_uk wrote:Given you repeat phrases continuously I think it's becoming clear where the rationality is lacking.HexHammer wrote:Well ofc you did, you lack rationallity and are most likely a "rain man" lacking basic rationallity, likst most others here. ...HELLO! EARTH TO HEXHAMMER!! EARTH CALLING HEXHAMMER!!!Why you in the first place posted this nonsense in OP.
Take a look at the title of this forum section and then look at what the OP contained then look at what you posted in reply.
Sure, go to the Imperial College website and check out the advanced computing department or any of the technology institutes for that matter and you will find Logic and Logicians at work developing numerous things alongside the purely theoretical, e.g. deductive databases, natural language parsers, new programming paradigms, program and algorithm provers, expert systems, etc. Are they using the axiomatic deductive method posted here? No, as such stuff is analogous to the mathematician having to learn the mathematical operations before they can get to the complex stuff, i.e. learning such methods is the base for the budding logician to build upon and allows them to later understand the more complex Logics that are been used in Computing Science.HexHammer wrote:So, now that you guys insist that I'm utterly wrong, then it should be easy to tell me where excatly this axiomatic proofe are used.
I suspected so, only area where such feeble logic can exist. No wonder it sometimes end catastrophic.Arising_uk wrote:Sure, go to the Imperial College website and check out the advanced computing department or any of the technology institutes for that matter and you will find Logic and Logicians at work developing numerous things alongside the purely theoretical, e.g. deductive databases, natural language parsers, new programming paradigms, program and algorithm provers, expert systems, etc. Are they using the axiomatic deductive method posted here? No, as such stuff is analogous to the mathematician having to learn the mathematical operations before they can get to the complex stuff, i.e. learning such methods is the base for the budding logician to build upon and allows them to later understand the more complex Logics that are been used in Computing Science.HexHammer wrote:So, now that you guys insist that I'm utterly wrong, then it should be easy to tell me where excatly this axiomatic proofe are used.
The area you talk about is changing the world of work and communication. You are barking mad and a luddite to boot.HexHammer wrote:I suspected so, only area where such feeble logic can exist. No wonder it sometimes end catastrophic.
