Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!

[Logik]

For example you think that I'm not aware that lack of correspondence is an error, something that anyone with half a brain knows.

So fix it then!

Fix the contradiction that arises when you put these three propositions on the table.

One "the same" is the same as another "the same"
One Jane is not the same as another Jane.
One photon is the same as another photon.

[Atla]

For example you think that I'm not aware that lack of correspondence is an error, something that anyone with half a brain knows.

So fix it then!

Fix the contradiction that arises when you put these three propositions on the table.

One "the same" is the same as another "the same"
One Jane is not the same as another Jane.
One photon is the same as another photon.

Fix what?

"The same" can also have different meanings. Forget Jane now.

One photon is the same as another photon.

This is true if we interpret "the same" as: alike.
This is false if we interpret "the same" as: they are one and the same.

[Logik]

For example you think that I'm not aware that lack of correspondence is an error, something that anyone with half a brain knows.

So fix it then!

Fix the contradiction that arises when you put these three propositions on the table.

One "the same" is the same as another "the same"
One Jane is not the same as another Jane.
One photon is the same as another photon.

Fix what?

"The same" can also have different meanings. Forget Jane now.

One photon is the same as another photon.

This is true if we interpret "the same" as: alike.
This is false if we interpret "the same" as: they are one and the same.

I see!

So you aren't only interpreting the SYMBOLS A, B and C
you are also interpreting the operators like =, <> ????? Imagine that.

Law of identity. A thing is the same as itself. A = A.
Atla's law of alikeness. A photon is the same as another photon. P1 = P2.

So I really have to ask this stupid question: Is "=" the same as "="?

[Atla]

So fix it then!

Fix the contradiction that arises when you put these three propositions on the table.

One "the same" is the same as another "the same"
One Jane is not the same as another Jane.
One photon is the same as another photon.

Fix what?

"The same" can also have different meanings. Forget Jane now.

One photon is the same as another photon.

This is true if we interpret "the same" as: alike.
This is false if we interpret "the same" as: they are one and the same.

I see!

So you aren't only interpreting the SYMBOLS A, B and C
you are also interpreting the operators like =, <> ????? Imagine that.

Law of identity. A thing is the same as itself. A = A.
Atla's law of alikeness. A photon is the same as another photon. P = P.

So I really have to ask this stupid question: Is "=" the same as "="?

Yes that's how at least 95% of humans think. And restricting them to operators is again kinda distorting things.

Your question is too vague for me to answer.

[Logik]

Fix what?

"The same" can also have different meanings. Forget Jane now.

One photon is the same as another photon.

This is true if we interpret "the same" as: alike.
This is false if we interpret "the same" as: they are one and the same.

I see!

So you aren't only interpreting the SYMBOLS A, B and C
you are also interpreting the operators like =, <> ????? Imagine that.

Law of identity. A thing is the same as itself. A = A.
Atla's law of alikeness. A photon is the same as another photon. P = P.

So I really have to ask this stupid question: Is "=" the same as "="?

Yes that's how at least 95% of humans think. And restricting them to operators is again kinda distorting things.

Your question is too vague for me to answer.

I am not restricting you to anything!

I am merely asking you to EVALUATE the truth-values of the four measly English sentences using classical logic. You can't even do that?

One "the same" is the same as another "the same". True or false?
One "=" is the same as another "=". True or false?
The law of identity in Classical Logic can be stated as A = A. True or false?
The likeness of two photons can stated in Classical Logic as P1 = P2. True or false?

If you think you can't do it in classical logic - just tell us.

[Atla]

I see!

So you aren't only interpreting the SYMBOLS A, B and C
you are also interpreting the operators like =, <> ????? Imagine that.

Law of identity. A thing is the same as itself. A = A.
Atla's law of alikeness. A photon is the same as another photon. P = P.

So I really have to ask this stupid question: Is "=" the same as "="?

Yes that's how at least 95% of humans think. And restricting them to operators is again kinda distorting things.

Your question is too vague for me to answer.

I am not restricting you to anything!

I am merely asking you to EVALUATE the truth-values of the four measly English sentences using classical logic. You can't even do that?

"the same" is the same as "the same". True or false?
One "=" is the same as another "=". True or false?
The law of identity in Classical Logic can be stated as A = A. True or false?
The likeness of two photons can stated in Classical Logic as P1 = P2. True or false?

If you think you can't do it in classical logic - just tell us.

We can evaluate them once we know how to interpret these English words here.
The problem isn't with classical logic, it's with your inability to understand English.

[Logik]

Yes that's how at least 95% of humans think. And restricting them to operators is again kinda distorting things.

Your question is too vague for me to answer.

I am not restricting you to anything!

I am merely asking you to EVALUATE the truth-values of the four measly English sentences using classical logic. You can't even do that?

"the same" is the same as "the same". True or false?
One "=" is the same as another "=". True or false?
The law of identity in Classical Logic can be stated as A = A. True or false?
The likeness of two photons can stated in Classical Logic as P1 = P2. True or false?

If you think you can't do it in classical logic - just tell us.

We can evaluate them once we know how to interpret these English words here.
The problem isn't with classical logic, it's with your inability to understand English.

Yes. We have established that I don't understand English. But you do. SO you should have no problem determining the truth-value of the following:

"the same" is the same as "the same". True or false?
One "=" is the same as another "=". True or false?
The law of identity in Classical Logic can be stated as A = A. True or false?
The likeness of two photons can stated in Classical Logic as P1 = P2. True or false?


I won't hold my breath, to be honest. Because what formal logics/regular languages/computers take away from sophists like Atla is their ability to (mis)interpret simple things like "=".

[Atla]

I am not restricting you to anything!

I am merely asking you to EVALUATE the truth-values of the four measly English sentences using classical logic. You can't even do that?

"the same" is the same as "the same". True or false?
One "=" is the same as another "=". True or false?
The law of identity in Classical Logic can be stated as A = A. True or false?
The likeness of two photons can stated in Classical Logic as P1 = P2. True or false?

If you think you can't do it in classical logic - just tell us.

We can evaluate them once we know how to interpret these English words here.
The problem isn't with classical logic, it's with your inability to understand English.

Yes. We have established that I don't understand English. But you do. SO you should have no problem determining the truth-value of the following:

"the same" is the same as "the same". True or false?
One "=" is the same as another "=". True or false?
The law of identity in Classical Logic can be stated as A = A. True or false?
The likeness of two photons can stated in Classical Logic as P1 = P2. True or false?

Again: you don't understand English so you don't understand that these are too vague, can be interpreted in too many ways. I already explained.

[Logik]

We can evaluate them once we know how to interpret these English words here.
The problem isn't with classical logic, it's with your inability to understand English.

Yes. We have established that I don't understand English. But you do. SO you should have no problem determining the truth-value of the following:

"the same" is the same as "the same". True or false?
One "=" is the same as another "=". True or false?
The law of identity in Classical Logic can be stated as A = A. True or false?
The likeness of two photons can stated in Classical Logic as P1 = P2. True or false?

Again: you don't understand English so you don't understand that these are too vague, can be interpreted in too many ways. I already explained.

Q.E.D

Take a sophists' toys away from them and watch the idiocy that ensues.

If "=" is open to interpretation then I guess it's entirely possible that 1=1 is true, but 2=2 is false.

Who knows?

[Atla]

Yes. We have established that I don't understand English. But you do. SO you should have no problem determining the truth-value of the following:

"the same" is the same as "the same". True or false?
One "=" is the same as another "=". True or false?
The law of identity in Classical Logic can be stated as A = A. True or false?
The likeness of two photons can stated in Classical Logic as P1 = P2. True or false?

Again: you don't understand English so you don't understand that these are too vague, can be interpreted in too many ways. I already explained.

Q.E.D

Take a sophists' toys away from them and watch the idiocy that ensues.

If "=" is open to interpretation then I guess it's entirely possible that 1=1 is true, but 2=2 is false.

Who knows?

All such things are open to interpretation until we agree on one, so your questions are just silly.

In a world where 95%+ of humans use both their hemispheres and are therefore sophists, you are the one who will have to adapt.

but those 95%+ understand each other very well in ways you can't comprehend. We already established the consensus language you are trying to reinvent.

[Logik]

All such things are open to interpretation until we agree on one, so your questions are just silly.

In a world where 95%+ of humans use both their hemispheres and are therefore sophists, you are the one who will have to adapt.

No, I don't. I am going to stick to "consistency" as a core principle and see where it gets me.

but those 95%+ understand each other very well in ways you can't comprehend. We already established the consensus language you are trying to reinvent.

I am not trying to establish a consensus-language? That's what English is for. Keep it.

I am trying to establish a language for reasoning and classical logic seems to fall a bit short, eh?

I mean how do you even begin reasoning in classical logic if a simple symbol like "=" has a million meanings?

[Atla]

All such things are open to interpretation until we agree on one, so your questions are just silly.

In a world where 95%+ of humans use both their hemispheres and are therefore sophists, you are the one who will have to adapt.

No, I don't. I am going to stick to "consistency" as a core principle and see where it gets me.

but those 95%+ understand each other very well in ways you can't comprehend. We already established the consensus language you are trying to reinvent.

I am not trying to establish a consensus-language? That's what English is for. Keep it.

I am trying to establish a language for reasoning and classical logic seems to fall a bit short, eh?

I mean how do you even begin reasoning in classical logic if a simple symbol like "=" has a million meanings?

You reason by using your right hemisphere: immediately understanding, or if that fails, agreeing upon which interpretation is used.

[Logik]

You reason by using your right hemisphere: immediately understanding, or if that fails, agreeing upon which interpretation is used.

Focus, sophist.

You can't even agree with yourself how to interpret "="!

That's why you are a sloppy thinker. You lack structure and self-discipline in reasoning.
Your contrarianism gets the better of you.

That's precisely why programming languages work. You don't have to decide what "=" means. It's set in stone!

If you mean two different things you should use two different symbols!

[Atla]

You reason by using your right hemisphere: immediately understanding, or if that fails, agreeing upon which interpretation is used.

Focus, sophist.

You can't even agree with yourself what "=" means!

That's why you are a sloppy thinker. You lack structure and self-discipline in reasoning.
Your contrarianism gets the better of you.

That's precisely why programming languages work. You don't have to decide what "=" means. It's set in stone!

If you mean two different things you should use two different symbols!

More lies
I can agree what "=" should mean. But if you pose such vague questions, I can't tell which meaning you are after

[Logik]

More lies
I can agree what "=" should mean. But if you pose such vague questions, I can't tell which meaning you are after

I am not after any particular meaning. I simply insist that you stick with whatever meaning YOU CHOOSE and apply it consistently!

So if you can agree with yourself what "=" should mean then you should have absolutely no problem evaluating these propositions while interpreting "=" consistently.

"the same" is the same as "the same".
"the same" means "=".
One "=" is the same as another "=".
The law of identity in Classical Logic can be stated as A = A.
The likeness of two photons can stated in Classical Logic as P1 = P2.