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

[Atla]

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. Consistency.

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 "=".

And then EVALUATING these two statements.

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.

Again: you don't get to insist that I should stick to one. This is a philosophy forum in English, not a strictly formal logic forum where we don't interpret anything.

[Logik]

Again: you don't get to insist that I should stick to one. This is a philosophy forum in English, not a strictly formal logic forum where we don't interpret anything.

Naturally. Inconsistency is a personal choice.

But do observe that you can't even agree with yourself on a consistent interpretation of "=".

[Atla]

Again: you don't get to insist that I should stick to one. This is a philosophy forum in English, not a strictly formal logic forum where we don't interpret anything.

Naturally. Inconsistency is a choice.

More lies, there is no inconsistency here.

[Logik]

More lies, there is no inconsistency here.

Then why do you interpret "=" inconsistently?

If philosophy forums were like boxing rings you'd be in a coma by now... You sure like losing arguments.

That's why sophistry has no place in the real world - you will hurt yourself.

[Atla]

More lies, there is no inconsistency here.

Then why do you interpret "=" inconsistently?

More lies, I don't. It's only inconsistent to you beacuse your right hemisphere isn't working properly. You don't understand 95%+ of humans.

Seriously in 30 years you couldn't figure this out? And you pretend to have 165 IQ Then I have 220.

[Logik]

More lies, I don't. It's only inconsistent to you beacuse your right hemisphere isn't working properly. You don't understand 95%+ of humans.

Oh really? SO you don't think the following is an inconsistent use of "=" ?

Two photons are alike. P1 = P2 => True.
Two photons are the same: P2 = P2 => True.

This is not about understanding humans. This is about understanding logic.

Seriously in 30 years you couldn't figure this out? And you pretend to have 165 IQ Then I have 220.

You also forgot to read the rest of my comments. IQ doesn't measure intelligence, it measures UNINTELLIGENCE.
It only works for determining if you are a retard. It doesn't work for telling us if you are smart. Above 100 it's a meaningless number.

So I would venture a guess that if your IQ is indeed 220, you forgot to prefix that number with a minus.

[Atla]

More lies, I don't. It's only inconsistent to you beacuse your right hemisphere isn't working properly. You don't understand 95%+ of humans.

Oh really? SO you don't think the following is an inconsistent use of "=" ?

Two protons are alike. P1 = P2.
Two protons are the same: P2 = P2.

This is not about understanding humans. This is about understanding logic.

Seriously in 30 years you couldn't figure this out? And you pretend to have 165 IQ Then I have 220.

You also forgot to read the rest of my comments. IQ doesn't measure intelligence, it measures UNINTELLIGENCE.
It only works for determining if you are a retard. It doesn't work for telling us if you are smart.

So I would venture a guess that if your IQ is indeed 220, you forgot to prefix that number with a minus.

If you want to try to reach your right hemisphere somehow, the best method I know of is EMDR therapy (and to a lesser degree EMDR audio entrainment). It's a technique used to try to synchronize the hemispheres, but looking for parts of your own mind that are currently "outside" you and integrating it is very hard (if it's functioning at all).

[Logik]

More lies, I don't. It's only inconsistent to you beacuse your right hemisphere isn't working properly. You don't understand 95%+ of humans.

Oh really? SO you don't think the following is an inconsistent use of "=" ?

Two protons are alike. P1 = P2.
Two protons are the same: P2 = P2.

This is not about understanding humans. This is about understanding logic.

Seriously in 30 years you couldn't figure this out? And you pretend to have 165 IQ Then I have 220.

You also forgot to read the rest of my comments. IQ doesn't measure intelligence, it measures UNINTELLIGENCE.
It only works for determining if you are a retard. It doesn't work for telling us if you are smart.

So I would venture a guess that if your IQ is indeed 220, you forgot to prefix that number with a minus.

If you want to try to reach your right hemisphere somehow, the best method I know of is EMDR therapy (and to a lesser degree EMDR audio entrainment). It's a technique used to try to synchronize the hemispheres, but looking for parts of your own mind that are currently "outside" you and integrating it is very hard (if it's functioning at all).

And if you want to learn ANYTHING about logic, first you have to admit ( to yourself, if you want to save face in public) that this is an inconsistent use of "="

Two photons are alike. P1 = P2.
Two photons are the same: P2 = P2.

See, I can teach a sophist without resorting to condescension. Run along now. Hope you learned something.

Naturally. You don't have to do ANY of those I suggest if you don't care about consistency.

[Atla]

Oh really? SO you don't think the following is an inconsistent use of "=" ?

Two protons are alike. P1 = P2.
Two protons are the same: P2 = P2.

This is not about understanding humans. This is about understanding logic.



You also forgot to read the rest of my comments. IQ doesn't measure intelligence, it measures UNINTELLIGENCE.
It only works for determining if you are a retard. It doesn't work for telling us if you are smart.

So I would venture a guess that if your IQ is indeed 220, you forgot to prefix that number with a minus.

If you want to try to reach your right hemisphere somehow, the best method I know of is EMDR therapy (and to a lesser degree EMDR audio entrainment). It's a technique used to try to synchronize the hemispheres, but looking for parts of your own mind that are currently "outside" you and integrating it is very hard (if it's functioning at all).

And if you want to learn ANYTHING about logic, first you have to admit ( to yourself, if you want to save face in public) that this is an inconsistent use of "="

Two photons are alike. P1 = P2.
Two photons are the same: P2 = P2.

See, I can teach a sophist without resorting to condescension. Run along now. Hope you learned something.

Naturally. You don't have to do ANY of those I suggest if you don't care about consistency.

First you would have to show where I "lost face" by claiming that it's consistent.

If you want to save face in public and not be caught in another lie, Mr. "I'm not Timeseeker".

[Logik]

First you would have to show where I "lost face" by claiming that it's consistent.

You didn't CLAIM it's consistent.

Your USE of "=" is inconsistent. Irrespective of what you claim.

If you want to save face in public and not be caught in another lie, Mr. "I'm not Timeseeker".

And if you want to save face we can determine if I am Timeseeker as soon as we agree on the meaning of "=".

Logic = Timeseeker. True or false.

As soon as we DECIDE on the truth-value of the above proposition we can determine if I am lying or not.

[Atla]

First you would have to show where I "lost face" by claiming that it's consistent.

You didn't CLAIM it's consistent.

Your USE of "=" is inconsistent. Irrespective of what you claim.

If you want to save face in public and not be caught in another lie, Mr. "I'm not Timeseeker".

And if you want to save face we can determine if I am Timeseeker as soon as we agree on the meaning of "=".

Logic = Timeseeker. True or false.

As soon as we DECIDE on the truth-value of the above proposition we can determine if I am lying or not.

First you would have to show that my use of "=" is inconsistent, something you thoroughly failed to do so far (and confirmed again that you can't process multiple interpretations).

As for the "public court of opinion", this is what is technically known as a "lie":

1. You and VA keep confusing me for Timeseeker. I'd love to convince you that I am not TimeSeeker, but it's beyond me to prove negatives.

I lost my password... can't be bothered to reset it because I don't remember which e-mail account I registered it with.

But it's been fun fucking with people's uncertainty.

But of course at this point everyone knows on this forum that Logic/Timeseeker is a narcissistic pahtological liar.

[Logik]

First you would have to show where I "lost face" by claiming that it's consistent.

You didn't CLAIM it's consistent.

Your USE of "=" is inconsistent. Irrespective of what you claim.

If you want to save face in public and not be caught in another lie, Mr. "I'm not Timeseeker".

And if you want to save face we can determine if I am Timeseeker as soon as we agree on the meaning of "=".

Logic = Timeseeker. True or false.

As soon as we DECIDE on the truth-value of the above proposition we can determine if I am lying or not.

First you would have to show that my use of "=" is inconsistent, something you thoroughly failed to do so far (and confirmed again that you can't process multiple interpretations).

As for the "public court of opinion", this is what is technically known as a "lie":

1. You and VA keep confusing me for Timeseeker. I'd love to convince you that I am not TimeSeeker, but it's beyond me to prove negatives.

I lost my password... can't be bothered to reset it because I don't remember which e-mail account I registered it with.

But it's been fun fucking with people's uncertainty.

But of course at this point everyone knows on this forum that Logic/Timeseeker is a narcissistic pahtological liar.

Moron. You can't determine if anyone is lying if you can't determine what is true.

When I said "I am not Timeseeker" I wasn't lying. I am not lying now when I say that I am not Timeseeker. My username WAS Timeseeker. It's not anymore.

If I am lying then "Logic = Timeseeker" MUST be true!

I guess you have to do some mental gymnastics with "=" again. Do you think "=" in Classical logic means "was" in English?

Lets see which battle you are willing to lose now.

If you are a classical logician then I am not Timeseeker.

[Speakpigeon]

Premise 1. John is human ( A = C )
Premise 2. Jane is human ( B = C )
By the transitive property: John is Jane (A = B)

"John is human" isn't normally interpreted as John = human, as I guess is suggested by "( A = C )".
In Aristotelian terms, the argument should read:

Premise 1. John is human;
Premise 2. Jane is human;
Therefore, John is Jane.

And then, it's not valid as there is an undistributed middle.
Now, if we interpret the argument as follows:

Premise 1. John = human;
Premise 2. Jane = human;
Therefore, John = Jane.

Provided you define "=" properly, then, sure, it's valid.
Different arguments, though.
What's the problem already?

The problem is that you accept John is human (A = C => True) and Jane is human (B = C => True). Then you also have to accept the PROPOSITION (NOT conclusion) A = B => True. John is Jane. Transitivity.

No, and I explained exactly why in my post.
You're mixing up two different interpretations, which is just idiotic.
Observe you're the only one to do this idiotic dance here.
I observe that you didn't even reply to my post.
You pretended to reply but you just ignored what I said.
You haven't a chance to convince anyone of anything, ever, except that you're a triple-buse.
EB

[Logik]

"John is human" isn't normally interpreted as John = human, as I guess is suggested by "( A = C )".
In Aristotelian terms, the argument should read:

And then, it's not valid as there is an undistributed middle.
Now, if we interpret the argument as follows:

Provided you define "=" properly, then, sure, it's valid.
Different arguments, though.
What's the problem already?

The problem is that you accept John is human (A = C => True) and Jane is human (B = C => True). Then you also have to accept the PROPOSITION (NOT conclusion) A = B => True. John is Jane. Transitivity.

No, and I explained exactly why in my post.
You're mixing up two different interpretations, which is just idiotic.
Observe you're the only one to do this idiotic dance here.
I observe that you didn't even reply to my post.
You pretended to reply but you just ignored what I said.
You haven't a chance to convince anyone of anything, ever, except that you're a triple-buse.
EB

Please stop with your sophistry.

If "John is human" is NOT interpreted as "A = C", then you are just using the equals sign however you see fit! There is no 1-to-1 relationship between "is" and "=". I know that ambiguity is an obscurantist's best friend, but you should really resist that urge in the real world.

I have just spent 3 hours educating Atla why there is no room for interpretation of ANYTHING in the realm of logic/reason.

You don't even get to interpret the meaning of "=". That is why we have regular languages (programming languages!) so that the grammar and semantics of EVERY symbol is cast in stone! This solves the human problem of inconsistent interpretation and the philosophical sophistry of define "=".
Fuck you - I am not going to define it and play the eternal (mis)interpretation dance. Here is the code! Interpret it like the computer interprets it.

I have convinced a few hundred thousand people to use the things I build without so much as having to put together a "convincing argument".
You are using a computer now. You are using the internet now. When did I have to convince you to do that?

You seem to be here to win arguments, I am just here to win.

If you abandon the ways of sophistry - you win, I win, we all win!

[Speakpigeon]

A computer is comparing two 'Jane' character strings, and finds that they are alike similarly to how to protons are alike, and gives a true answer.

OK, so what are you comparing when you assert that A = A is true? What do you mean by "="?

To anyone but you, A = A means A has the same value as A, i.e. A is identical to A.
You, on the other hand, can't make the distinction between A = A and "A" = "A" because you're a moron.
Your idiot computer can't assess A = A because all you know to ask is for it to assess "A" = "A", which is irrelevant to whether A = A.
Why is it do you think mathematicians and philosophers alike are insisting on the law of identity?!
Do you think it's to assert that "A" = "A"?!
Whoa.
You don't even understand the basics. You're like a brainless chicken running around with no direction.
EB