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

[Speakpigeon]

It means that A is itself.

Pay attention. There are TWO A's. Like TWO photons.

What does A = A mean in context of TWO A's.

There are two "A".
Whether there is one or two A depends on the context and on your interpretation.
"A" = "A" is irrelevant to whether A = A.
EB

[Logik]

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

Nah. Not going to let you frame this argument. I am way smarter than you.

I am simply going to demonstrate to you and everyone why you are wrong.

Is the following proposition True or False.

'A' = 'А'

[Speakpigeon]

But what do you mean? Are we talking about two humans or two strings in a computer or what?

We are talking about reality! There are two humans. Both are called Jane. There are also two protons with identical charges (on your insistence). Formulate the following propositions in classical logic for us:
Jane = Jane => True (when comparing the same Jane to itself)
Jane = Jane => False (when comparing the two Janes to each other).

Obviously, you're computer isn't capable of that trick!
Well, essentially because you can't do it yourself!
EB

[Logik]

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.

STUPID FUCKING ARISTOTELIAN

https://repl.it/repls/SuperficialShimmeringAnimatronics

Check. Your turn.

[Speakpigeon]

Create two abstract Janes using Classical Logic.

???
Where would be the problem exactly?
Very easy, given that logic is universal, literally!
So, for example:
¬(x ∧ y);
Jane ∧ x;
Jane ∧ y;
Fun, isn't it?
Ah, I guess you won't even understand that!
EB

[Logik]

Create two abstract Janes using Classical Logic.

???
Where would be the problem exactly?
Very easy, given that logic is universal, literally!
So, for example:
¬(x ∧ y);
Jane ∧ x;
Jane ∧ y;
Fun, isn't it?
Ah, I guess you won't even understand that!
EB

Please don't waste my time.

Classical logic is complete but UNDECIDABLE. Undecidable is a simple way of saying "NOT FUCKING UNIVERSAL".
Lambda calculus is Turing complete. Therefore universal.

Look at the evidence and reconsider your life choices: https://repl.it/languages/python

A = A is false.

[Speakpigeon]

Formalize it and I will show you the contradiction.

Here it is:

¬(x ∧ y);
Jane ∧ x;
Jane ∧ y;

Go on, show where the contradiction is.
EB

[Logik]

Formalize it and I will show you the contradiction.

Go on, show where the contradiction is.
EB

That's not a formalism. That's sophistry. I am not interested in an eternal argument of "but how do you define/interpret ∧"

A universal logic is computational. Write your argument in a programming language.

You can start unlearning your religion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence

[Arising_uk]

Reasoning - branching. If-then-elseif-else. ...

Then all you need is propositional logic?

If P then Q else R

(P -> Q) & (~P -> R)

The very ability to make choices/decisions.

So propositional logic can make choices/decisions.

Of course you can convert Predicate logic to Prolog. That is what Turing-completeness means. Universality.
The opposite is not true.

You can’t convert all Prolog to FOL.

But Prolog is computable predicate logic in the form of clausal logic, i.e. horn clause logic with resolution?

By the by after a nights sleep I realised Predicate Logic is FOL.

What did you mean by 'Classical Logic', literally Aristotles way of writing it?

Your issue seemed to be that because of the equality sign and its transitivity you could get an improbable conclusion but you can have predicate logic without equality and when your propositions are formulated in it you cannot derive your conclusion so I'm at a loss what the problem is?

[Logik]

Reasoning - branching. If-then-elseif-else. ...

Then all you need is propositional logic?

If P then Q else R

(P -> Q) & (~P -> R)

The very ability to make choices/decisions.

So propositional logic can make choices/decisions.

Of course you can convert Predicate logic to Prolog. That is what Turing-completeness means. Universality.
The opposite is not true.

You can’t convert all Prolog to FOL.

But Prolog is computable predicate logic in the form of clausal logic, i.e. horn clause logic with resolution?

By the by after a nights sleep I realised Predicate Logic is FOL.

What did you mean by 'Classical Logic', literally Aristotles way of writing it?

Your issue seemed to be that because of the equality sign and its transitivity you could get an improbable conclusion but you can have predicate logic without equality and when your propositions are formulated in it you cannot derive your conclusion so I'm at a loss what the problem is?

Of course you can do all of these shenanigans/workarounds in the special case. But you aren't solving the problem - you are paving over it. And sure enough - you will succeed for the simple cases we have at hand. But your solution is not universal.

What I mean by "Classical logic" is ANY logic which blindly accepts the "law" of identity.

ANY logic which claims A = A is ALWAYS True.
ANY logic which does NOT allow for A = A to be false is Classical Logic
For if I were to demonstrate that A = A is false, then that would be a contradiction of the axiom.

Here it is: https://repl.it/repls/SuperficialShimmeringAnimatronics

Rejecting the law of identity is a universal solution.

[Arising_uk]

.If you want to try to reach your right hemisphere somehow, ...

This right hemisphere/ left hemisphere is pretty much the same nonsense on stilts that the right brain/left brain stuff is.

the best method I know of is EMDR therapy (and to a lesser degree EMDR audio entrainment). ...

LMFAO!! So after years of the psychobabblers trashing NLP they not only created a poorer version with CBT they've now pinched the 'eye movement' part, added a load of pseudo-scientific waffle and claim its efficiency, oh the bloody irony and sheer front.

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).

Waffle. What is hard is getting the therapist not to interfere in the process/technique with their pet theory.

[Atla]

.If you want to try to reach your right hemisphere somehow, ...

This right hemisphere/ left hemisphere is pretty much the same nonsense on stilts that the right brain/left brain stuff is.

the best method I know of is EMDR therapy (and to a lesser degree EMDR audio entrainment). ...

LMFAO!! So after years of the psychobabblers trashing NLP they not only created a poorer version with CBT they've now pinched the 'eye movement' part, added a load of pseudo-scientific waffle and claim its efficiency, oh the bloody irony and sheer front.

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).

Waffle. What is hard is getting the therapist not to interfere in the process/technique with their pet theory.

The right and left hemispheres are rather loosely connected in men, don't tell me you didn't know that?
Well tell me genius, what better way do you know to physically enhance their communication, synchronicity?

[Eodnhoj7]

Premise 1. John is human ( A = C )
Premise 2. Jane is human ( B = C )

By the transitive property: John is Jane (A = B)

You can now go and blame Aristotle for identity politics...

Agreed, what the transitive property observes is that all variables exist through a medial variable that effectively unifies the seperate variables, but these seperate variables exist as grades of the original variable. The transitive property, "ie transition as direction", necessitates all logic as premised in spatial direction as an identity property in and of itself.

Example:

1) c ∋ (a,b)
2) (a=b) ∵ c
3) therefore "equality" exists through "c" and the standard P=P which sets the foundation for the transitive property should be converted to PxP where "x" observes a medial variable. All variables are both form and function.

Hence: A(C)B translated as "Jane is John if and only if Jane and John are human"

or (a ⇄ b) ↔ ((c ⇄ a) ∧ (c ⇄ b))

or (A (⇄) B) ↔ [⇄]=C

[] observe the operator existing as an actual form/function through the Variable

or: a infinite number of ways of expression observing that each variable is inseperable from a directive (cause leading to effect) capacity.

(⊜(A,B)) ↔ (⊜(C,A)) ∧ (⊜(C,B))



A directed towards B and B directed towards A observes both as existing as 1 cycle conducive to equality where what is "equal" observes that either variable can take the place of another; hence ⊜ observes that A and B are directed through a cycle.

Logic is defined by its symbolism.


or: A(⊜C)B

where A and B cycle as eachother through C in which case the principle of identity can be expressed as: P(⊜x)P

[Speakpigeon]

Here are the list of symbols you are allowed to use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols

And "=" isn't a logical symbol. If you use it, you need to define it.
So your argument is not properly formalised...

Premise 1. John is human ( A = C )
Premise 2. Jane is human ( B = C )

By the transitive property: John is Jane (A = B)

Still, again, if you defined "=" in the usual sense then the argument would be valid

Premise 1. A = C;
Premise 2. B = C;
Therefore, A = B.

And this one would be valid too,

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

Again, where's the problem?
No problem.
EB

[Eodnhoj7]

Here are the list of symbols you are allowed to use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols

And "=" isn't a logical symbol. If you use it, you need to define it.
So your argument is not properly formalised...

Premise 1. John is human ( A = C )
Premise 2. Jane is human ( B = C )

By the transitive property: John is Jane (A = B)

Still, again, if you defined "=" in the usual sense then the argument would be valid

Premise 1. A = C;
Premise 2. B = C;
Therefore, A = B.

And this one would be valid too,

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

Again, where's the problem?
No problem.
EB

"=" is a logical symbol and it is ungrounded in Aristotelian identity properties.