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

[Speakpigeon]

If you interpret "is" in the usual sense then the argument is not valid because of the undistributed middle (human). If you interpret "is" as meaning "the same as", i.e. identical, or as "=", i.e. equal, then it's a different argument altogether and this one is valid. Either way, you don't switch from one interpretation of "is" to the other in the middle of an argument, that would be equivocation and this is very, very bad in logic. But you wouldn't know because you're an ignoramus.

The Aristotelian law of identity doesn’t care what sense you interpret things in. As long as you interpret them consistently!

Show me where I interpret inconsistently.
The only one who suggested an inconsistent interpretation is you with your Jane argument.
I have explained in details how interpret your argument and, surprise, surprise, you don't replay.

So if you use “=“ to mean two different things. If you use ANY symbol/operand to mean two different things you are violating the law of identity.

A=C;
B=C;
Therefore, A=B.

Valid.
But this one is invalid:

John is human;
Jane is human;
Therefore Jane is John.

Invalid because of undistributed middle.
So, where is it I mean two different things?

For all x: x = x
Fuck that!
For all =: = = =

Self-reference. Sorry, Love, you can't do that.

The law of identity (if you were to adhere to it!) mandates a 1:1 relationships between meaning and symbols!

Sure, but only within the context of each particular set of argument/formula and logic. There's no rules about different arguments or different logics.

Humans have proved themselves incapable of consistency for thousands of years, so ... let the computer interpret it!

That's a computer sciences' myth. You're just repeating the idiocies of a small bunch of mathematicians who failed to formalised logic properly.
Me, I can read Aristotle, the Stoics and nearly all the Scholastics without any difficulty. Logical intuition has been pretty consistent over the centuries.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

Dimwit. If you interpret a piece of text In a different way than the author intended it to be understood, how much of this “information” are you absorbing and how much are you hallucinating? il n'y a pas de hors-texte Without a feedback loop that can signal to you that you have understood, misunderstanding is just as likely. Don’t talk to me about information. You can’t define it in English! I gave you the Mathematical definition and you were like a deer in the headlights.... Computer science is all about studying the movement and processing of information. How Information moves, how it behaves! You are out of your depth. Precisely because programs are isomorphic (look this word up!) to Mathematical proofs is why your opinion doesn’t matter. Automated theorem proving is already here! The curry-Howard isomorphism. Read it! Understand it!

Please, don't ramble, it's just too painful to watch.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

Can you tell me if this proposition is true or false?
“the same” is the same as “the same”.

Here are the relevant senses of the word "same":

Same
1. Being the very one; identical: the same boat we rented before.
2. Similar in kind, quality, quantity, or degree: The ceremony went off with the same elegance that it has had every year.
3. Conforming in every detail: according to the same rules as before.
4. Being the one previously mentioned or indicated; aforesaid: "There was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout" (King James Bible).

So, the sentence “the same” is the same as “the same” will be false if we interpret "same" in sense 1, true with sense 2 and 3, and meaningless with sense 4.

il n'y a pas de hors-texte
We live in a world of cause and effect.
Show me consequences, not sports commentary.

So, basically, you couldn't argue to save your life.
Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
BS.
EB

[Logik]

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

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

And this one would be valid too,

Again, where's the problem? No problem.

I don’t need to define anything.
Proofs compute.
Study the behaviour of that which exists as a temporal phenomenon.
A living thing. It’s consequence is its progression in time.

"Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!"!!!
What a load of bullshit.
You can't even explain yourself!
If you want to convince anyone you'd need to be capable of articulating your point.
EB

I have contradicted your foundational axiom.

In science this is called falsification.

To the claim “all swans are white” it is sufficient to demonstrate just one black swan to prove the claim wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

To the claim “for all x: x = x” I need to demonstrate just one example where x != x

I have done that.

What is it that you want me to explain?

[Age]

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...

Now this one of the more ridiculous statements that you have made. Jane, by definition, is NOT human, and nor is John.

The premises of an argument have to be true for it to be a sound valid argument. Both of your premises are NOT true.

You are NEVER going to convince ALL with unsound reasoning like this.

By the way, ALL do NOT need convincing anyway. They just need to be SHOWN what the Truth IS. Just like I have done here.

[Age]

We have objective arbiters for validity of of formal arguments now!
Computers interpret the formalization - not humans.

Unbiased. Independent. Objective arbiters.

Are these, so called, 'objective arbiter computers', which you talk about here, the same ones that were created by biased, dependent, and subjective human beings?

If so, then really how objective could they be?

[Age]

Interpret it in whatever way you interpreted it in the context of.

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

Is "the same" between the "Janes" the same (I think you will have to context switch here also) as "the same" between the photons?

Simple fucking proposition. Atla can't even determine if it's true or false!

Is "the same" the same as "the same"?

Of course it is NOT.

Just like one photon is NOT the same as another photon.

[Age]

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.

And others have spend far more time TRYING TO educate you. But you are totally incapable of LEARNING and SEEING any thing other than what you BELIEVE is true.

You asked us to be convinced of some thing that is only what YOU BELIEVE is true. The only one it appears that you are convincing here is your own self.

You don't even get to interpret the meaning of "=".

So, who does get to interpret the meaning of "=", or any thing else?

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 "=".

Yet you do NOT even have a consistent interpretation of what you yourself write. Let alone with what others write.

Who gets to decide on that interpretation?

You do NOT even have a regular language that you, yourself, use. One that could NOT be misinterpreted and one with which others could understand you fully would help, but unfortunately you have none.

Computers NEED the grammar and semantics of EVERY symbol cast in stone because they are absolutely useless and worthless pieces of plastic and metals without those fixed symbols.

Fuck you - I am not going to define it and play the eternal (mis)interpretation dance.

Of course you will NOT define it. You will NOT even define your very OWN words that you use.

You say you give your OWN specific meaning and definitions to the words that you use, but also admit that you will NOT share what those specific meanings and definitions are with with others.

What are people to interpret?

Here is the code! Interpret it like the computer interprets it.

Why?

Computers are just useless machines, without human beings.

Why would any person want to interpret words like a computer does? What benefit do you propose could be obtained from doing such a thing?

Computers can NOT interpret the definitions and meanings of human language.

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".

How do you define the word 'convince' here? And, how did you supposedly 'convince' a few hundred thousand people to use the things that you build?

Why do you like coming here in this forum and telling others how you build computers? Do you get some sort of climax feeling when you come here and shoot off like this?

Do you really BELIEVE that people care what you do for a meaningless job?

Are you under some sort of illusion that building computers is some sort of important or even necessary job in Life. The job of programming a computer lays on the exact same importance as the job of the person who wipes the bums of the elderly in a nursing home. Some, however, might say that one job has far more importance, and far more meaning, in Life than the other one ever could have. I will let you decide which one that could be.

Also, according to your own logic, if you build some thing and that then (somehow) relates to convincing others to use that thing, then could a person who builds houses say that they have convinced millions upon millions of people to use the things that they, themselves, build?

You are using a computer now. You are using the internet now. When did I have to convince you to do that?

How do the three supposedly relate and link together?

[/quote]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!
[/quote]

If you stop BELIEVING that the logic used within the brainless machines called computers has much to do with the logic used with human beings when using the ever changing and shifting thing of language, then you might stop BELIEVING that you are somehow better than others are.

[Age]

You wouldn't call it overloading but a linguist would.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_overload


In the CONTEXT of this argument the word "is" has two different meanings.


It's one argument.
One context.
Why are you context-switching?

Did you choose to or did you have to?

If you interpret "is" in the usual sense then the argument is not valid because of the undistributed middle (human).
If you interpret "is" as meaning "the same as", i.e. identical, or as "=", i.e. equal, then it's a different argument altogether and this one is valid.
Either way, you don't switch from one interpretation of "is" to the other in the middle of an argument, that would be equivocation and this is very, very bad in logic. But you wouldn't know because you're an ignoramus.
EB

The Aristotelian law of identity doesn’t care what sense you interpret things in. As long as you interpret them consistently!

So if you use “=“ to mean two different things. If you use ANY symbol/operand to mean two different things you are violating the law of identity.

For all x: x = x

Fuck that!

For all =: = = =

The law of identity (if you were to adhere to it!) mandates a 1:1 relationships between meaning and symbols!

Consistent grammar and semantics results in consistent interpretation!

Humans have proved themselves incapable of consistency for thousands of years, so ... let the computer interpret it!

But computers can NOT interpret. Computers can only put out what has been put into it. Computers get their input from people like 'you'. That is, computers get their information from the already proven inconsistent human beings, of which you are one.

[surreptitious57]

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

Is the same between the Janes the same ( I think you will have to context switch here also ) as the same between the photons ?

No because as you have implied there will be physical differences between the two Janes
While the two photons will by contrast be physically identical to each other [ in vacuum ]

Sometimes things that share the same name are not identical to each other
And sometimes things that share the same name are identical to each other

[Logik]

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...

Now this one of the more ridiculous statements that you have made. Jane, by definition, is NOT human, and nor is John.

The premises of an argument have to be true for it to be a sound valid argument. Both of your premises are NOT true.

You are NEVER going to convince ALL with unsound reasoning like this.

By the way, ALL do NOT need convincing anyway. They just need to be SHOWN what the Truth IS. Just like I have done here.

You are an nit-picking idiot who constantly misses the forest for the trees.

John is hungry.
Jane is hungry.
John is Jane.

[Logik]

Are these, so called, 'objective arbiter computers', which you talk about here, the same ones that were created by biased, dependent, and subjective human beings?

If so, then really how objective could they be?

If the word "objective" triggers you then use the word "consistent".

Computers apply the rules of logic consistently.
Humans don't.

[Logik]

Is "the same" the same as "the same"?[/quote]

Of course it is NOT.

Just like one photon is NOT the same as another photon.
[/quote]
And that's your problem!

You are using "the same" inconsistently. You are using "the same" to mean different things in the same context.

Is 1 the same as 1?
Is cat the same as food?

Inconsistency...

[Logik]

But computers can NOT interpret.

Precisely! That's a good thing. It means computers are consistent!

Computers can only put out what has been put into it. Computers get their input from people like 'you'. That is, computers get their information from the already proven inconsistent human beings, of which you are one.

You don't understand what consistency is and how it works.

This is an example of mathematical addition: 1 + 1 = 2
This is an example of concatenation: A+ B = AB

Observe that the "+" means two different things!

Like "=" means two different things when you say Jane1 = Jane2 vs Proton1 = Proton2

[surreptitious57]

It means computers are deterministic

Determinism is restricting because it is limited to fact based answers
Not all questions though can be answered from a logical perspective

You could not ask a computer a moral question for example as it would not know what answer to give
This is the major problem with machines that have absolutely no understanding of emotion only logic

What solution do you have for this ? Is it actually possible to programme emotion into a machine ?