∞ is a free variable

[Skepdick]

All over this thread!

And once again, nope, that's not true. First of all, I never said that "true is not not true". Although true it's not a useful statement. And I also never constructed the term "true" in a circular fashion. That's your own fantasy.

Do you believe not True -> False?
Do you believe not False -> True?

Then you necessarily believe not not True -> True.

Say it. Or don't say it.

It's true.

[Skepdick]

All over this thread!

If Odd is NOT Even; and Even is NOT Odd; then Even is NOT NOT Even; and Odd is NOT NOT Odd.
If Tue is NOT False; and False is NOT True; then True is NOT NOT True; and False is NOT NOT False.

That's Excluded Middle!

Okay, so you still have no clue and you have yet to learn the difference between descriptions and constructions.

A definition qua description is a statement about the meaning of some term. It's a statement that states that some symbol has the same meaning as some other symbol ( perhaps that same exact symbol. )

"True is NOT false" is a non-circular true description of the meaning of the word "true". It says the word "true" has the same meaning as the term "not false".

"False is NOT true" is a non-circular true description of the meaning of the word "false". It says the word "false" has the same meaning as the term "not true".

"True is NOT NOT true" is a circular but true description of the meaning of the word "true". It says that the word "true" has the same meaning as the term "not not true".

They are all true but one of them is circular and thus of little to no use in certain situations.

But descriptions aren't constructions. And a circular description is not necessarily a circular construction.

If the concept of true is constructed as "the opposite of false" and the concept of false is constructed as "the opposite of true", then we have a circular construction that renders the concept of true effectively non-existent and the word "true" meaningless.

But unfortunately for you, the concept of true isn't circularly constructed. That's your own pet fantasy.

You have no proof that I've constructed the concept of true in a circular fashion merely a pathetic, excessively strong desire to believe so.

And in the end, all of this is just a typical Skepdickian distraction . . .

Idiot.

Do you even understand how logic works?
What inference rules are?

not True -> False is an inference rule.
not False -> True is an inference rule
not not X -> X is an inference rule.

This is Classical Logic 101 stuff.

Double negation introduction: True -> not not True
Double negation elimination: not not True -> True

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_ne ... troduction

[Magnus Anderson]

Idiot.

Do you even understand how logic works?
What inference rules are?

not True -> False is an inference rule.
not False -> True is an inference rule
not not X -> X is an inference rule.

Try to say something substantial next time.

[Skepdick]

Idiot.

Do you even understand how logic works?
What inference rules are?

not True -> False is an inference rule.
not False -> True is an inference rule
not not X -> X is an inference rule.

Try to say something substantial next time.

You don't think facts are substantial?!?

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

In classical logic, every statement is logically equivalent to its double negation

[Magnus Anderson]

Do you believe not True -> False?
Do you believe not False -> True?

Then you necessarily believe not not True -> True.

Say it. Or don't say it.

It's true.

I said it myself in my earlier post.

"True is NOT NOT true" is a circular but true description of the meaning of the word "true". It says that the word "true" has the same meaning as the term "not not true".

"Skepdick is Skepdick" is true as well. That does not mean that the concept of Skepdick is non-existent and that the word "Skepdick" is meaningless. We all know that the word "Skepdick" refers to an imbecile who posts on PN forums.

Every concept can be described in an infinite number of different ways many of which are circular. That does not mean that all concepts are non-existent and that every word is meaningless.

You're trying desperately hard.

[Skepdick]

You're trying desperately hard.

OK, Captain Semantics.

[Magnus Anderson]

OK, Captain Semantics.

Don't lose hope. You can do it, Skeppie McDickie. You can be a bigger retard than you already are.

You have yet to do any of the following things:

1) Pick any integer that is neither even nor odd and tell us its last decimal digit. Since it's neither even nor odd, the last digit must be something other than 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. We're looking forward to that magical digit.

2) Prove that TREE(3) is neither even nor odd. So far, you've only presented an argument from ignorance that you stupidly claim that it is not an argument from ignorance when it very clearly is.

3) Prove that my use of the word "true" is meaningless due to the underlying circular construction of the concept of true.

Good luck.

I'm sure we're gonna have a good laugh.

[Skepdick]

OK, Captain Semantics.

Don't lose hope. You can do it, Skeppie McDickie. You can be a bigger retard than you already are.

You have yet to do any of the following things:

1) Pick any integer that is neither even nor odd and tell us its last decimal digit. Since it's neither even nor odd, the last digit must be something other than 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. We're looking forward to that magical digit.

2) Prove that TREE(3) is neither even nor odd. So far, you've only presented an argument from ignorance that you stupidly claim that it is not an argument from ignorance when it very clearly is.

3) Prove that my use of the word "true" is meaningless due to the underlying circular construction of the concept of true.

Good luck.

I'm sure we're gonna have a good laugh.

And the idiot continues framing everything in Classical Logic.

No wonder we are going in circles.

Or rings more like it. Z/2Z

[Magnus Anderson]

It has nothing to do with classical logic, imbecile.

[Magnus Anderson]

These are propositions, imbecile.

"Even" and "odd" are not propositions.

What does defining the term "odd" as "not even" have to do with the law of excluded middle?

We're eagerly waiting for your idiotic answer.

The resident imbecile conveniently ignored this post.

Are you getting tired imbecile? Too much to handle?

[Magnus Anderson]

1) Pick any integer that is neither even nor odd and tell us its last decimal digit. Since it's neither even nor odd, the last digit must be something other than 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. We're looking forward to that magical digit.

This is too much classical logic for the resident imbecile.

[Magnus Anderson]

No wonder we are going in circles.

We aren't going in circles, you are. Because you're a retard.

[Skepdick]

These are propositions, imbecile.

"Even" and "odd" are not propositions.

What does defining the term "odd" as "not even" have to do with the law of excluded middle?

We're eagerly waiting for your idiotic answer.

The resident imbecile conveniently ignored this post.

Are you getting tired imbecile? Too much to handle?

Fucking idiot.

Of course they are propositions.

Odd(x in N) -> {True, False}
Even(x in N) -> {True, False}

Code: Select all

In [1]: odd = lambda x: (x % 2) == 1
In [2]: even = lambda x: (x % 2) == 0
In [3]: odd(1)
Out[3]: True

In [4]: even(1)
Out[4]: False

In [5]: odd(2)
Out[5]: False

In [6]: even(2)
Out[6]: True

[Skepdick]

1) Pick any integer that is neither even nor odd

OK! Done.

TREE(3).

and tell us its last decimal digit.

I can't! That't the fucking problem.

Since it's neither even nor odd, the last digit must be something other than 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. We're looking forward to that magical digit.

If I knew which one it was I'd tell you its parity.

Take the predicate LastDigitOf(x in N) -> {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0}

Let X:= LastDigitOf(TREE(3))

What's X?

Code: Select all

In [9]: LastDigitOf = lambda x: int(str(x)[-1])

In [10]: LastDigitOf(22)
Out[10]: 2

In [11]: LastDigitOf(23)
Out[11]: 3

[Magnus Anderson]

Of course they are propositions.

Let me get this straight, imbecile. You're saying that words are propositions?