Philosophy Now Forum

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:52 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:42 am You do realize that anyone can look at your claims and your programs and see that you are insane, right? This is a public forum after all.

What, you have resorted to shaming me now?

Did you run out of ad hominems?

I'm still waiting for you to show the contradiction in what I wrote.

Giving up?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:53 am I'm still waiting for you to show the contradiction in what I wrote.

Giving up?

Look at you struggling to control the criterion for "contradiction".

This is 2019, asshole. You can't play the "interpretation" game sophists have enjoyed since day 1.

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

Unbiased. Independent. Objective arbiters. Isn't that what you wanted?

Fair way to determine winners and losers in an argument.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:54 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:53 am I'm still waiting for you to show the contradiction in what I wrote.

Giving up?

Look at you struggling to control the criterion for "contradiction".

This is 2019, asshole. You can't play the "interpretation" game sophists have enjoyed since day 1.

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

Unbiased. Independent. Objective arbiters. Isn't that what you wanted?

In 2019 you should have at least some clue about computers, don't you think?
Computers are at least decades away from that level of interpretation.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:57 am In 2019 you should have at least some clue about computers, don't you think?
Computers are at least decades away from that level of interpretation.

Idiot!

You are not supposed to (mis?)interpret a logical argument!

The result of the VALID LOGICAL DEDUCTION IS the truth-value.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:59 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:57 am In 2019 you should have at least some clue about computers, don't you think?
Computers are at least decades away from that level of interpretation.

Idiot!

You are not supposed to (mis?)interpret a logical argument!

The conclusion IS the truth-value.

You can't program a computer with such philosophical arguments yet. They are deacdes away from understanding them!

You are no programmer and you are no systems engineer. That should be obvious to anyone at this point.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:01 am

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:59 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:57 am In 2019 you should have at least some clue about computers, don't you think?
Computers are at least decades away from that level of interpretation.

Idiot!

You are not supposed to (mis?)interpret a logical argument!

The conclusion IS the truth-value.

You can't program a computer with such philosophical arguments yet. They are deacdes away from understanding them!

You are no programmer and you are no systems engineer. That should be obvious to anyone at this point.

Moron. Deduction is 100% mechanical. The rules of each logic are clearly defined.

It is 100% deterministic.
Given the same input it ALWAYS produces the same output.

The computer doesn’t need to “understand” anything. It just needs to follow the damn rules outlined in the semantics/grammar.

Something humans suck at! You interpret “=“ in 10 different ways on the same argument.

Logik wrote:Are you perhaps appealing to 1st order logic?

Is this not a Classical Logic?

That allows for functions. ...

Or predicates as arguments, which is where I thought the problem was, do we allow proper names to be predicates?

And given the rules of FOL semantic tableaux proof procedures I know that I can instantiate an existential quantifier to get to a proof of a proposition.

It's also complete-but-undecidable. http://kilby.stanford.edu/~rvg/154/handouts/fol.html
You can't make any evaluations in it - only make declarative statements, so it's useless for reasoning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_(logic)

(You'd have to say what you mean by "reasoning" but ignoring that) How so? Prolog is based upon FOL and reasons as well as Haskell or Python, maybe not as efficiently from a computational point of view but the reasoning is as good.
http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~rak/papers/Log ... olving.pdf
(bastards I actually paid for this book and now they just give it away for free! )

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:31 am

Logik wrote:Are you perhaps appealing to 1st order logic?

Is this not a Classical Logic?

That allows for functions. ...

Or predicates as arguments, which is where I thought the problem was, do we allow proper names to be predicates?

And given the rules of FOL semantic tableaux proof procedures I know that I can instantiate an existential quantifier to get to a proof of a proposition.

It's also complete-but-undecidable. http://kilby.stanford.edu/~rvg/154/handouts/fol.html
You can't make any evaluations in it - only make declarative statements, so it's useless for reasoning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_(logic)

(You'd have to say what you mean by "reasoning" but ignoring that) How so? Prolog is based upon FOL and reasons as well as Haskell or Python, maybe not as efficiently from a computational point of view but the reasoning is as good.
http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~rak/papers/Log ... olving.pdf
(bastards I actually paid for this book and now they just give it away for free! )

Decidability is a pre-requisite for Turing completeness.

FOL undecidable in general. Only in particular cases/contexts. That is why I found an edge case in Atla's argument.

Prolog is not FOL. All Turing complete logics are generally decidable.

What I mean by “reasoning” is logical branching - if-then-else. Algorithmic thought.

Logik wrote: Decidability is a pre-requisite for Turing completeness.

FOL undecidable in general. Only in particular cases/contexts. That is why I found an edge case in Atla's argument.

Prolog is not FOL. All Turing complete logics are generally decidable.

You haven't said what you meant by "reasoning" as I think this might be the issue between us and I'm not sure what you mean by "decidability" with respect to this 'reasoning'. Also just to check, is FOL Predicate Logic with Equality? If so then I think my formalisation of your problem is correct as I'm not using equality but I think it still captures what you proposed and doesn't have the transitivity issue. Now it's not FOL but it is a Classical Logic, i.e. it is Predicate Logic and Prolog is Horn Clause Logic and any set of Predicate Logic formulas can be converted into their equivalent in HCL and are pretty good at reasoning and we agreed elsewhere that Prolog was Turing complete. Sorry if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 2:26 am

Logik wrote: Decidability is a pre-requisite for Turing completeness.

FOL undecidable in general. Only in particular cases/contexts. That is why I found an edge case in Atla's argument.

Prolog is not FOL. All Turing complete logics are generally decidable.

You haven't said what you meant by "reasoning" as I think this might be the issue between us and I'm not sure what you mean by "decidability" with respect to this 'reasoning'. Also just to check, is FOL Predicate Logic with Equality? If so then I think my formalisation of your problem is correct as I'm not using equality but I think it still captures what you proposed and doesn't have the transitivity issue. Now it's not FOL but it is a Classical Logic, i.e. it is Prediacte Logic and Prolog is Horn Clause Logic and any set of Predicate Logic formulas can be converted into their equivalent in HCL and are pretty good at reasoning. Sorry if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here.

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

The very ability to 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.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:20 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:01 am

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:59 am
Idiot!

You are not supposed to (mis?)interpret a logical argument!

The conclusion IS the truth-value.

You can't program a computer with such philosophical arguments yet. They are deacdes away from understanding them!

You are no programmer and you are no systems engineer. That should be obvious to anyone at this point.

Moron. Deduction is 100% mechanical. The rules of each logic are clearly defined.

It is 100% deterministic.
Given the same input it ALWAYS produces the same output.

The computer doesn’t need to “understand” anything. It just needs to follow the damn rules outlined in the semantics/grammar.

Something humans suck at! You interpret “=“ in 10 different ways on the same argument.

You haven't solved or understood anything you idiot.
Again: the computer just runs a little program that has nothing to do with the actual question asked. They are at least decades from that. You get the same output but to a simple irrelevant algorithm, not the philosophical question asked.
Seriously how can someone be so fucking braindead like you? Don't you know anything about computer programs?

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:12 pm 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...

I'm guessing someone has pointed out your error by now but because I'm late to a long thread, I have to step in an participate from your OP.

Aristotle's logic is only less complete with respect to modern logic systems. But it is not incorrect. Your stated conclusion is false by any standards of classical logic, especially that of Aristotle.

The "is", first off, doesn't necessarily mean equality in all cases and precisely why you should first begin with definitions before attempting to proceed in formal reasoning. Otherwise, "John is human" would be equivalent to "Human is John".

This is because the meaning translated to semantic understanding of that first premise means, If given something is a particular person named, "John", then he/she is a human. But if anyone is a human, this does not mean they are assuredly that person named "John".

Worse is how you combine the two premises in a way that Aristotle specifically had spelled out is incorrect in 'form': Every argument form using Syllogisms (as they are called), requires a set of strict laws about the statements permitted. Without going into a prerequisite fuller explanation requiring a small book, a 'transitive' statement requires that the first term, "John", is a part of the second (middle term), "human", and that the last term would have to be a part of something greater. It's details are about something called, "distribution", and just refers to simpler rules to test the validity of the statement's three terms.

No conclusion can be drawn using "Syllogisms" but CAN be done extended beyond them using "and" as a conjunction. All you can conclude is that "John AND Jane are humans". A proper 'transitive' statement is something like,

1: John is a Man
2: All Men are Humans
Therefore, John is a Human.

Why did you choose to call yourself "Logik" when you certainly have not understood the elementary concepts actually taught in "classic" logic? You have to correctly understand what it is you are criticizing. While logic is intuitive, the study of it for philosophical uses is much more precise because it is not enough to think everyone has some common language to express their views and be understood in sync. I assure you that you are misrepresenting this as a misunderstanding on your part, not on the fault of something 'classic'. Note that "classic" doesn't necessarily mean obsolete or wrong, but just the set of original historic systems of reasoning that have been updated and expanded upon when analyzed more closely. Syllogisms were incomplete 'forms' because they didn't include other kinds of more complex arguments because they didn't appear to be needed until more advanced studies and thinking proved them not sufficient to explain.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:07 am

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:20 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:01 am
You can't program a computer with such philosophical arguments yet. They are deacdes away from understanding them!

You are no programmer and you are no systems engineer. That should be obvious to anyone at this point.

Moron. Deduction is 100% mechanical. The rules of each logic are clearly defined.

It is 100% deterministic.
Given the same input it ALWAYS produces the same output.

The computer doesn’t need to “understand” anything. It just needs to follow the damn rules outlined in the semantics/grammar.

Something humans suck at! You interpret “=“ in 10 different ways on the same argument.

You haven't solved or understood anything you idiot.
Again: the computer just runs a little program that has nothing to do with the actual question asked. They are at least decades from that. You get the same output but to a simple irrelevant algorithm, not the philosophical question asked.
Seriously how can someone be so fucking braindead like you? Don't you know anything about computer programs?

Computers are decades from what? Deduction?



No wonder you couldn’t cut it in the field.

We didn’t ask any philosophical questions.
We were merely expressing four propositions m!

You tripped over expressiveness!

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 7:53 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:07 am

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:20 am

Moron. Deduction is 100% mechanical. The rules of each logic are clearly defined.

It is 100% deterministic.
Given the same input it ALWAYS produces the same output.

The computer doesn’t need to “understand” anything. It just needs to follow the damn rules outlined in the semantics/grammar.

Something humans suck at! You interpret “=“ in 10 different ways on the same argument.

You haven't solved or understood anything you idiot.
Again: the computer just runs a little program that has nothing to do with the actual question asked. They are at least decades from that. You get the same output but to a simple irrelevant algorithm, not the philosophical question asked.
Seriously how can someone be so fucking braindead like you? Don't you know anything about computer programs?

Where did we ask any questions?

We had 4 propositions to write.
I wrote my propositions in Python.
You couldn’t write them on classical logic.

Couldn’t even do that...

You can't write such philosophical proopositions in Python. Only a complete idiot wouldn't realize that. Maybe in 30 years, when we have super advanced AI.

My expression in English on the other hand was well understandable (to people who can process logic).

You failed again as expected.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 7:58 am

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 7:53 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:07 am
You haven't solved or understood anything you idiot.
Again: the computer just runs a little program that has nothing to do with the actual question asked. They are at least decades from that. You get the same output but to a simple irrelevant algorithm, not the philosophical question asked.
Seriously how can someone be so fucking braindead like you? Don't you know anything about computer programs?

Where did we ask any questions?

We had 4 propositions to write.
I wrote my propositions in Python.
You couldn’t write them on classical logic.

Couldn’t even do that...

You can't write such philosophical proopositions in Python. Only a complete idiot wouldn't realize that. Maybe in 30 years, when we have super advanced AI.

My expression in English on the other hand was well understandable (to people who can process logic).

You failed again as expected.

Fucking sophist.

What is the question to A=A => True ?

Aren’t you asking “Is A the same as A?”

What do you mean by “same” ?