Philosophy Now Forum

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:01 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:01 am 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...

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)

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

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.

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:54 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:52 pm I wouldn't call it ambiguity or overloading, nor is that really a cause. But it must seem like that to you.

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

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

In linguistics, semantic overload occurs when a word or phrase has more than one meaning, and is used in ways that convey meaning based on its divergent constituent concepts

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

P1. John is human.
P2. Jane is human.
C. John is Jane

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

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:10 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:54 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:52 pm I wouldn't call it ambiguity or overloading, nor is that really a cause. But it must seem like that to you.

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

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

In linguistics, semantic overload occurs when a word or phrase has more than one meaning, and is used in ways that convey meaning based on its divergent constituent concepts

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

P1. John is human.
P2. Jane is human.
C. John is Jane

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!

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:54 am Computers interpret the formalization - not humans.

Whoa. How stupid can you get. That's very impressive.
When a human being reads Shakespeare, for example, all there is on the page is formalised information. There is literally nothing else to work from.
The difference, then, is that a human being can interpret both Shakespeare and any formal proof in logic or maths whereas a computer cannot. Even for theorem provers, you usually need a human being to guide the proof process. Computers do what they are told, and for now at least, they don't perform anyway near what even a perfect idiot can do.
EB

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:46 am FOL undecidable in general. Only in particular cases/contexts.

Propositional logic is decidable.

For example, propositional logic is decidable, because the truth-table method can be used to determine whether an arbitrary propositional formula is logically valid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_%28logic%29

What's the problem already?
EB

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:23 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:54 am Computers interpret the formalization - not humans.

Whoa. How stupid can you get. That's very impressive.
When a human being reads Shakespeare, for example, all there is on the page is formalised information. There is literally nothing else to work from.
The difference, then, is that a human being can interpret both Shakespeare and any formal proof in logic or maths whereas a computer cannot. Even for theorem provers, you usually need a human being to guide the proof process. Computers do what they are told, and for now at least, they don't perform anyway near what even a perfect idiot can do.
EB

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!

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 8:18 am 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.
Where is the problem already?
EB

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:44 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 8:18 am 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.
Where is the problem already?
EB

il n'y a pas de hors-texte

We live in a world of cause and effect.

Show me consequences, not sports commentary.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:18 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:09 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:49 pm
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"?!

Is the following proposition True or False. 'A' = 'А'

It depends on how you would define "=" and you would have to since it's not a logical connective.
The notation "A" is also foreign to logic. one would use "A" in a computer programme to implement a logical principle. "A" isn't formal logic. In formal classical logic there is only things like A → A, A ∧ A, A ∨ A etc.
"A" just is never used, ever.
So, you'll have to explain what you want to say.
However, the idea that to assert "A" = "A" as a matter of logic can only come to a muttonhead.
EB

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:22 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:17 pm 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/languages/python Check. Your turn.

Sorry, I don't do snake logic. If you can't explain yourself in English just go feed you python.
EB

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:41 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:39 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:07 pm 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.

You asked for it.
Now you show where is the contradiction.

¬(x ∧ y);
Jane ∧ x;
Jane ∧ y;

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:41 pm Classical logic is complete but UNDECIDABLE

Propositional logic is decidable.

For example, propositional logic is decidable, because the truth-table method can be used to determine whether an arbitrary propositional formula is logically valid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_%28logic%29

What's the problem already?

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:43 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:42 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:49 pm Formalize it and I will show you the contradiction.

Go on, show where the contradiction is.

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

So you can't exhibit any contradiction and in fact you just don't understand the logic of it. You're an ignoramus.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:43 pm A universal logic is computational. Write your argument in a programming language.

I'm doing human logic, not snake logic.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:43 pm You can start unlearning your religion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence

Irrelevant.
No mention of my interpretation here:

¬(x ∧ y);
Jane ∧ x;
Jane ∧ y;

EB

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:34 pm 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.
Rejecting the law of identity is a universal solution.

You would have to be capable of explaining yourself to justify this extraordinary claim and you're not. Too bad.
All you can do is provide irrelevant links.
Whoa.
EB

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 2:19 pm 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?

The best method is to think aloud so that the two hemispheres stay on the same page.
And it's cheap.
EB

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:09 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:01 pm And "=" isn't a logical symbol. If you use it, you need to define it.
So your argument is not properly formalised...

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)

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.

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