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

[Age]

Are you 100% certain that you aren't mistaken?

Yes. I gave evidence for this. Both in the examples I provided and in the explanations attached to those examples

Well, if you are 100% that you can't be mistaken, then what point is there talking to you?

You don't even know the difference between deducive and abductive reasoning.

You do KNOW you come across as a little child, to me.

"I am smarter than you, you don't even know such and such", is what it sounds like you are saying.


Now, this is a philosophy forum. You proposed an argument, which you BELIEVED would convince people of what you BELIEVE is True.

I have SHOWN WHY your first two premises are FALSE. Now, if you want to LOOK AT that and discuss, then please do. If, however, you do NOT, then there is nothing I can do about that.

[Logik]

Yes. I gave evidence for this. Both in the examples I provided and in the explanations attached to those examples

Well, if you are 100% that you can't be mistaken, then what point is there talking to you?

You don't even know the difference between deducive and abductive reasoning.

You do KNOW you come across as a little child, to me.

"I am smarter than you, you don't even know such and such", is what it sounds like you are saying.


Now, this is a philosophy forum. You proposed an argument, which you BELIEVED would convince people of what you BELIEVE is True.

I have SHOWN WHY your first two premises are FALSE. Now, if you want to LOOK AT that and discuss, then please do. If, however, you do NOT, then there is nothing I can do about that.

If a black swan standing right before your eyes can't convince you that not all swans are white then what is the point of arguing?

[Age]

Well, if you are 100% that you can't be mistaken, then what point is there talking to you?

You don't even know the difference between deducive and abductive reasoning.

You do KNOW you come across as a little child, to me.

"I am smarter than you, you don't even know such and such", is what it sounds like you are saying.


Now, this is a philosophy forum. You proposed an argument, which you BELIEVED would convince people of what you BELIEVE is True.

I have SHOWN WHY your first two premises are FALSE. Now, if you want to LOOK AT that and discuss, then please do. If, however, you do NOT, then there is nothing I can do about that.

What's the point of arguing?

There are many. The best one being what could be brought about from it.

I gave you LIVING PROOF that your axioms are wrong and you still want to argue.

If you supposedly gave me LIVING PROOF, then you would have NO trouble in pointing us to WHERE exactly you allegedly did this.

I, for one, would love to SEE it.

I NEVER even saw a reply to my so called "axioms".

About what? If a black swan can't convince you that not all swans are white, then what the fuck is the point of arguing?

WHAT has this got to do with ANYTHING at all?

Just guide us to the LIVING PROOF you talk about?

WHERE did you SHOW with LIVING PROOF that my axioms are wrong?

[Age]

WHY did you edit your post logik, did you realize that you NEVER actually gave LIVING PROOF that my axioms are wrong?

[Logik]

You do KNOW you come across as a little child, to me.

"I am smarter than you, you don't even know such and such", is what it sounds like you are saying.


Now, this is a philosophy forum. You proposed an argument, which you BELIEVED would convince people of what you BELIEVE is True.

I have SHOWN WHY your first two premises are FALSE. Now, if you want to LOOK AT that and discuss, then please do. If, however, you do NOT, then there is nothing I can do about that.

What's the point of arguing?

There are many. The best one being what could be brought about from it.

I gave you LIVING PROOF that your axioms are wrong and you still want to argue.

If you supposedly gave me LIVING PROOF, then you would have NO trouble in pointing us to WHERE exactly you allegedly did this.

I, for one, would love to SEE it.

I NEVER even saw a reply to my so called "axioms".

About what? If a black swan can't convince you that not all swans are white, then what the fuck is the point of arguing?

WHAT has this got to do with ANYTHING at all?

Just guide us to the LIVING PROOF you talk about?

WHERE did you SHOW with LIVING PROOF that my axioms are wrong?

I edited my post because I can.

I am also going to ignore you now - because I can. You add no value to this conversation.

[Age]

What's the point of arguing?

There are many. The best one being what could be brought about from it.

I gave you LIVING PROOF that your axioms are wrong and you still want to argue.

If you supposedly gave me LIVING PROOF, then you would have NO trouble in pointing us to WHERE exactly you allegedly did this.

I, for one, would love to SEE it.

I NEVER even saw a reply to my so called "axioms".

About what? If a black swan can't convince you that not all swans are white, then what the fuck is the point of arguing?

WHAT has this got to do with ANYTHING at all?

Just guide us to the LIVING PROOF you talk about?

WHERE did you SHOW with LIVING PROOF that my axioms are wrong?

I edited my post because I can.

Is that the ONLY reason?

I am also going to ignore you now - because I can.

Once again, using the ignore threat, instead of providing any actual evidence.

Some might take that as you OBVIOUSLY have NOT given LIVING PROOF that my axioms are wrong.

And, you were saying that as though it was even remotely true.

If the Truth be know I was thinking you just confused me with someone else, and if you admitted that, then so be it. End of story.

But now that you are allegedly going to add me to the ignore list, once again, maybe you really were just trying to blind side the readers here thinking you could fool them with such an outright DISHONESTLY and LIE like that.

The Truth is I am provoking like this in the hope that some sort of response, any response would do, was given in reply to my SHOWING how john, jane, and/or age are NOT human, and that I have just missed it and that they would point me/us to where that is. Better still would be that some proof was given SHOWING that my "axioms" are wrong. I, for one, would love to SEE it.

By the way, you said before that I was already added to your ignore list, and that there was "bug" in the system.

Or, was that a straight out LIE also?

You add no value to this conversation.

WHY?

Because what I SHOWED is how WRONG you are, and have been?

Obviously this would NOT add value to that what you only want value added to. That is; YOUR OWN BELIEFS.

[Speakpigeon]

Premise 1. John is human ( A = C )
Premise 2. Jane is human ( B = C )
By the transitive property: John is Jane (A = B)

Validity cannot be assessed because, first, this isn't a formal argument and, second, it's also not clear how it could be interpreted even informally. The guy who proposed this argument understand little about formal logic and probably even less about logic itself.
EB

[Logik]

Premise 1. John is human ( A = C )
Premise 2. Jane is human ( B = C )
By the transitive property: John is Jane (A = B)

Validity cannot be assessed because, first, this isn't a formal argument and, second, it's also not clear how it could be interpreted even informally. The guy who proposed this argument understand little about formal logic and probably even less about logic itself.
EB

You can’t assess the truth-vale of “John is human”??!?!
Because it isn’t a “formal argument”.

Well fuck me! Are YOU human?

You must be a special kind of idiot.

The guy who criticises this doesn’t know his ass from his elbow when it comes to decidability.

You are very far away from intuitionistic logic.

[Logik]

Premise 1. John is human ( A = C )
Premise 2. Jane is human ( B = C )
By the transitive property: John is Jane (A = B)

Validity cannot be assessed because, first, this isn't a formal argument and, second, it's also not clear how it could be interpreted even informally. The guy who proposed this argument understand little about formal logic and probably even less about logic itself.
EB

Calling "logic" a formal system that doesn't give the same results as human logical reasoning is just a fraud.

This is just pure fucking gold!

These are basic propositions about the world the truth-value of which any 5 year old is able to determine, but the sophist can't do it because it's "not formalized".

Here is a computer doing what the sophist can't!

https://repl.it/repls/HiddenSwiftTraining

English: John is John.
Python: John == John
True

English: Jane is Jane.
Python: Jane == Jane
True

English: John is human.
Python: John == Human
True

English: Jane is human.
Python: Jane == Human
True

English: John is Jane.
Python: John == Jane
False

LOOK MOM! NO CONTRADICTION!!!

Now Mr Sophist, do you care to tell me what would happen in your "formal" logic if you had to express these propositions:

A = C (John is Human)
B = C (Jane is Human)
A = B (John is Jane)

So who is the fraud here?

[surreptitious57]

A = C ( John is Human )
B = C ( Jane is Human )
A = B ( John is Jane )

The computer thinks all Humans are identical which is why it arrives at this perfectly logical but wrong conclusion
It does not understand that the Human Jane and Human John are not the same just because they are both Human
A computer is therefore only as good as the information that is programmed into it as it has nothing else to go on

[Arising_uk]

Of course you can do all of these shenanigans/workarounds in the special case. ...

What special case?

But you aren't solving the problem - you are paving over it. ...

What problem?

And sure enough - you will succeed for the simple cases we have at hand. But your solution is not universal. ...

Who needs universal if it works?

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

Well unless you can convince me a thing isn't itself I think I'll stick with it.

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. ...

You keep talking about a mathematical operator in Logic? I'm not sure but the reason you appear to wish to drop it is that it's tied to the LEM which from what I understand is a problem in Mathematics but then if you drop it your solution is not universal?

Rejecting the law of identity is a universal solution.

Not really it's a specific solution to a problem in Maths and Computing apparently.

[Logik]

Of course you can do all of these shenanigans/workarounds in the special case. ...

What special case?

This argument. It's a particular argument and therefore it's an individual/special case.
The moment you "fix" the problem in THIS argument I will come up with a new proposition to contradict your "fixed" formalism.
And so we continue to play a game of cat and mouse.

Because you aren't fixing the root cause (law of identity) you are fixing the problem that is immediately in front of you.
A very pragmatic thing to do, but it fails to address the systemic issue and so it leads to a set of propositions which are internally inconsistent.

But you aren't solving the problem - you are paving over it. ...

What problem?

If you are a classical logician, then you adhere to the law of non-contradiction.
So if I show you are shown a contradiction in your logical system, then you ought to accept it as invalid. No?
Because you insist on consistency. Do you not?

And sure enough - you will succeed for the simple cases we have at hand. But your solution is not universal. ...

Who needs universal if it works?

For varying definitions of "works".
It works for the special case, but because it's a systemic issue there are plenty examples where it doesn't work

Identity politics apparently. A man is man. A woman is a woman. But a man is also a woman. I don't know

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

Well unless you can convince me a thing isn't itself I think I'll stick with it.

That's not what I am trying to convince you of at all. What I am trying to convince you is that "A thing is itself" is a nonsense sentence.

It's a meaningless proposition. A sentence that says nothing of value whatsoever. A sentence that conveys zero bits of information.
IF you take the scientist mindset and you say "a thing is itself", you MUST immediately allow for the alternative hypothesis.

A = A => True
A != A => True

Since you can neither confirm NOR deny either of the above hypothesis with ANY experiment you may as well say "We don't know if a thing is the same as itself".

Observe how in Classical logic you say A = A (Human is Human). As if you somehow say it 1000 times it will make it true.


While in Computational logic I say A = Human(). Which means "The symbol A represents a Human".
I have taken a 3rd person perspective on my own mind.

Not really it's a specific solution to a problem in Maths and Computing apparently.

Yes, but your mind is a computer and its structure can be expressed in Mathematics so you are neck deep in the shit-puddle

[Speakpigeon]

Premise 1. John is human ( A = C )
Premise 2. Jane is human ( B = C )
By the transitive property: John is Jane (A = B)

Validity cannot be assessed because, first, this isn't a formal argument and, second, it's also not clear how it could be interpreted even informally. The guy who proposed this argument understand little about formal logic and probably even less about logic itself.
EB

You can’t assess the truth-vale of “John is human”??!?!

You're seriously confused here.
We're talking about logic, not about the empirical facts about the physical world.
People have known about this distinction since Aristotle and the Stoics. Where have you been?!
And as to facts, you seem to be utterly lost.

Because it isn’t a “formal argument”.

It isn't formal enough to apply any method of so-called "formal logic" but it is formal enough for anyone who isn't an idiot to decide whether the argument is valid or not. So, it's an empirical fact that it's decidable.

You are very far away from intuitionistic logic.

I would certainly hope so. The whole field of formal logic is a dead corpse. It stinks hard.
And as to decidability, I don't remember having any difficulty in this respect. And looking at people around me, I don't think anyone has any problem. So, I really don't see where there would be a problem with our logic. I'm sure there is a problem with yours.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

English: John is John. Python: John == John True English: Jane is Jane. Python: Jane == Jane True English: John is human. Python: John == Human True English: Jane is human. Python: Jane == Human True English: John is Jane. Python: John == Jane False
LOOK MOM! NO CONTRADICTION!!!

???
Python is not English.
It's a snake.

Now Mr Sophist, do you care to tell me what would happen in your "formal" logic if you had to express these propositions:
A = C (John is Human)
B = C (Jane is Human)
A = B (John is Jane)

Sorry, this is just pure nonsense. "John is human" doesn't mean John = human".
I already explained to you, you mixed up two arguments into one.
This one is valid (provided you defined "=" properly):

A = C
B = C
A = B

This one is not valid:

John is Human
Jane is Human
John is Jane

Quite simple, really.
Check whether you have a brain at all.

So who is the fraud here?

You are.
A brainless fraud.
EB

[Logik]

You're seriously confused here.
We're talking about logic, not about the empirical facts about the physical world.
People have known about this distinction since Aristotle and the Stoics. Where have you been?!
And as to facts, you seem to be utterly lost.

I am talking about logic. Are facts not arrived at THROUGH logic?Are facts not ASSERTIONS?

If somebody, somewhere and somehow did not assert THAT 'John is human' then why is it a 'fact'?

I don't know about you but this is how my mind works:

I look at John
I COMPARE John to the CONCEPT of what a "Human" is.
My mind RECOGNIZES that the CONCEPT of "Human" describes John well.
My mind answers 'YES' to the question "Is John huuman?"
Therefore I can say "John is human."

The CONCEPT of human is just an abstraction!
The ASSERTION of 'John is human' is a value judgment, not a fact.

John corresponds to the CONCEPT of Human that exists in your head.

Because it isn’t a “formal argument”.

It isn't formal enough to apply any method of so-called "formal logic" but it is formal enough for anyone who isn't an idiot to decide whether the argument is valid or not. So, it's an empirical fact that it's decidable.

It's formal enough to apply intuitionistic logic to it.
In fact it is so formal that I can even explain it to a stupid machine!

What's tripping you up?

You are very far away from intuitionistic logic.

I would certainly hope so. The whole field of formal logic is a dead corpse. It stinks hard.
And as to decidability, I don't remember having any difficulty in this respect. And looking at people around me, I don't think anyone has any problem. So, I really don't see where there would be a problem with our logic. I'm sure there is a problem with yours.
EB

If you "don't have difficulty" in that respect" why can't you fucking ASSERT if John is human?