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

[Atla]

But what do you mean? Are we talking about two humans or two strings in a computer or what?

We are talking about reality!

There are two humans. Both are called Jane. There are also two protons with identical charges (on your insistence).

Formulate the following propositions in classical logic for us:

Jane = Jane => True (when comparing the same Jane to itself)
Jane = Jane => False (when comparing the two Janes to each other).
Proton = Proton => True (when comparing the two protons to each other)
Proton = Proton => True (when comparing the same proton to itself)

Well for example if we look at what particles they are made of, without looking at the spatial position of the particles, then two protons are alike and the two Janes aren't.

[Logik]

Well for example if we look at what particles they are made of, without looking at the spatial position of the particles, then two protons are alike and the two Janes aren't.

Stop waffling. Formalize the propositions in Classical logic. No conclusions - just propositions.

[Atla]

Well for example if we look at what particles they are made of, without looking at the spatial position of the particles, then two protons are alike and the two Janes aren't.

Stop waffling. Formalize the propositions in Classical logic. No conclusions - just propositions.

I can't formalize it further, this will have to do.

[Logik]

Well for example if we look at what particles they are made of, without looking at the spatial position of the particles, then two protons are alike and the two Janes aren't.

Stop waffling. Formalize the propositions in Classical logic. No conclusions - just propositions.

I can't formalize it further, this will have to do.

Why do you look at the spatial positions of the Janes, but ignore the spatial positions of the particles?

Is it going to break your logic if were to be consistent or something?

[Atla]

Stop waffling. Formalize the propositions in Classical logic. No conclusions - just propositions.

I can't formalize it further, this will have to do.

Why do you look at the spatial positions of the Janes, but ignore the spatial positions of the particles?

I don't look at the spatial positions of the particles that the Janes are made of either. I just look at what the particles are.

[Logik]

I can't formalize it further, this will have to do.

Why do you look at the spatial positions of the Janes, but ignore the spatial positions of the particles?

I don't look at the spatial positions of the particles that the Janes are made of either. I just look at what the particles are.

Good. Then I am sure you can formalize this for us?

So that I can bash you with the contradiction over your dogmatic head.

[Atla]

Why do you look at the spatial positions of the Janes, but ignore the spatial positions of the particles?

I don't look at the spatial positions of the particles that the Janes are made of either. I just look at what the particles are.

Good. Then I am sure you can formalize this for us?

So that I can bash you with the contradiction over your dogmatic head.

Just tell me where you think the error is, fucktard.

[Logik]

I don't look at the spatial positions of the particles that the Janes are made of either. I just look at what the particles are.

Good. Then I am sure you can formalize this for us?

So that I can bash you with the contradiction over your dogmatic head.

Just tell me where you think the error is, fucktard.

I don't do the 'telling' thing very well. I am better at showing.

Formalize it and I will show you the contradiction.

Plus it's much more fun at winning arguments when your error is out there - for everyone to see.

[Atla]

Good. Then I am sure you can formalize this for us?

So that I can bash you with the contradiction over your dogmatic head.

Just tell me where you think the error is, fucktard.

I don't do the 'telling' thing very well. I am better at showing.

Formalize it and I will show you the contradiction.

Plus it's much more fun at winning arguments when your error is out there - for everyone to see.

idiot, you lost every argument you ever had against me.
It was understandable and I can't really formalize it further. What shall I write?

madeofparticles(Jane1) = madeofparticles(Jane1) => True
madeofparticles(Jane1) = madeofparticles(Jane2) => False

madeofparticles(proton1) = madeofparticles(proton1) => True
madeofparticles(proton1) = madeofparticles(proton2) => True

[Logik]

idiot, you lost every argument you ever had against me.
It was understandable and I can't really formalize it further. What shall I write?

madeofparticles(Jane1) = madeofparticles(Jane1) => True
madeofparticles(Jane1) = madeofparticles(Jane2) => False

madeofparticles(proton1) = madeofparticles(proton1) => True
madeofparticles(proton1) = madeofparticles(proton2) => True

Sorry.

There are no functions in the grammar/syntax of Classical Logic.

Please formalize it in Classical Logic.

If you need a refresher - check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols

[Atla]

I don't do the 'telling' thing very well. I am better at showing.

Formalize it and I will show you the contradiction.

Plus it's much more fun at winning arguments when your error is out there - for everyone to see.

idiot, you lost every argument you ever had against me.
It was understandable and I can't really formalize it further. What shall I write?

madeofparticles(Jane1) = madeofparticles(Jane1) => True
madeofparticles(Jane1) = madeofparticles(Jane2) => False

madeofparticles(proton1) = madeofparticles(proton1) => True
madeofparticles(proton1) = madeofparticles(proton2) => True

This is not valid syntax in Classical logic grammar/syntax. It does not allow for functions.

Please formalize it in Classical Logic.

I copied it from you and we all know what it means, looks like you can't show the error.

[Logik]

I copied it from you and we all know what it means, looks like you can't show the error.

Ooooh. You copied from me, did you? Thanks for admitting defeat then...

My argument is in Lambda calculus, not in Classical logic.

If you insist on winning though, you are welcome to try again. Here are the list of symbols you are allowed to use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols

[Atla]

I copied it from you and we all know what it means, looks like you can't show the error.

My argument is in Lambda calculus, not in Classical logic. Try again.

Classical Logic please.

Here's the symbols you are allowed to use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols

You avoid the issue, you lost

[Logik]

You avoid the issue, you lost

The issue is that I am waiting for you to formalize the argument using the grammar/semantics of classical logic.

You did it in Lambda calculus.

Do I need to remind you what the title of this thread is?

[Atla]

You avoid the issue, you lost

The issue is that I am waiting for you to formalize the argument using the grammar/semantics of classical logic.

Do I need to remind you what the title of this thread is?

well tell me, how do you formalize "made of particles"?