Page 6 of 6
Re: Transforming formal proof into sound deduction (rewritten)
Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:32 pm
by Logik
False dichotomy,
Saying something ambiguous is more expressive than saying nothing at all.
Re: Transforming formal proof into sound deduction (rewritten)
Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:53 pm
by PeteOlcott
Logik wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:32 pm
False dichotomy,
Saying something ambiguous is more expressive than saying nothing at all.
False dichotomy,
Saying something ambiguously is less expressive (of intended meaning) than saying something unambiguously.
Referring to bachelor ambiguously is less expressive (of intended meaning) than referring to Martial_State->Bachelor.
Re: Transforming formal proof into sound deduction (rewritten)
Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:49 am
by wtf
Logik wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:32 pm
Stanford has been paying you a salary for 22 years.
I must have missed that. Is PeteOlcott an employee of Stanford university? In what capacity? Just curious.
Re: Transforming formal proof into sound deduction (rewritten)
Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:13 pm
by Logik
wtf wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:49 am
Logik wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:32 pm
Stanford has been paying you a salary for 22 years.
I must have missed that. Is PeteOlcott an employee of Stanford university? In what capacity? Just curious.
It may be a faulty inference on my part.
In between reading his posts here and on various other forums, I thought I connected dots to Stanford. Could be another Olcott...