Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db


computers / comp.ai.philosophy / Re: Vacuously TRUE vs Vacuously FALSE? [ properties of elements of the empty set ]

SubjectAuthor
o Re: Vacuously TRUE vs Vacuously FALSE? [ properties of elements ofolcott

1
Re: Vacuously TRUE vs Vacuously FALSE? [ properties of elements of the empty set ]

<pIadnckkwMNpIev8nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7488&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7488

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.ai.philosophy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 09:19:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Vacuously TRUE vs Vacuously FALSE? [ properties of elements of
the empty set ]
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
References: <71eaa840-8fe7-48fe-a1ef-36a154c4ed99n@googlegroups.com>
<c1d62f7f-c963-46d0-9efd-59f7e4bbdd17n@googlegroups.com>
<_OydndjFj6bFru78nZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ac966f33-6da3-4d82-be07-356ca9f8c203n@googlegroups.com>
<QZGdnZQavsd4pe78nZ2dnUU7-aOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7f41b902-438b-4db7-955d-d3e3e7301fa2n@googlegroups.com>
<Vcednepc4spi3-78nZ2dnUU7-ROdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sl10an$12ms$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<erCdndEZJo7kpun8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d48b25ea-c1fe-4de5-a51f-0b6a2296a762n@googlegroups.com>
<a7SdnVF2LOaI_un8nZ2dnUU78e_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<a4daaa2a-6279-48f5-a52b-e36f79f79e3cn@googlegroups.com>
<tIydnfXJs8f2FOn8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2e59fbf0-0480-41ec-8225-4874419ca6e9n@googlegroups.com>
<hPOdnfFvc_dILen8nZ2dnUU7-RfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sl2gki$6th$1@dont-email.me>
<wfGdnbZ90-wHUen8nZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sl2j3a$jqc$1@dont-email.me>
<8YCdnQRB_rQOd-n8nZ2dnUU7-a_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sl3s4s$p87$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 09:19:30 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <sl3s4s$p87$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <pIadnckkwMNpIev8nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 146
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-6ytkcjiUX4N0V4eOQRwjb33yfpzVquDvMJKEqjsgT4uZH3HaR9EB6u0aEOhUZ6gMqCH/kkOXA8Lh6kL!L2UQNpByaEc5G4gjzs3mMmJdoa7Vm3X+NwexZpDvaanyqccxgbKk8C2sFbBhqbxP0lyhv93teks=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 8119
 by: olcott - Mon, 25 Oct 2021 14:19 UTC

On 10/24/2021 9:55 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-10-23 23:09, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/23/2021 10:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-23 21:01, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/23/2021 9:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-10-23 19:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/23/2021 6:10 PM, Dan Christensen wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 6:15:15 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/23/2021 4:58 PM, Dan Christensen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 3:31:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/23/2021 1:44 PM, Dan Christensen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 12:42:41 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If we want to have actual correct reasoning then we get rid
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Material conditional
>>>>>>>>>>>> p q p → q
>>>>>>>>>>>> T T T
>>>>>>>>>>>> T F F
>>>>>>>>>>>> F T T
>>>>>>>>>>>> F F T
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> and replace it with if-then
>>>>>>>>>>>> if P then q
>>>>>>>>>>>> p q if p then q
>>>>>>>>>>>> T T T
>>>>>>>>>>>> T F F
>>>>>>>>>>>> F T undefined
>>>>>>>>>>>> F F undefined
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Here is a formal proof of ~A => [A =>B], the basis for the
>>>>>>>>>>> last two lines of the truth table for A => B. To prevent this
>>>>>>>>>>> derivation, somehow you will also have to ban or restrict the
>>>>>>>>>>> application of one more of the rules of inference used here.
>>>>>>>>>>> Which will it be?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am saying for symbolic logic is defined incorrectly when
>>>>>>>>>> symbolic
>>>>>>>>>> logic is required to be the basis for correct reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You haven't answered the question. Which line(s) in the above
>>>>>>>>> proof would be invalid in your proposed alternative system of
>>>>>>>>> logic? Somehow, you want to make it impossible to derive
>>>>>>>>> ~A=>[A=>B].
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The => implication operator is tossed out on its ass, thus
>>>>>>>> unavailable
>>>>>>>> for any proof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's start with something REAL easy. How would you prove A & B
>>>>>>> => B & A?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I reject material implication and the principle of explosion.
>>>>>
>>>>> You do realize that even if you "eliminate" material implication
>>>>> and replace it with your version (whatever that might be), you'd
>>>>> still be able to prove anything from (A & ¬A). The principle of
>>>>> explosion is usually illustrated using implication but it isn't
>>>>> actually tied to implication.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I reject material implication and the principle of explosion
>>>> separately.
>>>
>>> Unless you plan on rejecting ∧, ∨ and ¬, you're not going to be able
>>> to get rid of the principle of explosion since it is a direct
>>> consequence of the logical definitions of these operators.
>>>
>>
>> We simply forbid any syntactic entailment that is contradicted by
>> semantic entailment. We put the semantic relevance back into logic
>> that was removed from Aristotle's syllogism.
>
> How exactly do you 'forbid' something which follows directly from the
> rules of the system without ending up with an inconsistent system?
>

We adapt symbolic logic so that the semantic meaning of propositional
variables is specified. Aristotle's syllogism does this with Categorical
propositions:

In logic, a categorical proposition, or categorical statement, is a
proposition that asserts or denies that all or some of the members of
one category (the subject term) are included in another (the predicate
term). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition

> And unless you can provide some actual *rules* which allows us to decide
> whether or not something is contradicted by 'semantic entailment', the
> above is worthless. Note that giving examples of things which you think
> do or do not involve 'semantic entailment' is not the same thing as
> providing actual explicit rules. So far, any time I've asked you about
> your notion of 'semantic relatedness' or other things you've responded
> by giving one or two examples of things you consider related or
> unrelated, but no actual rule which would allow us to decide whether two
> arbitary things count as related.
>
>>>> I am not sure how to best express the set of changes that are required.
>>>>
>>>> A good heuristic might be that when semantic values are assigned to
>>>> propositional variables and then when rules of logic are applied to
>>>> these variables derive semantic nonsense then this is a rule that
>>>> must be discarded.
>>>
>>> There are only two semantic values that can be assigned to
>>> propositional variables: true and false. I have no idea what you can
>>> derive from these two values that could possibly objectively count as
>>> 'semantic nonsense'.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> That is not exactly true. Truth conditional semantics is anchored in
>> true and false yet has a whole additional supporting infrastructure.
>
> That 'supporting architecture', if I understand what you are claiming is
> *not* part of logic.
>
>> It is true that an X is a Y is the propositional level.
>> When we plug semantics in the we get truth conditional semantics.
>> It is true that a dog is an animal.
>
> What your referring to here isn't 'semantics'. The only semantic values
> available to logic are 'true' and 'false'. What you are referring to is
> 'content'.
>
> The entire point of formal logic is that it looks exclusively at the
> form which an argument takes while ignoring the content altogether.
>
> Formal logic has no knowledge whatsoever about dogs or animals, nor
> should it.
>
> André
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor