Try for once to say something intelligent, just once!thedoc wrote:HexHammer wrote:One only use 10% at a time, poven in Mythbusters.thedoc wrote:There is a popular idea that humans only use 10% of their brain,
Yes, but most members here try to overlook your deficiency.
Are the Three Laws of Logic correct?
Re: Are the Three Laws of Logic correct?
Re: Are the Three Laws of Logic correct?
Wrong. They are not axioms of any system that I have read. What system of logic has these three theorems as axioms??Wyman wrote:They are axioms and most would agree that they are self apparent truths, although identity is trickier than the other two. The set of all apples is the same as itself (since sets with the same members are identical). Two apples are identical if they belong to the same sets (i.e. if they have the same properties  Leibnitz' Law)marsh8472 wrote:1) The Law of Identity  An apple is an apple
2) The Law of NonContradiction  an apple is not a nonapple
3) The Law of Excluded Middle  it is either true or false that I just ate an apple
Can any of these be shown to be correct without referring back to them to do it?
Re: Are the Three Laws of Logic correct?
Yes.marsh8472 wrote:1) The Law of Identity  An apple is an apple
2) The Law of NonContradiction  an apple is not a nonapple
3) The Law of Excluded Middle  it is either true or false that I just ate an apple
Can any of these be shown to be correct without referring back to them to do it?
2 & 3 are 'theorems' and can be proven within a first order system.
1. is an axiom of the system (FOPL=), (all x)(x=x) is an axiom there, but
(all x)(x=x) is not an axiom in second order logic, it is a theorem.
Each of the socalled laws are not axioms but rather they are derived theorems of second order logic.
Re: Are the Three Laws of Logic correct?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_tho ... ional_lawsOwen wrote:Yes.marsh8472 wrote:1) The Law of Identity  An apple is an apple
2) The Law of NonContradiction  an apple is not a nonapple
3) The Law of Excluded Middle  it is either true or false that I just ate an apple
Can any of these be shown to be correct without referring back to them to do it?
2 & 3 are 'theorems' and can be proven within a first order system.
1. is an axiom of the system (FOPL=), (all x)(x=x) is an axiom there, but
(all x)(x=x) is not an axiom in second order logic, it is a theorem.
Each of the socalled laws are not axioms but rather they are derived theorems of second order logic.
They don't have to be axioms (they can be derived from other axiom systems), but in calling them 'laws' they fit under the informal notion of 'axiom' as being self evidently true. Whether there exists an actual axiom system including those three, I could do it right here if I chose.
Re: Are the Three Laws of Logic correct?
What you speak of, is how very naive and gullible people think, yearh..Wyman wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_tho ... ional_laws
They don't have to be axioms (they can be derived from other axiom systems), but in calling them 'laws' they fit under the informal notion of 'axiom' as being self evidently true. Whether there exists an actual axiom system including those three, I could do it right here if I chose.
Re: Are the Three Laws of Logic correct?
HexHammer wrote:What you speak of, is how very naive and gullible people think, yearh..Wyman wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_tho ... ional_laws
They don't have to be axioms (they can be derived from other axiom systems), but in calling them 'laws' they fit under the informal notion of 'axiom' as being self evidently true. Whether there exists an actual axiom system including those three, I could do it right here if I chose.
Naive people think that the law of noncontradiction is selfevident?
Hex is an ass AND Hex is not an ass. I firmly believe that only one of these sentences can be true.
Last edited by Wyman on Fri Mar 13, 2015 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 Arising_uk
 Posts: 10668
 Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Are the Three Laws of Logic correct?
No. 'Thinking' involves the conscious use, via memory, of the representations from the senses. Although I think thinking thinking is when a language is used and what I said earlier I call 'thoughting' thinking.Breath wrote:Now, in your opinion, is or isn't thinking going on that is not conscious while asleep? ...
Re: Are the Three Laws of Logic correct?
I've explained the concept of self evidence earlier in this very thread.Wyman wrote:HexHammer wrote:What you speak of, is how very naive and gullible people think, yearh..Wyman wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_tho ... ional_laws
They don't have to be axioms (they can be derived from other axiom systems), but in calling them 'laws' they fit under the informal notion of 'axiom' as being self evidently true. Whether there exists an actual axiom system including those three, I could do it right here if I chose.
Naive people think that the law of noncontradiction is selfevident?
Also this is excatly how demagogues convice utterly stupid people, people such as you.
Re: Are the Three Laws of Logic correct?
Gee, Hex, I went through your posts and couldn't find any mention of selfevidence. Was it deleted?HexHammer wrote:Wyman wrote:I've explained the concept of self evidence earlier in this very thread.HexHammer wrote:
Naive people think that the law of noncontradiction is selfevident?
Also this is excatly how demagogues convice utterly stupid people, people such as you.
You do realize that modern logic is 'mathematical' logic  a description of the principles of mathematics? Mathematics has helped build a lot of those bridges and buildings you go on about. I.e. it has proven very useful.
Re: Are the Three Laws of Logic correct?
First you claim that they are axiomsWyman wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_tho ... ional_lawsOwen wrote:Yes.marsh8472 wrote:1) The Law of Identity  An apple is an apple
2) The Law of NonContradiction  an apple is not a nonapple
3) The Law of Excluded Middle  it is either true or false that I just ate an apple
Can any of these be shown to be correct without referring back to them to do it?
2 & 3 are 'theorems' and can be proven within a first order system.
1. is an axiom of the system (FOPL=), (all x)(x=x) is an axiom there, but
(all x)(x=x) is not an axiom in second order logic, it is a theorem.
Each of the socalled laws are not axioms but rather they are derived theorems of second order logic.
They don't have to be axioms (they can be derived from other axiom systems), but in calling them 'laws' they fit under the informal notion of 'axiom' as being self evidently true. Whether there exists an actual axiom system including those three, I could do it right here if I chose.
Wyman: "They are axioms and most would agree that they are self apparent truths, although identity is trickier than the other two."
and now you say they are not axioms ??
Since you have changed your mind, I now agree. The three socalled laws of thought are theorems of classical logic, not axioms of classical logic.
Re: Are the Three Laws of Logic correct?
ax·i·om
ˈaksēəm/Submit
noun
plural noun: axioms
a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or selfevidently true.
"the axiom that supply equals demand"
synonyms: accepted truth, general truth, dictum, truism, principle;
The second time I used the word, I was referring to the technical sense as I was responding to your post which obviously took that sense. Are we really arguing over such trivial semantics  whether I should have used 'law' instead of 'axiom' as the latter can be used in two different ways?
ˈaksēəm/Submit
noun
plural noun: axioms
a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or selfevidently true.
"the axiom that supply equals demand"
synonyms: accepted truth, general truth, dictum, truism, principle;
The second time I used the word, I was referring to the technical sense as I was responding to your post which obviously took that sense. Are we really arguing over such trivial semantics  whether I should have used 'law' instead of 'axiom' as the latter can be used in two different ways?
Re: Are the Three Laws of Logic correct?
FFS, went thought my posts, can't find the damn post, seems deleted or it's in some weird thread I can't remember. Yes, maybe it was deleted, but who knows.Wyman wrote:Gee, Hex, I went through your posts and couldn't find any mention of selfevidence. Was it deleted?
You do realize that modern logic is 'mathematical' logic  a description of the principles of mathematics? Mathematics has helped build a lot of those bridges and buildings you go on about. I.e. it has proven very useful.
..my apologies for sending you on a wild goose chase.
Yes I know many use math to apply logic to their thinking, but that doesn't make them able to solve unknown problems, or handle fraud in their equation.
Unknown factors simply doesn't show.
My example was that a biologist saw that the elephants in Africa was very numerous and saw how much they ate each day and would ravage nature in a short while, he suggested that their numbers had to be decimated to save nature as it was a logical consequence and self evident ..and yadda yadda, a group of scientists confirmed his findings and about 40,000 elephants.
But the biologist and scientists hadn't included 1 tiny unknown factor, that they elephants would stomp the ground firm, so the moist soil wouldn't dry out, and they actually prevented desertification. Consequently the nature sufferd greatly not only plants, but animal life.
Also the white man has for centuries considered savages as inferior people, and seen themselves as far superior, seen savages as stupid and unintelligent, etc ..it was self evident.
Too often this "selfevidence" has failed utterly, as it's a estimate based on pure speculation and guesswork, and most people in this world sucks at guessing.

 Posts: 4197
 Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Re: Are the Three Laws of Logic correct?
I doubt he's doing much of anything. Even being Steve Jobs.Impenitent wrote:steve jobs is smiling
Imp
Re: Are the Three Laws of Logic correct?
They are correct.marsh8472 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:07 am1) The Law of Identity  An apple is an apple
2) The Law of NonContradiction  an apple is not a nonapple
3) The Law of Excluded Middle  it is either true or false that I just ate an apple
Can any of these be shown to be correct without referring back to them to do it?
They can be viewed as synonymous to:
1) The Law of Identity  An apple is an apple
a) Positive Value
b) stability in logical structure
c) 1 = 1
2) The Law of NonContradiction  an apple is not a nonapple
a) Negative value
b) absence of stability in logical structure
c) 1 ≠ 1
3) The Law of Excluded Middle  it is either true or false that I just ate an apple
a) Neutral value
b) synthesis of stability and nonstability
c) 0 = 11 or 0 is 1 and 1 or 1,0,1
 GreatandWiseTrixie
 Posts: 1567
 Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Re: Are the Three Laws of Logic correct?
That is one of the flaws of logic, it does not account for temporalities.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 3:42 pmThey are correct.marsh8472 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:07 am1) The Law of Identity  An apple is an apple
2) The Law of NonContradiction  an apple is not a nonapple
3) The Law of Excluded Middle  it is either true or false that I just ate an apple
Can any of these be shown to be correct without referring back to them to do it?
They can be viewed as synonymous to:
1) The Law of Identity  An apple is an apple
a) Positive Value
b) stability in logical structure
c) 1 = 1
2) The Law of NonContradiction  an apple is not a nonapple
a) Negative value
b) absence of stability in logical structure
c) 1 ≠ 1
3) The Law of Excluded Middle  it is either true or false that I just ate an apple
a) Neutral value
b) synthesis of stability and nonstability
c) 0 = 11 or 0 is 1 and 1 or 1,0,1
For instance, is Peter happy or sad?
Maybe he's happy 1 minute, sad the next.
Or happy and sad at the same time.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests