Leontiskos wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 12:16 am
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 11:57 pm
And I further proposed that the above is materially equivalent to P.
Sure, I will accept that it is
materially equivalent, especially vis-a-vis propositional logic.
So then? What are you bickering about?
According to you P is a proposition.
According to you (P → (P v ⊥)) is a syllogism
You agree that P is materially equivalent to (P → (P v ⊥))
Therefore the proposition is materially equivalent to the syllogism.
Leontiskos wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 12:16 am
If you actually believe these things you peddle, then go ahead and define your terms. "Syllogism," "proposition,", "validity," etc.
Now that's just a silly sport. If you believe your own words you'll define the term "define".
Leontiskos wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 12:16 am
To remind you, your
<original claim> was, "A standalone proposition is a valid syllogism."
Indeed. And to remind you, you agreed that
1. P is a proposition
2. (P → (P v ⊥)) is a valid syllogism
3. P is materially equivalent to (P → (P v ⊥))
Therefore the proposition P is materially equivalent to the valid syllogism (P → (P v ⊥)).
So without having to provide any definitions, I am simply pointing out that given the way
you are using those words a proposition is necessarily synonymous with a valid syllogysm.
Q.E.D
Leontiskos wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 12:16 am
One does not learn without a worthy teacher.
Well, I am teaching you that you are mistaken - of that I am certain. But I have no idea whether I am worthy.